Rugby requires one to be physically conditioned, mentally tough and able to deliver, as well as absorb, a blow from one or more opposing players, while playing both ways (offense and defense).
Soccer requires one to be physically fit above ALL else.
While they must be be mentally tough and be able to withstand a great deal of running and contact with opponents for position, as well as do unbelievable things with a ball and their feet, their ability to give/take hits is NOWHERE near the level it is in rugby. (as the ridiculous display that soccer players portray ANY time someone BARELY touches them proves)
Football is a controlled crash, every play, with most if not all players on both sides of the ball. With injuries being an EVERY play hazard, the career of a professional football player is a VERY short endeavor.
Anyone who has EVER played organized football will tell you that the level of physical fitness rivals that of either soccer or rugby.
The level of giving/absorbing hits is rivaled only by rugby in the respect that it is an EVERY play thing, but with the weight and strength that a pro FB player has, it is easily more violent than rugby.
The mental toughness that a FB player has cannot be measured rationally.
The plays, formations, audibles, coverages, blocks, techniques, game-plans and knowledge that every opposing player is trying to knock you out is a demanding task for anyone.
I have watched many soccer games and more than a few rugby games (at ALL levels) and I can honestly say that football players (as a whole) work harder than ANY professional athlete.
There are ALWAYS exceptions to that rule, (Lance Armstrong works pretty hard, as does Andy Roddick and Phil Mickelson) but as a group, football players out-work any other group of professional athletes, hands down.|||BLM-I was speaking to the severity/effort of the hitting and blocking in FB - NOT RUNNING.
IF you played FB and had to block/hit someone bigger than U-and maintain that block/lay that hit-U wud know what I was talking about.
Honestly-if FB was as easy as R the best R players wud play in the NFL !!
Report Abuse
|||You know, I agree much of what "Dave C" says in his comparison of the three sports, except that I think he underestimates the amount of thinking and planning done "on the fly" for rugby and soccer. And I know that the lineout calls in rugby are as complicated as any call in any NFL playbook.
But what really threw me was the final comment about American footballers "working harder". In all seriousness, how can you describe any athlete who spends a minimum of 60% of the game (assuming 40% offensive squad, 40% defensive squad, 20% special teams) sitting on the bench as "harder working" than a rugby or soccer player? Who have to stay out there for the full 80 or 90 minutes, and without getting a break after every tackle?
Heck -- I'd wager that some linemen actually cover more distance running to and from the bench than they do while the ball is actually live.
Something doesn't add up here. And why stop at those three codes? Rugby League is distinct from and in some ways more difficult to play than the Union game. And I think a good case could be made for Australian Rules being the most physically demanding football code of the lot.|||Depends on what you mean by "physical." Soccer takes a high level of fitness, since you're almost always moving. Rugby takes endurance, since you play hard for 80 minutes without substitutions. American football requires strength, to deliver and endure hard hits.
I don't know what the point is in comparing the different types of football all the time. They're different games with different requirements.|||I think "soccer/football" are the most conditioned physically, I think the size and speed of modern NFL players colliding at full speed makes it potentially the most devastating,I mean even Rugby doesn't have a guy staring up in the air at a ball while some guy is coming all out to obliterate him. Rugby is super intense though over a more "constant" time than even NFL and if Rugby players were weeded/bred to be as big and fast as NFL players I'd probably give the nod to Rugby.|||if you mean hitting:
-american
-rugby
-soccer
if you mean physical contact:
-rugby
-american
-soccer
if you mean physical conditioning/ energy:
-american. pads take a lot out of you, especially on 2 a days in july and august when its 100 outside
-soccer
-rugby|||I say American football because even with padding and helmets there are still a large amount of injuries especially concussions which are very dangerous. The level of aggression in this sport is relatively higher than others so it is most definitely American Football.|||American football
Physical aspects are only one part of those sports. It doesn't make one of them any better than the others. That's in the mind of the fans.|||American, many of them are steroid raging convicted felons. Oh and American football is shown to have many more brain injuries than Soccer or Rugby.|||American football for physical play, but soccer for soccer and football skills!|||The real football. American|||American football. No doubt. Its all about aggresiveness|||Soccer.
It is the only sport where the players wear padded underpants.|||american football dirty tackling sacks
No comments:
Post a Comment