Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sesame Seed 
Most "˜rugby' fans would be insulted. The term "˜rugby' is best reserved for the sport that those fairies play. The sport that meister and I are promoting here is "˜rugby league' or "˜league'. It's simply a much, much faster game than American football (and rugby union).
.
it's not a faster game than rugby union. Ever played union? ever played as a loos forward? You do realise that forwards have to run to every single ruck, while backs have to be able to get in position for tactical kicks at any time, rather than just on the final tackle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saul Silver 

If Chris Johnson and Devin Hester grew up playing rugby, or even spent a year learning the rules and endurance training, that would be a different story. My American arrogance may be showing here, but I doubt any rugby-playing country could come close to the US in terms of producing raw athletic talent.
you are clearly wrong. Does america dominate at the olympics? no. In sprinting, running, weightlifting, shotput etc they are clearly nowhere near dominating, and that's about as "raw athletic talent" as it gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StephenHero 
Rugby is a tough sport, but athletically, those guys aren't in the same league as your average starting NFL linebacker. If Brian Dawkins or Ray Lewis got a twenty yard full start on that 5'9" twerp waiting to catch the ball, he'd be sent into retirement with a feeding tube to greet him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StephenHero 
A sport played in country inhabited by 20 million white people just can't compete with the physical talent of the NFL. It's laughable even thinking about it. You're more or less comparing the populations of Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa against all 50 U.S. states with roughly 40 million blacks, a far more athletic gene pool. Outback Jack would get his shit packed. It doesn't matter how tough he is.
you are clearly an idiot. 20 million white people. great job summing up the ethnic demographic of australia. i don't know why i'm bothering to respond to this actually.
now lets have a think about this.
you're basing your argument on the fact that america has 40 million blacks. What are you saying by that? that blacks are the most athletic race in the world? you are quite clearly wrong. If there were to be a race with the most natural strength it'd be the polynesians; extremely muscular and a very high ratio of fast twitch muscle fibers. Also, don't forget scandinavians, the biggest and most muscular people in the world.
and population size? well that's just ignorant. NZ has a population of 4 million, but clearly dominates the rugby world. Even if you look at playing numbers the population would still be about 5 times as small as most other big rugby nations (aussie, south africa, england, ireland, france etc) with less money as well.