Best Athletes

[BeerMoney]

Pornstars.

It is relevant. They don't need to be that fat to do the job. In Lombardi's coaching days, a linebacker was about 210 pounds. The average one is like 260 now. In Lombardi's days a lineman was 250 pounds. Now some of them top 350. They just don't need to be that fat.

And Shaq is quite different because while Shaq is over 300, he is also more than 8 inches taller than even the tallest linemen.

7'1" 325 is nowhere near as fat as 6'3" 325.

[brendons31]

I think the answer is fairly obvious. Rugby has by far the best overall athletes. Players have to be multi skilled... backs needs the ability to run, pass, kick, tackle. Forwards need lineout abilities, ruck and maul abilities, scrum abilities etc. Also the game doesn't stop after every play like a certain american sport. I agree backetball also has great athletes, but I think the physical aspect of rugby puts it ahead. I would say boxing is 2nd. In terms of the leage with the best athletes I would say the Tri Nations Rugby (played between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa), as well as the Super 12.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It is relevant. They don't need to be that fat to do the job. In Lombardi's coaching days, a linebacker was about 210 pounds. The average one is like 260 now. In Lombardi's days a lineman was 250 pounds. Now some of them top 350. They just don't need to be that fat.

And Shaq is quite different because while Shaq is over 300, he is also more than 8 inches taller than even the tallest linemen.

7'1" 325 is nowhere near as fat as 6'3" 325.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't comparing Shaq to the lineman. I was offering another example of someone who's doing harm to his body. I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm asking the question. Is the harm being done that will show up in the future relevant to this question?

Also, I'm not arguing that NFL linemen aren't overweight. Many are. But this doesn't mean they aren't amazing athletes too. Also, if you think that weight is not a factor in doing their job, you're just wrong. Do you honestly believe that Lombardi's team would have any shot at all against one of today's teams? They're bigger, stronger, and faster. People are getting bigger.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is fairly obvious. Rugby has by far the best overall athletes. Players have to be multi skilled... backs needs the ability to run, pass, kick, tackle. Forwards need lineout abilities, ruck and maul abilities, scrum abilities etc. Also the game doesn't stop after every play like a certain american sport. I agree backetball also has great athletes, but I think the physical aspect of rugby puts it ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the -average- international Test-class rugby player I think is certainly a better overall athlete than, say, a 335-pound NFL offensive lineman, the BEST athletes in the NFL are much better than the best athletes in rugby. See, rugby's supporters (of which I am one, I have played and loved the sport for years and wish it had a bigger profile in the USA) tend to deride NFL players for the protective equipment they wear during a game, and call rugby more of a "man's" sport because they don't wear protective equipment. Here's why that argument doesn't quite hold water. I have been in the same room with Test-class rugby players, and I have been in the same room with NFL players. NFL players are WAY bigger and stronger, and the good ones, like, say, Lawrence Taylor or Ray Lewis, are WAY faster. Yeah, if a rugby player takes a hit from another rugby player, it's gonna hurt but he's not probably going to need pads. If a typical rugby player got blindsided by someone with the speed and strength of LT, they'd need a spatula to scoop his remains off of the pitch. The only rugby player that I think has that sort of athletic ability, at least the only one who comes right to mind, is Jonah Lomu. NFL players wear pads because they NEED to wear them to avoid serious, serious injury.

Now if you want to make the argument that rugby players, due to the fact that play never technically "stops" (which isn't exactly true.....don't tell me that rugby doesn't offer plenty of rest opportunities during, say, the interval after a long kick for touch or the 213 minutes it generally takes to set up your typical penalty kick for goal), have more CARDIOVASCULAR FITNESS than your typical NFL player, then I might buy it. But that's a different animal from possessing more ATHLETIC ABILITY.

[brendons31]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the answer is fairly obvious. Rugby has by far the best overall athletes. Players have to be multi skilled... backs needs the ability to run, pass, kick, tackle. Forwards need lineout abilities, ruck and maul abilities, scrum abilities etc. Also the game doesn't stop after every play like a certain american sport. I agree backetball also has great athletes, but I think the physical aspect of rugby puts it ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the -average- international Test-class rugby player I think is certainly a better overall athlete than, say, a 335-pound NFL offensive lineman, the BEST athletes in the NFL are much better than the best athletes in rugby. See, rugby's supporters (of which I am one, I have played and loved the sport for years and wish it had a bigger profile in the USA) tend to deride NFL players for the protective equipment they wear during a game, and call rugby more of a "man's" sport because they don't wear protective equipment. Here's why that argument doesn't quite hold water. I have been in the same room with Test-class rugby players, and I have been in the same room with NFL players. NFL players are WAY bigger and stronger, and the good ones, like, say, Lawrence Taylor or Ray Lewis, are WAY faster. Yeah, if a rugby player takes a hit from another rugby player, it's gonna hurt but he's not probably going to need pads. If a typical rugby player got blindsided by someone with the speed and strength of LT, they'd need a spatula to scoop his remains off of the pitch. The only rugby player that I think has that sort of athletic ability, at least the only one who comes right to mind, is Jonah Lomu. NFL players wear pads because they NEED to wear them to avoid serious, serious injury.

Now if you want to make the argument that rugby players, due to the fact that play never technically "stops" (which isn't exactly true.....don't tell me that rugby doesn't offer plenty of rest opportunities during, say, the interval after a long kick for touch or the 213 minutes it generally takes to set up your typical penalty kick for goal), have more CARDIOVASCULAR FITNESS than your typical NFL player, then I might buy it. But that's a different animal from possessing more ATHLETIC ABILITY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a pretty obvious reason why NFL players are physically bigger than rugby players. The speed and continuity of rugby is far greater than NFL. The fact that it takes 3 hours to finish a 60 minute game proves my point. The fact that an offencive and defencive team in nfl is only on the field for roughly 30 minutes of that 60 minutes further proves my point. Sure there are stops in rugby, However a player typically is on the field for the full duration of the game (80 minutes)and a game is over in around 100 minutes (including 10 minutes half time break). I don't think of most nfl players as great athletes and don't think most would make it in international rugby. There are some good athletes in the NFL, Terrel Ownens and Randy Moss would probally make good wingers, guys like Ray lewis probally would be good number 8's/ blind sides, and guys like Vick probally not bad 1st 5/8's I think the overall athleticisim of players like Richie Mcaw, Tana Umunga, George Smith, Joe Rockooko, Brian O'drisciall, Dan Carter exceeds the NFL players.

[BreakfastBurrito]

Well since you're not trying to take into account coordination, balance, dexterity or things of this nature, it seems that track and field is the sport which measures all of the attributes you describe. And since I think you meant which major team sport has the best athletes, that would have to be the NFL. It is very common for football players to be crossover track stars even at high levels of collegiate and even international competition. Find me one rugby player who is a world class sprinter, or high jumper, or shot putter. You'll find the NFL stock full of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly believe that Lombardi's team would have any shot at all against one of today's teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that they'd have a chance against today's teams. But I don't see why the teams of today can't have their linemen go back to a healthy weight.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the harm being done that will show up in the future relevant to this question?


[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. But the question was who are the best athletes, and it's clearly not NFL players, because most of them are obese and cannot run fast.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Well since you're not trying to take into account coordination, balance, dexterity or things of this nature, it seems that track and field is the sport which measures all of the attributes you describe. And since I think you meant which major team sport has the best athletes, that would have to be the NFL. It is very common for football players to be crossover track stars even at high levels of collegiate and even international competition. Find me one rugby player who is a world class sprinter, or high jumper, or shot putter. You'll find the NFL stock full of them.

[/ QUOTE ]


sprinting is anarobic, the NFL is anarobic. Do you see how those and other track events that work with the NFL don't really work in rugby? I can garuntee you that Sivivatuu is just as good of a sprinter as any NFL player, and if you ever see Tonderai Chavanaga then you'd know that you haven't seen a faster sprinter in the NFL. THere are way more fat overweight players in the NFL then there are in rugby. I don't remember any gold medalist track and field atheletes being in the NFL any time recently, and lets be honest, how does high jumping really play into being a great NFL player, it doesn't. YOu can jump as high as you want, but if you can't position yourself, or run good routes then you will be a worthless reciever. I can garuntee you that more rugby players would make it in the NFL then the other way around

[mwilli31]

No love for tennis? I personally don't think they're at the top, but at least give the pro players some consideration. They're basically playing every day of their life from the time they're 7 or 8. The men can play marathon 5-setters that last 5+ hours and their season covers every month except December. They have to be considered among some of the best athletes out there. Key word: considered.