All Blacks weight training

justdoit

Check out video of the All Blacks in the weights room, including (I think) Byron kelleher doing BW + 40/50kg pull-ups- not bad going!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKBMBTU57A0

Did you see the cut on your man half way through? Bit small overall though.

ladowack

He was doing chinups for 3 reps and id bet there are loads of people in every gym who could do that, i could certainly bang out Bw +40kg for a couple of reps and i'm no athlete.

Seen the prop box squat 220kg the box looked high, bet he could only do one rep at proper depth. Otherwise no huge lifting.

the english prop sheridan can bench 225kg apparently, well thats impressive!

Any of you guys know what other international rugby players lift? always interesting to know!

Roper

Yeah they're weak as piss them lot. That box was way too high and sure anyone can do weighted pull ups. Also that guy was too small yadda yadda.

They're not powerlifters or bodybuilders lads they're rugby players. It's about useful strength and balance not gym numbers. I'm sure you'll see plenty of big lads doing weighted pull ups in the gym tonight but I doubt you'll see any of doing the core work that Ma'a Nonu was doing on the swiss ball. I'd also sincerely doubt any of the guys you'd see doing those weighted pull ups would run 100m in less than 11 seconds.

justdoit

As Roper said, these guys have to maintain explosiveness and agility, as well as building strength...

puntosporting

Id much rather be rugby tackled by a guy in the gym than pretty much any of the All Blacks panel...

Sangre

ladowack wrote: »

He was doing chinups for 3 reps and id bet there are loads of people in every gym who could do that, i could certainly bang out Bw +40kg for a couple of reps and i'm no athlete.

Seen the prop box squat 220kg the box looked high, bet he could only do one rep at proper depth. Otherwise no huge lifting.

the english prop sheridan can bench 225kg apparently, well thats impressive!

Any of you guys know what other international rugby players lift? always interesting to know!

Their lifts become pretty impressive when you factor in the fact they have to be able to play international test standard rugby for 80 minutes.

Simply put these guys are incredible athletes. They maintain large size, strength and explosiveness while maintaining fitness at an international standard in a game that demands both extreme aerobic and anaerobic fitness.

Frank Bullitt

ladowack wrote: »

He was doing chinups for 3 reps and id bet there are loads of people in every gym who could do that, i could certainly bang out Bw +40kg for a couple of reps and i'm no athlete.

Seen the prop box squat 220kg the box looked high, bet he could only do one rep at proper depth. Otherwise no huge lifting.

the english prop sheridan can bench 225kg apparently, well thats impressive!

Any of you guys know what other international rugby players lift? always interesting to know!

This is a joke,right?

brianthebard

ladowack wrote: »

He was doing chinups for 3 reps and id bet there are loads of people in every gym who could do that, i could certainly bang out Bw +40kg for a couple of reps and i'm no athlete.

Seen the prop box squat 220kg the box looked high, bet he could only do one rep at proper depth. Otherwise no huge lifting.

You're totally right, I'd hate myself if I could only do 220kg box squats for reps....oh wait....

Roper

Roper wrote: »

Yeah they're weak as piss them lot. That box was way too high and sure anyone can do weighted pull ups. Also that guy was too small yadda yadda.

They're not powerlifters or bodybuilders lads they're rugby players. It's about useful strength and balance not gym numbers. I'm sure you'll see plenty of big lads doing weighted pull ups in the gym tonight but I doubt you'll see any of doing the core work that Ma'a Nonu was doing on the swiss ball. I'd also sincerely doubt any of the guys you'd see doing those weighted pull ups would run 100m in less than 11 seconds.

I was meant to put a sarcastic smiley at the end of my post and I forgot to, nobody is small in that video! (this was what was meant to be at the end of my "small" comment )

Hanley

brianthebard wrote: »

You're totally right, I'd hate myself if I could only do 220kg box squats for reps....oh wait....

Fairly easy reps too.

One thing most people here don't understand is the inhuman levels of conditioning you need to have to be able to weigh 16-18 stone and be able to haul ass around a rugby pitch non stop for 80 minutes.

Like when I was 70-80kg I was running 3.30ish minute kilometers fairly handy. 5k in <20 mins. I could bench around 90-100kg too at the time.

I'm now 30-40kg heavier and even walking 1k in 20 minutes would be hard! (not really, just illustrating a point). I'm faster and more explosive than ever, but trying to put forth a sustained and repetitive effort is impossible. I'm sure I could do it if I trained for it, but I can't imagine my strength training would go as well as it has been.

These guys are beasts. And I've nothing but respect for them. I might out lift some of them, but as an athelte, I'm no where near their level.

zAbbo

Some more insight into the training

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YahdR5cVuk0

On the original video, the small fella was probably Jimmy Cowen, himself and Byron are scrum halves, Cowen isn't really in the same league as Byron - but the position doesn't require monster physique.

Check out Carl Hayman ( a prop) at 0.51, speedy for a big man!

Sqaull20

Roper wrote: »

.I'd also sincerely doubt any of the guys you'd see doing those weighted pull ups would run 100m in less than 11 seconds.

You wont see many rugby stars doing that either, even the very fast one's.

American footballers are different,as they are hopped up on steroids, so they don't really count...

Even the really fast rugby players like Rokocoko would be going very well to break under 11 secs.People talk like running that speed is a normal thing, when it isnt.

No one besides a specifically trained sprinter could run 100 metres in sub 11secs everytime, without specific training over a long period, something no rugby player gets...

You could have got exceptional athletes from various ball based sports like Habana,young Thierry Henry, young David Trick etc, out on the track one hour before a game and they wouldnt be giving sub 11 sec speed.That kind of speed is still very rare.

They are awesome. And it shows. That's why they are the best --- by far.

Arsenal1986

Sqaull20 wrote: »

You wont see many rugby stars doing that either, even the very fast one's.

American footballers are different,as they are hopped up on steroids, so they don't really count...

Even the really fast rugby players like Rokocoko would be going very well to break under 11 secs.People talk like running that speed is a normal thing, when it isnt.

No one besides a specifically trained sprinter could run 100 metres in sub 11secs everytime, without specific training over a long period, something no rugby player gets...

You could have got exceptional athletes from various ball based sports like Habana,young Thierry Henry, young David Trick etc, out on the track one hour before a game and they wouldnt be giving sub 11 sec speed.That kind of speed is still very rare.

In fairness to the american footballers they are and speaking solely from a strength/power standpoint here at least as good if not better athletes than rugby players and in fairness now im sure that quiet a few rugby players are on the gear too

LightningBolt

Sqaull20 wrote: »

American footballers are different,as they are hopped up on steroids, so they don't really count...

Generalise much?

Roper

Sqaull20 wrote: »

You wont see many rugby stars doing that either, even the very fast one's.

American footballers are different,as they are hopped up on steroids, so they don't really count...

Even the really fast rugby players like Rokocoko would be going very well to break under 11 secs.People talk like running that speed is a normal thing, when it isnt.

No one besides a specifically trained sprinter could run 100 metres in sub 11secs everytime, without specific training over a long period, something no rugby player gets...

You could have got exceptional athletes from various ball based sports like Habana,young Thierry Henry, young David Trick etc, out on the track one hour before a game and they wouldnt be giving sub 11 sec speed.That kind of speed is still very rare.

Well it seems throwaway comments are to be analysed now. Maybe I should have put 60m speed and given the scores from all of their training tests, backed it up with analysis of their.... oh look I've drifted off.

Thanks for the pedantries.

Hanley

If we're going to discuss rugby players versus the NFL we may as well talk about touring cars versus dragsters.

Rugby players are constantly on the move for 80 minutes. The amount of endurance and resolve it takes to make a hit, get up, take a hit, get up, do some running, make a hit, take a hit... etc etc... is totally different to the NFL where they just make a play that might last 10 seconds.. get a nice long rest... do it again and then get an even LONGER break when it's time to switch from the O-line to the D-line.

When it comes to pure power and strength, NFL atheltes are ahead, but when it comes to being an allrounder, no one touches the top rugby guys.

And lol at the steroid comment. I don't give a sh!t what someone's taking. If you're 275lb and can run sub 12-13 second 100's and have a vert of 35-40+ inches you're just fcuking sick.

d-gal

Rugby players are freaks, plain and simple
Examples:
Lote Tuqiri - 229pounds (Over 16stone) - 100metres, 10.8 seconds
Byran Habana - 206pounds - (14.5stone) - 100metres, 10.2 seconds
Lesley Vainokolo - 242pounds (Over 17stone) - 100 metres, 10.6 seconds

Oh and last night australia played the barbarians - over 250 tackles were made in that game

And I won't even get started about the All Blacks stats

Kdub

NFL and Rugby players totally different games where NFL is more Anaerobically based as Rugby is more rounded...however both sportmen are exceptional athletes!!

Roper

d-gal wrote: »

Rugby players are freaks, plain and simple
Examples:
Lote Tuqiri - 229pounds (Over 16stone) - 100metres, 10.8 seconds
Byran Habana - 206pounds - (14.5stone) - 100metres, 10.2 seconds
Lesley Vainokolo - 242pounds (Over 17stone) - 100 metres, 10.6 seconds

Oh and last night australia played the barbarians - over 250 tackles were made in that game

And I won't even get started about the All Blacks stats

Thanks for doing the hard work I didn't want to . Was fairly sure that therewere at least 8 players at the last world cup who had under 11 second 100 metres times, and that Rockokokokokokokoko... ko, was one of them.

Sangre

I'd be fairly skeptical of times, bit on the low side.

While it isn't fair to compare rugby and NFL, based on mere probability the better athletes will be found in NFL. Not to mention much better training/facilities from a very young age.

Roper

Sangre wrote: »

While it isn't fair to compare rugby and NFL, based on mere probability the better athletes will be found in NFL. Not to mention much better training/facilities from a very young age.

Wha?

Facilities wise I don't think you'll find too much better than the club scenes in Australia and NZ in any sport, anywhere in the world. From 5 years and up. The Irish High Performance unit is a little behind but not much. The French have a really good system.

In the US they've got lots of money, and lots and lots of roids. They lift tonnes and milligrams. Why do you say probability, more athletes? NFL is one country, Rugby isn't exactly worldwide but it's far more popular. American "football" is a preposterous sport IMO. If you ever want to see what soccer would be like if Sky and sponsors got their way, watch an NFL game. The money is the same reason they have guys so jacked and dependant that they're practically cripples by 30.

Sangre

By probability I do mean a numbers game. There are more people playing NFL than rugby. I also completely disagree France/NZ have a better setup than kids going down the pro-NFL route. There is just too much money behind NFL for other countries to compete. The big football high schools have facilities and gyms that any university over commercial gym or here would envy. At college football level they are unmatched. Remember, these college kids play in stadiums that sit about 60,000 people, and thats per university. NZ couldn't even muster together 1 60,000 seater stadium for the WC without a revedelopment.

Of course, that isn't too say other countries don't have very good set ups. I just don't think they can compete with the US in terms of developing athletic potential (excluding sports etc., they don't actually play).

itsallaboutheL

grrrrrrr

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

Wha?

Facilities wise I don't think you'll find too much better than the club scenes in Australia and NZ in any sport, anywhere in the world. From 5 years and up. The Irish High Performance unit is a little behind but not much. The French have a really good system.

In the US they've got lots of money, and lots and lots of roids. They lift tonnes and milligrams. Why do you say probability, more athletes? NFL is one country, Rugby isn't exactly worldwide but it's far more popular. American "football" is a preposterous sport IMO. If you ever want to see what soccer would be like if Sky and sponsors got their way, watch an NFL game. The money is the same reason they have guys so jacked and dependant that they're practically cripples by 30.

Have to disagree with ya here Roper. American football is far far more advanced than Rugby in terms of development for the kids/athletes playing it.

The selection process alone for high school footballers to make college is unbelievable. You just don't get considered if you don't have the right height, vertical leap, squat. No matter how much of a high school hero you were.

The thing about NFL is it's so specialized. So may guys spend a career going from a crouched position to slam straight into another guy with no hope of ever touching the ball.

I actually find it strangely fascinating.

As far as roids go, I'm not into them myself but at the same time I'm not one to write off a sport or athletes achievements based on their usage, or likelihood thereof, of performance enhancing drugs. I think the fact that steriods have historically been banned by sports federations has meant that Glaxo et al have had no opportunity to fund research and make money from them and they have been given a dirty underground rep.

If Glaxo were producing a glossy pamphlet on a new compound that can increase recovery with little side effects (all drugs have side effects by the way, including the stuff you take for a cold) I don't think they'd be looked at the same way. I mean some of these disgraced scientists claim their hormone based drugs are no more harmful than a woman putting the contraceptive pill in her body.

Just playing devils advocate.

Arsenal1986

Its a bit strange that every1 is taking it for granted all the yanks in the NFL are on the gear and yet how many get caught a year?an yes i know their doping testing is done by the NFl so is fairly suspect but how are we so certain that not many more Rugby players are on the gear than get caught too??

davyjose

Roper wrote: »

If you ever want to see what soccer would be like if Sky and sponsors got their way, watch an NFL game. The

Just as an aside, I think you'll find the premier league is a lot more preposterous than the NFL, where Russian/Middle Eastern Billionaire's can't just come along and throw £100+ million at a team and buy success. Success in the NFL comes from having the best coaches, and a very balanced trade and draft system, with a Salary Cap - it's why the Dallas Cowboys don't mop the foor with everyone every year, and why it's rare you'll find an American Footballer amongst the highest paid sportsmen in America (in spite of its popularity).
Yes, there are a lot of breaks in play, but that's just the structure of the game. Nobody complains about it in Tennis or Golf, and the NFL are constantly taking steps to shorten these breaks; the fact is, television takes advantage of this, not the other way round.*
It's a tough game too, and yeah, it has it's fair share of injuries, but to say that players are crippled by 30, as a contrast to Rugby, is a little rich. Yeah injuries happen, but just last week we had a former front row for England under-19's commit assisted suicide because he was paraplegic. Both sports are incredibly hard on the body, not one over the other.

I'll go back to the American Football forum now :D

davyjose

Arsenal1986 wrote: »

Its a bit strange that every1 is taking it for granted all the yanks in the NFL are on the gear and yet how many get caught a year?an yes i know their doping testing is done by the NFl so is fairly suspect but how are we so certain that not many more Rugby players are on the gear than get caught too??

Actually 6 were caught this week, lol. But I find it a lot more sinister that Rugby players are hardly EVER caught. I mean, come on.....

Chucky the tree

The rugby world should be delighted nfl exists(especially the NZers). If they yanks turned there energy/resources away from nfl they'd unstoppable. If your looking at unbelieveable athletes then the Defensive end position in nfl is one where you'll find some of the best.

At the nfl combine Mario Williams weighed in at 295lbs(about 20 stone) did 4.66 40yard dash, did a 40" vertical leap, benched 225lbs 35 times and did a 10foot broad jump. I dont care if he's been jucing sine birth, thats out of this world.

samhail

that looks just like me when im pumping up the iron polishing the guns *smooooch*

d-gal

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The rugby world should be delighted nfl exists(especially the NZers). If they yanks turned there energy/resources away from nfl they'd unstoppable. If your looking at unbelieveable athletes then the Defensive end position in nfl is one where you'll find some of the best.

At the nfl combine Mario Williams weighed in at 295lbs(about 20 stone) did 4.66 40yard dash, did a 40" vertical leap, benched 225lbs 35 times and did a 10foot broad jump. I dont care if he's been jucing sine birth, thats out of this world.

They are great numbers but you have to consider could that guy last for 80 minutes of bone crunching hits, mauls, rucks, constant jog etc. They are very different sports. Bet ya John Hayes could d them numbers in his sleep
The pads/helmets play a huge part as well. I have witnessed several american footballers come over to Ireland (visiting relations), trying rugby and getting mauled. One guy was near the 20stone mark and was quick of the mark but one solid hit on him and he nearly died! A lot of the guys said rugby is very raw in the states and is still considered 'animalistic' by a lot of people due to no pads/intensity etc!
I say bring some of the UFC fighters to rugby, imagine Matt Hughes in there, would be brilliant :pac:

Roper

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The rugby world should be delighted nfl exists(especially the NZers). If they yanks turned there energy/resources away from nfl they'd unstoppable. If your looking at unbelieveable athletes then the Defensive end position in nfl is one where you'll find some of the best.

Absolutely wrong. The reason these guys are so powerful is because they're so specialised and require very, very little repeated effort. If you took Nonu, O'Driscoll or any other high level rubgy athlete and told them all they had to do was do 10 hits a game and they'd get rest periods of up to 10 minutes between them, then I think you'd see similar numbers. Put those same defensive ends and tell them they had to run, handle, tackle, pass, scrummage and i bet they'd be basically the same as their NZ, Oz or SA counterparts.

I suppose my hatred of the game is subjective and besides the point though. But I will say this, you are not comparing like with like. How many NFL players won't touch a ball for the whole game? How much of their time is dedicated to ball handling skills and the like. Sweet FA I'd say.

COH

You really cant compare the two sports at all. The fundamentals are completely differant, but it doesn't mean either set of players are lesser athletes at all. We in Ireland seem to think it is possible to compare the two because we play rugby, they play a sport with a similar shaped ball, so we think hey they get a break every few minutes, that means rugby players are superior athletes. We think hey they wear pads, that means they're pussies compared to rugby players because they dont! Its just stupid.

Line up a rugby match between the Patriots and Munster and the Patriots get crushed. Line up an American football match between the same teams and Munster get crushed.

Sure why not compare darts to bowling, they both basically involve throwing something in a straight line so they must be similar! But those bowlers, they wear wrist supports, so they must be pussies!

Chucky the tree

General point: I never meant to be little Rugby or say NFL players are superier athletes. As COH said both are completely different sports and shouldnt be compared. I love both sports and respect both players equally. Players like Richie McCaw, Mario Williams, Byan Habanna, Calvin Johnson etc are all unbelievable athletes and would florish in either sport if they dedicated there younger years to learning the skills required to be successful in either sport.

d-gal wrote: »

They are great numbers but you have to consider could that guy last for 80 minutes of bone crunching hits, mauls, rucks, constant jog etc. They are very different sports. Bet ya John Hayes could d them numbers in his sleep
The pads/helmets play a huge part as well. I have witnessed several american footballers come over to Ireland (visiting relations), trying rugby and getting mauled. One guy was near the 20stone mark and was quick of the mark but one solid hit on him and he nearly died! A lot of the guys said rugby is very raw in the states and is still considered 'animalistic' by a lot of people due to no pads/intensity etc!
I say bring some of the UFC fighters to rugby, imagine Matt Hughes in there, would be brilliant :pac:

I know they are difference sports, I never compared them. I know plenty of Yanks who has seen rugby, they certainly dont see it as some barbarian sport/animalistic because if they did it would be alot more popular then it is. Rugby players couldnt play nfl at a professional level either, they wouldnt have the nessecary skills too be any good at the game because they havent trained for it. I'd never expect anything less either. The pads/helmet might soften a tackle a bit, they also increase the risk of injury. Despite Ropers claim that nfl players cant walk by 30 due to steroids its down the hits/damage the suffer in there knees/joints.

Roper wrote: »

Absolutely wrong. The reason these guys are so powerful is because they're so specialised and require very, very little repeated effort. If you took Nonu, O'Driscoll or any other high level rubgy athlete and told them all they had to do was do 10 hits a game and they'd get rest periods of up to 10 minutes between them, then I think you'd see similar numbers. Put those same defensive ends and tell them they had to run, handle, tackle, pass, scrummage and i bet they'd be basically the same as their NZ, Oz or SA counterparts.

I suppose my hatred of the game is subjective and besides the point though. But I will say this, you are not comparing like with like. How many NFL players won't touch a ball for the whole game? How much of their time is dedicated to ball handling skills and the like. Sweet FA I'd say.

I dont see how you can compare the sports and comment on how Nonu/BOD would easily be able to play. They probaly would of made it with the training/facilities the Americans have but they wouldnt hit those kind of numbers if you dumped them into the nfl now/gave them 5 years even

The reason I said the USA would rule rugby is due to the population size and training facilities. Mario Williams came out of college with those stats, there's no irish/english/sctoish/welsh/italian/french/SA/Aus player who could achieve those at 20 years of age simple because those countries dont have the facilities to compete with the American high schools/colleges. I dont either athlete is better then the other as it not possible to compare. I also dont see how you can comment impartially on a sport when you have a hatred for it.

d-gal

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Despite Ropers claim that nfl players cant walk by 30 due to steroids its down the hits/damage the suffer in there knees/joints.


The reason I said the USA would rule rugby is due to the population size and training facilities. Mario Williams came out of college with those stats, there's no irish/english/sctoish/welsh/italian/french/SA/Aus player who could achieve those at 20 years of age simple because those countries dont have the facilities to compete with the American high schools/colleges. I dont either athlete is better then the other as it not possible to compare. I also dont see how you can comment impartially on a sport when you have a hatred for it.

The training facilities is no where the reason for a superior athlete. You don't need fancy equipment. You need a place to practice your sport and basically free weights, it doesn't matter if they have a 60,000 seater stadium per college with a massive gym, it's down to the coaching and education. From a strength and conditioning coach point of view, australia would be superior, they are extrermely good at thinking outside the box and coming up with new ideas and theories.
I would disagree completley with nobody else could come out with those stats at 20years of age. Look at Lesley Vainokolo, ran 100metres under 11seconds at 17!!! And he was practically the same size! Look at Jonah Lomu, he played u20s rugby at 14 and his stats were ridiculous. NEVER EVER judge an athlete by training facilities, completley wrong way to look at. If you did that then you would be amazed to hear that New Zealand rugby said UL fcilities where world class and Usian Bolt is coming over to train there soon

brianthebard

But....UL do have great facilities, why is that surprising? They were built in conjunction with the Munster team with the purpose of being world class.

d-gal

Exactly, so facilities are not to question. The bulk of successful rugby comes from Munster and facilties are completley accessable so America should not be called superior just because of population. Supposedly there was some new facility in Dublin set up as well that all top soccer players from around the world are going too.

brianthebard

Well if there's only one world class facility in the country then yeah they can still be questioned. Plus I think most people were making the point about school facilities being amazing compared to most countries.

Roper

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I dont see how you can compare the sports and comment on how Nonu/BOD would easily be able to play. They probaly would of made it with the training/facilities the Americans have but they wouldnt hit those kind of numbers if you dumped them into the nfl now/gave them 5 years even

You completely misunderstood my point, which was not to do with facilities and so on, but to do with the specialised nature of American football positions, the stop start nature of the game and the fact that everything is geared towards an endurance period of no more than 10 seconds.

The reason I said the USA would rule rugby is due to the population size and training facilities. Mario Williams came out of college with those stats, there's no irish/english/sctoish/welsh/italian/french/SA/Aus player who could achieve those at 20 years of age simple because those countries dont have the facilities to compete with the American high schools/colleges. I dont either athlete is better then the other as it not possible to compare. I also dont see how you can comment impartially on a sport when you have a hatred for it.

Ridiculous argument. They have better equipment and more people therefore they will do better at a skill sport? Why don't they top the world at every sport then?

As I've said, my hatred of the sport (well hatred is a strong word, dislike) does definitely colour my argument, I'll admit that, so take my comments as you will. However I can impartially take issue with the idea that somehow NFL players will always be better athletes because their numbers are big now. Here's the crux of my argument:

NFL players produce large stats in things like sprints squats bench etc because:
1) The game requires little endurance, so the athletes can focus on strength and power produced for short periods of time without repeated effort for minutes afterwards
2) Shorter seasons, longer pre-seasons. The NFL pre is massive and during that time they go through massive amounts of work gaining size etc.
3) Many players require little if any skill training, and so focus on speed and power, what skill training there is rarely multi faceted. You are a tackle, you tackle.
4) There is a greater tolerance of performance enhancers than in other sports

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

Ridiculous argument. They have better equipment and more people therefore they will do better at a skill sport?

I'm gonna say two words and you aren't gonna like'm...



Brock Lesnar


/runs away tittering like a schoolgirl

kevpants

kevpants wrote: »

I'm gonna say two words and you aren't gonna like'm...



Brock Lesnar


/runs away tittering like a schoolgirl

THANK YOU

daveywavey08

I'd take Lesnar. Seriously.



Okay, maybe I need to do some grappling work for a few weeks first. But then...yeah.

Roper

kevpants wrote: »

I'm gonna say two words and you aren't gonna like'm...



Brock Lesnar


/runs away tittering like a schoolgirl

Are you taking "better equipment" to mean more muscle mass? The way it's being used thus far was as in "better facilities".

Brock Lesnar was a freestyle wresting champion long before he got huge like he is now. So far he's lost to an average fighter, and beaten one average fighter and a 45 year old former great. I think I'll hold back before calling him the world's greatest.

For some reason or other, the image I have in my mind of the people who are defending NFL athletes is Tex (Terry) from I'm Alan Partidge... I'm just going to get a Dr. Pepper from the cooler...

Roper

Roper wrote: »

Brock Lesnar was a freestyle wresting champion long before he got huge like he is now. So far he's lost to an average fighter, and beaten one average fighter and a 45 year old former great. I think I'll hold back before calling him the world's greatest.

Frank Mir is not an average fighter. He was a former UFC heavyweight champion. Anybody who WATCHED the fight would see that Brock dominated and if it wasn't for his "desperate, over excited" will to win, he would have, he lost through sloppyness. I encourage anybody to watch that here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=lesnar+vs+mir&emb=0&aq=f#

Lesnar dominated once again from start to finish against Herring and won.

And against Couture (a legend in the sport of UFC) he outfought him also and won.

He can only beat whoever is put out in front of him. I can't wait to watch and see how he gets on as UFC progresses.

Roper

Deleted User wrote: »

Frank Mir is not an average fighter. He was a former UFC heavyweight champion. Anybody who WATCHED the fight would see that Brock dominated and if it wasn't for his "desperate, over excited" will to win, he would have, he lost through sloppyness. I encourage anybody to watch that here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=lesnar+vs+mir&emb=0&aq=f#

Probably belongs in the MMA forum but... Mir is average at best. He held a belt in a division that can only be described as average and which has only regained any sheen since Randy moved up and Nog has arrived. Lesnar can dominate all he wants through sheer size and good wrestling but if Mir's BJJ caught him then Nogs will too. Sloppyness it might have been but that doesn't change the result. I actually don't mind Lesnar and it'd be nice to see that division spiced up and it'll be interesting to see where it goes.

Anyway, on topic, does anyone have a reaction to the list I put up above?

LightningBolt

Look, at the end of the day they're two completely different games. NFL is power based whilst rugby is an endurance game. It really isn't appropriate to compare the two sports due to the different methods of training required.

Facilities wise people need to understand that for every UL facility we have that is available for elite athletes, every major high school has facilities comparable to a certain level for it's football program. Move up the chain to college level and whatever high school athletes made it through will be exposed to facilities that equal or eclipse UL.

The thing is, the NFL takes the freakiest of the freaks and rolls out a production line of 100s per year. Their guys would more often than not smash our rugby lads numbers. It means nothing though as I've already said they're two completely different games. Positions where most ex-college players end up playing are back row and back three. All those positions require little handling and passing skills compared to half backs, and centres.

COH

1) The game requires little endurance, so the athletes can focus on strength and power produced for short periods of time without repeated effort for minutes afterwards

- Yes but they are short and repeated efforts at 100% max intensity

2) Shorter seasons, longer pre-seasons. The NFL pre is massive and during that time they go through massive amounts of work gaining size etc.

- Yup, different sports differant seasons with a different end product. Does not mean either group are superior!

3) Many players require little if any skill training, and so focus on speed and power, what skill training there is rarely multi faceted. You are a tackle, you tackle.

Thats working on the assumption that tackling, for example, isn't a skill.

4) There is a greater tolerance of performance enhancers than in other sports

- To suggest that steroid use in semi-pro and pro rugby isn't widespread is just laughable.

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

Are you taking "better equipment" to mean more muscle mass? The way it's being used thus far was as in "better facilities".

No my point was he is an example of pure athleticism, speed, strength and power overcoming a wiley and skillfull opponent.

I actually believe that in an awful lot of sports guys with completely average skills can compete at the highest level if they are a good enough physical specimen.

How this relates to the topic is that I feel a team of physical specimens with no creativity or particularily impressive skills would probably do a number on most top level rugby sides.

No one likes to admit their sport could be subject to this and their skills are hard earned but I'd go out on a limb and say it's true for all contact/high impact sports.

Roper

COH wrote: »

- Yes but they are short and repeated efforts at 100% max intensity

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that they can tailor their training for that rest period and so put up impressive numbers in the gym too. Rugby players can't do that as they have to concentrate on getting as strong as they can while building up endurance to repeat those efforts.

- Yup, different sports differant seasons with a different end product. Does not mean either group are superior!

I agree, but you have to remember that I'm responding to people saying that if the US turned to rugby they'd smash everyone. My point is that if they did then they would have to drop all those power and mass sessions and concentrate on actually mastering the skills of rugby. They might beat Munster up for 20 minutes, but with the same 15 on the pitch for 80 minutes?

Thats working on the assumption that tackling, for example, isn't a skill.

Tackling is, of course, a skill. But a very specific one and my point is that NFL players might only ever have to learn one skill, whereas rugby players must be generalists to some degree, requiring more skills time.

- To suggest that steroid use in semi-pro and pro rugby isn't widespread is just laughable.

Well, I think you only have to look at the amount of failed test in NFL versus Rugby. Everyone says "them all blacks are on roids they are" and yet there's no hard evidence. There is hard and anecdotal evidence to prove that use of performance enhancers is widespread and indeed encouraged in pro- football in the US.

Kevpants wrote:

No my point was he is an example of pure athleticism, speed, strength and power overcoming a wiley and skillfull opponent.

I actually believe that in an awful lot of sports guys with completely average skills can compete at the highest level if they are a good enough physical specimen.

How this relates to the topic is that I feel a team of physical specimens with no creativity or particularily impressive skills would probably do a number on most top level rugby sides.

No one likes to admit their sport could be subject to this and their skills are hard earned but I'd go out on a limb and say it's true for all contact/high impact sports.

Well.... you're WRONG!
Strength is a platform for skill. In Brock Lesnar's case people see the big savage monster but conveniently forget that he was an all star amateur wrestler in the US, wrestling since he was out of nappies. So all those skills he used in out-wrasslin Randy? Learned through time on the mat wrestling and learning skills since he was a wee lad. There are plenty of people with Brock's impressive size and power in MMA that don't make it into the popular consciousness because they also happen to have no skills.

The only example I ever need to quote on this matter is Bob Sapp. Monster, gigantor, former pro fotballer, and here's a wee lad of 6'2" fighting him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypxE_RhwE9M

The athleticism of that Bob Sapp guy is not a patch on Brock Lesnar. He looks like a completely slow sack of crap!