Who is tougher? NFL vs. Rugby (56k)

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter imaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter imaps3fanboy

Regarding what?

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter imaps3fanboy

Regarding what?

But I thought we had already established if NFL players played for a full 80 minutes with few breaks they'd be wiped out halfway through?

NFL = sprint

Rugby = marathon.

Both are tough but in diifferent ways.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter F1_2004

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter balfe1990

Regarding what?

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter Zlurodirom

Regarding what?

Well the thread has deviated from the initial point several times so I was making sure.:|

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="balfe1990"]

Regarding what?

Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Dawq902"] I beg to differ. Knowledge of the sports is the basis of this entire argument.Ninja-Hippo

Every rugby player mentioned had numerous NFL players named who are bigger, stronger and faster.

Dawq902

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] If you can then do it..... Very simple. The people on the football side have been doing that for pages while I ahve not seen any hard evidence from any of the rugby supporters.BMD004

[QUOTE="Dawq902"]

Every rugby player mentioned had numerous NFL players named who are bigger, stronger and faster.

Ninja-Hippo

Also you stated that the rugby player who ran a 10.2 100m is the fastest rugby player. Three NFL players were mentioned who were faster and more could easily be named. If their are rugby players who are actually faster then prove it. This is what alll of you rugby players are not doing, proving your arguments.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"]

Every rugby player mentioned had numerous NFL players named who are bigger, stronger and faster.

Ninja-Hippo

Right, I'm off to bed.

Will check on the outcome of this delightful argument in the morning.

Ninja-Hippo and F1_2004: Give 'em hell lads. :P

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="balfe1990"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter balfe1990

Regarding what?

But I thought we had already established if NFL players played for a full 80 minutes with few breaks they'd be wiped out halfway through?

NFL = sprint

Rugby = marathon.

Both are tough but in diifferent ways.

Pretty similar to what I said earlier, since people conveniently ignored it:

Ok Football and Rugby are VERY different, if you try to compare them, it is very hard to do. That saying I am going to compare to the best of my abilities, I am American so I obviously have a slight bias, but Football is a much harder sport to a professional at. "Tough" has many definitions, and is not suited for this kind of comparrison.

Rugby is a much more aerobic oriented sport, meaning that they have to have the endurance to stay on the field for two 40 minute halves (I think that's the time amount?), meaning that they CANNOT PHSYICALLY be built like a football player, they might have a good amount of endurance (Strength), but in terms of maximum power, there is no way an aerobic based sport can have the same power output as an anerobically based sport. This means that rugby players require type 1 muscle fibers(aerobic fibers, basically what DISTANCE RUNNERS are consisted of), or have to alter their type 2 muscle fibers (The power explosive fibers, the fibers that 100m dash sprinters use to explode out of the blocks, basically the ones you want for BIG HITS) through conditioning to allow them to last the full time period. This means that they have the endurance, but they SACRIFICE the power to allow for these muscle fibers to last longer. You CANNOT have both a maximum endurance and power.

However, in football, plays last from 2-7 seconds on average probably, for 7 seconds, ANYONE can perform any action (block, run, throw, tackle etc...) at a maximal power output, with the rests between plays, this energy is mostly restored, and then the actions can be performed again, and again, and again. Big explosive hits happen in every game, multiple times. Football players are comprised of pretty much entirely type 2 fibers, they don't need aerobic endurance, because of the breaks, that means that they pretty much only use anerobic power, and this is what you want for a maximal power effort.

It's science that football hits HARDER, weather they are tougher or not, that's a poor word to use and back up, way to many defintions for that. Concussions are a much higher rate in the NFL than any other sport as far as I know. Ever heard of Micro Trauma? Players that never even get a concussion in a career are at risk of early onset of dementia, Alzheimers and other degenerative brain diseases because of constant pounding and the strength of players. THAT is one of the reasons a football player on average will live 20 years less than the average american.

I'd say Rugby has more strength, while football has more power

Pretty ridiculous when a man like THIS:

cant even make it in the nfl

[QUOTE="Dawq902"]

Every rugby player mentioned had numerous NFL players named who are bigger, stronger and faster.

Ninja-Hippo

Do Americans even compete against other countries in American Football? It would be a huge turnoff for me if it was only ever just state vs state.PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I haven't seen a solid argument from any rugby supporter BMD004

Let's continue to recap:

- you know nothing about Rugby. Like, literally nothing.

- Rugby has tougher guys that take more beatings due to being more exposed (can't protect your face with helmets, can't make tackles with helmets or pads), have to endure more pain for longer periods of time due to the nature of Rugby rules allowing punching and kicking and stomping, which NFL players will never be able to sustain for such long periods of time due to being built for action no longer than several seconds. For proof, watch a rugby game.

- your definition of a "raw athlete" (wtf is that? the human equivalent of raw meat?" is the literal description of an NFL player. That's lulz-worthy.

- Rugby players get hit while looking away from the hit, all the freaking time. Tacklers run at others full speed all the freakin time. This further shows that you know nothing about rugby. For proof, watch a rugby game.

- Rugby players are more flexible with respect to moving to other sports, as evidence by what I posted earlier, meaning they are more natural athletes who can more easily adapt to other sports. Football players are good for short bursts in football and nothing else.

In summary, both sports have different types of athletes. NFL players have bigger burst energy, Rugby players take more punishment over the entire game. In a hypothetical game of NFL Rugby... if the game lasted 7 seconds, NFL players would win. If it lasted a full hour+, rugby players would win.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] I beg to differ. Knowledge of the sports is the basis of this entire argument.Dawq902

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Do Americans even compete against other countries in American Football? It would be a huge turnoff for me if it was only ever just state vs state.Zlurodirom

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

From what I see, NFL players hit much harder, and are generally slightly more athletic in terms of sprinting and lifting, however I think that if they were to measure the endurance of the atheletes, the rugby players would come out on top in tht category.

Also, NFL players wear protection, and as much as the football fanboys deny it, it still does provide substantial protection from concussions, while rugby players are left very vulnerable.

Overall I would say that rugby is definitely the tougher sport, while football has the overall better atheletes.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Do Americans even compete against other countries in American Football? It would be a huge turnoff for me if it was only ever just state vs state.imaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Do Americans even compete against other countries in American Football? It would be a huge turnoff for me if it was only ever just state vs state.Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"]Do Americans even compete against other countries in American Football? It would be a huge turnoff for me if it was only ever just state vs state.Zlurodirom

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

From what I see, NFL players hit much harder, and are generally slightly more athletic in terms of sprinting and lifting, however I think that if they were to measure the endurance of the atheletes, the rugby players would come out on top in tht category.

Also, NFL players wear protection, and as much as the football fanboys deny it, it still does provide substantial protection from concussions, while rugby players are left very vulnerable.

Overall I would say that rugby is definitely the tougher sport, while football has the overall better atheletes.

Ramen1020

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

Ramen1020

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

From what I see, NFL players hit much harder, and are generally slightly more athletic in terms of sprinting and lifting, however I think that if they were to measure the endurance of the atheletes, the rugby players would come out on top in tht category.

Also, NFL players wear protection, and as much as the football fanboys deny it, it still does provide substantial protection from concussions, while rugby players are left very vulnerable.

Overall I would say that rugby is definitely the tougher sport, while football has the overall better atheletes.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Prove it. Show me a hit. Show me a hit where one guy didn't see it coming, and he was completely exposed and couldn't protect himself

P.S... I was simply showing you how pad don't really help with big hits.

p.s.s... I don't think you realize how fast that happened in real time. Check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwiMtGsFHwA

BMD004

Seriously I've never seen so many injuries occur during a game than I have with Aussie rules. It does differ to rugby in the sense that in rugby people are able to brace themselves for hits, but AFL is probably similar to NFL in so much there's many a high ball and players just don't see it coming - that's where the injuries tend to occur.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="BMD004"] 1. I was already in the process of making a post when somebody else mentioned his name. 2. How is it weird to say "that guy"? We know which guy we're talking about.BMD004

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

From what I see, NFL players hit much harder, and are generally slightly more athletic in terms of sprinting and lifting, however I think that if they were to measure the endurance of the atheletes, the rugby players would come out on top in tht category.

Also, NFL players wear protection, and as much as the football fanboys deny it, it still does provide substantial protection from concussions, while rugby players are left very vulnerable.

Overall I would say that rugby is definitely the tougher sport, while football has the overall better atheletes.

Ramen1020

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

This whole thread is basically fanboys arguing over which sport is best, and the majority of the arguments have no basis at all.

From what I see, NFL players hit much harder, and are generally slightly more athletic in terms of sprinting and lifting, however I think that if they were to measure the endurance of the atheletes, the rugby players would come out on top in tht category.

Also, NFL players wear protection, and as much as the football fanboys deny it, it still does provide substantial protection from concussions, while rugby players are left very vulnerable.

Overall I would say that rugby is definitely the tougher sport, while football has the overall better atheletes.

F1_2004

They why the hell are you kids still arguing? Grow up and accept that just because you grew up with a sport doesn't make it "TeH m0sT hRdcore EvAr!"

From what I'm reading these two sports are kind of hard to compare. It seems like most hits in the NFL would get you penalized in Rugby.

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Reading helps.F1_2004

Let's continue to recap:

- you know nothing about Rugby. Like, literally nothing.

- Rugby has tougher guys that take more beatings due to being more exposed (can't protect your face with helmets, can't make tackles with helmets or pads), have to endure more pain for longer periods of time due to the nature of Rugby rules allowing punching and kicking and stomping, which NFL players will never be able to sustain for such long periods of time due to being built for action no longer than several seconds. For proof, watch a rugby game.

- your definition of a "raw athlete" (wtf is that? the human equivalent of raw meat?" is the literal description of an NFL player. That's lulz-worthy.

- Rugby players get hit while looking away from the hit, all the freaking time. Tacklers run at others full speed all the freakin time. This further shows that you know nothing about rugby. For proof, watch a rugby game.

- Rugby players are more flexible with respect to moving to other sports, as evidence by what I posted earlier, meaning they are more natural athletes who can more easily adapt to other sports. Football players are good for short bursts in football and nothing else.

In summary, both sports have different types of athletes. NFL players have bigger burst energy, Rugby players take more punishment over the entire game. In a hypothetical game of NFL Rugby... if the game lasted 7 seconds, NFL players would win. If it lasted a full hour+, rugby players would win.