Which is tougher and which to you prefer and why?
P.s I realize this may cause arguments between continents but i just want your opinions, especially if you have played both competitively!
And for some americans do not use size as a differential as there are many rugby players over 250 lbs.
And English/ Rest of world try not to bring how long an AF game takes into account
But anyway just your opinions!
Thank you all.
Rugby union has all the elements – most critically *joy* – that I remember playing pick-up tackle football when I was a little boy, say before age 12. We – and millions of little kids like us – would play for 2-3-4 hours at a stretch. All you needed was some open space and a ball. It always was skins vs shirts, so you laid out a field with the discarded shirts and got started. Running 80%-90% of the time: no long hold ups, no moving the flags, no halts for kicking idiotic ":extra points": from directly in front of the posts, no long half-time breaks. Just kids running. Playing.
The regimentation, specialization, and equipment – the whole panoply of formality – got in the way of all that fun when I started organized football in junior high school. It wasn’t play, it wasn’t fun. In the 1960s, most US football coaches had no clues whatsoever about exercise physiology, kinesiology, or simple heat stroke and the importance of hydration, and it was dangerous as hell, especially in the Deep South.)
But I found the joy again when I was introduced to rugby union in high school.
":Tougher": – What does that even mean? And why are so many gridiron enthusiasts (or at least enthusiastic TV watchers of gridiron) so worried about ":toughness":?
But in the end, why even debate these things? Rugby players will never convince people who have only played (but mostly watched) gridiron. And certainly not the other way around. Waste of time.
Most importantly: do what you wish. I have good mates from work in Indonesia who are absolutely mad about badminton. And watching Indonesians or Malaysians play badminton is nothing in the least like watching your nieces ":play":.
What’s Bob Marley’s line? ":Free yourself from mental slavery…":
This question gets asked here at least two or three times a month. If you search the resolved questions file, using the keywords rugby, football or gridiron, and tough, you will find literally hundreds of opinion on this issue.
You also have to define ":tougher":. Do you mean harder and more frequent hits? Then obviously gridiron — launching bodies like missiles, blindside tackles, shoulder charges, unrestricted blocking, roll blocks, helmets as weapons — none of this happens in rugby union — either because the nature of the contact is different, or because it is forbidden by the laws of the game. Which is why the incidence of compound fractures, blown-out knees, and concussions — and the career ending or life-threatening injuries that go with them — is so much higer in gridiron.
On the other hand, rugby does not halt play at the tackle while everyone takes a breather, players play both offense and defense, there are very limited substitutions (only seven during a game), and even the big players like props and locks will cover far more ground during a game than any gridiron player. By ":tough":, do you mean the ability to keep going in the 77th minute and hit that ruck hard, when your lungs and legs are on fire and you have already run six to eight miles during the game. And during all of this, you are still hitting — and getting hit by — some very large and strong men. If that is what you mean by tough — well then rugby wins hands down.
A meaningless discussion really. The two simply can’t be compared on any sort of common standard. But if there has to be a ":winner": of a toughness competition, well my own opinion and that of most of the people I have spoken with (who have played both) would come down on the side of rugby, just because the required degree of cardio fitness is so much higher.
I like both.
In my opinion Rugby is tougher overall. You have little/no protection aside from a mouthguard, but this is not the reason it is tougher as AF hit harder when possible. It is the stamina aspect. In AF you take/make a hit and then there is a short break to reset everything and possibly even go and sit on the sideline for a bit, whereas Rugby is a case of take/make a hit, get straight back up again (assuming no foul) and play on.
Also to consider is that AF players hit harder due to the protection, but how often do they really get to make ‘big’ hits?
I think both sports are very tough, but for different reasons. I respect players from both sports and enjoy watching both games.
1869 Rutgers and Princeton played a college soccer football game, the first ever, November 6. The game used modified London Football Association rules. During the next seven years, rugby gained favor with the major eastern schools over soccer, and modern football began to develop from rugby. 1876 At the Massasoit convention, the first rules for American football were written. Walter Camp, who would become known as the father of American football, first became involved with the game.
i think its really opinionated im a rugby man myself but i do like a game of american football.
the only reason these games are brought into similarity is due to the shape of the ball and the fact there is violence.
if i had to state why i liked rugby id say
i like the fact its not start stop
its made for the player more than the spectater
i like the fact that you are using your own brute stregnth and corage without being backed up by coatings of abs protection
i respect american football players as i do any sport player as it takes training and determination to stuick to somthing but i really dont think it requires the fitness, stamina and stregnth that rugby does and its harrd to deny that when in american football you get a break ever 20 to 30 seconds.
either way there both good sports but to answer
Which is tougher
has to be rugby you do the same contact for longer with no protection.
which to you prefer
depends what mood im in lol probly rugby to play compeditivly but just with mates in a park american football
also both games can be played at any size rugby have wingers that are 5ft 8 and 14 stone jsut like american footabll does
I play both, in the US. Anyone who believes football is a better/harder game is not well educated.
Point #1: ":Football has harder hits,": False. Due to the amount of pads players in football rarely learn how to tackle incorrectly. The reason football has more injuries is because people are stupid and they attempt to tackle incorrectly (Ex. helmet to helmet, horse-collar, etc) or in many causes in HS football are unaware on how to be tackled. Rugby revolves around the tackle, so before ever even touching a ball players learn the correct way to tackle. The correct way is much safer as well as much more productive.
Point #2: Overall fitness. Every moment of Rugby is moving 100%. In football you go 100% for 10 seconds then stop. In football it is big guy vs big guy, WR on CB. Rugby it is whoever is there is there.
Another point, any Lineman in Football would be crushed by any Front Row Rugger in any competition maybe with the exception of strength.
Point #3: All around, Rugby takes alot more talent. Requirements for WR: Physical attributes ex, height and speed
Ability to catch the ball.
Wing: Physical attributes ex. speed
Ability to catch
Ability to kick
Ability to tackle
Ability to pass
Hands down Rugby is more gritty (no pads), harder (no stoping), and better (no 5-11, 140 punter who never gets hit)
Don’t you lot get sick of asking this question. If you ask here, the answer will and always be Rugby. If you asked in the Gridiron section, you will get pro Gridiron answers.
Frankly, nobody gives a toss about Gridiron outside the US, so why bother asking.
You lot don’t understand Rugby and the fact that it is a world wide game. So you’ve got Gridiron, which nobody else plays or gives cares about.
How about you lot stick to Gridiron and we’ll stick to Rugby
well since your in the rugby section you probably know the kind of answers you will get…
I played both and prefer rugby (union),
more well rounded, and requires all about talent not just a special one or two…
there is also a space for everyone on the pitch (from the smallest to the largest, fastest to slowest)
and rugby can be played for a long time, I know a gentleman who is 63 and still plays front row after 44 years…
I’m a rugby girl [ I actually do play] the most padding you get is your clothes or if you play second row/lock a scrum cap. In rugby your more likely to get your face steeped on, there are also other things that football players don’t have to deal with.
i think rugby is tougher and i prefer it. i have played football and rugby. in football i was a receiver and in rugby i was a scrum half.
so first why i prefer rugby. in football, only certain guys need certain skills really. you have an offensive unit along with defense and STs. a wide receiver just has to run a route and maybe get it thrown to them, or block. on offense, there are 5 guys called lineman who do what? just get extra beat up and dont get the ball. everyone treats QB’s like they are most important, when kickers win more games then QB’s. I liked rugby better because everyone had the same general roles with smaller differences. in rugby everyone needs to tackle, pass well. but for example, your fowards must ruck better, scrum halfs must have better passing abilities, and fullbacks along with flyhalfs need to be top notch kickers. everyone is seen equal. and i love kicking box kicks, only 2 men kick in football. dont get me wrong, i like football though.
rugby is tougher for a couple reasons:
1) 80 minutes 2) 7 subs is all 3)nonstop 4) guys are offense and defense 5) in rugby, you actually have to rap up to tackle, football is a lot lf just throwing yourself at them 6) no blocking