How were gladiators portrayed in ancient Rome?
worldhistory.substack.com
worldhistory.substack.com
That said, the specialization allowed by American Football results in some people that can hit far harder than should be encouraged. Especially true in youth sports, in my mind, as growth just isn't even by age for people. At least in professional leagues you can somewhat control for that.
I had believed that rugby carried a lower concussion risk because of the lack of padding/helmets changed player behavior, but it looks like that's not the case.
This[1] is one of the best analysis/discussions I found.
It references this[2] 2021 meta-analysis as the most expansive.
A few key quotes:
> This meta-analysis demonstrated rugby has the highest concussion risk, followed by American Football, ice hockey, and wrestling.
> Meanwhile, a 2015 study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine looked at 13 articles that addressed sports concussion rates. It found that rugby placed first, with a rate more than three times higher than ice hockey and eight times higher than American football.
> One paper, published in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, looked at NCAA Division I injuries over three seasons for both sports. The authors found that the overall injury rate was about three times higher in rugby than in American football, and that a subset of this, the concussion rate, was about 2.5 times higher in rugby than in football. The authors deemed these differences to represent a "substantially higher" risk for rugby.
TL;DR: Rugby's probably the most dangerous for concussions and overall injury of any major team sport.
[1] https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-biden-says-football-is...
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23776916-concussion-...
However, at the level of high school students concussions are significant but joint injuries are more likely to be life altering. Of course that’s less impactful per person than death, TBI, spinal injuries, etc but you also see that stuff from people driving to and from less dangerous sports so there’s many ways to slice this stuff.
Consider vastly more football players people have died getting to the event than at the event. So arguably the biggest way to make these sports safer is to ban players traveling long distances to events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_...
No idea about severity or frequency of incidents but the (very few) matches I happened to watch were far more "physical" than rugby.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/nfl-style-lawsuit-br...
However, when you consider the NFL, which had a similar lawsuit, it is making more money than ever and not having trouble recruiting people to play, so I dunno. The sport itself will likely be OK.
As an aside, this article features Chris Nowinski, who is a leader in this field. If this topic interests you, you might enjoy reading his book Head Games or following him on socials.
I'm curious on how the data works by position. Thinking on it for a moment, I'd expect risk of injury for most positions in American Football is low. Such that, for the entire sport, this data actually does make a lot of sense. However, it is also easy to see that positions like quarterback are far more likely to get certain kinds of injuries. To the credit of the league, many of the more severe injuries that we saw years ago would be illegal hits in today's game.
Again, this data does make sense. And I think it is safe to say that rugby is almost certainly more dangerous.
In retrospect, it makes sense to me. I think the nature of rugby collisions and how you play the game just lends itself to more concussions than American football. A lot of AF is throwing passes which get broken up by less violent hits versus in rugby the only way is to tackle the guy carrying the ball.
There's a belief that the average lineman is suffering some form of brain damage on pretty much every down they're in the game.
https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/linemen-are-more-prone-to-c...
In terms of perception - American Football is simply better known. I bet if you stood on a street corner and asked 50 people to tell you something about Rugby, they would describe it as soccer but you get to carry the ball.
that's an interesting bet/theory. i would never have expected that as a description. like, even after hearing the description, i can't imagine how it could have come to be.
My attempt at a succinct explanation would be “football (American) but they start plays all bunched up instead of in lines”.
I’m sure it’s very wrong.
Cricket would be “baseball, but the home plate umpire is made of sticks”.
in Cricket, the Bowler
I usually learn rules and terminology to sports I’ve played little or not at all, by playing sports video games. I’ve yet to find ones for rugby or cricket that I liked, so continue to barely understand them.
It’s not impossible to find, and exactly where you’d expect: the closer you are to a major population center, and the larger & more internationally-prestigious the nearest university, the more like you are to see it in the wild.
But over most of the US, yeah, you could easily go your whole life and never even see a cricket bat in person, let alone a match being played.
Rugby seems to be a significantly more popular than cricket, though still uncommon, considered over the whole geography of the country.
Is there something fundamentally different with rugby that they don’t need nearly as much equipment?
This means that a rugby player must be able to keep running for the whole match, so they can't be as big as the biggest NFL players. For example the heaviest player on the England rugby team, prop Will Stuart, weighs in at 291 lb (most of his teammates, even those who play the same position, are significantly lighter). Every single offensive lineman on the current Chiefs roster, plus several players in other positions, is heavier than him.
Another effect of the stop-start nature of American football, and in particular the system of downs, is that small differences in how far the ball advances are often very important, and are more important than actually bringing the ball carrier down. In American football, a tackle is a head-on collision between the ball carrier and (often) several defensive players, with the aim of immediately stopping the forward progress of the ball. A rugby tackle is usually one player, often from behind, wrapping his arms around the ball carrier's legs to bring him down, at which point he has to give up the ball but play continues. It's designed to bring him down as efficiently as possible (because play won't stop), while leaving the tackler's teammates free to tackle whoever receives the ball if the ball carrier can get rid of it.
Or in English you can distinguish it as "Association Football", which abbreviates to "soccer" by dropping the leading vowel and the suffix from "association", and then tacking on the customary English rhotic ending.
There is no sport on earth that brings in more diverse people in terms of body types, sizes, races and forces them to work together to achieve their goals. You can't be selfish in football or the team suffers.
Whether you're a huge offensive lineman protecting the skinnier and more studious quarterback, a tall and fast wide receiver, a short / quick running back, any type of defender or one of the multiple kicking positions...there is a place for you on the team. The team that in college can be up to 120 players who train together, study together and support each other to succeed.
There's no sport that brings people and communities together better than football, because it's the most inclusive sport out there.
(My personal answer would be "multiple times a day.")
Edit: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/why-do-men-think-...
Edit2: It has nothing to do with power and little to do with battles. It's more about society, governance, and culture.
I’m firmly in the “how do you not?” camp. The mutual confusion between these two groups is the joke, I think.
Another facet may be the implication that all these men must be obsessed with Rome or want a return of the Roman Empire or something, which is also a funny notion, but I don’t think that’s usually the case. There are dozens of other things I think about at least as often, personally, and the common thread is that they have lots of connections to various topics I’m interested in, not some obsession with e.g. Rome.
For my part, Rome is heavily connected to all of philosophy, politics, European, Maghreb, and Near-East history, literature, and film (it’s a common setting or topic, even when not directly the topic, as in the Coen’s Hail Caesar) and since I’m interested in all those things, I mean, yeah, obviously I think about it at least once a day. I also think about various ancient Greek states daily, and Sumer and Ancient Egypt at least once a week, and often much more, I’d guess. Doesn’t mean I’m particularly obsessed with any of them, they’re just strongly connected to a ton of my interests.
The equally amusing thing is the trend to ask "What is the Roman Empire for people who don't think about the Roman Empire?" The answer for a SHOCKING number of people is Tom Holland lip syncing 'Umbrella'. And as astonishing and inconceivable as that is to me--that someone could think about that multiple times per year, much less the more frequent schedule my wife, who is deeply, boldy intelligent, joyously admits to--I'm reminded that that's EXACTLY how they feel about people who think about Rome. So I just shrug and say "well people like different things."
Once you throw in all the things before (Roman kingdom, Roman republic, who the heck were the Etruscans anyways, things of that nature) and after (who was the last person in what's now Spain to think of themselves as a Roman subject? Holy Roman empire: pretty wild huh; is there a through-line of kin based organized crime to the classical era?) you've basically got the last 2000+ years of history. So it's easy to count just about everything as "the Roman empire" with the level of handwaving I'm comfortable doing.
This isn't to say I'm stuck there. Pre Indo-european Europe is wild. The Tang Dynasty is wild. People settling high up in the Andes or Rockies or Himalayas is insane to me. So there's a lot to think about!
I mean, I get you. I just watched a youtube video about the first normal person in history whose name we know unambiguously, and it was this delightful dive into the fact that people just like us were keeping track of beer a few thousand years ago and that stuff just makes me fizz. I love it. I want my life to be long and free enough for me to learn at least a little bit about the pre-Indus Valley culture that brought some absolutely unique cultural features to the culture of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan that cannot be traced to anywhere but that one geographic location. Or Basque language -- why did it, and no other, pre-Indo European language survive? My brain is consumed by this, and so it is statistically likely that I'm going to stumble into the Romans here and there.
This is fundamentally different than some of my acquaintances who think about Rome disturbingly often because, I think, they believe they could be emperor someday and would do a better job of it than this democracy nonsense.
Like if you think about plumbing, Christianity, anything Europe, WW1, the Renissance, or Government all those things have pretty direct ties back to the Roman empires,
and more if you include the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantines in that.
Your own difficulty in understanding the poster’s intent underlies the problem with the “reactionary” label. They could simply be misinformed. Misinformation leads to dissonance, surprise and curiosity. Which leads to posting online to settle their inner confusion/questions.
But there’s a tiny chance it’s not any of that and the poster really is, literally, just asking questions. From the form and topic of the post, I give it about, I dunno, a 3% likelihood.
[edit] why do I judge this almost certainly not a genuine question born of curiosity? There are several clues, but the post leads with “reminder that…” This indicates a ready line of argument and/or beloved second-hand ideological factoid the poster has picked up and has ready to mind. The post almost certainly has a slant, and if it does, yes, it’s reactionary.
You and the poster must know each other quite well. I on the other hand don’t know them at all (as far as I know). And their past visible comments don’t suggest habitual trolling. With little else to go on seems best for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, we do brunch most Sundays. It’s definitely that instead of what I wrote as the reason. You figured it out.
For example, we tolerated an article equating Rome to the USA.