Rugby vs Football

[saboudian]

U act like u're surprised when i say genetics, like i said before the average college offensive lineman is between 6'4 - 6'6, thats what i mean by genetics. I think technology and med research benefits every single sport, not just football.

[Rugby13]

yeah and the average lock in rugby is 6'4 - 6'6 and your point is???????

[saboudian]

Originally posted by Rugby13
yeah and the average lock in rugby is 6'4 - 6'6 and your point is???????

Let me try and explain to you that the average football player is bigger then the average rugby player. In rugby u are constantly running the length of the feild and there are few if any subs (i'm not clear on the subbing rules for rugby), so the fact that u are constantly doing so much running would mean that a huge guy probably won't last that long on a rugby feild. A football player can get subbed almost any time, there are more breaks (largely in part due to TV), and most positions don't run very far on the majority of plays with the exception of receivers and CB's. This basically allows much bigger guys to play, since in most positions size is more important then having michael johnson speed, but of course speed is still important. Defensive lineman always amaze me, those guys are absolutely huge, yet are ridiculously fast. If i just saw warren sapp, i would think he is some lazy fat ass but he is extraordinarily fast but he is still huge. A guy like sapp wouldn't last on a rugby feild though, because he is still fast but in the end his size would catch up to him, and u'd seem him keeled over gasping for air the second half.

So i guess the nature of the game just kinda determines the size of the players. I'm not saying rugby players have crappy genetics or there not tough, but i think if could put the top running backs, fullbacks, and linebackers in the NFL and compared them to the top guys in rugby, i think u would find that the football guys are going to be physically better, they might not always be tougher but they'd be better physically. This has to do alot with genetics, if u look at the olympia, every single competitor has a complete work ethic, diet and the works, but who ever has the best genetics is going to be the key difference.

I guess the only way one could ever settle this is maybe find out who the fastest and strongest maybe 15 or 20 players in each sport are. Take all of their heights, weights, and maximum lifts and then average it all out and see which sport comes out on top. I'm not a huge rugby fan, but i've seen it a couple times and some of those guys just look incredibly small, i look at like a college strong safety like at msu and the dude is like 230ish and ripped and he's just a safety, and is fast as hell.

Of course this has become a battle of genetics and not a question of whose tougher. There really is no way that anyone is ever going to win.

[Rugby13]

Just to point you in the right direction again bro. This isn't an argument anout size. Look at the name of the thread. "Which sport is tougher?" Size or number of reps or how fast a 300 pounder runs a 40 has nothing to do with toughness. I know small guys in rugby that take biger hits than some bigs boys and the small ones get up for some more. That's tough...... Understand?????

[saboudian]

Originally posted by Rugby13
Just to point you in the right direction again bro. This isn't an argument anout size. Look at the name of the thread. "Which sport is tougher?" Size or number of reps or how fast a 300 pounder runs a 40 has nothing to do with toughness. I know small guys in rugby that take biger hits than some bigs boys and the small ones get up for some more. That's tough...... Understand?????

I know what u're saying, i said it in the last line of my post above.

Of course this has become a battle of genetics and not a question of whose tougher. There really is no way that anyone is ever going to win.

Also if u read my other posts in this thread ( somehow i doubt that many ppl would go thru 4 pgs though) u would see that i said rugby and football were equal in toughness because especially at the pro level, every player will give every thing he's got no matter what. Thats why u can't pick a winner. Some guys were kinda mentioning stuff like who's bigger and who could beat up who. I just kinda said that both sports are tough but football players generally have the better genetics and are generally the bigger/stronger/faster type of deal. Thats how i came up with the idea of comparing lifts and sprint times to see who comes out on top, but i'm fairly positive it'd be the football guys. So please can't we let this thread die now?

[Full Intensity]

You guys (well most of you have tunnel vision) I just found this thread but Rugby is twice the physical sport that football is. In North America the Rubgy players are big, maybe not as big as some of the boys in the NFL, but have any of you ever seen the All Blacks or the Aussie's? or any of the 6 nation teams in eurpoe for that matter. They're all huge. Just most NFL'ers (the big guys) look like the worlds strongest men guys, no definition, just big and a very very very very very high bf%. Where rugby players are more comparable to a BB, they are big MOFOs, much like Dorian, they can run miles and you can beat them with a bat and u still ain't gonna stop them. I wanna see a football player get dunked (legal in rugby) stepped and cleated by an entire scrum multiple times in one game and keeping playing like it didn't even phase them. Shit a cleet in the leg in football and the guy is out for three to four weeks. Foot ball is physical don't get me wrong, but its almost like comparing UFC to Pride Fighting. UFC is watched closely by the NGC, they have rounds, soo many rules, the fight stops if there is too much blood etc. Where Pride and Rugby are almost no hold bar.

[Hitman]

Woohoo you tell em mate..........HITMAN

[SwoleDiesel662]

I think theyre pretty close in general. However, if you want to compare it at the highest level played, then football by far. NFL football has to be the physically toughest sport there is. There are no Marshall Faulks in Rugby, if there were, they'd be in the NFL.

[SwoleDiesel662]

haha, see if you can find me an example of a guy in rugby who is an par with Ray Lewis, Lavar Arrington, or Derrick Brooks.

[PiecinItUp]

FOOTBALL, USA!

[Padawan]

Rugby, by far. And yes, I have played both. I played winger, since I was quick for a 220lb guy at the time, and I have never ran so much in my whole damn life. And the hits...much more gratifying that football. Lay that shoulder into someone without the pads, and feel his breathe leave his body as he collapses onto the grass. Damn it's great.

If you are bored with rugby, your team must not be very good. The whole idea of rugby is to keep the ball in play as much as possible. No subbing players, you get hurt you are done.

[Full Intensity]

Yeah Right buddy take a look at Vinnie Jones! then we'll talk

[Full Intensity]

this is regular play for this mofo!

[needle]

Rugby maybe lasts for for a couple seconds, only allowing you too gain a little speed- football you can get a good 20 yard head start and have a helment that is as hard as a rock and hit the guy at your fool f $$$ ing speed - no sport is tougher then football
trust me two knee surgerys later

[needle]

oh ya in rugby do you see THREE HUNDRED Pounders running 4.6 40's - that's like a truck hit you- GO FOOTBALL USA

[Hitman]

Originally posted by needle
Rugby maybe lasts for for a couple seconds, only allowing you too gain a little speed- football you can get a good 20 yard head start and have a helment that is as hard as a rock and hit the guy at your fool f $$$ ing speed - no sport is tougher then football
trust me two knee surgerys later

WTF? mate have you even seen a rugby game? lasts for a couple of seconds, you must be joking, rugby can have at least a dozen plays on the trot running across field and foward/back for 15 minutes untill the weaker side kicks the ball out so they can slow the game down and regroup. And i dont think your helping your cause by mentioning the helmets it just proves how soft the football players are, we dont wear helmets or pads because after all it is supposed to be a "contact sport". Also in your other response about wanting to see a 300 pound rugby player LOL you probably never will because you see they dont need to be 300 pounds to take down someone of that weight its all technique...........HITMAN

[Full Intensity]

Needle ur wacked bro. Play Full Back in rugby, they kick the ball to u and you can run virtually (at full speed) the whole field, and then get a knee to the head full speed! I've been there done that, nothing short of a concusion i might add and a bloody face.

[Rugby13]

Good to see this is still going strong.....Just a quick recap of above...If you think rugby players are small compared to football players then you're just damn ignorant. As far as 300lbs guys running 4.6 40's...show me one NFL player over 300lbs that can do that for 2 40 minute halves. Yeah the NFL guys do it once then take a five minute break to get some oxygen. Come on guys get real. Oh and I guess we don't get tackled running full speed in rugby right???? Yeah RIGHT....anyway keep well bro's. By the way if anyone is in atlanta USA let me know if you want to come out and play some rugby.......

[chinups]

Rugby is a sport made for chics. It is the female football. Let one of them rugby guys try and run through Ray Lewis or Zach Thomas!

Doubt it would happen...

[lloyd_cannon]

football is
1 a more team sport
2 harder hits the impact of a linebacker to runningback in nfl is equivalent
to dropping a bowling ball from 25 feet in the air onto a helmet
3 More of an aura to it has anyone read "friday night lights" i wish football was like that in my town!

[Rugby13]

1. More of a team sport???? I DON'T THINK SO!!!!! Football is completely individual, look at the falcons this season, one players goes (Vick) and the whole team goes to the ****s!!! Come on now man how can you say it a team sport when one player can change the outcome of a game!!!!
2. Harder hits??? - take the pads off and see if they still hit as hard. They just run into each other due to the pads they have on.
3. More of an aura...Maybe just in America BUT NOT THE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD!!!

football is
1 a more team sport
2 harder hits the impact of a linebacker to runningback in nfl is equivalent
to dropping a bowling ball from 25 feet in the air onto a helmet
3 More of an aura to it has anyone read "friday night lights" i wish football was like that in my town!

[Rugby13]

is that why you have girls playing with the guys in football teams? Yeah they might be kickers but hell, lets face it, they still see fit to put a woman on the field with you guys. I've never seen a girl play on the same team as MEN on a rugby team bro!!!

Rugby is a sport made for chics. It is the female football. Let one of them rugby guys try and run through Ray Lewis or Zach Thomas!

Doubt it would happen...

[Bigun]

Ok here is my opinion and I have played internationally.

In Football, the hits are bigger without question. But rugby is definately tougher because players get cuts more often and still return to the field of play with a head full of stitches, fractures etc. Plus physiologically it is more demanding. We have to be proficient across a wider range of physical components i.e. anaerobically, aerobically, muscular endurance etc all in one position. There is a lot more hits taken on the head (unprotected) and more soft tissue injuries.

[Animal Cracker]

Rugby is a sport made for chics. It is the female football. Let one of them rugby guys try and run through Ray Lewis or Zach Thomas!

Doubt it would happen...

Right..keep somking that crack!

[LM1332]

haha football most of the civilized countries would look at that sport and say wtf is this? like they did many times over. Why is it even called football to begin with? As for which is tuffer id say Rugby no bull**** about it. Hockey is tougher then football **** soccer(american weird name for football) is tougher sport then american football

[Rugby13]

Anyone watching the super 12 rugby going on now? Maybe you football fans can watch a little fox sports world and educate yourselves

[dellrugby]

Lavar Arrington would be run over flat on his ass by Jonah Lamu. You have not f--ing clue. Rugby is not soccor bone head, there are no red cards or what ever you call it. I was and I am great at both American Football. Rugby rules, there is no comparison.

True SB, also to add to that I dont see too many 6'3' 250 pound Lavar Arringtons in rugby, only a bunch of buck 0 fives running around head butting each other and crying for the red card...........Those who think Rugby is a better sport, never played the game of Football, American style......BTW did any of you blokes see the hit DArren Woodson put on Darrell Jackson, cripes man, that is brutal...the dude went into convulsions and ****.....Football by far folks.....

[I'm in a Hurry!]

both... Football is I think more hard core and ask more physicly strengh but Rugby is pretty hard too more physical endurance... I prefer strengh so I would go with Football

[sepjuice]

ive played both. played high school football at a 5A school and rugby here in germany. they both have big guys,but the diff has to be the speed of the game.u might have a 6'2 250lber in rugby,but u have the same athlete in football but twice as fast,ouch!

[Rugby13]

ive played both. played high school football at a 5A school and rugby here in germany. they both have big guys,but the diff has to be the speed of the game.u might have a 6'2 250lber in rugby,but u have the same athlete in football but twice as fast,ouch!

PLEEEAAAASSSSEEE DON'T base your judgement on rugby from what you've seen in Germany of all palces bro...comeon now. Germany's like what.....last in the world. even the U.S.A would kick Germany's ass in rugby. We're talking hardcore rugby....New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England etc....

[sungilly]

The difference between the big boys of football and rugby is that in the majority,the big football players can only run or block for 5 seconds then they need to go get some oxygen on the sideline. Strange that football is ONLY played in the U.S. I do have respect for both but I'd say the edge definately goes to rugby in the toughness, fitness, prolonged play....well in every category I guess

Exactly. Jonah Lomu weighed 125kg and could do the 100metres in 10.8 seconds. His training included doing heavy squats standing on an exercise ball!!!! I would like to see an american football player do that. They are too busy getting paid and doing commercials and getting fat.

[King Test]

Rugby is a violent game, people underestimate how much more pain you are subject to without any pads whatsoever. They are both seriously physical entertaining sports, but in terms of physical toughness/pain tolerance rugby is harsher nowadays.

But on a side note, when football first originated in the 40's and 50's, that was easily the most brutal game in modern times. Without padding players were suffering critical injuries all the time, and brawls were almost standard. Early football had the bone-jarring impact of modern day football with the sheer brutality and pain that only non-padded sports (i.e. rugby) can exercise.

In summary, the early form of football was the toughest sport there was. Nowadays its more or less a draw between the rugby and football, in my opinion.

[BigBull13]

Football because it is a sport that is americanized and rugby is still a sport that is still played more overseas.

[Rugby13]

Football because it is a sport that is americanized and rugby is still a sport that is still played more overseas.

No offense bro but that has to be the dumbest explanation EVER!!!!
How does the fact that rugby is played by just about every other major sport playing nation except the u.s.a have anything to do with how physically tough the sport is. If anything I'd say it's the other way round being that america is just about the only country that even cares about football.

King Test - I'll agree with you that the early days of football were tougher but not anymore.

[Z-Ro]

I agree with many of the things said on this thread, but like some of the above stated, Rugby and Football are 2 different games. In football you have athletes that IMO are bigger and faster, but you have more time off in between plays, which allows player to generate more explosiveness, then rest, and repeat, and at times the hits can be brutal, just look at the stuff Ray Lewis can do, or hits that Warren Sapp has made. I also have friends who play rugby and tell me how fun it is to destroy people. And who also have been cleated in the face, stepped on, knocked out, etc... Rugby players also have to run more and endure punishment, because they aren't wearing any protective covering. I think its a toss up, because a 250lbs linebacker, who runs a 4.30 40, could come running at you full speed and lay you out, and trust me, you'll see starz. But in the other hand, a rugby player may not recieve hard hits later on in the gym because of the endurance you need to have to play that game, BUT then again, they take hits with no protection and must still have the mental compacity to get up and keep running. I think both sports have hardcore players, and we'll probably never see them go at it. LOL so I don't know what to think. I say both are hardcore in their realms, so IMO Football and Rugby are both tough. if that makes sense.

Ro

[Rugby13]

I found this post after this South afrian rugby player announced his retirement from international rugby.
"He has had to endure a broken leg, a torn groin, three knee reconstructions and 16 broken noses in an international career that spans a decade."
And this doesn't even mention the countless concussions suffered...that's a given

This current season I've had 2 concussions, fractured collar bone, and a C-7 compression fracture in my back in August last year....and still playing. FUN STUFF!!!

[dalcowbag]

look at guys like emmit, or BARRY SANDERS or ne linebacker. . .could u even imagine what barry sanders would do to a rugby team. . .and oh yeah and aussie rugby player is in the NFL, its Bennet and he is a punter for the chargers, real tough

FOOTBALL

[Rugby13]

look at guys like emmit, or BARRY SANDERS or ne linebacker. . .could u even imagine what barry sanders would do to a rugby team. . .and oh yeah and aussie rugby player is in the NFL, its Bennet and he is a punter for the chargers, real tough

FOOTBALL

Like I said before, take the pads off those guys and then we'll see who's left standing after taking a few hit bone on bone, not helmet on helmet.
And Jonu Lomu (not that you'd know who that is) was asked to come play football and not even the money could draw him to play this sport man. Why would he leave a game that is intense and brutal for 80 mins for a game that might be intense for like 10 mins of actual playing time. Those guys would never last a full rugby game man.
...And Bennet might have played high school rugby and because he wasn't good enough to make a career out of it he went to football.

[Rugby13]

oh yeah dalcowbag, you guys have a pretty good rugby team in NYC, why not go watch. Then once you've seen it think of it about 10 notches higher (that's about how much the true rugby playing nations are better than u.s.a rugby and then we can talk again.
www.newyorkrugby.com is a division 1 club - they'll be ok
http://www.nyacrugby.org/index.htm - another club - not bad
http://www.oldbluerugby.com/ - one of the better teams in the league

[dalcowbag]

Derek Bennet def played prefessinol rugby. . . .but lets say both sports are tough, football u get beat up, rugby u get beat up. . .there have been many guys in both sports that have played with seperated shoulders, brocken legs ect ect. . .but mental toughness. . .FOOTBALL all the way, esp if you are a QB