Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

All-Blacks

The tougher sport?

Recommended Posts

ldee
Never played American Football but I can confirm that Rugby is very, very tough.

 

I played in school when I was just 10 to 11 years old and I was one of the stronger, tougher kids, but still, the sport took a toll on me and I left it.

 

Since then I've been playing and training extremely hard in football (association/soccer), it's very physical, but it's nowhere near as painful and injury-prone. Plus, it's by far always been my favourite sport anyway, hah.

I was the same, the two sports I've always played were football (soccer) and rugby. I played both up till I was 16 and rugby just took too much of a toll on my body that it was getting in the way of my academic studies. Try writing with your left hand because your broke your right arm, very fustrating angry.gif

 

I'm 20 now and still play football but would love to get back to rugby someday as I still love it. I just hope i have more luck with injuries as I was getting constantly injured in Rugby.

Good luck, at only 19 I'm already feeling cautious about my delicacy. I guess I could take an ankle sprain or a sore knee, but I'd start whining about hurting ribs and neck cramps. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Of Monra

ice hockey without padding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gta9414

football

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

Which one do you think hurts more when hitting you?

user posted image

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

 

Which one do you think hurts more when hitting you?

 

That would depend where they hit me, if I was ready for the hit and how good their timing was.

 

I find your use of Brian O'Driscoll (the rugby player in green pictured) to illustrate your point is rather misleading. As he is in fact a centre, an offensive position which doesn't really exist in American football (although Football has a position with the same name he carries out blocking duties rather than having a creative role like in Rugby.) I would describe the build of your average centre as equivalent to a breed between a QB and a WR. Now it just doesn't seem fair.

 

Let me rephrase what you just effectively asked: Would you rather be hit by a quicker version of Brett Favre or Aaron Gibson?

 

A more accurate comparison would be between a "prop" in rugby and said NFL player (don't know the guy in the second pics name, sorry)

 

Anyway back to the question that the OP asked, it depends on what your definition of "tough" actually is. Lets take a look at the most likely injuries for both sports.

 

 

As you might expect, the head was the most commonly injured body site; in fact, head injuries added up to 25% of all injuries. 75% of the head injuries were lacerations, while 19% were concussions (there were seven total concussions, or one per year), and 6% (two) were fractures. The next most-injured body sites were the knee (14% of all injuries), thigh (14% of injuries), and ankle (11%). The knee turned out to be the most common site of severe injuries, chalking up 25% of all severe damages; in fact, 40% of knee injuries could be classified as severe, with half of these being medial collateral ligament tears. The hand/finger and shoulder ran close seconds to the knee in terms of severe damage, with fractures of the finger and shoulder dislocations being fairly common. Half of the thigh injuries were hamstring strains or tears.

 

Breaking the rugby-union players’ bodies down into regions, the lower limb was the most commonly injured area, with 52% of all injuries. The head and neck followed with 29%, and the upper limb settled at 15%; the trunk and ribs were seldom damaged.

 

 

From 1931 to 2006, the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research has reported 1,006 direct and 683 indirect fatalities resulting from participation in all organized football (professional, college, high school, and sandlot) in the US

 

So from those sites, injuries are roughly as common as each other when it comes to both sports. However football players are more likely to die as a result. Some would say that the larger risk of death makes it a "tougher" sport. But I disagree. Look at the allowed and illegal tackles in both sports and the equipment you are provided to play both and you might see what I mean.

 

Here is a list of allowed/disallowed tackle types through different disciplines

 

As you can see, the pads in American Football lend themselves far more to rough tackles, with various tackles that aren't allowed in Rugby allowed in Football. For example the spear tackle is far less dangerous when performed in American football due to pads, supports and helmets. While in Rugby it just isn't allowed at all.

 

Anyway, now for my opinion. I think that both games are developed for different markets and therefore the concepts of what is "tough" differ between markets. A european game typically consists of lots of tackling and improvisation, with very few breaks in play. Therefore it is "tough" to keep playing a very physical game for 80 mins with no breaks. Meanwhile in North America the fans demand short periods of intense action with lots of pace for short periods and lots of breaks. Therefore it is "tough" to get your pass away before your legs get smashed by a 60stone manbeast. And that is the simple reason, along with perhaps a lack of understanding of the nuances in the rules of both games, why both sides of the argument won't ever agree.

 

As for me, I have never played Football but Rugby didn't treat me so well, I play flanker and my knee is currently f*cked up from a training session a few days ago. Keeping me out of action for at least 6 months.

 

 

Edited by nerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spdrlfc
depends... on the pro level id say american football because it has the best athletes, no offense but if you take the pads off some of the guys in the NFL and stick em in rugby heads would be rolling.

 

4.4 40 and 250lbs=american fooltball>rugby

It's about the game though not the players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

I'd say that gridiron is rougher, yet rugby is more physically demanding. There's a lot more running in rugby than in gridiron, and that combined with the ever-present tackling makes it, overall, a more taxing and demanding sport. I've never actually played organised rugby before in my life so I can't judge, then again I haven't played organised gridiron before. I'm an association football (soccer) player anyway, I think I'll be best sticking to that. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtamann123

Its a tough call because there have been tests that show american football hits usually have a bit more force than rugby hits but rugby doesn't use pads and helmets. If thequestion was tougher sport to play that would be hard to because the padding adds alot of weight to your body making it harder to run but you stop running in between each play and in rugby you keep going like in soccer. So i would say they are about even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SIKKS66

NFL players are built like f*ck but I don't think any can strike fear like Frenchman Sébastien Chabal.

 

user posted image

 

I think rugby inches it because of the no holds barred nature of it. Tackles are fast and heavy as f*ck in American football but I think the tackles in rugby are just as brutal AND there's no padding. Keep in mind that rugby players play pretty much non-stop on both attack and defense whereas football players stop between plays and only tend to play attack or defence. There's also a lot less subbing of players in rugby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay
depends... on the pro level id say american football because it has the best athletes, no offense but if you take the pads off some of the guys in the NFL and stick em in rugby heads would be rolling.

 

4.4 40 and 250lbs=american fooltball>rugby

It's about the game though not the players

They'd all have cardiac arrests before 80 minutes are up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finn 7 five 11

I think in Rugby you get a lot more whole body bruising and injuries, and hard hits hurt so much f*cking more, but in NFL there are sh*tloads of bad ass head clashes since some seem to think "i have a helmet it wont hurt me" which is dead set a lie!

 

In rugby however, you are either a giant, or you have a burning desire to hurt people and not worrying about yourself.

 

On average NFL players are heavier, because backs in rugby are usually lighter and more nimble than forwards.

I think the pain involved in impacts can be similar, but on average rugby hurts more.

 

Also i think rugby forwards have to be fitter than NFL players, no offense but NFL guys get a break every 1-2minutes, rugby is continuous, a guy gets tackled if your a forward you gotta sprint up and use all your muscle to wrestle the other guys out of the ruck, then you gotta do it again and again and again, until the game is over, and you will get some breaks for penalties and such of course.

 

Main reason NFL players are bigger is because they have a layer of fat, and toned muscle under neath, which is why they are heavier, having this extra weight means more weight to carry around, mening you can't go for as long, even if you are just as fit.

 

rugby players are solid muscle, so they can move around easier.

Edited by finn4life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA3Rockstar
Main reason NFL players are bigger is because they have a layer of fat, and toned muscle under neath, which is why they are heavier, having this extra weight means more weight to carry around, mening you can't go for as long, even if you are just as fit.

 

rugby players are solid muscle, so they can move around easier.

You'd know this ...... how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finn 7 five 11

I read it somewhere, plus if you look at a lot of NFL players they look like fat unfit bastards, then when you see them move or tackle another player you know otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay

You line up a 120kg linebacker and a 120kg forward and see who has their gut hanging over his pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

The simple reason why American Football players, especially tackles, are quite large in terms of girth is because they don't need to move around a lot. They follow the QB around for the entire game just stopping people from getting to him. That requires nothing more than brute force. And the best way to have that force within you is to just be a large person.

 

The heaviest player in American Football history weighs in at about 183 kilos while the heaviest rugby player ever to receive an international cap was 165. Large rugby players are getting phased out of a game in which people can run you around. The rules differences lead to different skill sets being required. Blocking isn't needed, and so the rugby players don't require such weight in order to stop an equally large man from going past you. For one, they'll be holding the ball which means that they can't stiff arm you as easily and for two unless a player is retarded they'll always try and meet another player, in an attempt to knock them back.

 

Finally due to the stop start nature of the game a football player may be on the field for hardly any time at all depending on the nature of his team and the relative offensive and defensive merits of the opponents. While in contrast a rugby player is on the field for 80 minutes of constant manouvreing and physical battling. This leads to obvious differences in the builds and sizes of players. A rugby player will typically be very tall with big arms and have a thickset nature whilst a football player can get away with having a bit of a belly on him. Google up a picture of Michael Oher and compare him to Sonny Bill Williams next time you can spare 3 minutes. They both are at the peak of their careers and are well known amongst their sports aficionados, but look at how different they look. That is down to the different rules sets and the differing structure of the two games. No offense intended GTA3ROCKSTAR but that is just common sense surely?

Edited by nerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attorney General
Google up a picture of Michael Oher and compare him to Sonny Bill Williams next time you can spare 3 minutes.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

 

Google Laron Landry, Mario Williams or Julius Peppers instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ass reamer

Don't mistake an NFL player's gut as a hindrance to his athletic ability. Your average offensive lineman in the NFL weighs about 300 pounds and can still run a 40 yard dash in about 5 seconds, with many being able to do it sub-5 seconds. The agility and strength required to block a 260 pound defender flying around the end is staggering.

 

Which is the tougher sport? I don't know. I think a football player playing rugby would fair better than a rugby player playing football, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tubbs51

Now a days with the NFL Commishiner's new offensive friendly rules players arent near as rough as they used to be... The NFL used to be the NHL on grass with the big hits and fights... but meh lately...

 

i think both could hold their own in the other's sport...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finn 7 five 11

user posted image

 

There you go, RUgby union/former league player = lean muscle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

 

Google up a picture of Michael Oher and compare him to Sonny Bill Williams next time you can spare 3 minutes.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

 

Google Laron Landry, Mario Williams or Julius Peppers instead.

Maybe that was slightly unfair in hindsight however since they both work alongside the main player in a team, the QB or the Fly-half I think that I was entitled to make that comparison.

 

 

Don't mistake an NFL player's gut as a hindrance to his athletic ability. Your average offensive lineman in the NFL weighs about 300 pounds and can still run a 40 yard dash in about 5 seconds, with many being able to do it sub-5 seconds. The agility and strength required to block a 260 pound defender flying around the end is staggering.

 

Which is the tougher sport? I don't know. I think a football player playing rugby would fair better than a rugby player playing football, however.

I'm sure that they are great as explosive bundles of force and I would love to have one of them to push my car one day if it breaks down and won't start, however what you are perhaps mistaking for athletic ability is simply running fast for 40 yards. A rugby player will in all likelihood have to run much further than that at near full pace with or without the ball in his hands in a play, he'll then get back up and do it again. That is a different kind of physical fitness to the one which you have just described. And for that reason the gut which is so pronounced in football players just isn't so with rugby players. Different games require different body types.

 

However saying that your judgement could very well be correct. A game of football is very static and a player of rugby woulld probably not be able to hold his own among all of the powerful men who weight twice as much as he does. I'm not saying otherwise, that would be futile. However, as I have said, rugby requires much more stamina and relies more on technique than simply brute force. Also I dare say that many footballers wouldn't be able to adapt to the sudden need to actually run with the ball themselves. That could be an interesting watch, a series of crossover games. In my honest opinion, both codes will end up on the receiving end of a burnout, they simply couldn't adapt to the new rules systems anywhere near fast enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The-King

 

user posted image

 

There you go, RUgby union/former league player  = lean muscle.

user posted image

 

Bill Romanowski is laughing at your tiny man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay
powerful men who weight twice as much as he does

Maybe in the case of Matt Giteau, but just like in gridiron you have sprightly dudes doing kicking duties who look like lemmings compared to the rest of the team.

 

Difference is in rugby an 85kg dude like Giteau needs to take a hit from a line of 120kg dudes, pick himself up then keep running for another 80 minutes of game time.

 

I'm not from a rugby state so I don't know names outside of the national team, but just browsing through some Super League rosters there's a sh*t ton of dudes above 120kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Bill Romanowski is laughing at your tiny man.

Was he the guy who tested positive for several steroids? That explains that then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ass reamer

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if half the NFL tested positive for roids/HGH/other substances. You just don't get as big and cut as some of those guys are through good, clean diet and exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner

 

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if half the NFL tested positive for roids/HGH/other substances. You just don't get as big and cut as some of those guys are through good, clean diet and exercise.

I think that most professional sports will always have a group of practitioners who are willing to take drugs in order to see that their performance goes up to the next level. Rugby is still quite a young sport in terms of becoming pro, it happened only 15 years or so ago, so the drugs are yet to truly permeate the culture in such a way that they are taken by the majority of the sport's players. Or maybe us Brits have a moralistic attitude to our sports and everyone else is shooting up elsewhere? I don't know. All I hope is that there is never a culture of drugs and bad sportsmanship cloaking the game of rugby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonesizzle
user posted image

 

There you go, RUgby union/former league player = lean muscle.

So? Brock Lesnar tried his luck with football, and failed horribly. I have also have heard of these 'lean' rugby players attempting to play football, and also failed. It just doesn't take muscle to play this game, you have to be smart and percise if you want to be one of the best. All about gameplan than it is what type of body you have.

 

I tried watching rugby... it was a very painful, confusing and boring watch for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
I tried watching rugby... it was a very painful, confusing and boring watch for me.

I have already covered this about 3 times. Most people who are brought up watching rugby find Football to be a boring as sh*t game that takes about 7 hours to watch a half because of all of the meaningless ad breaks and timeouts.

 

As I said, both audiences are conditioned to like different types of sport; slow, yet hard-hitting, action vs fast action and slightly less hard-hitting action. And you probably found it confusing because of all of this movement, I know that I found Football confusing at first because of the lack of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonesizzle

I know 7 hours is a overstatement, but a bad one. Try watching a baseball game bud. Unfortunately, NFL and America are all about making money. Having consistent commercials during the game is a great example of that. But after watching rugby, these are two completely different sports, I was expecting more hitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
I know 7 hours is a overstatement, but a bad one. Try watching a baseball game bud. Unfortunately, NFL and America are all about making money. Having consistent commercials during the game is a great example of that. But after watching rugby, these are two completely different sports, I was expecting more hitting.

Baseball has nothing on Test Match Cricket. And you say that your sports leagues are all about making money and yet they seem to be the most socialist out of all sports leagues in the world. Nothing to do with the actual argument I know but I have always been bemused by this.

 

As for the lack of "hitting" in rugby games, that is because the laws of the game are geared to prevent injuries to players who haven't got as much padding. If you add padding and remove the protective laws which surround the game, then you effectively remove all of the old skills which were needed to be able to play the game and replace them with new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonesizzle

Right... two different sports, two styles of play, but I gotta say football is the tougher sport. Maybe got it a little easy if you are a kicker or punter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.