OT: Rugby vs American Football

84 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
January 21st, 2012 at 1:35 PM
#1
MGoCooper
Joined: 04/21/2011
MGoPoints: 1025
OT: Rugby vs American Football

Having a lot of friends in England, I always get into a debate with them about rugby vs football. Their claim is that rugby is of course the sport with tougher men, because they don't play with pads. To which I always reply "Do you know why they use pads in Football? Because if they didn't, people would start dying! Would you enjoy being blindsided by Nadamukong Suh without pads(Which Sports Science proved had the impact of a 35 mph car crash)?" That argument always goes on for a while, and then we get into an even more heated debate about which sport has the better athletes. I've always, and will always say that American Football players are the greatest athletes on Earth. To piss them off further, I'd semi jokingly say "Give me a team of even College Football all stars, and give them 3 months to learn Rugby, and they could probably give the best Rugby team a hell of a game". Nothing would really piss them off more than that.

This point is always harder to prove to them, and the debate is endless and pointless. No disrespect to rugby players, they are indeed great athletes, and the game of rugby is difficult to play. But American Football, when it comes to size, speed, and overall athleticism, is un matched by any sport on the planet.

Thoughts?

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
January 21st, 2012 at 1:38 PM | posted from iPhone (Score:5 Normal)
ryanfourmayor
ryanfourmayor's picture
Joined: 12/06/2010
MGoPoints: 1939

Rugby guys are ripped.

Spartan's Alphabet: ADEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ.
January 21st, 2012 at 1:39 PM | The sports have different skill sets. (Score:-1 Overrated)
January 21st, 2012 at 2:08 PM | The one problem with that being (Score:5 Normal)
Crazy Canuck
Crazy Canuck's picture
Joined: 01/22/2011
MGoPoints: 195

the running backs would almost never have the ball. In rugby when you score the other team kick the ball back to you. Since a team of running backs would never win a line out and most probably never win a scrum. The would have the ball maybe 20% of the game. It is highly unlikely they would have much of a chance. Now a team of WR, RB, LB/DE hybrids and some power forwards from basketball would have a chance if they could get their endurance up.

Michigan fans are not made. They are born!

January 21st, 2012 at 4:07 PM | I really doubt they would (Score:1)
Run 2 Daylight
Run 2 Daylight's picture
Joined: 09/01/2009
MGoPoints: 2270

I really doubt they would mimic the Lance Armstrong runs a triathalon SNL skit. I'm pretty confident they would adjust to the new enviornment. 

Go Blue!

January 21st, 2012 at 7:12 PM | They can't adjust for being short or underweight. (Score:1)
Crazy Canuck
Crazy Canuck's picture
Joined: 01/22/2011
MGoPoints: 195

Most second row players in rugby are 6'6" or 6'7". When there's a line out the second row lift the jumper. The guys feet end up being 6' of the ground. Running backs aren't tall enough to lift a guy that high. You would need a pack of fullbacks to even come close in weight. So they would get pushed around in scrums. You have to remember the best players in the world have been playing since they've been 5 years old. They laterally pass the ball 30 yards. I played for eight years and can't do that.

Michigan fans are not made. They are born!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:15 PM | That it? (Score:2 Normal)
santy
santy's picture
Joined: 05/27/2011
MGoPoints: 169

I can also say that Gebrselassie has more endurance than Bolt, but that's about it... right?

January 21st, 2012 at 3:05 PM | There probably isn't a single (Score:3 Normal)
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 28961

There probably isn't a single running back in the NFL with the endurance of a rugby player.  The cardiovascular demands are completely different.

January 21st, 2012 at 1:39 PM | umm... (Score:2)
amphibious1
amphibious1's picture
Joined: 09/02/2009
MGoPoints: 2132

Sure.

Florida Wolverines have dreadlocks...

January 21st, 2012 at 1:40 PM | "greatest athletes" is like (Score:5 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1112

"greatest athletes" is like saying "greatest food." it's way too broad to ever have anything close to a clear answer.

 

Every sport is grueling in its own right.  And while I will concede that there are sports that probably require less athleticism (ie. golf), you can't compare the athleticism of football to the athleticism of ironman races... or free-solo rock climbing... or ice hockey... or wrestling... or rugby.

There is no answer.

 

 

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

January 21st, 2012 at 1:46 PM | (Score:3 Normal)
truferblue22
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 87

We just know baseball players are the least athletic.

~Sean

January 21st, 2012 at 2:16 PM | Nah, we just think that (Score:1)
bronxblue
Joined: 11/22/2008
MGoPoints: 12582

Nah, we just think that because they stand around and the game seems slow.  There are elite ahtletes in every sport, and the skills required in one are not always translatable to the other.  I mean, people complain about the fat pitchers in baseball, yet we have 300lb+ linemen in the NFL who die at age 45 from health problems related to their weight gains. 

January 21st, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Not true (Score:0 Overrated)
January 21st, 2012 at 1:48 PM | (Score:2 Normal)
truferblue22
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 87

what about hockey??

~Sean

January 21st, 2012 at 3:06 PM | I may be a little biased being a hockey player and all... (Score:1)
Happy Gilmore
Happy Gilmore's picture
Joined: 01/13/2011
MGoPoints: 643

But hockey players essentially do what football players do, on metal blades 2-3 mm thick. They also can get moving on the ice faster than people can run, so have the potential to hit just as/even harder than in football (especially blindside hits).

Lahey, where you at?

January 21st, 2012 at 3:25 PM | I'll absolutely back you on (Score:1)
justingoblue
justingoblue's picture
Joined: 11/16/2010
MGoPoints: 10858

I'll absolutely back you on that one, being a hockey player myself. Not only is the game much faster than football or rugby (or any other team sport) but the agility required of an average NHL player is much, much more than an "average" guy on an NFL roster. On top of that, with college/NHL period length, the game lasts quite a bit longer than a football game, and thus requires endurance above and beyond football.

Obviously the NFL has athletes that would school some guys in the NHL and vice-versa, but in terms of overall toughness or athleticism on a team level, give me a good NHL team any day of the week.

One other thing, I don't think there are athletes in any team sport that compare to the Ironman competitors; those guys are on a whole other level.

Go Blue!

January 21st, 2012 at 1:51 PM | Put any american footballer (Score:5 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1112

Put any american footballer in the ring with Anderson Silva (or Junior Dos Santos if youd prefer a larger person)... and they will die.  literally.  Put Anderson Silva on a football field and he will die.

 

your comparison is fatally flawed.

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

January 21st, 2012 at 1:52 PM | What about MMA? (Score:1)
I Bleed Maize N Blue
I Bleed Maize N Blue's picture
Joined: 09/27/2008
MGoPoints: 4818

What about MMA?

Michigan Resurgent?  Michigan Resurgent!

The beatings will continue until the uniforms improve!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Hockey hands down (Score:1)
Roachgoblue
Joined: 08/29/2011
MGoPoints: 1477

You will never see a fat pro hockey player.

[Caved troll is caved. Sorry, Mobile app users.]

January 21st, 2012 at 1:48 PM | (Score:1 Normal)
truferblue22
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 87

but yes, I totally agree with you.

~Sean

January 21st, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Also, the great boxers' (Score:2)
Hokemania
Hokemania's picture
Joined: 03/11/2011
MGoPoints: 2139

Also, the great boxers' combination of speed, strength, coordination, and endurance. A lot of the best athletes don't become boxers today as its popularity has waned but it's quite a skillset to be elite.

Whatcha gonna do, little brother?

January 21st, 2012 at 2:12 PM | Football players have more (Score:2 Normal)
bluestan
Joined: 09/17/2011
MGoPoints: 181

Football players have more speed, strength, or better hands. Rugby players are like a bit of everything. They are different kinds of athletes.

January 21st, 2012 at 1:45 PM | Give me the following players (Score:-1 Overrated)
January 21st, 2012 at 2:25 PM | But again, the skillset (Score:2 Normal)
bronxblue
Joined: 11/22/2008
MGoPoints: 12582

But again, the skillset required for Rugby is different than American football, as is the desired bodytype.  For example, JPP would need to slim down quite a bit (I read that he is about 280, and that is probably a little low) to be able to run up and down the field in Rugby. 

My point is that every sport requires a different skillset and bodytype, and trying to compare one to the other is silly.  Yes, this team above you would be a very good rugby team given time, but I also think if you took an elite team of Rugby players and had them train to become football players, they'd be pretty good as well.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:32 PM | Good one. Give me a team of (Score:3 Normal)
bacon1431
bacon1431's picture
Joined: 07/26/2008
MGoPoints: 3277

Good one. Give me a team of the best rugby players in the world and the rugby team kicks this team's butt. Different sports, different types of athletes. Hard to compare them.

For a' that, an' a' that, 
Our toils obscure an' a' that, 
The rank is but the guinea's stamp, 
The man's the gowd for a' that. 
January 21st, 2012 at 1:52 PM | Rugby probably has (Score:3 Normal)
woomba
Joined: 10/19/2011
MGoPoints: 218

better rounded players with a good mix of power, endurance, and speed.  Football is all about min-maxxing to get players to play the best skill positions.

January 21st, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Michael Jordan sucks at (Score:5 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1112

Michael Jordan sucks at baseball

Tony Gonzalez got cut from the Heat (when the Heat were terrible)

Brock Lesner was terrible at football

Chad Ochocinco got cut from the MLS (before Ochocinco was terrible at football)

 

Athleticism is not some transcending physical characteristic that allows someone to be succesful at anything they want.

 

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:03 PM | Counter-argument. (Score:2)
AmaizeingBlue
Joined: 09/01/2010
MGoPoints: 1344

Well, baseball and basketball require completely different skill sets, same with football and soccer.  On the other hand, football and rugby seem pretty similar.

January 21st, 2012 at 4:21 PM | Unless you're Bo Jackson. (Score:2)
Z
Z's picture
Joined: 01/18/2010
MGoPoints: 352

Unless you're Bo Jackson.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:01 PM | But at the same time (Score:1)
MGoCooper
Joined: 04/21/2011
MGoPoints: 1025

How many of the rugby players could line up and play football? Not many, because that's just how the game was designed.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:03 PM | The game changes (Score:1 Normal)
MGoCooper
Joined: 04/21/2011
MGoPoints: 1025

The need for size in football has become more and more important, because that's what the game is. There are far more NFL players that would be successful in rugby, than there are rugby players that would be successful in the NFL.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:26 PM | Ridiculous (Score:1 Normal)
MGoCooper
Joined: 04/21/2011
MGoPoints: 1025

You can argue athleticism among many sports, especially when both games are predicated on the same things. That's a ridiculous statement, it's like saying you can't argue who has better service, Delta, or American Airlines. The two sports are very different in and of itself, but when the means of how you accomplish success in them are the same athletically, then yes, a debate can be made. If there was no debate to be made, then sports science wouldn't bother comparing them, and books comparing the two wouldn't have been written.

And for this being stupid, don't respond then, since you're obviously so busy.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:30 PM | Sports Science exists for the (Score:5 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1112

Sports Science exists for the same reason all pop sciences exist: people think it's cool and they dont actually understand science.

 

Sports Science compared forces in 1 collision.  that is far from conclusive.  but it looks cool, so they televise it.

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

January 21st, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Doesn't that say something (Score:0 Flamebait)
January 21st, 2012 at 2:31 PM | Delta and American Airlines (Score:5 Normal)
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 28961

Delta and American Airlines offer the same product.  Rugby and American football do not.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:03 PM | +1   To piggy back your (Score:4 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1112

+1

 

To piggy back your idea: soccer is similar in that at least 8 players on each team are playing a full 95 minutes,  with that much aerobic activity the body is incapable of supporting as much muscle as american footballers have. Im not saying soccer players are better athletes than anyone... just that this topic is dumb.

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:15 PM | I've never understood why (Score:3 Normal)
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 28961

I've never understood why soccer doesn't allow more substitution in extra time.  If three substitutes are supposed to last you for 90 minutes, you should get more when the game goes 120.  

January 21st, 2012 at 2:21 PM | They can take it (Score:1)
santy
santy's picture
Joined: 05/27/2011
MGoPoints: 169

That's just how they're conditioned to play

January 21st, 2012 at 2:25 PM | It seems like in most of the (Score:2)
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 28961

It seems like in most of the extra-time games I've seen, the players are exhausted out of their minds, and play very defensively, hoping to survive to the penalty kicks.  Some fresh legs might help.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:25 PM | Maybe that'll change after (Score:1)
I Bleed Maize N Blue
I Bleed Maize N Blue's picture
Joined: 09/27/2008
MGoPoints: 4818

Maybe that'll change after the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.

Michigan Resurgent?  Michigan Resurgent!

The beatings will continue until the uniforms improve!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:33 PM | Disagree about boring down time (Score:3 Normal)
Greg McMurtry
Greg McMurtry's picture
Joined: 02/25/2009
MGoPoints: 4038

You can watch as the O or D sets up or how a QB diagnoses the play. The QB can motion players or call audibles. The D can make shifts or fake blitzes and give different looks. When the O is in hurry-up mode, all of these things are done quickly and every second counts. None of this is boring to me. If these things are boring to you, then you simply aren't that much of a fan.

...confidence is the stain they can't wipe off...

January 21st, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Dhani Jones played (Score:2 Normal)
the legend of c...
the legend of crazy horse's picture
Joined: 08/15/2008
MGoPoints: 52

Check it out (can't imbed from my phone)





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiCk53xgEos&feature=youtube_gdata_player

"Like every good strip club, it's got to be legendary."

January 21st, 2012 at 9:28 PM | Imbed: (Score:2 Normal)
bjk
bjk's picture
Joined: 11/27/2009
MGoPoints: 830

January 21st, 2012 at 2:16 PM | posted from iPhone (Score:3 Normal)
QVIST
QVIST's picture
Joined: 08/22/2009
MGoPoints: 695

The rules of rugby allow players to not wear pads because the player is not "down" unless you wrap them up. This is why players do not NEED to lay out a defender although they often do. I played both sports in high school and found rugby to be a much bigger physical test because of the lack of stoppages. You simply cannot expect football players to go 80 minutes straight at their size. This explains why props and locks in rugby are linebacker size. A comparison really can't be made between the two--very different skill sets required. The "QB" in rugby--the fly half--needs to be able to pass, run, kick and make quick decisions. There aren't many parallel positions.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:17 PM | posted from iPhone (Score:0 Redundant)
January 21st, 2012 at 2:19 PM | posted from iPhone (Score:2 Normal)
QVIST
QVIST's picture
Joined: 08/22/2009
MGoPoints: 695

In addition, non form/high tackles are penalized.

January 21st, 2012 at 2:20 PM | They're completely different (Score:4 Normal)
Run 2 Daylight
Run 2 Daylight's picture
Joined: 09/01/2009
MGoPoints: 2270

They're completely different sports and this argument is always stupid. Football pads are as much weapons as they are protection. But it's funny that you've come to the conclusion that football has the greatest athletes in the world bar none. Why don't you take a few steps back and define athleticism? Because I bet that a lot of boxers, UFC fighters, and wrestlers would have a bone to pick with your conclusion, among many other athletes. 

Go Blue!

January 21st, 2012 at 2:24 PM | These arguments are never (Score:5 Insightful)
M-Dog
M-Dog's picture
Joined: 07/06/2008
MGoPoints: 6366

These arguments are never about sports.  They are always about politics.  "Our national sport is better than yours!"

So you have many Americans who have no problem enthusiastically watching Football, then Basketball, then Baseball - all very different sports - freak out about Soccer.  Because it's un-American.

Likewise many Brits who follow Soccer, Rugby, and Cricket, are bewildered how anyone could watch American Football.  Because it's not "their" sport.

 

M'Dog

January 21st, 2012 at 2:29 PM | I played rugby (Score:0 Overrated)
January 21st, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Totally Disagree (Score:4 Normal)
UMGoRoss
UMGoRoss's picture
Joined: 03/08/2011
MGoPoints: 68

I played both, and like most members of my Rugby team, thought Rugby was more challenging and physically demanding. You have to constantly be ready to switch between various skill sets (passing, catching, kicking, running, tackling) at a moments notice, and you don't have 40 seconds to map out your plans after each play.

 

Go Blue!

January 21st, 2012 at 4:10 PM | Agree, I also played both.  I (Score:2 Normal)
BlueCE
BlueCE's picture
Joined: 12/08/2009
MGoPoints: 985

Agree, I also played both.  I did think that rugby was more challenging to play and I think more fun as well (I played flank so I was always around the action)... but I still think football is a MUCH better spectator sport.

-------

The Counterpoint (www.the-counterpoint.com)

Discussions that aims to find facts, highlight different points of view and strengthen opinion.

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.