[chris cambo]

Id say they are equally as tough if you asked me.
Video proof supporting my opinion.

Rugby

Some really tough tackles and slams there, i laughed out loud when i saw the player take out the camera.

Football

watch at 42 secconds, thats like motherf*cking wrestling.

Watching the tackles from those videos though id say the contact in american football is tougher wheras with rugby the tackles arent as rough but more frequent.


I really wish they had american football in england, i think id be pretty good at the game to be honest.

[daniel_law]

American Football - Without pads, some of their players would die from serious injuries if they didn't wear them.

The tackling is much more ferocious then it is in Rugby.

Infact in my opinion it is the 2nd most dangerous sport after Boxing.

This post has been edited by daniel_law on Friday, May 23 2008, 05:15

[Titanfan]

Yeah but have you ever ran and headbutted somebody without a helment.

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (Titanfan @ May 23 2008, 06:44)

Yeah but have you ever ran and headbutted somebody without a helment.

Not on purpose...I don't see how that is a valid point. It is foolish to go head-first into contact and any injury gained from doing so is from pure stupidity or misfortune. I've seen football players get concussions from being on the line, and people getting deep gashes on their chins from the contact with shoulder pads. A wide receiver wouldn't last a month without pads....

[Titanfan]

Head to head contact happens all the time while playing rugby and football. All i'm saying that rugby tackles are just as bad as they are in football.

This post has been edited by Titanfan on Sunday, May 25 2008, 22:59

[Speegz]

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long without starting a flame war and/or getting locked but,

I've never played rugby but it looks pretty hardcore. I think youd have to be TOUGHER to play rugby. I'm a high school football player right now and I just don't see how anything can be more intense than our practices/games. People rag on football because the players get a breaks. I play offense every play and defense some, and I'm also on a lot of special teams. It's very tough and mentally and physically demanding. But I have respect for rugby players, for the sole reason that they don't wear pads.

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (Speegz @ May 25 2008, 15:27)

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long without starting a flame war and/or getting locked but, I've never played rugby but it looks pretty hardcore. I think youd have to be TOUGHER to play rugby. I'm a high school football player right now and I just don't see how anything can be more intense than our practices/games. People rag on football because the players get a breaks. I play offense every play and defense some, and I'm also on a lot of special teams. It's very tough and mentally and physically demanding. But I have respect for rugby players, for the sole reason that they don't wear pads.

Yeah, depending on the amount of padding you wear you can have an additional ten pounds on. In the heat the helmet is like a damn oven, and getting all that stuff off after the game is bullsh*t. Anyway rugby is tough, as hell, but you can't determine which is tougher by just looking at them both.

[Titanfan]

QUOTE (ryuclan @ May 25 2008, 14:36)

QUOTE (Speegz @ May 25 2008, 15:27) I can't believe this thread has lasted this long without starting a flame war and/or getting locked but, I've never played rugby but it looks pretty hardcore.  I think youd have to be TOUGHER to play rugby.  I'm a high school football player right now and I just don't see how anything can be more intense than our practices/games.  People rag on football because the players get a breaks. I play offense every play and defense some, and I'm also on a lot of special teams.  It's very tough and mentally and physically demanding. But I have respect for rugby players, for the sole reason that they don't wear pads. Yeah, depending on the amount of padding you wear you can have an additional ten pounds on. In the heat the helmet is like a damn oven, and getting all that stuff off after the game is bullsh*t. Anyway rugby is tough, as hell, but you can't determine which is tougher by just looking at them both.

Yeah, they both are VERY difficult. But fun.

[Pr0xy_fl00d3r]

Rugby League is far tougher...an american footballer wouldn't last five minuites on a rugby field with all that padding bollocks on. A friend of mine has played rugby all his life and has now gone playing for an american football team and he says that playing rugby is far tougher.

[Hart]

Ive never played American Football but I play rugby on a regular basis and its not as bad as some Americans say. If you're ready to get bashed about a bit or piled on, its fine. Although the tackles look a bit harder on American football, the pads makes up for it.

Also i could play feild hockey but i wouldnt want to play ice hockey like the americans do on TV

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (Hart @ May 26 2008, 13:43)

Ive never played American Football but I play rugby on a regular basis and its not as bad as some Americans say. If you're ready to get bashed about a bit or piled on, its fine. Although the tackles look a bit harder on American football, the pads makes up for it. Also i could play feild hockey but i wouldnt want to play ice hockey like the americans do on TV

The padding barely does anything, it just slightly keeps you from breaking your neck (which it sometimes feels like you actually did lol) Anyway I have played a little Rugby and it just felt like a more oganized form of street football. I like it, but I couldn't take getting hit in the face like some rugby players do. If these players could switch for a day then we would see which is tougher, but that'll never happen so all we can do is speculate and just stick to our guns. Also the position that the switched player takes could change the outcome also.

@Pr0xy_fl00d3r: I'll bet that 100% of NFL players began playing football on the streets. No padding, no rules, who's to say that padding makes you less tough?

Please don't bring pride or personal prejudices into this debate...

This post has been edited by ryuclan on Friday, May 30 2008, 03:18

[NZskep]

hits are definitely bigger in American football, but you need much more fitness to play pro rugby than to play NFL because the actual time spent running is a hell of a lot more.

American football is great fun to play (I've played it a few times), but I find it really boring to watch - especially on TV when there seems to be an ad break every minute, and the plays only last 10 seconds tops before the players all have a little rest and discuss what to do next. (I'm exaggerating, but it isn't far off that)
but, that is why it is much more strategic than rugby - every play is worked out in detail in advance - you even see QBs with little pieces of card stuck on their arm so they know which play is which.

from playing rugby, there is certainly a lot of strategy involved, (a lot more than soccer anyway) but once the set piece is over it become broken play the strategy breaks down and it is more about instinct and reading the run of play. American football has almost no broken play running - it is all strategic.

As for who is tougher. depends on how you define tough.

the hits are bigger and harder in NFL, but even apart from the padding only a few players actually ever get tackled in the course of most games (i.e. the RB, WR etc and the QB if he f*cks up) In rugby every player tackles and gets tackled multiple times.


who is the least tough player? that is easy. the guy in NFL who's only job is to come on and kick the ball.

This post has been edited by NZskep on Friday, May 30 2008, 12:01

[ryuclan]

QUOTE (NZskep @ May 30 2008, 11:59)

hits are definitely bigger in American football, but you need much more fitness to play pro rugby than to play NFL because the actual time spent running is a hell of a lot more. American football is great fun to play (I've played it a few times), but I find it really boring to watch - especially on TV when there seems to be an ad break every minute, and the plays only last 10 seconds tops before the players all have a little rest and discuss what to do next. (I'm exaggerating, but it isn't far off that) but, that is why it is much more strategic than rugby - every play is worked out in detail in advance - you even see QBs with little pieces of card stuck on their arm so they know which play is which. from playing rugby, there is certainly a lot of strategy involved, (a lot more than soccer anyway) but once the set piece is over it become broken play the strategy breaks down and it is more about instinct and reading the run of play. American football has almost no broken play running - it is all strategic. As for who is tougher. depends on how you define tough. the hits are bigger and harder in NFL, but even apart from the padding only a few players actually ever get tackled in the course of most games (i.e. the RB, WR etc and the QB if he f*cks up) In rugby every player tackles and gets tackled multiple times. who is the least tough player? that is easy. the guy in NFL who's only job is to come on and kick the ball.

lol I'd disagree on that. All that pressure, making a kick in all different kinds of conditions and you're the only thing between your team and a championship?

Anyway Football is a strategic sport, the lineman are usually the smartest players on the field but LB's have to adjust the defense mid play or between plays according to what the QB is doing and the QB has to run the offense, read signals from the staff, look for weak points, avoid hits, throw an accurate pass, keep his team's morale up, all types of stuff. Football is a thinking sport, Rugby is too. Just Rugby is more of a on your toes thinking, for the moment. You don't have time to sit with coaches and look at pictures of the last plays defense.

[NZskep]

QUOTE (ryuclan @ May 31 2008, 11:06)

QUOTE (NZskep @ May 30 2008, 11:59) hits are definitely bigger in American football,  but you need much more fitness to play pro rugby than to play NFL because the actual time spent running is a hell of a lot more. American football is great fun to play (I've played it a few times), but I find it really boring to watch - especially on TV when there seems to be an ad break every minute, and the plays only last 10 seconds tops before the players all have a little rest and discuss what to do next. (I'm exaggerating, but it isn't far off that) but, that is why it is much more strategic than rugby - every play is worked out in detail in advance - you even see QBs with little pieces of card stuck on their arm so they know which play is which. from playing rugby,  there is certainly a lot of strategy involved, (a lot more than soccer anyway) but once the set piece is over it become broken play the strategy breaks down and it is more about instinct and reading the run of play.  American football has almost no broken play running - it is all strategic. As for who is tougher. depends on how you define tough. the hits are bigger and harder in NFL,  but even apart from the padding only a few players actually ever get tackled in the course of most games (i.e. the RB, WR etc and the QB if he f*cks up)  In rugby every player tackles and gets tackled multiple times. who is the least tough player?  that is easy.  the guy in NFL who's only job is to come on and kick the ball.  lol I'd disagree on that. All that pressure, making a kick in all different kinds of conditions and you're the only thing between your team and a championship? Anyway Football is a strategic sport, the lineman are usually the smartest players on the field but LB's have to adjust the defense mid play or between plays according to what the QB is doing and the QB has to run the offense, read signals from the staff, look for weak points, avoid hits, throw an accurate pass, keep his team's morale up, all types of stuff. Football is a thinking sport, Rugby is too. Just Rugby is more of a on your toes thinking, for the moment. You don't have time to sit with coaches and look at pictures of the last plays defense.

well yeah thats prettymuch waht I said. NFL is more strategic, rugby is more flowing


I still stand by the least tough guy being the NFL kicker.

that's all he does.
sure he has to make pressure kicks, but they are always directly in front of the posts, and he will be fresh as a daisy having been sat on the sidelines all game until that point.
compare that to the guys who kick in rugby - same pressure kicks, but often at very sharp angles i.e. right from the sideline, plus they have been playing all the game so far and are physically exhausted.

[Mafia Drive Gunner]

In the way of strategy, I know that NFL is so strategic and such a tight game that it is like chess, but rugby union has massive amounts of strategy. I've played rugby for 13 years, and in the last 2 or 3 years our coach has taught us some moves where we know where we are going to be on the field and what our job will be for the next 3 or 4 breakdowns later, if all goes to plan. I also know that international and professional rugby teams have passages of play that are so well planned that each player knows exactly where they are going to be after 10 breakdowns.

NFL is more of an impulsive collision sport, whereas rugby is more of a grinding sport of patience, where you might only move down the field 2 or 3 metres at a time, but you get there eventually. The constant moving of players in rugby seperates them in the way of fitness, but they don't have to be as explosive in power, only when they have leg-drive at rucks and mauls.

I think the fact that they are both so different in so many ways that it's hard to find similarities at all. I mean, the padding debate is ridiculous, those guys need padding, because they can't always see where the next hit is coming from, whereas in rugby you know that it's going to come from directly in front of you or to the side a bit, but you'll never get a killer blow right on your shoulderblades or something.

Being a rugby player I'm pro rugby, but being an NFL fan I can understand both points of view.

[GTA3Rockstar]

QUOTE (daniel_law @ May 22 2008, 23:10)

American Football - Without pads, some of their players would die from serious injuries if they didn't wear them. The tackling is much more ferocious then it is in Rugby. Infact in my opinion it is the 2nd most dangerous sport after Boxing.

Bowing? You think boxing is the most dangerous?

[darthYENIK]

Yeah, if I were to go the fighting route, I'd go with some Kimbo Slice style street fighting. And if we're going organized sports, I'd still go for something like muay thai kickboxing.

[Mafia Drive Gunner]

Yeah, boxing is nothing on some of the insane fighting leagues out there. I mean, UFC cage fighting is bewildering enough, but I know there are some types of fighting out there far more dangerous and violent than UFC.

The threat of permanent brain damage is almost a given in sports like these, where the main goal is basically to knock the other person out by smashing them in the head as hard as you can. I've read that it's the equivalent of two car crashes in a full boxing match, such are the ferocity and velocity behind every blow that hits the opponent. When the basic premise of a sport is to pound the f*ck out of the other guy's head, then you're bound to end up with some vegetables later in their careers. I mean, look at Muhummad Ali. Once a champion, always a champion, but his dignity has disappeared in the way that he is, and it's a shame that such a great athlete has been reduced to such a state. Don't forget that he's not the only one. Boxing has made bumbling idiots out of a lot of people. A guy at the local boxing gym who took our gym class one day slurs badly, has permanent brain damage and can't hear out of his left ear, all because of boxing.

I don't believe that a sport like that is worth it if you value your twilight.

[Bawjaws]

QUOTE (darthYENIK @ Jun 4 2008, 18:28)

Yeah, if I were to go the fighting route, I'd go with some Kimbo Slice style street fighting. And if we're going organized sports, I'd still go for something like muay thai kickboxing.

yet Ramon Dekkers could kick Kimbo's ass any day of the week. Also to the guy above me theres no way you can say Ali has lost his dignity, no f*cking way. All these guys who take part in what some of you guys call 'barbaric' sports do so because its their ambition. That means putting your f*cking heart, body and sole on the line. And Heck, its bloody good fun too!

[darthYENIK]

When I mentioned Kimbo, I was talking about straight up, no rules street fighting. But in organized sh*t, Muay Thai is nuts.

I still believe that ice hockey is more rough and though than rugby and football. You get going up to thirty miles per hour, and some six foot five inch two hundred and fifty pound blueliner steps out in front of you and knocks you down onto the rock hard ice. While on the ice you're subject to razor sharp skate blades, that can cut your throat like a warm knife through butter. After you get up, you have to skate as hard and fast as you can down to the other end of the rink, and then you have to drop back down onto the ice into the path of a hundred mile per hour rock hard frozen puck to block a shot. And Goalies, do you guys think that the pads actually stop the pain? Nope, they just stop enough of the force to not badly injure you. And after all of that a goon with a mean uppercut pulls your shirt over your head, and starts wailing on your face. And that's just a one minute shift.

It's as close to war as any sport gets.