i have played both rugby and football i play in the bafl div 1 and i play university rugby for the 1st in the winter. I play the maeircan football in the summer
works well- no offseason which means no real time to bulk but it is fun
i play LB and im a prop foward
so the differcnes IMO
american footbal is intense it is great if the play comes your way, in rugby your invlved all the time and that means that is harder- not neccesariy more aggressive
-u are nackered after both sore after both, neck is buggered after both
the hits hurt as mcuh in both- inrugby you bruise in football you diclocate shit etc but still they all hurt
i have discloacted my shoulder rigbht side 3 times in 5 years and left 2 in 4 years. From both sport
-you get fat lips, broken nose, broken finger very regular in rugby you dont in football
in conclusion
both hurt
both are a great laff
play both
you will never need to get in a fight again if you play both you never have a chnace to get aggressive with a game nearly every week of the year.
[quote]to hetyey225. wrote:
… American society is too insular in regards to sport, how can they call a tournament the ‘World series’ when it only includes teams from the USA? [/quote]
Hold on a second…There is one team that isn’t from the USA! They have even won the ‘world series’.
[quote]Demo Dick wrote:
Dan, my comment was meant to encourage our guys to ulease a little of that T on the bastards that deserve it. And to everyone claiming that rugby is more violent and/or aggessive than football, I disagree. Now please don’t think I’m disrespecting rugby or rugby players, as I respect ALL athletes. Yes, rugby is a VERY violent game. It is most certainly a very aggessive pursuit. However, in my opinion, NOTHING compares to porfessional/college American football in terms of violence and aggression. Pro 'ballers are the biggest, fastest, toughest athletes in the world. The degrees and rates of injuries bear this out. It’s simple physics. Compare the velocity at which a typical rugby collision occurs with the velocity of a typical NFL hit. The reason those guys wear pads? They aren’t wimps. They HAVE to. Without those pads, they would DIE (or end up incapacitated) after a few short seasons. Now yes, rugby players are tough, mean SOB’s. I won’t dispute that. But to say that rugby is just like pro, even college football, without the pads, is off the mark. It’s a different game, a different style of hitting, and a higher level of violence. I’m reminded of my friend Tony who went to Belfast for a college semester and watched an Irish rugby team become enamored of American footballers there on exhibition. They couldn’t believe the size, speed, strength, and agility of our boys. Is football BETTER than rugby? Only a child would try to make an argument either way. Is it more violent? I believe so. If I see convincing evidence, however, I will reconsider (and heaven forbid, I MIGHT actually change my mind). Perhaps Coach Davies has an opinion? [/quote]
It would seem that much of the debate on this post is “Rugby vs. Football” - which in itself is an impossible question to answer. Neither sport is more “aggressive”, as that question lays in the people who play it. Quiet honestly there are many sports that require an incredible aggressive attitude but few have considered on this forum.
That being said, I’d look at this more as a cultural / geographic thing to which I have to add that it has always been my experience that in general, Aussie / Kiwi’s take a far more aggressive attitude to virtually all sports or better said, can chew and spit out anything in their wake.
Both rugby and football are hella fun. But aggresivness what about PrideFC? C’mon Wanderlei Silva is known for his aggresivenss in the ring, he’s crazay. and when he’s throwing 6 punch combinations at you…there is no chance for survival. PrideFC…they allow kicks to the head, stomps, and its pure aggresiveness, as the person who is less aggressive usually loses in PrideFC because most fights are fast-paced.
Most violent sport = autralian rule football. Nothing comes close. It’s the only sport where the game doesn’t stop when somebody is seriously injured. I once saw two paramedics go pic up a fallen player while the game was still going on. THAT’S hardcore!
I can’t believe all you fags forgot the most hardcore bloodthirsty sport of all time. Thats right Badmitten, what other sport is so hardcore that you play it with a shuttle cock. Take your broken bones and eye gouges all you want, but when I slam the cock over the net and into your eye, you will feel like a trashed out crack whore after a 30 man gangbang. Badmitten owns any other sport.
[quote]irondoc wrote:
Pro football. Other sports have the potential, but not the payoff in bucks, so they don’t draw the best athletes trying to kill each other. Come on, if your average rugby player had the talent he’d take the bucks and play with the Jevon Kearse’s, Ray Lewis’s, and Warren Sapp’s of the world. They use pads and helmets because they’re to fast and strong to play without. If ruby players were good enough, they’d be in the Nfl.[/quote]
Not true, what you are forgetting are the athletes OUTSIDE of the USA. Take for example, Jonah Lomu, this guy was a BEAST in his prime some years back!!! (http://www.jonahlomu.com/story/story.html) He was a friggin’ unstoppable tank (look for clips of him breaking tackles after tackles…)
He was offered ($5 Mil I think) from the Dallas Cowboys to play for them but refused because he has some more stuff he wanted to accomplish in NZ.
There are other amazing athletes in rugby, just not necessarily in the States.
I’ve played both sports, football D1 and Rubgy and D2. Both have huge hits and crazy SOBs. Granted NFL hits may be bigger than some of the rugby hits but rugby gets some of the most gruesome injouries Ive ever seen. Few in football compare to them. All in all I like playing rugby more caseu as a FFB I get the ball when in football I didn’t. But they are both great games I deff recomend any football players to try rugby.
Why does everyone sell hockey short, hockey is one hell of an aggressive sport. even when i played with a full mask i would leave games with bruised chins or a split lip.
hockey is so agressive sometimes the refs fight each other(happend in a Jr.B game around here).
This is a pretty interesting debate, between rugby and football. I’m trying to remain objective and consider the merits of both sides, but I as a person who has played both sports, I lean slightly toward rugby.
First off, I have played a number of sports, wrestling, football, rugby etc. and I have to say, a scrum is by far the most physically painful thing I have ever experienced. Just the sound that the two packs colliding make when the “engage” call is made is disgusting, it sounds like two pieces of beef being thrown together.
As far as the kinds of players who play these games, its hard to compare, its like apples and oranges. In football you get 260lb+ D-ends like Jevon Kerse and Dwight Freeny who run 4.4 40s. While in the highest levels of international rugby, you get locks who are 6’6 260 and have work rates similar to running 6:30 min miles for 80 straight minutes.
As far as the “which sport has tougher athletes” debate, I think its pretty stupid, both sports are equally tough, although rugby players tend to do some pretty crazy stuff, I have the utmost respect for guys in the NFL who drag themselves through a 20 week season full of cortisone injections and other nasty stuff, look at a player like Steve McNair…
[quote]ConorM wrote:
Whats the point in this argument? Its obviously MMA. Aussie Rules Football? No way, its quite pansy compared even to rugby.[/quote]
conorM step up and represent bro ! you got the frickn hurley right there in your hand ! pretty obvious no one here has ever seen a hurling match.
My vote is for UFC(Ultimate Fighting Champion) that is hands down the most violent and brutal. IT stops when someone’s body or will gives up :). The only times it stops prematurely is if a bad eyeball cut occurs.
All I have to say to the Rugby smack talkers is if you think you are tough enough to play full contact American football, do it. I played full contact NFL rules football in a women’s league here in Texas and we had plenty of shit-talkin’ rugby players who were surprised how painful and violent football is. “I thought the pads would keep me from getting hurt”. NOT. On the offensive line it’s like being in a violent car wreck every 30 seconds. That’s how long the play clock runs; longer than that and it’s a penalty. So none of this 2 minute break crap someone else was spewing. The elite level games last 3 hours because of commercial breaks. And let’s never mind that all that padding is heavy. So football players not only have to run like hell, push other guys around who are trying to tear their heads off, avoid the guys trying to tear their heads off (all dependent upon position) they have to do it while wearing 40 or so pounds of equipment. If you want to see a gruesome injury watch the video of Joe Theiseman’s broken leg. And let’s not forget the many career ending injuries suffered by American football players. While wearing all that padding. I’m sure rugby players have been recruited for football; how many have actually put the pads on and played?
So please, put that in your pansy pipe and smoke it.
I have played rugby for the Army and it is pretty brutal. As for NFL I think anyone who runs out of bounds so they dont get hit should be a flag. The only time anyone should run out of bounds is during the 2 min. at the end of each half, and that goes for QB’s as well. I played highschool football and was kicked off the team for being too rough. If someone ran out to avoid a hit from me they got it twice as bad next play, if they had the ball or not.
I HATE 99.9% of all NFL players!!!
But I must say UFC is the best. I trained as a sparing partner with someone training for UFC in 1999 and it was tourture, I hated it. He did not make it to the second fight and he was a badass!