I've been getting into it with some europeans in the politics section, so I decided to rib them a bit in the pro sports section.


Who are tougher, better athletes?

Who would win at each others sports, first?


I think that the U.S. born NFL players would win them all, I am just trolling for some classic european (or rugby player) excuse why they are better.

Its alot like Boxing vs UFC. The UFC (Rugby) might be harder to play, but Boxers (NFL Players) are in much better shape. They just have to be, due to the US being so big with money given to sports player. We pay more money and scount the world for the best athletes.

I know many accounts of pro Rugby players suffering a 3 inch gash across thier cheek, or being knocked unconcious in the middle of a game, only to get stiched up in the locker rooms and be back out on the field finishing up the rest of the game.

Ya, that 350 lb blob of fat covering your QB is prolly in the best shape of his life. You won't find players like that in Rugby, 1. Cause they don't get a 5 minute rest break between every play, and 2. Every man on the field has to be contantly running to stay up with the pack.

Me seeing your typical "Manning" QB in no pads, with the rest of the other team ready to pile him into the ground, would be entertaining. Most QB are too scared to get hit head on by the other team when they are wrapped up in pads, I would love to see what they would do when they are laying on the ground having clets dug into thier chests.

Not to mention that one set of players are out on the field the entire game, with the exception of a few substitutions... ya, that means no special teams, offensive teams, defensive teams. Every player must be able to tackle, throw the ball, kick the ball, and do constant running.

It'd be fun to watch, but I'm thinking Football would have to be cancled the next season to let the players have a bit more time to rest in thier multimillion dollar houses, with thier ivory bathtubs.

NFL is not football.

Rugby players don't wear body armour.

America=0

Rest of the world=10

Having played both sports in high school, I can definetly say i was in much much better shape after rugby season than football season. You are phyical for the entire duration of a rugby game, where as in football you get too many breaks in play. You have an all out physical competition (running, weights, etc..) and i bet rugby players would win overall.

Caster.

NFL players are definitely better athletes, the issue of who is tougher, that may be subjective. I think though, if you put NFL linemen (defensive and offensive) in a rugby match, it would get disgustingly ugly.

Yup, and you'd have one pissed off groundskeeper trying to pull the two fatasses off each other after they passed out from running 10 yds.


What exactly is your definition of athlete? Are you talking about having better sportsmanship? Or being able to play the game better? I can tell you that an NFL QB can't take a direct hit and be up and running in 3 seconds at 100% and a lineman can't run 10 yds up field, just to turn around and run 100yds downfield... for 90 minutes straight(How long is a period in Rugby? It's been so long since I've played or watched it... damn American Tv )

Your average rugby player will be more fit then your average football player, and will be more able to do more parts of the game... ie Offensive, Defensive, Passing, Kicking.

I'd love to see a match either way.

It would be fun to watch. Athleticism defined by footwork, agility, flatout speed, strength, coordination, balance, etc. Although I mentioned linmen, not all football players are lineman. You have cornerbacks at 225 lbs. running 4.3. 40s, you have linebackers at 250 - 260 lbs running 4.4 - 4.5. 40s and are strong as hell. Your point about running around for 90 minutes is well taken, but with broken legs 90 minutes of running would never happen. The nature of the football player would change the dynamic of the Rugby sport, hence this is kind of a silly comparison, but fun none the less.

Football is a international sport played by most of the world, hell football was being played before American football was glimer in daddy's eye. When you refer to your football please add American football because that is what it is, American football.

Football is exactly what it states on the tin, you kick a ball with your foot and you do not use your hands unless you are a goalie.

If you choose to tarnish our sport with your own made up sport please use the correct terminology.

I dont mean Footaball players are in better shape, i mean NFL players are.

The NFL pays more money than any rugby league, so common sense says they will get the best athlets (why pay someone millions if you could get someone better).

Also you cant complain that most QBs are scared to get hit or cant take a hit without pads becuase its against NFL players who are great tacklers.

I bet Ray Lewis hit way harder than any rugby player.

AKA flithy rich idiots who can comit murder and get off innocent cause of thier millions in cash? *cough*You're buddy Ray Lewis*cough*

Just because American football teams have millions of dollars to toss around getting players, doesn't mean they are going to get the best players. Name one football player that was drafted outside the United States to play the sport for an American team. Then name all the countries that play Rugby and figure the odds of better players coming from a large number of countries to the number of football players that come from one(two if you count Canada as a country. ).

Here's another discussion like the one here about the same topic.

This Coldfuse guy made a pretty good comparison too.

i dunno how rugby is played at all if you have to tackel them or not but i mean think about it would you really want Ray Lewis coming after you with no protection gear on? i mean You would get killed

Exactly.

Your links have one big problem. They compare some dudes time playeiny both sports. I am only talking about NFL and whatever the best rugby players are. I belive the NFL has the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL.

So more violence makes for a better game?


Really depends on your definition of athelete.
-Rugby players play both Offence and Defense, NFL has two different teams.
-All Rugby players have to be able to pass, kick, and run the ball, NFL's setup(with breaks inbetween each play) allow for each player to have a specific job.
-Rugby players have to play the entire 80 minutes(I believe with 3 subs per game) with only a sparring amount of timeouts, NFL players have breaks between each play, 3 different types of teams per team, and breaks between quarters. Hell the even have a break when the play time hits 2 minutes.

My definition of a better athelete would be a triathelist, rather then a sprinter who can run faster then the triathelist. The triathelist is better rounded then the sprinter who specializes in the 100M or whatever.

As for NFL players having "the best athletes in all of sports other than Boxing and NHL." What makes you come to the conclusion? What about the real football?(You know, the most popular sport in the world, besides America) With your assumptions that NFL and Boxers are the best atheletes, I have to say that more violence = better atheletes to you, atleast that's the only conclusion I can draw from it.

You're right, those links are of personal experiences of lower-end leagues, but you get a better view of the game if you've tried them both. The amount of running done in a high school game of football, and a Pro game isn't going to be much different, the same is for Rugby.

I play rugby, and I cant imagine a more violent sport. No refs (basicly) means you can do whatever you want! I know a guy who runs down the field jabbing people in the throat as he goes!

he is from the late 90's but look at jonah lomu he was huge, fast and strong and a good player. i would say the way the nfl players hit is hard but its what people say could they do it for 80 mins? i would say they are both great athletes in there own right but a rugby team would beat a nfl team......maybe

You my friend are an idiot! End of story.

The question is, who is more fearless? The brits! They dont have any teeth to be knocked out. Oh zing.

This ain't exactly a valid question, but I would say overall rugby probably has the players in the best shape. You also have to take into account that this is a US vs the rest of the world question. Canada's football players are tiny and suck, hence why they play in canada (yes I know canada is CFL not NFL.) Who's to say Water Polo doesnt have the best athletes?

me...

but id go with soccer players being in the best shape, then rugby...

Personally I don’t feel you can compare the athletes of either sport since their trained for a different type of game.

For instance, Rugby players are conditioned for endurance and power, while NFL players are conditioned for immense blocking power and evasive sprints.

If your going to bring in other sports i dont see how you can say anyone is in better shape than a Boxer.

30-60 minutes of you getting pounding on (no one else to rely on) but still going, i dont think any sport can out do that.


Yes becuase you had alot of good points.... oh wait you had none.

Jackass.

i play american football, and i know rugby is more hardcore than what i play, and i haven't played rugby. i mean no pads just all out pain and torture! but the linemen may look fat but some are in shape, like they eat healthy and mift weights...

your joking right??
rugby is definatly more hardcore.Just because they are fat and then just land on you dosnt mean they are stronger.

rugby players are more hardcore, umm NFL players are paid more because of the money thats made off of them. and rugby is just now getting widespread attention i mean EA Sports' Rugby 2005...yea

I think this should settle the argument:

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/rugbyhits.html

The national faggot league are exactly that, fags in pads. I wouldn't be surprised if the fags wore suspenders and g string s underneath that body armour. To even suggest NFL is a sport is laughable.

Yea. they are some hard tackles but its not like that happens every tackle. most of those were hideously high, and should think that most players got warned/off for doin it. I think that should be stressed to Americans who probably havent watched much rugby that it isnt a legal tackle when so high... its is a great game as well as a brawl.

i do think if a rugby player and a pro (american) football player had a fight, the big bastard rugby guy would win 9 out of 10... watch some of the hits... even after being smashed they dont even drop the ball

The NFL is a primere competitve sport. Why would we (Americans) send our thouroughbred athletes to go at it in such a worhless game, thats nothing more than a glorfied bar brawl.

If we wanted to compete in Rugby, we'd send our NFL rejects to stomp on the rest of the Rugby playin planet.

if u watch both games there actually isnt a whole lot of difference between them, just american football has pads and more stopping for tactics... so if rugby is a "bar brawl" then NFL is a bar brawl for pussys lol

VS.

well, you'd make him commit to trying to tackle you then pass the ball to someone running in behind hiim

having played both with many friends and having had this discussion on many many occasions, we've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to tell...

mainly because while it's possible for the NFL to take all of their best linebackers and corners and create a great rugby squad, (there's no point in even talking about linemen or qbs, cept maybe vick), those guys have played american football for so long, it's going to be hard for them to adapt to tackling properly, not blocking for runners, what the hell to do with a maul, and little aspects of the game.... it'd be an intresting game to watch though....

same with ruggers in an nfl game... i mean, you could run trips and turn it into a big option play, but it'd have to be out of the shot gun and quick, because i don't see any props getting blocking giant defensive linemen down... and i can't imagine it'd be natural for a rugby player to defend a pass, so we figured this game would have just an insane amount of scoring... which also would be intresting to watch...

This is a few months late but I can't help getting my two cents in. What I see is a bunch of Americans arguing against a bunch of everybody else over whose game is better. It seems like the arguments are more to insult the other team's players than compare the two. I think if NFL players were to play rugby they would be more durable as far as the tackling goes because they have much heavier guys tackling them all the time. As for running, they could probably catch and tackle someone running for a goal but they couldn't get up and do it again right away for the whole game. But if they were to get tackled I think rugby players would have a lot harder time getting the ball away from them, especially if the NFL team could join in the fight.

Now if a rugby team were to play american football, I think they would have a hard time as well. Being smaller they probably couldn't tackle as effectively, they aren't sprinters so they probably couldn't keep up AND successfully take down an NFL receiver, and if they got tackled they couldn't just get up and start running again. They'd have to start from a few yards back with their QB. Plus when you see someone coming to knock your head off you can't just throw the ball to someone else because they have someone trying to kill them too. Plus you probably have two or three people coming at you at full speed with all their might.

But who am I to judge, I just watched my first rugby game last night and I've hardly played any american football at all.

P.S. For the guy who posted the pictures of the rugby player and the american football player, that's the stupidest comparison I've ever seen. The football player is posing for a picture and the rugby player is actually playing in the mud.

shows what 'side' youre on, and how misinformed you are... but at least you acknowledge it towards the end...

Rugby
NHL Hockey
Wrestlers (the real wrestling)
NFL

Football i think rougby is pretty pussy, yes i know it hurts like a bitch to play, but theres so many rules n shit, just let the dudes beat the shit outa each other

And whoever said football players are more in shape, these rugby dudes do like 100 clapping push-ups befor the game, and the get high as hell to



Wow... thats wrong

NFL
Rugby
Soccer
NHL Hockey
Knitting
Wrestlers (the real wrestling)

I took the liberty of fixing it up for you a little bit

Ok, as if you are all debating over Rugby players and NFL Players. Get your heads on straight, Rugby players are 10X as crazy as NFL Players.

Reasons:

1. There are no stoppages in Rugby unless the ball goes out of play, somebody gets a penalty or does something wrong, if the ball is being held up (Like a jump ball in Basketball), or if there is a score.

2. Substitutions. In rugby, you are only allowed to sub out and back in ONCE. If you need to go out after that you can't play anymore.

3. Rugby players hit just as hard as NFL players, and don't wear the protection.

4. Rugby players wear metal cleats. I'm not too sure but i'm almost positive NFL players aren't allowed. Whether its for safety or for the maintenance of the fields. Either way, rugby players get "raked" where they get stomped in the face, or on the arm.

Rugby is a faster paced game. Period. That makes it more physically demanding, and IMHO better. Not always better to watch as they don't have the end zone dances or the theatrics, but skill wise..

I stumbled on this and happen to think about this a lot. I'd like to put this out there, since this is a Super Bowl team:

Pittsburgh Steelers-Rugby Lineup (If I were Coach Bill Cowhrer)
Loosehead Prop-Marvel Smith (Offensive Tackle)
Hooker-Alan Faneca (Offensive Guard)
Tighthead Prop-Kimo van Oelhoffen (Defensive End)
Left Lock-Heath Miller (Tight End)
Right Lock-Jerame Tuman (Tight End)
Blindside Flanker-Joey Porter (Linebacker)
Outside Flanker-James Farrior (Linebacker)
Number 8-Jerome Bettis (Captain, Running Back, power-oriented)
Scrumhalf-Antwaan Randle El (Wide Reciever/Punt Returner, but played quarterback in college)
Flyhalf-Ben Roethlisberger (Vice-Captain, Quarterback)
Left Wing-Hines Ward (Wide Reciever)
Inside Center-Duce Staley (Running Back, power-oriented)
Outside Center-Willie Parker (Running Back, speed-oriented)
Right Wing-Deshea Townsend (Cornerback)
Fullback-Troy Polamalu (Strong Safety)

Front Row
I remember watching the US play Scotland in the Rugby World Cup three years ago. Even though Scotland won, they had to contend with a massive size disadvantage in the scrum (the first eight players on this list are involved), which means that whoever Pittsburgh plays (unless it's another NFL team) would have a size disadvantage in the scrum and would be forced to rely on technique. Not convinced? Smith, Faneca, and van Oelhoffen are all linemen, whether offensive or defensive, so they have experience in throwing their bulk around.

Second Row
To be a good lock, you need to be a large target with good hands for the lineouts while also strong enough to handle scrums, so the first people I looked to were the tight ends, Miller and Tuman. They have blocking experience on offense and have good hands as well, so I'd feel comfortable with them as the Steeler locks.

Back Row
Porter, Farrior, and "The Bus" (Bettis) are not the largest Steelers, but they are all strong in their own right. All three would not be clueless at the scrum because it is not unusual for them to duke it out with the opposition at the line of scrimmage (blitzes for Farrior and Porter, up-the-gut runs for Bettis.) Moreover, Porter and Farrior would certainly lend themselves to open-play defense, while I can't see many rugby players at all stopping Bettis if he gets the ball close to the try line (the goal line in rugby.)

Halves
I initially penciled in Randle El at wing, but he was an option quarterback in college, so his hands would be greatly appreciated at scrumhalf (the scrumhalf restarts play after every tackle, normally with a pass, unless he makes a run and is tackled) and I expect he'd be able to do damage with the occasional dummy (fake pass, then run) and score a try or two. Not only that, but his wideout experience with Pittsburgh means that he's someone for the opposition to worry about if the Steelers can get a good kick forward. Flyhalf was a given with Big Ben Roethlisberger, since he's the best passer on the team and the flyhalf is the closest thing rugby has to a quarterback. He'd have to get used to lateralling pitching and tossing rather than overhand spirals forward, but that overhand could be useful as a lateral if he wants to get the ball out wide quickly.

Centers
This is a position very similar to running back, so it was fairly easy picking these out. Parker is not Marshall Faulk or Shaun Alexander, but he can blast through a hole and pick up a handful of ground before you can blink, so he was a near-given at outside center. Meanwhile, Staley made the squad because of his once being a starter for the Eagles and his power.

Back Three (wings + fullback)
When trying to create a rugby lineup for an American football team, I like to put one wide reciever and one cornerback at wing and then a safety at fullback because the back three have to be strong both on offense and defense. All three of these are fleetfooted enough for the task, with Ward having a very good pair of pass-catching hands, Townsend having coverage experience, and Polamalu being especially fast. He normally plays safety, but he is fast to the point that I can see him providing an extra spark on offense, because his mentality after an interception is "try to score".

Strengths (some suggested by you): good positional sense, physical talent, try-scoring ability, good defensive backfield, size and pushing power in scrum
Weaknesses (some suggested by you): not used to two-way play, kicking ability

Some other notes concerning this:
-Team England wing Ben Cohen was once scouted by an unidentified NFL squad.
-Another Team England player, flyhalf Jonny Wilkinson, made 4 penalties (field goals in rugby) and the winning drop goal (drop kick) in the Rugby World Cup final against Australia-with a Charger scout in the stands.
-Former Team England left lock and captain Martin Johnson is a self-confessed NFL fanatic and traveled with English goalkeeper David James to Seattle and San Francisco to shoot a documentary featuring the Seahawks and 49ers entitled "Beyond The NFL" for British network Sky One. Moreover, in a recent BBC interview, Johnson argued that while less stamina is demanded in American football, it is more physical.

Its hard to really compare thses two sports, even though they do have some similarities. Its hard because of there backgrounds, Football is a North American sport, Rugby is more of a worldly sport. They thrive in different parts of the world, but then again, they falter in others. They both are awsome sports, in high school I had the oppurtunity to play both. I feel that football is an "Action-cycled" sport because the play happens; the action begins, the play is made or stopped; the peak of the action, and then the players regroup; the cool-down, and finally the next play is executed starting the cycle all over again. Rugby on the other hand is like soccer, by that I mean it is a continuous sport. There is no pause between plays, except when someone scores etc.

Therefore, I see them as too seperate sports that DO have some similarities, but not enough to be fully compared on an equal scale.

aside from the fat lineman, all these people, rugby and football, are all premier athletes.
these two sports are played by athletes. The games just have different rules.

if you gave them each a month to learn each others game(rules/gameplay), they could all play as effectivly in the new sport.

either athlete could play either game well.

Richard Tardits played international U21 rugby for France and also played lineback for the New England Patriots in the early 90's. He said the NFL was more violent but rugby was tougher - how you interpret that I don't know.....
There are rugby players who would be great at football if they knew the game. Think of the impact Polynesians have made on college and NFL football, then think that rugby is the national sport of every polynesian nation bar American Samoa and Hawaii, so imagine how much potential Polynesian NFL material there is currently playing in the Super 14, or turning out for Fiji or Samoa at rugby. Guys like Jonah Lomu from Tonga, who weighed 260lbs and could run 10.7 secs for 100m are an example. Even before he was ill, he got dropped because he had no endurance - but with stats like that he might have been a great in the NFL.
League and Union rugby players have been scouted periodically by the NFL. not only Ben Cohen, but also Wendell Sailor, Jonny Wilkinson and Adam MacDougall.
Of course, if Americans took rugby seriously the pool of athletes available would make for an amazing rugby team, but you might be surprised that, because of the differenecs between the games, some of the NFL stars might not be in it!
If you don't think rugby players hit then watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfa1b3SKuRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZPZLnA_HWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf4xXQBaRmQ

nd u might enjoy the Polynesian Haka war dance before this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwAPmdUQwbw

Anyone who has played tackle football without pads has made hits like that. Compare those hits to these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAS5fMSgWHo
not nfl, but still a really good hit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEQ6Wt6-VaE
football has more head-to-head contact.

And that guy who put knitting about real wrestling... well he needs his head checked. I ruptured my spleen wrestling.

um.. have you guys have ever Lawrence Taylor. Anyway, to say that an NFL player is not as tough as a rugby player is just flat out wrong. NFL players have trained their entire life and beat out hundreds of thousands of other people just for their shot at NFL football. Linebackers who weigh 240 pounds can run flat out faster than any rugby player. And any football player would gladly get stitches during a game and get back out there, but they are million dollar investments. However I'm basing this off American rugby players, and I hope the rest of the world makes fun of them because they are pretty unimpressive.

No matter how old this thread is...


I have played both Rugby and American Football in school (yes, in England!). When we play rugby, arms get broken, knees get dislocated, and faces get stamped on.

When we play American Football (full contact, no pads), everyone walks away just slightly muddy.

In my personal opinion, American Football is dead boring to play, but it's an improvement over Football (personally, I don't like it - call me crazy if you wish!). However, rugby is fast-paced and doesn't stop unless we have a serious injury or a lighning strike near the pitch.

In my opinion, NFL players may have a chance in a fair game, but if you play dirty (like most of our guys) with full on face punches in the scrum and knees into the jaw, most of them would find themselves lying in hospital with serious concussions.

Rugby with a doubt... anyone saying otherwise is either blinded by bias or has never watched a pro game of rugby or played the sport properly.

I garantee you it is only North Americans who would back NFL players over their rugby counterparts. The only thing NFL players could possibly have over rugby is speed (generally speaking) and even that is debatable.

In terms of pure sporting aspect, comparing football (american) and rugby is like comparing Butter and Plastic, they are one molecule appart. Yet you don't ask for a knife and a piece of plactic to put of your toast in the morning. Do you?!?!

As far as compraing UFC to boxing goes: its true, boxers might be more fit (football) but NEVER in all athletic areas (pure strength, strength endurance, cardio endurance, mental capacity to perform, agility, speed, technique, attitudinal and knowlege). UFC (rugby) requires all of the above.

A perfect example of the hightened requirements of being a professional rugby player follows the below 2 month training regimen:

Jason Eaton has packed on eight kilograms.
Mils Muliaina is five kilograms heavier than he was in December.
The seams of Keven Mealamu's shirts appear to be having a hard time holding back the advancing mass of muscle
Ali Williams, once a sapling, looks more an oak tree.

"If you took a guy off the street and put him through the same programme as the All Blacks, he would make some improvements. But he would be starting from a much lower base so he would maybe go from being at 40 per cent of his athletic potential to say 60 per cent," Blair told the Herald.

"But with the All Blacks, who already have been doing a lot of training, they are probably starting at 80 per cent. "


If we took the NZ All Blacks, Indianapolis Colts and the Italien Soccer team and threw them into a "neutral" activity testing pure athleticism and not specific skills, NZ would undoubtedly come out ontop.

Soccer has by far the greatest cardio (arobic fitness), football the greatest emphasis on technique, maturity and correct performance, meanwhile rugby has a high quality requirement for anaerobic to arobic transitioning (for 90 minutes continuous), knowledge and adversity, and ofcourse pure and endurance based strength.

Rugby evolved from Soccer as soon as strength and techniques needed to be perfected in order to create a more competitive and high excellence game. Football (American) was last to follow by been developed due to urban pressure for aggresivness and Ad compaigning.

So at what point did strength and techniques need to be perfected? It sounds like you've played one rugby too many. Are you just making this up as you go? So we're supposed to believe that U.S. football was created to quench the blood-thirsty urbanites and for commercials. American football was formed as a spin-off from rugby football. The reason why we wear helmets is to protect our teeth, which is something that most Euros aren't too worried about (have you seen their teeth).

Off-topic- Why don't Europeans take better care of their teeth? They must have some nasty smelling breath.

The NFL (or any top U.S. sport) doesn't have any advertising on their uniforms, while almost all professional rugby and soccer teams have advertising on their jerseys. Shameless

If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.

It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.

It seems to me that money talks and BS walks