Ice Hockey, Rugby or American Football - Which team sport is the toughest?

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Wow it's a very close race. Good shit.

 

[ThaiSexPills]

I was a pretty high level hockey player who was pretty physical and had my fair share of fights and IMO, rugby is a different animal. Those dudes want to hurt people. Some of the most sadistic guys I grew up with played rugby. I never wanted to hurt anybody, I just wanted to win.

That being said, you have to play 82 games in the NHL just to get into the playoffs. It’s gruelling and then the playoffs ramp up intensity and physicality even more. Dudes are forced to play through injury to win it all and it’s not for tbe feint of heart. I’m picking the NHL but from my personal playing experience, rugby. I was never scared for a second playing junior hockey of anybody or anything but being on a rugby field felt different.

 

[zuffazombee]

 

[zuffazombee]

 

[Yellowcrab]

Lol at that pool... it's without even a single doubt american football at first, then rugby and at the last position hockey.

Source : https://footballplayershealth.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/03_Exec_Summary.pdf

It's amazing how people can even think a single second hockey is tougher than american football lmao...

Also, american football players are bigger and stronger than rugby players, so obviously american football is way tougher...

 

[Yellowcrab]

It's funny until you realize that Lebron James is basically much bigger and more athletic than any hockey player and would probably win in a street fight

 

[SoSo]

They are some amazing collisions in Football. Top notch athletes built to go nuts for 10 seconds. If they go too hard they can have a rest. Hockey, although the collisions can be brutal, there's just not enough of them. I respect the grind though. Rugby, although it's slowly being pussyfied like every other sport, has at least 16 of the 30 guys on the field between 240 and 285 lb hammering away offensively with carries, defensively tackling and then there's rucking, counter counterrucking and scrummaging (the front three of each team take crazy pressure at scrum time.) I'd say football hits are mostly harder because of the pads and helmet, but toughest? The oval ball sport all the way.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

But imagine a 6'4" 240lbs man hitting you at 20 miles per hour on the ice. I think that impact would be devastating.

Not saying Football isn't tough, but there hits is more an accumulation of many hits maybe not as devastating as a hockey hit but nonetheless they have a lot more contact to the head.

Just like how Boxing is for combat sports. More constant punches to the head. More than any other combat sport.

Saying that, the devastating hit in hockey is few and far between. So it's not sustained as something like Football where it's repetitive. Even though it's more of just a constant wear and tear and beating to the brain. However the degree of intensity it is.

Anywho, just look at this hit from hockey.

It depends on the position to. There’s a reason running backs expire so quickly. They typically run through the heaviest defenders and get hit from all sides and angles. Sometimes it’s play after play after play.

I think some positions like a WR or CB are less prone to those brute force injuries. They seem to get caught more by landing weird, twisting something etc…

If your pulling footage from that long ago it’s a bit difficult because now you’ve opened the gates a bit. All sports have had rule changes to protect players. Hockey, football, basketball. They are more friendly now. Plus equipment is different. You can show someone getting their head split open because they didn’t wear a helmet in hockey and I’ll show you James Harrison turning himself into a human torpedo and leading with his head every play. They don’t apply anymore.

Given the current state of the games I do think it’s rugby. I’d put football secondary and hockey third.

The thing for me is there’s rules that kind of prohibit those massive hits we used to see. Charging feels like a blanket penalty to me that stops those 25 mph vs someone stationary kind of hits. I’m not a big hockey watcher so if I’m misunderstanding please correct me. But I was under the impression boarding, cross checking and charging really tone down the amount of contact you can create

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

It depends on the position to. There’s a reason running backs expire so quickly. They typically run through the heaviest defenders and get hit from all sides and angles. Sometimes it’s play after play after play.

I think some positions like a WR or CB are less prone to those brute force injuries. They seem to get caught more by landing weird, twisting something etc…

If your pulling footage from that long ago it’s a bit difficult because now you’ve opened the gates a bit. All sports have had rule changes to protect players. Hockey, football, basketball. They are more friendly now. Plus equipment is different. You can show someone getting their head split open because they didn’t wear a helmet in hockey and I’ll show you James Harrison turning himself into a human torpedo and leading with his head every play. They don’t apply anymore.

Given the current state of the games I do think it’s rugby. I’d put football secondary and hockey third.

The thing for me is there’s rules that kind of prohibit those massive hits we used to see. Charging feels like a blanket penalty to me that stops those 25 mph vs someone stationary kind of hits. I’m not a big hockey watcher so if I’m misunderstanding please correct me. But I was under the impression boarding, cross checking and charging really tone down the amount of contact you can create

Yes it's definitely a softer game across the board in all those sports.

Yes that's true, boarding, cross checking and charging or even hit's to the head are looked down upon in the NHL these days. It's a much softer game than it once was. I'd say between 85 to 95 was the toughest era for hockey. Now it's a light shadow of its old self.

 

[Halifax]

I was a pretty high level hockey player who was pretty physical and had my fair share of fights and IMO, rugby is a different animal. Those dudes want to hurt people. Some of the most sadistic guys I grew up with played rugby. I never wanted to hurt anybody, I just wanted to win.

That being said, you have to play 82 games in the NHL just to get into the playoffs. It’s gruelling and then the playoffs ramp up intensity and physicality even more. Dudes are forced to play through injury to win it all and it’s not for tbe feint of heart. I’m picking the NHL but from my personal playing experience, rugby. I was never scared for a second playing junior hockey of anybody or anything but being on a rugby field felt different.

Yup.

When they are huddled they are trying to grab and squeeze each others nuts and shit and get away with neutering.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I'd say between 85 to 95 was the toughest era for hockey. Now it's a light shadow of its old self.

The NHL is a shadow of its former self but what makes you say 85 to 95 was the toughest era?

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

The NHL is a shadow of its former self but what makes you say 85 to 95 was the toughest era?

Two of the best and toughest guys that ever existed in the NHL Dave Brown and Bob Probert were at their prime. I believe 87/88 season. The league averaged 1.54 fights a game. The most ever for any season in the NHL. That's unheard of now.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Two of the best and toughest guys that ever existed in the NHL Dave Brown and Bob Probert were at their prime. I believe 87/88 season. The league averaged 1.54 fights a game. The most ever for any season in the NHL. That's unheard of now.

Toughness is more than fighting and those two guys. There were also great fighters before them. I’d be curious to see that stat source and how far back it goes.

There are other metrics like PIM where the most in a season was Dave Schultz in 74-75. Tiger Williams amassed most of his record PIM in the mid 70’s to mid 80s. Teams like the Broad Street Bullies were known for how tough they were.

Things went on in even earlier years that wouldn’t have been imaginable. Going back as far as Eddie Shore, there are some pretty ridiculous stories which you can read about. Gordie Howe was also as tough a player as you’ll find.

It’s hard to think that the 85-95 time frame compares to those earlier years.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Toughness is more than fighting and those two guys. There were also great fighters before them. I’d be curious to see that stat source and how far back it goes.

There are other metrics like PIM where the most in a season was Dave Schultz in 74-75. Tiger Williams amassed most of his record PIM in the mid 70’s to mid 80s. Teams like the Broad Street Bullies were known for how tough they were.

Things went on in even earlier years that wouldn’t have been imaginable. Going back as far as Eddie Shore, there are some pretty ridiculous stories which you can read about. Gordie Howe was also as tough a player as you’ll find.

It’s hard to think that the 85-95 time frame compares to those earlier years.

Trust me it was crazy time those 10 years between 85-95, I use to go on hockeyfights.com a lot and check fights stats out in the Dropyourgloves site (now defunct) and most of those guys would say the same thing. But to each their own. If you think it's a different era that's fine with me. But I believe that was toughest most grueling, most physically punishing time in hockey.

That's just my opinion of course.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Trust me it was crazy time those 10 years between 85-95, I use to go on hockeyfights.com a lot and check fights stats out in the Dropyourgloves site (now defunct) and most of those guys would say the same thing. But to each their own. If you think it's a different era that's fine with me. But I believe that was toughest most grueling, most physically punishing time in hockey.

That's just my opinion of course.

Yeah I know those years pretty well but what happened in decades before wouldn’t have even been allowed. Guys were literally trying to kill each other in many instances and the repercussions were almost non-existent. I think you’re talking specifically about fighting whereas I’m talking about the game as a whole.

By the way, do you have a source for that number and stat?

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Yeah I know those years pretty well but what happened in decades before wouldn’t have even been allowed. Guys were literally trying to kill each other in many instances and the repercussions were almost non-existent. I think you’re talking specifically about fighting whereas I’m talking about the game as a whole.

By the way, do you have a source for that number and stat?

I can't find the exact stat of fights per game. It was Dropyourgloves website, but that site is gone now. The only stats I can find is this on hockeyfights.com.

https://www.hockeyfights.com/archives

You can look at how many fighting majors there was during the 70s. During Dave Schultz time and look at the fighting majors during Probert and Brown time. It's a huge difference.

However, like you said it depends how you measure team toughness. But I believe when you average 3 enforcers in your team during the mid 80's till perhaps to the mid 90s. That's a completely different animal all together imho.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I can't find the exact stat of fights per game. It was Dropyourgloves website, but that site is gone now. The only stats I can find is this on hockeyfights.com.

https://www.hockeyfights.com/archives

You can look at how many fighting majors there was during the 70s. During Dave Schultz time and look at the fighting majors during Probert and Brown time. It's a huge difference.

However, like you said it depends how you measure team toughness. But I believe when you average 3 enforcers in your team during the mid 80's till perhaps to the mid 90s. That's a completely different animal all together imho.

Yes and you’re still focused entirely on fighting. The game is much more than that. Also there are some years in that time frame that have basically the same number of fights as years in the 70s.

The fact that you’re talking about three enforcers actually isn’t helping your argument. Teams in the 70s were comprised almost entirely of enforcers lol. Look at the Bruins and Flyers. You would actually love those teams if you watched them.

One last thing is that the best players before your time frame were Orr, Howe, Richard, Hull etc. They took care of themselves. Howe straight up terrorized opponents. You probably grew up in the 85-95 era. Gretzky has some opinions on guys like Howe that you’d find interesting.

Anyways, it’s not really a debate imho but to each their own opinion.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Yes and you’re still focused entirely on fighting. The game is much more than that. Also there are some years in that time frame that have basically the same number of fights as years in the 70s.

The fact that you’re talking about three enforcers actually isn’t helping your argument. Teams in the 70s were comprised almost entirely of enforcers lol. Look at the Bruins and Flyers. You would actually love those teams if you watched them.

One last thing is that the best players before your time frame were Orr, Howe, Richard, Hull etc. They took care of themselves. Howe straight up terrorized opponents. You probably grew up in the 85-95 era. Gretzky has some opinions on guys like Howe that you’d find interesting.

Anyways, it’s not really a debate imho but to each their own opinion.

It was not just the fighting, there was a lot of physicality with hitting and all that jazz in the mid 80s.

Not all the players 70s were fighters. And the 70s was only predominantly known for their rough play by just two particular teams. The rest of the teams were pussy cats compared to the Big Bad Bruins and the Broad Street Bullies. Those two teams dominated in those times because no teams were like them. They just used their physicality to intimidate, physically weaker teams.

By the mid 80s it was different every team had fighters. It became an even playing field, when it came to intimidation, physicality and fighting. That's why they had increase of fighting in that time period. Because everyone had arsenal of nuclear weapons. So it was inevitable for more fighting and physical play.

I honestly wish they had Hockeyfights forum still open for that website. You can ask those guys on there and majority of them would say when Probert and Brown were at their prime that's when the league was at their toughest and roughest. The 70's with Dave Schultz was a ballet compared Probert/Brown era.

Dave Schultz was considered not one of the best fighters when I use to go in that forum. None of them would consider him in the top 10 best fighters of all time. Not even in the top 20. Dave Schultz played in a time where he took advantage of his toughness, when most teams had no toughness.

In fact if Dave Schultz played in the mid 90s, he would be looked like just second or even third best enforcer in his team.

Well anywho I'm ok to agree to disagree. But to say it's not a debate is silly.

 

[Sweater of AV]

It was not just the fighting, there was a lot of physicality with hitting and all that jazz in the mid 80s.

Not all the players 70s were fighters. And the 70s was only predominantly known for their rough play by just two particular teams. The rest of the teams were pussy cats compared to the Big Bad Bruins and the Broad Street Bullies. Those two teams dominated in those times because no teams were like them. They just used their physicality to intimidate, physically weaker teams.

By the mid 80s it was different every team had fighters. It became an even playing field, when it came to intimidation, physicality and fighting. That's why they had increase of fighting in that time period. Because everyone had arsenal of nuclear weapons. So it was inevitable for more fighting and physical play.

I honestly wish they had Hockeyfights forum still open for that website. You can ask those guys on there and majority of them would say when Probert and Brown were at their prime that's when the league was at their toughest and roughest. The 70's with Dave Schultz was a ballet compared Probert/Brown era.

Dave Schultz was considered not one of the best fighters when I use to go in that forum. None of them would consider him in the top 10 best fighters of all time. Not even in the top 20. Dave Schultz played in a time where he took advantage of his toughness, when most teams had no toughness.

In fact if Dave Schultz played in the mid 90s, he would be looked like just second or even third best enforcer in his team.

Well anywho I'm ok to agree to disagree. But to say it's not a debate is silly.

Your issue is you associate fighting and toughness as the same thing. You need to take a step back and understand what’s being discussed. Even if that were true, it’s not that big of a difference.

And lol at only the Flyers and Bruins were tough. I might as well just say players in the 80’s were cupcakes outside of the couple of enforcers on each team. So basically there were 40-50 tough guys in the league. Good to know.

When the best players are also the ones who take care of their own business in a clearly tougher league with less regulation then yes it’s not really much of a debate.

 

[armbarforhire]

Meh different type of injurys, pull/torn stuff in the legs pretty much leave you useless for any sport and the pain is not something you can't tough up, you are either on one leg or doing the frankestein walk. Not saying those arent a bunch of injurys to tought up and that guy isnt a stud, but as I say there is nothing really to tought up with the kind of pain you get from most leg inurys.

Its like people that laugh at guys not getting up from a liver shot because they got their nose broken once LOL, just 2 different things.