American 'football' vs Rugby

Remove all ads!

Larry Allen of the cowboys (6'3", 325lbs) benches 700lbs & squats 900lbs. If he has a good deadlift he could rank among the strongest men in powerlifting(as his bench was without a benchsuit).
Sam Rayburn miami & philly(6'3", 303lbs) squats 960lbs & benches 225lbs for 38 reps.
Chris johnson 5'11" 200lbs runs a 4.24sec 40yd dash.

Both rugby & football have big, strong & fast guys. Calling any of them girly men is probably a bad idea unless you want a fight.

 

I will stand up for American football. As an european a bit odd but the game deserves it. Yes rugby is strong and powerfull but american football is more. it is more precise, more tactical and complicated. You have to use that thing on your torso more.

A tackle in rugby union or five nations has different rules than a tackle in gridiron. It is more a grab than a hit. A good hit you hear.

Time management is different. After some plays time stops, but no extra time is added for injuries like in Rugby. That makes it possible to adjust better to situations and to change players to even extend that.

Rugby uses more kicking as a key play, like the drop goal, while football uses the throw bringing more finesse into the game. A receiver that is tackled in mid air can drop the ball turning games around.

Rugby is more back to the roots more raw flesh to flesh survival of the fittest. American football has evolved to put more brains into it given it the ideal combination of powere, pain and smarts.

 

Rugby wins. Period. You have to run, pass, kick, chase, tackle, scrum, maul and support for a full 80 minutes. Not make one kick, or one run, and then get subbed.

Gridiron would make a fine computer game no doubt, but it's just not a particularly exciting sport with all the stoppages and substitutions, and very strict set plays. Where is the room for free expression and broken play?

 

Here, I'll give you some examples of creativity in American football...









I went with all college football videos since I like it more than NFL. But if you want to see some more goodies search for Josh Cribbs, Darren Sproles, Gale Sayers, and many more

Oh yeah, one more...

 

I've always thought of American (and Canadian) football as a "dumbed-down" version of rugby. Lots of stoppages to figure out what you're going to do next (rugby doesn't have that luxury), lots of padding, etc.

Basically, rugby seems like a summertime version of hockey - a fast-paced, "think on your feet" approach, and exciting. American football is more like a turn-based strategy game - slower-paced, deliberate, and yet still interesting in its own way (except for the last two minutes which always seems to take an hour to finish).

 

We play it in the late autumn-winter months of the year. Our summer sport is cricket. But the analogy remains the same, and I totally agree.

 

In a scrum you only have to push and try to keep it from getting down(forgot the right term). Whit american football you must stand still and run a few yards/meters before contact. Moving objects do more damage, and you never know how many and were from.

 

I agree with Splunge - Football is more of a strategy game. Regardless of how much talent you have on the field, without a deep playbook, the team is very inefficient. I am not sure how that compares to rugby, but I don't dislike the slow nature of football - It is still quite exciting, especially in the last few minutes if it is a tight game.

 

I love these "which sport is best" threads because there is no real answer.

Rugby Union Football requires more aerobic fitness than Gridiron because you have to run continually for 80 minutes. Gridiron requires more tactical precision because you have to know the play inside out and each person has to play their part exactly. Rugby Union requires more general skills. Gridiron requires more specialist skills (like that guy who comes on for 10 seconds and kicks the goal). Rugby Union has little or no padding. Gridiron has a suit of armour. Gridiron has more players on the team than Rugby Union. Gridiron stops more often than Rugby Union. The rules of Gridiron are probably slightly easier to understand than Rugby Union. A game of Gridiron goes for longer than a game of Rugby Union. Players from each sport would probably not survive for long if thrown into a game from the other sport. Rugby Union is an international sport, whereas Gridiron is really only played properly in North America and there is little or no international competition.

I love Rugby Union, but mostly because I have been brought up with it, and my national team is one of the best in the world.

 

I totally agree, our team is one of the best, if not the best (ie most successful) teams in the world. Also I got to add that my own team is better than your team, Crusaders ftw!

 

While I agree with HB that arguing over which sport is better is rather pointless, It's like trying to say if Apples are better than Pears...
I just though I'd point out to those arguing that Rugby is better because the players are more manly for not wearing padding. Unless your definition of Manly = Stupid then you are wrong. The padding is a good idea, many Rugby players suffer from serious back and neck problems in later life because of scrums causing massive strain and damage to the neck and back. Infact, the rules have been changed 4 times to try and decrease the damage caused, but still lots of professional and amateur players are crippled, or even killed, every year from back/neck injuries. So, if seriously harming yourself makes the sport better, then fine, but I personally think it just makes you stupid.

 

I know many people, both male and female, who would say that a nice pair is always better!

 

Rofl, I knew I should have used a different fruit, but I couldn't think of one that looks more like apple.

 

My definition of manly = 'able to withstand pain'. But that being said, why dont women play rugby more often? Their pain threshold is through the roof. Just ask a mother...

Nectarine? When I first got a nectarine from Santa 20+ years ago, I thought he gave me an apple. Note to parents, fruit + xmas stocking = genius. You can just blame Santa for trying to feed your kids fruit, while you get off the hook.

 

You are misreading my point. I didn't say anything about how sore it was, I was commenting on the potentially fatal injuries gained from the lack of protection.

 

The NFL is going through a (semi) big thing now with retired players complaining about future medical problems not being covered. Some of these guys have had 10+ concussions and you can only imagine what that can do to you.

 

@Nat I used to play Rugby and we were a damn sight more viscious!

 

I have to dive into this discussion. An American football player who plays in the NFL did in fact go over seas to learn and play ruby. The player is Dhani Jones and he plays for the NFL team Bengals, I know this because I'm a huge Bengal fan. Dhani not only learned but excelled at rugby while he was there. I believe Dhani is about 6' 2" and 235lb+.

The average NFL player is 6'2" tall and weighs around 255lbs. NFL players train their bodies for the season all year; most I believe would be able to play rugby after learning the game.

I personally cannot watch rugby; I get a ton of international channels and I tried to watch a few rugby matches. To me it is grown men playing in mudd chasing a ball. It is very close to football, but football has one player who manages the game and is the field general on offense and the same holds true for the defensive side of the game and that is why I like football. The coaches call the play and player excute them; if the field general is smart enough he can change the play on the field. Nothing like an intelligent field general (Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the two top QB-field generals in today's NFL) to alternate the game's outcome.

 

Ahem. Dhani Jones "excelled" at rugby? Firstly, I doubted that as I had never heard of him, and after checking, it appears he played ONE game of rugby union for very minor club called Blackheath in January 2008.

NFL players would be calling for the oxygen after 2 minutes of rugby union because they're used to having a rest after their 10 second plays are over. Not to mention the ridiculous situation of having a player whose ONLY job is to run on, kick the ball through the goal from right out in front then run off again.

Watch an openside flanker in rugby union have to sprint for 80 minutes and tell me again that a padded helmeted NFL player could do that.

 

I'm not that familiar with rugby, but watched it when I was in Sydney a couple of years back.

The pain. The pain.

It was beautiful.

(My brother-in-law was(/is?) a rugby coach, and I had little difficulties downing booze on his stag-night what with his mates being HUGE (sizewise) ex-rugby players. Well, one of them was smaller than me, but apparently he was some sort of legend what with the girlies asking him to sign their boobs...)

In any case, rugby (and I know it's supposed to be called 'footie', yay me.) is far more interesting to watch than hockey or american football..