Why do people care about Superbowl?

[ColdWizard]

I'm too lazy to Wiki, but I thought there were two significant differences between rugby and NFL football:

1. No safety gear
2. No forward passes, so they essentially have to run with the ball every time.

Is that about the shape of it? Because that just sounds like more players off the field from injuries and a more homogenized game to me.

1. The safety gear is frequently used as a weapon to dislodge the ball or otherwise separate the ball and the player. While I've not seen as much rugby as I would like, there seem to be fewer high velocity collisions in general, with the rugby players actually having to tackle the ball carrier. (My research indicates that it is rugby union that I have seen, which apparently does not allow shoulder hits).
2. They can pitch the ball, much like a series of option plays in college. They can also kick the ball forward, which they can then run down the field and attempt to recover.

[Al B. Sure!]

Look, we had this discussion about rugby vs football in a previous thread. SportsScience the tv show broke it down by measuring the hitting power of rugby players with football players. True, they used a US pretty much amateur rugby player vs an NFL player but the NFL player was Quentin Jammer who weighs all of 204lbs and was smaller than the rugby player.



Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason they tested the rugby player by having him hit another rugby player whereas Quentin Jammer hurled himself against a crash test dummy. Still, the force generated should be the same.

Jammer hit with far more force (3x) which is believed because the safety equipment makes him more fearless. There is less hesitation for self-preservation when you're helmeted and padded up so you hit harder than someone who doesn't have safety equipment. The safety equipment also distributes the impact whereas the rugby hits were concentrated and had enough force to break bones concentrated in a small area. As for the sheer number of hits, rugby players take more total hits.

So the facts are, football hits are harder than rugby BECAUSE of the equipment but they are also far safer despite the greater forces involved than rugby hits. Also, football players take less full-on total hits in a game than rugby players do.

Ultimately, athletic safety is important. To say rugby is superior BECAUSE it is more dangerous is so incredibly stupid. If you say it's better because there are harder hits, that's patently false.

Football provides harder hits more safely than rugby does. How is that not a win-win in terms of that department? Debate about the rules of the game itself but if you're after the macho hits, football should be your bet.

Rugby: 1600lbs of force
Football: 4800lbs of force

The football hit was equivalent to a 35mph car crash

[Lorizael]

Well then the next question is, which sport delivers more lbs of force per game? Clearly that's the superior sport. Also, this would suggest that the greatest possible sport would be full contact polo.

[Al B. Sure!]

Well then the next question is, which sport delivers more lbs of force per game? Clearly that's the superior sport. Also, this would suggest that the greatest possible sport would be full contact polo.

Hey I'm not the one claiming rugby (or possibly hockey though Asher only hinted as such) is superior to football because it's some macho man's sport where they hit and hurt each other! I'm just proving that if that is your end-all measure that that would be incorrect and your measure would force you to prefer football if that was truly all you cared about... that is, if you were all about macho hits and aren't a sick **** who wants to see broken bones all the time.

I swear **** goes over everyone's heads here. ****ing ticking me off.

I was using something like Socratic irony.

[Asher]

Look, we had this discussion about rugby vs football in a previous thread. SportsScience the tv show broke it down by measuring the hitting power of rugby players with football players. True, they used a US pretty much amateur rugby player vs an NFL player but the NFL player was Quentin Jammer who weighs all of 204lbs and was smaller than the rugby player.



Unfortunately, for some bizarre reason they tested the rugby player by having him hit another rugby player whereas Quentin Jammer hurled himself against a crash test dummy. Still, the force generated should be the same.

Jammer hit with far more force (3x) which is believed because the safety equipment makes him more fearless. There is less hesitation for self-preservation when you're helmeted and padded up so you hit harder than someone who doesn't have safety equipment. The safety equipment also distributes the impact whereas the rugby hits were concentrated and had enough force to break bones concentrated in a small area. As for the sheer number of hits, rugby players take more total hits.

So the facts are, football hits are harder than rugby BECAUSE of the equipment but they are also far safer despite the greater forces involved than rugby hits. Also, football players take less full-on total hits in a game than rugby players do.

Ultimately, athletic safety is important. To say rugby is superior BECAUSE it is more dangerous is so incredibly stupid. If you say it's better because there are harder hits, that's patently false.

Football provides harder hits more safely than rugby does. How is that not a win-win in terms of that department? Debate about the rules of the game itself but if you're after the macho hits, football should be your bet.

Rugby: 1600lbs of force
Football: 4800lbs of force

The football hit was equivalent to a 35mph car crash

Hockey hits are even harder than football.

And don't get me started on how much damage a 105mph puck can cause to a guy.

Football is a pansy sport compared to hockey. You must admit that. The speeds are slower, the hits are softer, and the ball can't really break six bones in one impact.

[ColdWizard]

Hockey hits are even harder than football.

And don't get me started on how much damage a 105mph puck can cause to a guy.

Football is a pansy sport compared to hockey. You must admit that. The speeds are slower, the hits are softer, and the ball can't really break six bones in one impact.

You left out the sticks.

(But there's no 300+ lb guys falling on you in hockey)

[Al B. Sure!]

I find it strange that hockey would have hard hits when hockey players are built like popsicle sticks and have no muscle mass because they can only do 20 pushups and bench 150lbs 10 times.



This exploration of hockey has really diminished my respect for the sport. I had no idea these guys were this weak.

I find it strange. No way were the Broad Street Bullies or Lindros years later this weak! Or maybe they were the only guys who had some strength to them!

[Asher]

You left out the sticks.

(But there's no 300+ lb guys falling on you in hockey)

The force of that is still absolutely nothing compared to being checked into the boards at a very high speed by a ~230lbs guy...

[Asher]

I find it strange that hockey would have hard hits when hockey players are built like popsicle sticks and have no muscle mass because they can only do 20 pushups and bench 150lbs 10 times.

Do you understand basic physics?

Do you know how fast hockey players approach eachother when they make hits?

It doesn't even need to be against a board...

[Lorizael]

(But there's no 300+ lb guys falling on you in hockey)

Yeah, but that's a penalty in football now: "Tackling with full body weight."

[giblets]

Hey I'm not the one claiming rugby (or possibly hockey though Asher only hinted as such) is superior to football because it's some macho man's sport where they hit and hurt each other! I'm just proving that if that is your end-all measure that that would be incorrect and your measure would force you to prefer football if that was truly all you cared about... that is, if you were all about macho hits and aren't a sick **** who wants to see broken bones all the time.

I swear **** goes over everyone's heads here. ****ing ticking me off.

I was using something like Socratic irony.

I'm guessing the macho part is not being afraid of a broken rib. Really if all you care about is the force of impact you would have to concede that NASCAR is the manliest.

[Al B. Sure!]

230lb guy! And they can only bench 150lbs for 10 reps?! HOLY ****?!!!!! HOW IS THAT POSSSIBLE?! SO ****ING WEAK!!!!

I'm not even kidding, Asher. That is a joke.

[Asher]

230lb guy! And they can only bench 150lbs for 10 reps?! HOLY ****?!!!!! HOW IS THAT POSSSIBLE?! SO ****ING WEAK!!!!

I'm not even kidding, Asher. That is a joke.

The 230lbs guys tend not to be 18 year olds, which are the numbers you were looking at.

And as I said, bench-pressing is NOT a vital hockey skill. Excessive muscle development in that area is actually detrimental to a hockey player -- it affects balance and adds to weight in an area not beneficial to the game.

[Al B. Sure!]

I refuse to believe that Eric Lindros could be that weak! Or the Broad Street Bullies

You have crushed my myths, Asher, about hockey players being bad ass and Flyers being the baddest ass of them all!

WHY?! Why have I been lied to, Asher?!

[Lorizael]

Hey I'm not the one claiming rugby (or possibly hockey though Asher only hinted as such) is superior to football because it's some macho man's sport where they hit and hurt each other! I'm just proving that if that is your end-all measure that that would be incorrect and your measure would force you to prefer football if that was truly all you cared about... that is, if you were all about macho hits and aren't a sick **** who wants to see broken bones all the time.

I swear **** goes over everyone's heads here. ****ing ticking me off.

I was using something like Socratic irony.

I saw your irony and raised.