Size isn't Everything...

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog_posts/149-size-isn-t-everything-by-shane-williams

Fact is you cant go to light in a backline.  You lose the collisions and get driven back. Powder puff rtackles worry nobody. Difficulties unde rthe high ball etc etc

Maybe one brilliant little guy but not much more than that.

If these micro lights were so effective it would be realised and they would be in great demand. Fact is they are not in demand and to succeed they have to be really brilliant players. Shane Williams to me became increasing gunshy as time went on.

I don't agree with this assertion that size is of utmost importance. Alot of our most monstrous players are simply shocking when it comes to body position in contact, tackling technique and other facets of play. Just watch Bismarck when carrying the ball to see what I mean! There are numerous smaller players who are physically more dominant than players twice their size. Example; We've had Aplon man-handle the likes of Rocokoco, Nonu, Muliaina, Jauzion to name but a few! Yet the biggest Bok of all-time is consistently knocked back like a flea. In the Sharks/Stormers game Joe Pietersen handed off a hooker, then a loosehead and held up a lock before offloading. So size and weight is not a determiner of quality or usefulness. The French scrumhalf that smashed Bekker in 2009 was 78kg and 5'8. Some food for thought.

Sorry Beeno,

I would tend to agree with der Aristokrat!! not only that I think that some of the little guys have more between the ears than the big guys.

What strikes me more than anything is how stupid/blinded some people are to the reality of modern day rugby. One only needs to look at the size of the top 8 rugby nations to realise that size counts aplenty. If you cant see that you are either blind, stupid or lying to yourself.

There are no little guys playing test rugby today and if there is the odd small guy, they are exceptional talents like James O'Connor at a hardly light 90kg's.

The game has moved on where skill and size are a must at the top tier of test rugby - you cant have one without the other in order to succeed - its called reality people - please wake up to this fact.

Small guys do not play a part in modern test rugby, but for 9's and 10's - FACT

Hard as I try, you still keep missing the point Dave. You keep identifying mass with strength! Granted, in a collision sport such as rugby, greater mass can be advantageous. However, we should rather concern ourselves with identifying what we mean by strength. Lets take a look at the very components of strength:

- Fast twitch fibres
- Slow twitch fibres
- Group 3 fibres

These are the three types of muscles that we are made up of. The best example I could bring up are the Polynesian players. Yes, they have some very big boys in their ranks, but even their smaller players, of which there are many, have explosive power and strength. We in South Africa obsess over size, or overall mass. Yet look at how often through the course of the professional era we have struggled to tame the polynesian players playing both for the Pacific Islanders or New Zealand. Our priority for mass is misplaced, and rather we should be focusing on the development of these key muscle types. Our New Zealand counterparts prefer quality over quantity as well, so they end up with the desired explosive strength and power whilst being fresher and that's why those smaller players outgun our 'fatties' and last much longer.

I'm not saying that big is bad, or that small is better. I'm simply saying that big is not everything. Just as BMI is utterly useless determiner of body composition. You are too obsessed with weight rather than the physical make-up of a player. I can list several dozen first class players who are not big in mass, but are exceptionally explosive and powerful. You think the modern game demands size, when in fact it demands strength, explosive power, mobility and endurance.

But what's the use in talking to you about it? As I said, I have tried, but your are too hard-headed.
 

"Hard as I try, you still keep missing the point Dave.".....Just about says it all(sigh)

Moz hits the nail on the head. Watch what they do.

Of course coaches and selectors make these decisions for high level sides and consistently exclude small backs barring a few. They, like Beeno and Dave, understand the dynamics at play and see what a small player can and can' t achieve.  Consequently having watched and considered the contribution of small backs only a very few get picked. Apart from scrum half very few backs these days are under 90 kgs. This is a fact not the fiction being presnted.

Further the position worsens as we go along. In ten years time will there be even one back under 90 kgs

These fossils are living in the past and need to wake up and get to grips with the modern game! Hahahahahahhahahahaha

Game set and match to Beeno and Dave.

Pity though that Dave and Moz didn't watch what wee victoria did as a tight forward. They would have seen that apart from being tossed up in the air like a feather by his props he did very little -amazing ho wone can farbricate a reputation. Why - well because a 107 kg stringbean will never cut it as a modern day lock. All very simple and easy to understand if you haven't been conned of course! In the immortal words of Bakkies - "victor doesn't always play in the backline!!!! But what does Bakkies know!

For these sorts of reasons folk fail to grasp why the Boks need a power pack along the lines I suggested. Many simply do not understand Bok rugby and what makes it tick. Its that simple. Play the show ponies they bleat. Put in chilli boy ahead of a real tight forward like Bissie. Lets find another pap lock to replace victor - the taller and thinner the better. Wee brussouw and Spiesies are  a must in this retreating pack.

Pack our backline with little microlights as weight makes no difference. Bring back Russell, Joe at fullback. Aplon on the wing. De Jong at center. Man these guys will carve up the nz backlines they opine. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha side splitting stuff for sure.

To cut a very long story short, Shane Williams would not have made your test side.

In his hey day he might have. However I would probably not have another microlight in the side. In any event workable microlights are a rarity to find.

Nope the evidence against small backs being the exception to the rule is complete.

Funny, I don't remember anyone talking about a number of micro-lights making up the numbers in any test side. The argument is about a particular micro-light called Shane Williams or anyone player that has his skill levels and speed........hope that helps.

Well, for all the talk of size and weight, I cannot see where it has benefited our game; not since the 1950s. Our big moffies consistently get outgunned by smaller players with better technique. Dave in particular, and under 15 coach, has not coached at a level where size becomes less important. Again, fast-forward to present day and take a look at Greyling and Bismarck. More examples of this. The argument always gets shifted to extremeties such as 60kg backs to create the illusion that size is of prime importance. And for all your the talk of big packs, our most dominant pack to date has included both Brussow and Matfield!

South African rugby has been cultured on size and weight.......never on nous, skill and flair. Hell, 17 years after re-admission and we're beginning to see some running rugby........still without the nous mind you. It might be another decade before it filters into Bok rugby. I'm not knocking the players but I think the shackles of the past should be broken so that we can weigh the benefits of entertaining a Shane Williams type of player. With regard to Brussow, Oz had huge success with George Smith and Phil Waugh.

Our backs have not always been up to the size of the other tri natiosn backs although Jake did start to put that right. he palyed JP, Habana, Jaque, Jean, Frans Du Preez and James.

Now card that backline wa one of the first in years that could match OZ/nz  physically. Jake saw the obvious.

Now we want wee Joe at fullback, Aplon on the wing, de jong at center etc etc. Hahahhahaha but no thanks.

Our pack has not been dominant in a tri nations series for yonks and hence our dismal record

Wee matfield was missung in action as a tight forward and with ou lardy huffing and puffing and speisies behaving like a show pony, beast loafing etc we were some times down to 30% possession. As a consequence I pointed out wee brussouw was being knocked off the ball - something Moz investigated and concurred with.  Not all his fault as his tight 4 were getting spannered.

Those thinking we have seen a genuine Bok pack in recent years are severely mistaken. Last rtime we came close was the previous world cup with only matifled being a show pony. However the rest of the pack was good enough to carry him (927 kgif i rember correctly with matifled at a mere 107 kg. A decent 120 kg lock would have put tha tpack up to 940 kg.

It is a tradedy in a way that Louw went to Bath. Given he, Burger and Vermulen as our loose trio and our present  tight five the Stormers may have given an inkling of what was achievable. I am still hoping we see Burger, Vermulen and Elsatd as our loose tri this year and a 940 kg pack on show. It would be very interesting. Of course I would be willing also to drop to 930 kh and see Kostner at 8 if needs be. But I would dearly love to see the 940 kg pack at work. Lets see any side stop them near their line etc.

No awa ywith all this idenialism. Size does matter and it ssomething small folk jus thave to accept. A good big un beats a good littl eun and tha tabout sums it up. The EXCEPTION proves the rule.

Boks HAVE to get forward dominance - its a non negotiable. Its what Bok rugby was built on.

Physicality in a backline was never the issue. Under Straeuli we had  backs that thumped the hell out of our SANZAR opposition, but they were far too predictable. Under Jake we added speed and variation. There is nothing wrong with Aplon or Joe Pietersen, both have proven themselves to be far more physical than Lambie; yet Lambie is heavier, so it doesn't matter! Shameful.

And again we see the illusion of several micro-lights being thrown in our faces. I'm glad Shane Williams was born in Wales and not in South Africa.

This argument misses the art of the possible. With Maori, Tongan, Samoan and Fijian players to choose from, NZ and to some extent Oz have a flow of big, fast backs. We don't have nearly as rich a pipeline of that physical type. But we do have a lot of fast reflex athletes, who are plenty strong enough, but add the dimension of agility and intuition. Paulse, Habana, the young Januarie, Aplon and Mvovo are good examples. None of these players are big men.....Habana has bulked up hugely, too much probably....but he is no big framed player. At 180 cm his natural weight is probably 80 kgs.

We can't beat Oz and NZ for bulk in the backline. We can beat them for agility and pace. To do that we need to choose our best backs, not our heaviest backs.

Australia have a small backline, and not all Islanders are big! I listed a few monsters that are actually small. They sure as heck don't have any Bakkies Bothas or Os Du Randts among their ranks. Size does not account for their explosiveness.

Seems like some here are all confused.

Here are some SA backs;

Hogaard 90 kg

Morne Steyn 90 kg

Sadie 93 kg

Olivier 95 kg

Venter 93 kg

Bosman 100 kg

De Jong 88 kg

M Joubert 96 kg

Lambie 92 kg

Mvovo 91 kg

Odwa 96 kg

JP 102 kg

Riaan Viljoen 97 kg

Whitehead 95 kg

Kirchener 96 kg

Ebersohn 87 kg

Daniller 101 kg

JJ Englebrecht 95 kg

Peter Grant 93 kg

Jean De Villiers 105 kg

Habana 94 kg

Poolman 99 kg

Butch James 98 kg

Hollenach 100 kg

doppies 95 kg

Des Fountain 95 kg

Deon Van Rensburg 94 kg

Paul Jordaan 94 kg

Ludik 92 kg

Frans Steyn 110 kg

Taute 98 kg

Ebersohn and De jong are close to the 90 kg mark.

But who are these micro lights beating down the door for Bok selection. Lets exclude scrumhalves. We know about Aplon and Joe who some are touting.  Who are these mighty midgets getting a raw  deal. Please schedule these brilliant players I have missed out. Also explain why they are in such short supply. Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Explain why Jake White chucked out the microlights. Lets have some content please.

Seems our coaches are not really picking them.  THE EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE. Micro lights are a rarity. By all means consider players on merit but I can confidently inform you that there will be few micro lights cutting the mustard no matter how long this bleating continues. Coaches want to win as their livelihoods depend on it.

Frans Steyn at 110 kg really shows up how ludicrous it was to have your Bok lock at 107 kg.   Completelyand utterly outgunned and a significant part of our tight 5 problems over recent years

I rest my case or better still end of story!

Anything under 100kg is considered small Beeno.

 I'll keep it simple or should I paint pictures for you lot? I will say this for the last time, how many less than 90kg players are CURRENTLY playing test rugby for NZ, Oz, Boks, Wales, England, France and Ireland in the following positions - fullback, wing and centre?

That would be 35 players we are talking about - of the 35 how many weigh less than 90kg's huh? - I reckon the only one is Halfpenny of Wales. You see the modern trend here? Size does count - end of. At test level its all about size and skill - that is the rule - a player like Halfpenny is the exception and to be honest he hit the rugby scene on a high and has done very little for a good year or so - but even this little guy is built like a bodybuilder these days as he realises that size is a factor, hence his change.

You still don't grasp anything I have said.

 No I dont care what you have said - I am only pointing out the reality of modern day test rugby - you can bang on all you want about fibre and crap, it counts for nothing. What counts is the material evidence out there. 35 backs currently playing test match rugby for the top 7 rugby nations and all or 98% of them weighing over 90kg's - you dont have an answer to that - its case closed and that stat wont change, if anything that percentage will increase to 100% in time.

Only in SA do we have the odd small guy get a test cap or two - and that has nothing to do with merit and rugby - the likes of Aplon, de Jongh and Basson are sad excuses for test players - none of these would have smelt a test cap playing for any of the other top 7.

Counter the facts of modern day rugby and I might listen to you - it just wont happen - the modern test arena demands size and skill - not one or the other - end of

Dave once again you miss the point. Nobody is saying size doesn't matter. It does, especially at 12. But in almost any other backline position a small player can make it.  

Giteau did, Paulse did,  Habana did. None of these guys are over 5 11'. And these guys are not just succesful international players.....at various points they were the best backline player for the Wallabies and Boks respectively. 

Likewise bulked up, but slow....like Wynand Olivier... doesn't make it. All other things being equal, in all but inside centre, I'd trade size for speed any day. Giteau absolutely destroyed your man Wynand, to prove a point.

The idea is to get a balance. We could play Joe Pietersen at 15, but you would look for some height in the wings.

And who is  the best new Bok back to come along since 2007?  Would you believe, Patrick Lambie and he's a measly 5' 10" with a medium frame. Except for rugby conditioning he would weigh 185 lbs at most. He IS by today's standards a small man.

Some food for thought, every side we have fielded specifically for size has failed! Remember that monster pack of 2001? All week the hype was around this huge pack that was going to destroy England. So much so was this overhyped that a wealthy South African businessman bet a fortune on a Bok win. In the end it was a savage defeat with our big fatties being ruthlessly outmuscled. The rule is that you cannot judge quality or strength from a scale.

Agreed Card. Remember the Faan Rautenbach/Christo Bezuidenhout front row in the 2003 RWC QF. Huge....but destroyed by technique in the scrums. By the end of the game Bezuidenhout's opponent was explaining the finer points of scrummaging to him.

Greyling, so heralded last year..... is just like these chaps, a big lump with no technique and too long an upper body to be a great scrummager. Kruger is another big flop.

I like young Kitshoff he has a better build and some brains as well. But he has to prove it on the field of play.

If we want to find out if a player's the real deal.....we can't weigh him , we can't ultrasound him, we can't x ray him , we can't scan him. He has to prove it on the field of play....and Paulse, Habana, Williams, Giteau, and Lambie say there is still a role for a small chap. Oh and Dave your favourite for Bok 10....Elton Jantjies ...1.76m and 190 KGs stuffed with salt and beer. He is a tiny fella.

 Moz I cant go with the likes of Paulse as I did not rate him. I am not on about height at all. I'm talking about weight. I am also not saying small guys cant make it and the likes of Williams, Robinson and Giteau did make it as they were all special players - the small players we keep giving caps to are not special, not by any stretch - Aplon, de Jongh and Basson are average players - Aplon being the best of the lot.

I am also talking about modern day rugby ie today. Habana weighs 95kg's for a reason, Lambie weighs 92kg's these guys are not small.

I have no issue with Jantjies being small as a 10. But you cannot afford to have small guys on the wing at fullback and in particular in the centres. You say you need a big 12, yes you do as you do a 13. A test centre should not weigh less than 95kg's ideally and not many do.......Smith 95kg, Rougourie 100kg, Nono 105kg, Fourie 105kg, Jean 102kg, Frans Steyn 110kg, Toulangi 110kg, Ashley Cooper 98kg, SB Williams 105kg, Roberts 105kg, Williams 103kg, O'Driscoll 95kg, Barritt 95kg......there is a pattern here, same with the wings and fullbacks

Moz, Once again you are the proven voice of reason....more's the pity that it's wasted on some. There's nothing more to add I guess other than to say that I rated Paulse and I also rate Juan de Jongh......the latter brings a different dimension to the Bok backline with his speed and agility and I don't see him fainting when having to make a tackle. 

In concluding, I'll just say this.....weight can be fudged.....a player's frame, not so much. Sure you can cloak it with another layer of muscle, but the bones tell the story. By the bones Lambie and Jantjies are small men....short and average of shoulder. Sure you could get their weight up there. Hell, the tike Watson was pumped up to 105 kgs. But he was still no bigger than Craig Davidson who played beside him. They were hard to tell apart, except Davidson made his tackles.

A boxer puts on 5 or more lbs from the weigh in to the fight, depending how much they had to dry him out to make the weight class. I bet Jantjies is at his best at about 180 lbs, certainly not big. But getting the scales to show 190 lbs should be easy. And all these chaps know the threshold weights above which those pesky questions disappear.

My conclusion there are several small chaps among the best, for us and our competition.

Well said Moz. Something I find particularly amuising is that Dave keeps harping on about creative play, being epansive and scoring tries... yet he is loath to the idea of finding a place for a skilled and elusive player! He is insistant on fielding the heaviest team possible. Something that I, as an opposition coach, would like to exploit. A good coach finds a place for exceptional talent. Giteau, Paulse, Cullen to name but three.

Its clear the small guy proponents are on the ropes. Moz is trying a dodge by saying Habana is only so high etc. Both Habana and Lambie are over the benchmark 90 kg that we are discussing.  And no Card I was not saying they all needed to be100 kgs - we were discussing 90 kgs as the benchmark. I wouldn't mind if they wer rall over 100 kgs - that Welsh scrummie is great.

The facts as Dave so correctly says speak for themselves. Backs under 90 kgs are rare and will become rarer as time goes by.

Giteau broke past Olivier on one occassion Moz and you then jumped to the conclusion Olivier was weak defensively. Olivier then went on to prove he is one of our best defensive centers. CAnt recall giteau eve rgetting past Olivier again.  Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Where is Giteau today one asks. He progressively deteriorated and his small size was a factor. He doen't make the Oz size ove rthe last few years.

Your comments Moz about props with size lacking techniques is a paper argument. Compare a prop with techique and size against a prop with technique and no size. We all should know  who will win. Simarlarly with backline players - all other things being equal the bigger stronger player wins. This FACT is recognised by coaches and is reflected in their selections.

Face the facts of modern day rugby small backs under 90 kg will become rarer an drarer.

By all means dont hav ean absolutle yrigid rule tha trules out a player under 90 kgs but pick on merit. The factis that very few undr 90 kg will ever make it in international rugy. Fact als is you canno thave to many small guys in a backline.

 Please get with the trends folks you are way behind on the issue!  I wont even sa ymodern trends. Historically size has been getting bigger and bigge rwith each decade. You guys are estuck in the past so I hope all this has helped to ge tthe resident dinosaurs up to date!

Hahhahahahahahahaha fancy having to explain such basic fundamentals. We can though be thankful  "clever" maaik was not here to lend a "helping"  hand in this discussion.

To keep it simple folk just pick on meirit. Do that and you will find few small players in your side.

Case closed.

'CAnt recall giteau eve rgetting past Olivier again.".....says the rambling Hasbeen. I can't either, although I bet he has. But I can recall the Qualude running right past Olivier in exactly the same fashion last year. Slow players can't cover the outside gap.

As for props....give me a 115kg prop with technique like de Villiers of France over these 125kg fatties any day.

So true Moz, if size was everything, why are our fatties struggling? This has been the case for well over a decade now. Something just doesn't add up. Here are some monstrous front rowers:

Italy: Martin Castrogiovanni (Prop - 119kg)
Italy: Andrea Lo Cicero (Prop - 113kg)
Italy: Fabio Ongaro (Hooker - 104kg)
Italy: Salvatore Perugini (Prop - 111kg)
Argentina: Marcos Ayerza (Prop - 110kg)
Argentina: Mario Ledesma (Prop - 110kg)
Argentina: Rodrigo Roncero (Prop - 112kg)
Argentina: Patricio Albacete (Prop - 123kg)
Romania: Marius Tincu (Hooker - 120kg)
Romania: Silviu Florea (Prop - 105kg)
France: William Servat (Hooker - 103kg)
France: Dimitri Szarzewski (Hooker - 102kg)
France: Jean-Baptiste Poux (Prop - 108kg)
France: Nicolas Mas (Prop - 110kg)
Georgia: Akvsenti Giorgadze (Hooker - 105kg)
Georgia: Davit Khinchagishvili (Prop - 112kg)
Georgia: Goderdzi Shvelidze (Prop - 108kg)

Now lets compare that to some of our failures:

Dean Greyling (128kg)
Werner Kruger (120kg)
Christo Bezuidenhout (124kg)
Willie Meyer (125kg)
Eddie Andrews (118kg)
Deon Carstens (120kg)
CJ Van Der Linde (125kg)
Wessel Roux (120kg)
Faan Rautenbach (120kg)
Ollie Le Roux (126kg)

It seems there is a lesson to be learnt. All is not as it may seem; how can it be that the aforementioned list of players lead the game? Yet they are smaller! Sacre bleu monsier :O










 

And I conclude by saying that one only needs to look at the reality of the weights of the current backs playing test rugby for the top nations to arrive at the fact that size counts and none of those backs weigh less than 90kg's thats called the reality of the times.

Modern test rugby has no little guys playing wing, centre or fullback - proof is in the stats. It's pointless bringing old names like Faan Rautenbach and the gang - I'm talking current test backs who are worthy.

de Jongh is no test centres backside, not even close.

As I said just look at my list of current test centres weights - case closed as they say.

There you go again Dave.

"Modern test rugby has no little guys playing wing, centre or fullback"

You prescribe too easily to absolutes, hence why your assessment is often errant. The only position amonst the backs where I would hesitate to play a lighter play is 12 and 11. The selections over the last four years for backline players reflects this as well.

By the way, just saw your mate Bekker get driven back by a much smaller and lighter player. Driven a good 2 metres and injured. Another knock to the absolute that bigger is always better.

Added to that, bringing up those front rower names is very much relevant. But you have a tendency to fob off anything of inconvenience to your regardless of its validity or evidence.

Yes Aristokrat, for too long South Africans have been fed  BS that size and size alone was the only criteria by which a player is judged. You and Moz have pointed out how over the years our monolithic packs were made to look ordinary by much smaller packs. Technique was ignored and we deteriorated to the point where Gert Smal turned to an Argentinian front rower player for help. The theme rings clear, skill and technique was largely ignored and size was held up as the only criteria whereby a player is judged. It's no wonder our rugby is frowned upon and it's no wonder our coaches were clueless and it's no wonder the brainwashed on here keep banging away with a  failed formula. If the penny by some miracle drops I hope the brainwashed will stop and think how Downunder has done wonderfully well over the years with much less.

You cant argue against the facts of the case - modern 11,12,13,14 and 15's playing test rugby for the top 7 countries weigh over 90kg's - refute that and I might start listening to you clowns.

But hey just keep making fools of yourselves - until such time that I see 4 or 5 less than 90kg players playing in these positions for the top 7 test sides, I will start listening to you.

But here is a little heads up - its never going to happen, no matter how long and how hard you lot bang on about size not counting, the modern trend will not change. I see exactly what the coaches of these top sides see - there is no place in test rugby for pretenders like Aplon and de Jongh - these guys are complete liabilities as they are no capable of imposing themselves physically at the highest level - both on attack and defence - FACT

Denny you keep banging on about SA and size - well I am talking about all 7 top rugby sides placing and emphasis on size, just check the size of the currents backs playing test rugby - the answer is that simple. Just a simple read of their weights will help you grasp the reality of modern day rugby - prove me wrong with stats if you like - I am all ears

Dave, you yet again fail to understand. I do not have an issue with size. I simply will not look to size first, foremost and exlusively. If size is as important as you believe, then why are many of our biggest players no making the grade? I don't have a problem with the many big backs in other countries, particularly France, Wales and Scotland, because they have good technique. The Scots and the English in particular had to learn very hard lessons before they started improving. All of them though have recently used small backs and all of them will do so at some point in the future.

Denny's point about South Africa is very valid, as it forms a large part of our rugby culture. It's very much stuck in the 1950s with an old-school mentality of big is best. That's why coaches were hesitant to select the likes of Paulse. And it's why to this very day that our coaches know very little about how to use these skilled players to play a more dynamic game. From the late 90s rugby began to shift through the gears of professionalism, and teams became much stronger, fitter, faster and forwards became more mobile. We had absolutely monstrous players that could not compete. They were stuck in the dark ages. At our lowest point in 2002 we got cought in a cycle of trying to select bigger and bigger packs and players in the backs to bash our way out of a very deep hole. It didn't work.

Just for the record Dave, Aplon or Joe Pietersen would not have been driven over the line like Bekker was last night. Little Joe Pietersen handed-off props, hookers and locks so far in the competition. de Jongh has stood his ground. They have proven without doubt that they are worthy of a crack at a test spot.

I'm banging away?....Funny, I knew you'd come frothing and storming away once I pasted the article....and you have! BTW the article is perculiar to Shane Williams but as suspected it went straight over top the of your's and Beeno's head.

"...I am all ears..."...No you're not!...go and read the blog and tell me how many times you've been told that you're missing the point!

I don't care what modern day sides are doing and I have never ever said that size does not matter which goes to prove once again that you miss the point....I repeat for your benefit.... you miss the point.

Dave, I never feel that I have anything to prove to you and I never will. If you don't like my beliefs, I have others, feel free to ignore them.