Kananns

To be more realistic, rugby players have almost no protection while football players had pads all over and also a helmet to protect them from head injuries and so forth. Imagine being stepped on with those rugby boots which have cleats as well on the head by a fouling players when the referree isn't looking. There's no helmet to protect you then! Football has so much stoppage times, no wonder why some players maybe practically fat or extremely overweight. In rugby, there are no blockers as there are in fact, everyman on his own. The game is about 80 minutes or slightly longer depending on injury time. For 40 minutes, a continuous game, very few football players would last a rugby. I think over-all, rugby players would be much better athletes with much better stamina. Thre rugby front row are formidable 'Hercules/gladiators' who push each other in scrums without helmets? The young wing Jonah Lomu at barely the age of 20(270lbs) could take on six guys and still score, running at a lightning pace for his weight class(100m in 10.8s), could squat 825lbs! I've seen big football players but they run a lot slower at that weight and never had the fluidity that Lomu would've. I don't think there are running backs that big , that fast and that strong. Or the South African wing Habana whose best 100m is a spectacular 10.25sec! His athleticism, quickness, and composure through a such grueling sport. I would vote for rugby players being tougher and much more enduring. While football players are spoiled with so many coaching clinics, juiced-up even before they go to the gym, getting so many time-outs, they're lazy. Football players might have some big hits, but they were wearing protective clothing, so I actually call that sissy-ish.

Some anthropologists associated red hair, green eyes and a freckled complexion with the people of Ireland. According to an Irish medical journal, at least some 21% of Irish people were green-eyed. Green eyes are also the rarest eye colors, so is red hair the rarest of hair colors.

According to a Danish geneticist Eiberg, all blue-eyed people are related since they're all can be traced to an individual who lived in South-eastern Europe, some 6,000 years ago. I personally seriously doubt that fact, however then are all blondes also related? Due to the fact blondes are also common in countries where blue eyes are common somehow. Numerically Russia has the most, but percentage-wise it's Finland. Of course estimates do vary, however according to my research this estimate seems the most accurate. Additionally, it has been known that Lithuania was the first country in Europe where blondes became numerous.

The truth there are plenty of Black people or people of African descent who suffer directly or indirectly from racism which comes from Whites. Even at the highest level, professional soccer players of African descent still have go through racist onlookers making monkey noises, throwing bananas, slurring racial insults. This goes on countries such as Spain, Serbia, Croatia,etc.. The treatment of Africans there is so inhumanely disgusting! Thus I just wondered once to think maybe racism, an ignorant behavior could passed to offsprings genetically. We cannot deny that racism exists, but is it culurally/genetically passed to the next generation.

I've been aware that since "the genetical revolution" and the Oppenheimer theory. Many people are confused with the R1b Y-Dna Haplogroup. R1b Y-Dna is by far the commonest haplogroup in Western Europe. Thus it would be very normal for it to be highest in the westernmost areas and more "isolated" like western Ireland and Basques regions in Spain/France. This doesn't necessarily mean that Basques are Irish or vice-versa, just that that Western European marker is highest among those respective groups. I always doubted Oppenheimer's theory, and recently genetical studies showed that although both are R1b, but their subclades are quite different. I always saw the Irish different from the Basques/ other Iberians! In facial features, the Irish male facial features seem more rugged as many other Northwestern Europeans while that of Basques is softer, gracile as most Southern Europeans. In Pigmentation, I have plenty of stats regarding both groups. An old study done on the Irish shows them to have a very pale skin(typically Northern European), in hair color to be predominantly brown-haired( 35% medium, 40% dark brown) rarely black-haired( l 3%). They still seem to be similar to Northern and Central European people. However due to their Keltic strain they're less blond but much more red-headed(10%) than their mostly Germanic-speaking northern European neighbors. That doesn't mean they're Iberians, Ireland is still lighter than Belgium/France as a whole. In eye color, Ireland is similar or equal to Scandinavian/Baltic nations according to this study over 76% light! The Basques on the other hand were much darker in all aspects though they're lighter than Iberia as a whole. The most recent estimate which was done in the 21st century much more accurate than the one done in 1940's! For Ireland in hair color 15%(blonde),10%(red-haired),13%(light brown),62%(mostly medium to dark brown), eye color 66%(blue),17%(brown),13%(gray,green,hazel). For Basques hair color 7%(blonde), 1%(ginger), 7%(light brown),85%(medium brown to black), eye color 17%(blue), 11%(green,gray/hazel). In skin types 75% of Irish are type I and II(probably the fairest in Europe) while for Basques at least 70% are III and IV. Thus in my opinion Irish are definitely not Iberians as some want to paint them as. Having dark brown hair is not a necessarily an indication of Iberian ancestry. I think there has been some exaggeration as to link them to Iberia! Additionally the Y-Dna doesn't paint the whole genetical picture, don't ever forget that! I am predominantly a European hybrid of mostly Dutch(from Drenthe),Belgian(Flanders) and 1/16 Irish(Cork).

Since only 1% of the world population might be red-haired. It's only in Northwestern Europe where red hair is commonest, especially in British Isles. Estimates for red hair in ethnic European populations( This doesn't include non-European immigrant populations who began arriving in Europe since the 1600's). It goes from highest to lowest. Scotland(13%),Wales(11%),Ireland(10%),England(6%),Norway,Iceland(5%),Belgium(4%),Sweden,Denmark,Germany,Netherlands,France,Switzerland(3%), Finland,Austria(2%),Spain,Italy,Slovenia,Hungary,the Czech Republic,Poland,Latvia,Estonia(1%). In France it's among the Bretons(Kelts) that red hair, ruddy and freckled complexion are commonest. In Spain it's in Galicia an old Keltic enclave, in Belgium its Wallonia(Belgae tribes). Irish, Scotch,Welsh are Kelts. Few exceptions are the tiny minority of Udmurts in Russia are also very red-headed. According to the BritishDNA project, 40% of Britons are carriers of red hair gene and 46% of the Irish. To me it seems it is, but why? Can you refute this? I don't believe in that Palaeolithic connection nonsense. If it was, then the whole Europe should've been equally red-haired. Why do you think?

Perhaps the Ice Age had a strong influence on our ancestors when they were hiding and living in caves for shelter. This curiously as one goes from north to south. The GWAS study on European pigmentation recently released results when comparing four different European populations(Portuguese, Irish,Polish and Italians). The Irish came out the lightest in terms of skin, eye and hair color too! Especially Irish women who came out the lightest. Polish were similar to the Irish in terms of hair and eye color, but they were "darker-skinned" more similar to Portuguese. Italians were the darkest-skinned.