 |
| 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!
I think rugby has to go down as the more rougher based squarely on the issue of padding (or lack off), although I think this is always going to be a response based on opinion unless some scientific research is used and answer questions on things like injury comparison and tackle forces etc. Guys in American Football are generally bigger and impact in there sport seems a lot more dynamic, but I know for sure id prefer some padding on my body when taking a head on collision with anyone my size or bigger. So this is the thing influencing me most on choosing rugby as the rougher contact sport. But in closing if one of the other was more dangerous I don't think it would be by a huge margin, at the end of the day any collision of such force can result in a broken bone or concussion so both have serious risks involved which of course is what makes it so exciting, but again at least American football and there use of helmets would reduce the likelihood of being hospitalized due to a head injury.
ReplyDeleteWell obviously any sport that calls itself football where the feet hardly come into contact with the ball is stupid! (start as I mean to go on: controversially!). However, on a serious note, does the wearing of protective clothing make a sport any less tough? I would suggest that the sports are of equal toughness, but the absence of protective clothing means that rugby players are tougher and therefore ‘arder!
ReplyDeleteIn track and field athletics, there has been a history of athletes (especially sprinters) running bespoke distances to prove who is faster (both Usain Bolt and Michael Johnson have run 300m, although not against each other). Wouldn’t it be great to put on an exhibition, out-of-season match between an American football and a Ruby team based on some amalgamation of rules which would definitely (?) put this argument to rest?
Obviously the rugby team would win…!
This has and will always been a contentious issue. I have watched both American Football and Rugby and I have to say, both call for a equal amount of toughness, padding or no padding. There is a specific reason why padding is used in American football, and like it or not, it is because the game is faster and the impact during sequences is consistently greater.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I believe rugby players are fitter. There is no rest period during sequences and players must play offense and defense. In American football you are a specialist offensive or defensive player and very rarely both.
This is clearly a debate that is not likely to be settled until we can put rugby players and 'football' players on the same pitch and let them battle it out.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is not likely to happen in our lifetime so we'll just have to continue speculating.
Thanks for all of your opinions.
Just brought this debate up at a dinner. This will be an eternal debate, lol.
ReplyDeleteStill a great read months later, by the way :-)