Yeah, and that's why the NHL is losing popularity; putting too many restrictions on hits and fighting(which is a big reason why fans go to watch it).
I was never a big fan of hockey, so I can't say. My only experiences with the game, which I've never played, involve going to watch a minor league club where I went to college. The beer was cheap and there were tons of fights, which made it lots of fun. Other than that, I ran into Mark Messier one time in bar. That's it.
When I was at school in the UK, I used to get beaten bloody raw playing rugby on the school fields in the freezing ice-solid earth. I remember playing against a guy who went on to play for Northampton Saints and England. He was a big mutha even at the young old age of 14. So I thought - right - I'm gonna take this guy down. It took a lot of courage to dive in around his kneecaplevel face-first when he was running at me full-speed like a bull on amphetamine. I was not exactly solidly-built - but I had some balls. So I got the fella, made connection and taking a knee to the jaw managed to wrap my arms around his thighs. It was like hitting a brick wall, which ripped my torso around 180 degrees. He carried on running 3/4 of the length of the pitch and scored a try with me hanging on all the way like a dorkish pageboy at his coat-tails. Nowadays, here, I prefer to kick back and relax on my Raiders pub sofa and enjoy the game from the comfort of my den. Its not really the same at all, but I alway reminisce about those raw young days and am constantly flipping back to the BBC channels for whatever coverage I can find.
rugby, though i have never watched nor played, seems more tactical, with the whole protect the guy carrying the ball with a diamond shaped formation and whatnot
Clearly Golf is the roughest sport one could take up.I mean when those golfers get hit with those big ass irons and those harder than baseball balls,it hurts. It makes even the big guys cry.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The obvious reason football players have larger players is they don't have to run up and down the field as much. If they did they would die or get thinner. I like both sports but I would have more respect for football if there was less coach involvement and the players had to play both offense and defense. If they reduced the team roster size and had fewer specialists like they did in the old days. But the biggest issue is just that they seem to be told what to do ever second and even then screw things up. Too many players who never touch the ball, and don't have to think for themselves in football. But I am still a fan.
The truth of the mater is... both are perty much equaly paneful to play... cause wit pads or wit-out... the players of ether game will exert enuff effort to reach the maximum level of pane they can tolerate... an on average... i suspect the pane tolerence level for all players is peerty much equal... however... compared to football (or perty much anythang else)... i find that rugby is definately paneful to watch Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke:
it's all about technique. at 85kg/175cm i'm considered fairly scrawny for the rugby grade that i play in, but i still manage to take down the 120-130kg guys easily enough. you just have to get going fast enough that your inertia can knock him off balance, hit him from a slight angle so he doesn't just knock you over and keep going, and hold his legs together so that he can't regain his footing.
You get this a lot. It's not a reasonable take on the game - kind of up there with "all that padding - not really tough", or the "bunch of fat guys pushing on each other" oddity. Football may be one of the more difficult games to understand - to follow what's going on - if you have never played.
I don't agree that it is more difficult, just different. It has it's challenges of course. It's not the the tasks are easy. It's that they are specific and so brief in nature that once outside of this the game actually gets really exiciting. Whenever a play breaks down and the players are required to think on their feet and improvise, it gets more interesting. This is how soccer, basketball, hockey and rugby plays develop, on the run, improvisation. So my only point was that there is too much coach involvement, but that is required because of the specialist approach to the game. It would be the equivalent of every time Shaq got fouled, they bring in a guy who can shoot free throws, and once he is done, put Shaq back in. I just got back from the Univ of Wa beating USC, got lucky and knew someone who had Alumni tickets. Guaranteed the best game of the season to watch for Univ of Wa. But it was like a circus, the cheerleaders were constantly on the move, but the players would only be active for seconds at a time. The cheerleaders expending way more energy over the 3 hours with regards to aerobic activity. Most of the players did some anerobic activity, but almost no aerobic activity, very few did. So the result is that a 320 lb guy can survive and thrive in this. But in rugby he would pass out. What would really happen during training would be that either he wouldn't be that heavy after playing rugby or he would be replaced with someone who could run up and down the field. Likewise if the rugby player came over at say 230-250 he would survive and the coaches would tell him to put on 80 lbs. Many pro football players complain that is a health issue for them, they have to bulk up to move bodies and then try to lose the weight when the season is over, only to repeat the process. Compared to a soccer, basketball or rugby game, there is not as much being asked of the players to think on the fly, that is not to say they are not great athletes and that the game is not a great game. Just like other sports there are pros and cons and times when the games can be great or boring. Take the good with the bad and appreciate it for what it is or don't watch it.
