Mean green machine
25 May 2006
Paul Roos’s Springboks of 1906 would have no chance against John Smit’s monsters of 2006 if the two teams were to play against each other today.
Apart from the law changes – which would surely take months for the Original Boks to learn – they would simply be too light and small to stand a chance.
According to Die Burger newspaper, research undertaken by Professor Hans de Ridder of the school for biokinetics and sports science at the North-West University (Puk campus), as well as Edri Meyer, a post-graduate student, shows that the Boks are on average nearly 23kg heavier and about 10cm taller than the players who wore the green and gold a century ago.
On average the Springboks now weigh 99.2kg, compared to the 76kg a hundred years ago.
The forwards on average weigh about 110.8kg and backs about 87.5kg. A century ago it was about 83kg and 72kg.
They are also taller – on average 1.86m in their socks, exactly 10cm taller than the 1.76cm of the past.
De Ridder believes that evolution differs from place to place, but on average people are growing between 1 and 2cm taller and between 1 and 3kg heavier every decade.
Improved nutrition and supplements also lead to bigger players.
“The training methods are also more professional and scientific. The players are doing, for example, a lot of strength exercises in the gymnasium, which increases muscle mass,” De Ridder told Die Burger.
It is hoped to eventually determine when the evolution pattern evens out. De Ridder thinks it is important that attention is given to this research, because it could have an influence on injury tendencies.
“It’s not just a bigger opponent you have to tackle, but it also puts a bigger burden on the muscles and ligaments.”
20 Comments
25 May 2006, 07:25 am
History should also be a factor, 1906 is only a few years after the Anglo Boer war.
25 May 2006, 07:27 am
Sorry meaning?
25 May 2006, 07:55 am
“The forwards on average weigh about 110.8kg” man thats heavy!
25 May 2006, 08:14 am
So the backs of 2006 would have scrummed the forwards of 1906 to pieces and then sent the ball out wide to our forwards (who spend more time in the backline anyway). I can’t see Bakkies Botha being troubled by the 1906, 75kg plod at outside centre who runs the hundred in 12,5.
The funny thing about it is, after reading a book on Springbok history, the SA touring teams of the early 1900′s were considered “man-mountains” when they arrived overseas.
Our scrum vs theirs? 886.4 kg vs 664kg. They may have conceded a few tightheads.
I’d love to see the comparable 40m and 100m times for the respective backlines. I imagine the team of 2006 would probably be on average 1,5 seconds quicker.
25 May 2006, 08:26 am
If you look at the size of American football players, basketball players and even their track and field stars, it seems that this evolution is a good few decades ahead on that side of the Atlantic. And I’m not just talking about fat linebackers. It’s not uncommon at all to hear of 6ft 8″ athletes, ripped like Zeus, weighing 280lbs (which, by my calculations, is just shy of 130kg). How much of this is ‘roids I don’t know. But if they start getting serious about rugby, they can surely scrape together a ton+ pack and some seriously speedy backs.
25 May 2006, 09:53 am
Its like saying the sharks were the best team…
25 May 2006, 10:07 am
I’m sure the current boks would have won the match by points, but can you imagine the violence at the breakdowns!
In those days the guys had a lot less scruples about giving you the beating of your life. I think some of those “lightweights” would even make Bakkies think twice before blikseming into a ruck. And high tackles, taking a guy out in the air? Please, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
What a War it would have been! Unlike today, buckets of blood would probably be the norm by half-time. I dunno if size and speed would be enough to beat the dog in the old boys. You may win the game – but first you have to survive the fight!
25 May 2006, 10:08 am
Pompies
It means that as a result of Lord Kitcheners policy of destroying most farms in South Africa in an attempt to stop resupply of the boer commando’s and moving the occupants of those farms into internment camps there was as a result a severe food shortage in SA.
Malnutrition was common. With obvious consequinces.
25 May 2006, 10:20 am
Well I guess we will never know !! Besides , rugby os more than size and weight. I once saw goergie Gregan stop NZ prop Richard Loe dead in his tracks and Loe had at least 20-30 Kg’s on Gragan , plus Loe was running at him so he had momentum as well. Technique and Guts is needed as well , with the latter being something that seems to be missing in our rugby
25 May 2006, 11:06 am
I remember walking through a corridor in the North Leagues club in Sydney that was lined with the jerseys of Aussies rugby league legends from the 1920’s and 1930’s.
Now I am not exactly built like a ‘Bok loose forward but I would have struggled to get my arm into any one of the jerseys … these oaks were seriously small and could only have made it as jockeys in todays sporting world …
25 May 2006, 11:07 am
all u need to do is put the current bok team in england jerseys and then let them play the 1906 boks. i know who i would bet on.
25 May 2006, 12:03 pm
The past players were pound for pound a lot tougher and stronger than our current lot.They were the real hard men of the earth farmers and hunters.They could give and take punishment.And play longer ..playing for peanuts not the Rand with passion and commitment.
Tough ********.
They did no gym work.But real hard work out in the fields made ‘em that.Hard buggers.
In the moderen day of automation players pump up in the gym to muscles but they are so injury prone,playing for the almighty Rand with questionable commitment.
Wanting to be cotton wooled in order to be fit and ready for a tournament.
You’d almost think some of out Bokke are muscled bound sissies who are affraid of contact.
Respect for the old brigade!
25 May 2006, 12:07 pm
Some oakes have some cool insight on this sight …
roomys
tygershark lovely stuff !
25 May 2006, 15:13 pm
Katman LMFAO dude if your talking about Americans BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA dont know where this Myth of Zues athletes comes from, have you ever seen the average American?? ***** bells lol.
They are big people, but American Football only requires you to run around for 5 minutes every 30 minutes lol.
My Sister went out with a Marine who served in the Gulf for two years, he came to Visit us in SA, i never met such a Morphie in my life, all sif foot six and 260 pounds of MARINE muscle.. Couldent cope with the SA way of life lol, let alone take BOERITJIE ON ON THE SPORTS GROUND
25 May 2006, 15:58 pm
Even over the last 10 years players have changed. i watched the 96 NZ v SA games recently and players then looked small compared to the current lot. Players now are faster and bigger but take players from another time and give them the same training as now and watch the change.
Take Vaaiga Tuigamala (Inga the winger) he was a monster when he played but was only 94kg. John Kirwan was only 92kg and he was considered big in his day. Now big wingers are 100kg or more.
Colin Meads was a man mountain at 1.92m and 102kg. Todays forwards might be bigger but tougher? No bloody way.
25 May 2006, 16:55 pm
Katman
Post 5
I lived in the USA for 12 years, I studied in College there (university), and was one of 2 foreigners that played football for the college. The whole American mindset is based on stop start affair, “timeouts”, the Americans will never catch on in the game of rugby. As several bloggers have mentioned, its more than just about being big, strong and fast. Lets say team ‘A’ is a team of what u have just described of 280lbs and fast as light and 6’8′ tall Americans, and team ‘B’ is of the small Boks of 1906. My money is on the smaller 1906 team, why? Fitness, Endurance, No “timeouts”, and more importantly “Passion”. Roids, yes I knew a few guys who used that stuff in College and so some of those okes were manufactured beasts. I played football against great players, but nothing hurt more than a ruck or a tackle in Rugby. USA will be competitive in the game of rugby, and one day be able to compete with the better 2nd tier nations, but they will always lose to the nations who have more passion and drive for the game. Work Ethic and understanding of the little things in rugby is what they will also lack.
25 May 2006, 18:01 pm
The Boks of old played with much pride,without padded vests and soft leather boots.These were the real manne !
25 May 2006, 22:18 pm
As an American who loves Springbok rugby – (played a bit with the Jo’burg Pirates) can have only a few things to say in response with an American point of view. Football players here are built to be explosive. They’d never last the endurance of rugby players. However, we Yanks may never really possess the passion for the sport – but certainly have a mentality to be the best. Whether we buy talent or nurture it, a few generations and I reckon we’d have a pretty fearsome team. We’re still working on our soccer culture. Rugby’s next. Cricket? I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Let’s go Bokke!
25 May 2006, 22:41 pm
Leather boots and padded vest, which might not even be necessary if they didn’t pump themselves with supplements, moreover they were also without all the blonde streaks we’re seeing on the rugby filed these days,I mean REALLY!!There’s more fake blonde men on our rugby fields that in the entire *** village of Cape Town!!
Old school were the last real “manne”!!!
25 May 2006, 22:45 pm
I totally agree with “wpforeverâ€.
Not only were Old School without leather boots and padded vest, which might not even be necessary if they didn’t pump themselves with supplements, moreover they were also without all the blonde streaks we’re seeing on the rugby filed these days,I mean REALLY!!
There’s more fake blonde men on our rugby fields that in the entire *** village of Cape Town!!
Old school were the last real “manne”!!!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.