American Football or Rugby - Who's the toughest and why in your opinion?

Answer 1

i have been goin on about this for years.it has to be rugby.id love to see an american footy team take on a rugby team minus their helmets and pads.ok ok,u.s football is a pretty hard hitting contact sport but c,mon now,put em up against a rugby side?they wouldnt have a sniff.

Answer 2

During an All Blacks tour of France in 1986, Wayne "Buck" Shelford lost four teeth at the bottom of a ruck...and if that wasn't bad enough a French stud also tore his scrotum resulting in a testicle hanging out. He commanded that the physio stitch him up on the touchline (without any anaesthetic and on live French tv) before he rejoined the field of play. It was the only game of international rugby where he was on the losing side.

That is a MAN, and I can't think of any other sport where this behaviour would be tolerated, its a tough sport.

American footballers are tough, but padding rather diminishes the element of roughness. I don't really see that Rugby players are any slower or weaker than American football players either. One thing they are, is much fitter. They play Iron Man ALL THE TIME. This is why there seems to be a perception that they are not as strong. There is also a subtle difference between the sports with respect to passing of the ball. In rugby you are only permitted to pass the ball backwards, while in American football anything goes. This means a rugby player will nearly always have to tackle an opponent (in first contact situations with the ball) head on, while American footballers can be tackled from just about any angle. It is MUCH easier to tackle from the side than it is from head on. Additionally American football places great emphasis on position and possession. In rugby possession is king and to this end mauls and particularly rucks have evolved. These are not places for the faint hearted (see Buck Shelford for more details).

To say people have died playing American football as a measure of toughness is to miss the point, people have died playing football, golf, cycling and even fishing.

Answer 3

know it all is mostly right except toughest usually implies no pads... But American football players are usually faster and stronger than most rugby players and thus rugby playeres dont endure the same type of physical damage that an american football player does and thus the padding is necessary in American football.

Answer 4

I wouldn't say either one is tougher than the other. You get the crap beat out of you in either one.

The games are played totally different. Without any protective equipment, rugby players get banged and bruised quite a bit.
When contact is made, the players are in general running in the same direction, you don't usually have these major head on impacts.

But in American Football, that equipment gives you a false sense of invincibility and when injuries happen they tend to be more severe.

You just don't have two 250 lb guys running full speed head first into each other in rugby.

Answer 5

Before all the safety equipment was introduced people were killed playing American Football. Currently if you took a Gridiron, Rugby Union and Rugby League team and they all played according to the same code with the same equipment then I would say there's not a lot in it but I do have an inside track on RLeague being rough. Though unless I was in Medieval armour a 250lb linebacker coming at me at full pelt is pretty scary.

Answer 6

It is Rugby, even the Yanks say so, like the other guy said, in Rugby there is little protection you play for 45 minutes non stop and it is very physical, as in American foot ball they are well protected they stop every 2 minutes to discuss the game and every 5 minutes to change a player and it is mainly tactical. but it is still fun once you figured out the rules.

Answer 7

Rugby League

American footballers are over-padded girls, and Rugby Union players seem to kick the ball rather than run and tackle with it.

Answer 8

no contest. football players are much bigger, faster, stronger, and tougher than rugby players. they wear pads because they hit each other 10 times harder. rugby a more physical game than football? that's the most rediculous thing i've ever heard. rugby players don't need pads because their game is far less dangerous, hard hitting, and physical than football. rugby players simply grab each other and tackle, trying to bring each other to the ground, similar to wrestleing. wrestlers don't need pads either. football players get a running start and collide with each other, trying to take each others heads off. at no time in rugby does a 175 pound player(like an NFL receiver) get crushed by a muslebound 270 pound player(like an NFL linebacker) running at full speed. if a rugby player ever experienced this(which happens dozens of times a game in football) and lived through it, i promise you he wouldn't step back out on the field without pads.

Answer 9

Rugby players , i agree with first answer. Guys are all rugged, big-built and real men. Don't wear body armour in case they get hurt and don't have skinny little legs sticking out that looks like they do ballet. Bet you should the American Football players take off all the exstra armour they will look like they scrawny little men you see kicking sand in the bodybuilders eyes on the beach and then he run's like hell. Nooo Rugby players, my type of guys.:)))

Answer 10

Well you can't exactly compare. American Football is about sudden explosions of power, whereas in rugby you must be fit but you also need far greater stamina as the ball can stay in play for far longer periods & there is no constant substitution..