Which sport is manlier Sup Forums?

Which sport is manlier Sup Forums?

Rugby or football?

Other urls found in this thread:

foxsports.com.au/video/league/rugby-league/tonga-and-samoas-fiery-faceoff!520860
youtube.com/watch?v=ywemwRy2PXM
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Tuilagi
telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11868804/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-How-do-the-teams-breakdown-for-height-weight-average-age-and-caps.html
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Rugby.

Rugby becaise Sébastien chabal

Football is literally the opposite of manly.

Rugby
>football helmets and pads so they don't mess up their makeup

" I'll have to actually do sport 30 seconds tonight, this sounds dangerous. I should wear an armor and helmet. "

American football is such a boring sport to watch

both fag sport
who wants to see man fight about a ball?

None, tennis is the most manly

alright, eurocucks, I'll bite.
How many rugby players caught the dumb from how intensely their butting (helmeted even) heads?

Football. NFL masterrace.

Im american and im ashamed of football.

None that i know of... where as i've seen articles about American players getting it.

Football. NFL has the best athletes in the world.
Rugby athletes aren't even close to being as dominant as NFLers are.

I've always wondered if anyone in the US enjoys following football on TV, or is it a background sound you put for your barbecue & beer parties on sunday afternoon ?

Traitor. Move to Europe then you cuck.

Football. Pic related.

Rugby, anyone who says football is asinine. Rugby players are actual athletes, football players are fatasses who lift heavy shit. Id also say that Soccer or Track and feild have the potential to be maniler but rugby over football anyday.

The rules of rugby mean it's rare for the same head on collisions you get in football. That's the whole issue and the reason for the padding. The guys on the line all litterally run into each other. Rugby has the scrum instead.

Both are manly, rugby is a better sport. American here.

>implying it's not the other way around

I agree
I dont but I know people who do, I guess its their version of soccer and since americans are used to very short snippits of information the quick plays followed by time for beer and food works well.

There less brain damage in rugby because they actually use technique
Sure but they have no stamina because there a break in play like every 10 seconds
This

Football all day!

...

You should not be alive

OH SHIT, look guys, one footballer is in shape. I thought we were talking in general here. You cant be a rugby player with 35% body fat percentage. You can be a line backer like that though.

...

WOW ALL THE WHITE BOYS WITH THEIR 12 INCH VERTICALS.
MY MIND IS CHANGED. RUGBY IS DEFINITELY MANLIER.

>Rugby has the scrum instead
Yeah. I don't want to know how many handjobs were giving during an average scrum.

Football is way better.

Fuck off cunt this is the gayest shit ever but I do believe that afl players are fitter then rugby and American football players

As opposed to sticking your hand halfway up a dudes ass to grab his ball.

how much rugby did you play? just asking because of your grammar

> Best athletes in the world

I'd love to see Ray Lewis in a rugby match. He'd kill literally everyone on the rugby pitch.

Worrying about their clothing is pretty homosexual isn't it?

you MEAN RUGBY VS HANDEGG
STUPID AMERICUNT

Football = short range/burst power.
Rugby = more balanced power and endurance.

Football players train to run 40 yards at a time with many breaks so they can afford to bulk more and aim for just strength and top speed.
Rugby players run on average over 7 miles per game and have to interact with the ball and other players more so they require note endurance and fitness.

Both require peak physical conditioning to perform well.
Personally I think rugby is far more entertaining to watch as the game keeps moving and plays have to flow into one another.

>average rugby "athlete"

He could not catch a single man. Would die of heartattack by the end of the match.

>average NFL athlete

white boys can still play rugby so obviously it is the pussier sport, whereas they are too weak for football

This

To be fair, white boys can play quarterback in football. But yeah they're too weak to play any other position. They should just stick to rugby.

Rugby > football > everything > ballet > handegg

Rugby has like football different positions and this was the average prop ten years ago but times have changed and he is now on the outer he was dropped by his country a couple years ago

>bench
>55reps

Rugby. Both shit tier though

cricket also, whites pushed out Baseball so they play cricket I guess

...

in football, you have guys who are 6'3 and 280 pounds, literally running at you to smash you into the ground... in rugby, you have lean 5'9 manlets jumping around for a ball.

and all that "rugby players don't wear pads and helmets, so they're more hardcore" bullshit doesn't fly... because if they had 11 6'3 and 280 lbs. guys running at them, they would be stupid eurotrash not to wear protective gear

The guy in pink would kick armor boys ass

The English invented the cricket. White's have been playing it before baseball existed.

> Running 3 feet at them

Also confirmed for never watching a rugby game in his life.

So because ameritards run head first into each other until the cause a serious brain injury it's a more manly sport...

I find American Football too dull to watch, Rugby is fast paced and constant attacking, they don't stop every 30 seconds and switch the team over.

>our sportsmen are more mentally retarded than yours

Okay, you win that argument hands down m8.

it depends on your definition of manly.

It is a fact that the fastest people that play football are faster than the fastest rugby players. Football players hit harder than rugby players. However, football players wear armor, the majority of them can only do their one assigned task (hitting, throwing, running, blocking) so they are all geared up for one thing or the other. Everyone who plays rugby is a machine, they run, hit, can take a hit, throw, kick. It depends on whether you are judging each player on every scale or if you are judging the extremes of every aspect. Plus football players wear pads, but so did every person who fought in a war in the last 1000 years

So your objection to rugby is purely around fashion choices?
Not gay at all

That's not rugby.

55 reps of 1kg?

neither
watching sweaty men roll around on each other while you get drunk is not manly

> It is a fact that the fastest people that play football are faster than the fastest rugby players.

Gonna need a citation for that

> Football players hit harder than rugby players.

And that

> Plus football players wear pads, but so did every person who fought in a war in the last 1000 years

Cricketers wear pads as well. Comparing handegg to war because "both wear pad" is just dumb bro.

foxsports.com.au/video/league/rugby-league/tonga-and-samoas-fiery-faceoff!520860

Fastest rugby players run the 100 in 10 flat. Sure that's slower?

It's not even a question. Rugby by far.

Showjumping. A real man is power and class.

The running backs for American football sprint like Olympic runners. It's not a dick waving contest. These guys are smaller nimble sprinters. They won't have the same endurance as a rugby guy, but a rugby players would be real hard pressed to catch him in the first 100 yards.

They have 15 250lb plus players running at them, for a solid 80 minutes.

too right, baseball is a derivative of rounders and as such is only really suited to girls and children

Football judges speed on the 40 yard dash. The best running backs push doing that in 4 seconds.

Your statement and pic say two different things. that football guy looks like a fucking sissy.

>250 lbs
Let's get real. Most rugby players are 5'10" 180-190 pound manlets

When football players can train like this, then they can be called manly

Which rugby?
There are 2 very different kinds

Football is tougher.

youtube.com/watch?v=ywemwRy2PXM

what rugby team has 15 starting players who are 250+lbs.? every major league team has their players' stats posted online, so this should be easy for you to show your work, eurotrash dummy

...

But is "faster for a tiny distance" really "faster"?

I wouldn't argue that people who train nothing but being able to go fast for a short duration will be good at it, but I would argue that doesn't make them faster.

If we have a 100 yard dash, a 200, an 800 and a 1500 hundred how many would the running back win? The 100 sure, maybe the 200 (Though doubtful they can keep such a pace for twice as long as they're used to) but as the races get longer they get worse at it.

It's manly to have a useful career in which you don't play with balls for a living.

I am reminded of the time a New Zealand Rugby player (Buck Shelford) tore a testicle, and kept playing the rest of the game, only letting on that he had torn apart his literal manliness after winning.
But for sure, fuck getting tackled in two directions at once, that wouldn't carry in rugby.

...

Even our female rugby players are more manly than faggot americunt footballers

If we comparing injuries, Buck Shelford. End of discussion.

Let's get actually real, even the youth teams are bigger than that.
Most forwards are well over 6ft, you basically can't play in the back row or 2nd row if you're under 6'3" so that's 5 people on the pitch right off the bat.
Generally some of the shortest players will be in the front row but they are also the heaviest on the field.

Even in the backs (the faster players) more and more are now huge
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Tuilagi

...

...

>feminist say *stop all this rape and abuse against female players*

And rugby judges it over 100m since that's how far you actually need to go to score. They don't have a special set of players to bring on when they are 40 yards out

Neither is the slightest bit manly. Russian Roulette is the manliest sport.

...

adam jones is pretty lean, hes just broad as fuck, no bellys in rugby

...

If it's so manly why aren't you playing it?

Average height for nearly every team, 6ft2

Average weight for nearly every team 260lb's+

See above

telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11868804/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-How-do-the-teams-breakdown-for-height-weight-average-age-and-caps.html

Hockey

>average
>white

pick one

...

We get it, you are a faggot that gets off on men in tight trousers.
Go back to grinder.

all blacks posted a comparison with i think the 49's. the football team had the smallest, but biggest player, so neither team has 250lb+ for all their squad.

That's an old picture, half that team is retired now.
Plus that still doesn't prove your point, Paul O'Connel on the far left is 6'6", next to him Brian O'Driscoll is one of the only short players and one of the lightest on the pitch and he is still over 200lbs...

No one has brought up yet that in Football (American) the players can't even play defensive and offensive. You literally stop and swap players over when the ball changes hands.
Richie f'n McCaw would catch come cunt (typically Aussie or Saffa), smash that cunt to the ground, get a cheeky boot in for good measure, steal the ball and run 80 metres into a wall of Solid Africaans Muscle, bounce those cunts out of the way and score.
But sure, pause and swap players every time the ball switches, that's manly. ::eyeroll::