Mountains of world rugby

First topic message reminder :

Metaphors for difficult tasks are often constructed around the ascent of a mountain.
 
"Scotland have a huge mountain to climb here" for example.
 
On world rugby terms, the rugby World Cup might be likened to Everest. The highest peak in the world (popularly) and most obvious choice. (And notably first scaled by a kiwi, captain David Kirk or Edmund Hillary - take your pick). Some might even suggest the odd team who have reached the summit may have had a certain degree of assistance from the odd Sherpa or two.
 
Likewise, the Southern Hemisphere's Rugby Championship might be equated to K2. Not as popular a conquest, only open to the worlds elite mountaineers. Technically not as altitudinous at its peak, although a more difficult ascent than Everest.
 
The World Cup might also be equated with Everest in that whilst the highest peak, a large portion of the mountains height is beneath water and hence nobody actually scales its full height - an analogy for the pool stages - most summit contenders bypass the pool without any thought or much effort expended.
 
So, in mountain metaphor terms, which peak might the six nations equate to?

GunsGerms wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:the six nations ON here is like grange hill .  is the answer Daniel day lewis

George Bernard Shaw

Hes not British though?

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:didnt read it all   .  

You've not missed much!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:the six nations ON here is like grange hill .  is the answer Daniel day lewis

George Bernard Shaw

Hes not British though?

 
Rumour has it that he "considered himself British" along with Ed Hilllary, Hillary Clinton, Karol Józef Wojtyla, Ludwig von Hagemeister, a trend that may have begun with the Saxe-Coburg-Gothae family.

I suppose youll be claiming that Ben Nevis only qualifies on residency next?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I suppose youll be claiming that Ben Nevis only qualifies on residency next?

Nope. Ben Nevis is fully eligible to represent the soon to be independent Scotland.

6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

quinsforever wrote:6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

Sigh. Surely you can differentiate between popularity and quality? Or do you think that Ellie Goulding and One Direction are the greatest recording artists in the world today?

NZ v SA from Ellis Park? or Scotland verus Italy at Murrayfield's mud pit? Hmmm....oh yeah, the six nations is the highlight of world rugby.

in the RC, SA for instance knows that even though they face NZ twice. One match will be at home and the winner will be who does best away from home? Where bonus points can be picked up.

If you lose once you can make it up.

If wales lose to England for instance... thats it, no possible redemption for 12 months.

In the 6N teams have to win these games, in the RC, not necessarily and thus the pressure is less.

Technical ability is superior in RC.
Pressure is less in games and with games often on top on one another it builds throughout the tournament... unlike the dragged on RC which in reality is simply a collection of matches.

I would rank them about the same due to the above.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

Sigh. Surely you can differentiate between popularity and quality? Or do you think that Ellie Goulding and One Direction are the greatest recording artists in the world today?

NZ v SA from Ellis Park? or Scotland verus Italy at Murrayfield's mud pit?  Hmmm....oh yeah, the six nations is the highlight of world rugby.

yes, as i said, it's pretty clear which has the bigger following. you can measure it by eyeballs, $ or whatever you like.

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

Sigh. Surely you can differentiate between popularity and quality? Or do you think that Ellie Goulding and One Direction are the greatest recording artists in the world today?

NZ v SA from Ellis Park? or Scotland verus Italy at Murrayfield's mud pit?  Hmmm....oh yeah, the six nations is the highlight of world rugby.

yes, as i said, it's pretty clear which has the bigger following. you can measure it by eyeballs, $ or whatever you like.

The Six Nations has that wonderful intangible aspect to it, atmosphere. The tension, partisanship and passion of each set of supporters combined with some superb stadia, make it the most enjoyable sports tournament ever conceived. Even if one does have to suffer a game like Scotland v Wales (2013) that's part of the charm.

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

Sigh. Surely you can differentiate between popularity and quality? Or do you think that Ellie Goulding and One Direction are the greatest recording artists in the world today?

NZ v SA from Ellis Park? or Scotland verus Italy at Murrayfield's mud pit?  Hmmm....oh yeah, the six nations is the highlight of world rugby.

yes, as i said, it's pretty clear which has the bigger following. you can measure it by eyeballs, $ or whatever you like.

popularity versus quality.

AB v SA at Ellis Park has just as much history and atmosphere as any other rugby match in the world. AB v Australia in Syndey comes pretty close.

Additionally they have something the 6N has arguably never had : global bragging rights. When was the last time a 6N/5N/Home nations match also included a defacto world's best decider?

The Six Nations is transcendent.

That is all

Chjw131 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:6Nations is Ben Nevis. Old as hell, really variable weather, can be fun or horrible to do.

Rugby Championship is like a big indoor climbing wall with a high degree of technical difficulty, no history, and only made possible by jet travel and recent commercial successes in the game.

horses for courses, but its pretty clear which one has a bigger following. (hint its not the indoor climbing wall)

Sigh. Surely you can differentiate between popularity and quality? Or do you think that Ellie Goulding and One Direction are the greatest recording artists in the world today?

NZ v SA from Ellis Park? or Scotland verus Italy at Murrayfield's mud pit?  Hmmm....oh yeah, the six nations is the highlight of world rugby.

yes, as i said, it's pretty clear which has the bigger following. you can measure it by eyeballs, $ or whatever you like.

The Six Nations has that wonderful intangible aspect to it, atmosphere. The tension, partisanship and passion of each set of supporters combined with some superb stadia, make it the most enjoyable sports tournament ever conceived. Even if one does have to suffer a game like Scotland v Wales (2013) that's part of the charm.

Pretty telling that in a lot these lists of 6N virtues the rugby itself doesn't seem to get much of a mention. To be expected I suppose. Saying that I do love the tournament and will be watching both games on Saturday in a local pub with a couple of Englishmen, a South African, a Czech and a Frenchman. A lot of the positives (advantages?) over the 4N are real and obvious. The age of the tournament, size of fan bases and proximity of the teams and fans to each other guarantees this.
Although I don't agree that one loss is irredeemable, if so why isn't every year a Grand Slam?

I don't think any fan cares too much about a tournament in which their team is not competing. Their own teams battles carry so much more weight, especially if it is for global bragging rights.
So arguments about which is 'better' are kind of moot.

Interesting that nobody can produce a mountain metaphor, and just seem to prefer to immediately attack SH rugby. Probably says something, that.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Interesting that nobody can produce a mountain metaphor, and just seem to prefer to immediately attack SH rugby. Probably says something, that.

Perhaps because its so crushing dull and has a superiority complex?

At last we agree! But not all 6n rugby is crushingly dull. Once you set aside the actual content and watch the rival fans vying for whatever small morsel of supremacy they believe is yielded it becomes a fascinating socialogical mesh

Which is pretty much the subtext of the third hobbit movie assuming they stick vaguely to the book.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Whether someone not born in Britain is British or not rests solely on whether they are sucessful or not. Hillary reached the top therefore sorry Kiwis he is British.

You guys are worse than the Aussies with Phar Lapp and Crowded House! Get your own famous people! Next you'll be telling me Ernest Rutherford was British.

Who are you calling you guys?

I imagine the Irish are quite well versed in these debates anyhow... I imagine few Irishmen would claim the Duke of Wellington to be Irish for instance. Lots of famous anglo-irish people in history.

Duke of Wellington disowned us though   

GE - having been to Nepal (Everest Basecamp), I availed of the hospitality of Hillary's Himalayan Trust (by using one of the hospitals he built)!

Hillary was far too humble to be a Brit!  

PS - the challenge of K2 is not climbing it, its getting down from it is the problem.

All great points sin e!

The RC is just never going to get the following the 6N does. Population, geography, tradition and money give it an edge that the SH just can't compete with. Australia vs NZ is the only fixture where it's possible to pop over for the game without breaking the bank and needing less than a week off work. The tradition established in the tournament ensures games like le Crunch and England vs Wales are highlights of the season as they are grudge matches and big occasions regardless of sides' form.

What the SH has is for the purists-great rugby with the Big Three and Argentina. NZ and SA are the two best sides in history and share six of the seven World Cups with Australia. There is no more intense rugby rivalry than the ABs vs SA as it has often been a clash for the title of best team in the world, and with the politics thrown in its history is nothing to be laughed at. It's just a great pity that it isn't feasible to pop over to Ellis Park for games such as last year's.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Interesting that nobody can produce a mountain metaphor, and just seem to prefer to immediately attack SH rugby. Probably says something, that.

I did, you just choose to ignore it.

Watch the German film Nordward.

likewise

the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

quinsforever wrote:
4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

That's quite a sad comment on the aspirations of those countries, if true. Are they really that resigned to the fact of always being global also-rans?

Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

goneagain wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

That's quite a sad comment on the aspirations of those countries, if true. Are they really that resigned to the fact of always being global also-rans?

yes

but its also because there is a real grudge rivalry between the home nations, embedded in wars, slaughters, etc, etc.

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

SH teams are clearly superior. always have been , and certainly are today.

but the 6N competition is a different beast. not by virtue of the quality of the rugby on display, or the ranking of the teams competing it.

hence why its meaningless to compare.

True, the 6N and it's predecessors have a long proud rugby and cultural history, acknowledged. Guess that's the point. Still, it's only really a curiosity in the SH or from my perspective anyway and was the case even before rugby went pro and we had the piddly 3N. Hardcore SH rugby heads probably think otherwise mind you.

quinsforever wrote:the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

So folks keep saying, but as far as I can see, the SH comps are expanding and strengthening. With Japanese franchise added to superrugby the cash will flow, player drain will ease and audience will expand - hence SANZAR revenue will expand.  Adding a pacific franchise will boost player mobility in the pacific region, aid the islands and boost the entertainment value. As far as I can see the SH is in rude health and just getting stronger. NZ is picking up interest in the US via the worlds largest corporate rugby sponsorship...

By comparison the nh is a mess, the European tournament is in death throws, welsh clubs starved of players, France don't have a single winger to choose from their clubs and the country v club drama rumbles on.

The NH need another RWC winner before they and their traditions begin to sink into global irrelevance.  

Is their a mountain that is sinking into the sea?

Mountains erode over time don't they? Not much techtonic activity in Europe.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

So folks keep saying, but as far as I can see, the SH comps are expanding and strengthening. With Japanese franchise added to superrugby the cash will flow, player drain will ease and audience will expand - hence SANZAR revenue will expand.  Adding a pacific franchise will boost player mobility in the pacific region, aid the islands and boost the entertainment value. As far as I can see the SH is in rude health and just getting stronger. NZ is picking up interest in the US via the worlds largest corporate rugby sponsorship...

By comparison the nh is a mess, the European tournament is in death throws, welsh clubs starved of players, France don't have a single winger to choose from their clubs and the country v club drama rumbles on.

The NH need another RWC winner before they and their traditions begin to sink into global irrelevance.  

Is their a mountain that is sinking into the sea?

Yes indeed, there are many examples of mountains sinking into the sea. However, once Atlantis sunk under the waves (probably a bunch of soccer players anyway) there are very few examples of this happening outside of the Pacific Rim of Fire. Which of course is the home ocean of Super Rugby. I would be very careful about over-expansion and the financial damage which goes with it. American sport has fantastic successes, but also some dismal failures, most of which were due to over-expansion.

I also wouldn't misunderstand the apparent implosion of an individual NH club/franchise competition nor of the inevitable realignment of the teams below the national levels. A professional sport only 20 years old should need realigment and that is all that is happening. OK, it is happening with a lot of unnecessary emotion and ocean-loads of immaturity. But once the final vestiges of the old amateur management has been purged like a bad burrito, it is concievable the sport will go from strength to strength and eventually take over the rest of the civilised world. Then the world will take a new name: Rugbyshire. Named after a village in middle-England. So, no matter where you go, England will always be with you. In your heart. Climb that mountain if you will, mon ami.

Love it

Might end up being called RugbyVille though

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

So folks keep saying, but as far as I can see, the SH comps are expanding and strengthening. With Japanese franchise added to superrugby the cash will flow, player drain will ease and audience will expand - hence SANZAR revenue will expand.  Adding a pacific franchise will boost player mobility in the pacific region, aid the islands and boost the entertainment value. As far as I can see the SH is in rude health and just getting stronger. NZ is picking up interest in the US via the worlds largest corporate rugby sponsorship...

By comparison the nh is a mess, the European tournament is in death throws, welsh clubs starved of players, France don't have a single winger to choose from their clubs and the country v club drama rumbles on.

The NH need another RWC winner before they and their traditions begin to sink into global irrelevance.  

Is their a mountain that is sinking into the sea?

Yes indeed, there are many examples of mountains sinking into the sea.  However, once Atlantis sunk under the waves (probably a bunch of soccer players anyway) there are very few examples of this happening outside of the Pacific Rim of Fire.  Which of course is the home ocean of Super Rugby.  I would be very careful about over-expansion and the financial damage which goes with it.  American sport has fantastic successes, but also some dismal failures, most of which were due to over-expansion.  

I also wouldn't misunderstand the apparent implosion of an individual NH club/franchise competition nor of the inevitable realignment of the teams below the national levels.  A professional sport only 20 years old should need realigment and that is all that is happening.  OK, it is happening with a lot of unnecessary emotion and ocean-loads of immaturity.  But once the final vestiges of the old amateur management has been purged like a bad burrito, it is concievable the sport will go from strength to strength and eventually take over the rest of the civilised world.  Then the world will take a new name:  Rugbyshire.  Named after a village in middle-England.  So, no matter where you go, England will always be with you.  In your heart.  Climb that mountain if you will, mon ami.  

Interesting thought about professionalism and international sport. I can't see rugby growing without viable international competition for up and coming sides, including access to their players. Look to the growth of football and basketball internationally, compared with the likes of league, gridiron etc.

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

So folks keep saying, but as far as I can see, the SH comps are expanding and strengthening. With Japanese franchise added to superrugby the cash will flow, player drain will ease and audience will expand - hence SANZAR revenue will expand.  Adding a pacific franchise will boost player mobility in the pacific region, aid the islands and boost the entertainment value. As far as I can see the SH is in rude health and just getting stronger. NZ is picking up interest in the US via the worlds largest corporate rugby sponsorship...

By comparison the nh is a mess, the European tournament is in death throws, welsh clubs starved of players, France don't have a single winger to choose from their clubs and the country v club drama rumbles on.

The NH need another RWC winner before they and their traditions begin to sink into global irrelevance.  

Is their a mountain that is sinking into the sea?

Yes indeed, there are many examples of mountains sinking into the sea.  However, once Atlantis sunk under the waves (probably a bunch of soccer players anyway) there are very few examples of this happening outside of the Pacific Rim of Fire.  Which of course is the home ocean of Super Rugby.  I would be very careful about over-expansion and the financial damage which goes with it.  American sport has fantastic successes, but also some dismal failures, most of which were due to over-expansion.  

I also wouldn't misunderstand the apparent implosion of an individual NH club/franchise competition nor of the inevitable realignment of the teams below the national levels.  A professional sport only 20 years old should need realigment and that is all that is happening.  OK, it is happening with a lot of unnecessary emotion and ocean-loads of immaturity.  But once the final vestiges of the old amateur management has been purged like a bad burrito, it is concievable the sport will go from strength to strength and eventually take over the rest of the civilised world.  Then the world will take a new name:  Rugbyshire.  Named after a village in middle-England.  So, no matter where you go, England will always be with you.  In your heart.  Climb that mountain if you will, mon ami.  

Funny how the NH needs to be "re-aligned", but the SH comps are growing organically without teething pain isn't it? Hard to know where pragmatism ends and wishful thinking starts with all that "inevitable" "purging" and "just-you-wait-and-see-it'll go from strength to strength, just, really, soon".

quinsforever wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

SH teams are clearly superior.  always have been , and certainly are today.

but the 6N competition is a different beast. not by virtue of the quality of the rugby on display, or the ranking of the teams competing it.

hence why its meaningless to compare.

Not quite always. But then I understand that GE doesnt like to talk about that

ebop wrote:Mountains erode over time don't they? Not much techtonic activity in Europe.

I think there might have been a little bit in Landsdowne road in November, no?

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

SH teams are clearly superior.  always have been , and certainly are today.

but the 6N competition is a different beast. not by virtue of the quality of the rugby on display, or the ranking of the teams competing it.

hence why its meaningless to compare.

Not quite always. But then I understand that GE doesnt like to talk about that

Near enough to make no difference....

blackcanelion wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

SH teams are clearly superior.  always have been , and certainly are today.

but the 6N competition is a different beast. not by virtue of the quality of the rugby on display, or the ranking of the teams competing it.

hence why its meaningless to compare.

Not quite always. But then I understand that GE doesnt like to talk about that

Near enough to make no difference....

I think it made a huge difference on GE's psyche. Even the 2013 England win against NZ meant he couldn't use a computer or even type for six months   

Lol.

Well as i spent some time on this and it got lost in the 'my dad is bigger than your dad' boring chat - thought I would repost it :-)

If the World cup is Everest... then

The 6 Nations is K2 - while not quite as high (and mighty) as Everest, but one of the hardest to climb and subject to some terrible weather

The 3 - 4 Rugby Championship? is a little like the 'Mountains of Moria' - made up of three main peaks and a support cast member who gets killed off early - climbed over by hobbits, elves and a few others from far away lands, although they all feel part of the band - home and away, makes it seem to feel over long for what it is

The AP - like Kilimanjaro - sounds like it is really quite impressive, until you realise that everyone including your gran has been there for charity. Easy to get to, but still a tough to reach the peak

The Pro12 - The three peaks - could be considered easier by some snobby mountains, but made more difficult by the participants desire to do them all in 24hrs - without a big support cast

The 14 - The rockies - has some good high peaks, but is full of over paid -show boats sporting expensive ski and walking equipment - has good coffee though

The HC - Montes (on Mars) - a range of mountains that could be reachable, if we all worked together, but political and greed means likely not to be walked upon in our life time

Cyril wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, shoot for the stars man. The SH tour the NH each year and regularly grand slam it (or effectively so). We would never say how awesome we are because we beat the current 6N champs. It's as irrelevant to us as the 4N is to you guys.

SH teams are clearly superior.  always have been , and certainly are today.

but the 6N competition is a different beast. not by virtue of the quality of the rugby on display, or the ranking of the teams competing it.

hence why its meaningless to compare.

Not quite always. But then I understand that GE doesnt like to talk about that

Near enough to make no difference....

I think it made a huge difference on GE's psyche. Even the 2013 England win against NZ meant he couldn't use a computer or even type for six months   

Took them until 1969 to overtake Wales in test matches. Again odd how Gloriaempire tries her best to wum and fails again bless her.

For me the 6N has to be Everest. It is the mountain that draws people in from over the world due to its history and prestige. It may not be the technically most difficult but it is the ´highest´and one that saw various European nations desperate to conquer in its origins. Even though the conquerors of it lose significance with each passing year, people are nevertheless still drawn to it. However, with the passing of time, doubts are made about whether people are truly climbing its summit. Some are calling into question whether only those with wealth or climbing pedigree are the only ones able to scale the summit without endangering their lives or putting other people's lives at risk. Also the danger is when you climb Everest, you think you have reached the ceiling of the world but in climbing terms you haven't really demonstrated an all round climbing ability. You have succeeded in trying conditions and it is a notable achievement but there are so many other summits that may have lesser reputations but are arguably much more noteworthy and challenging.

The 4N is Mt Cook. Every year a little is knocked off the summit but the mountain is still growing. It is not a mountain that can be compared in international terms but it is one that in certain areas, such as technicality, that are more difficult. For that reason, it is a good training ground for those with higher aspirations. They are the perfect foothills to train in if you have bigger climbing goals. Ice climbing, crevasses, avalanche risks, these are all an ever present danger and they are the perfect training ground for encountering those risks when more is on the line. The curious thing is that you climb Mt Cook and nobody really takes much notice. You can do it with one artificial limbs or in record time but it won't get put in the papers. You're expected to climb all the highest summits in the world and even then it will only get a brief mention. But if you do so, you will know that those summits were reached in large part to the graft you put in on Mt Cook.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:For me the 6N has to be Everest. It is the mountain that draws people in from over the world due to its history and prestige. It may not be the technically most difficult but it is the ´highest´and one that saw various European nations desperate to conquer in its origins. Even though the conquerors of it lose significance with each passing year, people are nevertheless still drawn to it. However, with the passing of time, doubts are made about whether people are truly climbing its summit. Some are calling into question whether only those with wealth or climbing pedigree are the only ones able to scale the summit without endangering their lives or putting other people's lives at risk. Also the danger is when you climb Everest, you think you have reached the ceiling of the world but in climbing terms you haven't really demonstrated an all round climbing ability. You have succeeded in trying conditions and it is a notable achievement but there are so many other summits that may have lesser reputations but are arguably much more noteworthy and challenging.

The 4N is Mt Cook. Every year a little is knocked off the summit but the mountain is still growing. It is not a mountain that can be compared in international terms but it is one that in certain areas, such as technicality, that are more difficult. For that reason, it is a good training ground for those with higher aspirations. They are the perfect foothills to train in if you have bigger climbing goals. Ice climbing, crevasses, avalanche risks, these are all an ever present danger and they are the perfect training ground for encountering those risks when more is on the line. The curious thing is that you climb Mt Cook and nobody really takes much notice. You can do it with one artificial limbs or in record time but it won't get put in the papers. You're expected to climb all the highest summits in the world and even then it will only get a brief mention. But if you do so, you will know that those summits were reached in large part to the graft you put in on Mt Cook.

Or you can get a helicopter to take you to Cook's summit, a little bit like the train to Yr Wyddfa. Also of note is everyone climbing Everest (named after a Welshman by the way ) are climbing higher than the British team that first got to the summit as Everest continues to get higher.  

Riskysports wrote:Well as i spent some time on this and it got lost in the 'my dad is bigger than your dad' boring chat - thought I would repost it :-)

If the World cup is Everest... then

The 6 Nations is K2 - while not quite as high (and mighty) as Everest, but one of the hardest to climb and subject to some terrible weather

The 3 - 4 Rugby Championship? is a little like the 'Mountains of Moria' - made up of three main peaks and a support cast member who gets killed off early - climbed over by hobbits, elves and a few others from far away lands, although they all feel part of the band - home and away, makes it seem to feel over long for what it is

The AP - like Kilimanjaro - sounds like it is really quite impressive, until you realise that everyone including your gran has been there for charity. Easy to get to, but still a tough to reach the peak

The Pro12 - The three peaks - could be considered easier by some snobby mountains, but made more difficult by the participants desire to do them all in 24hrs - without a big support cast

The 14 - The rockies - has some good high peaks, but is full of over paid -show boats sporting expensive ski and walking equipment - has good coffee though

The HC - Montes (on Mars) - a range of mountains that could be reachable, if we all worked together, but political and greed means likely not to be walked upon in our life time

I read it. Some good metaphors but I contest that you cannot describe the 6N and mountains and not reference the north face of the Eiger because of the publicity it gets, how for years it has captured the publics attention, its 100% european (first man to climb the Eiger was Irish) and it is terrifying for its participants.

Thank you for confirming my analogy rainbow.   

Actually Kia, I think you're right about the 6N being Everest. It's overly commercial, there's a struggle for oxygen, and teams are halted near the top by the SH step

good analogies

6N is also Everest-like in that it tends to still attract over-the-hill climbers who are a bit of a liability to the rest of their group, get carried by their group, and are an emotional favourite....not going to mention specific names though

GloriousEmpire wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:the rugby championship/S15 is just one good financial crisis in emerging markets away from implosion. (ie Argentina being dumped, or ARFU going bankrupt, etc, etc)

the geography, and rugby participation imbalances makes it so.

yes it regularly has 3 of the top4 sides in IRB ranking competing.

but it just doesnt cut it overall in appeal, commercial attractiveness, history or proximity, when compared to the 6N.

4 out of the 6 Nations would rather win the 6N (England and France might possibly prefer a RWC).

none of the SH big 3 would prefer a Rugby Championship over a RWC.

So folks keep saying, but as far as I can see, the SH comps are expanding and strengthening. With Japanese franchise added to superrugby the cash will flow, player drain will ease and audience will expand - hence SANZAR revenue will expand.  Adding a pacific franchise will boost player mobility in the pacific region, aid the islands and boost the entertainment value. As far as I can see the SH is in rude health and just getting stronger. NZ is picking up interest in the US via the worlds largest corporate rugby sponsorship...

By comparison the nh is a mess, the European tournament is in death throws, welsh clubs starved of players, France don't have a single winger to choose from their clubs and the country v club drama rumbles on.

The NH need another RWC winner before they and their traditions begin to sink into global irrelevance.  

Is their a mountain that is sinking into the sea?

Yes indeed, there are many examples of mountains sinking into the sea.  However, once Atlantis sunk under the waves (probably a bunch of soccer players anyway) there are very few examples of this happening outside of the Pacific Rim of Fire.  Which of course is the home ocean of Super Rugby.  I would be very careful about over-expansion and the financial damage which goes with it.  American sport has fantastic successes, but also some dismal failures, most of which were due to over-expansion.  

I also wouldn't misunderstand the apparent implosion of an individual NH club/franchise competition nor of the inevitable realignment of the teams below the national levels.  A professional sport only 20 years old should need realigment and that is all that is happening.  OK, it is happening with a lot of unnecessary emotion and ocean-loads of immaturity.  But once the final vestiges of the old amateur management has been purged like a bad burrito, it is concievable the sport will go from strength to strength and eventually take over the rest of the civilised world.  Then the world will take a new name:  Rugbyshire.  Named after a village in middle-England.  So, no matter where you go, England will always be with you.  In your heart.  Climb that mountain if you will, mon ami.  

Funny how the NH needs to be "re-aligned", but the SH comps are growing organically without teething pain isn't it? Hard to know where pragmatism ends and wishful thinking starts with all that "inevitable" "purging" and "just-you-wait-and-see-it'll go from strength to strength, just, really, soon".

Apologies, but I have to answer this seriously - but you went serious first!  I don't think the SANZAR Nations and Super Rugby are growing organically (and I take organically to mean at the grass roots).  I believe they are growing mostly due to Sky Sports tv money.  Much closer to the NFL as a great made for tv sport.  To be fair, I absolutely credit SANZAR for having the vision to grasp the television as a financial engine.  The 6 Nations predates the invention of the television.   Yes, the old world NH Rugby nations do need to re-align.  Rugby in the NH is continuing to grow, and Rugby in the SH grows, too.  And I believe a good portion of this growth is 'organic'  The issues are how to deal with the increasing impact of tv money and the attendant shift in power amongst the stakeholders.  This is the challenge in the NH and why alignment is needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5R-_ZUf0wY

Power is shifting from the close spectator model that served the nh so well, and to the mass distributed tv audience in the SH. This is where the quality and entertainment of the games pay a premium above the crusty old "traditions" of the stodgy northern game.

If the nh unions want to keep up they will have to address the sub standard pitches and conservative game plans.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Power is shifting from the close spectator model that served the nh so well, and to the mass distributed tv audience in the SH. This is where the quality and entertainment of the games pay a premium above the crusty old "traditions" of the stodgy northern game.

If the nh unions want to keep up they will have to address the sub standard pitches and conservative game plans.

Landsdowne road, Croke parke, RDS, Thomond park and Raven Hill are always immaculate playing surfaces. No issue with Irish rugby pitches (and Croke park).

6 nations has survived over 100 years and is as popular as ever. No reason why "tradition" needs to change.