Primary determinant in basketball success is height, so no way it requires the most athleticism.
I’m going to say the most athetic sport is…
hunting bear with a bowie knife. Bears>o-linemen.
Not really true. Go and spend some time with the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team or South African Springboks. I would put them up against any NFL team in terms of professionalism, organization, competitiveness, use of technology etc. The governments of these nations put significant money and resources into rugby on a par with any NFL franchise.
^I agree. A bear with a bowie knife would definitely win most competitions.
There is no basis for this statement. The NFL produces the guys that are best suited to NFL needs. What is true is that the NFL prizes physical tools more than any other sport in the world, so ion that basis, one could argue that NFL has the best pure athletes, because that’s what they are selected to be.
Btw, soccer clubs invest far more to shape players, they take kids from age 5, put them in brutally competitive academies, where even the kids are on professional contracts, and years later, a few good players are harvested. No other sport comes close in terms of developing the “scientifically best” that can be produced.
Except the springboks highest paid players make less than 1.5 million a year versus about 10-20 million for a quarterback. Anybody saying the level of investment, training and professionalism in rugby is even close is just not informed. Hell the springboks don’t even have a home stadium and the largest one they use seats a piddly 60,000. We have college stadiums at 115,000. Similar level of investment, right.
we do the same thing in football. Why do you think you have college coaches making 3-5 million a year and college stadiums that can seat 115,000 people? Largest European stadium is less than 100,000. Even high school stadiums are as large as 18,000
Ok, agree that soccer (football) is possibly the only other sport with the industrial complex to match that of NFL types. The selection criteria is also clearly different from that of American football, basketball, or most other sports.
I still disagree about rugby. You would probably agree that the selection process for football (soccer) is more competitive, brutal, and optimized than that of rugby. The same would apply to NFL.
^ I’m basically with ohai on this one
@ohai,blackswan.
Its rather very easy to get in the rugby game,since the rewards are far less persuading than football.Most british people dont know the names of more than 15 rugby players,I bet the same cannot be stated for football
Rugby players are probably tougher and most have better cardio than NFL. But you’re right about NFL being beastly…there are some big guys playing (with pads).
I think people are underestimating that doing sprints for 4 hours even with breaks requires an insane amount of cardio. Particularly tailbacks. All you have to do is look at a cornerback, wide receiver or tailback and if you doubt the cardio you’re delusional.
High school? College? Please, by the time a soccer player is of HS age, he’s been trained in an extremely competitive academy for years, and is on a pro contract, by the time he is college age, he is already on a senior team. A lot of NFL caliber players take up the game in their early teens. That could never happen in soccer. Soccer pretty much has underage human trafficking rings to source it’s talent.
Stadium size has nothing to do with it. Barcelona B’s stadium seats 14,500 people, I don’t think it matters.
NFL Guys eat better,train better and have higher motives.
You cannot run fast if your idea of a bright future is opening a bar or fish&chips with the money you get out of rugby
As far as toughness goes, that guy trying out as a punt returner for the 49ers will be able to answer that one at the end of the season. Punt returner comes with some solid contact and he is the best in his league.
you’re right - because it’s a fact
So if you don’t think it’s a fact then do the math yourself. I am not a think tank or a journalist. If I had some stat I would have said so.
i never said Rugby has better athletes, merely that whether a guy can cross over is a poor metric.
wait… i got a list
http://theathleticbuild.com/25-most-jacked-football-players-in-the-nfl/2/ vs
http://theathleticbuild.com/15-of-the-biggest-beasts-in-rugby/
It says rugby players are bigger, badder and stronger. Also just to note that NFL stops every 30 seconds and rugby is played for 40mins nonstop. Also, you get proper punch ups and face stamps in rugby…the NFL you get none of that.
What’s your point?
If you build a logistic model with the outcome binary whether the individual will be a succesful soccer player or not and use the dependent metrics of one of the best like Messi and include speed, acceleration, strength etc as the differentiator and insert any 3’rd rate NFL player into this model their outcome will probably be 1. In reality we know they would get schooled by Real Madrid’s Under-16 team. The same scenario is likely for Rugby except not many people are able to explain the nuances clearly.
How did you possibly get that takeaway from those lists? Which are focused on build (ie how ripped you are) rather than actual performance metrics for a body building mag btw.
You just don’t get the quantity or quality of hits like this in Rugby. THe first video really kicks in about 25 seconds in and makes a strong case. I mean it’s like a frickin car crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4wyU6GTCPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtCgquOsXeo
I pull this Rugby one and half of it is freaking arm tackling and guys bouncing off of the people they should be tackling.
stats. ok. heres 1 qualitative survey for you (done personally). My friend plays pro rugby for the Glasgow Warriors. He has trained with MMA guys. His brother has 3 fights in MMA and does rugby as well. Both say that rugby has nothing on UFC. Train with a pro MMA athlete and it will take you to a new level unseen in NFL or rugby (phisically and mentally).