According to whatever it is that Starcraft 2 has been saying at me, Terran Marines weren't just Joe Schmoe, they were pretty much the most lethal murderers in the solar system. That's why they're out there killing shit, the prisons didn't want to house them so they're pretty much confined to their suit until they die. Same goes for most of the Terrans. Still Batman.
Eve Online vs World of Warcraft. For me it's all about Eve, the PvP, the politics, the backstabbing, and the general darkness of it. It really boils down to whether you want to make an impact upon how others play or if you like training wheels... oh and spaceships are way cooler than your stupid elves and orcs.
Hey now, don't go talking shit about elves and orcs. They used to kick serious ass before WoW fucked it all up.
I might take Superman over Goku because Goku is often reluctant to kill. The only time I remember him intending to kill was against Frieza, and even then he didn't finish the job. Vegeta, Gohan, and Trunks would crush Superman.
I am amazed that we've gone 8 pages without Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer. Btw, the answer is clearly Enterprise (let's say Original Series for the sake of argument). Not because of its size or armor or shield strength, all of which are probably less than the Star Destroyer, but because the Enterprise (and Star Trek ships in general) can maneuver and fire at warp speed and their weapons travel at warp speed as well whereas the Star Destroyer can't. Nor can its weapons hit a ship traveling at warp on a strafing run since all Star Destroyer weaponry is lightspeed. so it might take awhile, but the Enterprise can strafe back and forth and around the Star Destroyer at warp speed while accurately firing its weaponry. Add in some randomization to prevent the Star Destroyer from being able to predict its course (not that it can reliably track a warp speed ship in the first place) and the Enterprise wins hands down. Nerd. Fight.
I just think it's awesome that people were having to post in multiple colors to rebut points because of the two-quote limit. If that doesn't exhibit irony in a nerd fight thread, I don't know what does. I'd also like to point out that both Nerd Fight and Two-quote Limit would be excellent band names.
From what I recall of the information that came in the original Starcraft Battle Chest, Terran Marines were a bunch of criminals. Not always the MOST violent, but whoever happened to piss off the gummint or show a tendency to kill/enjoy killing folks. Normal-ish guys, ok armor, automatic weapon. They're grunts. They kill, they die, none of their commanders really care that much. As much as I like Blizzard's games, I'm pretty sure the Warhammer's Space Marine's closer to a superhuman than a Space Marine is. Then again, maybe the Terran Marine would win by opening fire as soon as he saw the enemy, instead of getting caught up in yelling some shit about the glory of battle or something.
Have you heard of Chris Johnson, Vernon Davis, and Adrian Peterson? They are all bigger and faster than the players you had just mentioned. I was quite impressed that Joe Rokocoko ran a 4.4 forty after looking him up but it wasn't hard to find three guys faster and one isn't even a running back. Of course I never heard of them, I never watch Rugby. The only reason I have even started to get interested in it is because of the movie Invictus and I saw a real sports documentary on HBO about a popular player who admitted he was gay. I admit I was impressed by the strength and speed of these athletes. However the question was would the best football players be better than the best rugby players and I stand by my answer. You really think American football players didn't train how to tackle and take hit's for just as long as the Rugby players did? How many Rugby players get hit full speed from behind? Seeing you always have to pass the ball backwards I doubt many defenders hit them with the same speed American Football players get hit with, on a kick or punt return. I am not doubting the toughness and raw athleticism of a Rugby Player, and as a whole of course they are better athletes than the kicker, offensive tackles and many of the positions on a current NFL roster. When it comes to the best of the best however I'm sticking with NFL, I'm pretty sure the NFL player would dominate the Rugby player in the NFL combine as well as "on the pitch." Vernon Davis is 6'5 250, run's a 4.38 forty and plays tight end so I'm sure he wouldn't have trouble catching the ball and I doubt he would have any issue's learning to tackle. Lastly Durbanite I think we are in the wrong thread, this isn't a "Nerd Fight" argument as much as it's a "Meat Head bar argument." My cousin played Rugby and college and we borrowed his ball, I think it's easier to kick than an NFL football as well.
You're completely missing this dude. They might be faster at a dead sprint than most rugby players. Many american football players will be stronger over short periods than most rugby players. They will not last 80 minutes. They would get killed on the pitch. The fourth quarter in football- when everyone is gassed and exhausted- is halftime in rugby. You still have to hit a higher gear. On top of that, you don't get thirty seconds between plays to catch your breath and tend to injuries. Football players are also on the field for half the game at most (not counting substitutions). An average play lasts seven seconds. Multiplied by fifty to sixty plays on the field and you get 350-420 seconds of physical exertion over the course of an entire game by a professional football player. The rest is taken up by the huddle, setting the play, making reads and waiting. Rugby is 80 minutes long with spurts of gameplay lasting as long as two or three minutes in which the player is exerting himself the whole time. Speed and strength don't mean a damn thing on the rugby pitch. Speed and strength over time do. American football players don't have that. He would get murdered. His endurance would fail around the 15-20 minute mark of an World Cup Championship match (If we're going best in the NFL vs the best in the IRF). That 4.38 looks great with nobody in front of you but as soon as you get your legs taken out once or twice, it's game over unless you've trained for that. He hasn't trained for that. Of course NFL players are going to win in a combine. Bench press? Useless in rugby. Absolutely useless. 40 yd sprint? No use either. Nobody cares how fast you are fresh. How fast are you after running 6 miles though? That's more important. Ever seen a kickoff? Unlike football, they're three feet up in the air coming down when they get nailed. There's no back plate or cowboy collar to protect you either. No forward momentum, nothing. Just drilled into the ground. Welcome to rugby, sailor. As I said in a previous post- it's an apples and oranges argument. They're both tasty and both fruit, but they're very, very different. Rugby's still tougher. *cough*
It depends what you mean by tough. If you mean can take a beating, tax their body to its maximum, and keep running, then yeah rugby players are tougher. If you mean have the intestinal fortitude to run across the middle or straight up the gun knowing they're essentially going to be hit by a freight train, then it's football players no contest.
I'm a hockey guy, and I'm not super knowledgeable about either sport (big fan though), so this is more of a question... I hear the "endurance" argument from soccer fans who claim it's got the best athletes because they have to play the entire game (similar to what Viking33 is saying about rugby). So I took a closer look, and recalled my shamefully supressed memories of playing soccer as a kid, and noticed something I consider important: at any given time of play, there are, at best, five players running 3/4 speed, and occasionally two or three guys going full speed, for never more than 15 seconds. So, while they are on the field the entire game, half the time, they're trotting (or even slower). My repsonse, in a hockey vs soccer debate, is that while the average hockey player may only play 15-20 minutes out of 60, if they aren't going at least 3/4 speed for every second, they're doing it wrong (not to mention stop/starts take more energy on skates). The football/rugby debate seems similar (though clearly both are tougher than soccer...most sports are). Football happens in short bursts, but your body must exert itself to the absolute limit. Rugby players, while they are "playing" for longer chunks of time, aren't always going full out and, I would guess, learn to recouperate on the fly. From what I've seen (and Viking33, correct me if I'm wrong), more rugby players are moving faster at any given time compared to soccer, but the same concept applies. I'm not sure (especially about rugby), but it seems to me that football/hockey fall under the 'go full out for short periods' category, and rugby/soccer are 'keep a pace for a longer time' sports. So, if we're talking about endurance specifically, which is more endurance-y: going to your limit, over and over, or rarely reaching it, but moving constantly? Now, if we're talking which is the "tougher/more physical/ more awesome sport", as Brengsek's post began, I will argue all day that hockey and lacrosse take the cake, with hockey edging it out because of speed. Thoughts?
On the super hero front: Who would win in a fight? Admittedly smart, well trained, mean as fuck Batman. Or the correct answer of super strong, hellaciously agile, equally smart, able to dodge bullets, and cling to walls Spider man?
How do you know about a football players endurance? Just because they are not pushed for eighty minuets does not mean they can not do it? You whole argument is based on something you can not prove. The fact that they look "gassed" to you hardly makes you an authority on their endurance. Not to mention I'm sure these athletes can change the training regiment a little bit to gain more endurance. Again I don't know if you know what your talking about because being fast in the forty is important in Rubgy because they don't break for more than forty yards most of the runs, so of course it would be important. (It also seemed to be important in the Wikipedia articles on the players mentioned by Durbanite) I don't know much about Rugby, but I'm assuming you do get a little rest in the scrum as well as plays that you are not involved in just like the NFL. My post was clear when I said I felt the best NFL players would be better than the best Rugby players. I don't know why you keep bringing up toughness or calling me sailor, maybe you are gazing at your Rugby men of Australia as we speak, they do have impressive physiques. I notice nobody has mentioned a Rugby player playing football either, I doubt they could play running back but some of them may fit in nicely as a TE but again not better than our guys. My point is simple you take a bigger, stronger, faster, more coordinated athlete from the NFL and teach him the finer points of Rugby he would do better than the Rugby player who was taught how to play in the NFL.