BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:56 PM

I help coach Lacrosse. It too is a tough game and unfortunately can get a little dirty. As I've told kids, you're allowed to Crosscheck someone as hard as you can as long as it's not above the shoulders or from behind, why would you need to do anything dirty?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:48 PM

True enough, accidents happen, but my point is, Hurling might look like bloody murder, but the apparent mayhem is tempered by skill. They're tough all right, but what keeps the injury level down is a very high level of skill, the exercise of which enables players to avoid causing serious injury as well as to avoid sustaining it.

My impression is that this tends to be absent in some other field games, and that in some varieties, deliberately aiming to cause injury is seen as acceptable in the culture of the game, even when it is formally against the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:35 PM

McGrath,

Deliberately striking is one thing, but I vividly recall the First Hurling game I saw way back in the seventies. My father grew up in Ireland and played Hurling there. I think it was the Old ABC's Wide World of Sports that televised the All Ireland final and he and I sat and watched it. Two opposing players were swinging at a ball that was in mid air, the one guy got to it, the follow through from the other guys stick hit the first guy sqarely in the side of the head and he was out before he hit the ground. As I've said, I played hockey and lacrosse and I've seen some bad injuries, but I sure wasn't prepared for what happened next. The play continued, the trainer ran on to the field, grabbed the player by his ankles and dragged him to the sidelines. Now that's a tough game.

Having said that, they had a St. Patrick's day Games a few years ago here in Toronto at the Skydome and they televised it. There was a Gaelic Football game and a Hurling Game. In the Hurling game one of the players was hurt and they stopped the play to have him attended to on the field. I was a bit disappointed. Also, there were even a few guys wearing helmets. I guess they're getting soft!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 04:06 PM

I think Hurling is the craziest thing that I have ever seen. Those guys are beyond tough, they're nuts.

It looks wild, but I'm pretty sure that the actual incidence of serious injury in hurling is relatively low. The hurling stick is a shield against accidental blows as well as a means of controlling the ball. Deliberately striking an opponent with the stick isn't regarded as some kind of acceptable professional foul, in the way that equivalent dirty play in Rugby seesm to be - it's seen as contemptable and is likely to mean an end to a player's career.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Sep 03 - 03:43 PM

Ummmmm.... Interesting, Teribus, but only partially accurate, I fear... How can Rugby football exist before football?

For quite a good brief history of Rugby, see here.

This quote, At any rate William Webb Ellis's deed is commemorated by a stone on the Rugby school grounds with the enscription:

THIS STONE COMMEMORATES THE EXPLOIT OF WILLIAM WEBB ELLIS WHO WITH A FINE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES OF FOOTBALL, AS PLAYED IN HIS TIME, FIRST TOOK THE BALL IN HIS ARMS AND RAN WITH IT, THUS ORIGINATING THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THE RUGBY GAME
A.D. 1823

clearly demonstrates that the game of football was known & recognised before that date, even if it wasn't properly codified till later. If it comes to that, neither was Rugby...

You might also be interested in this, which suggests the entire thing is a myth anyway!

The earliest references to football date back much further than your earliest date. Edward III issued edicts against it, this page quotes several medieval monarchs who acted against it, even if some of their history is pretty dubious (can't see Good Queen Bess jailing "soccer" players, since soccer is very much a late 19thC Oxbridge term).

So strictly speaking , you're somewhat off-beam... Bloody know-all Yanks... ;) *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:22 AM

Ha! The Forward pass! Illegal in rugger: you can't throw the ball up the field, you have to take it there yourself, or pass it back to someone else if you can't.

BTW, my dear wife is a former Birmingham under-13 all-in netball champ, so don't tell me about tough sports!

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: sloop
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:20 AM

I was introduced to rugby at the tender age of 13,where I promptly got my front teeth kicked out!I therafter had many a happy year exacting revenge.I then decided to have a go at muay thai,nothing on this planet is more brutal.In answer to the original question,due to lack of padding,it has to be rugby.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 11:02 AM

As someone who played Hockey all my life and well enough to earn a Minor Pro Tryout, I feel fairly qualified to comment. Hockey is a very tough game. Lacrosse is tougher. I am not a fan of American Football, it's way too slow. But those guys are pretty tough. I think that Rugby players are probably tougher. I think Hurling is the craziest thing that I have ever seen. Those guys are beyond tough, they're nuts.

The days of hockey's real tough guys are gone. The goaltenders who played in the Pre mask days were something else. Terry Sawchuk, considered by many to be the best goalie of all time, had over 700 stitches in his head alone. Johnny Bower, The long time Leaf great had the last tooth in his head knocked out on his birthday one day. Before teams started carrying a back up goaltender if a goalie was cut by a shot or stick or skate the game was halted until they could stitch him up and he could return to play. Jacques Plante, the man who started wearing the Face Mask was originally accused of being an unmanly wimp. He had been experimenting with one in practice and then one night he took a slapshot in the face that required a large number of stitches and I blieve broke his cheekbone. He would not return to the game without the mask (and believe me, the early masks didn't offer very much protection). He was ridiculed by the fans and the mask started a long feud between him and Hall Of Fame Coach Toe Blake. Goaltending equipment has improved so much in the last twenty five or so years that it is now probably the safest postition on the ice, but the guys who played Bare faced were probably the toughest athletes that I have ever seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: GUEST,SJ
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:48 AM

Ooh Teribus! You're so clever, and yes you would say that wouldn't you :-) !! I still reckon that the players of a game involving constant bone-crunching tackling and non-stop running of the ball have to be tougher and fitter all-round that the players of a game based on hunting in a pack and lying on top of one another doing nothing for interminable periods.

Having said all that, I enjoy watching both codes (watching's all I'm fit for now), but for different reasons.

And to answer the original question, I still reckon they're both tougher than the players of the watered-down American game!

Pax vobiscum frater! (Go on, tell me my Latin's crap!) :-)
SJ

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 10:25 AM

Strictly speaking, as far as games played today goes, it is in chronological order:

Gaelic Football: First mentioned in the Statute of Galway in 1527 when it was banned. First known match was between Meath and Louth at Slane in 1712. The rules were formally written in 1887.

Rugby Football: The William Webb Ellis incident in 1823 at Rugby School, rules governing Rugby football came into being in 1846. The code known as Rugby Union Football came into being in 1871. The code known as Rugby League Football came into being in 1895.

Australian Rules: Came into being between 1840 and 1859

Association Football: 1863 - The term "soccer" being derived from "association". Basically Rugby Football played primarily with the feet, with only the goalkeeper allowed to handle the ball.

American Football: Played to Rugby rules originally 1876

Interesting snippet from the allfootballs web site, that may answer the question posed in the thread title:

"The American game continued to play with rugby rules until 1905 when the publication of photographs of a game between Sarthmore and Pennsylvania created a stir. President Roosevelt insisted on reform of the game to lower the brutality with threat of abolishing the game if it was not applied. In 1906 the forward pass was introduced to the United States game. The rules of rugby died and the game of American football was born."

I'm with Mike the Knife - the games are so far apart that they just do not invite any real comparison.

As to Guest SJ' BTW, all I can say is - Bollocks *BG* ;), but then I played Union so I would. Again the games are very different and only stand up to superficial comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: GUEST,SJ
Date: 11 Sep 03 - 07:47 AM

In the UK, where the game was invented, 'Soccer' is called by its real name, Football. Only puffs and Yanks call it soccer. It's called Football because the ball is propelled mainly by using the foot to kick it. Any game that consists almost entirely of handling and throwing the ball cannot be 'Football' - logic dictates that it must be 'Handball'. The correct name for American Football should therefore be American Handball. QED.

BTW, any Yorkshireman or Lancastrian will tell you, quite correctly, that Rugby League players are the toughest of all, far tougher than girlie Rugby Union players and them Gladiator-Wannabes who prance around playing American Handball.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: GUEST,SJ
Date: 10 Sep 03 - 08:53 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: mike the knife
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 04:27 PM

I've done full-contact martial arts (I was someone's punching bag in return for lessons for a short while- a long time ago). Add 28 additional people and an oval ball that bounces funny & everybody is chasing everybody for 80 minutes... :-)
Actually, I took quite a beating then- I remember the feeling of being kicked soundly in the head and not thinking to fall down, and then being kicked in the head some more... It certainly takes it out of you. Doubt I'd make a career out of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: X
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 11:53 AM

Who is tougher? Rugby or US football? heee hee.

You need to try Full Contact Karate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 10:23 AM

I don't think people watch sports just because an athelete is fit. Baseball, despite it's recent flaws, is still the U.S. National Pastime because of the complex aspects of the sport keeps American audiences drawn into the sport.   Those who don't understand it will liken it to watching the grass grow, but that doesn't deminish the overwhelming popularity - even with sports like football and basketball growing in popularity.   Again, none of these sports draw fans because the athelete is "fit" or "tougher" - it is the competition and surrounding details that hook an audience.

Ron

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: wilco
Date: 09 Sep 03 - 10:18 AM

My original question has to do with conditioning requirements. In US football, most of those guys llok for strength with zero endurance. In rugby, it appears that the players have to be in better shape, since the game doesn't stop for timeouts and cahnges in the entire lineups.
      As a high school and college wrestler, who also played football, my experience is that football players don't have any idea about conditioning.
      My prefernce is to watch ANY soccer game, including pre-schoolers, over any football, baseball, or basketball games.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 09:46 PM

Oh, yes, McGrath. I often played "sandlot" football in my misspent youth. Usually it was "touch" (you have to touch the ball carrier in the back) rather than "tackle" -- since we played it sans pads, helmets, and so on. "Flag football" is played like "touch" but one or two peices of cloth (the "flags") are carried in the back pockets and one is yanked out to indicate a "tackle".

Even so, bones were broken.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:47 PM

Do people in the USA go out and play their version of football for fun?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 07:19 PM

I always wore shin pads, a protective "cup", a chest protector, a fencing-type face mask, forearms guards and gloves like ice hockey goalies wear, a helmet -- and I was on the chess team. It was a tough, tough high school.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 04:53 PM

sorry to pull it back on thread particularly as I was going to ask if the answer was in someway important.

Only joking big guys........

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 08 Sep 03 - 10:37 AM

UI admit to being a wimp: I always wore shin pads for rugger at school (though not an "athletic support", as I wasn't very athletic either!)

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 08:35 PM

Just to clarify, I'm not knocking field hockey - it is just that it isn't popular here in the U.S. except for high school.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: The Walrus
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 08:24 PM

"...It really depends on where you are! Here in the U.S. we refer to ice hockey as hockey ..."
That's the point I was trying to make,
Hockey (UK)=Field Hockey (US & Can)
Hockey (US & Can) = Ice Hockey (UK)

"...field hockey is something high school girls play and it goes no further..."

Well, It's an 'Olympic' sport, and, over here (UK) there are Men's, Women's and (IIRC) mixed teams and believe me, I've seen friends come back from international (club) tours with wounds (I wouldn't call them sports injuries) to rival anything seen in other sports<1>

Walrus

<1> Example: One chap I know came back with a broken nose, facial bruising and missing two teeth, he'd 'got in the way' of a high ball.
Thank you - No!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: vectis
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 07:44 PM

Rugby and Gridiron are for wimps. Hurling is the game of choice for real men (or nutters as they are called here).

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 04:16 PM

Remember that in most parts of the world "Hockey" means what in America and Canada is called "Field Hockey"; and when Americans and Canadians talk about "Hockey" they mean what other people call "Ice Hockey".

I thought I'd throw that in because otherwise misunderstandings are likely to arise.

Incidentally, do women play American Football?(Women's Rugby is quite a growing sport in many couyntries.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: HuwG
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 11:38 AM

I must admit to having chickened out of the one chance I had of playing American Football, when the man who proposed to put me in the team suggested that the best place for me was the "suicide squad".

Rugby can sometimes be a tediously slow game, if played by unfit veterans with the imagination pounded out of them by too many thumps, or with an over-fussy referee. There can be little more than a succession of scrums, followed by kicks into touch, followed by line-outs, followed by scrums awarded for "ball not thrown in straight".

However, it can also be a very fast game indeed, and some famous sides of the past were justly remowned for their artistry in loose play.

Whether taking part in an endless succession of set-piece plays, or spending the game running around trying to keep the ball in sight, forwards did develop a dogged sort of endurance. Backs had to be fast, or they soon lost their taste for the game.

Finally, the specific injury which forced me out of the game would be unlikely had I been wearing the protection used in American Football, but I would imagine that the injury rate would be about the same for both games. So, anyone prepared to play either sport has my regards; and anyone forced into either at school has my sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 10:06 AM

Walrus - which other side of the pond are you referring to? It really depends on where you are! Here in the U.S. we refer to ice hockey as hockey - field hockey is something high school girls play and it goes no further.

From what I've seen, rugby is no where near as fast paced game as soccer, hockey or basketball. Football has way too many time outs and wasted time setting up plays for my taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: The Walrus
Date: 07 Sep 03 - 06:12 AM

By Hockey, I'm assuming the references are for what the other side of the pond call 'field hockey' as opposed to Ice Hockey.

As for Rugby/American Football question, I'd say, probably Rugby, just from the point of view of endurance. As has been stated by others, American Football seems to be a fast game, but play appears to stop every few seconds while they line up and/or change teams(which, as far as I'm concerned, ruins matters), while in Rugby, the game goes on.

Walrus

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: alanabit
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 08:12 PM

Do you mean before or after the scrum/nmaul/fighting Councillor?

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Cllr
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 05:17 PM

Rugby is a game played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 11:16 AM

The older I get, the more I tend toward competitive sports where direct physical contact and regular injuries and/or fights are NOT part of the game. Yes...that means even basketball! I'd rather watch a serious volleyball game, if I could find one beyond the Olympics.

I guess I reserve my testosterone for more important pursuits..*grin*.

Oh..the original question? Rugby and Australian football strike me as 'generally' more demanding of continuous 'toughness'...except for wide receivers in American football, who have this death wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 09:38 AM

If you just want to get slammed around, bloodied, and generally consider that sort of thing as being a good time, there's a bar here in town you'll love. You can drink lots of beer, kick, gouge, bite, stomp, push, shove, hit...all the delights of BOTH rugby and US football and none of the timeouts or other annoying delays of game.

Ya want tough? Try bronc or bull riding. Or steer wrestling -- better yet, try bulldogging steers the original way: slide off your horse, grab their head, bite their upper lip, and using only your hold on the steer's lip, throw it to the ground.

Hey, here's a even better idea for tough: walk into a group of committed bullriders wearing a tee shirt that reads "Eight seconds ain't so much."

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 09:18 AM

Not out of shape? Please. Look at the pot bellies on some of them. They just look soft.   I'm not knocking the sport, I wish it was more popular here in the states because it is very exciting.   I'm just saying that the players are not in the best of shape. American football is even worse. Being big does not mean strong.   Hockey and soccer require much more conditioning.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: mouldy
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 03:07 AM

I was going to add my bit about today's game when I first saw the thread title.

Somebody else will have to cook tonight because I'm going to watch the payback for last week's very, very narrow (and due to that drop kick being charged down, unlucky) defeat. I haven't seen the English side's line-up for today, but if last week's commentators were right, the "big guns" will possibly be rolled out.

I hope we're not late back from the York Festival of Dance!

Andrea

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: GUEST,Sledge
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 02:36 AM

If you want to see a hard fought game of Rugby with quality players, today, England v France to be played at Twickenham in London.

Balding, some of them maybe, but out of shape, I think not.

I gave up the game after a particularly painfull dislocation of my right shoulder after trying to tackle some genetic throwback playing for the Royal Artillery, but I still hold the game in a lot of affection.

Cheers

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 12:31 AM

Obviously you folks have never experienced hockey. Hands down it is more intense than rugby, which appears to be played by out of shape balding geezers trying to hold onto their youth. They would be crushed by a female hockey player let alone a NHL pro.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:43 PM

Havin' played both sports (football more), rugby is definately the crazier of the two. Like, its no more than a *rumble* or gang fight... except with a ball.... Scrums are from "West Side Story"... Yer lookin' fir knives.... Yeah, you know you can't take a knife to the football game but Rugby?....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 09:03 PM

Define what is meant by "tougher", please. Stamina? The ability to absorb punishment? Overall fitness? Strength? Intelligence? -- nah, can't be that, 'cause if you were smart you wouldn't be out there being slammed around.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:35 PM

Ron Olesko said that hockey players are tougher. That might be true -because so many of them are women! The most terrifying game of rugby I ever played in was one Sunday morning when our prop forward dragged me out of bed (disturbing a hangover). He had extracted a rash (and grudging) assent from me the previous night to make up the numbers if necessary in a match against the women. I think I would have given our prop forward a better fight if I had known what was waiting for me further down the line...
   I am sure Mike knows what he's talking about. He is the one here best placed to judge. As a little fellow, I think that if I were going out to take part in an activity which closely resembles fighting, I wouldn't mind having a lot of protective clothing on. Real men, of course, see it differently!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 06:08 PM

I think mike gave the ultimate definition of American sports - explosive. If it doesn't happen inside 5 seconds, the crowd gets bored... ;)

I'm biased being a Brit, but I'd say rugby. In rugby you have to keep doing it. Over & over & over. There're no time-outs, no substituting the offensive team for the defensive, no armour to reduce the impact. 80 minutes of barely legalised warfare...

I would love to see a round tournament (if you could work out an equitable rule system) of AF vs. RU vs. RL vs. GaelicFb vs. ARFb. I strongly suspect that AF would come last - they're too specialized to be the all round athletes that the other disciplines require.

I reckon it'd come down to an interesting fight (possibly literally!) between ARFb, RU & RL.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:42 PM

Motocrossers.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 05:12 PM

Australian football. I don't believe weapons are permitted. Other than that....

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 03:52 PM

If Hockey were a real sport theyd have Cheerleaders!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 02:11 PM

I'll agree with Hrothgar. I watched a lot of Rugby on TV while I was in Japan and those guys are TOUGH!! American Football requires a totally different kind of conditioning.
Hockey? Get real!!!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: MarkS
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 01:59 PM

Different sports altogether. Kind of like asking which is the better athlete, a championship golfer or a championship tennis player.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 01:55 PM

Trouble with rugby players is they still want to show their tackle hours after the match has ended!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 01:33 PM

Hockey players are tougher than both Rugby & Football combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: mike the knife
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 12:03 PM

Tiddleywinks players? Tough bastards- don't mess with 'em. Violent drunks and very unpredictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:41 AM

I think tiddleywinks players are tougher and stronger!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Who is tougher? Rugby or US football?
From: mike the knife
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 11:37 AM

I've played quite a bit of both US (Gridiron) and Rugby (Union) football, and where there are some superficial and historical similarities, it pretty much stops there. 1) Gear. Helmets & pads are necessary for the "full stop" tackles in US football- it's often a game of inches, whereas in Rugby, the thing is posession, which is more flowing. Some "soft" armor is now permitted in Rugby (scrum caps & soft shoulder padding) and, while good for safety, has raised some concerns that this "yank crap" will lead to more dangerous play.
2) Support. In US Football, your support is in front of you. In Rugby, your support is behind you. Sound simple, but it's hard to unlearn hardwired instincts when switching sports. Trust me on this one ;)
3) Conditioning. A lineman is US football can be 6'6" or more and weigh in excess of 300 lbs. They're not much for endurance, but they move with explosive speed and power and are as quick as cats. They are often unnaturally strong and absorb literally bone-crushing impacts over and over. Conversely, a Rugby forward while nearly as large, must be able to stay on the pitch for a full 80 minutes of running and similar impacts. There's more I could write, but I need to earn my salary here & must get back to work. The only way to speak with any authenticity about the subject is to play both sports somewhat competitively to see the levels of athletisim involved. Both require "toughness". Good discussion. Feel free to PM me.