The next time I hear a Brit talk about how tough rugby is compared to American football because "they don't wear pads in rugby" I would like to point out to obvious facts:


1) American football is tougher, therefore they must wear pads.

2) There are girls rugby teams. No such thing exists for football.

My girlfriend used to play football with the guys. She's 5'1" and slender. I would have paid to see that.
I'd say they're about equally tough.

1) American football is tougher, therefore they must wear pads.


Yeah, that's why Olympic boxing is way tougher than professional.

You provide no statistics to verify your claim.

The scientific data collected on both sports does support your conclusion though.

It tends to help people believe you if you actually support your argument. You don't and therefore it's tough to see any validity to your claims.
I wouldn't even bother comparing them as they are different enough so that they shouldn't need to be compared. Professional Football players are able to excel at football, and professional rugby players excel at rugby. There are those who could excel at the other had they been born in another country, there are those who's skill set is defiantly more directed towards one or the other.
There are tough fucks in both sports.

1) Rugby players are tougher, therefore they don't need pads;)

2) There are girls rugby teams. No such thing exists for football.;)

Though really the main difference is the intent of the tackler. In rugby putting the ball carrier in a position to give your team an advantage, usually > Stopping the fucker dead in his tracks.

hockey ftw.

Not to take anything from rugby players and football players. But hockey is the toughest.

In football it is much easier to break your limbs since everybody wears those big ol' helmets. In Rugby you just get bruised and bloody.

In football it is much easier to break your limbs since everybody wears those big ol' helmets. In Rugby you just get bruised and bloody.

Broken bones occur quite frequently in rugby. Broken legs and collar bones are the most prevalent in my experience.

Lacrosse bebe.

6 foot aluminum pole swung at you hurts pretty bad.

Football and rugby are very similar, but more serious injuries happen in football.

The majority of these serious injuries, however, occur on account of the helmets. Football isn't necessarily a tougher sport that thus requires the use of pads and helmets. The pads and helmets actually create more injuries...

Besides, if you're deciding the toughness of a sport based on the amount of injuries, then cheerleading is the toughest "sport."

The force of tackles in Football as opposed to Rugby are MUCH higher.

How? gridiron players aren't superhuman, they can only hit so hard.

Rugby players don't hold back either...

How? gridiron players aren't superhuman, they can only hit so hard.

Rugby players don't hold back either...

It's scientific proof.

When I played football for a team and wore pads, I had a lot more injuries than when I played with just some friends without pads.

The helmets tend to hurt a lot, and the pads in football don't even protect the areas where you're tackled.

If I set football rules and regulations, you'd only need to wear a mouthguard and cup, same for rugby.

I don't think either one is really any tougher than the other, seeing as how they are both pretty hard sports.

Overall though, golf is the toughest sport. :p

If I set football rules and regulations, you'd only need to wear a mouthguard and cup, same for rugby.

I've always been under the impression that cups cause more injuries than they prevent. Anyway in my 4 or 5 years of highschool rugby a cup might've been a good idea once in practice. I really don't see a situation in a game where you're going to get smacked in the balls...

Never wore a cup for High-School football. Horror stories of strangulated testicles and such.

The tackles in football are much higher, in rugby you don't get smoked (that often) from someone jumping off the line, sprinting full force and lining you up. However in rugby you get hit i think its twice (or more?) in a game, and there are little breaks when you can recover from a hit. Look up a show called "Sports science" thats where I got this information from.

Point is: Next time I hear anyone comparing these too sports on bullshit claims (like which one is tougher) I am going to go on a shooting spree.


-To A.P: My first rugby of highschool we watched the seniors play first. I witnessed someone get their knee cap cracked in half. nasty. But I think concussions are most common, then broken legs and popped shoulders.

And getting smoked by a lacrosse stick in the shin or above the knee hurts like a beast

I think American football might cause more damage simply because of the size of the fucking players, compared to the english ones. Most of it is gym muscle though, all pump.

but then english rubgy players, fair few of them in the team are in their 40's!! This is on the English team. how many football players are this age?

In every Rugby match i watch there are a lot of nasty injurys, that are always shrugged off. Unlees they are knocked unconsios or Broken legs.

Most will play even with a broken nose and mangled fingers...

Never wore a cup for High-School football. Horror stories of strangulated testicles and such.

Fuck!!!! No way would i do this, mine would be fucking solid steel mate!

It's scientific proof.

Your stats might show the hits are slightly harder (on average) not that you have even posted them BUT THATS BECAUSE THEY ARE WEARING HUGE FUCKING PADS THOSE PUSSIES. They also get a minute break or more after every tackle and a break when defence and offensive teams swap

In rugby you take hits just as big without pussy pads for a full 80 minutes. Not to mention all the dirty shit that goes on at the breakdown. It's tougher.

And don't get me started on league which has bigger hits then both and no pads.

Football is not anywhere near as tough as Rugby if you're playing both sports equally as hard. And lacrosse is pretty awesome as well, tougher than football not as much as rugby.

yeah amrika foosball is so much tougher then rugby

those little rugby poofs wouldn't know a big hit up if they saw one generated on some kinda big hit up computer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVsWbj59-lE

Rugby isn't even all about big hits. Put it this way; if you took a good professional NFL player and threw him into a world class professional rugby game, I don't think he would be able to finish the game. He would be exhausted and broken.

A good pro rugby player in a NFL game would be fine. He would make hits and runs just as big as the rest of them and probably always feel fresh right through the game

Your stats might show the hits are slightly harder (on average) not that you have even posted them BUT THATS BECAUSE THEY ARE WEARING HUGE FUCKING PADS THOSE PUSSIES. They also get a minute break or more after every tackle and a break when defence and offensive teams swap

In rugby you take hits just as big without pussy pads for a full 80 minutes. Not to mention all the dirty shit that goes on at the breakdown. It's tougher.

And don't get me started on league which has bigger hits then both and no pads.

Slightly harder? No, try about 3, 4 times harder, ON average. Regardless of what you Europeans think(lol@European thought), pads don't incite people to tackle harder, nor have pads been used for the entirety of the NFL. 60 years ago, when the tackles were still used with the same force, where does your argument go?

That's where:

http://livingindryden.org/images/home/finishedWindow06052005B.jpg

LOL American football is a joke of a sport football is a joke its such a pussy sport lol

In rugby they don't wear armor cause there not bitch's and they hit each other in the exact same manner as in football if not harder it takes a man to play rugby it takes a guy without a dick to play football

Euro^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGLFwuJBI4

I miss the biff

2) There are girls rugby teams. No such thing exists for football.

I can't believe I haven't heard powderpuff on any of the posts. It may not be 'professional', but if we're just talking about the overall sport of football, this should be taken (at least) into consideration.

Slightly harder? No, try about 3, 4 times harder, ON average. Regardless of what you Europeans think(lol@European thought), pads don't incite people to tackle harder, nor have pads been used for the entirety of the NFL. 60 years ago, when the tackles were still used with the same force, where does your argument go?

That's where:

http://livingindryden.org/images/home/finishedWindow06052005B.jpg

I call bullshit. So where are these stats? Of course pads incite people to tackle harder more often you dumbfuck they don't need to worry about hurting themselves as much. Why don't they all take their pads off and play a game then? Oh wait they won't because they are pussy. And if they did they would hardly hit each other in comparison they would be so worried. Or hit the same and go off the field hurt in 5 minutes. And btw I am not euro, I am kiwi. And why didn't you respond to my other post? Oh because it throws your dumb argument about bigger hits out the window. You obviously play neither anyway, so shut the fuck up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGLFwuJBI4

I miss the biff

Bring back the biff

I call bullshit. So where are these stats? Of course pads incite people to tackle harder more often you dumbfuck they don't need to worry about hurting themselves as much. Why don't they all take their pads off and play a game then? Oh wait they won't because they are pussy. And if they did they would hardly hit each other in comparison they would be so worried. Or hit the same and go off the field hurt in 5 minutes. And btw I am not euro, I am kiwi. And why didn't you respond to my other post? Oh because it throws your dumb argument about bigger hits out the window. You obviously play neither anyway, so shut the fuck up.


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

Statistics don't lie. You can speculate all you wish about how long a Football player would last in a Rugby game, as could I in opposition. But alas, it's only speculation, aka proof for retards.

It's really not a big deal anyway. Like it says in the end of the video, the Football guy hits 3-4 times harder, but doesn't get nearly as many tackles in as the Rugby player. All in all they get through the same amount of force per game on average.

Again with the speculation. Why would you assume I've played neither?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

Statistics don't lie. You can speculate all you wish about how long a Football player would last in a Rugby game, as could I in opposition. But alas, it's only speculation, aka proof for retards.

It's really not a big deal anyway. Like it says in the end of the video, the Football guy hits 3-4 times harder, but doesn't get nearly as many tackles in as the Rugby player. All in all they get through the same amount of force per game on average.

Again with the speculation. Why would you assume I've played neither?

Don't forget they used a cornerback of all positions to demonstrate. Granted it WAS the LA Rugby Club, and while Jammer does light some dudes up quite often, I'm sure Roy Williams would make the gap a bit bigger.

This is a stupid fucking argument. Neither sport is "tougher" than the other.

By the way, there is a professional football league for women where they wear pads and tackle each other and everything.

This is a stupid fucking argument. Neither sport is "tougher" than the other.

By the way, there is a professional football league for women where they wear pads and tackle each other and everything.

Hawt.

hockey ftw.

Not to take anything from rugby players and football players. But hockey is the toughest.

I REPEAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52wnFAVNBI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7eZuOonPPg&feature=related

Pinball Mgruff is an old ass troll. Y'all are getting troll clubbed.

football football football football .

steriods steroids steroids steroids

I've never seen an ear torn off in Football. Or clumps of hair being ripped out of the scalp because the idiot didn't cut his hair short enough.

Cleats.. Everywhere. I still have dimples in my back from some asshole who had black metal cleats.

Not to mention the fact that fully twatting someone in the face is not even frowned upon in rugby (Yes i mean swinging a haymaker)... In fact its considered a rite of passage to get bashed on the nose by the biggest bloke on the other team. If you get caught you will get a 2 match ban AT MOST ;)

football and rugby look like pussy sports compared to hockey
hockey ftw

football and rugby look like pussy sports compared to hockey
hockey ftw

False. Take out fighting, a gimmick obviously added to compensate for non-toughness/general boringness of this shitty sport, and it's nothing. Take NCAA hockey for example, that 5'4'' or similarly short dude tore up everybody. Sure he probably took some shots, but if he was playing football or rugby he'd be getting crushed with some frequency and his tiny hockey-playing midget body would probably wither or break.

False. Take out fighting, a gimmick obviously added to compensate for non-toughness/general boringness of this shitty sport, and it's nothing. Take NCAA hockey for example, that 5'4'' or similarly short dude tore up everybody. Sure he probably took some shots, but if he was playing football or rugby he'd be getting crushed with some frequency and his tiny hockey-playing midget body would probably wither or break.



so size makes someone tough? That's dumbest thing I've heard. Fighting has been a part of the game since its invention. Clearly not a gimmick. That's the second dumbest thing I've heard.



Also, I'm guessing you were talking about Nathan Gerbe from BC.

so size makes someone tough? That's dumbest thing I've heard. Fighting has been a part of the game since its invention. Clearly not a gimmick. That's the second dumbest thing I've heard.



Also, I'm guessing you were talking about Nathan Gerbe from BC.

No, size doesn't make one tough, but if a 5'6'' 160 pounder(you guessed right) can dominate the 'toughest' sport around without being broken in half by players with over 60lbs on him, then I don't think it's the toughest sport around.

No, size doesn't make one tough, but if a 5'6'' 160 pounder(you guessed right) can dominate the 'toughest' sport around without being broken in half by players with over 60lbs on him, then I don't think it's the toughest sport around.

Tom Brady weighs 225 LB, most football players have a good 100 pounds on him.

Tom Brady weighs 225 LB, most football players have a good 100 pounds on him.

I was using the largest player on his team as a reference, seeing as he'd be more likely to get hit by a hockey defender and not a middle linebacker. Biggest dude on BC is 6'3'' 220.

No, size doesn't make one tough, but if a 5'6'' 160 pounder(you guessed right) can dominate the 'toughest' sport around without being broken in half by players with over 60lbs on him, then I don't think it's the toughest sport around.

See, big players hit the small players. But they don't cheap shot them (except for a few...Randy Jones, Marty McSorley, Todd Bertuzzi, etc.) so the small guys deal with getting hit. They know they cant hit back and do much damage so they become goal scorers. But some small guys do hit back. You chose one player (in NCAA hockey mind you, not NHL) as a reference and are basing your argument on that. And he was more of a "clutch" scorer in the NCAA. The leading scorer last year was actually a relatively big guy 6'2" 215 lbs- Ryan Jones from Miami (Ohio)

I was using the largest player on his team as a reference, seeing as he'd be more likely to get hit by a hockey defender and not a middle linebacker. Biggest dude on BC is 6'3'' 220.

Yeah, but Tom Brady plays football. He'd be more likely to get hit by a middle linebacker or defensive end than a hockey defenseman

I just had a rugby game yesterday, and let me tell you, it's not nearly as easy to stay on for two full halves with no breaks. The only time we get a break is when we run to take positions for a line out or scrum.

There's no timeouts every seconds to discuss plays, no offensive and defensive line, and no bullshit breaks between the downs. It's pick and go all the way to the try line.

You provide no statistics to verify your claim.

The scientific data collected on both sports does support your conclusion though.

Actually I watched a sports science show not too long ago, that proved the hits in football were about 3 times as hard as the average rugby hit. I will try and find the video and give you the link on msn. Keep it gay.

I apologize for being a dumbass, I misread what you said. You win this time gadget.

Actually I watched a sports science show not too long ago, that proved the hits in football were about 3 times as hard as the average rugby hit. I will try and find the video and give you the link on msn. Keep it gay.

I apologize for being a dumbass, I misread what you said. You win this time gadget.

Type in "Sports Science" on youtube, you'll find it eventually. That's how I got it.

Gtfo faggot.

Yeah, but Tom Brady plays football. He'd be more likely to get hit by a middle linebacker or defensive end than a hockey defenseman

Ah I think I missed Azure's point, my bad.

also in hockey youre movin about 3 times the speed as a football player and falling onto rock hard ice not pussy ass grass, and even though you have the equipment it still hurts like a fuckin bitch when you get your shit rocked by another player, probably 100 times more than it does in football or rugby

Actually I watched a sports science show not too long ago, that proved the hits in football were about 3 times as hard as the average rugby hit. I will try and find the video and give you the link on msn. Keep it gay.

I apologize for being a dumbass, I misread what you said. You win this time gadget.

Except in rugby when you get hit you get up and get hit again, not lie down and end the play like a pussy.

also in hockey youre movin about 3 times the speed as a football player and falling onto rock hard ice not pussy ass grass, and even though you have the equipment it still hurts like a fuckin bitch when you get your shit rocked by another player, probably 100 times more than it does in football or rugby

Yeah, I'm not sure if its 3X as fast, but the skating aspect adds a whole other dimension of difficulty. 1/8 of an inch of steel, as opposed to your feet as God intended you to run on.

I'd have to say rugby is defitnally tougher than football but I wouldn't say so by much, I classify all those gladiatorial type sports pretty equally, like football, hockey, lacrosse, and rugby all being pretty much equally as tough as each other.

Rugby isn't even all about big hits. Put it this way; if you took a good professional NFL player and threw him into a world class professional rugby game, I don't think he would be able to finish the game. He would be exhausted and broken.

A good pro rugby player in a NFL game would be fine. He would make hits and runs just as big as the rest of them and probably always feel fresh right through the game

How fucking idiotic are you?

Rugby players may be tough but they wouldn't do shit in the nfl. Too slow, dont tackle low enough, too sloppy, etc.


If any rugby player can tackle Brandon Jacobs 1on1 I'd like to see him.

^^^Wtf? Watch rugby. I will go so far as to say any professional or international player could tackle him. In rugby you wrap the fucker up instead of just plowing into them.

A good pro rugby player in a NFL game would be fine. He would make hits and runs just as big as the rest of them and probably always feel fresh right through the game

Not as a lineman.

Having played both competitively, I KNOW rugby is tougher.

Having played both competitively, I KNOW rugby is tougher.

How could you not play both competitively? :rolleyes:

Pinball Mgruff is an old ass troll. Y'all are getting troll clubbed.

This.

How could you not play both competitively? :rolleyes:

You'd be surprised at the number of people in this thread who tossed around an American football at the park and are counting that as having played American football and vice versa.

How fucking idiotic are you?

Rugby players may be tough but they wouldn't do shit in the nfl. Too slow, dont tackle low enough, too sloppy, etc.


If any rugby player can tackle Brandon Jacobs 1on1 I'd like to see him.

Lol, he's an anomaly. I don't think any NFL'er can solo tackle him either. The dude runs like a horse.

Lol, he's an anomaly. I don't think any NFL'er can solo tackle him either. The dude runs like a horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah1bQQkGYl8


glad to have him on my fantasy team.

foosball is so much tougher then rugby

Yeah spinning those handles is a fucking work out...

And those little guys have a fucking metal rod speared through them!

^^^Spinning is illegal:mad:

^^^Spinning is illegal:mad:

Yeah that pisses me off to no end when people just thoughtlessly spin the fuck out of it.

^^^Spinning is illegal:mad:

Well then fucking arrest me!























































See what I did thar?

You're right, football is the better sport.

http://www.droppunt.com/images/moorcroft.jpg

Yeah Comrade has got it, one still shot not only disproves science, but nullifies all reason and opinion because amazing circus shit can't happen in any sport but rugby, and it would be crazy to think that acrobatic shit like that happened in a good portion of college football games, let alone on football's biggest stage.

Shit, there's 10 equally amazing catches about everyday on SportsCenter during baseball season, in about the least contact, all-time-great is fat and smokes cigars in the dugout sport around.

Football is a bitch sport only reason you wear pads is cause the players have vagina's and are scared of getting hurt rugby players do the same thing as football players but without pads this makes them more manly

rugby players are generally smaller and not as strong as football players. being bigger and stronger scientifically makes them hit harder. I would give rugby players are slightly mentally tougher because of the lack of pads and constant action. I do not think that Rugby players could make it in the NFL. they're just too small.

My girlfriend used to play football with the guys. She's 5'1" and slender. I would have paid to see that.
I'd say they're about equally tough.

you sure she wasnt there for the post game gang bang?

Not really :(

How fucking idiotic are you?

Rugby players may be tough but they wouldn't do shit in the nfl. Too slow, dont tackle low enough, too sloppy, etc.


If any rugby player can tackle Brandon Jacobs 1on1 I'd like to see him.

I think Jonah Lomu would've had something to say about that

i think football players could pick up rugby and be good at it faster than rugby players could pick up footbal and be good at it

rugby players are generally smaller and not as strong as football players. being bigger and stronger scientifically makes them hit harder. I would give rugby players are slightly mentally tougher because of the lack of pads and constant action. I do not think that Rugby players could make it in the NFL. they're just too small.

you're and idiot and thanks caoltan.

this man could have played in the NFL without pads and still dominated it.

Jonah Lomu was the size of a refrigerator and moved like Brian Habana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYt1TOSni4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11E9XctWsMY

oh, and after a kidney disorder, resulting in him facing life ina wheelchair, and then a kidney transplant, he returned to playing rugby for another 3 years before retiring.

Oh and another thing about rugby. I don't care how fucking hard you NFL guys think you can run into somebody, if you stick your head in the breakdown in a rugby game you are going to get a swift uppercut in the face and will be damn lucky if your back isn't all twisted out of shape by the time the play moves along. It's possible that it's the most physical part of the game. You get your ass off the ground and sprint to the next one

this man could have played in the NFL without pads and still dominated it.

lol, no.


Jonah Lomu was the size of a refrigerator and moved like Brian Habana

Jonah Lomu- 6'5" (77 inches), 253 lbs.

Refrigerator- 69.9hX35.75wX34.9d (in inches), 293 lbs. (avgs. taken from http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/THDProductCompare?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorVi ew&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&prodComp_0=100634447&prodComp_1=100641344&prodComp_2=100625509&prodComp_3=100641723&categoryID=529476)

Avg. NFL Linebacker- 6'2, 6'3, 220-260 lbs.
Avg. NFL O Lineman- "6'5" and over 300 pounds, depends on postion. Tackles tend to be tall and bigger"
Avg. NFL D Lineman- "A DT usually weighes about 310. Defensive Ends can weigh anywhere from 260 to about 300."

(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_size_of_a_offensive_lineman_in _the_NFL)

So in pure size, he was taller than a refrigerator, but idk about wider or deeper. In mass, he's a good 40 lbs lighter. In comparison to average NFL Linebackers he is taller and bigger. Given his size, he might have been thrown on the line. But then he is smaller than the average lineman, and usually outweighed by at least 50 lbs. I don't see how his size can indicate he'd "dominate", because he really would just be slightly larger or much, much smaller than a normal guy (depending on which position he played.


oh, and after a kidney disorder, resulting in him facing life ina wheelchair, and then a kidney transplant, he returned to playing rugby for another 3 years before retiring.

good for him. Stupid doctor, though.

^^ Lomu was something special mate, he was that big and at the same time he could run a 10.7sec 100m and move like a much smaller man. He could basically choose if he wanted to run around you or over the top of you. And played a bit of the game as well.

Yeah Comrade has got it, one still shot not only disproves science, but nullifies all reason and opinion because amazing circus shit can't happen in any sport but rugby, and it would be crazy to think that acrobatic shit like that happened in a good portion of college football games, let alone on football's biggest stage.

Shit, there's 10 equally amazing catches about everyday on SportsCenter during baseball season, in about the least contact, all-time-great is fat and smokes cigars in the dugout sport around.

Protip: What I posted wasn't rugby. They don't specky in rugby.

What the fuck ever it's all the same shit. I will give you Aussie rule over rugby, though.

I have heard in football it's actually easier to get injured because you wear a giant helmet which is just perfect for breaking limbs. Sure, you may bleed a bit more in Rugby, and your ears may get fucked up, but you're less likely to break a limb.

I have heard in football it's actually easier to get injured because you wear a giant helmet which is just perfect for breaking limbs. Sure, you may bleed a bit more in Rugby, and your ears may get fucked up, but you're less likely to break a limb.

Yeah the helmet is basically a weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Y9wt3XkHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqg9NjsdTkI

I was watching some sports science show on Discovery, they figured out the hardest rugby hits are about 1900 pounds of force and football is closer to 4700 pounds.

Game, Set, Match

lol, no.



Jonah Lomu- 6'5" (77 inches), 253 lbs.

Refrigerator- 69.9hX35.75wX34.9d (in inches), 293 lbs. (avgs. taken from http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/THDProductCompare?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorVi ew&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&prodComp_0=100634447&prodComp_1=100641344&prodComp_2=100625509&prodComp_3=100641723&categoryID=529476)

Avg. NFL Linebacker- 6'2, 6'3, 220-260 lbs.
Avg. NFL O Lineman- "6'5" and over 300 pounds, depends on postion. Tackles tend to be tall and bigger"
Avg. NFL D Lineman- "A DT usually weighes about 310. Defensive Ends can weigh anywhere from 260 to about 300."

(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_size_of_a_offensive_lineman_in _the_NFL)

So in pure size, he was taller than a refrigerator, but idk about wider or deeper. In mass, he's a good 40 lbs lighter. In comparison to average NFL Linebackers he is taller and bigger. Given his size, he might have been thrown on the line. But then he is smaller than the average lineman, and usually outweighed by at least 50 lbs. I don't see how his size can indicate he'd "dominate", because he really would just be slightly larger or much, much smaller than a normal guy (depending on which position he played.



good for him. Stupid doctor, though.


lol literal much.

of course he isn't as wide or deep as a refrigerator. it's just an expression.

I think you need to read a bit more about him, this is someone who with a bit of training could have qualified for the olympics 100 metre spring. (he was about half a second or so off it i think), could go that hard for an 80 minute rugby match and was that big.

football players aint got shit on jonah lomu.

galgamech summed it up,

I have heard in football it's actually easier to get injured because you wear a giant helmet which is just perfect for breaking limbs. Sure, you may bleed a bit more in Rugby, and your ears may get fucked up, but you're less likely to break a limb.


This is because rugby players are better trained to take tackles properly, and even then, one of my friends cousins got paralysed from the neck down in a game of rugby.
Rugby is also a much faster game, and slightly more unpredictable.

And most of the countries that play rugby are in the north, where it rains all the time, so that's also a factor.

lol literal much.

of course he isn't as wide or deep as a refrigerator. it's just an expression.

I think you need to read a bit more about him, this is someone who with a bit of training could have qualified for the olympics 100 metre spring. (he was about half a second or so off it i think), could go that hard for an 80 minute rugby match and was that big.

football players aint got shit on jonah lomu.

galgamech summed it up,

lolololol you dumb shit of course I know its just an expression. Maybe I do need to read moar about him but fuck that, pick up a book about Michael Oher's life (The Blind Side) and you'll find just as tough a guy, and I'm willing to bet Oher went through a lot more shit in his life to get to where he is now.

I was watching some sports science show on Discovery, they figured out the hardest rugby hits are about 1900 pounds of force and football is closer to 4700 pounds.

Game, Set, Match

A club rugby player vs a professional football player...

A club rugby player vs a professional football player...

Ok well it was still about 3 times as much force, add the intensity of a game and maybe a better rugby player it probably would still not make that much of a difference maybe 20 to 30 % at most. That was also only on 1 hit and average football player will make 6 hits and they say rugby about 18 so at the end of the game its about the same.

IMO that show is flawed anyway, its interesting to watch but as a sports fan with no scientific knowledge i can always find about 3 variables they dont take account of.

A club rugby player vs a professional football player...

It was also a cornerback, which is the smallest position in football.

This is because rugby players are better trained to take tackles properly, and even then, one of my friends cousins got paralysed from the neck down in a game of rugby.
Rugby is also a much faster game, and slightly more unpredictable.

And most of the countries that play rugby are in the north, where it rains all the time, so that's also a factor.

Rugby isn't a fast game.

Football is a fast game.

Gridiron is just dogshit slow.

And most of the countries that play rugby are in the north, where it rains all the time, so that's also a factor.


Wouldnt rain slow the players down because of the lack of grip, it may be harder to avoid a hit but it would be just as hard to give one. And it would soften up the ground, I'd rather take a hit in the rain then when its frozen in the northern football stadiums.

lolololol you dumb shit of course I know its just an expression. Maybe I do need to read moar about him but fuck that, pick up a book about Michael Oher's life (The Blind Side) and you'll find just as tough a guy, and I'm willing to bet Oher went through a lot more shit in his life to get to where he is now.

hmm?

So in pure size, he was taller than a refrigerator, but idk about wider or deeper. In mass, he's a good 40 lbs lighter. In comparison to average NFL Linebackers he is taller and bigger. Given his size, he might have been thrown on the line. But then he is smaller than the average lineman, and usually outweighed by at least 50 lbs. I don't see how his size can indicate he'd "dominate", because he really would just be slightly larger or much, much smaller than a normal guy (depending on which position he played.

sure you do.

Rugby isn't a fast game.

Football is a fast game.

Gridiron is just dogshit slow.

In "Football" the games pauses pretty often, in Rugby it generally goes on until a try is scored or the ball goes out of play, no matter who gets fucked up.

IMO the toughest sport in the galaxy is NO-ONE GIVES A FUCK.

Rugby is much tougher. I played in college and both mens and womens teams beat the shit out of each other. Far tougher than american football. If you ever get a chance, watch a professional team play. It's really quite lovely how you can follow each scrum perfectly. Those bastards really know how to play.

The force of tackles in Football as opposed to Rugby are MUCH higher.

Have played rugby?

I'm not trying to be offensive, just asking a question.

If you have then i don't understand how you can say that my friend.

If anything they are the same. Also the pads take away some of the force in 'Football' as you call it. I also know the force of the tackle and the force felt are two different things.

What about boxing in general? Everyone here's talking about getting hit and aggression, so why not THE sport where you get to punch the other in the face/body the whole time, having to stand up after being knocked down, and using the same punches which are tiring after a few minutes, while trying to keep your arms up to block them or your body moving to dodge them? After all, the point IS to beat the other opponent senseless with your hands.

What about boxing in general? Everyone here's talking about getting hit and aggression, so why not THE sport where you get to punch the other in the face/body the whole time, having to stand up after being knocked down, and using the same punches which are tiring after a few minutes, while trying to keep your arms up to block them or your body moving to dodge them? After all, the point IS to beat the other opponent senseless with your hands.


Well if we're gonna talk about all sports then I throw up Gladiator battles.

Rugby isn't even all about big hits. Put it this way; if you took a good professional NFL player and threw him into a world class professional rugby game, I don't think he would be able to finish the game. He would be exhausted and broken.

A good pro rugby player in a NFL game would be fine. He would make hits and runs just as big as the rest of them and probably always feel fresh right through the game

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

In football they have this thing called an offensive line and they also have a guy who is the running back. IT is the offensive lines job to create a hole to run through, and it is also the runningbacks job to squeeze through the hole. however it takes great skill to find the correct hole to run through as it is not always the one the offense set out to create.


btw when you play rugby you can avoid a hit by pitching the ball to a guy behind you, in football, once you're passed the line of scrimmage, you have 11 dudes persuing you trying to kill you.

Have played rugby?

I'm not trying to be offensive, just asking a question.

If you have then i don't understand how you can say that my friend.

If anything they are the same. Also the pads take away some of the force in 'Football' as you call it. I also know the force of the tackle and the force felt are two different things.

Pads allow a hitter to deliver a bigger collision than a guy without pads FACT! Pads prevent the collarbone and shoulders from seperating while also keeping the brain safe.

In rugby you simply cannot hit someone with the same amount of force as the collision will have more of an effect on the hitters bones.

You have to have a stop in play in football every two seconds in American football. It is dull as shit and lasts about fourteen hours.

Notice the way it is called American Football. It is because nobody else but Americans want to play it except to occasionally hit people.

Rugby isn't a fast game.

Football is a fast game.

Gridiron is just dogshit slow.

Football is slow as shit due to stops in play.

australian football league

hockey ftw.

Not to take anything from rugby players and football players. But hockey is the toughest.

This and lacrosse, what other sports are you physically allowed to fight in?

This and lacrosse, what other sports are you physically allowed to fight in?

Boxing...

Now that this has gone off topic and isn't just about football and rugby anymore, I would have to say that any full contact fighting sport wins by a long shot

No, because fighters or boxers only have 1-2 matches a year. Football can have 13 games a season.

And I'm not a troll, I just like to instigate arguments.

Football can have 20 games a season.



fixed.

Football and rugby are both damn tough, but lacrosse is for candyass douchebags.

GAA

Amateur sports ftw :)

Football and rugby are both damn tough, but lacrosse is for candyass douchebags.


Lol, I've only watched like 4 of these hits, but it should be good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMg2cvz2-eQ

Im not sure which is tougher but i can say one thing. AFL beats probably them. Quite a good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AbugTv3FzY
quite a good fight

No, because fighters or boxers only have 1-2 matches a year. Football can have 13 games a season.

And I'm not a troll, I just like to instigate arguments.

Thats because the fighters need the time to recover and train because it's so damn tough!

So basically, NRL wins, and heres the proof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3yKKX78ByU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gPex7ry1SY

football players need pads because they hit harder and they put themselves in more vulnerable positions like when a wide reciever is coming across the middle and the ball is thrown high, theyre completely defenseless when there up in the air with there hands up. if they didnt have pads they would get seriously fucked. And also theres more contact in football, rugby doesnt have blocking, sure rucks, mauls, and scrums are tough but you dont get knocked on your ass like you would in football. The pads are to keep them from getting seriously hurt or dieing.

Lacrosse bebe.

6 foot aluminum pole swung at you hurts pretty bad.

I knew i would find you Mr. Say it before i get the chance to....lol.....

So basically, NRL wins, and heres the proof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3yKKX78ByU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gPex7ry1SY

Not gonna lie, I thought I would be impressed. I wasn't :(

I knew i would find you Mr. Say it before i get the chance to....lol.....

Lacrosse is NOT tougher than rugby or football, this coming from someone who played most of their young life and could have gone to college for it. There's some huge hits, yeah, but you're lucky to have even one a game, and the constant checking hurts and it's annoying, but it's nowhere near getting blown up like you would in a sport with tackling. I've played HS football, HS lacrosse and HS club rugby(not the best representation, I'm sure), and I have to say football is the "toughest".

Hi,
If you are looking for rugby equipments then you can browse into www.morrant.com

LOL
AFL IS NOT THE TOUGHEST SPORT

GAYFL is fucking soft. I don't give a fuck what you think, cos your a pussy too.

I've played GAYFL, i've watched fuck i use too coach it at my school and your suppose too RUN AWAY from the opposition too kick goals.

NFL and Rugby are very close. I don't think you can compare the toughness. NFL from what ive seen you can smash anyone, but you get helmets n shit.

Rugby you can only smash the person with the ball, but you get no helmets or padding.

The only pussys are the ones who don't play rugby or nfl, but play afl.

football players need pads because they hit harder and they put themselves in more vulnerable positions like when a wide reciever is coming across the middle and the ball is thrown high, theyre completely defenseless when there up in the air with there hands up. if they didnt have pads they would get seriously fucked. And also theres more contact in football, rugby doesnt have blocking, sure rucks, mauls, and scrums are tough but you dont get knocked on your ass like you would in football. The pads are to keep them from getting seriously hurt or dieing.

Rugby players contest the ball in the air all the time.
It's stupid to compare the two games. The demands of the two sports may be similar in some respects but are so different in others that they are impossible to compare. Here's a summary.

1) Ball playing, tackling and punting ability v. Specialisation- Everybody on a rugby pitch tackles, carries, passes, and all the backs at least should be able to punt accurately. NFL players have O,D and special teams full of players who do one thing very well, and I can't think of a single player who sits on both O and D teams in the NFL currently.

2) Aerobic endurance v. Anaerobic power - rugby requires a more all round athlete than the NFL. There are a maximum of 7 substitutes/ team in rugby, fewer stoppages and of shorter duration than in the NFL. The ball is also contested at every tackle. Every rugby player has huge endurance, even the 250lbs + guys.

3) Pace - relative to their size all NFL players have serious pace. In some positions most of the players could be top class sprinters, and the ones that couldn't have some other freak athletic ability (jumping or size).
Some NFL linemen have resting pulse rates 2x that of a normal man, but they can run very fast relative to their size over short distances. The power comes at the expense of endurance (see point 2.)

So in summary, NFL is all about specialisation, pace and power, rugby is much more about being an all round athlete and ball player. Are there players who would have athletic the ability to play both sports at the top level? Without a doubt, but I think it would be very difficult for a player of one to switch and be up against guys who had played the other sport their whole lives and make it.

Only Richard Tardits has played in both the NFL and rugby at international level. When it came to toughness he said that you were talking about:

"Two totally different types of pain. I think the more violent game is American football, and the more physically challenging is rugby"

It doesn't matter.

American Football is a dull soul-less fucking franchise sport where it's all about the $$$$$$, you supporters have no idea what it's like to follow a real team with real fans and real players: who all have passion.

Even if American Football is harder, you're all faggots for arguing about it. It doesn't matter; no one gives a shit apart from you idiot Amerifags who think "0gm0gm0gm 100mph tacklez and brok3n bonez == har0ddc40zrrez dud3z MAXIMUM"

Fucking faggots. I'd golf club you up to the 19th hole and curb stomp you.

1.5/10

Fucking faggots. I'd golf club you up to the 19th hole and curb stomp you.

You sound like an even bigger pussy when you type shit like this. Gurantee your all bark and no bite.

You sound like an even bigger pussy when you type shit like this. Gurantee your all bark and no bite.

Come and say that to ma golfer manz kru. Swear down we'll roll up in our golf buggies and throw tees at you.