When will technique overcome weigh difference?

Here is one for the carthorses i.e. the front-rowers.
I was watching the Scotland/SA JWC match on Sky last week and the commentators said that the SA front row weighed over 350kg. I have played with some pretty big packs but never one approaching that weight in the front row. As you would expect, they shunted the Scots around the park although things did balance up a bit after subs were made on each side.
But what would you say the maximum weight you can give away is and rely on technique for parity? Most of us will remember Tom Smith holding his own in the Lions tour so it can be done but there must come a point where no amount of technique can save your head from disappearing up your own backside.

150kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyokudozan_Kazuyasu

Well, that killed that thread stone dead!!!

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Well, that killed that thread stone dead!!!

Not realy a weak man can beat anybody if the match is fixed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/japan-sumo-wrestling-match-fixing

Sorry, was just trying to creatively suggest that technique might always have a hope, no matter the physical imbalance.

Just remember that ant...

No offence taken, mate.
But "creative"? On 606 boards? Blimey O'Reilly, you can tell you weren't scarred by some of the guff on the old BBC 606 boards!!

In my experience NZ has generally had a smaller tight 5 (bar Hayman) but have done okay. Its just the black jersey that makes them look big.

Now our backs are currently a different story.

Two things. The scrum is not just the front row. If the second rows and back row pack down properly then technique will play a big role. However, if the 8 isn't binding or the flankers have their heads in the air it has a massive impact. Also it does not matter how heavy a prop is if he is too tall. As the game goes on a shorter lighter prop with good technique should gain the upper hand. Heyman is tall but he gets away with it because relatively his legs are quite short. Hayes however has relatively long legs, therefore his hips are higher when he packs down, meaning a shorter prop can take his back under the perpendicular and then push upwards 'popping' him up.

Tecnhique still outranks weight and size. Munster have two of the worlds biggest tight heads. John Hayes and Tony Buckley. Hayes is 130kg and Buckley is 135kg.

However both of them gut shunted about by much much smaller looseheads. Someone like Thomas Domingo is about 3-4 stone lighter than they are and would make mince meat out of them.

It all comes down to newtons 2nd and 3rd laws of motion really.

Size and brute strength will only work up to a point and against a good technician a big prop with poor technique will get found out. Take the Heino final as an example.

First half the man mountain that is Tonga'uiha was dominating through brute strength, but once Leinster tweaked a couple of things in the scrum at half time, the smaller Ross destroyed him despite being outmuscled.

As Glas has pointed out, it is not just about the props in any case, it is about getting the right balance across your pack and getting them all working in harmony when they pack down.

roddersm wrote:It all comes down to newtons 2nd and 3rd laws of motion really.

Ultimately explain it. But there's a heck of of a lot of variables involved before the net product is resolved. Traction, rigidity, thrust/kg etc. It's about dynamics - not only physical, but organisational for every rugby interaction and then the small matter of balancing the the optimal solutions.

This article should be proffered to a physics department specialising in sports science, psychology and so on.

An easier question to resolve would be 'will the 3-minute mile ever be achieved?' in my opinion.

Well I was a loosehead prop and weighed only 92kg's when playing, as my technique improved I could handle bigger opponents.

I beleive that weight means nothing without technique.

Agree with most of the comments above, and the other example (from olden times) that I'd add for small is beautiful is Ian McLachlan, Mighty Mouse - gave away a huge amount in size, but never saw him bested in the scrum.

For a prop, I have a theory that all else being equal, weight, technique, etc., in a properly refereed scrum, the prop with the short leg length should win - bear with me on this one, it's cos if they both want to scrummage with backs that are level with the ground and they both bend their legs equally, the prop with the longner leg length will inevitably have his back slanting downwards from bum to heid. Any biomechanical experts able to confirm or rubbish the theory?

LDCPete wrote:Size and brute strength will only work up to a point and against a good technician a big prop with poor technique will get found out. Take the Heino final as an example.

First half the man mountain that is Tonga'uiha was dominating through brute strength, but once Leinster tweaked a couple of things in the scrum at half time, the smaller Ross destroyed him despite being outmuscled.

As Glas has pointed out, it is not just about the props in any case, it is about getting the right balance across your pack and getting them all working in harmony when they pack down.

My point also Stag is that it does not matter what technique Hayes and Buckley adopt, their shape mitigates against them. The only technique you can adopt as a big man to get your hips lower (and therefore your back at perpendicular) is to have your legs further back, which in itself weakens the thrust from your thighs but also makes you susceptible to being tipped onto your nose. I also believe that at that size, they should both have been be loose heads anyway.

350kg at age group level? Did they have a bull elephant playing at loose head?

My impression is that bulk does play some role, but that good technique and having a well balanced (in terms of height) and well drilled front row can make up an awful lot of the difference.

Look at the size of the props for the Pacific Island teams - usually very heavy and quite tall. Then look at how effectively their scrummaging power is neutralised by a smaller but well drilled front row from the 3Ns or 6Ns sides.

Traditionally Boks if two players of equal skill are available the heaviest was picked.Last Saturday Crusaders v Blues,Crusaders conceded 35 Kgs in weight but monstered the Blues for much of the time.Players like Ian McLAuchlan[mighty mouse]actuallyheld up literally opposing front rows so he could scrum.Trouble is few Refs are hip to the tricks of the Front Row Mafia.Technique will beat weight every time all things being equal.But when the Dirty tricks brigade get started?.

I've always found technique to be more important than size. An example of this was in a match this season, the opposition loosehead must of only been about 70 kilos maximum, but he was putting up a fight against our number 3, whereas their bigger prop was struggling, so they swapped them roun, and I got to experience how much better the little guy was. He jsut got lower, and had better technique, same goes in most facets of play really, tackling, rucking (For example, see Brew against Baa-Baas) and all the other confrontational parts of the game.

I'm 6'2, my fighting weight used to be 18stone 10, packing down at loose and tight. In the amateurs, even I could give up up to 2 stone on my oposite number, but I was never bested because of technique, plus knowing most of the tricks!!
But on the whole, shorter props whether large or small were always more difficult to get to grips with, because as others have pointed out, it's very easy to let them get under you if you're not concentrating.

As someone else pointed out, it can also depend on the pack around you. Look at the Lions tour in 2009 - Vickery got shunted around by a very average prop when he had the big jessie AWJ behind him, but when he came back for another go in the 3rd test he had Shaw behind him and roles were reversed.

When I played regional rugby we I was Hooker weighing 13 and half stone, with two props both pushing 17 stone. In the first match against Kent we had the much more dominant scrum against an equally big pack, so I guess we had better technique. In the next game and Middlesex we were up against an even bigger front row than us but still we had the advantage. However against the much smaller fromt row of Essex we came unstuck as they got underneath and made life really difficult for me trying to strike the ball. It just illustrates that nowadays you don't have be as big to get an advantage in the scrums.