The great debate

The great debate.

>Scared black man covered in pads and can only play 4 seconds every 10 minutes
>Alpha white man who can play 60-75 continous minutes of high intensity unprotected sport

I've played rugby and football both copetitevly. American football had a much higher skill cap but rugby requires being in shape.

Why do Americans always give anecdotal evidence on these things?

Do you think playing with your fat fuck "buddies" gives you a qualified opinion the difficulty of professional sports?

>the classic claim of euro sports/athletes having more endurance/stamina as if american athletes couldn't adjust

Don't these other leagues have combines/numbers they can compare between each other?

because they love telling other people about themselves. it's a bit annoying

There's really no contest

He needs to wear pads because otherwise he would die. Football hits are at least 3x harder than rugby hits. Rugby players would definitely wear pads too if it was truly a hard hitting sport.

More like the great bait

>not understanding that 10 pounds of padding that give limited mobility still makes the player faster

watch a rugby hits compilation with guys getting concussed, whiplash and knocked out then tell me they don't hit hard

Jaylon Smith loses automatically because his knee is permafucked, horible pick for dallass

>The notorious exhibition Rubgy League match between Brisbane Broncos (Aus) and Denver Broncos (USA), in 1993, ended after just 32 minutes after some of the Denver players accused the Brisbane team of playing unnecessarily rough and refused to continue play. The accusations were labelled as "rubbish" by the Brisbane captain, Allan Langer, who went on to explain that "It was supposed to be an exhibition [match], but the Americans started making disrespectful comments, trying to say they were tougher - then it turned into a proper game".

>The referee for the match, Greg McCallum, said afterwards that "Although a few tackles were a bit thunderous, there was nothing illegal", and went on to say that "..Both sides were giving as good as they got so I was surprised when the visitors [Denver Broncos] refused to play on, it was a real shame".

>The score before the match was abandoned was Brisbane 34 - 3 Denver.

Obligatory

>posting a fake copypasta story
Kill yourself Hans

>Europe
Lmao you Euros are soft poofters

Real rugby is played in the Southern Hemisphere

ITT: Europoors talking about football and rugby as if they knew shit about either one

I wish ISIS would just conquer us asap to end this shit

North America would love Isis to invade you guys

Not really a fair comparison, obviously skill cap in America will be higher for football than rugby. In Europe it would definitely be reversed

If we're soft how come you couldn't defend a tiny island off your coast from us when we're thousands of miles away?

Because you have a 10000 times better army?

Chinks are also pussies and they'd wreck us in a war

Our army is 10000 times better but we're soft? How does that work then lad?

...

and yet that rugby player could kick 7 shades of shit out of that handegg poofter without breaking a sweat

Britain is a richer nation and you were founded by stealing other country's ships, it doesn't chage the fact that you are a bunch of poofters

a bunch of poofters that sailed 5,000 miles and kicked the fuck out of you shitcunts with complete ease

>fat handegg players
>faster
Lol no

Sorry how many RWCs have you won lad?

How are the Falklands this time of year?

>that team has a pink shirt

What does that show? Nothing. Actually it shows they're real men and that the colour of their shirt doesn't matter

Rugby is the manlier sport, end of. American football is a feeble imitation played by homosexuals.

>4 seconds every 10 minutes
Nice exaggerated stat britbong. You're fucking retarded.

this thread is bait

If rugby is manlier, then why do football players get paid 20x more? If rugby was so manly and tough like you say, surely they'd be getting paid a lot right?

Okay, let's talk real stats. Handegg features 11 minutes of playing time. ELEVEN. It stops and starts ALL THE TIME. The maximum time of a single play is probably about 30 seconds.

Meanwhile rugby is a full 80 minutes of free flowing action (the clock is stopped for interruptions like injuries so you get the full 80 minutes of play).

In short, rugby is a game for men who fight hard for a long period of time, and handegg is a game for faggots who like to stand around in spandex.

are you implying this doesn't frequently happen from the other way? And would you prefer someone to quote the academic statistical study that doesn't exist?

How are you supposed to reply to stupidity like this? I'm genuinely stumped.

>why do handegg players get paid more
Because you pathetic ball-less sacks of shit lap that crap up on television

Another factor is that rugby was amateur for a LONG time. It was considered to be the spirit of the game. I think it was only the 1980s or maybe 1990s that rugby union started to become professional, and international rugby was already a massive sport in the Commonwealth long before then.

Anyway, your argument is ridiculous. Football players (football, not handegg) get paid the most of any sport in the world, yet rugby is obviously a much manlier sport than football (as much as I love football).

In short, you're a moron

that's been disproven by people who understand the game, but yall niggaz still quote it. baka desu

Eat shit eurocucks

They are both plebian sports.

>are you implying this doesn't frequently happen from the other way?

Yes.

If non-americans are ignorant about something they won't give their opinion. When an American is ignorant about something he'll talk authoritatively about it anyway

Disprove it then. If you cannot form full sentences and ideas I'd also take a short list of keywords instead of a real argument.

Turning gooks into glass is our national sport, not football or rugby.

>polturds

Embarrassing