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

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

Those were rugby guys.

Zammit at 4,43

You have any idea how may 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~~~~~~~~

Your bias is hilarious, seriously. Do you not see how you're having to constantly shift the goalposts to maintain your narrative?

The puny slow rugby player Zammit is 209lbs. Heres some of the guys that ran a 4.43 at the last combine.

Trey Amos - 195lbs
Elijah Badger - 200lbs
Treveyon Henderson - 202lbs
Bilhal Kone - 190lbs


Some who ran a 4.5 ie considerably slower

Alijah Clark - 188lbs
Malaki Starks - 197lbs
Dorain Strong - 185lbs
Nohl Williams - 199lbs

So what mental gymnastics are you going to go with here? that all these combine dudes are bums who arent representative of NFL size/speed and are gonna go undrafted? that Zammit is the fastest rugby player on the planet and a one off? or are you just gonna go "well some guys ran a 4.2"?

Let me remind you, your whole argument is based on rugby players being "smaller, slower, weaker" which = contact in rugby isnt as bad. For this argument to work it would need to mean that almost every single guy on a football field is bigger/stronger/faster/just generally capable of exerting more force than almost every single guy on a rugby field, wouldnt it? you seem to be flip flopping around bringing up super speed 4.2 40 type guys or 350lb guys etc etc like most of the guys on the field dont fall somewhere between that, in a range where most rugby players belong.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

And again, why are you conveniently overlooking that the guys generally regarded as the biggest hitters in football are Linebackers, who are neither the fastest nor biggest guys on the field? Ray Lewis and Lawrence Taylor are considered two of the biggest hitters EVER and they were like 240lbs.

 

[Sir Elzio Dennick]

My thing is the athletes involved in both sports.

Pro football has had the number one rankrd hurdler in the world......Jerry Tarr
World ranked hurdlers.....Earl McCullouch, Mel Renfro, Renaldo Nehemiah, Richmond Flowers

Pro football has had a dozen 26 or better long jumpers, the best.....Eric Metcalf 27-4

Can fill 8 lanes with stud 400m cats, the best.....World Record holder Tommie Smith

When it comes to 100m sprinters no rugbyite belongs in here....

lane
1. Ron Brown 10.06 Olympian
2.Jim Hines 9.95 WR Olympian
3.Trindon Holliday 10.00
4.Jacoby Ford 10.01
5,Bob Hayes 10.06 WR Olympian
6.Jeff Demps 10.01 Olympian
7.Sam Graddy 10.09 Olympian
8.Frank Budd 9.2WR Olympian

200m

lane

1.Larry Burton Olympian
2. Ray Norton Olympian
3. Henry Carr Olympian WR holder
4.James Traop 20.1
5.James Jett 20.1
6.Michael Bates Olympian
7.Gerald Tinker Olympian
8.Johnny Jones Olympian

See Tommie Smith in the 400, he won the Olympic 200m in WR time
See Bob Hayes in te 100, he once held the 200 World Record,

There are over a dozen Olympians mentioed above..

Now ad the couple 100 300 pounds and over NFLers at any time.

Now show me that same caliber/par/level of those who play rugby.

Trying tO sell....a 4,4. 40.....simply won't work, show me some rugbyites who could do other things like I you showed above,

I do see the obvious ,,,,,,my country our sport......thing, how about dropping that and deal with the facts, ok?

Faster, bigger, stronger athletes play NFLfootball over any rugby, simply a fact of life.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

My thing is the athletes involved in both sports.

Pro football has had the number one rankrd hurdler in the world......Jerry Tarr
World ranked hurdlers.....Earl McCullouch, Mel Renfro, Renaldo Nehemiah, Richmond Flowers

Pro football has had a dozen 26 or better long jumpers, the best.....Eric Metcalf 27-4

Can fill 8 lanes with stud 400m cats, the best.....World Record holder Tommie Smith

When it comes to 100m sprinters no rugbyite belongs in here....

lane
1. Ron Brown 10.06 Olympian
2.Jim Hines 9.95 WR Olympian
3.Trindon Holliday 10.00
4.Jacoby Ford 10.01
5,Bob Hayes 10.06 WR Olympian
6.Jeff Demps 10.01 Olympian
7.Sam Graddy 10.09 Olympian
8.Frank Budd 9.2WR Olympian

200m

lane

1.Larry Burton Olympian
2. Ray Norton Olympian
3. Henry Carr Olympian WR holder
4.James Traop 20.1
5.James Jett 20.1
6.Michael Bates Olympian
7.Gerald Tinker Olympian
8.Johnny Jones Olympian

See Tommie Smith in the 400, he won the Olympic 200m in WR time
See Bob Hayes in te 100, he once held the 200 World Record,

There are over a dozen Olympians mentioed above..

Now ad the couple 100 300 pounds and over NFLers at any time.

Now show me that same caliber/par/level of those who play rugby.

Trying tO sell....a 4,4. 40.....simply won't work, show me some rugbyites who could do other things like I you showed above,

I do see the obvious ,,,,,,my country our sport......thing, how about dropping that and deal with the facts, ok?

Faster, bigger, stronger athletes play NFLfootball over any rugby, simply a fact of life.

So like I thought, you're going with option C "well, some guys ran a 4.2".

You are completely missing the point here. If there are significant amounts of players on an NFL field who are smaller/slower/weaker/all of the above than significant amounts of players on a rugby field, your original argument of "well they can play without pads and helmets because football players are bigger/stronger/faster" falls apart. Because what you're trying to do is paint the rugby players as simply too small and slow to inflict physical punishment comparable to anything seen on an NFL field, which is laughably hyperbolic.

Heres some of the guys who will be playing in the England/Wales game today

Will Stuart 6'2 298lbs
Willgriff John 6'2 280lbs
Joe Heyes 6'3 278lbs
George Martin 6'6 273lbs
Will Rowland 6'8 271lbs
Dafydd Jenkins - 6'7 265lbs
Chandler Cunningham-South 6'4 265lbs
Tom Willis 6'3 265lbs
Henry Thomas 6'1 265lbs
Ellis Genge 6'0 265lbs
Keiron Assarati 5'10 262lbs
Ollie Chessum 6'7 260lbs
Arthur Clark 6'7 260lbs
Teddy Williams 6'6 260lbs
Maro Itoje 6'5 260lbs
Alex Dombrandt 6'3 260lbs
Gareth Thomas 6'2 260lbs
Fin Baxter 6'0 260lbs
Bevan Rodd 6'0 260lbs
Alex Coles 6'7 258lbs
Dewi Lake 6'1 256lbs
Evan Lloyd 6'1 254lbs
Asher Opoku-Fordjour 6'0 254lbs
Christ Tshiunza 6'6 251lbs



I'm sure you'll start bringing up the weights of linemen, thus completely missing the point again. I just showed 24 rugby players from a single game who are not only significantly bigger than QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, kickers and safetys but are also bigger than the majority of LBs, RBs and TEs as well, and even start to bleed into the size range of D linemen. The biggest linebacker on the current Superbowl champs for example is 6'4 252lbs, their biggest running back is 6'0 247, their biggest tight end is 6'5 256lbs. Even on the D line only 3 of their 8 players are heavier than any of the guys I just listed.

Are you getting it yet?

 

[Sir Elzio Dennick]

So like I thought, you're going with option C "well, some guys ran a 4.2".

You are completely missing the point here. If there are significant amounts of players on an NFL field who are smaller/slower/weaker/all of the above than significant amounts of players on a rugby field, your original argument of "well they can play without pads and helmets because football players are bigger/stronger/faster" falls apart. Because what you're trying to do is paint the rugby players as simply too small and slow to inflict physical punishment comparable to anything seen on an NFL field, which is laughably hyperbolic.

Heres some of the guys who will be playing in the England/Wales game today

Will Stuart 6'2 298lbs
Willgriff John 6'2 280lbs
Joe Heyes 6'3 278lbs
George Martin 6'6 273lbs
Will Rowland 6'8 271lbs
Dafydd Jenkins - 6'7 265lbs
Chandler Cunningham-South 6'4 265lbs
Tom Willis 6'3 265lbs
Henry Thomas 6'1 265lbs
Ellis Genge 6'0 265lbs
Keiron Assarati 5'10 262lbs
Ollie Chessum 6'7 260lbs
Arthur Clark 6'7 260lbs
Teddy Williams 6'6 260lbs
Maro Itoje 6'5 260lbs
Alex Dombrandt 6'3 260lbs
Gareth Thomas 6'2 260lbs
Fin Baxter 6'0 260lbs
Bevan Rodd 6'0 260lbs
Alex Coles 6'7 258lbs
Dewi Lake 6'1 256lbs
Evan Lloyd 6'1 254lbs
Asher Opoku-Fordjour 6'0 254lbs
Christ Tshiunza 6'6 251lbs



I'm sure you'll start bringing up the weights of linemen, thus completely missing the point again. I just showed 24 rugby players from a single game who are not only significantly bigger than QBs, WRs, RBs, CBs, kickers and safetys but are also bigger than the majority of LBs, RBs and TEs as well, and even start to bleed into the size range of D linemen. The biggest linebacker on the current Superbowl champs for example is 6'4 252lbs, their biggest running back is 6'0 247, their biggest tight end is 6'5 256lbs. Even on the D line only 3 of their 8 players are heavier than any of the guys I just listed.

Are you getting it yet?

Sure am, here's the realty talking size....

American measures​

Here are the comparisons of average statistics in the NFL versus professional rugby in Europe.

NFL	Ft/In	Lbs	Rugby	Ft/In	lbs	Bigger?
Quarterback	6’3”	225	Flyhalf	6′	197	Football
Running Back	5’11”	214	Center	6’1”	215	Rugby
Wide Receiver	6’0”	200	Winger	6’0”	204	Equal
Linebacker	6’2”	245	Flanker	6’3”	236	Football
Offensive Line	6’5”	314	Lock	6’6”	257	Football

Now if talking speed it's not even close there are 20 NFLers faster than the fastest Rugbyite, When we see 10.6 10.7 as a top 10er, not good.

Dude, you make it way too obvious this is more about geography., where you are they play rugby, so you don't want to deal in reality.

Tre Wiliams the fastest Rugbyite is a nobody in the speed world, the fastest NFLer Bob Hayes ran 11 world records, won the Olympic 100m he is a legit all time legend,

Trust me there is nothing you can type that will make a dent, the biggest NFLers are bigger than rugbyites, the fastest NFLers are far faster than rugbyites, footballers hit harder and the game is rougher and tougher, and we all see that.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

Sure am, here's the realty talking size....

American measures​

Here are the comparisons of average statistics in the NFL versus professional rugby in Europe.

NFL	Ft/In	Lbs	Rugby	Ft/In	lbs	Bigger?
Quarterback	6’3”	225	Flyhalf	6′	197	Football
Running Back	5’11”	214	Center	6’1”	215	Rugby
Wide Receiver	6’0”	200	Winger	6’0”	204	Equal
Linebacker	6’2”	245	Flanker	6’3”	236	Football
Offensive Line	6’5”	314	Lock	6’6”	257	Football

Lmao hes speed googling random bullshit again. What the fuck is any of this supposed to mean in the context of what I just wrote?

 

[Sir Elzio Dennick]

Lmao hes speed googling random bullshit again. What the fuck is any of this supposed to mean in the context of what I just wrote?

How about a chart/reserch proving that NFLers are bigger than rugbyites.

I already showed you all those NFLers faster than the fastest rugbyites,

So the NFL is bigger and faster, and when they hit we see some velocity, something rarely seen in the running wrestling match that is rugby,. You can't play football without pads there is a reason for that, yep.......way too dangerous. Rugby.....nah~~~~

Top 15 Most Dangerous Sports In The World

Explore the world's 15 most dangerous sports, from base jumping to extreme racing. Learn about high injury rates, life-threatening risks, and why athletes pu...

scientificorigin.com

You have two options, one.......ok you're right.....two.....just forget it. That's it.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

Sure am, here's the realty talking size....

American measures​

Here are the comparisons of average statistics in the NFL versus professional rugby in Europe.

NFL	Ft/In	Lbs	Rugby	Ft/In	lbs	Bigger?
Quarterback	6’3”	225	Flyhalf	6′	197	Football
Running Back	5’11”	214	Center	6’1”	215	Rugby
Wide Receiver	6’0”	200	Winger	6’0”	204	Equal
Linebacker	6’2”	245	Flanker	6’3”	236	Football
Offensive Line	6’5”	314	Lock	6’6”	257	Football

So we've gone from you trying to misrepresent rugby players as ALL being slower/smaller/weaker than ALL football players (hence why they can play without using helmets and pads) to comparing vaguely in the ballpark positions, with rugby having the bigger players in 2 of the 5, of the remaining three where football is bigger one is within 9lbs of each other, and one (QB) is a position that essentially dishes out zero physical contact....mmkay.

Btw if you actually had a clue about the sport you're criticizing you'd realise that for example comparing a QB to a fly half is nonsensical given that a fly half requires way more speed and mobility and actually makes tackles and runs all over the field throughout the game, receives passes as well as making them,, and kicks. Whatever this source is you're using is only comparing them because they're both the main ball distributors, but they're nothing alike.

Now if talking speed it's not even close there are 20 NFLers faster than the fastest Rugbyite, When we see 10.6 10.7 as a top 10er, not good.

Again, what does this have to do with the argument?

Here...

If there are significant amounts of players on an NFL field who are smaller/slower/weaker/all of the above than significant amounts of players on a rugby field, your original argument of "well they can play without pads and helmets because football players are bigger/stronger/faster" falls apart.

How is this so hard to grasp for you? how does "well X was a long jumper" "Y can run a 4.2" "linebackers are 9lbs heavier than flankers" seem like a valid response to this for you? its pure straw clutching.

Tre Wiliams the fastest Rugbyite is a nobody in the speed world, the fastest NFLer Bob Hayes ran 11 world records, won the Olympic 100m he is a legit all time legend,

Again, if you actually had a clue what you're were talking about instead of just speed googling shit you'd realise nobody actually knows who this supposed rugby superstar Trae Williams is, because he isnt even an actual rugby player. Hes some nobody who played youth rugby, switched to sprinting, then switched to rugby SEVENS which is akin to arena football, and doesnt seem to have exactly made waves in it either.

Trust me there is nothing you can type that will make a dent

Yes, ive noticed.

 

[Sir Elzio Dennick]

So we've gone from you trying to misrepresent rugby players as ALL being slower/smaller/weaker than ALL football players (hence why they can get away without using helmets and pads) to comparing vaguely in the ballpark positions, with rugby having the bigger players in 2 of the 5, of the remaining three where football is bigger one is within 9lbs of each other, and one (QB) is a position that essentially dishes out zero physical contact....mmkay.

Btw if you actually had a clue about the sport you're criticizing you'd realise that for example comparing a QB to a fly half is nonsensical given that a fly half requires way more speed and mobility and actually makes tackles and runs all over the field throughout the game, receives passes as well as making them,, and kicks. Whatever this source is you're using is only comparing them because they're both the main ball distributors, but they're nothing alike.




Again, what does this have to do with the argument?

Here...




How is this so hard to grasp for you? how does "well X was a long jumper" "Y can run a 4.2" "linebackers are 9lbs heavier than flankers" seem like a valid response to this for you? its pure straw clutching.



Again, if you actually had a clue what you're were talking about instead of just speed googling shit you'd realise nobody actually knows who this supposed rugby superstar Trae Williams is, because he isnt even an actual rugby player. Hes some nobody who played youth rugby, switched to sprinting, then switched to rugby SEVENS which is akin to arena football, and doesnt seem to have exactly made waves in it either.



Yes, ive noticed.

Dude, huge track fan here, use to be the Mod at SUB10 the best sprint talk forum there was, I don't need to Google speed in the NFL. call it a hobby,

The NFL is played by better athletes, guys who coud do other things, the big guys are bigger than what we see in rugby, the fast guys way faster than anything in rugby.

Football played by bigger and faster athletes, a sport where you must wear pads because it;s way too violent.

No need to go on I deal in facts you deal in where you live.

Adios~~~~~~~~

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

Dude, huge track fan here, use to be the Mod at SUB10 the best sprint talk forum there was, I don't need to Google speed in the NFL. call it a hobby,

The NFL is played by better athletes, guys who coud do other things, the big guys are bigger than what we see in rugby, the fast guys way faster than anything in rugby.

Football played by bigger and faster athletes, a sport where you must wear pads because it;s way too violent.

No need to go on I deal in facts you deal in where you live.

Adios~~~~~~~~

My guess is you watched a few clips of rugby ever in your life, and had no idea how big they were. Probably thought they were soccer player sized, and started talking shit without having enough experience of both to adequately judge the situation. Hence most of your argument is googling for random barely related articles and quoting random 100m times because you're unable to concede that some 280lb islander on a rugby field might actually have the physical attributes to dish out as much force and violence as the guys on a football field.

Bet those poll results make you salty.


Peace.

 

[fica]

How about a chart/reserch proving that NFLers are bigger than rugbyites.

I already showed you all those NFLers faster than the fastest rugbyites,

So the NFL is bigger and faster, and when they hit we see some velocity, something rarely seen in the running wrestling match that is rugby,. You can't play football without pads there is a reason for that, yep.......way too dangerous. Rugby.....nah~~~~

Top 15 Most Dangerous Sports In The World

Explore the world's 15 most dangerous sports, from base jumping to extreme racing. Learn about high injury rates, life-threatening risks, and why athletes pu...

scientificorigin.com

You have two options, one.......ok you're right.....two.....just forget it. That's it.

lol when nfl guys hit there is a reason why biggest hits in nfl are going with helmet at persons head nd if youfind that to be somehow how nl is better then rugby hits i do not know what to tell you.stop watch american sports channels talking heads telling you nobody can hit like nfl. their regular hits people always get up even guys who got hit is 40-50 lb smaller then guy hitting. only time people do not get up is when they use their helmet to hit

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

lol when nfl guys hit there is a reason why biggest hits in nfl are going with helmet at persons head nd if youfind that to be somehow how nl is better then rugby hits i do not know what to tell you.stop watch american sports channels talking heads telling you nobody can hit like nfl. their regular hits people always get up even guys who got hit is 40-50 lb smaller then guy hitting. only time people do not get up is when they use their helmet to hit

The hits in the NFL ARE harder overall, but like a lot of American football fans tend to do in these arguments, hes acting like every hit on every play in the NFL is some high speed car crash made by a man who simultaneously has the size and strength of an O liner mixed with the speed of a cornerback, while also acting like rugby players are soccer player sized men lightly jogging into each other.

The main reason NFL has harder/worse hits AT THE TOP END is for example stuff like when you have a receiver running at full speed, looking behind him for the pass, maybe jumping for it, and then getting drilled hard in the open field while in a really bad position to take the hit. Or a running back breaking through a gap in the line and not seeing the linebacker just off to his side due to the mass of big bodies around him and the helmet limiting his peripheral vision.

Rugby doesnt really have those scenarios because its a different game with different rules. That doesnt mean you cant get laid the fuck out at times, or that every hit on every play in football is harder (and made by a bigger, stronger, faster dude) than every hit on every play in rugby, which is what some football fans seem to want you to believe.

 

[Madmick]

So I threw out some quick Googles. Low effort.

In the NRL, the total number of injuries resulting in games out in four seasons (1990-1994) was 599. That was across 16 teams playing 24 games in the regular season, plus another 9 postseason games (201 total games), with 30 players on the pitch total between the two teams (=6,030 man-games played). NRL players suffered one injury per every 10.06 man-game played.

In the NFL, the total number of injuries resulting in games out in four season (2016-2021) was 3,025. That was across 32 teams playing 16-game regular seasons, plus another 13 postseason games (269 total games), with 22 players on the field total between the two teams (=5,918 man-games played). NFL players suffered one injury per every 1.95 man-games played.

At the highest level, the rate of injury per game played is over 5 times greater in American Football than it is in Rugby.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

So I threw out some quick Googles. Low effort.

In the NRL, the total number of injuries resulting in games out in four seasons (1990-1994) was 599. That was across 16 teams playing 24 games in the regular season, plus another 9 postseason games (201 total games), with 30 players on the pitch total between the two teams (=6,030 man-games played). NRL players suffered one injury per every 10.06 man-game played.

In the NFL, the total number of injuries resulting in games out in four season (2016-2021) was 3,025. That was across 32 teams playing 16-game regular seasons, plus another 13 postseason games (269 total games), with 22 players on the field total between the two teams (=5,918 man-games played). NFL players suffered one injury per every 1.95 man-games played.

At the highest level, the rate of injury per game played is over 5 times greater in American Football than it is in Rugby.

1) Why are your stats for the NRL from the early 90s?
2) What is the threshold for what qualifies as an "injury" in modern day multi billion dollar NFL vs early 90s Aussie rugby league?
3) What is the injury rate distribution in each? (ie are injuries pretty much evenly distributed across positions or heavily concentrated into certain ones with others having a much lower rate)
4) is "injury rate" the defining criteria for how "tough" a sport is? (dont things like cheerleading, skateboarding etc have high injury rates too?) should football be classed as "tougher" than literal combat sports if it has a higher injury rate?

 

[Madmick]

1) Why are your stats for the NRL from the early 90s?
2) What is the threshold for what qualifies as an "injury" in modern day multi billion dollar NFL vs early 90s Aussie rugby league?
3) What is the injury rate distribution in each? (ie are injuries pretty much evenly distributed across positions or heavily concentrated into certain ones with others having a much lower rate)
4) is "injury rate" the defining criteria for how "tough" a sport is? (dont things like cheerleading, skateboarding etc have high injury rates too?) should football be classed as "tougher" than literal combat sports if it has a higher injury rate?

1. Because that was the first solid study that came up. The NFL had inferior equipment, artificial surfaces, and player protection during that period. If you want to look up statistics I'm sure it will only become more lopsided.

2. The threshold was defined in the post: an injury is defined as requiring the athlete to take at least one game off (btw, I highly doubt you want to go down this road, but be my guest...when it comes to injury severity, the NFL is the league where athletes first exhibited CTE scans consistent with high-speed automobile accident trauma).

3. Forwards suffer a higher injury rate in rugby, but all players are at risk. The same is true in football; in the NFL pretty much everyone gets injured these days. Kickers are the only position that is truly protected to the point it's like they're playing a different sport. QBs are pampered, but they are rushed (including from the blind side) on every single play, so injuries at the position are common. Linemen probably suffer the highest rate of injury.

4. It's undoubtedly the criterion we most commonly associate with toughness. It's intuitive. Toughness is the ability to endure abuse. The most common consequence of abuse exceeding a threshold of what one can endure is injury. Marathons and tennis are two of the most grueling sports in existence, but we rarely associate athletes in those sports with a tough guy image, do we? Probably because it is always at the athlete's discretion to modify his effort, and therefore what he endures. So it makes sense why we seem to find contact sports at the heart of our subconscious perception of toughness; combat and collision are inherent to them. Because what you endure is out of your control, and that's when you get hurt. One can observe this even in individual sports. People aren't afraid to ski downhill because of the pain of fatigue.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

1. Because that was the first solid study that came up. The NFL had inferior equipment, artificial surfaces, and player protection during that period. If you want to look up statistics I'm sure it will only become more lopsided.

2. The threshold was defined in the post: an injury is defined as requiring the athlete to take at least one game off (btw, I highly doubt you want to go down this road, but be my guest...when it comes to injury severity, the NFL is the league where athletes first exhibited CTE scans consistent with high-speed automobile accident trauma).

3. Forwards suffer a higher injury rate in rugby, but all players are at risk. The same is true in football; in the NFL pretty much everyone gets injured these days. Kickers are the only position that is truly protected to the point it's like they're playing a different sport. QBs are pampered, but they are rushed (including from the blind side) on every single play, so injuries at the position are common. Linemen probably suffer the highest rate of injury.

4. It's undoubtedly the criterion we most commonly associate with toughness. It's intuitive. Toughness is the ability to endure abuse. The most common consequence of abuse exceeding a threshold of what one can endure is injury. Marathons and tennis are two of the most grueling sports in existence, but we rarely associate athletes in those sports with a tough guy image, do we? Probably because it is always at the athlete's discretion to modify his effort, and therefore what he endures. So is makes sense why we seem to find contact sports at the heart of our subconscious perception of toughness; combat and collision are inherent to them. Because what you endure is out of your control, and that's when you get hurt. One can observe this even in individual sports. People aren't afraid to ski downhill because of the pain of fatigue.

I dont think its possible to comprehensively prove or disprove the injury rate. There are way too many games happening across way too many levels. Then you'd have to break it down further into types of injury, then by position as the nature, frequency and intensity of the contact can differ a lot depending on exactly where you play. This is especially applicable to football, which has more variety between positions than any other team sport, with rugby union coming second. I said in my first post that a running back probably gets more beat up than anyone on a rugby field, but a QB or kicker gets less beat up than anyone on a rugby field.

if we are gonna use injury rates, or the threat of serious injury or death, as the driving criteria for toughness, wouldnt the list be dominated by stuff like parkour, gymnastics, cycling, skateboarding etc? The Isle Of Man TT would be at the top of the list considering your chance of literally dying while competing in it is astronomically higher than anything else. Shit, high level bodybuilding comes with a serious risk of dying prematurely. But none of these are even contact sports.

Look, I get that American football is very tough, and I do think some people who just view it on a superficial level get carried away with the "haha they wear pads" stuff, as the impacts can be bone shaking and very dangerous. But at the same time, I think for most people who are not culturally invested in it its kind of a hard sell pushing it as the "toughest" sport, especially when there is another similar sport out there where they are playing without pads and helmets, playing both sides of the ball and games arent cutting to Papa Johns commercials every 5 mins. Rightly or wrongly, rugby just appears tougher to most people. I think hockey does as well because of the fights, the ice, the boards, the sticks and again the relative unbroken flow of the game. Hence the poll results. It is what it is.

 

[Madmick]

I dont think its possible to comprehensively prove or disprove the injury rate.

It is incontrovertibly quantifiable. I didn't seek to quantify it across the spectrum. I offered a quick comparison between the two sports at the highest level.

if we are gonna use injury rates, or the threat of serious injury or death, as the driving criteria for toughness, wouldnt the list be dominated by stuff like parkour, gymnastics, cycling, skateboarding etc? The Isle Of Man TT would be at the top of the list considering your chance of literally dying while competing in it is astronomically higher than anything else. Shit, high level bodybuilding comes with a serious risk of dying prematurely. But none of these are even contact sports.

This is why I brought up downhill skiing. You're reinforcing my own definition of our collective perception of toughness itself. Of all those you mentioned probably only gymnastics would curry favor. The reason is toughness is measured by one's willingness to continually endure the stress that leads to injury.

In football, rugby, hockey, or combat sports, you get hit, the very thing most likely to injure you...and you get back up. That's different from sports where the potential injury is so severe that you aren't expected to get up. You suffer a debilitating injury...so then you rehabilitate (or die). That shifts away from toughness. That's derring-do. Those sports are about being a daredevil, not being tough. The toughness required is incindental. Because, no, the goal isn't to crash, and if things go well, you don't. Conversely, in football, the goal is absolutely to smash the hell out of each other: blocking or tackling. The very thing which leads to injury is considered a successful endeavor.

For further consideration, take downhill skiing. They all risk those fantastic spills where they're just tumbling down the mountain bouncing off every slope at the speed cars travel down a highway. It's terrifying. But it was Arnold Schwarzenegger's fellow Austrian, Hermann Maier, who after crashing so spectacularly Olympic viewers looked on in horror wondering if they just witnessed a man die, not only got back up, but put his skis over his shoulders and walked back up the slope he just came down. It was an act so astonishing he became affectionately known because of it as "The Hermannator". His toughness was beyond belief. That's the difference between our perception of courage and toughness.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Could very well be the best fight in hockey in the last 10 years.

 

[fica]

The hits in the NFL ARE harder overall, but like a lot of American football fans tend to do in these arguments, hes acting like every hit on every play in the NFL is some high speed car crash made by a man who simultaneously has the size and strength of an O liner mixed with the speed of a cornerback, while also acting like rugby players are soccer player sized men lightly jogging into each other.

The main reason NFL has harder/worse hits AT THE TOP END is for example stuff like when you have a receiver running at full speed, looking behind him for the pass, maybe jumping for it, and then getting drilled hard in the open field while in a really bad position to take the hit. Or a running back breaking through a gap in the line and not seeing the linebacker just off to his side due to the mass of big bodies around him and the helmet limiting his peripheral vision.

Rugby doesnt really have those scenarios because its a different game with different rules. That doesnt mean you cant get laid the fuck out at times, or that every hit on every play in football is harder (and made by a bigger, stronger, faster dude) than every hit on every play in rugby, which is what some football fans seem to want you to believe.

That is a thing about nfl fans non of nfl players can run 35mph or weight 3 or 4 000 kg but according to "study" 240lb guy hitting somebody going 20mph or less hits like 35mph car crash. So trying to.convince nfl.fans that there is other people who can hit hard too goes on deaf ears

 

[FyrFytr998]

Tricky question indeed.

Take players from each game and add an element from one of the other games and the product suffers.

Hockey off ice looks dumb and soft.
Football/Rugby on ice looks retarded and slow.
American football with no pads is less exciting.
Ice Hockey with no pads is a death sentence.
Rugby with pads could work, but would seem excessive since the pads would actually hinder the games flow.

The guy arguing about football’s speed probably doesn’t realize just how spread out the rugby field is, and there is no blocking for them to take advantage of. There is also no hurdling the tacklers. An NFL sized lineman would be gassed in a matter of minutes with the running time and the near continuous play.

I’m gonna give Hockey the nod. A lot more skill needed to go with the speed and strength of the other sports. And you’re doing it on ice. Followed by Rugby, due to it being a more demanding game. NFL players average 11 minutes of actual game play compared to Rugby’s 34 to 38 minutes. Hockey players can average 15 to 30 minutes of skate time, but again, you’re trying to go all out on ice.