501 to 525 of 539 comments
page 21 of 22
carlos09 | 21-11-2009 22:36
Origins of American Football:
Harvard University organized a football team in 1873, but it had trouble finding an opponent. In 1874 Harvard invited McGill University of Montreal to send a team to Massachusetts for a game in May. As the teams warmed up before the game, they realized that they were not practicing the same game. The McGill players were running with the ball, because for them, "football" was a form of rugby. The teams agree to play one game of each of their two types of football. The Harvard team ended up liking the rugby version better. Harvard took its revised game to Yale the next year, and the popularity of the new form of football began to spread.
Now words from president Roosevelt (1905):
"American football reached a crisis around the year 1900 due to increasingly severe injuries. Strategists had come up with plays such as the flying wedge in which a swarm of blockers traveled around the ball carrier and ran over potential tacklers. In 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt urged that the rules be modified to make the game safer, and the following year a group of coaches obliged. These innovations included the legalization of the forward pass. Some of the great strategists of the game emerged around this time. They included Amos Alonzo Stagg, Fielding Yost, Pop Warner, and John Heisman. Some of their plays and formations are still used today, such as Warner's reverse and screen pass."
Say's it all really
Harvard University organized a football team in 1873, but it had trouble finding an opponent. In 1874 Harvard invited McGill University of Montreal to send a team to Massachusetts for a game in May. As the teams warmed up before the game, they realized that they were not practicing the same game. The McGill players were running with the ball, because for them, "football" was a form of rugby. The teams agree to play one game of each of their two types of football. The Harvard team ended up liking the rugby version better. Harvard took its revised game to Yale the next year, and the popularity of the new form of football began to spread.
Now words from president Roosevelt (1905):
"American football reached a crisis around the year 1900 due to increasingly severe injuries. Strategists had come up with plays such as the flying wedge in which a swarm of blockers traveled around the ball carrier and ran over potential tacklers. In 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt urged that the rules be modified to make the game safer, and the following year a group of coaches obliged. These innovations included the legalization of the forward pass. Some of the great strategists of the game emerged around this time. They included Amos Alonzo Stagg, Fielding Yost, Pop Warner, and John Heisman. Some of their plays and formations are still used today, such as Warner's reverse and screen pass."
Say's it all really
rolendude | 09-01-2010 02:55
Rugby is tougher.
Football players do get alot of injuries because alot of the time they think the padding completely protects them.. which is wrong... very very wrong.
Rugby is tougher for 2 reasons.
1) Lean, skinny linemen have to get tackled by giant locks and props.
2) The front row has to withstand an incredible amount of pressure when they push. The hooker has to withstand the pressure of 2 props and the other hooker, and we're the smallest in the scrum.
Despite toughness, rugby is a much better sport. The players tend to be nicer and not some idiotic jock. Also, the sport isn't contaminated by idiotic hic fans. It also takes more strategy, and more brains, and is much more active because you don't play for 3 seconds then stop.
I know this information because I have experienced football for years because im from America, nuff said.
I also play hooker, so I actually experience what your arguing over, i dont recieve my information from youtube or wikipedia.
Football players do get alot of injuries because alot of the time they think the padding completely protects them.. which is wrong... very very wrong.
Rugby is tougher for 2 reasons.
1) Lean, skinny linemen have to get tackled by giant locks and props.
2) The front row has to withstand an incredible amount of pressure when they push. The hooker has to withstand the pressure of 2 props and the other hooker, and we're the smallest in the scrum.
Despite toughness, rugby is a much better sport. The players tend to be nicer and not some idiotic jock. Also, the sport isn't contaminated by idiotic hic fans. It also takes more strategy, and more brains, and is much more active because you don't play for 3 seconds then stop.
I know this information because I have experienced football for years because im from America, nuff said.
I also play hooker, so I actually experience what your arguing over, i dont recieve my information from youtube or wikipedia.
Bucephalus | 09-02-2010 22:14
Nah, not even close dude.. Take more strategy and brains!?!? this has to be a joke or sarcasm that i am missing... there is soooo much that goes into almost every NFL play. it's definitely the most strategic sport on earth
JPW1 | 11-02-2010 03:47
At the end of the day rugby and US football are two different sports.
The athletes in both require different skills and athletic attributes.
The size difference isn't as big as people think. On average AF players weigh about 25lbs more, but that average is blown out by 350lbs linesmen and DTs.
A linebacker is no bigger than a rugby union no 8 or a rugby league second rower. A wide receiver or CB is of a similar build to a centre, winger or fullback.
In terms of what they have to do on the field, AF is far more specialised, and they usually do that one thing very well, while most rugby players must be able to tackle, pass, catch, ruck, kick and all the rest.
In terms of athleticism, AF players are often bigger (the linesmen anyway) and hit with more bulk. They have outstanding statistical times in terms of running short distances and are often great sprinters. Some of the athletic ability in terms of leaping into the air or making catches and blocks on the run is incredible.
Rugby players are much fitter though, they have to get thru a mountain of work. A good rugby player in a game of rugby league might make 80 tackles in a game. They are also expected to run almost non stop (more so in rugby league than rugby union - that's right, there are actually two different kinds of rugby with different rules) for the whole 80 minutes. They might run 8-10 kilometers in a game, make 80 tackles, 15 runs with the ball and a dozen passes. Nathan Hindmarsh is an example of a player who does that in a game regularly.
In terms of hits and the pain you go thru, from experience, it's also different.
Both games test you to the limit, but in different ways.
In AF the tackles are much more reckless. Head high tackles are perfectly legal, and just generally players fly into tackles with more abandon, they often just use their heads as missiles or throw their bodies at the opposing player's legs. This can cause some serious damage, and hurts like hell, particularly when you catch a helmet square to the back or chest, or someone chop blocks you to the ground, you see alot of busted knees that way. But the thing to note is that if you tried to tackle like that in rugby, you would literally knock yourself out, you would definitely get concussed and you might break your neck.
In rugby the hits come in at the same velocity. They aren't as reckless in terms of deliberately hitting the head (though this does happen on purpose sometimes and it happens by accident all the time, sometimes resulting in a broken neck). Players also try not to lead with their heads, for obvious reasons, since no one wants to headbut someones knee without a helmet on.
The thing is, from experience, it does hurt a hell of a lot to get hit without pads on. It's hard to explain, but it's kind of a different kind of pain.
In AF it feels like a big metal object has just been smashed into you repeatedly.
In rugby it feels like you've been punched, kneed and kicked about a thousand times (you have been) and you're usually bleeding from a couple places and have stud marks across your back.
The other thing to note is that rugby is a more violent game in terms of fighting and cheap shots.
At the bottom of a ruck I've been stomped, kicked, punched, elbowed and kneed many, many times and I've even been eye gouged once.
There are full blown fist fights in rugby all the time, it's virtually a part of the game, especially if you're a forward.
In AF, I'm sure there would be more fights, but it's pretty hard to punch a man with a helmet on.
At the end of the day the sports are just different.
They are both great games though and have similarities. Someone who likes one should probably appreciate the other.
BTW, there are players who've played both games
Haliti Ngata is a good example of a guy who grew up playing rugby but is a very successful NFL athlete. It really puts into perspective the whole assumption about NFL players being these incredibly better athletes. Ngata is a guy who would have been a good rugby player, but no bigger, stronger or faster than the average guy in his position. He goes to NFL and is a very talented linesman.
The whole argument about NFL players being the world's best athletes is ridiculous in fact. How would anyone know, they only compete against each other? How do you measure that?
The way that other sports do it is to have world cups where all the countries with the best players compete to see who produces the best athletes and players. But in NFL that's just not possible, because at the end of the day, while it's one of my favorite sports (go Pats), it's only played in one country (the Grey Cup doesn't count, it's strange and Canadian). And it's easy to be the best at something no one else does.
The athletes in both require different skills and athletic attributes.
The size difference isn't as big as people think. On average AF players weigh about 25lbs more, but that average is blown out by 350lbs linesmen and DTs.
A linebacker is no bigger than a rugby union no 8 or a rugby league second rower. A wide receiver or CB is of a similar build to a centre, winger or fullback.
In terms of what they have to do on the field, AF is far more specialised, and they usually do that one thing very well, while most rugby players must be able to tackle, pass, catch, ruck, kick and all the rest.
In terms of athleticism, AF players are often bigger (the linesmen anyway) and hit with more bulk. They have outstanding statistical times in terms of running short distances and are often great sprinters. Some of the athletic ability in terms of leaping into the air or making catches and blocks on the run is incredible.
Rugby players are much fitter though, they have to get thru a mountain of work. A good rugby player in a game of rugby league might make 80 tackles in a game. They are also expected to run almost non stop (more so in rugby league than rugby union - that's right, there are actually two different kinds of rugby with different rules) for the whole 80 minutes. They might run 8-10 kilometers in a game, make 80 tackles, 15 runs with the ball and a dozen passes. Nathan Hindmarsh is an example of a player who does that in a game regularly.
In terms of hits and the pain you go thru, from experience, it's also different.
Both games test you to the limit, but in different ways.
In AF the tackles are much more reckless. Head high tackles are perfectly legal, and just generally players fly into tackles with more abandon, they often just use their heads as missiles or throw their bodies at the opposing player's legs. This can cause some serious damage, and hurts like hell, particularly when you catch a helmet square to the back or chest, or someone chop blocks you to the ground, you see alot of busted knees that way. But the thing to note is that if you tried to tackle like that in rugby, you would literally knock yourself out, you would definitely get concussed and you might break your neck.
In rugby the hits come in at the same velocity. They aren't as reckless in terms of deliberately hitting the head (though this does happen on purpose sometimes and it happens by accident all the time, sometimes resulting in a broken neck). Players also try not to lead with their heads, for obvious reasons, since no one wants to headbut someones knee without a helmet on.
The thing is, from experience, it does hurt a hell of a lot to get hit without pads on. It's hard to explain, but it's kind of a different kind of pain.
In AF it feels like a big metal object has just been smashed into you repeatedly.
In rugby it feels like you've been punched, kneed and kicked about a thousand times (you have been) and you're usually bleeding from a couple places and have stud marks across your back.
The other thing to note is that rugby is a more violent game in terms of fighting and cheap shots.
At the bottom of a ruck I've been stomped, kicked, punched, elbowed and kneed many, many times and I've even been eye gouged once.
There are full blown fist fights in rugby all the time, it's virtually a part of the game, especially if you're a forward.
In AF, I'm sure there would be more fights, but it's pretty hard to punch a man with a helmet on.
At the end of the day the sports are just different.
They are both great games though and have similarities. Someone who likes one should probably appreciate the other.
BTW, there are players who've played both games
Haliti Ngata is a good example of a guy who grew up playing rugby but is a very successful NFL athlete. It really puts into perspective the whole assumption about NFL players being these incredibly better athletes. Ngata is a guy who would have been a good rugby player, but no bigger, stronger or faster than the average guy in his position. He goes to NFL and is a very talented linesman.
The whole argument about NFL players being the world's best athletes is ridiculous in fact. How would anyone know, they only compete against each other? How do you measure that?
The way that other sports do it is to have world cups where all the countries with the best players compete to see who produces the best athletes and players. But in NFL that's just not possible, because at the end of the day, while it's one of my favorite sports (go Pats), it's only played in one country (the Grey Cup doesn't count, it's strange and Canadian). And it's easy to be the best at something no one else does.
JPW1 | 11-02-2010 04:30
Oh, look up rugby violence in youtube, the one that goes for 7:00 minutes. Trust me it's worth it.
Insane rugby fights is another good one.
Insane rugby fights is another good one.
JDolla | 11-02-2010 04:49
it's strange and Canadian
thats kinda redundant...
thats kinda redundant...
Hawk84 | 02-03-2010 08:15
American Football players are mindless jocks as rolendude said, I play both in New Zealand and they are still some of the nicest dudes out there, just because they hit you hard doesn't mean they're bad people.
Also, to put it in perspective, my AF coach who came over from the states a few years after playing for Weber State in the 90's as a WR, played rugby for the first time in his life and scored 4 tries against a one of our best clubs
Also, to put it in perspective, my AF coach who came over from the states a few years after playing for Weber State in the 90's as a WR, played rugby for the first time in his life and scored 4 tries against a one of our best clubs
Bucephalus | 02-03-2010 09:24
mindless jocks... another stereotype that gets thrown around. offensive lineman, specifically centers, are really smart dudes. Most nfl guys are, its just a different type of intelligence.
Bucephalus | 02-03-2010 09:32
Also...referring to jpw's post regarding haloti ngata... Ngata is an elite player at his position in the NFL... his job is to be incredibly strong and take on multiple defenders so the linebackers can make plays (this all wont make sense to anyone who doesn't watch football)... as with a lot of positions, he's specialized in doing a few things. Now if he really trained, i could imagine him being a good rugby player. But the guys in the NFL who i could see being GREAT rugby players, and dominating the game, would be linebackers and tight ends. guys that are 6 foot 5, 260 pounds, with 4.5 (40 yard dash time) speed.
rugbyspaz | 05-03-2010 02:11
As an American who has played both sports at a high level I agree 100% with JPW1. Rugby requires a higher level of physical fitness and has better all around athletes as every player must play offense and defense, give and take hits, pass and catch, run with the ball and kick. That being said I prefer watching AF but think rugby is the tougher sport to play. AF is more brutal in the collisions but that's only one aspect of rugby. Factor in the contact, amount of running, necessary skill sets and fitness levels required and the fact that you can only have a max of 7 subs for 15 total players in an 80 minute game and if you come out of the game you can't go back in and rugby is the tougher sport.
This says it all though, last year I was hanging out with a longtime friend who is a member of the AZ Cardinals and had just played in the superbowl a few months earlier. Anyway, this was a party of sorts and some of his teammates stopped by, introductions were made, stories were told and then my friend mentioned that I play rugby, these guys were a little surprised and then one said, "Man f^&* that!" I think that pretty much sums up this debate.
This says it all though, last year I was hanging out with a longtime friend who is a member of the AZ Cardinals and had just played in the superbowl a few months earlier. Anyway, this was a party of sorts and some of his teammates stopped by, introductions were made, stories were told and then my friend mentioned that I play rugby, these guys were a little surprised and then one said, "Man f^&* that!" I think that pretty much sums up this debate.
throwawaycanie | 04-04-2010 18:55
Rugby is way better than football. For one thing it is way more brotal. Like the fact that they don't were pads. I play rugby and it is the best sport in the world. And almost every county in the world plays it. SO I HAVE MAD RESPECT FOR IT!!! 
Bucephalus | 04-04-2010 19:07
even with pads, the NFL hits are way more brutal... and the strategy and mental aspect of AF compared to rugby isn't even close. You have to have incredible athletic skill, but just as important is your mind
etik5 | 02-05-2010 04:01
I hear all the time that rugby is the real football but which sport came first? American invented in the 1860's and rugby after. As for pads I don't think rugby players need them being that they get the ball and run a few feet before being slowly brought down by five other guys and don't even get hit hard. Rugby doesn't seem to have much strategy other than get the ball and run while 10-15 other guys stand around and wacth. Every play is exactly the same with no variety the whole game, where as the NFL every play is different. NFL football has tons of strategy and game planning involved with every player having some sort of contact on every down. NFL players are also much bigger and stonger and not all fat like everyone thinks (except offensive lineman). Most players train all year round and are built like tanks. So if you think NFL players are weak see if you can run across the middle and catch a pass with a defender waiting to take your head off without you being able to see what's going to happen to you or get chased by a 6'7" 250-300 lb defensive tackle and see if you don't get up without feeling pain or get back up at all. Just cause they were pads doesn't mean it's not a tough sport, quite the opposite the reason they wears pads is one word "DANGEROUS". Players have been parylized and even killed. Injuries in a NFL game are constant sometimes every play, seasons and sometimes careers are ended on a weekly basis from serious injuries in american football and I just don't see the same collisions in rugby, nothing makes me cringe when I see a rugby player get tackled after running two yards. It's just plain repetitive and quite boring in my opinion. Sorry but Americon football all day aye day!
Rugbyrugger13 | 19-05-2010 23:49
Ok Bucephalus lets get technical.
1. The strongest NFL linebacker can make about a 4000 pound hit... a state Rugby player can make about a 1700 pound hit.... However the Rugby player isn't at international level. The hardest hitter in Pro Rugby Union can make about a 3700 pound hit. And if you are wondering the NFL player used your so called "harder hitting pads" (I will get to pads later), and no, the Rugby players did NOT use pads.
Still... The Football player hits harder.... right? WRONG! The average Football linebacker makes about 6 tackles a game.. the average Rugby Forward makes 16 tackles a game.
Also, if you watched the video that tested this, you would have seen that Football tackles almost never cause any broken bones, but Rugby tackles commonly cause broken and fractured bones.
Now about the pads...
Football pads may very well make a player hit harder, but it does protect a player against being cleated/stepped on, which is very very common in Rugby. I get at least one injury from cleating every game. You most commonly get cleated because Rugby is dynamic, it doesn't stop after a tackle, and Rucking commonly hurts the tackled player. In other words, cleating rarely happens in Football because there is no leeway after a tackle to allow cleating to happen. Does your little Football brain get that?
As you know, Rugby doesn't stop after a tackle. You have to be much better conditioned than a Football player because you never stop running. You have to do much more than sprint for 13-15 seconds.
Finally, Rugby has a scrum. A scrum is extremely dangerous, especially for the Hook. Many players lose their lives because of the continuous pressure due to the scrum. I nearly broke my spine one scrum because a second row wasn't properly binded with me.
Also, Rugby does use more strategy than Football for several reasons:
1. The Fly-half, Scrum-half, Eight-man, and Hook have to memorize just as many plays as Football does. (And seriously, making a Football play isn't that tough. I have done it several times with my friends, and the only person that needs half a brain to do it is a Quarterback.. the other guys just have to do their little job.) Also, there is always a fail-safe for a Football Quarterback. If a play somehow doesn't work, the Quarterback always has a time to go with plan B due to the fact that he has time to examine the field after his players has dispersed throughout the field. If a Rugby player's play goes wrong, the other team will most likely get the ball and score.
Also, Every back and even the Forwards in Rugby have to learn to dropkick accurately, and EVERY player has to master the art of punting. Therefore, every player on a Rugby field is a actually a better kicker than the best Football Kickers (because Football Kickers don't usually dropkick).
1. The strongest NFL linebacker can make about a 4000 pound hit... a state Rugby player can make about a 1700 pound hit.... However the Rugby player isn't at international level. The hardest hitter in Pro Rugby Union can make about a 3700 pound hit. And if you are wondering the NFL player used your so called "harder hitting pads" (I will get to pads later), and no, the Rugby players did NOT use pads.
Still... The Football player hits harder.... right? WRONG! The average Football linebacker makes about 6 tackles a game.. the average Rugby Forward makes 16 tackles a game.
Also, if you watched the video that tested this, you would have seen that Football tackles almost never cause any broken bones, but Rugby tackles commonly cause broken and fractured bones.
Now about the pads...
Football pads may very well make a player hit harder, but it does protect a player against being cleated/stepped on, which is very very common in Rugby. I get at least one injury from cleating every game. You most commonly get cleated because Rugby is dynamic, it doesn't stop after a tackle, and Rucking commonly hurts the tackled player. In other words, cleating rarely happens in Football because there is no leeway after a tackle to allow cleating to happen. Does your little Football brain get that?
As you know, Rugby doesn't stop after a tackle. You have to be much better conditioned than a Football player because you never stop running. You have to do much more than sprint for 13-15 seconds.
Finally, Rugby has a scrum. A scrum is extremely dangerous, especially for the Hook. Many players lose their lives because of the continuous pressure due to the scrum. I nearly broke my spine one scrum because a second row wasn't properly binded with me.
Also, Rugby does use more strategy than Football for several reasons:
1. The Fly-half, Scrum-half, Eight-man, and Hook have to memorize just as many plays as Football does. (And seriously, making a Football play isn't that tough. I have done it several times with my friends, and the only person that needs half a brain to do it is a Quarterback.. the other guys just have to do their little job.) Also, there is always a fail-safe for a Football Quarterback. If a play somehow doesn't work, the Quarterback always has a time to go with plan B due to the fact that he has time to examine the field after his players has dispersed throughout the field. If a Rugby player's play goes wrong, the other team will most likely get the ball and score.
Also, Every back and even the Forwards in Rugby have to learn to dropkick accurately, and EVERY player has to master the art of punting. Therefore, every player on a Rugby field is a actually a better kicker than the best Football Kickers (because Football Kickers don't usually dropkick).
Rugbyrugger13 | 20-05-2010 00:13
BTW etik5... Rugby became an official sport in 1823... but it was played before that...
Bucephalus | 20-05-2010 06:03
lol you're a complete moron... i'll get to the rest of your post when im not just getting done with an 11 hour work shift and have some energy.. but i literally laughed out loud when i read that rugby players memorize the same amount of plays as football players. lol, youve got a lot to learn kid. Also, playing a game of football with your butt buddies isnt really relevant whatsoever.
onetimeblogger | 24-06-2010 01:22
Ok! wow, I have never joined a blog before in my life. But the incredible amount of BS I'm hearing from both sides in this blog is making my head spin. FOR THE RECORD:
It is silly to try to determine which one is 'better'. They are different. Neither is tougher than the other. Trying to determine which sport is tougher is like trying to compare which musical instrument is 'hardest'; an impossible task because even the most simplistic musical instruments can be made challenging complicating musical passages. Similarly, it is impossible to say that kayaking is 'harder' than canoeing (just an example) because an athlete may push themselves to the edge in either activity, regardless of their inherent challenges. Enough of argumentative theory...Let's get down to specifics.
I'll start out by saying that I am a rugby player. I have played rugby at the highest level for my age and have traveled internationally with my sport. I come from North America, where the rugby is not on par with the rugby Europe or the Southern Hemisphere. I will readily admit that most of the rugby players that have replied to this blog (at least the ones from North America) poorly represent rugby as a sport. The whole argument surrounding the use of pads is completely ridiculous. Quite simply, it comes down to this: yes, rugby players do not wear pads while football players do. Does that mean that Sean Taylor or ray Lewis are pussies because they wear pads? No. In addition, I do not believe that the argument around the force of collisions in either sport is a valid argument either. Too many people in this blog and elsewhere readily make reference to a single video or compilation of clips to emphasize their views on the force of collisions in both sports. Suffice to say, i think that the collisions in both games are sufficiently colossal. As for the empirical 'evidence' which suggests that football collisions have greater force, all I have to say is that some cheesy American TV show that i saw that compares a defensive tackle in the NFL to a couple of beer-swinging pot-bellies from the LA rugby club is not a valid comparison. In the show, the defensive tackle generated a force of 4000 lbs of force, while the rugby player only generated 1700 lbs of force. Well, next time they should invite a professional rugby player on the show (might make it a BIT more realistic). Anybody who says that they never see big hits in a rugby game hasn't watched enough rugby. I wouldn't blame them either, as professional rugby isn't televised in North America. But that doesn't mean it isn't televised elsewhere. I remember seeing in someone's post that American football is the far more popular sport with way more players. Well, whatever idiot posted that obviously didn't take into account that life exists outside of the US (can you guess i'm Canadian? haha). In fact, rugby is the 3nd most popular team sport in the world, after soccer and cricket. The Rugby World Cup is the 3rd most watched sporting event on television worldwide, even ousting the Winter Olympics.
As for the posts from some of my rugby playing comrades, I am not going to pretend that every rugby player on the pitch has to know how to hit a drop goal from 50 and punt the ball perfectly. That would be a desperate attempt at proving the validity of my sport. I am not desperate to prove this because in general I think the sport speaks for itself. I am not going to go into strategy because I do not believe that it is even worth trying to explain. Anybody who denies the element of strategy in rugby either knows nothing about/hasn't played it or is stuck in 1950. Take it from someone who knows both games, rugby DEFINITELY incorporates strategy at a depth that compares with AF. My issues with this argument do not revolve around the result of the discourse (whether rugby is tougher than football and vice versa), my issue is with the way rugby is perceived in North America. This perception is not helped by rugby players who make outrageous claims about our sport in an attempt to prove its validity in a football dominated culture. However by in large, I will say that most people don't know what the f*ck they are talking about when they make their outrageous claims against rugby.
My advice? Do some research before expressing an opinion. Get to know the game on a global scale rather than the limited perception we have in North America. There are levels of ability in rugby that we know little about in North America due to the amateur nature of the sport here. The athletes playing professional rugby in other parts of the world are big, strong, fit, and fast...just like pro AF players. Look it up.
It is silly to try to determine which one is 'better'. They are different. Neither is tougher than the other. Trying to determine which sport is tougher is like trying to compare which musical instrument is 'hardest'; an impossible task because even the most simplistic musical instruments can be made challenging complicating musical passages. Similarly, it is impossible to say that kayaking is 'harder' than canoeing (just an example) because an athlete may push themselves to the edge in either activity, regardless of their inherent challenges. Enough of argumentative theory...Let's get down to specifics.
I'll start out by saying that I am a rugby player. I have played rugby at the highest level for my age and have traveled internationally with my sport. I come from North America, where the rugby is not on par with the rugby Europe or the Southern Hemisphere. I will readily admit that most of the rugby players that have replied to this blog (at least the ones from North America) poorly represent rugby as a sport. The whole argument surrounding the use of pads is completely ridiculous. Quite simply, it comes down to this: yes, rugby players do not wear pads while football players do. Does that mean that Sean Taylor or ray Lewis are pussies because they wear pads? No. In addition, I do not believe that the argument around the force of collisions in either sport is a valid argument either. Too many people in this blog and elsewhere readily make reference to a single video or compilation of clips to emphasize their views on the force of collisions in both sports. Suffice to say, i think that the collisions in both games are sufficiently colossal. As for the empirical 'evidence' which suggests that football collisions have greater force, all I have to say is that some cheesy American TV show that i saw that compares a defensive tackle in the NFL to a couple of beer-swinging pot-bellies from the LA rugby club is not a valid comparison. In the show, the defensive tackle generated a force of 4000 lbs of force, while the rugby player only generated 1700 lbs of force. Well, next time they should invite a professional rugby player on the show (might make it a BIT more realistic). Anybody who says that they never see big hits in a rugby game hasn't watched enough rugby. I wouldn't blame them either, as professional rugby isn't televised in North America. But that doesn't mean it isn't televised elsewhere. I remember seeing in someone's post that American football is the far more popular sport with way more players. Well, whatever idiot posted that obviously didn't take into account that life exists outside of the US (can you guess i'm Canadian? haha). In fact, rugby is the 3nd most popular team sport in the world, after soccer and cricket. The Rugby World Cup is the 3rd most watched sporting event on television worldwide, even ousting the Winter Olympics.
As for the posts from some of my rugby playing comrades, I am not going to pretend that every rugby player on the pitch has to know how to hit a drop goal from 50 and punt the ball perfectly. That would be a desperate attempt at proving the validity of my sport. I am not desperate to prove this because in general I think the sport speaks for itself. I am not going to go into strategy because I do not believe that it is even worth trying to explain. Anybody who denies the element of strategy in rugby either knows nothing about/hasn't played it or is stuck in 1950. Take it from someone who knows both games, rugby DEFINITELY incorporates strategy at a depth that compares with AF. My issues with this argument do not revolve around the result of the discourse (whether rugby is tougher than football and vice versa), my issue is with the way rugby is perceived in North America. This perception is not helped by rugby players who make outrageous claims about our sport in an attempt to prove its validity in a football dominated culture. However by in large, I will say that most people don't know what the f*ck they are talking about when they make their outrageous claims against rugby.
My advice? Do some research before expressing an opinion. Get to know the game on a global scale rather than the limited perception we have in North America. There are levels of ability in rugby that we know little about in North America due to the amateur nature of the sport here. The athletes playing professional rugby in other parts of the world are big, strong, fit, and fast...just like pro AF players. Look it up.
Bucephalus | 24-06-2010 03:18
There is strategy is pretty much every sport... even baseball. but nothing matches the mental aspect and strategy of football.
OllieK | 24-06-2010 05:06
Eh, isn't it the same??? I've never come to understand those sports...
puma721 | 21-10-2010 00:43
From my limited American perspective... on the surface they seem like similar sports, but they really aren't at all. I hear the rugby guys on how AF is boring because there are so many breaks... it isn't supposed to be that way. $$$ got in the way there. But really what it comes down to is Explosiveness vs Endurance. It'd be like comparing a 200 athlete with an 800 runner. They're both incredible athletes at the highest levels. I don't know much about the strategic side of rugby... but i can vouch for AF... it's not just the QB making reads... every player on the field is making a read and reacting at full speed. It is just an entirely different game, but just because AF requires pads doesn't mean that you don't feel the pain. The pads are over the shoulders and the heads... a lot of af players don't wear leg pads... and there are no shin guards like some rugby fan boys claim. link
I'm not claiming one is more difficult or the hits are harder in one... i just think its a silly argument in the first place. american football players are smart and very athletic. "dumb jock" is a moronic stereotype. Its a preference AND that preference is largely influenced by the society people live in. Just because i like oranges doesn't mean i think you're a puss for liking apples.
I'm not claiming one is more difficult or the hits are harder in one... i just think its a silly argument in the first place. american football players are smart and very athletic. "dumb jock" is a moronic stereotype. Its a preference AND that preference is largely influenced by the society people live in. Just because i like oranges doesn't mean i think you're a puss for liking apples.
JDolla | 21-10-2010 02:11
Football tackles almost never cause any broken bones,
neither do rugby tackles, or nobody would play. broken bones during a sporting event as violent as these two, while expected to a degree, are an anomaly.
neither do rugby tackles, or nobody would play. broken bones during a sporting event as violent as these two, while expected to a degree, are an anomaly.
trekbiker91 | 23-01-2011 23:58
Okay. I don't know all that much about rugby, but I have to insist that the padding that American Football players wear does not detract from the toughness of them. I will say that I am fairly sure that football is rougher. This is not because of more aggressiveness or anything like that; it is because of the sheer fact that these are all VERY large people. Most all football players with the exception of kickers are over 6 feet tall. Also, the average weight of the football player is currently 248 pounds, with offensive tackles averaging 318 pounds. Add the fact that these human wrecking balls are running over 40 yards in 5 seconds and you get a very rough game. If rugby players were the same size I could easily see it being just as rough but I have to say that while rugby players are quite scary it is impossible to equate this to football in terms of roughness
Vixen75 | 01-02-2011 02:18
Rugby is for wimps. American football takes more training, self-discipline, and is definitely rougher.
DayOfGray | 01-02-2011 03:20
Wow five years of pointless debate...
What a lot of hot wind being blown back and forth, here I'll sum up what the argument boils down to.
Apples are better because they taste better than oranges.
No, oranges are better because taste better than apples.
Hey next you could argue about which is faster red cars or blue cars, that would be equally pointless.
What a lot of hot wind being blown back and forth, here I'll sum up what the argument boils down to.
Apples are better because they taste better than oranges.
No, oranges are better because taste better than apples.
Hey next you could argue about which is faster red cars or blue cars, that would be equally pointless.
jayj | 07-02-2011 00:16
@NO EXIT... dude what planet are u on rugby is defo the tougher sport. I have played both. AFM players get hurt because they dont know how to tackle effectivly, basicly they are idiots and have to pad up so they dont kill themselves like some unstoppable moran.
guest
Read more:
But which sport do you think is "tougher"? American football may look bad but they wear so much padding! And the have bloody helmets! And I also think rugby is a better game because it has less pauses in play. And I like rugby because I'm Welsh.
Let's have some opinions of some American peeps!