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

[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.

Dawq902

Rugby makes it work.

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="F1_2004"][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.

Ramen1020

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!"

I'm not going to answer your whole post, as to not open a whole new can of worms... but the fact that you don't even know what a "raw athlete" is just shows that you don't know much about athletics.

BMD004

[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] If you knew of him you would not have said you could name 20 people who could eat him for breakfast. The guy is an animal. Common sense would say 'yeah fair enough, that dude's a beast....' Simple. Dawq902

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][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.

Rugby makes it work.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="BMD004"] Or maybe, compared to those 20 NFL players, he's not as beastly.Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][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.

Ramen1020

Rugby makes it work.

Doesn't any contact to the head warrant a red card, taking you out of the game?

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Bingo. That guy was just ugly. Being ugly does not make you stronger or faster than other people.Dawq902

[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.

Zlurodirom

I'm saying that since rugby generally has more injuries, and probably be more tiring, which would probably make it the tougher sport.

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="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Have you seen any videos of him? He's definitely faster and stronger than a LOT of people.Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="Dawq902"] The helmets are absolutly necessary becasue if they did not wear them some player would be carried off in an ambulance after every single play.ImaPirate0202

Rugby makes it work.

Doesn't any contact to the head warrant a red card, taking you out of the game?

What's your point?

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Have you seen any videos of him? He's definitely faster and stronger than a LOT of people.Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Helmets do not provide much protection from concussions, they can even increase concussion rate, players with helmets will hit with the helmet more than if they didn't have a helmet they wouldn't hit with their head. I think Rugby is a more traditional sport, as they don't alter rules, which makes me think of it as a dumber sport not caring about athlete safety. There are tons of helmets that NFL players use, and the majority of the helmets used don't protect to much from protection, only recently has concussion awareness been noticed in the NFL. So you are saying NFL players have the advantage in everything but endurance? So since that is tougher, would distance running be considered a tougher sport than Rugby since they have more endurance and they throw elbows and don't have protection?Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][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.

Ramen1020

I'm saying that since rugby generally has more injuries, and probably be more tiring, which would probably make it the tougher sport.

[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.

What you are not understanding is that Football has a variety of athletes. There some players that are built only for strength and other for endurance/stamina. It all depends on the position that person plays.

Btw no NFL game lasts 7 seconds games are an hour but usually take 3 hours to finish. Ive watch and played both Football and Rugby and I actually enjoyed rugby more because it was easier and the hits were less harder. But once I began to play football it was much difficult and more skilled base. You need to have a ton of talent to play football. Like another poster said not even Brock Lesner was able to make it in the NFL and he is a very strong and physically fit person. I just dont see rugby players really competing with NFL players in both skill and athleticism

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

I'm not going to answer your whole post, as to not open a whole new can of worms... but the fact that you don't even know what a "raw athlete" is just shows that you don't know much about athletics.

Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Yeah i beleive he is. He is probably faster and stronger than millions, if not billions of people. BUT their are NFL players who are faster and stronger.Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="BMD004"] Have you seen any videos of him? He's definitely faster and stronger than a LOT of people.Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

Rugby makes it work.

Ramen1020

Doesn't any contact to the head warrant a red card, taking you out of the game?

What's your point?

just curious

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] So you are saying NFL players have the advantage in everything but endurance? So since that is tougher, would distance running be considered a tougher sport than Rugby since they have more endurance and they throw elbows and don't have protection?Zlurodirom

I'm saying that since rugby generally has more injuries, and probably be more tiring, which would probably make it the tougher sport.

What do you want me to do? I don't see how I'd be able to be any more specific than I am being.

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="Dawq902"] The helmets are absolutly necessary becasue if they did not wear them some player would be carried off in an ambulance after every single play.ImaPirate0202

Rugby makes it work.

Doesn't any contact to the head warrant a red card, taking you out of the game?

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]

Doesn't any contact to the head warrant a red card, taking you out of the game?

What's your point?

just curious

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Concussion awareness has increased all the way down to the youngest level of football (basically 8 years of age, the term for the level differs around the country). They are realizing that concussions can cause severe damage especially when you get multiple ones. Once you get one they become easier to get.Dawq902

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Exactly, so the NFL playing with helmets that don't prevent concussions would be considered "tougher" by the Rugby supporters. Don't forget micro trauma either.Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Exactly, so the NFL playing with helmets that don't prevent concussions would be considered "tougher" by the Rugby supporters. Don't forget micro trauma either.Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Exactly, so the NFL playing with helmets that don't prevent concussions would be considered "tougher" by the Rugby supporters. Don't forget micro trauma either.Zlurodirom

thats why the avg lifespan of an nfl player is 53, that and heart conditions cuz they're so effin big

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

I'm saying that since rugby generally has more injuries, and probably be more tiring, which would probably make it the tougher sport.

Ramen1020

What do you want me to do? I don't see how I'd be able to be any more specific than I am being.

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Well what's your definition of toughest? Getting hit harder could be a definition, and the NFL definitely does that, don't even try to argue it, I've already posted about why NFL players are more explosive with maximum power. Distance running has tons of injuries too, and it's much more tiring than Rugby. You need to be more specific.Zlurodirom

What do you want me to do? I don't see how I'd be able to be any more specific than I am being.

I would definitely agree with you when you say football is mentally more stressful, but IMO when I think of tougher I generally don't focus on the mental aspects so much as the physical.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Well I doubt NFL players have anything but top of the line helmets, unless they play for a poor franchise. Just without those helmets every play a different player would receive a concussion and we would see a huge spike in NFL player injuries.Dawq902

Well what's your definition of toughest? Getting hit harder could be a definition, and the NFL definitely does that, don't even try to argue it, I've already posted about why NFL players are more explosive with maximum power. Distance running has tons of injuries too, and it's much more tiring than Rugby. You need to be more specific.Zlurodirom

What do you want me to do? I don't see how I'd be able to be any more specific than I am being.

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Nope, common misconception. Most use Riddell, only in the last couple years have players started to use "advanced helmets" to protect specifically head injuries. The main problem was that NFL guys didn't want to look dumb wearing bigger helmets, even if it protected their lives. Players purchase their own gear, so it doesn't matter who they play for in the NFL. Micro Trauma occurs pretty much on EVERY hit, whenever a player is hit hard, there is more micro trauma, eventually it builds up and it can create concussion-like symptoms. But basically you don't have to be knocked out to have brain damage. I'm willing to bet there are 100s of unreported concussions in the NFL every year as well.Zlurodirom

Additionally some players use differnt equipment evey game while others use the same gear all year. Now i'm sure that the team would not care if they bought and wore some super anti-concussion helmet during practice at their own expenses but on game day they are all wearing what they are given.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

What do you want me to do? I don't see how I'd be able to be any more specific than I am being.

Ramen1020

I would definitely agree with you when you say football is mentally more stressful, but IMO when I think of tougher I generally don't focus on the mental aspects so much as the physical.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] I ahve personally seen and worn some of the concussion preventing helemts and they honestly look way better and are more comfortable, they are just outrageously expensive. Oh and their are certainly TONS of unreported concussions. Why would a player want to say he got a minor concussion when he feels fine after the game and does not want to miss the next one?Dawq902

[QUOTE="Dawq902"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Well it's not the classic look, so many guys are turned off. And yes they are much more expensive, but if you're making a minimum of 300,000 for 6 months of playing, you can easily afford a good helmet. Players that are concerned for their health would report a concussion. Retired Hall of Famer football players have stated that if they knew the dangers of concussions way back when, would not have played, because they go through depression, dimentia and degenerative brain diseases.Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] More injuries and more tiring is your definition of a tougher sport? I would classify it as a dumber sport. And don't take that as an attack, because I think NFL players are pretty idiotic to play in the NFL too, but at least they have some sort of protection, and if they're playing I'm not going to let their sacrifice go in vain. The NFL is much more anerobically tiring, as well as injuries occur all the time. The problem is that NFL players are ALL on roids, HGH, other supplements, performance enhancers and pain killers. While I don't know to what extent they are like in Rugby. Because of this, NFL players push themselves farther than it was humanly possible 20 years ago. American football is also mentally tougher, I believe. Every new down has a different play that players have to memorize, coverage to read, actions to anticipate. If you aren't correctly prepared the other team will walk all over you. You'd have to tell me what Rugby is like in that sense, but I see it more like soccer, where improvisation is used more and less strategy.Zlurodirom

I would definitely agree with you when you say football is mentally more stressful, but IMO when I think of tougher I generally don't focus on the mental aspects so much as the physical.

Alright, you make a good point. I'd agree that football is much tough on the mental side of things, because rugby really doesn't rely on near as much mental preparedness. I think it's more similar to soccer and volleyball than football or basketball, where you have set plays and have time to execute them.

On the other hand, you can expect any professional athelite to be very, very mentally prepared, as there is 0 chance they would be getting to that point in their career without that asset.

I would assume that the team provides the equipment... I wouldn't think that the expense of the uniforms comes out of the players own pockets. But maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I do know that players can decide what type of helmet they want to wear, even on the same team. For example, Peyton Manning wears the new "Revolution" football helmet from Riddell, while his teammate, Reggie Wayne, wears the old style.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Yeah concussions are a dangerous thing but I do not think players buy their own helmets. On an NFL team they all have the same equipment depending on who sponsors the team. This basically goes for any sport. Dawq902

Played both 2yrs each in college and sustained broken collar bone, torn acl and dislocated shoulders playing football. Rugby is a hell of a tough sport but you hit so so so much harder in football.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Ramen1020"]

I would definitely agree with you when you say football is mentally more stressful, but IMO when I think of tougher I generally don't focus on the mental aspects so much as the physical.

Ramen1020

Alright, you make a good point. I'd agree that football is much tough on the mental side of things, because rugby really doesn't rely on near as much mental preparedness. I think it's more similar to soccer and volleyball than football or basketball, where you have set plays and have time to execute them.

On the other hand, you can expect any professional athelite to be very, very mentally prepared, as there is 0 chance they would be getting to that point in their career without that asset.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Yeah concussions are a dangerous thing but I do not think players buy their own helmets. On an NFL team they all have the same equipment depending on who sponsors the team. This basically goes for any sport. Dawq902

I would assume that the team provides the equipment... I wouldn't think that the expense of the uniforms comes out of the players own pockets. But maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I do know that players can decide what type of helmet they want to wear, even on the same team. For example, Peyton Manning wears the new "Revolution" football helmet from Riddell, while his teammate, Reggie Wayne, wears the old style.

BMD004

NFL, your so much more susceptible to big hits becasue everyone is running at full speed and it is easy to get big hits especially when your looking at catching the ball and not the person about to tackle you. Plus in rugby you can just lateral the ball back and try to avoid getting hit

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="Dawq902"] Yeah i beleive he is. He is probably faster and stronger than millions, if not billions of people. BUT their are NFL players who are faster and stronger.Ninja-Hippo

No one has yet to provide a single Rugby player with the phsycial tools to play in the NFL, peroid...

It requires unbelievable physical talent to start in the NFL, and I have yet to see a Rugby player with the size, speed or agility to make in the NFL...

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] And there are probably rugby players who are faster and stronger.heysharpshooter

No one has yet to provide a single Rugby player with the phsycial tools to play in the NFL, peroid...

It requires unbelievable physical talent to start in the NFL, and I have yet to see a Rugby player with the size, speed or agility to make in the NFL...

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] And there are probably rugby players who are faster and stronger.heysharpshooter

No one has yet to provide a single Rugby player with the phsycial tools to play in the NFL, peroid...

It requires unbelievable physical talent to start in the NFL, and I have yet to see a Rugby player with the size, speed or agility to make in the NFL...

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] It seems the only answer they will accept is that NFL wins. There can be no compromise. There does not exist a single rugby player in the world of which there is not a greater NFL player apparently. Beats me.... :?Ravensmash

No one has yet to provide a single Rugby player with the phsycial tools to play in the NFL, peroid...

It requires unbelievable physical talent to start in the NFL, and I have yet to see a Rugby player with the size, speed or agility to make in the NFL...

The word start came up..."Physical talent to START in the NFL"...

Iam sure most rugby players could play special teams... but maybe 1 could start somewhere, like WR or maybe S... there are no lineman, QB's or CB's in Rugby....

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

No one has yet to provide a single Rugby player with the phsycial tools to play in the NFL, peroid...

It requires unbelievable physical talent to start in the NFL, and I have yet to see a Rugby player with the size, speed or agility to make in the NFL...

heysharpshooter

The word start came up..."Physical talent to START in the NFL"...

Iam sure most rugby players could play special teams... but maybe 1 could start somewhere, like WR or maybe S... there are no lineman, QB's or CB's in Rugby....