Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
tuc biscuit
New member
dood said:
-Rugby is better
- Andy Sheridan is a 700# squatter
-They go helmet to helmet because theyt are wearing them. They would not do it if they didn't wear them.
In conclusion; rugby is better.
NFL versus Rugby
- Thread starter bits
- Start date
-Rugby is better
- Andy Sheridan is a 700# squatter
-They go helmet to helmet because theyt are wearing them. They would not do it if they didn't wear them.
In conclusion; rugby is better.
MsBeverlyHills
New member
FatRat said:
how fun!! I got to see Wales play New Zealand... great game
sh4dowf4lcon
New member
I like both sports, they are both physical, brutal games. I prefer the NFL, the pads and the hard hits. Rugby runs a close second, but the hits are not as ferocious as NFL. They have to wear pads to hit that hard, and because they wear pads they are able to hit harder. I like the tough, brutal, physicality of both sports, I live in US, I prefer footbal, and I beieve the NFL athletes are superiorl.
This could go on forever........
'NFL players probably hit harder' very true, they are conditioned to do so, but rugby players (to varying degrees related to position) are collision athletes, they have to have a lot of aerobic endurance.
A 300lb+ lineman wouldn't last 5 mins in a decent-grade rugby match, simply because his conditioning is geared towards Football.
Then again........vice versa applies, most rugby players wouldn't be able to cope with the forces of collision at a line of scrimmage and would be bowled over.
Both great games though,
peace, RugbyNut.
'NFL players probably hit harder' very true, they are conditioned to do so, but rugby players (to varying degrees related to position) are collision athletes, they have to have a lot of aerobic endurance.
A 300lb+ lineman wouldn't last 5 mins in a decent-grade rugby match, simply because his conditioning is geared towards Football.
Then again........vice versa applies, most rugby players wouldn't be able to cope with the forces of collision at a line of scrimmage and would be bowled over.
Both great games though,
peace, RugbyNut.
It is impossible to compare the two sports because there are different types of athletes on the field. You can't say football is better in general or vice versa.
I can compare what I do and that is play defensive tackle. The endurance in defensive lineplay is tremendous but not in a strict aerobic sense. I have to use my entire body at full muscular capacity for bursts of up to 15 seconds. That is not just running, that is driving a 300+ pound man backwards while manipulating his upperbody with all my upperbody strength and power, throwing him off me and redirecting to catch and tackle a much smaller and faster athlete than myself. Get up and do it again in 20-30 seconds. This usually goes for 10 plays or so. This is anaerobic endurance at its toughest. Try doing a 4 rep max clean and press, put it down and do it again 30 seconds later, for 10 sets. That is what it feels like to play interior line.
As far as rugby goes, I wouldn't last 5 minutes running all over that huge fucking field, I weigh 320 pounds, i am not built for it. There aren't many rugby players that could go 13 plays against a bigger opponent with out getting blown up. Both sports are collision sports and I am in awe of some of the hits rugby players take w/ no pads. I know for a fact that they are tougher athletes, in that respect.
The only case I make for the NFL having better athletes is an economic one, the NFL minnimum salary is 250 grand american a year. The competition to play in the NFL is unbeliveable. I don't know how rugby compares in that respect, but in America the best all around athletes play football...
I can compare what I do and that is play defensive tackle. The endurance in defensive lineplay is tremendous but not in a strict aerobic sense. I have to use my entire body at full muscular capacity for bursts of up to 15 seconds. That is not just running, that is driving a 300+ pound man backwards while manipulating his upperbody with all my upperbody strength and power, throwing him off me and redirecting to catch and tackle a much smaller and faster athlete than myself. Get up and do it again in 20-30 seconds. This usually goes for 10 plays or so. This is anaerobic endurance at its toughest. Try doing a 4 rep max clean and press, put it down and do it again 30 seconds later, for 10 sets. That is what it feels like to play interior line.
As far as rugby goes, I wouldn't last 5 minutes running all over that huge fucking field, I weigh 320 pounds, i am not built for it. There aren't many rugby players that could go 13 plays against a bigger opponent with out getting blown up. Both sports are collision sports and I am in awe of some of the hits rugby players take w/ no pads. I know for a fact that they are tougher athletes, in that respect.
The only case I make for the NFL having better athletes is an economic one, the NFL minnimum salary is 250 grand american a year. The competition to play in the NFL is unbeliveable. I don't know how rugby compares in that respect, but in America the best all around athletes play football...
tuc biscuit
New member
IronLion said:
That is down to demand for merchendise/television rights/financial backers. Rugby is getting better in that respect, but it is hard to compete financially in Britain with football (soccer for you yanks). In the past five years the conditioning of rugby players has improved massivley, you would be surprised if you thought you could man-handle one of them. Thereare a lot of lean 280 pounders these days.
sh4dowf4lcon
New member
Yes, if we debate the money and salaries and TV contracts it really is no debate. NFL is the biggest $making$ sport in the world. Not necessarily for all of its athletes, but as a sport in whole.
Spanky11
New member
As a rugby player, I'm not sure if I can say that one is "better" than the other. Both definately have their attributes and I think overall the hits are almost the same (considering with and without pads).
I think that the matter of salaries in NFL is different as there are so many tv and sponsorships. Rugby only became a professional sport in the mid 90's, so I think after this World Cup, the salaries and sponsorships will skyrocket.
I do think that it takes far more skill to play rugby, as we need to be good at attacking and defensive - we don't have 2 teams to do their own job.
I think that the matter of salaries in NFL is different as there are so many tv and sponsorships. Rugby only became a professional sport in the mid 90's, so I think after this World Cup, the salaries and sponsorships will skyrocket.
I do think that it takes far more skill to play rugby, as we need to be good at attacking and defensive - we don't have 2 teams to do their own job.
MsBeverlyHills
New member
rugby is so much better-- youve got alot of sweat-soaked muscular guys w/ naked thighs & calves moving the ball down the field-- all grunting, yelling & cussing-- its like FB- but alot more sexy
