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

[Phlog]

A study of g force in American football and rugby showed American football has 3 times the level of impact.

Player Group Average Hits Average G-Force:
Football 274 hits per session 63 g
Rugby 208 hits per session 21 g

Also further research has shown that rugby rules mean contact is made over a greater surface area lessening the effect further. Plus in football the armour means impacts can be much less forgiving when armour contacts flesh.

Average career stats prove it also, rugby average retirement age is 34, NFL it's 27. NHL is 28.2, so probably close to NFL, I played roller hockey and the contact is legit in that too, armour changes how hard you go in a big way.

It's honestly no contest and it's obvious that people arguing on the matter haven't played all the sports or looked at the data. I've played rugby, football and roller hockey, rugby was a distant third for collisions, what was harder about that was just going for the 40 min, cardio. You can just prepare well for that though.

American football has people actively looking to take you out through injury from every angle, they're going absolutely as hard as they can relying on the armour to allow them to hit so hard and be ok. It's night and day.

 

[Sweater of AV]

A study of g force in American football and rugby showed American football has 3 times the level of impact.

Player Group Average Hits Average G-Force:
Football 274 hits per session 63 g
Rugby 208 hits per session 21 g

Also further research has shown that rugby rules mean contact is made over a greater surface area lessening the effect further. Plus in football the armour means impacts can be much less forgiving when armour contacts flesh.

Average career stats prove it also, rugby average retirement age is 34, NFL it's 27. NHL is 28.2, so probably close to NFL, I played roller hockey and the contact is legit in that too, armour changes how hard you go in a big way.

It's honestly no contest and it's obvious that people arguing on the matter haven't played all the sports or looked at the data. I've played rugby, football and roller hockey, rugby was a distant third for collisions, what was harder about that was just going for the 40 min, cardio. You can just prepare well for that though.

American football has people actively looking to take you out through injury from every angle, they're going absolutely as hard as they can relying on the armour to allow them to hit so hard and be ok. It's night and day.

I’m pretty sure many people have played all three at some decent level. Your description of rugby though makes me think you were playing touchbutt with your friends or something. Also lol at roller hockey.

As for something rigorous, I’m sure there are studies with varying results. You guys need to learn how to give actual sources for the numbers and statements you throw around.

Here is a relatively recent peer reviewed article that compares collegiate football and rugby:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26786902/

Methods: Licensed medical professionals (athletic trainer or physician) associated with the football and rugby teams of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university reported attendance and injury details over 3 autumn seasons. Injuries were categorized by the location, type, mechanism, and severity of injury, and the injury rate was calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Injury rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to compare overall, game, and practice injury rates within and between sports.

Results: The overall injury rate was 4.9/1000 AEs in football versus 15.2/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2). Game injury rates were higher than practice injury rates: IRR = 6.5 (95% CI, 4.5-9.3) in football and IRR = 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0-8.6) in rugby. Injury rates for the shoulder, wrist/hand, and lower leg and for sprains, fractures, and contusions in rugby were >4 times as high as those in football (all P ≤ 0.006). Concussion rates were 1.0/1000 AEs in football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in rugby. Most injuries occurred via direct player contact, especially during games. The rate of season-ending injuries (>3 months of time loss) was 0.8/1000 AEs in football versus 1.0/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-3.4).

Conclusion: Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

 

[Yellowcrab]

As for something rigorous, I’m sure there are studies with varying results.

As you said : Conclusions: Collegiate game injury rates for rugby were lower than rates recorded previously in men’s professional club and international rugby and lower than reported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System for American football, but similar to rates reported for men’s and women’s soccer in 2005–06.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/7/595.abstract

Also : Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

American football players are both stronger and bigger.

Also :

https://rugbydome.com/when-do-pro-rugby-players-retire/

https://rugbydome.com/nfl-career-length/

There must be a reason, right ?

 

[Sweater of AV]

As you said : Conclusions: Collegiate game injury rates for rugby were lower than rates recorded previously in men’s professional club and international rugby and lower than reported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System for American football, but similar to rates reported for men’s and women’s soccer in 2005–06.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/7/595.abstract

Also : Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

American football players are both stronger and bigger.

Also :

https://rugbydome.com/when-do-pro-rugby-players-retire/

https://rugbydome.com/nfl-career-length/

There must be a reason, right ?

A reason for what? You furiously searching for random articles and finding something from 2008 that you don’t even understand?



Try finding a somewhat recent and consistent study that analyzes both sports properly, as in the one I posted, which clearly says:

Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

I also enjoy that distance covered metric. And I don’t think anyone’s denying American football has fat messes who need 17 timeouts during a game.

Hilarious stuff Yellowcan.

 

[Yellowcrab]

A reason for what? You furiously searching for random articles and finding something from 2006 that you don’t even understand?

No, simply hard facts that you can't deny :

- Bigger and stronger athletes in american football

- Much shorter careers

A study can be biased by many factors, such as the method employed, how well injuries are actually reported, etc.

However, no matter their result, this hard fact remains :

And this disparity exists for a reason...

I also enjoy that distance covered metric. And I don’t think anyone’s denying American football has fat messes who need 17 timeouts during a game.

The "fat mess" :



While they are actually more athletic than rugby players by any metric at comparable weight...

American football is based on explosiveness, hence why collisions are far more violent, while rugby is an endurance sport in comparison...

Also, there's no money in rugby... and with no money, it's harder to get the best athletes...

Oh yeah and : Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

63 vs 21 = 300% more but but but rugby is tougher

 

[Sweater of AV]

No, simply hard facts that you can't deny :

- Bigger and stronger athletes in american football

- Much shorter careers

A study can be biased by many factors, such as the method employed, how well injuries are actually reported, etc.

However, no matter their result, this hard fact remains :

And this disparity exists for a reason...



The "fat mess" :



While they are actually more athletic than rugby players by any metric at comparable weight...

American football is based on explosiveness, hence why collisions are far more violent, while rugby is an endurance sport in comparison...

Also, there's no money in rugby... and with no money, it's harder to get the best athletes...

Oh yeah and : Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

63 vs 21 = 300% more but but but rugby is tougher

Posting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense doesn’t change reality and the actual results of scientific studies.

Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

NFL careers are shorter because everyone is out of shape and keeps having heart attacks.



These guys can barely run a quarter of a mile without needing hot dogs and a timeout for make-up.

Give it another try.

 

[BAM]

No, simply hard facts that you can't deny :

- Bigger and stronger athletes in american football

- Much shorter careers

A study can be biased by many factors, such as the method employed, how well injuries are actually reported, etc.

However, no matter their result, this hard fact remains :

And this disparity exists for a reason...



The "fat mess" :



While they are actually more athletic than rugby players by any metric at comparable weight...

American football is based on explosiveness, hence why collisions are far more violent, while rugby is an endurance sport in comparison...

Also, there's no money in rugby... and with no money, it's harder to get the best athletes...

Oh yeah and : Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

63 vs 21 = 300% more but but but rugby is tougher

NFL career length has more to do with performance and level of replacement competition vs number jobs available.

The average NBA career is only a little more than 1 year more than the NFL average despite being far less dangerous

 

[Yellowcrab]

Posting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense doesn’t change reality and the actual results of scientific studies.

But are you really that weak as a debater ?

I already gave you a study that says the exact opposite : Conclusions: Collegiate game injury rates for rugby were lower than rates recorded previously in men’s professional club and international rugby and lower than reported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System for American football, but similar to rates reported for men’s and women’s soccer in 2005–06.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/7/595.abstract

So not only it's lower than american football, but similar to soccer

Also, what really matters is the dangerosity at the highest level, so in the NFL and pro rugby.

But since you continue your nonsense, here's the list of NFL players with CTE :

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_players_with_chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy

Here's the one in rugby : NOTHING... there's no article like that in Wiki for rugby...

While there are more rugby players in the world than american football players, because american football is mainly played in the US while rugby is a worldwide sport, yet there's still not enough data to build an article about rugby players with CTE... it tells a lot...

But once againt, we know why : At the end of the practice season, the football participants totaled 3,921 impacts over the course of 12 practices, compared to 1,868 impacts over nine practices received by rugby participants. After researchers adjusted for other factors such as false impacts, different sample sizes, and practices, they found that the frequency of impacts was lower for the rugby players than for the football players. The research team also found that the sensors recorded lower impact forces to the head in rugby in comparison to football. Impact was measured in g-force, which is the measurement of gravity described in units of acceleration. Overall the rugby players had impacts with an average of 21 g-force. Football players had impacts with an average of 63 g-force.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/2734

63 vs 21 is 300% more and you dare to continue this discussion ?

NFL players beat rugby players in almost any metric : height, weight, strength, money, atheticism, etc.

They are not in the same league and it's actually a good news for rugby players, at least their health is better preserved.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Also, what really matters is the dangerosity at the highest level

Fucking lol. Let us know when you graduate elementary school.

While there are more rugby players in the world than american football players, because american football is mainly played in the US while rugby is a worldwide sport, yet there's still not enough data to build an article about rugby players with CTE... it tells a lot...

Yeah because rugby players aren’t cans who wear pink ribbons and take 22 timeouts a game to evaluate themselves.

And yes, there are more rugby players in the world because it’s an actual sport and not a fashion show.



Yellowcan bless.



Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

 

[Sweater of AV]

Lol I forgot about the icing on Yellowcan’s cake.

Average distance covered in a game:

Rugby: 4.35 miles
Canball: 0.19 miles



There must be a way to get these fat messes to run more...

 

[Yellowcrab]

Fucking lol. Let us know when you graduate elementary school.

English is not my native language as you can read in my description

So it's dangerousness instead.

Outside of that, still no argument, you have been badly owned.

Rugby: 4.35 miles
Canball: 0.19 miles

Super Bowl champion Jesse Williams has revealed that “a lot” of high profile NRL and rugby union players have messaged him about jumping codes, to pursue an American Football career.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nfl/nf...l/news-story/74ce97a5d52210c0d5d52c7a49ef9c3c

While not a single NFL player gives a fuck about rugby,
because there's no money

 

[huskylord]

My uneducated ass puts it at Rugby/Hockey/Football....but all are tough and worthy to have on your side.

 

[Vogg]

It’s NFL football and it’s not even close. If you disagree you’re mentally retarded. Every observable and logical conclusion comes to nfl football being the toughest.

 

[Sweater of AV]

English is not my native language as you can read in my description

So it's dangerousness instead.

Outside of that, still no argument, you have been badly owned.



Super Bowl champion Jesse Williams has revealed that “a lot” of high profile NRL and rugby union players have messaged him about jumping codes, to pursue an American Football career.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nfl/nf...l/news-story/74ce97a5d52210c0d5d52c7a49ef9c3c

While not a single NFL player gives a fuck about rugby,
because there's no money

Well done on speaking coherently dangerositycan. I’ve posted the only thing actually worth reading. Unfortunately, your grade two level comprehension can’t understand it.

Methods: Licensed medical professionals (athletic trainer or physician) associated with the football and rugby teams of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university reported attendance and injury details over 3 autumn seasons. Injuries were categorized by the location, type, mechanism, and severity of injury, and the injury rate was calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Injury rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to compare overall, game, and practice injury rates within and between sports.

Results: The overall injury rate was 4.9/1000 AEs in football versus 15.2/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2). Game injury rates were higher than practice injury rates: IRR = 6.5 (95% CI, 4.5-9.3) in football and IRR = 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0-8.6) in rugby. Injury rates for the shoulder, wrist/hand, and lower leg and for sprains, fractures, and contusions in rugby were >4 times as high as those in football (all P ≤ 0.006). Concussion rates were 1.0/1000 AEs in football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in rugby. Most injuries occurred via direct player contact, especially during games. The rate of season-ending injuries (>3 months of time loss) was 0.8/1000 AEs in football versus 1.0/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-3.4).

Conclusion: Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

As for all that other irrelevant nonsense, the NFL begs for rugby players. On their hands and knees.

I’ll leave you to your homework and cheeseburgers. Go for a run while you’re at it. Hell, I ran more today than an NFLer does in an entire season.

 

[rj144]

Well done on speaking coherently dangerositycan. I’ve posted the only thing actually worth reading. Unfortunately, your grade two level comprehension can’t understand it.

Methods: Licensed medical professionals (athletic trainer or physician) associated with the football and rugby teams of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university reported attendance and injury details over 3 autumn seasons. Injuries were categorized by the location, type, mechanism, and severity of injury, and the injury rate was calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Injury rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to compare overall, game, and practice injury rates within and between sports.

Results: The overall injury rate was 4.9/1000 AEs in football versus 15.2/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2). Game injury rates were higher than practice injury rates: IRR = 6.5 (95% CI, 4.5-9.3) in football and IRR = 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0-8.6) in rugby. Injury rates for the shoulder, wrist/hand, and lower leg and for sprains, fractures, and contusions in rugby were >4 times as high as those in football (all P ≤ 0.006). Concussion rates were 1.0/1000 AEs in football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in rugby. Most injuries occurred via direct player contact, especially during games. The rate of season-ending injuries (>3 months of time loss) was 0.8/1000 AEs in football versus 1.0/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-3.4).

Conclusion: Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.

As for all that other irrelevant nonsense, the NFL begs for rugby players. On their hands and knees.

I’ll leave you to your homework and cheeseburgers. Go for a run while you’re at it. Hell, I ran more today than an NFLer does in an entire season.

Why would injury rate be a better metric than average force?

 

[Yellowcrab]

I’ll leave you to your homework and cheeseburgers. Go for a run while you’re at it. Hell, I ran more today than an NFLer does in an entire season.

I'll just leave that :

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-average-sports-salaries-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

You get more money playing football in Japan than playing rugby

Nobody cares about rugby except maybe in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.

Even in Europe, it's all about soccer, that's why there's so little money in rugby.

So rugby gets : b league athletes, no money, smaller athletes, and it is supposed to be tougher than the NFL ?

American football is mainly popular in the USA, but it's extremely popular there at least, unlike rugby which is more worldwide, but most people don't care in most countries...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nfl/nf...l/news-story/74ce97a5d52210c0d5d52c7a49ef9c3c : of the 2022 NFL season, Williams told Fox Sports that “people’s favourite” rugby players have reached out to him as they consider moving to America. “I’ve had DMs from all different types of people’s favourite NRL and rugby union athletes about trying to go over, so I know it’s something of interest,” Williams said.

While, once again, not a single NFL player gives a fuck about rugby

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Ever had someone skate into you, and plaster you against the boards?

There's a reason why NFL players carry guns around everywhere, low-key pussies

 

[Sweater of AV]

Why would injury rate be a better metric than average force?

Yeah the amount of body armor and timeouts needed are much better metrics than both. That article was posted in response to nonsense so start from there.

 

[Sweater of AV]

I'll just leave that :

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-mlb-nba-nhl-average-sports-salaries-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

You get more money playing football in Japan than playing rugby

Nobody cares about rugby except maybe in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia.

Even in Europe, it's all about soccer, that's why there's so little money in rugby.

So rugby gets : b league athletes, no money, smaller athletes, and it is supposed to be tougher than the NFL ?

American football is mainly popular in the USA, but it's extremely popular there at least, unlike rugby which is more worldwide, but most people don't care in most countries...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nfl/nf...l/news-story/74ce97a5d52210c0d5d52c7a49ef9c3c : of the 2022 NFL season, Williams told Fox Sports that “people’s favourite” rugby players have reached out to him as they consider moving to America. “I’ve had DMs from all different types of people’s favourite NRL and rugby union athletes about trying to go over, so I know it’s something of interest,” Williams said.

While, once again, not a single NFL player gives a fuck about rugby

I see you’ve conceded which is tougher and are now babbling nonsense about money to try and feel better.

Concession accepted. Good luck in grade 6.

 

[boldtruth]

compring rugby and hockey to nfl. we all like mma here and see connor pics lately be honest what do you guys think he is on and his physical apperance reminds you of what other sport players. you can not go and have juiced sport compare with clean sports for toughness