My friend's sister has a metal plate in her head and her cheekbone from injuries sustained in rugby matches and she still plays. For most football players, a metal plate would be career ending.
But, if you put them in a match, say a fight for instance, the rugby players wouldn't last long at all. The football/NFL players are built for quick plays, quick hits. They're larger and much stronger.
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.
By that logic, tennis is a tougher sport than rugby. Those matches can last up to 6 hours, and you're running throughout the entirety of it.
You see how stupid that sounds? That's not an indication of a tougher sport. Why not mention the iron man? You've gotta do a hell of a lot more running in that in addition to swimming and bike riding.
I guess you have to define what you mean by tough. If a massive, strong football player doesn't have the stamina to keep up for six hours, then at least in one sense, they're not as tough as a tennis player who can.
you are talking about endurance not toughness
i don't see anyone tackling the tennis players. and they get breaks between matches and can drink whenever they want
There is no doubt that football players are bigger and faster. The games are designed for different types of athletes. I've played both sports. Ruggers play with much more reckless abandon than football players ever do. It's not a question necessarily who can hit harder in a given impact. Rugby players sustain more devastating hits, punches to the face, and boots to the ribs in a game than some football players take in a season and love every Saturday for it.
biofriendlyblogJan 31, 2012Buried
From everything I've seen/heard, I have to go with rugby players.
bobosmitorJan 31, 2012Buried
If you have to run non-stop for 80 minutes, then you must be tougher.
rufiohoJan 31, 2012Buried
and have very little pads
shenerdJan 31, 2012Buried
My friend's sister has a metal plate in her head and her cheekbone from injuries sustained in rugby matches and she still plays. For most football players, a metal plate would be career ending.
casspaJan 31, 2012Buried
Tougher: Rugby
But, if you put them in a match, say a fight for instance, the rugby players wouldn't last long at all. The football/NFL players are built for quick plays, quick hits. They're larger and much stronger.
PuckDoctorsJan 31, 2012Buried
RUGBY
BluntzworthJan 31, 2012Buried
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.
FrankLuskaJan 31, 2012Buried
Rugby
jbkmdxFeb 1, 2012Buried
By that logic, tennis is a tougher sport than rugby. Those matches can last up to 6 hours, and you're running throughout the entirety of it.
You see how stupid that sounds? That's not an indication of a tougher sport. Why not mention the iron man? You've gotta do a hell of a lot more running in that in addition to swimming and bike riding.
pinkfish411Feb 1, 2012Buried
I guess you have to define what you mean by tough. If a massive, strong football player doesn't have the stamina to keep up for six hours, then at least in one sense, they're not as tough as a tennis player who can.
macbookformeJan 31, 2012Buried
Seconded
giuuFeb 1, 2012Buried
At least both sports aren't full of pussies like Soccer.
huangismFeb 3, 2012Buried
you are talking about endurance not toughness
i don't see anyone tackling the tennis players. and they get breaks between matches and can drink whenever they want
tylorlilesFeb 1, 2012Buried
or james harrison..they've both dished out some hard hits in their careers.
craig1958Feb 1, 2012Buried
Are we talking about real football, or american football?
hipcareFeb 1, 2012Buried
Rubgy players definitely.
jmoe80Feb 1, 2012Buried
There is no doubt that football players are bigger and faster. The games are designed for different types of athletes. I've played both sports. Ruggers play with much more reckless abandon than football players ever do. It's not a question necessarily who can hit harder in a given impact. Rugby players sustain more devastating hits, punches to the face, and boots to the ribs in a game than some football players take in a season and love every Saturday for it.
jeworldFeb 1, 2012Buried
I have a friend whose brother plays Rugby. He said he comes home bruised and bloody all the time
anfieldtalkFeb 1, 2012Buried
This argument will never end. Clearly a world Rugby 11 v Football 11 is called for?
ellterrificodrFeb 1, 2012Buried
Rugby is way tougher but American Football is still more interesting!