January 31, 2012
Football or Rugby: Whose Players are Tougher?
What's tougher: Rugby or American football? Photo credit: Tim Clayton / 101010 / Corbis
Super Bowl Sunday is coming up, and I’ve been asking local pubs here on the South Island of New Zealand if one might be able to catch the world’s biggest game on television.
But the national sport of New Zealand is rugby, and the Super Bowl is not an event that many locals make bowls of guacamole and invite friends over for. It sounds like football fans in Kiwi land could be hard-pressed to find venues showing the match. In the seaside town of Kaikoura, one bartender told me he didn’t plan on airing the game and said I’d probably be the only person in town looking to watch the Super Bowl. The bar manager at Strawberry Tree, a worn and salty old watering hole on Kaikoura’s main and only drag, said that American football is too slow-paced to watch on TV.
“Rugby is 80 minutes nonstop,” said Stephen Horton, who also plays lock and open-side on Kaikoura’s regional team. “And in football, you have two lines of players that switch at every play, right?”
Right—defense and offense. So, what are you saying, I asked Stephen—that football players are padded, coddled softies? Do you think they’re less durable than rugby players?
“Oh, yeah!” he laughed. “Those guys wouldn’t last 80 minutes in a rugby match!”
Andrew and I raised our beers to that, noting to Stephen that the big-bellied beasts called linemen who may, by some stroke of chance, find the ball in their hands and run it in for an 80-yard touchdown can require oxygen masks in order to recover. This got Stephen and another Kiwi at the bar laughing—and certainly didn’t win toughness points for American footballers.
And so our conversation quickly took the form of one of the endless topics in sports talk: Are rugby players as tough as football players? Consider this quote I found recently on an online discussion: “NFL players are bigger, stonger (sic), faster. Almost all of them have college educations. The average NFL player could pick up the average Super 14 player, turn him upside down, and shake him like a piggy bank.”
But Stephen, like many New Zealanders, feels otherwise. “I definitely think rugby is harder,” he said, “but football looks more fun. You wear all that padding and can hit each other as hard as you want. You get hurt in rugby. I’ve had three broken collar bones and been knocked out three times.”
Rugby players are trained gentlemen, too. In New Zealand, they start playing at as young as four years of age, and even in adult leagues, swearing is forbidden during practice and “joking around,” Stephen explained, is curtailed by the coaches. Nor do players perform sometimes classless celebrations after scores or victories, as we see in the NFL.
Later in the week, in Blenheim, I stopped at the Moa Brewing Company for a beer—and to egg on more conversation. Here I met Michael Miller, an American living in New Zealand and working with the brewery. In eight months here Michael has picked up on the subtleties of rugby that American football lacks. “I don’t mean to be derogatory toward anyone, but rugby is more intellectual,” he said, explaining that, since they lack protective gear, the players must combat each other with exceptional technique. He likens the sport to “guerrilla warfare,” whereas the face-off-and-charge approach of the NFL is more “like Civil War” battle style. “Rugby can also be quite brutal,” Michael said, “but it’s also more beautiful and elegant.” He noted that rugby players must be skilled in tackling, running and handling the ball—all aspects of the game—whereas football players are specialized to certain techniques, making them less rounded as tactical athletes.
Having seen both games up close, Michael also feels that American football, much more than rugby, “has been evolved for commercialization and television.” Which explains the three-hour games, endless breaks and timeouts and the huge advertising campaigns that climax on Super Bowl day.
This T-shirt, spotted in a Kaikoura gift shop, reflects a common Kiwi impression of American footballers: They're wimps.
And I asked that pivotal question: Of rugby players and NFL footballer, who’s tougher?
“It would have to be the rugby guys,” he said. “You have to run nonstop. You can’t be a huge tuna-fish linebacker and play rugby.”
Back in Kaikoura, I asked Stephen if he’d be watching the Super Bowl, but no: He’d rather be on the local pitch playing some rugby or diving for paua or lobster off the beach. And me? If my hometown 49ers had won their way into the battle, I’d be hunting for a television in Christchurch—but I think I’ll go fly fishing.
32 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As toughness is not defined, it’s really subjective in the article. Mr. Miller states, “You have to run nonstop. You can’t be a huge tuna-fish linebacker and play rugby.” If toughness is defined by the ability to run nonstop, then women soccer players and marathoners are much tougher than rugby or football players.
It’s really trying to compare apples to oranges. In football you have protective gear that allows you to hit much harder than any rugby player would ever dare, primarily out of a sense of self preservation.
What would be interesting is having the top rugby team and top football team play each other in their respective sports.
Comment by sparcboy — January 31, 2012 @ 12:43 pm
I agree. It’s comparing two different sports. The athletes of these sports are conditioned accordingly. I’ll tell you this though, anyone who played today’s game of pro American football without pads or a helmet would last one or two plays before leaving the field on a stretcher–that’s just the nature of the game. It’s different. If you want to see who’s tougher put them in the octagon.
Comment by jason — January 31, 2012 @ 10:41 pm
As someone who’s played both sports. I would say that you have to be pretty damn tough to play either. I would say that the speed and violence of the collisions in the NFL are much more kinetic – and therefore you have to be ‘tough’ in order to get back up and do it again. However, Rugby in my experience is a ‘tougher’ sport to play being that it requires a much higher level of metabolic conditioning. Keeping a high work rate in American Football is an easier task that keeping a high work rate in high level Rugby. To say that one athlete is ‘tougher’ is well… tough to say. Yet in my experience Rugby was a tougher SPORT to play. It required more effort to be effective AND frankly it hurts a LOT more. So in my opinion both athletes need to be hard, but Rugby is a harder sport to play at a high level consistently.
Comment by El Oso — January 31, 2012 @ 11:07 pm
“world’s biggest game on television” que?
The soccer world cup final is watched by, on average, 7 times more people than watch the superbowl.
The superbowl may be big in america but is a dit on the world map.
Comment by Ben Lucas — January 31, 2012 @ 11:07 pm
Most definitely apples and oranges. Wrestling(Olympic not WWE garbage) vs boxing? And what about ice hockey, hurling, lacrosse Aussie Rules Football or rugby league?
In American football, an idea of hitting hard and inches and yards in terms of position are valued. In rugby, possession of the ball is all important. In American football, there are a limited number of offensive attempts before possession must be relinquished, putting an urgency in activity that is not present in rugby.
On the other hand, rugby, has no limit to number of offensive attempts and position regarding positive or negative movement of the teams’ possession of the ball has no impact regarding length of possession. So, power, speed, endurance needs are as different as the skill-sets needed.
I have had the privilege of meeting NFL players and the privilege of having friends who are world class rugby player from New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, Ireland and many more. The science of physical training in the USA has been more focused in years past and an emphasis on size has always been important. So, in the not so distant past, NFL players would on the average, be much larger specimens than your average test rugby union player.
Recently, as professionalism has become part of rugby, so has an increased focus on the science of physical training, with the predictable results of an increase in the typical size of a test level rugby player. It has also resulted in certain positions being selected to not play a whole 80 minutes, but rather 60 minutes with a high-impact player coming on in replacement. This second factor has greatly added to the ability of teams to effectively utilize players with physical power, speed and endurance more typical of the NFL player.
So, judge not the sport, but rather the individual participant. Both sports have true storied of legendary efforts given by players under conditions that would stagger if not kill the common man. NFL player Jack Young blood played with a broken leg, Lawrence Taylor played with broken ribs and a recently dislocated shoulder, but All Blacks Test forward Dick ”Red” Conway, broke a finger playing softball and had it amputated so that he could tour South Africa in 1960.
Toughness is when asked the tough questions physically, one who is not afraid to attempt an answer regardless of whether or not one is really up to the task.
Cheers….Keil a rugby player, wrestler and former American football player
Comment by Cornelius O'Connell — February 1, 2012 @ 2:51 am
American Football players might not be up to running for 80 minutes, but I doubt rugby players would survive the first scrum against an NFL D-Line
Comment by David — February 1, 2012 @ 3:08 am
David you make a valid point on a NFL D-line in a scrum but the scrum is only 8-10% of the game and the lineman would be walking “holes” on the field due to conditioning and the rugby team would run circles around them. Reading the consensus that both sports are “conditioned” to use their strengths is a much better point. In my opinion rugby players are “more rounded” athletes, all players need to pass, kick, tackle..etc. Whereas football players are more specialists at their position, not needing to do all aspects of the game, block, pass, tackle, kick..etc.
After playing football for over 10yrs then going on to not only play but referee and coach rugby, I would have to agree with the metality of the New Zealand people that football is really boring with all the stoppage of play and commercials for advertising.
Comment by Matt — February 1, 2012 @ 12:05 pm
As an American, grown up under total submersion of the game of American Football; I’ve seen what it requires as well as what it lacks.
I started playing Rugby in Jr high – participated in football as well.
The consensus is this.
You cannot say which SPORT is ‘tougher’ than the other, due to the fact that they both have separate goals and required skills; more ‘difficult’ on the other hand, is well conceived. In rugby one must think and act on his feet, in the midst of the action. Confidence and support must accompany decisions for the full affect – in football one leaves a huddle knowing just what he’s supposed to do for the couple seconds of play per play.
The question of toughness must be directed toward’s the individual players. Which even on this level it’s a bit of controversy.
Some say ‘the average NFL player is larger/stronger than the average Rugby player’ – yeah sure if you’re talking about line-backers, who as well as they are large could not muster speed, agility, or overall athletic capabilities to match that of the average rugby player. For large does not always mean lean muscle, most linebackers I’ve seen have huge guts.
Rugby on the other hand, regardless to height or weight the player must be able to surpass a fitness standard. 6’7″ 320lbs – Lock Paul O’Connell for Ireland – can guaranteed outrun/out endure/out perform any linebacker.
For David – I’ve very certain rugby scrummers could more than hold their own against an NFL D-line.
Lastly, I realize most comments made are of simple bias, even some of mine.
The truth of the matter is it’s impossible to formally answer the question at hand without a test or something to prove it through. Anyone can play the ‘what if’ or ‘I think’ game all day long.
Comment by Brok Ross — February 1, 2012 @ 2:57 pm
Less pads, more hitting, this rugby season i got kicked in the face and loss a few pints of blood from my nose and cut in my lip. I think rugby is tougher
Comment by Andrew Barry — February 1, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
rugby players! not as much protection, they play offense & defense, no timeouts, no blocking (no hiding behind the big man) and the rules say they actually have to make tackles (not just run into the opposing player). Everyone can touch the ball and everyone can be tackled if they have the ball. After you make a tackle or get tackled the play isn’t over, get up and keep moving. If football played by the same rules it might not be so boring. Rugby players go out of bounds the other team gets the ball, football players go out of bounds they keep the ball, kickers (can’t touch em) and the fact that’s there’s an unnecessary roughness call… – all kinda makes football look soft. It is apples and oranges tho. Looking forward to rugby back in the Olympics this summer (even if it is 7′s).
Comment by FrankE — February 1, 2012 @ 10:17 pm
Rugby is a game built on a foundation of respect. Football is not. (some) Coaches treat players like cattle. Players tackle and block each other without regard to the other’s safety. Driven by the almighty dollar, and an absurd honor code, football players destroy themselves with multiple concussions.
Rugby players hit hard and do damage, but are trained to play for 80 minutes, non-stop, without pads, without subs, and still be able comeback next week and play again.
And then there is the aftermatch function! You would never see two football teams come together to break bread and party. Rugby players are different and overall better people. Please do not get me wrong, some football players are wonderful citizens, but too many are not.
Comment by Ray Schwartz — February 2, 2012 @ 4:04 am
This is the biggest bag of horse excrement I’ve ever read. You people don’t even know what a linebacker is. Linebackers are some of the most athletic players on the field. Linebackers do not have big guts. Some linemen (see the difference in terminology there?) have guts. These men are huge and are bigger than anything on a rugby team. While I will agree that rugby probably requires a great level of aerobic conditioning, the hits are definitely harder in football. I think the reason kiwis (and the rest of the god-forsaken commonwealth) don’t like American football is because they don’t understand it. It is a very technical game, not only with the rules, but as to how it’s played. I doubt whether any kiwi could decipher an offensive play call without having to resort to someone who has actually played the game. Deuce right, 255 X block slant, H disco, alert 14 belly.
So, spare the the rugby vs. football talk. And to the freakin’ numbskull that says rugby players are overall better people? What utter crap.
Comment by Jeff — February 3, 2012 @ 3:15 am
There is one aspect of rugby that is far more difficult than in American Football, and it does require more toughness on the player’s part. The kicking game. In football the extra point kick is made from in front of the goal every time. In Rugby, as I played it, the kick is made from 25 yards back from where the try was made. So a rugby kicker is often kicking further diagonaly and at a narrower target than the football kicker. Oh, and the rugby kicker also has to play the rest of the game.
Comment by Ross McIntosh — February 3, 2012 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, right. All the guys I played with in High School who weren’t good enought to make a collegiate team all ended up playing rugby, and of course they too defended it as the better/tougher sport. (and, might I add… “gentlemanly”.) As for comment by Brok Ross: all linebackers have huge guts, giime’ a break. There’s not a more conditioned player on the field, as as a former linebacker I’d stomp a mud hole in a sissy, stripe-shirted rugger. Bring it !!!! American football rules!, and for pure sport value, nothing tops American Football. You think you’re tougher because you bleed? Get real !!!!
Comment by Geno — February 3, 2012 @ 5:06 pm
These two sports both have their advantages in terms of the physical aspect. I would say that the toughest collisions in football are far more violent than the hardest collisions in rugby. However, on the same note, I would say that the average impact in rugby is more intense than the average impact in football. In addition, the fastest or strongest football players are probably faster or stronger than the fastest rugby players, but the average rugby player is faster and stronger than the average football player. The reason: in football, players specialize at one position–linemen have to be stronger than receivers and receivers have to be faster than linemen–where as in rugby any given players has to be somewhat fast and somewhat strong in order to compete.
Comment by Jeremy — February 3, 2012 @ 5:24 pm
European Champions League also gets more viewers. So do the Olympics. And so does the Cricket & Rugby World Cups get more viewers tham the Super Bowl.
Comment by Justin — February 3, 2012 @ 5:26 pm
I played and love both sports. The toughest athletes I know are, however, mountaineers. Note: Brok Ross is not to be believed. Linebackers do not have big guts. He doesn’t know the difference between linemen, who usually do have large bellies, and linebackers. Linebackers & running backs are usually the best all-round athletes with the most sculpted bodies. Sorry Brok, if you don’t know the difference between a linebacker and a lineman, don’t think you actually played American football.
Comment by Jeff Rasley — February 3, 2012 @ 9:45 pm
First don’t forget that football (de)evolved from rugby. Rugby is a continuous sport of 80 minutes (two-40min halves) of 15 men/women on each side with no timeouts whereas a recent article in the Wall St. Journal documents about only 12 mins of actual play time in an American NFL football game – 6 mins for the offense and 6 for defense with 11 players on each side. In football the helmet and pads are very hard plastic and players are coached to use them as weapons. Both rugby and football can result in concussions however in football the player is taught to use their head and they have many more head collisions per game than a rugby player who is taught to avoid using the head for impact.
Football by design is a game of inches demanding high impact collisions to prevent yardage gains – in Rugby a loss or gain of 50 yards a play is routine allowing for utilizing a proper tackling technique – in rugby it is illegal to not wrap the player being tackled (to absorb the impact) however football does not require wrapping – a mistake in my opinion. Maybe the more significant question should be a comparison of the safety of the two sports. Women play rugby too and for women there is probably little doubt that it is their most physical (toughest?) sport. I am 52 and play full contact rugby in old boy rugby tournaments in the U.S. with many teams to compete with – there are not too many tackle football leagues for old boys – that may not help answer the toughness issue but maybe the safety question.
Comment by Brian Colliins — February 4, 2012 @ 11:55 am
Wayne “Buck” Shelford New Zealand All Black – torn scrotum stitched up on the sidelines and went back in the game – same game, he lost 4 teeth and was knocked out cold… only then did he leave the game…. toughest player in any sport any where… enough said.
Comment by Schlomo — February 5, 2012 @ 12:49 am
There are some intelligent attempts at a response to the this question, however as several of you said, it’s comparing apples and pears really.
Having said that, I have always thought that Rugby was an overall tougher game.
a. Less padding, but still hit pretty hard. Rugby has learn’t a few things about tackling from the Rugby League boys, especially as there has been much more crossover of players in recent years. Before rugby became professional we had rugby players go off to play league, but now both are professional there has also been league players coming into rugby. Big bruisers they are as well.
b. Most rugby players can play a full 80 minutes (or more) and it’s virtually non-stop. When I was first playing the game as a kid, the NZ national team (All Blacks) were not even allowed substitutes for injury. i.e. you played the full 80 minutes notwithstanding any injuries.
There have been some legends of the game who have played on with horrific injuries. One full back played with a broken arm!!! A fullback was, then, your last line of defence so he had to be able to catch a high ball, kick it back, AND still make tackles. Then they brought in substitutes for injuries only sometime back in the 60s or 70s (health & safety was around then it would seem – or common sense)
Since professionalism the rules have changed to allow tactical substitutions, but unlike League where it’s called the interchange bench and multiple (inter)changes are permitted but only up to a limit, and American football where 2 complete teams interchange depending on whether on attack or defence, any number of times, once the change has been made (in Rugby) they are not permitted back on the field unless there has been a serious injury and there’s no one left. Temporary blood bin repairs are also permitted. If someone must go off to get stitches put in for a head gash for example, a player from the reserve bench can replace them for a maximum time (10 minutes I think) when the replacement comes off and the injured and repaired player goes back on.
c. Although size can make a difference, unlike American football, which I am told selects players for physical attributes for the position rather than straight out ability, in Rugby, it’s the skill and ability firstly and foremost. If speed and ball skills are achievable in a large player e.g. Jonah Lomu then that will probably give them selection priority. Even more important than that though is Rugby intelligence. There is not much place these days for a big dumb ox of a forward that simply rumbles up the field doing one thing only and that being dependent on his size and weight over anything else. That’s why in the past we have had players such as Grant Batty playing on the wing who was only 5′ 5″ tall and weighed 150lbs, but he was effective because he was fast, had a superb ability of beating his opponent one on one, and was aggressive enough to take on the biggest forwards in defence. He was like a little terrier. I remember seeing him run almost the length of the field to join in when a couple of his team’s forwards got involved in an on-field skirmish with their opponents.
Does this make ‘em tougher?
Dunno, but as a whole team I would say a definitive ‘yes’ simply because of the overall ability, and as I say these days, the hits when tackling are huuuuge. The only difference as someone pointed out here, is that in American football you can just run into an opponent whereas, in rugby you MUST use you arms in a tackle not just do a shoulder charge. Supposedly safer, but if you see the hits that go on, you would have to wonder about that logic. You can’t spear tackle either which is where you pick someone up by the legs and dump them on their head, nor can you tackle a player while they are in the air, when jumping for the ball to either catch it in a line out or to catch a high punt. You must wait for them to hit the ground again. Of course if you get your timing right, as soon as a tippy toe touches the earth, you slam the sh!t out of them, and there is nothing they can do to prevent being hurled to the ground no matter how awkwardly, as they are usually completely off balance, and it’s all perfectly legal.
Comment by Norris Hanna — February 5, 2012 @ 6:55 am
from the u.s. football has nothing on rugby, i just recently watched new zealand play france and it was awesome,just really liked it…….it’s the game with balls..ed
Comment by ed — February 5, 2012 @ 2:17 pm
There’s something in the fact that the two most essentially American sports, baseball and American football are both games of discrete plays rather than of continuous play. Not sure what that something is, though.
Closer to topic, an interesting experiment would be to pit two rugby teams against each other in American football and two American football teams against each other in rugby and see which players put in a more creditable performance.
Comment by Michael Traynor — February 8, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
Hey Jeff — February 3, 2012 @ 3:15 am & Geno — February 3, 2012 @ 5:06 pm.
I wondered when the insults would come. So you think footballers are tougher, eh?
So why not just say so and debate it without the insults which just takes away any credibility you might have.
Insults don’t win a debate, they just annoy people who ARE trying to have a reasoned debate, but I guess you may have been hit hard too many times playing football to reason a cogent debate, so I’ll forgive you.
Now I guess I will get flamed for not being able to take it.
Comment by Norris Hanna — February 9, 2012 @ 7:48 am
As an American that is currently living in Hong Kong where Rugby and Futbol rule the TV and sports coverage, I have a similar perspective to all the expats who commented. After watching and learning the game I quite enjoy watching rugby, it is an entirely different sport than American Football and very difficult to compare.
However, I love American Football and I have got myself into this discussion numerous times and every time its the same thing. The people who I am talking to (usually British, Australian, New Zealand descent)always have the same argument- American Football is boring (takes forever to play), only short bursts of action, they are less tough as they where pads. They always end up saying how difficult Rugby is in terms of endurance and understanding the rules.
However, the fact of the Matter is none of these people understand the game of American Football. I have played the sport my entire life along with Lacrosse and, American Football is just as technical as rugby and is also the ultimate TEAM SPORT. Everyone on the field has a job to win everyone must do their job effectively. No one player can dominate a game without the help of the rest of his team. Sure a quarterback can dominate a defense and throw for over 200 yards but he can not do this without having time to read his receivers and make the correct throw; this time is provided my the Offensive Linemen who are keeping the defensive rush back.
Even the Offensive linemen’s role which seems basic (block the defenders) is fairly complicated, which is why many of the offensive linemen are very smart individuals. Depending on how the defensive lines up the Offensive linemen have different blocking schemes. If there are 3 defensive linemen lined up in gaps (gaps = between the offensive linemen) than a guard (offensive linemen positions; guards & tackles) may block an oncoming Linebacker instead of a Defensive linemen.
In a running play one of the linemen may use a pull technique where he pulls from his gap and actually lead blocks for the ball carrier.(See how this can get complicated for you non Football players? It goes much more in depth but these are some examples) The same goes for Wide Receivers who may change their route or assignment based on the way the defense is lined up. This also applies vice versus where the defense may change the way they play (blitzing the QB, coverage schemes) due to the way the offense is lined up.
American Football is not just a bunch of thugs lining up to crush one another, there are unique skill sets and requirements to play. Relating to the last paragraph offensive players must be able to recognize defensive alignment and vice versus. This all goes into the hours and hours of preparation that Football players do on their opponents. (Watching film, studying their opponents plays and schemes)
Sure the games are longer with breaks in the action, most of that has to do with commercialization of the sport as the article said. Brands know that every game is an opportunity to reach millions of viewers. However, another part of the game is making the most of the few plays you get. With the rules it is much more difficult to work your way down the field, every possession counts.
Plus I hate when Soccer/Futbol fans call it American Football a slow sport. Sure the length of plays are shorter but Soccer players spend the same amount of time if not longer passing the freaking ball around and doing nothing. There way be literally 2 minutes total of actual action in an entire soccer/futbol game. (its way more boring than American Football if you don’t agree your lying to yourself)
It would take way too long to go over the entire sport but my point is really to those who don’t understand American Football, the sport is much more difficult and technical then it seems from an outside (never played) perspective.
NOW this is directed to Ray Schwartz who made the comment ” And then there is the aftermatch function! You would never see two football teams come together to break bread and party. Rugby players are different and overall better people. Please do not get me wrong, some football players are wonderful citizens, but too many are not.” —- YOU SIR ARE A MORON!!! THAT IS A RIDICULOUS GENERALIZATION WHICH IS NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY ACCURATE. WHAT A ABSOLUTELY ERRONEOUS COMMENT, MANY FOOTBALL PLAYERS ARE FRIENDS AND EX-TEAMMATES, YES I AM SURE THERE ARE SOME THAT DONT LIKE EACH OTHER BUT THAT IS IN EVERY SPORT DON’T KID YOURSELF! AND IF FOOTBALL PLAYERS PLAYED WITHOUT THE PROTECTION THEY USE, MANY WOULD END UP DEAD. IF YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT LEAVING A GAME FOR A CONCUSSION IS NOT A GOOD REASON THEN YOUR DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT. CONCUSSION IS A VERY SERIOUS INJURY AND YOU SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH BECAUSE YOUR AN IDIOT.
Comment by Bill Greider — February 13, 2012 @ 6:14 am
I apologize for the name calling it was a bit much but I think we can all agree that “RAY Schwartz” comments are absolutely ridiculous and he clearly knows nothing about American Football.
I respect and enjoy watching both sports I don’t think they are comparable as many of you have said. I DO AGREE THAT KICKING IN RUGBY IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
Also BRIAN COLLINS you are incorrect, American Football players are taught proper tackling technique from the earliest stages of the sport (2nd grade usually). Using your helmet to hit someone is SERIOUSLY FROWNED UPON it will result in a PENALTY EVERYTIME IF THE REFEREE SEE IT. Football players are taught to tackle by getting lower than their opponent and make contact with their shoulders than wrap up an drive them backwards. Many players do “launch” themselves at opponents as a last resort however those that launch their bodies leading with their HELMETS Are not only penalized severely in a game but they are also fined by the league heavily, I have seen a player (James Harrison-Pittsburgh Steelers) get fined $75,000 US dollars. Most cases it is around $50,000 US.
Comment by Bill Greider — February 13, 2012 @ 6:28 am
I have played and coached both sports. Rugby at a very high level. The size difference is big, but it affects agility. I was a very agile prop, yet when I considered playing pro-football in the 1987 strike, I would have been a safety because of my speed and tackling ability, as well as my LACK of size. 245 pounds is a safety in the NFL.
San Jose SeaHawks in their heyday used to go to the NFL 3rd cut day and recruit players. After we exercised 30 pounds off them and got them in shape, many were good rugby players. The ones who failed the transition could not handle both offense and defense, or the 80 minutes without rest.
The difference in hitting is overrated. I always had the shoulder development to hit just as hard in rugby, on the appropriate occasion, as one would in the NFL.
When I coached football, i never wore pads, just a cup. The players were always amazed that it made no difference to me.
Football has much higher injury rates, caused by the gear. I choose rugby, where i can still play for a second division club at 53, because i am still stronger than my opponents.
Comment by Randy Licht — February 13, 2012 @ 12:26 pm
Super Bowl…….the world’s biggest game…?
I don’t think so. I mean who plays American football? What’s with this World Series/World Champion status anyway in sports that don’t involve the rest of the world?
Rugby is a world sport played by over 118 countries (including the USA). Rugby is on the world stage, American football not and there is a very obvious reason for that.
Without sounding negative on American football, I have to say that rugby players are faster, more skilled because there are so many different facets of play in rugby. Rugby players are fitter just because the play is continuous for much longer periods of time.
Comparing the size of a linebacker to a rugby forward is totally irrelevant as the former would barely make two phases of rugby play. Can you imagine any of them playing for a full 80 minutes? Never!
Comment by Ziggi — February 13, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
To Geno,
I played footbally until giving it up for soccer whenI was trying out fot the Olympic Development Team. I watch rugby now and marvel at the conditionaing and toughness of rugby players. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to rugby. Is football tough? yes, of course. Is rugby tough? Yes, of course. Who are better conditioned athletes? Rugby players by far….this is not even close. Rugby palyers run several miles per match. Most footbal players couldn’t make it much more than five minutes without a break and I am willing to bet almost no pro football player could make it through even half a rugby match without puking or passing out. Tackling? Football offers d-baks and linebackers the opportunity to get up a head of steam and unload on the ball carrier. Other than those instances, the tackles aren’t that big a deal. That doesn’t happen with regularity in rugby. Having played with pads and no pads, pads help immensely…especially shoulder pads. I like football a lot but now I love rugby. Football has become boring to me. Commercial break after commercial break, overpaid cry-baby chumps who hold-out, asshole agents, arrogant touchdown celebrations. The list goes on. Rugby has a purity that football lost a long time ago. Jim Brown never celebrated a touchdown instead tossing the football to the referee. That was smart and/or classy on his part. Those were the good days of football and they are long gone.
Comment by fred — March 22, 2012 @ 12:20 pm
“What would be interesting is having the top rugby team and top football team play each other in their respective sports.”
i agree with that comment by sparcboy. Even though i play rugby that would really decide.
Comment by Kenna Hale — March 24, 2012 @ 9:16 pm
I have played both and rugby is overall a tougher sport to play. Having said that, football players are much more massive and they are extremely strong. Due to the increased aerobic nature of rugby, players do not become as massive as in football which is designed for plays lasting 10 seconds at most and then a 30 second break. I have had some rugby sequences last as long as 3-4 minutes before a stoppage in play.
http://9pillsonline.com/
Comment by Anthony Evans — March 26, 2012 @ 9:07 am
If you want to know which sport is tougher, look at the injuries. I believe NFL players are at much higher risk of career-ending injuries than rugby players. I know those rugby players liket o scratch eachother and grab each others balls, but it’s just not the same as getting hit at full speed by an NFL linebacker.
If you want to know which plaers are tougher, just ask yourself who would win in a fight. A “big man” in rugby is about 6’4″, 240 lbs. That is less than the AVERAGE size of an NFL player. NFL players weight train like crazy, and no, most of them are not fat. In a nutshell, almost any NFL player could beat the living shit out of almost any rugby player.
Comment by bobby — May 11, 2012 @ 3:55 pm
Bobby…NFL players get injured more often because the way they tackle with their heads is JUST STUPID AND UNNECESSARY. NFL is a dirty game and not to mention, there is a considerable amount of butt smacking and fondling. A rugby athlete is overall a better rounded athlete than an NFL player. This is the true meaning of toughness. To be able to take massive hits and still get up and go on for long periods of time…not who wins a fight (this is a team-sport not MMA or UFC for god’s sake!!!)
Comment by Haka — May 14, 2012 @ 2:04 pm