Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
In Argentina: The working class hates Rugby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 632156" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>Every sport has its own definition of fitness and changing from one to the other when you've specialised is hard. A while back, Dwain Chambers was looking to get into rugby and found that to do so, he'd have to get unfit as a sprinter, then fit again as a rugby player.</p><p></p><p>But the demands on a rugby player are greater than on a football player, because there are more of them and they are more contradictory. If a rugby player switched to football tomorrow then, providing they had the right skill level, most could walk into a fairly high level tomorrow in terms of athletic standards. Yes, they'd have some muscle to shed ideally, but they're already doing a high level of fitness training, speed training, agility training and so on. A football player hoping to make the switch would probably have a year in the gym to make any sort of standard. A football player must be fairly strong. A rugby player must be as strong as possible and as fit as possible - and also as fast as possible and as agile as possible. It is a harder, more demanding sport physically - and I would have thought that was obvious. I personally make Conrad right on that score.</p><p></p><p>Btw - Beep test argument - scraping around for a look on what's the standard there in pro football - judging from this page <a href="http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/beep-test.htm" target="_blank">http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/beep-test.htm</a> most rugby players aren't too far off elite footballer levels of fitness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 632156, member: 42330"] Every sport has its own definition of fitness and changing from one to the other when you've specialised is hard. A while back, Dwain Chambers was looking to get into rugby and found that to do so, he'd have to get unfit as a sprinter, then fit again as a rugby player. But the demands on a rugby player are greater than on a football player, because there are more of them and they are more contradictory. If a rugby player switched to football tomorrow then, providing they had the right skill level, most could walk into a fairly high level tomorrow in terms of athletic standards. Yes, they'd have some muscle to shed ideally, but they're already doing a high level of fitness training, speed training, agility training and so on. A football player hoping to make the switch would probably have a year in the gym to make any sort of standard. A football player must be fairly strong. A rugby player must be as strong as possible and as fit as possible - and also as fast as possible and as agile as possible. It is a harder, more demanding sport physically - and I would have thought that was obvious. I personally make Conrad right on that score. Btw - Beep test argument - scraping around for a look on what's the standard there in pro football - judging from this page [url]http://www.topendsports.com/testing/results/beep-test.htm[/url] most rugby players aren't too far off elite footballer levels of fitness. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
In Argentina: The working class hates Rugby
Top