Rugby vs. American Football athletes, a jokeIILWUHAS You must all be insane to think rugby is a tougher sport than AF. None of you rugbyers have any real facts to back up anything. Truth is, unlike some comments, pads are NEEDED in AF because its inherently more dangerous, harder hitting, and with more contact and various types of hitting allowed. It is my understanding that all kinds of hits arent allowed in rugby, whereas in AF, there are hits and blocking schemes that result in much more dangerous hits than you will ever see in Rugby. American football players are far more athletic than the best rugby players, plain and simple. If Americans ever got serious about rugby, all it would take to completely dominate the sport would be a team of our all pros learning the game, then our superior training and athleticism would take over. For crying out loud people, we have 350LB linemen that can run 40 yds in 4.5 seconds. And rugby players actually have the nerve to think they could ultimately compete against these guys? Its a joke. Rugby is a game of endurance and attrition, that I will say. But also, as said, if we got serious about it, and reconditioned our athletes to your type of sport, it would be no contest in long run, we'd win every major competition period. I'd love to see any rugby players try to take down our all pro backers and linemen, these 300 lb plus men of solid muscle and conditioning would just stomp the rugby players into the ground. Rugbys nonstop action, thats difficult, and before you all cry and winge, note that I stated all we would have to do to dominate is the proper conditioning, and every pro player in the NFL would thrive at rugby far greater than your best players. The opposite is not true for rugby players though. For one, they couldnt withstand the real violent hitting that happens, even in pads. They simply are not prepared for the bone jarring hits of such large, fast, and violent players hitting them as we do here time and time again. They just wouldnt survive it, plain and simple. The game of AF is far more complex and technical also, requiring an aptitude not needed in rugby. So please, give it a rest rugby players, all in all, our athletes could cross over easily and excel once properly conditioned, which is all there really is difficult about the game. Rugby players however, would still not fare well against our pro players no matter how much time we gave them, other than the rare true athlete in rugby, ya just stand no chance. End of story.
Totally nonsense. AF athletes are conditioned to be stronger and bigger, sure, but that is a trade-off with the endurance needed to play rugby. An AF athlete will run at top speed for about 9 secs and then rest for 30 secs, so it's more of a burst, top-speed, low-endurance sport. Average distances in rugby are 4,5 miles a game, while an average AF athlete won't go any further than 0,2 miles a game.
Now, the pads are actually what made the tackles harder, not the other way round. If the pads were not permitted, than AF tackles would probably be very similar to rugby tackles, which are just as dangerous to AF ones, due to the lack of protection.
I think this comparison is the same as comparing a 100-meter dash against a marathon, it's just different...
And just to rebuff your statement about AF players at rugby:
“When I heard it was only 20-minute games, I was like, ‘Man, I would kill that. I’ve played two-hour games in college and the NFL. ’ The first game I ever played in rugby, after two minutes, I was begging the coach to take me out. “
��"Leonard Peters, current USA Rugby Sevens player and former safety for the New York Jets and the Chicago Bears - visitor
wow, your opinion sucks. my opinion. - visitor
rugby is best you need to understand. have you ever watched a game? please do then mabye you will change your mind. - visitor
The other misunderstanding about Rugby that comes from NFL devotees is that the 'hit' is the only painful part of the game. While this may be true in NFL, Rugby has other arenas for pain: the Ruck, the Maul, the Scrum, as well as the tackle (and you shouldn't discount the endurance required, it is immense). Because of all these other 'contact areas' of the game, the rugby player is exposed to far more impacts per game than the NFL player (and the rugby player can't stop every 30 seconds to recover, he must just keep going from one to the other, on and on for 80 mins! ) - visitor
Most retarded thing I've ever seen written. Put someone like greg inglis at RB and watch him dominate - visitor
NFL Players hurl the ball like a missile during games. You blokes toss it underhand to one another like girls playing "hot potato" during matches. Now that being said, Rugby, as brutish as it is, and it is, is more refined. No pads and helmets (maybe this encourages players to not encourage their own multiple, cognitively disabling concussions). I think NFL players are more like wanton gladiators going for the kill with not thought about the next few months, whereas Rugby players are more versatile athletes (AF Quarterbacks aside) who don't go for the kill by the nature of the game. - visitor
Americans are softies! Big cry babies. Laugh out loud - visitor
The Rugby World Cup is the 3rd biggest sporting event in the world after the FIFA WC and the Summer Olympics.
4.2 BILLION people worldwide watched the 2007 RWC
Only Americans watch the NFL - visitor
I suggest you type up heaviest rugby players on google have a look at a hypothetical team of professionals that could play at the moment you may quickly change your mind on your perceived size superiority over rugby players, but please keep in mind these players are not internationals ( in the forwards at least) generally players at the top are a bit lighter than regular professionals because mobility demands it. - visitor
An NFL team once came over here and played Rugby League. What happened? They were crying it hurt too much without all the padding that they wear before the first half had even finished, end of.
I remember that once there was a lad who played professional RL and took such a bad tackle that he was knocked cold, the Dr pronounced concussion and he was sent to A&E. He was pronounced healthy and discharged. Three days later he just dropped dead!
The radiologist had missed a tiny hairline fracture in a vertebrae of the upper neck and it had killed him! - visitor
Given that only the USA partake in NFL why is it that your countrymen* could never be beaten by anyone in the rugby world (that is to say - the rest of the civilised world)? Surly by the same argument we could condition our playersd to pack on a few pounds and run less than they currently do. Tell me - does Macdonald's feature in the diet plans of some of your players? It would suggest why you turn out out athletes that look like this: http://cdn.Bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/656/008/terrence-cody-weigh-in_display_image. Jpg? 1295627643
(I'm guessing you are a yank by your insupressable belief that you are right) - visitor
Hayden Smith went from playing pro rugby as a lock for the saracens to playing tightend in the nfl for the jets. This is what he reckons: "The individual collisions in American football are probably a little bit bigger than in rugby, but in rugby you have more of them, so you probably end up taking a bit more of a beating. You are definitely more sore waking up after a rugby game. " http://www. Bbc. Co. Uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21920475 - visitor
I'm an American firstly working in the UK. If a group of top NFL players trained rugby for a year and played a pro rugby team guess what...the NFL would get destroyed. Rugby, League Union or Sevens is way too technical to learn just like that - ask the 1993 Denver Broncos NFL team who were losing 34-3 to the Brisbane Broncos in a rugby match before they walked off the pitch after 30 minutes. I'm sorry NFL is NFL and rugby is a different sport. Also there is no such thing as a "rugbyer". - visitor
In my opinion if you had an american football player and a rugby player do a heptathalon the rugby player would prove to be a far more versatile athelite.
American footballers are required to run 10 meters and hit someone approx 20 times in a game,
Rugby players constantly run, make more tackles and are required to ruck and maul in the freezing cold on a monster hang over.
Case closed - visitor
Problem with american attitude. Who can call a tournament involving just U.S teams a world series etc. I don't particulary dislike AF but they would not survive a half in rugby..remember each player is on the pitch the entire game (unless subbed)..can you imagine the NFL superstars doing that. Not a chance. First hit they would be reaching for their helmets..please its not even worth a discussion.. Maybe you should set a vote for AF v ROUNDERS (baseball in U.S) - visitor
As someone who grew up playing AF and started playing rugby after playing college ball... rugby is much, much harder. Much more running, much more hitting both with tackling and rucks and scrums. It requires a mental toughness that many football players do not have. No breaks, no timeouts, just pure guts. Most fun I have ever had. Great camaraderie as well…. I will say that if AF football players trained and started young like a UK or NZ kid does we would dominate... more athletes to pick from, simple math. But we don't. - visitor
Hahaa only retarded yanks would think fooseball is more dangerous than rugby. God they stupid - visitor
Totally dumb article. Written by a kid or someone with no experience of how difficult Rugby is. Why do Americans think their "thing" is bigger and better!? - visitor