Which is harder, tougher, more physical?
Rugby vs American Football
- Thread starter 032Devil
- Start date
You can get mauled in either one. The American version is played at a slightly higher speed (during those times when the ball is actually in motion) and the collisions are fierce, as the players are decked out in body armor and can, to some extent, throw caution to the wind.
Rugby requires better conditioning and, in the absence of helmets, shoulder pads, etc, a lack of concentration and proper form during tackling can result in severe injuries.
In my case, I was hit much harder by larger folks in the gridiron version, thus destroying my left knee and ankle in what appear to be permanent damages.
Aye, American football is more static and requires less stamina, Rugby actually requires more running than football/soccer. I'll say American football shades it in the physical stakes BUT rugby is more enjoyable,continous.
Ouch
When I was returning from Canada a few weeks ago, a combined North England team had been on a tour in Canada and I was sat next to a couple of them on the return trip and I asked them the same question. Their answer was Rugby. In their opinions, Rugby reguires higher levels of fitness, strength and energy as Rugby is a continuous game played without stops and without any protection (padding). Whereas, they said, that American Football is a stop start game often involving 30 seconds of action followed by a few minutes of inaction.
True but American football hits are more or less indescriminate thats why I see American football as just shading it in the hits stakes BUT from a purely sporting point of view Rugby is far far better, you combine about 95% of American football thuggery with football, sweet combination. One thing I hate about American football is the use of blockers by an attacking team, you can't do that in rugby.
Its Rugby for me everytime.
Amercian football offers too much protection to the players to have the devastating effect that getting hit at full throttle in rugby will do -just ask Rob Andrew after Joanh Lomu ran right through him!!
While no doubting American football is tough it just doesnt consistently compare to rugby for sheer brutality and toughness.
Amercian football offers too much protection to the players to have the devastating effect that getting hit at full throttle in rugby will do -just ask Rob Andrew after Joanh Lomu ran right through him!!
While no doubting American football is tough it just doesnt consistently compare to rugby for sheer brutality and toughness.
You are joking arent you??? For all round physical conditioning (strength, power, endurance) rugby union and especially rugby league blow NFL out of the water. In fact I would go as far to say that rugby players are some of the best conditioned sportspeople full stop - top level gymnasts and in recent times MMA fighters are right in there too.
Basically NFL players are either bodybuilders or 100m sprinters - a slight generalisation but about right. There is absolutely no need for stamina and a lot of the positions require very little agility or skill - in the tackle line during the course of an entire match they probably move less than 50 yds.
These points are before we get onto the topic of substance abuse which is absolutely rife in most US sports but especially so in NFL. Their testing procedures are a disgrace - whenever Ive been at seminars or just in dialogue with other trainers the subject of US drug testing standards is always high on my list of fave topics...
Size is a much more important factor in American football.. In sports like football,rugby talent could get you far even though you aren't the best physical specimen but unless you are close to 300 pounds for instance you dhouldn't even dreamof playing in the Offensive line in the NFL. Yes american football is a start and stop sport but on every play each person has to give 100% for the play to succeed(unless you are T.O.). Also I think runnning backs are the most physical atheletes in almost all of sport. To paraphrase being a Running back in the NFL means you're in atleast 20 car crashes every game.
Depending on which form of Rugby being played (Union or League!) and in which nation!.
English Rugby League is tough!, quick and decisive!, unless each individual is weighing in at 250-300 lbs, you're wasting your time, you'll be eaten alive!
Australian Rugby League is far more exciting to watch, far quicker and boy you need to be one tough mutha' or you'll be seriously taken out!
For me the NFL is full of big guys running around in helmets, pads, bodyguards etc!, and the game is just too much stop start!.
In Rugby, the only breaks received are bones crunching!
English Rugby League is tough!, quick and decisive!, unless each individual is weighing in at 250-300 lbs, you're wasting your time, you'll be eaten alive!
Australian Rugby League is far more exciting to watch, far quicker and boy you need to be one tough mutha' or you'll be seriously taken out!
For me the NFL is full of big guys running around in helmets, pads, bodyguards etc!, and the game is just too much stop start!.
In Rugby, the only breaks received are bones crunching!
But exactly how important is weight?
In boxing, for example, they say that the most dangerous fighter is a middleweight because he has the weight of a heavier man but the speed of a lighter one thus making his punches the best, the most devastating. The heavier the man the slower their speed and impact.
To be heavier doesn't make an AF player more impactful does it? Perhaps this is a mathematical question?
Try telling that to anyone who had to defend against Chicagos 'The Fridge' 15 years ago!
y
American football is a game of matchups and physical attributes play a key role in who wins those match ups. If an Offensive linesman is 6-4 and 280 pounds and he is matched up against a Tackle who is 6-8 and 350 pounds he obviously is at a huge disadvantage. Also if a wide reciever who is 6'7 is matched up against a cornerback who is 6'2 he already has a big advantage. Your boxing analysis may be true but a good heavyweight should be able to knock out any middleweight simply because his size/reach/power gives him such a significant advantage.
Randy Moss takes many more plays off. TO will block for teammates. Ask Moss to block and you'll get a look a discontent.
No bias there. You ask a group of US gridiron players and they'll say football. I think asking players who have not played the other sport will obviously side with their sport. A good friend of mine played high school football in Texas then played two years of rugby at Texas Tech. He said rugby was more fun as everyone touches the ball, but he said he took his share of hits and shots. But he said for sheer violence, gridiron football was by far the worst.
I have tried to watch rugby on Setanta but I just don't understand the sport. I have tried to learn. I had a Brit friend that gave me the basics but without that one rugby person to sit through a match or two with me, I find myself lost watching. And then bored, which I wouldn't feel that way if I could grasp the rules. But it's definitely more exciting than cricket.
Apparently since Moss is now a Patriot he will be Mr.Teamwork
Rugby is football.
Gridiron is football.
No..... only people of gross ignorance and stupidity would have a game where maybe for 2-3% of the match the 'foot' actually comes in contact with the 'ball' and still feel fit to call it 'football'....
Oh wait for we're talking about America arent we......
No..... only people of gross ignorance and stupidity would have a game where maybe for 2-3% of the match the 'foot' actually comes in contact with the 'ball' and still feel fit to call it 'football'....
Oh wait for we're talking about America arent we......
Wanna comment on Brits coining the term soccer while you're at it?
BTW, how often is the foot used with the ball in rugby? Maybe 10-15%...
American Football only gets a lot credit because every once in a while someone gets taken out big time. And that is only because the rules allows you to take out another player blind sided or in the air.
Otherwise a lot of the physical play is just big blokes in kevlar pushing and wrestling around.
Otherwise a lot of the physical play is just big blokes in kevlar pushing and wrestling around.
Having played both sports I think it is actually very close but rugby is the more demanding to play because it is continuous.
With rugby union, certainly when I played as a flanker / no.8, the only time you weren't running was when you were in the scrum / lineout, which are both demanding in other ways.
Add to the fact that you are not only just running, but also tackling, mauling etc and I think you have one of the most demanding games around.
With regard to American football, I still think it is very demanding and that this is not really apparent until you have played the game.
I played Linebacker, which means that depending on the play, you could either be trying to match one the opposing team's receiver's for pace, trying to put pressure on the quarterback before he throws the ball, or working to stop the running back if it's a running play.
The hits in rugby are often more violent than in rugby. While it is obvious that there is more padding and protection, what this ultimately delivers is greater freedom / license to make thebigger hits. You will frequently see collisions in American football that you would not (or very rarely) see in rugby.
So ultimately I love both sports, but overall I feel that rugby is more demanding physically.
With rugby union, certainly when I played as a flanker / no.8, the only time you weren't running was when you were in the scrum / lineout, which are both demanding in other ways.
Add to the fact that you are not only just running, but also tackling, mauling etc and I think you have one of the most demanding games around.
With regard to American football, I still think it is very demanding and that this is not really apparent until you have played the game.
I played Linebacker, which means that depending on the play, you could either be trying to match one the opposing team's receiver's for pace, trying to put pressure on the quarterback before he throws the ball, or working to stop the running back if it's a running play.
The hits in rugby are often more violent than in rugby. While it is obvious that there is more padding and protection, what this ultimately delivers is greater freedom / license to make thebigger hits. You will frequently see collisions in American football that you would not (or very rarely) see in rugby.
So ultimately I love both sports, but overall I feel that rugby is more demanding physically.
Wanna comment on Brits coining the term soccer while you're at it?
BTW, how often is the foot used with the ball in rugby? Maybe 10-15%...
And whats your point cocksucker??
The fact that Yanks call it soccer is neither here nor there since the word has no intrinsic or implied meaning, nor is it relevant that the word origonated in the UK.
Why are you bringing rugby into it?? I commented on the rank stupidity of the US using the word 'football' for NFL - what the hell has rugby got to do with the price of fish?!?!?