Mumbles your idea of distinct weight classes is something to study at least. Heavyweight boxers don't fight the lightweights do they...
but at the same time it's cool if you have
some ***ans in the game, the only problem is when coaches/Rugby authorities start to understand it's all about power and strength, which they are more and more. As I keep saying, just look at the most popular centers, 2nd rowers or third rowers right now. Blindingly obvious. Even props are sought after for their work in the loose, two most popular looseheads right now: Beast and Healy. Muscle, power. Period.
In a perfect world, you have the All-Blacks vs the Springboks: ultra-technical, creative and flair-laden VS pure brute strength. The Blacks can withstand the ultra physical forward-driven teams like South Africa or England, but they're the only ones who can. All other teams will be subjected to a team like the Boks because of their enormous muscle collectively. Even Australia got destroyed by muscle and pure mass this year...twice, incl. at home. And they've got gorgeous Rugby in them. Power beats creativity 9/10 times, and unless you're ingenious with your attack AND can meet or at least somewhat contain power up front, you've lost.
My fear is that we enter an era where guys like Sam Burgess develop everywhere around the world, and it's just down to watching "sick" YouTube clips of how huge a tackle this or that guy made. If it ever came down to pure mass and muscle, to a consistent enough point in World Rugby, I'd likely stray away from the sport progressively altogether.
I'll always respect, in any field in life, the ones with creativity. In Rugby, I love watching the Wallabies for that, and the AB are unbelievable. So fluid, generous, aesthetically pleasing, gorgeous...and big hits are cool, and it's nice if a team has a couple of mastodons there, pure power is awesome too. But again, if it comes down to this, to the point where mass or pure power are at the core of the game, it's just stupid for me.
I don't mean to single out the Boks, but they're comically forward-based and the very paradigm of everything I've been describing. And in the backs, guys like JDV or Fourie are straight runners, they force their way over you and score the try. At that point, it's just a matter of who's stronger. Who's bigger. Eventually there's a bigger center who comes along, he'll run straight at those two and score the try himself...
Power doesn't need thinking, or variety.
I'll say this bit once again, then I gtg: Wenceslas Lauret said it last November himself before our last EOYT match: "the Boks will be 7kgs heavier per forward. We know how powerful they are in the rucks, and we'll contest a little bit to get a feel for them, but we don't want to waste energy, and if it's too overwhelming we'll just have to retreat to the defensive curtain and wait for their attack".
Lauret is excellent technically at the breakdown, and he's got monster biceps popping out, very strong guy:
But sure enough, the Boks had their way against us, and even though we secured our own rucks well, we couldn't interfere in theirs the whole match. That takes away an entire dimension of the game because your third row is fkn 95kg and 100kg, and theirs is 115 to 120kg. There you have it.
And it's always fascinating to me how some struggle with that thought, and I'm having fun on this forum with the whole Ewis and the MASS thing, and will continue to, but the argument is just clear as light of day. Is it a mystery or a coincidence why EVERY TEAM is getting MUCH BIGGER atm ? I ask the Einsteins of the world. A coincidence we're only looking for bulky guys atm, the most popular ones are 90% the cases the thick massive players ?
For the ppl who still want to exaggerate the content of this argument, yes of course there's the occasional Fofana at center, or Courtney Lawes at lock, or Hooper at flanker. Never said anything about those.
SimonG: I agree with a lot of what you're saying.