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

Which team sport is the toughest?


  • Total voters
    88
A big 240 pound runnng back vs a 190 pound cornerback, a 290 pound defensive tackle vs a bloucking back at 210, that same 290 pounder vs a 215 pound QB. We dont see that kind of size difference in rugby/hockey.

The size range in rugby is typically 190-290lbs, its not THAT uncommon to see a O line sized 300+lb'er here and there either, the locks are 6'7 and up as standard. The spectrum from smallest to biggest player on the field is wider in football true, but you absolutely see "small" guys vs huge guys in rugby too.

Even in hockey theres gonna be dudes that are like 180 on the same rink with dudes who are 230-240, with the occasional guy bigger than that. The velocity made possible with the skates (plus additional factors like the ice and boards) makes the potential for big hits higher there too, although they're not as frequent.
 
Last edited:
The size range in rugby is typically 190-290lbs, its not THAT uncommon to see a O line sized 300+lb'er here and there either, the locks are 6'7 and up as standard. The spectrum from smallest to biggest player on the field is wider in football true, but you absolutely see "small" guys vs huge guys in rugby too.

Even in hockey theres gonna be dudes that are like 180 on the same rink with dudes who are 230-240, with the occasional guy bigger than that. The velocity made possible with the skates (plus additional factors like the ice and boards) makes the potential for big hits higher there too, although they're not as frequent.

The bottom line is this....

The NFL has faster athletes I could ratle off a TON NFLers who were stud sprinters/hurdlers at the NCAA level, now add every team in pro football has a dozen or more 300 pounders. So we see bigger and faster athletes on a football field than we will in rugby/hockey.

Take superior size and speed and add.......velocity.

There really isn't a debate about this what we see is.......I live where we play.....or no way an American sport can compare to.......

Reseach it and you will see all the data has football just behind MMA/Boxing when it comes to tough/rough/violent/dangerous.
 
The bottom line is this....

The NFL has faster athletes I could ratle off a TON NFLers who were stud sprinters/hurdlers at the NCAA level, now add every team in pro football has a dozen or more 300 pounders. So we see bigger and faster athletes on a football field than we will in rugby/hockey.

Take superior size and speed and add.......velocity.

There really isn't a debate about this what we see is.......I live where we play.....or no way an American sport can compare to.......

Reseach it and you will see all the data has football just behind MMA/Boxing when it comes to tough/rough/violent/dangerous.
I think you could probably separate "violent/dangerous" from "tough". Toughness covers a lot of areas. I think Football is generally more dangerous than Rugby, but overall toughness goes to Rugby, due to it being more physically grueling.
 
I think you could probably separate "violent/dangerous" from "tough". Toughness covers a lot of areas. I think Football is generally more dangerous than Rugby, but overall toughness goes to Rugby, due to it being more physically grueling.

Do this.....find a rugby game to watch now zero in on one player, you will see him standing around a lot more than football players do, I don't buy.......more grueling......at all.

Thik of what a center in football is up against, who bangs into 280 poundrrs over and over and over and...................

A running back takes a serious beating. Sorry but football is tougher, rougher. more everyting than any team sport,
 
The bottom line is this....

The NFL has faster athletes I could ratle off a TON NFLers who were stud sprinters/hurdlers at the NCAA level, now add every team in pro football has a dozen or more 300 pounders. So we see bigger and faster athletes on a football field than we will in rugby/hockey.

You're talking about the absolute top end. Every single rugby team is going to have multiple guys who fall into NFL speed standards for WRs, RBs etc. As far as size goes, yeah, there arent as many 300+lb'ers in rugby, but the guys that size arent typically considered the biggest hitters in the NFL anyway, and they're also mostly engaging with the D line in close quarters rather than making big open field hits. Its probably linebackers making most of the biggest hits, and they're usually 235-265lbs.

Also, the speed argument obviously doesnt work at all for hockey, they're on skates dude, they're moving faster than everybody.


Do this.....find a rugby game to watch now zero in on one player, you will see him standing around a lot more than football players do, I don't buy.......more grueling......at all.


Its factual that they cover more ground and the ball is in play a higher ratio of the time than in football, its not close either. It also has limited substitutions and the players all play both offence and defence. Why do you think the players arent 300+lbs as often if not for the higher cardio demand?

Also you're clearly talking about rugby union. Go watch a rugby league game and tell me that isnt more gruelling.

Anyway we are getting tribalistic here. I do agree with you that the hits overall are harder (and more dangerous due to more blindsides etc) in American football, but all the "bigger stronger faster" talk is very cliched and predictable and comes across like an assumption from Muricans who have never actually watched rugby and think they're soccer player sized. I dont know how anyone could watch that sport (either union or league) objectively and not come to the conclusion they are some of the best athletes on the planet, and that the talent pool is full of would be football players.
 
Last edited:
You're talking about the absolute top end. Every single rugby team is going to have multiple guys who fall into NFL speed standards for WRs, RBs etc. As far as size goes, yeah, there arent as many 300+lb'ers in rugby, but the guys that size arent typically considered the biggest hitters in the NFL anyway, and they're also mostly engaging with the D line in close quarters rather than making big open field hits. Its probably linebackers making most of the biggest hits, and they're usually 235-265lbs.

Also, the speed argument obviously doesnt work at all for hockey, they're on skates dude, they're moving faster than everybody.





Its factual that they cover more ground and the ball is in play a higher ratio of the time than in football, its not close either. It also has limited substitutions and the players all play both offence and defence. Why do you think the players arent 300+lbs as often if not for the higher cardio demand?

Also you're clearly talking about rugby union. Go watch a rugby league game and tell me that isnt more gruelling.

Anyway we are getting tribalistic here. I do agree with you that the hits overall are harder (and more dangerous due to more blindsides etc) in American football, but all the "bigger stronger faster" talk is very cliched and predictable and comes across like an assumption from Muricans who have never actually watched rugby and think they're soccer player sized. I dont know how anyone could watch that sport (either union or league) objectively and not come to the conclusion they are some of the best athletes on the planet, and that the talent pool is full of would be football players.
The 10th fastest rugby player of all time is Johhny Mays he runs a 10,7 100m (off a site I found)

There have been 25ish Olympic sprinters who al ran sub 10.30, a few 100 at sub 10.50, the NFL is on a totally different level of speed than we see in rugby, Give me an Olympic sprinter un rugby, ya can't.

Bob Hayes. Willie McGee, Frank Budd, Ray Norton, Jim Hines, Tommie Smith were all,,,,,World Recor holders.

The Raiders can run two 8 lanes 100m with all 16 running sub 10.50.

Rugby doesn't come remotely close to the speed we see in the NFL. a 10.7 is...........slow. HS kids run that.

You ae not an American are you?
 

1. Trae Williams 10.10

That cat above is the fastest rugbyite in history.

NFL

Curtis Dickey 10.10
Mike Miller 10.10
Willie Gault 10.11
Trindon Holliday 10.00
Jeff Demps 10.01 Olympian
Jacoby Ford 10.01
Bob Hayes 10.06 Olympic gold medal
Ron Brown 10.06 Olympian
Alvis Whitted 10.07
Anthony Schwatz 10.07
Darrel Green 10.08

Sam Graddy 10.09 Olympic silver medal
Willie McGee WR 9.1 yards
Jim Hines WR 9.1 Olympic gold medal
Cliff Branch 9.2
Mel Gray 9.2

Sub 10.20/9,4
Tyreek Hill
James Jett
James Trapp
JD Hil
Isacc Curtis
Travis Wiliams
Ray Norton
Johnny Jones
Frank Budd
Jamaal Charles
Michael Bennett
Homer Jones


Rugby does't come close to that.

Another 100 at sub 10.40/9.5
 
Last edited:
The 10th fastest rugby player of all time is Johhny Mays he runs a 10,7 100m (off a site I found)

LOL how the fuck do you quantify that? how many rugby players do you think are going to have publicly available numbers for 100m or a 40yd dash? how many athletes in any sport other than American football where stuff like the combine is made into a big deal?

How about watch the sport and use your eyes. When the speed positions in rugby turn on the acceleration there is no difference from what you see on a football field, this also applies to a lot of the dudes you see in soccer. Secondly use your common sense, wouldnt it be quite strange if the only fast people in the world just magically happened to exist in one sports league that athletes from only one nation that makes up around 5% of the global population competes in?


You ae not an American are you?

No, but unlike you I have actually watched both sports extensively. Again, if you cant see that rugby is choc full of would be NFL players, its because your nationalistic pride isnt letting you accept it.

Also, again, you keep talking about speed, but hockey players are on fucking ice skates. So how does that factor into your argument? doesnt it mean they hit harder than football players?
 
Btw, have you looked up the 40 yard dash times of rugby players that have actually come over to the NFL? every single one of them falls into the speed standards of their position, they are NFL player fast.
 
I give the edge to American Football over Rugby, but it could go either way depending on how you define toughness. The level of athleticism to size ratio in the NFL is peak though.
 
LOL how the fuck do you quantify that? how many rugby players do you think are going to have publicly available numbers for 100m or a 40yd dash? how many athletes in any sport other than American football where stuff like the combine is made into a big deal?

How about watch the sport and use your eyes. When the speed positions in rugby turn on the acceleration there is no difference from what you see on a football field, this also applies to a lot of the dudes you see in soccer. Secondly use your common sense, wouldnt it be quite strange if the only fast people in the world just magically happened to exist in one sports league that athletes from only one nation that makes up around 5% of the global population competes in?




No, but unlike you I have actually watched both sports extensively. Again, if you cant see that rugby is choc full of would be NFL players, its because your nationalistic pride isnt letting you accept it.

Also, again, you keep talking about speed, but hockey players are on fucking ice skates. So how does that factor into your argument? doesnt it mean they hit harder than football players?

Here ya go,

 
Do this.....find a rugby game to watch now zero in on one player, you will see him standing around a lot more than football players do, I don't buy.......more grueling......at all.
I can watch a Football game and see the entire team standing around after every play. Rugby is constant.
 
Here ya go,


You're speed googling random articles instead of actually extensively watching the sport to compare.

What kind of sample size do you think they're drawing from with those times? where are the sources for the times?

Anyway, speed isnt the only factor. What about frequency of hits, what about you know...the fact they are not wearing pads and helmets?

I am really curious why you think a very similar sport (in fact the literal forefather sport of football) that is older and has a comparable if not bigger talent pool would somehow not have fast, strong, big, just all round athletic people in it. I'm guessing its just a need to downplay the prowess of the athletes as much as possible in order to brush off the fact that they are hitting each other without helmets and pads on.
 
I can watch a Football game and see the entire team standing around after every play. Rugby is constant.

Yep, constant standing around. The play is way over there so there you stand waiting for the action to come your wa and it will for a few seconds then back to standing around waiting. I have seen rugby, ok?
 
You're speed googling random articles instead of actually extensively watching the sport to compare.

What kind of sample size do you think they're drawing from with those times? where are the sources for the times?

Anyway, speed isnt the only factor. What about frequency of hits, what about you know...the fact they are not wearing pads and helmets?

I am really curious why you think a very similar sport (in fact the literal forefather sport of football) that is older and has a comparable if not bigger talent pool would somehow not have fast, strong, big, just all round athletic people in it. I'm guessing its just a need to downplay the prowess of the athletes as much as possible in order to brush off the fact that they are hitting each other without helmets and pads on.

Every sport is only as good as the athletes who compete, surely you agree with that.

We see another level of athlete in football than we find in rugby. Pro football is choked fulll of athetes who did other things like sprinting, hurdling, long jump, the big guys with shot put, discus, power lifting, another level of athlete not found in rugby.

TONS of pro fiootballers were college track cats, that isn't rugby.

Footbal needs pads because the game is far to violent, vicious to not be padded up, rudgy not as mean so they don't need pads,

I do get it however, no way an American sport can.................................
 
Btw, have you looked up the 40 yard dash times of rugby players that have actually come over to the NFL? every single one of them falls into the speed standards of their position, they are NFL player fast.
40m SPRINT TIMES
Sosene Anesi 4.53
Bryan Habana 4.58
Rodney Davies 4.59
Shane Williams 4.66
Joe Rokococo 4.66
Sbu Nkosi 4.71
Toni Pulu 4.78
Mike Rowe 4.81
Charlie Sharples 4.82
George North 4.97

You can't be serious

NFLer run 4.3iah 4,4ish

Rugdy has nothing like this
 
Yep, constant standing around. The play is way over there so there you stand waiting for the action to come your wa and it will for a few seconds then back to standing around waiting. I have seen rugby, ok?

LOL ,the players have to constantly move with the ball carrier so they're ready to receive the offload or quickly move into the ruck. There is a shit ton of kicking too happening on the fly often with players kicking the ball from backfield back and forth to each other, which causes play to move rapidly across different areas of the field Not to mention, again, limited subs and players playing both sides of the ball. The fact you're trying to argue football requires more cardio as well now shows how biased you are about this.

Also, again, you're talking about rugby union. Rugby league is another level from either, cardio wise, as the ball is almost always in play.


We see another level of athlete in football than we find in rugby. Pro football is choked fulll of athetes who did other things like sprinting, hurdling, long jump, the big guys with shot put, discus, power lifting, another level of athlete not found in rugby.

TONS of pro fiootballers were college track cats, that isn't rugby.

Thats because the positions in football are extremely one dimensional in comparison. You can throw a generic athlete from another sport in there and potentially find a role for them.

If you changed nothing about rugby other than the players were Americans and the biggest league was American, how many Americans do you honestly think would be saying "gee, these guys are inferior athletes to NFL guys?" I mean, they are playing both sides of the ball, they are much more versatile, they are playing without pads and helmets, their workrate per game is higher etc etc.

Btw I wonder if you realise the 2nd best performer ever at the Combine for bench press was a high school rugby kid from New Zealand lol.
 
40m SPRINT TIMES
Sosene Anesi 4.53
Bryan Habana 4.58
Rodney Davies 4.59
Shane Williams 4.66
Joe Rokococo 4.66
Sbu Nkosi 4.71
Toni Pulu 4.78
Mike Rowe 4.81
Charlie Sharples 4.82
George North 4.97

You can't be serious

NFLer run 4.3iah 4,4ish by the TONS.

Oh lord hes speed googling again. Where the hell did you get these? lmao none of the names that I recognise on here were ever involved in the NFL.

Louis Rees-Zammit is the latest rugby to NFL guy and he ran a 4.43
 
Oh lord hes speed googling again. Where the hell did you get these? lmao none of the names that I recognise on here were ever involved in the NFL.

Louis Rees-Zammit is the latest rugby to NFL guy and he ran a 4.43
Those were rugby guys.

Zammit at 4,43

You have any idea how many soon to be NFLer ran far faster than that at the recent combine?

What aren't you getting about TONS of football players were WORLD CLASS sprinters while rugby can't say that?

Smaller, slower athletes play rugby......fact~~~~~~~~

Ok ok, you need rugby to be ................bad America.

See ya!
 
I played Rugby and football, rugby is worse for broken noses and cuts in the face, as well as fist fighting. Football is worse for blindsides and cte. Both of them are safer than working the door on your own at a shitty Club. Id say both rugby and football are like Disneyland compared to getting your head kicked in by 5 scumbags.
 
Back
Top