American Football v Rugby

Which is more entertaining?

Which sport takes more skill?

Fantastic article - in depth and extremely well researched.

I particularly liked your thoughts on your own subject.

MMA > boxing.

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Fantastic article - in depth and extremely well researched.

I particularly liked your thoughts on your own subject.

MMA > boxing.

lol yes... this is my research. Opinions please!

And MMA will never be above boxing.

IMO, American football is a lot more entertaining, but I think that it definitely helped that I've played the sport, which definitely gave me a better understanding & appreciation of the depth of the tactical elements of the game than I had before I started playing.

As for which takes more skill, the answer is neither - they require very different skills. Rugby, you need to have sustained stamina over 80 minutes, and need to have a very broad skill set so that you can do a bit of everything, and most of it well.

Football, you need to have very explosive stamina rather than sustained, and because each of the positions are so specialised, you need a much narrower skill set, but you need to utterly excel in every single aspect of that skill set.

That's why I don't think you can be very good at both rugby and american football - american football players often don't have a broad enough skill set to play all phases of rugby, and rugby players often don't have a deep enough skill set to be able to excel at a particular position

Don't know if you watch either sport Jay-z. I enjoy both. Like Gur says you can't really say one sport is more skillful than another as they have completely different skills and requirements. In rugby and football (association) its easier to get away with some players playing out of position if necessary but in AF because everyone is not just a specialist in only that position in terms of skill but also in terms of physical requirements (height, weight, body shape e.t.c.) you wont get away with it.

In terms of entertainment, that's down to personal preference. Personally although I enjoy rugby I have a preference for AF. People involved in both sports respect each other also, the England rugby manager Martin Johnson is a San Francisco supporter I believe and NE Patriots wide receiver Chad Ochocino is an Arsenal supporter.

For me American Football is a million times better than rugby. Rugby's slow and repetitive. American Football is complex, fast, tactical and exciting.

Having watched Englands first half display this morning I don't think I can add any value to this discussion.....

I prefer rugby but I've only been a football fan for a few years. Both are great sports and require different types of skills I would say you mighnt't have to have great fitness for American football but need huge fitness levels for rugby.

Oh, believe me, you need fitness for football. Sometimes, the game is decided by who can bring it in the 4th quarter.

Fair enough Skins, I've never played the game. It wasn't a criticism of it, just a thought. There are plenty of breaks in games though and you have time to refuel on the sideline. I would say you have to be as fit to play rugby.

Well, like I said earlier, I think looking at it as less/more unfit because of the opportunity to recharge is looking at it the wrong way. You need to be equally fit to play either sport (hell, Terence Cody ways something like 24 stone and ran his 40 in under 5 seconds!), but you need to be fit in different ways, specifically, stamina: rugby, you need to have sustained stamina, where you can play for 80 minutes pretty much non stop; football, you need explosive stamina, yes it's stop-start bursts, but when a play is going on, you need to be going all stops out 100%.

Best analogy in terms of fitness, IMO? Rugby is like a marathon; football is like a series of sprints.

A good backrow will be explosive all day.