19 Mar '12 19:36>
Originally posted by shortcircuitlol @ "facts"... I love when you get all emotional
I keep laughing at this "toughness" crap being splayed about regarding pads or no pads.
Here are the facts. The fierceness of the hits that occur in the NFL would end [b]any
rugby player's career and possibly life were they administered to them. Hell, some of
those very hits disable players wearing the "body armor" you love to mock.
Yes, Ru ...[text shortened]... rder hitting than rugby ever thought about. Don't kid yourselves in thinking it is
NFL is more bursts of specialised players. Sure, the hits can be pretty spectacular, but just generalising that one average player is tougher than the other is just plain stupid.
The difference comes down to two things:
1. Most rugby players need to take and give pretty heavy hits, run and sprint an average of between 4-7km in a game that lasts for 80 minutes.
Rugby players are tougher in this regard, in that they have to give and take, sometimes hits just as hard as any NFL line backer could wish to dish out, and cover the distance some defensive linesmen cover in a season.
2. The type of tackles allowed differ greatly. Rugby tackles are heavily regulated by rules and referees, whereas almost anything goes in NFL. This is also why one wears padding and one not. In purely the hits dished out, the NFL players have to be tougher.
So, it all pretty much cancels out. Both require different skillsets and pretty tough dudes.