[dahmanegi800]

I'll just say right now that I am an American, so there is some bias. However, lately I've been watching a lot of rugby videos online and got to thinking which of the two sports is actually tougher. Tough is the keyword here, NOT which sport is better, or which isn't. I've seen many of these arguments online and many seem to like any intelligence behind their comments, rather than just allegiance to their sport. Knowing that Soompi has a fairly international member base, I figured I'd get some opinion from those who actually play and like rugby. Please comment only if you have something legitimate to bring to the table...

Now most arguments I've read or heard for the 'tough' argument is that one sport plays with pads and one sport doesn't, which automatically makes Rugby tougher. There is a pretty ambiguous video out there for this type of argument... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

Also, consider that the two sports are still very different, though they share many similarities. Using a lack of understanding of either game to make an assumption about the sport is pure ignorance. An example I've read is how an american football game stops every few seconds. This is obvious ignorance of downs. A good argument would be how Rugby doesn't have timeouts, referring to stamina, but consider that timeouts in American football are strategically used in the game and not just for a rest.

So... have at it.

[OfficiallyK]

That was one he11 of a vid.
As to the question...
I'm thinking...
well, football originated from rugby...
but rugby is not normally as tough as FOOTBALL.
but for AMERICAN football (i'm also american),
if we're comparing AMERICAN football rugby...
i would say american football.
there's a reason they wear pads.
Tackle football is best.

[Ninja650]

The video proves nothing, Jammer is a freaking cornerback. He is not a hard hitter. Get a linebacker or a safety (Ray Lewis or Brain Dawkins) and that will be more realistic.

[dahmanegi800]

At the same time... those rugby guys in the video were amateur at best.

One argument I haven't really seen made in the argument of rugby vs American football is the sheer athleticism in the latter. American football is such a specialized sport, the athletes involved are like thoroughbreds bred for one purpose, to race. Or in this case to play a specialized and specific role on the team. Just look at the nfl draft combine... The 40 yard dash (36.576 m) in the NFL combine. This is an important role in the drafting of a player, and typical running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs run it under 4.5 seconds. I'm sure there are pro rugby players who can do that, but at the volume of the NFL?

[willcho]

Wait so your saying there's no specialist positions in Rugby?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_positions

[lyyzilla]

rugby and football are being compared way to much.
they're really different from each other , other than the tackling and using a ball.
rugby is not as popular as football so i can understand why people say that football is better/tougher.
&rugby players can hit as hard as a football player but then again, football players are much bigger than rugby players so i guess the hit would be not as hard.

I myself play rugby so i do think rugby is a tougher sport.

[dahmanegi800]

Wait so your saying there's no specialist positions in Rugby?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_positions

I wouldn't call them a specialist position. American football is unique in that it uses downs. Every play the offense and defense has to line back up and start again. A scheme or formation is used that the team lines up in. Each of those schemes/formations have specific routes that a player has to run. A team/coach that drafts that player basically wants the fastest, strongest, most accurate individual that can pull off that route. Also, consider that it's a rarity for a individual to change positions in football. Simply because most players can't adjust to a different role, at the professional level, because of how specialized the roles are.

[laris]

i've played rugby when i was in high school but have never played on the football team but i can pretty much assume that no pads makes rugby tougher. not only are there no pads, but the game is continuous which means you have to get up & run to your position after being tackled or something of that sort.

as for myself, i wrestle in college, so i do know a thing or two about being tough and dealing with pain

[brap]

Honestly how can you even judge by just looking, even looking at 2009 NRL to NFL injuries there's no way to tell. Myself personally I think NFL is so much tougher. Though they wear padding they still get injured. But it's stupid to compare if something is tougher, what kind of macho mini cooper is this, just enjoy your sports cunts.

[yourmudoisweak]

Its like comparing Judo and Bjj lolol

[KiLyUn]

Rugby to me seems like football without the pads, but the games vary in different ways. Each have their injuries. In rugby it's very likely to get a bruise or even worse, sometimes it seems that you don't even know before a game if you'll injure yourself. I guess there is more security in football as you can wear gear. Bone against bone kills :/ since i've played rugby, I've seen gruesome injuries and being in the right position and having good technique is crucial.