I will give you this however. Rugby is more of a balanced sport, as in you have to be good at everything, a well balanced arsenal. Same with soccer. Football on the other hand is a sport where you specialize in certain skills/strengths; games are won when you create the most mismatches in your favor.

Rugby requires much more stamina and staying power than American Football, because they aren't constantly stopping and starting the game. Rugby players may not have as much raw strength as a football player, but a football player wouldn't last in a game of rugby because it requires different abilities to be played well.

The Cleveland Browns are going to win.

Just like a rugby player wouldn't fare well in a football game.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 5 2011, 12:26 pm by NudeRaider.

But are players relentlessly giving their 200% effort all 80 minutes of the game? Constant stopping and starting the game doesn't make a sport easier stamina wise. If anything it forces one to put 200% into every play he makes. Letting up once on any play can be catastrophic (hence where a lot of touchdowns come from). Being able to play a full football game, no matter which position you are, requires a lot of stamina too.

Because of their lack of brute strength, one could easily argue that a rugby player probably can't even last one or two drives in Football. They'd probably even be injured or put on IR after the first one or two plays.

In short, every sport requires different strengths and abilities, but saying one sport is "manlier" or more of a "true" sport than another is dumb.

What, football players can't strip tackles, juke, or run fast? There's nothing stopping a football player from being good at rugby. When you're good at one sport you tend to be good at them all.

as an engineer you should be ashamed of yourself.

This is why rugby is a more intense sport to me. The players are pure athletes that could be taken out of Rugby and play just about any other sport in the world at a decent level. You might have linemen that would be good sumo wrestlers or wide receivers who would be good sprinters, but the positions are all so ridiculously specialized that it becomes silly. Also, the whole situation where football is a dead ball sport kind of makes it dull. Remember the thing a few months back that showed there was about 16 minutes of actual play in a football game? Yeah... that makes it somewhat silly to watch when you consider that for the other 3 hours most people are just standing around, and that's not even counting the splitting of offense and defense.

Aussie Rules football is amazing though, I wish I could see more games of it here in the US.

Here's something interesting.

200% is just 100*[(200 - 100) / 100] = 100% error. What's the problem?

But yeah, that rugby guy you mentioned, CaptainWill, probably wasn't playing against guys from the NFL. As much as I hate the NFL and prefer college football, the guys in the NFL are big mean dudes.

As much as I'm supposed to hate the Steelers, I'm backing the Steelers. 2 reasons: one of my roommates is a packers fan, and when I was like 5 years old I told my dad the Steelers were my 2nd favorite team.

Lol'ed @ Football requiring more speed, strength, and nerve than Wrestling. If you look at the linemen for strength, the wide receiver for speed, and ... yeah no position for nerves... you get it, but for an average professional player? Not a chance, are these guys rating the WWE ? .. Sorry missed this one, the same agility? LOL.

Putting math to stuff like this is silly, you have to know the sport from the inside to judge it and most people don't know more than a few sports well. Like... sprinting is not a 10.00 for speed. How is that even possible? What sport could possibly require more speed? Also, the fact that 3 of the 8 people are ex-football players probably has something to do with it being so highly ranked, I assume it's a natural tendency for one to consider something they've done as among the most difficult whether it's true or not.


Anyway, UFC takes the #1 spot now without a shadow of a doubt, this survey is 7 years old.

football beats rugby in everything except endurance. That's bullshit.

Has anyone here played football at any type of organized level? Even for lineman it takes ridiculous endurance and agility.

That's the truth.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 5 2011, 12:27 pm by NudeRaider. Reason: O.o typo

Quote from BiOAtK

Has anyone here played football at any type of organized level? Even for lineman it takes ridiculous endurance and agility.

Hi.

The thing is, rugby players would have nowhere near the level of difficulty playing football that football players would have with rugby, because they're naturally versatile. Some have done so in the past and become punters who actually tackle, since the pay is higher for a low grade NFL player.

I'm sure it takes some agility to play as a linemen or obviously RB/QB, but comparing that to what every non-heavyweight wrestler (and even some of them can do backflips/walk on hands) can do is laughable. When you pick a biased panel, you get a biased result.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 5 2011, 5:40 pm by FaZ-.

lol, did you make that?

Look at the URL and you can see he technically made it.

Dammit Nude. You edited it so that you didn't seem dumb.

He also deleted my response to it for the same reason