English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Someone on a different question is saying that American Footballers are heavier than Rugby players, so I was just wondering, in case I can go HA! they aren't actually or just leave it :)

2006-06-10 10:34:04 · 12 answers · asked by Mummy of 2 7 in Sports Rugby

A stone is 14lbs :) It's fun to be confusing, I think lbs and stone is imperial and grams and kilograms are metric. I tend to use imperial more than metric.

2006-06-10 14:00:43 · update #1

12 answers

Depends what position you play, My best mate plays in the scrum and he's 19 stone or 266Ibs. The difference between Rugby players and American football players is Rugby players don't strap on 40Ibs of protective clothing to go and play a practically the same game! They just go out with shirt and shorts.

2006-06-10 11:09:24 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 3 3

They do tend to vary a lot in size. I think American Football players might be weighed with all their gear on so they'd be twice as heavy! A lot of rugby players are tall and broad so they would weigh quite a lot, maybe around 16-18 stone. But Americans weigh in lbs don't they? Ah well, you can work that out.
But Mr. Evil weighs around 13 stone now so would have weighed less than that when he played. Unless he weighed more because he had muscle!
If they are tall then 16 stone is probably ok. I know some are quite small cos of their position. I can't recall what position Mr. Evil was but he was smaller than the average player for the position.

A stone is 14lbs. Fairy and I were near the beginning of the "metric" generation. ie. we were born weighing lbs but had to learn kilos at school.

2006-06-10 10:39:01 · answer #2 · answered by Evil J.Twin 6 · 0 0

Rugby boots have higher ankles support than football boots and are therefore commonly used by the fowards to provide support during the scrums. The backs often wear football boots as they are lighter and less bulkly, this allows the player to have more manouvariblity than the forwards which is necessary. Also (as a winger sometimes needs to kick) football boots are easier to kick in so would therefore be a better option. If you shop around for football boots i suggest you try and find a light pair which will be useful for speed as a winger, but also provide comfort in cold wet matches.

2016-03-27 00:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I play rugby in the US and I am 6ft 198 lbs. Most of the backs in rugby weigh are under 220lbs with the pack being more heavy. The majority of pack members do not weigh as much as NFL linemen because in rugby you have to do a great deal of running, much more than American Football. So they are leaner because of the running, but not necessarily not as strong.

2006-06-10 14:36:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What's a stone? GAH you English people confuse my piddly American brain. I thought you weighed in kilograms?

You do the math, it hurts my brain.

RUGBY: Basic findings that forwards were taller (average 187cm), heavier (average 99kg) and more muscular than backs (average 179cm, 81kg) matched their role as competitors for the ball in both set play and loose play. The additional finding of greater body fat among forwards is a common one, but one that is hard to justify. A certain advantage from greater body fat may be gained in contact situations from the increased momentum (body weight x speed) when compared to a lighter, leaner opponent. At lower levels of play, where body weights are generally less, this advantage may prove decisive. However, a player of similar weight wth greater lean tissue is likely to be stronger, faster and more agile, as well as better able to control body temperature in any hot conditions. The answer for a forward is therefore to increase lean body weight at the expense of fat mass, such that body fat <10% (as opposed to the observed average of 13.5% for the US forwards) and body weight is 90-120kg, depending on specific position.

AMERICAN FOOTBALL
The average weight in the NFL has grown by 10 percent since 1985 to a current average of 248 pounds. The heaviest position, offensive tackle, went from 281 pounds two decades ago to 318 pounds.

2006-06-10 13:30:21 · answer #5 · answered by bunstihl 6 · 0 0

It depends when Johnah Lomu was playing he was 125 kgs which is roughly 275 pounds. The weight varies according to the position they play in. Inside backs half back, first five eights, second five eights around about 90 kgs, bigger backs centre three quarters, wings and the fullbacks 102 kgs. Forwards can vary from props and hooker 115 kgs and over. Flankers 110 kgs. Locks vary from 102 depending on their height. that's about the average weight of each position based on the current All Black team.

2006-06-10 20:31:32 · answer #6 · answered by Bru 6 · 0 0

In rugby, their size depends on the position that they are playing. If they need to run it wouldn't be useful if they were 16stone.

American footballers are pumped up on steroids, which makes them heavier.

2006-06-10 10:40:51 · answer #7 · answered by MISS B.ITCH 5 · 0 0

well i play rugby and average weight is around 15stone in my team but a couple of forwards weigh around 19 stone plus

2006-06-11 06:41:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

in my schools rugby team we have some pretty lean guys. you dont have to be all big and i think fat like the american footballers. rugby guys are mostly average weight

2006-06-10 10:56:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Normally around 25 pounds.

2006-06-12 07:20:40 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers