Faf called up to replace Bongi

Usual Rassie logic

Bongi stayed behind to deal with a family matter apparently

So the Boks are travelling with 2 hookers and 4 scrumhalves. Should never have taken Reinach, with Faff as a backup

Wessels is a hooker as well so they have 3

Just Rassie treating players like garbage again.

Watch the last ten minutes of the WC final to see Faf's value.

Faf should have been in the squad since his last game, where he performed well.

I feel for players like Johan Grobbelaar and Andre Hugo Venter.

They get dropped for Marnus VD Merwe?? Dr. Lucky,s Buddy from the cheetahs…. He is not Making right with players….

I know some doesn’t like J luc, but the guy has been picked so many time’s, but he never gets to play?

What is the use of picking him?….If I was him I would tell the Dr. " To go vlieg in his moer!! "

Anycase I think we are in for a uphill battle in New Zealand…..if we win one game there, we will be lucky….

I really don’t know how these coaches heads work - how the hell has Reinach leapfrogged Faf in the pecking order - it’s ridiculous especially considering Faf is a year younger

What the fuck do they see in the likes of Mostert, Orie, Marci v Staaden, Fouche, Nortje etc yet turn their backs on the likes of Roos, the du Preez twins, Grobelaar, AH Venter, Wilco and Thomas for ages, David Kriel, Vincent Tsituka, Cobus Wiese, Ruben v Heerden, Ruan Venter etc

Makes zero sense to me

Rassie has a plan as they say.

Surely you understand his logic Dave!

I for one do not think that we will hold the All Blacks in cheque or even win one game in NZ.

I’m not one for predictions but the AB’s have nothing to scare us

Our issue is that we are off form not helped by the fact Rassie keeps chopping and changing the side

"I really don’t know how these coaches heads work - how the hell has Reinach leapfrogged Faf in the pecking order - it’s ridiculous especially considering Faf is a year younger"

It's easy. Rassie is an ego maniac. He hates when players build names as superstars. That's why Willemse barely gets picked, why Faf gets left at home, why Sacha is somehow our best 10 yet is third in the pecking order...on and on. He prefers those with less personality that don't put their heads above the parapet because Rassie loves the limelight and wants it all to himself.

But yah, it makes total sense to have 9s in the squad.

Ego maniac - what a load of shit

Willemse has been out injured and is lacking form

Sacha the same

"Willemse has been out injured and is lacking form

Sacha the same"

Tell me you watched no Stormers URC games without telling me you watched no Stormers URC games.

Sacha was the best back in SA this year. You mong.

"Sacha was the best back in SA this year. You mong."

Only in the easy games...and he dipped in form for the last match or two.

Spot on Draad oh dipshit here probably plays rugby video games and thinks it’s reality

It’s about as accurate as a 6ft person weighing 95 kg being fat

This is the stupidity we are dealing with here

But alas its down to Rassie’s ego - fuck me put this loser to sleep

Draad, the Stormers were woeful this year. Sacha won you a good few games on his own.

His individual performances never dipped. He just can't pull games out of the fire on his own every time. That's far from a dip in form. That's just him being human and 30% better than everyone else as opposed to 100%.

He played so well that Manie pissed off to Japan. Literally.

Also, what do you mean the "easy games"? You mean the easy games you guys were losing until Sacha stood up and made the difference?

And yes, Dave...you are an absolute lard arse.

We've seen your FB profile.

Oh wow my FB profile tells you I’m fat

Why am I not surprised - your level of stupidity knows no boundaries

Now talk us through Jessie Kriel being fat - bright spark

Yes, Fatty...they're called pictures.

You know what those are, right?

Haha "How does that picture, showing how fat I am, prove that I'm fat?"

I really need to understand what law firm ever hired you.

Fuck me you are profoundly stupid

6 foot is 183 centimeters….179 centimeters is 5’ 10”.

I’m 1.82m not sure where you dragged 1.79m from but I guess you have evidence to prove me wrong?

Waaaaaaaaahahaha…dwarf!

The following is just for general knowledge : Six Foot is 182.88m.

A 182 cm tall person who weighs 95 kg has a BMI of 28.7, which is classified as overweight.

You can calculate BMI using the formula: weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (kg/m²).

For this case, it would be 95 kg ÷ (1.82 m × 1.82 m) = 95 ÷ 3.3124 = 28.68, rounded to 28.7

Hold on….I’m 6’ 1.5” ….I just didn’t know I thought I was 5’!1.5”.

So Mpower you dumbfuck by your logic Jessie Kriel is overweight - try fucking waking up

Moffie are you struggling with 1.82m??

I am 184m tall and weigh 85 kg. My BMI is 25.11. So I am 0.36kg overweight.

For my height, a healthy weight is between 62.6 - 84.6kg max.

M, according to that formula DDP is obese and Eben is severely overweight, bordering obese...it's nonsense...the idea is OK but the envelopes for being overweight and obese are ridiculous.

Fuck are people really this stupid?

I have a flat stomach, definitely not a 6 pack, no love handles and thanks to enjoying lifting weights and working out pretty much as solid as can be.

But apparently I’m fat according to a bunch of fucking idiots who have never seen me or if they have, it was more than 20 years ago

But I’m in good company - Jessie Kriel is also fat

Look man, firstly this is how BMI and ideal weight are calculated. It’s a standard calculation and I didn’t make it up!

Your ideal weight is between 61.3 - 82.5 Kg Max, for your Height of 1.82m.

So don’t get snotty because you about 12.5 KG overweight. Eat less Food, especially ice cream and do more training to have less body fat :)

Jesse is Ripped at 95kg but is 1.86m tall and has More Muscles than Body Fat. A Muscular body are HEAVIER than a leaner body.

So You the one that need to catch a Wake Up Oros Man :)

Same counts for DDP and Eben Draad!! FFS just go look it up, inform yourselves and get Knowledge!!

Jesse Kriel is heavier because building muscle is more dense than fat, meaning a muscular body can weigh more than a leaner one with the same volume.

This increased muscle mass is essential for his professional rugby career, as it provides the strength, power, and injury prevention needed for the sport.

His training and nutrition are specifically designed to build and maintain this muscular physique while keeping him fast and agile enough to compete at a high level.

Muscle mass falls 20% between 20s and 50s….more like 40% between a professional athlete and an arm chair warrior like Moundjarr-ou.

So no Eben and Jessie aren’t comparable.

For age 55, 5 10” and 230 lbs there is only one diagnosis….clinically obese.

Moffie you keep knock, knock, knocking on heavens door - it defines you

Tick, tock, tick, tock

Yes I freely admit I’m 78…..but I’ve never been clinically obese…..tick, tick, tick.

Nor have I ever been obese or even fat so take your 78 and live with the fact your time is all but done twat

Dave, be honest, you ate ALL the pies.

And now you're telling porkies.

M...I know muscles are heavier than fat, but although DDP is ripped, he's not overly muscular...his walk around weight is about 105kg. According to the formula that's obese...wich is horse sh!t...same applies to eben ...borderline obese...so the brackets are for people with no muscles and only fat?...or a bit of muscles? Were do you draw the line...the target BMI has to be adjusted...my son is about Dave's length...slightly shorter actually...broad shoulders, solid legs...no visible fat anywhereon his body...not builtlike a prop, rather a flanker or center...he is 16 and fit...clinically obese...horse sh!t...one big bloody lie...before I turned 22, I was ideal weight according to that scale, but all the doctors advised me to try to gain weight...I only started bulking up @27...before that I could eat like I wanted, trained in the gym for hours, couldn't gain much weight.

Ok DB….Yet again I didn’t make up the BMI, Ideal weight, calculations. I guess it’s different from person to person.

Draad, do you know what the word average means?

Its like me telling you that the median temperature for Cape Town is 22 degrees and you make a long post telling us that median temperatures are rubbish because it's 30 degrees today.

Let's continue the analogy.

Assume the median temperature for Cape Town is 22 degrees. Now let's assume that it is mid July. What are the chances of the temperature being above the median? What about January, above or below?

Dave is 55. BMI is an AVERAGE. Do you think Dave has more or less body fat than DDP, Eben and Kriel?

Hint...he is 55! He isn't a pro athlete and I'll put money if the fact that he's not on TRT.

I'll say it one more time...BMI is an average.

Here, I got Chat to put together a best guess based on age(which you seem to ignore), height and weight.

1. Share of 55-year-old UK men who are overweight (BMI ? 25): ? 80% (men 55–64 in England; latest Health Survey).
2. For a 55-year-old man who is 95 kg and 1.78 m:
3. BMI ? 30.0 (right at the obesity threshold).
4. Using population stats (not extra measurements), the best statistical guess is:
5. > 99% chance he’s at least overweight (because BMI=30 is ? 25).
6. ~95–97% chance the high BMI reflects excess body fat rather than unusually high muscle, based on meta-analyses showing BMI’s high specificity (~97%) for true adiposity at obesity-range values.
7. Among adults with BMI-defined obesity, studies suggest ~30–35% are “only” obese by BMI but fall in the body-fat–defined overweight range (i.e., still excess fat, just not body-fat–defined “obesity”). So a reasonable split is ~65–70% probability of body-fat–defined obesity and ~30–35% probability of body-fat–defined overweight.

Context for age: in the same survey, 75–76% of men ? 55 have high/very-high abdominal size, which further tilts the odds toward fat rather than muscle at this BMI.

Bottom line: For this profile (55 y, 95 kg, 1.78 m), the statistical best guess is overweight with a very high likelihood of excess body fat — and roughly two-thirds chance he meets body-fat–defined obesity.

Draad, do you know what the word average means? (Of coarse I do, don't be condescending)

Its like me telling you that the median temperature for Cape Town is 22 degrees and you make a long post telling us that median temperatures are rubbish because it's 30 degrees today. (Except that there is a bracket - from "this" to "this"...which is suppose to make up for the variation in body types, etc. I say it is wrong or hopelessly too generic and can't be used as a general guideline...some of us are Vikings and not butterflies ;-) )

Let's continue the analogy.

Assume the median temperature for Cape Town is 22 degrees. Now let's assume that it is mid July. What are the chances of the temperature being above the median? What about January, above or below?

Dave is 55. BMI is an AVERAGE. Do you think Dave has more or less body fat than DDP, Eben and Kriel? (That's not the point. The BMI for DDP and Eben falls into obese, so clearly the brackets does not apply for professional athletes...or it is simply wrong...how unfit must you be before it stars to apply?)

Hint...he is 55! He isn't a pro athlete and I'll put money if the fact that he's not on TRT.

I'll say it one more time...BMI is an average. (Actually it's not an average, it's a ratio with different brackets for the average person. I get that. I say the target brackets for being over weight or obese is unrealistic and wrong, backed up by the fact that it does not work for professional athletes who are prime examples for excellence in fitness.)

Here, I got Chat to put together a best guess based on age(which you seem to ignore), height and weight.

1. Share of 55-year-old UK men who are overweight (BMI ? 25): ? 80% (men 55–64 in England; latest Health Survey).
2. For a 55-year-old man who is 95 kg and 1.78 m:
3. BMI ? 30.0 (right at the obesity threshold).
4. Using population stats (not extra measurements), the best statistical guess is:
5. > 99% chance he’s at least overweight (because BMI=30 is ? 25).
6. ~95–97% chance the high BMI reflects excess body fat rather than unusually high muscle, based on meta-analyses showing BMI’s high specificity (~97%) for true adiposity at obesity-range values.
7. Among adults with BMI-defined obesity, studies suggest ~30–35% are “only” obese by BMI but fall in the body-fat–defined overweight range (i.e., still excess fat, just not body-fat–defined “obesity”). So a reasonable split is ~65–70% probability of body-fat–defined obesity and ~30–35% probability of body-fat–defined overweight.

Context for age: in the same survey, 75–76% of men ? 55 have high/very-high abdominal size, which further tilts the odds toward fat rather than muscle at this BMI.

Bottom line: For this profile (55 y, 95 kg, 1.78 m), the statistical best guess is overweight with a very high likelihood of excess body fat — and roughly two-thirds chance he meets body-fat–defined obesity.

No problem with that statement probably correct...Dave might be a bit over weight, but probably not hopelessly obese like you are trying to make out. Please remember that Chat will parrot the current consensus on the internet...and consensus change over time. Todays consensus can be tomorrow's myth or lie.

"(Actually it's not an average, it's a ratio with different brackets for the average person. I get that. I say the target brackets for being over weight or obese is unrealistic and wrong, backed up by the fact that it does not work for professional athletes who are prime examples for excellence in fitness.)"

What percentage of the population are pro athletes? 0.01-0.02

When discussing BMI, using pro-athletes is to discount the average is entirely inconsequential and irrelevant. It's like me telling you that most people aren't serial killers and you bring up Ted Bundy.

You are literally using outliers to discount a well accepted statistical average, while telling me not to condescend in asking you if you know what an average is.

Perhaps I'm not understand...but outliers are outliers for a reason. It's right there, in the name.

And you're doing this, while arguing for Dave, who is in an age bracket where unless you are a literal fitness freak, you'll naturally have a poor muscle/mass ratio. In other words, somebody who by all metrics sits on the wrong end of that average.

Statistically speaking, it is very likely that Dave is a few KGs aways from being classed as obese...by science.

Here's one for you. Do you think there are more pro athletes or obese people within a given population?

Profound stupidity has no limits - Buttplug you are sooooo stupid.

Being 55 has fuck all to do with anything, considering I workout 5 days a week, have never been fat before

I have no visible fat on me - Im naturally a big guy so hence the fact that all these so called scientific measures are a load of utter shit

Your inability to comprehend the variables in body types speaks volumes

According to science Wilco Louw should weigh 100kg’s, he weighs 145kg’s thanks to his body type - the man is a square

Wake the fuck up please - you are embarrassing yourself

I was once told by a physician that the easiest and quickest way to get a very general healthy weight check for any individual, is to always take the 100 from their height in centimeters.

If you are 184cm, then your healthy weight should be around 84kgs.

This obviously changes with sports people or other athletes, especially when muscle is involved, but this was a general sum that he worked with for the average person that could quickly give an indication of a healthy weight.

I have often tried this theory with family and friends and it does make a lot of sense most of the time, but it could be out a bit in certain circumstances ..