 |
| Photo credit Gerald Lynch and jaywashere.com |
It is not the first time this question has been asked, nor will it be the last and for good reason. Although the two games share similar characteristics, it’s their differences that so strongly divide opinion. Usually, your country of residence or birth determines what camp you are in. Anyone from England, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Italy, France, Ireland will be quick to endorse rugby as a real man’s sport. Anyone from one of America’s 50 states will argue differently.
With Six Nations rugby and the Superbowl having dominating the weekend, it should have been easy to line the two sports up side by side and make a comparison.
The obvious difference – padding – is what tends to make people believe that rugby is the superior of the two. Every hit/tackle/takedown that was delivered with conviction made me cringe this weekend – padding or no padding.
The difference in the fluidity of the game is another argument that the rugby camp use in their favour. I can’t argue that one to be fair.
However, when you break down the sheer skill needed to play the sport, the way I see it is that rugby players are like all rounders while American football players are specialists. Furthermore, don’t be fooled by the size of some of these American giants. It is not uncommon for a 6’3”, 140kg athlete to be able to run 40 yards sub 5 seconds.
This debate is like a tin of worms that is not likely to be contained in the near future. It’s a tough pill to swallow but it seems that sports require the same amount of athleticism and output but for different reasons.
I’m still left with questions though and would appreciate it if anyone could shed some more light on this topic.
Comments/arguments are most welcome!
