Most grueling pro sport?

[ZipperJJ]

What do you think is the most grueling pro sport by season?

Here's some stats:
NHL - 82 games over 6 months + a month or so of playoffs. Game clock is 3 20-minute periods.
MLB - 162 games over 6 months + a month or so of playoffs. Games have no time limit.
NFL - 16 games over 4 months + 4 weeks of exhibition + a month or so of playoffs. Game clock is 4 15-minute quarters.
NBA - 82 games over 6 months + a month or so of playoffs. Game clock is 4 12-minute periods.

Things to consider:
1. How much of each game does a typical starter play? (example: Baseball, a little more over 1/2 of the game. Football would average out to be about 1/2.)

2. How much of the official clock time is action and how much is not action? (Baseball - not much action. Football - usually 22 of each 24-second play is not full action. Hockey and basketball - a lot of action all the time).

3. How do atmospheric conditions come in to play? (Baseball can be hot, rainy, cold, windy, etc. Football starts off hot then can get way cold, windy, etc. Basketball is indoors, as is hockey but hockey is cold.)

I know a good bit about baseball but not too much about basketball or hockey. I'd also like to compare the above primarily-North-American sports to games like rugby, soccer (globally), cricket and tennis. Heck, even golf. I don't know anything about those sports like schedules, clock times, regular starter time or playing conditions.

From the list above I'd say hockey was the most grueling - it's got a lot of continuous action (akin to basketball) with the physicality of football. Football is grueling but the season is short with 1 week between games and a lot of down time for starters.

I would put basketball behind hockey (because of the schedule and the continuous action of each game), then football and way down the list would be baseball (although the schedule in baseball is the most grueling, the game...not so much)

But, I'd like to hear discussion, especially from those who have played.

[Stranger On A Train]

I don't really have an opinion (other than baseball is clearly not all that grueling) but I think you need to put outdoor soccer into the mix there.

Stranger

[ZipperJJ]

I did...in the "tell me more about these sports" section of the OP.

I'm not even sure what the most popular form of soccer is (indoor or outdoor), what the different leagues are and how season and game length differ between each.

[Snarky_Kong]

I did...in the "tell me more about these sports" section of the OP.

I'm not even sure what the most popular form of soccer is (indoor or outdoor), what the different leagues are and how season and game length differ between each.

Outdoor is by far the most popular, in the USA or internationally. MLS (Major League Soccer) is the American (plus Toronto) league. Games are 2 45 minute halves with stoppages for fouls and injuries and little else. Typically leagues will have a 30-40 game schedule with tournaments pushing that up to around double that in some situations. MLS runs from spring to fall, pretty much exactly the same as baseball. The most popular European leagues go from fall to spring with a winter break.

[racer72]

I don't really have an opinion (other than baseball is clearly not all that grueling) but I think you need to put outdoor soccer into the mix there.

Stranger
I heard an interview with Mark Hendrickson, he played for a few years in the NBA then switched to baseball has a pitcher. He says that baseball is much more grueling than basketball. In baseball, you are on the road for half the season, you play virtually everyday, and much of the travel is in the middle of the night. Weather is also a big factor, you play in the cold and the heat. With basketball, you are not on the road near as much, most travel is the morning after a game and you play in a controlled environment. He said he would have liked to stay in the NBA but he had a much better chance of a long pro sports career as a baseball player.

[Noone Special]

Re: Soccer -- it's actually probably way up there among the list of contenders for "most gruelling." It is played outdoors, in some pretty harsh conditions (blistering heat and pouring rain); it is a football-game-sized field (actually slightly larger), with non-stop play and action moving around the field of play all the time (a-la both basketball and hockey); and top-notch teams in Europe will play 2-3 games a week for the better part of 8-9 months out of the year (generally September through May.) The very best players are also on their national teams, and will be playing up to 10 additional games a season, and possibly another month of intensive activity in the summer (World Cup, European (National) Championship or the equivalent in S. America, etc...)

[Hostile Dialect]

In hockey, players generally play 40 seconds or less at a time, except of course for the goalie. Everyone on the main roster plays: there are four rotations, or "lines", of forwards (three players each), three lines of defensemen (two players each), and of course the goalie. Within each position (forward or defense), generally, the first line is the best, the second line is not quite as good, etc. Accordingly, the first line gets the most playing time, the second not quite as much, etc. Additionally, the players who excel at playing during penalties are on penalty kill and/or power play lines, which means more playing time. Basically, the better you are, the more you play; a big-name star might play 30-40 minutes out of the 60 total IIRC (haven't followed the game closely in a while). It doesn't sound like much, but the time increments are that small precisely because it's a brutal, grueling game. When you have the puck, generally it's not a matter of if, but when someone is going to try to put the hurtin' on you. The answer is usually "very, very soon". Goalies are deliberately poked at and inadvertently shoved all night long, and play under an incredible amount of equipment, not to mention all the pressure to contort their body in a number of odd ways to get in the way of a hard piece of rubber zooming along at 70-90 MPH (in the NHL, that is). If you're standing near the goal and you're not a goalie, you're probably being shoved, pushed and poked. God help you if the puck is between you and a wall. Defensemen--who don't wear much more protective gear than NFL players--routinely drop forcefully to the ice to put their stomachs in the way of the aforementioned 70-90 MPH shots.

Basketball is grueling, but not in the same way that hockey (probably the most overtly similar sport popular in the US and Canada) is. Basketball is grueling in terms of the physical energy required and, to some small extent, the shoving and jostling that goes on near the basket, but hockey has all of that plus a constant threat of violence. They don't stop the fights in hockey, either, and they don't fine people when fights break out.

[Noone Special]

A few more things about Soccer:
1. Almost all of the players play all 90+ minutes of the game -- you are allowed up to 3 substitutions in the entire game; once a player is subbed for, (s)he can't come back on the field -- game over for that player, today.
2. Not at the same level as Football or Hockey, but Soccer is very much a contact sport. If you have the ball or are going for it, expect to get hit. And the players are wearing shorts and a tee-shirt, with only shin-guards to avoid the worst of the kicks they get to their legs (well, and probably a jock-strap or a cup, for those of the male persuasion. But that part isn't mandated by the rules' book)

[Trunk]

Thing to consider: which athlete's are the worse off physically after their careers.

Yeah, baseball, hockey, basketball have that "daily grind" aspect to them, but football RUINS your body and brain. Numerous concussions. Destroyed knees. Destroyed backs.

82 (84?) games of even hockey does not take the toll on you that a football season does. In a typical football game, an offensive lineman smashes his 300 pounds of bulk against another 300 pounds of bulk with maximum power 60 times. A running back gets tackled (usually by multiple people) 20-25 times per game. . .a man runs into him as hard as he can, running as fast as he can.

These guys can't walk the day after games.

IMHO, NFL football is the most grueling, and it's not even close.

[ZipperJJ]

About soccer...is everyone from both teams always moving when the ball is moving? I seem to recall from my kiddie soccer days that there's lines across the field that you have to stay between but I don't recall if it's based on where the ball is or what team you're on. Does everyone run the length of the field every time the ball changes hands or what?

Basketball is set up similarly but the court is quite a lot shorter than a soccer field.

Trunk, the season schedule isn't really that grueling for football compared to other sports. And neither is gameday play - lots of down time between plays and you only play 1/2 the game unless you're on both offense and defense (which isn't done anymore is it?) You're still convinced that football is the most grueling per season even though it's just short bursts of intense action over a short period of time over a short season?

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

I would just add, that while falling short of a real sport, old style pro wrestling was pretty grueling. You had to furnish your own transportation, meals, board, etc. You were on the road or wrestling (tossing around 200+ pounders) almost every night. Jack Brisco said that when he was NWA champ that things were so hectic that sometimes he just knew where he was booked, and wouldn’t even know whom he was battling until he made it to the ring. But at least with the NWA champ, he did get some compensation for travel and expenses.

But for the regional grunts, you were on the road a lot.

[Chez Guevara]

I can only find one questionable cite for this (although I've heard the statistic before) but David Beckham is reputed to have run over 10 miles during the England v Greece World Cup qualifier on 6 October 2001.

This is probably exceptional.

[Trunk]

Trunk, the season schedule isn't really that grueling for football compared to other sports. And neither is gameday play - lots of down time between plays and you only play 1/2 the game unless you're on both offense and defense (which isn't done anymore is it?) You're still convinced that football is the most grueling per season even though it's just short bursts of intense action over a short period of time over a short season?Totally convinced.

I don't think it's even close.

Have you ever seen one of these specials about football players after they retire? Guys with 7+ surgeries in both knees! 50 year old men walking around with canes! Vicodin addiction. Depression and suicide from the damage caused by concussions.

Read this (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/specialnfl/s_291034.html) about Jerome Bettis the day after a game. It includes this:

"The average career of an NFL back is 2.6 years and falling, according to the National Football League Players' Association."


From this (http://www.bottomlinecom.com/conrad_dobler.htm).


But today life isn’t so much fun for Dobler. He sounds bitter. And even a bit fatalistic. Forget any hint of political correctness from the 56-year-old. He uses a cane just like his close friend Dan Dierdorf does. During a recent event the league asked Dierdorf and Dobler if they would not use their canes because it might make the league look bad. Both did anyway.

Those fun football days in the 70’s and 80’s have resulted in three knee replacements for Dobler, and he is scheduled for a fourth. This year he has spent 90 days in the hospital. He almost died from a pulmonary embolism. He takes narcotics every day. The pain is constant.

Find me stories like that about guys who have to skate or run back and forth day in and day out.

Unless your definition of "grueling" is simply a "long schedule" I don't know how anyone can claim that anything outside the NFL is even close.

[Poysyn]

Are we including sports like lacrosse/box lacrosse - I have heard they are pretty tough games too?

[Noone Special]

About soccer...is everyone from both teams always moving when the ball is moving? I seem to recall from my kiddie soccer days that there's lines across the field that you have to stay between but I don't recall if it's based on where the ball is or what team you're on. Does everyone run the length of the field every time the ball changes hands or what? When properly executed (i.e., at the top professional levels, yes, everybody is on the move pretty much constantly. And no, there are no "lines" a player may not cross -- the only exception is the Offsides Rule (similar but different from Hockey) that regulates how and when a player may be ahead of the ball (in essence, if the ball is passed forward to you, there must be two defensive players nearer their own goal than you are)

I can only find one questionable cite for this (although I've heard the statistic before) but David Beckham is reputed to have run over 10 miles during the England v Greece World Cup qualifier on 6 October 2001.

This is probably exceptional.Exceptional yes, completely out-of-whack no. I'd say top professional Soccer players probably cover anywhere between 5-10 Km in a game (sorry, no cite - just a faint recollection of some relatively long ago statistic)

[Dag Otto]

Things to consider:
1. How much of each game does a typical starter play? (example: Baseball, a little more over 1/2 of the game. Football would average out to be about 1/2.)

2. How much of the official clock time is action and how much is not action? (Baseball - not much action. Football - usually 22 of each 24-second play is not full action. Hockey and basketball - a lot of action all the time).

3. How do atmospheric conditions come in to play? (Baseball can be hot, rainy, cold, windy, etc. Football starts off hot then can get way cold, windy, etc. Basketball is indoors, as is hockey but hockey is cold.)



I'd suggest cycling. One day races (let alone stage races) can be prety hard, with race times of 5 to 6 hours. Racers who quit are not replaced, so every rider who finishes is in for 100% of the action.

100% of the clock time is action. There are no time outs, no halftime breaks, and no bench to sit on. There may be times when the pace is fairly easy but when the pace gets hard, it gets brutally hard.

Weather conditions play a bit part in the outcome. Wind direction can play a bit part when it comes to race strategy and tactics. Rain can make the roads slippery. Temperature can be freezing cold or broiling hot. Some of the worst days are when it's windy, raining, and cold.

It's not a big contact sport like football or hockey, but there is always the risk of a crash.

[Poysyn]

I think you need to have sub-sections of grueling.

For example -

Hardest on you mentally?

Hardest for impact?

Hardest cardio?

For example I can say that cycling is probably quite hard mentally to keep going to that long - similar to some ultra-marathons, but football (American) and hockey are hard for impact too, you are less likely to have a three hundred pound team throw himself at your gut while in the Tour de France.

[Chez Guevara]

Exceptional yes, completely out-of-whack no. I'd say top professional Soccer players probably cover anywhere between 5-10 Km in a game (sorry, no cite - just a faint recollection of some relatively long ago statistic)This source (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-nutrition.html) primarily concerns itself with nutritional detail but additionally gives the following statistics:

In a typical contest, football players run for a total of 10-11 kilometres at fairly modest speed, sprint for about 800-1200 metres, accelerate 40-60 different times, and change direction every five seconds or so.It continues:

Although football players don't cover a full marathon distance (42 kilometres) during a game, the alternating fast and slow running which they utilize can easily deplete their leg-muscle glycogen stores. For example, just six seconds of all-out sprinting can trim muscle glycogen by 15 per cent, and only 30 seconds of upscale running can reduce glycogen concentrations by 30 per cent! The high average intensity of football play (studies show that topnotch players spend over two-thirds of a typical match at 85 per cent of maximal heart rate) accelerates glycogen depletion. Plus, the time duration of a football match, 90 minutes, is more than adequate to empty leg muscles of most of their glycogen. In fact, research has shown that football players sometimes deplete 90 per cent of their muscle glycogen during a match, more than enough to heighten fatigue and dramatically reduce running speeds.

[scotandrsn]

I'll have to make mention of competition cross-country skiing.

Back in the 1970s, before television got squeamish, you'd see these guys in the Winter Olympics coming in to the finish with their own vomit all over themselves from the sheer exertion. They clearly thought nothing of it, realizing it came with the territory. There aren't too many sports where exhaustion puke is a standard part of the experience.

[DragonAsh]

I think football might be the physically most damaging, but I don't think it's the physically most _demanding_.

That baseball is demanding because of the schedule and travel involved is a bit tricky. Baseball in Japan, for example, isn't going to be near as demanding. They play less games, (130, I think), and have a longer season than than in the US (i.e., usually at least two days off a week). Plus they travel in an area the size of California. But baseball itself is hardly a 'demanding' sport.

I've played in the past, or still play now, the following sports: hockey, baseball, football, tennis, and cycling. And cycling, hands down was the most physically demanding sport I have ever participated in. Top cyclists often 'bonk', or hit the wall - completely run out of energy - on long rides or difficult hills. When's the last time you heard about a baseball or football player suddenly being unable to continue, not because of cramps or something, but because they were simply too tired?

Hockey's a close second. Shifts that last longer than 60 seconds leave your legs feeling like rubber. I can only imagine the kind of shape top hockey players are in.

[Leaffan]

I would have anticipated more entries for rugby or Aussie rules football. These guys play full-contact with no equipment!

[Malacandra]

About soccer...is everyone from both teams always moving when the ball is moving? I seem to recall from my kiddie soccer days that there's lines across the field that you have to stay between but I don't recall if it's based on where the ball is or what team you're on. Does everyone run the length of the field every time the ball changes hands or what?

Not unless there's some weird American variant, which I wouldn't rule out. They may have been trying to train the juves to stay in some kind of assigned positions, of course; but in soccer anyone can go anywhere. Goalkeepers can't use their hands outside of their own 18-yard box, so they tend not to wander too much. On the other hand, the attacking role formerly fulfilled by wing-forwards tends to be carried out by wing-backs these days, in additional to wing defence, so they can cover a mighty lot of ground.


To set against the unprotected state of Aussie footballers and Rugby players, there are rules limiting what you can do to someone - you can't tackle a Rugby player who hasn't got the ball, for instance, and except at a scrum or line-out you can't touch any opponent; there's no blocking or anything like that. On the other hand, the front-row forwards in a scrum have a lot of force coming onto their necks and shoulders - upwards of 1600 pounds pushing against an equal and opposite.

[ZipperJJ]

Can anyone expound on the flow of pro rugby?

How long is a season? How many games? How much time between games?
How long does a game last?
How much running do you do in a game? How much down-time is there?
Do players switch in and out like NFL football? (defense and offense)
Is there a difference between Aussie and English rugby?

[Rysto]

Basically, the better you are, the more you play; a big-name star might play 30-40 minutes out of the 60 total IIRC (haven't followed the game closely in a while).
A top defenceman will typically average a bit under 30 minutes a night. A top forward, on the other hand will be around 22 minutes and maybe as high as 24.

It doesn't sound like much, but the time increments are that small precisely because it's a brutal, grueling game. When you have the puck, generally it's not a matter of if, but when someone is going to try to put the hurtin' on you. The answer is usually "very, very soon".
Also, hockey players are basically expected to be sprinting for their entire shift. This makes hockey very different from most other sports -- instead needing the endurance to play long stretches of time, you need to be able to sprint for 30 seconds or so, rest up for a couple minutes, and do it all over again,

Goalies are deliberately poked at and inadvertently shoved all night long, and play under an incredible amount of equipment, not to mention all the pressure to contort their body in a number of odd ways to get in the way of a hard piece of rubber zooming along at 70-90 MPH (in the NHL, that is).
Players have been known to push 100 MPH -- but I'm not sure if anybody actually hits that speed during a game.

[DragonAsh]

I played organized rugby for a couple of months while living overseas, and I came away a bit unimpressed - it's not near as violent as I had expected. Direct collisions between players running at full speed are rare. Counter that with some NFL games - the Super Bowl last night was played in a driving rain, that made footing difficult, and it wasn't necessarily a 'hard-hitting' game - but there were at least a dozen hits that made grown men wince.

That rugby players don't wear much safety equipment is less because they're manly men, and much more because they don't really need it.

[Smooth Jack]

When this type of discussion arises, I like to dream up a scenario where top teams from the different sports trade off playing each other in there respective games. So, take whichever soccer team won the World Cup, and put them in an (American) football game against the Super Bowl winner. Then have them play a soccer match. I'm sure the NFL players would be a bit winded after playing soccer, but at least a few soccer players would come off the field on a stretcher. It would actually be dangerous for the soccer players to try.

That doesn't necessarily prove anything about which sport is more grueling. Both sports feature incredibly gifted athletes who train their whole lives for totally different types of physical effort. I think we need a clear definition of grueling to make a valid judgement about which is the most grueling.

[Poysyn]

A top defenceman will typically average a bit under 30 minutes a night. A top forward, on the other hand will be around 22 minutes and maybe as high as 24.


Also, hockey players are basically expected to be sprinting for their entire shift. This makes hockey very different from most other sports -- instead needing the endurance to play long stretches of time, you need to be able to sprint for 30 seconds or so, rest up for a couple minutes, and do it all over again,


Players have been known to push 100 MPH -- but I'm not sure if anybody actually hits that speed during a game.


Doesn't it just boggle your mind that hockey players didn't use to wear helmets or masks? Even goalies only started in 1959 with the first goalie mask worn by Jacques Plante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Plante). I can remember watching some hockey in the 80s with the players still not wearing helmets, long locks flowing in the breeze.

[Zsofia]

Does boxing count, or are we just talking about team sports here?

[Trunk]

Does boxing count, or are we just talking about team sports here?
Boxing and ultimate fighting are sort of a different ball of wax.

They're definitely damaging, but to call it "grueling", there probably has to be some kind of obligation to perform. If the "schedule" is getting too tough for a fighter, he can just take a few more months off.

As gets made more and more evident by stories like Ted Johnson's that came out last week, boxer's health tends to be a bit more closely scrutinized than your average NFL player. A boxer gets KO'ed and he can't fight again for a while.

If an NFL player suffers a concussion, he's back in the game. Back in practice. No rest.

Again, it gets back to what you really mean by grueling.

[GorillaMan]

Find me stories like that about guys who have to skate or run back and forth day in and day out.
Actually, there's plenty of ex-footballers hobbling around on knees shot to pieces. Damaged ligaments are among the most common soccer injuries - often a player will recover enough to continue with their career, but at the expense of the prospect of them holding out into middle age. However, many of the injuries described in the Bettis article would be (and are) career-ending ones, simply because nobody in that state could perform adequately on the pitch. And I'm not sure that a sport enabling somebody to return to the game after numerous serious injuries actually makes it 'gruelling', just that the characteristics of the game enable them to do so.

Plus obligatory football link (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/owainsutton/Butcher.jpg)

[GorillaMan]

How long is a season? How many games? How much time between games?
How long does a game last?
How much running do you do in a game? How much down-time is there?
Do players switch in and out like NFL football? (defense and offense)
Is there a difference between Aussie and English rugby?
Much of the comparison is with football/soccer, although their schedule is nothing like that of the top Premiership teams. Matches are 80 minutes, and most players are on the pitch for the whole time. No major breaks in play (less than in football, I think). And the athleticism is similar, being on the move for most of the game with some sprints.

[Spoons]

A top defenceman will typically average a bit under 30 minutes a night. A top forward, on the other hand will be around 22 minutes and maybe as high as 24.Just to add also that when play stops in hockey, so does the clock. When play starts again, the clock does too. This doesn't occur in some sports (for example, football), where the clock can continue to run even when play has stopped and/or the referee is performing some official function that would require the clock's stoppage in hockey.

When we speak of a hockey player playing for 30 minutes or 24 minutes, it is important to note that the player is playing for that amount of time. He is not playing only for, say, ten minutes out of the 30 or 24 he spends on the ice. He's likely out there longer. The starting and stopping of the hockey clock in accordance with play means that we can easily track a player's minutes in actual play.

[Trunk]

Actually, there's plenty of ex-footballers hobbling around on knees shot to pieces. Damaged ligaments are among the most common soccer injuries - often a player will recover enough to continue with their career, but at the expense of the prospect of them holding out into middle age. However, many of the injuries described in the Bettis article would be (and are) career-ending ones, simply because nobody in that state could perform adequately on the pitch. And I'm not sure that a sport enabling somebody to return to the game after numerous serious injuries actually makes it 'gruelling', just that the characteristics of the game enable them to do so.

Plus obligatory football link (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3/owainsutton/Butcher.jpg)
I thought you were going with this one (http://www.fiveaside.no/rediger/images/vinnie_jones_01.jpg).

Anyway, you're all going on about the need to run for 20-40 minutes, or play an 82 game season. There's a reason that the NFL season is only 16 weeks, and that they only play once a week:

Because it's friggin' grueling!!!

I'll tell ya another grueling sport: professional bull riding.

I've watched events at the end of the season, and I'm not exaggerating to say that every single of them is injured or has been injured during the season.

There was a guy a couple years ago riding in the finals with a broken leg. They tear elbow ligaments, shoulders, take head injuries, leg injuries, back and neck injuries. It's almost comical to hear the announcers go over each guy's injuries as it's their turn.

It's a long season too with a lot of travel to shitty places.

[RickJay]

I thought you were going with this one (http://www.fiveaside.no/rediger/images/vinnie_jones_01.jpg).

Anyway, you're all going on about the need to run for 20-40 minutes, or play an 82 game season. There's a reason that the NFL season is only 16 weeks, and that they only play once a week:

Because it's friggin' grueling!!!
I think everyone's using different definitions of "grueling," though. I was surprised anyone suggested football as the most grueling because I perceived "Grueling" as being something other than what you seem to. It strikes me as obvious that football injures its participants because it's DANGEROUS, not grueling.

"Grueling" implies, to me, a sort of continuous, gradual breakdown of the body, where the body falls apart more due to fatigue and constant little irritations and injuries - not the sudden, devastating impacts of periodic injury that typify pro football, a sport wherein players might play, at the absolute most, seven minutes a week. Seven minutes a week isn't "grueling," the way I'd assume the word to mean.

[Rysto]

Doesn't it just boggle your mind that hockey players didn't use to wear helmets or masks? Even goalies only started in 1959 with the first goalie mask worn by Jacques Plante (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Plante). I can remember watching some hockey in the 80s with the players still not wearing helmets, long locks flowing in the breeze.
It boggles my mind that some players still don't wear visors. Not wearing a helmet is completely beyond my comprehension.

[pravnik]

I cast my vote for "javelin catching."

[ZipperJJ]

I was thinking more along the lines of what RickJay said when I used the term "grueling." That is why I put the schedule info right at the top there.

Cycling...seems grueling as hell. But how often does one race? Once or twice a year? (Those are not rhetorical questions - I need ignorance fought). Same with cross-country skiing.

Someone pointed out boxing. Also grueling and I would say moreso than NFL football but as someone has already pointed out, it's not something you do full-on every day.

I am still thinking soccer and hockey are up there because of their schedules. Someone said 40 games over the same period as hockey's 82 (6 months?) That would give hockey the edge, to me, because there's twice as many games in the same period - less time to rest.

Of course, I am open to discussion over what I mean by grueling. If you put an NFL football team out there on the same schedule as an MLB team it would be the most grueling sport ever conceived. But that's not the case. Soccer and hockey, though, have a little less than the games over the same time period as baseball yet the players are playing 10x as hard or more.

[pravnik]

Boxing and ultimate fighting are sort of a different ball of wax.

They're definitely damaging, but to call it "grueling", there probably has to be some kind of obligation to perform. If the "schedule" is getting too tough for a fighter, he can just take a few more months off.Okay, this post made me reconsider javelin catching, although I contend that would be the winner if it were real.

I'd have to cast my vote for most grueling sport for traditional Muay Thai in Thailand, or Burmese Lethwai. Western fighters can and do take off for extended periods of time between fights, but Muay Thai fighters in Thailand train for 6+ hours a day, 6+ days a week, fight as often as every two or three weeks for years on end, and end up retiring by 26 or 27.

[GreedySmurf]

Not to start a my football is better than yours argument, but I think Rugby League is tougher and demands more stamina than NFL.

For those not in the know, a game runs for 80 minutes, and that's pretty much constant for the entire time. There is a 20 min half time break, and a break of maybe 2-3 mins after a team scores a try (touchdown) while the golakicker attempts to convert the try. (sort of like the point after, but the kicker is allowed his attempt without interference).

There are 13 players on the field with 4 reserves on the bench. A team is allowed to sub players 8 times during the game. All the players on the pitch are pretty much constantly moving. There ar two types of players on the field - Forwards, think linebackers, and Backs, think Running Backs & Receivers.

The forwards are subject to constant full body contact, against other big forwards, in primarily front-on collisions, often at full speed.

IT's a bit of a furffy to say no pads, as most forwards wear basic soft shoulder pads. However these shoulder pads are soft material things that simply cushion the blow not hard plastic pads like the NFL ones.

As to the season it is around 28 games, playing every weekend, and the top players play a further 3 games of "State of Origin" football during the season, State of Origin is a step up in intensity over normal games, and depending upon the year they may also play in 3-5 international test matches, which are considered harder than club football but not yet up to State of Origin standard.

All games are played in open air, in prevailing weather conditions, be that rain or hail, I didn't say snow becasue excluding a single excpetion in 100 odd years of the game, snow has never been a factor.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I played organized rugby for a couple of months while living overseas, and I came away a bit unimpressed - it's not near as violent as I had expected. Direct collisions between players running at full speed are rare. Counter that with some NFL games - the Super Bowl last night was played in a driving rain, that made footing difficult, and it wasn't necessarily a 'hard-hitting' game - but there were at least a dozen hits that made grown men wince.

That rugby players don't wear much safety equipment is less because they're manly men, and much more because they don't really need it.

Were you playing League or Union? I used to play both. The tackling tends to be a lot harder in League, where the overriding tactic is to try and punch through a defence, whereas this would leave you stranded and unable to recycle the ball in Union.

[50million]

I think Tom Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson) would argue for cycling if he had the chance. He basically rode himself to death. And there are a few instances of riders dying from crashes.

Typical pros would race 40-60 days a season. The season being roughly March - October. Some guys might do two of the three "Grand Tours" (Italy, France, Spain) which are 3 weeks of racing with 2 rest days; the same guys would also be expected to do some of the one day races.

I would echo someone else's suggestion to break up the "grueling" into sub-gruels. Cycling is certainly grueling, but in a different way than American football.

Plus, in cycling you have to eat while you participate.

[Hostile Dialect]

Players have been known to push 100 MPH -- but I'm not sure if anybody actually hits that speed during a game.

What, Al MacInnis and Rob Blake, and maybe three other players at most?

[blondebear]

Cyclists are gluttons for punishment. They love those long, multi-mountain-pass rides. Gives 'em something to brag about.

[Rysto]

What, Al MacInnis and Rob Blake, and maybe three other players at most?
Mike Fisher, Andrej Meszaros and Daniel Alfredsson of the Senators all broke the 100 MPH barrier just recently (http://ottawasun.com/Sports/Senators/2007/02/05/3530911-sun.html). I can name plenty of other players who have done it as well.

[Ike Witt]

What, Al MacInnis and Rob Blake, and maybe three other players at most?
2 players broke 100 mph at the recent All-Stars skills competition. The hardest shot recorded during a skills competition was 105.2 mph by Al Iafrate in the mid 1990s IIRC. Of course it is said that Bobby Hull went over 120 mph, but I don't trust the 1960's radar guns too much.

The puck probably doesn't get that fast too often in a game since you don't have the time since you are likely to be rushed, but I am sure it has happened.

[Malacandra]

Can anyone expound on the flow of pro rugby?

How long is a season? How many games? How much time between games?
How long does a game last?
How much running do you do in a game? How much down-time is there?
Do players switch in and out like NFL football? (defense and offense)
Is there a difference between Aussie and English rugby?
Just to add to the earlier replies:

The season lasts about six months, give or take, with matches about once a week. There will be some rotation within the squad to cover for injuries and fatigue. The major Rugby-playing nations will each play about ten internationals a year (f'rinstance, over here we have the Six Nations which is five matches each, we had three autumn internationals and we typically play a three-international tour over summer).

A single match is 80 minutes, with a few minutes of extra time if there are appreciable losses owing to injury. Play is nominally continuous during this time, with slight delays for scrums and line-outs - as long as it takes to form the set-piece and retrieve the ball. There isn't a "time out" as such.

There are up to seven replacements (at the low end of the amateur scale you are doing well to manage to get fifteen players in the first place :D ) and as a rule replacements are permanent. Minor injuries that are fixable off-field - typically surface bleeding - allow for a temporary replacement while repairs are under way. If a key player has been sin-binned then another player may be temporarily substituted - usually if a front-row forward has been sent off, as the sharp end of a scrum is physically hazardous if you don't have the special training. Otherwise, everyone's on for the full 80 minutes, attack, defend or whatever.

Johnny Wilkinson, lately returned to the England side, kicks the equivalent of field goals, extra points after touchdown, and drop-goals (which exist as a theoretical possibility in gridiron, I understand), and also punts, runs, throws laterals, and tackles. Certainly any specialist goalkicker in Rugby would laugh at the notion of being a pampered hothouse flower who steps up only for the one duty and expects never to be touched by the opposition. :)


There are no national differences between English and Australian Rugby, but there are two different forms of the game, League and Union. I've described Union above; anecdotally, League is a tougher game altogether. (Oz also has "Rules", Australian Rules football - more like an oval-ball variant of Gaelic football than anything else, and not especially Rugby-like.)

[candide]

I think Malacandra has synthesized the game of Rugby Union well. I played American Football in High School and Rugby for 10 years through University and afterwars for a US club side. When trying to explain the difference between Football players and Rugby players I like to use a medical analogy. Rugby players are to General Practitioners as Football payers are to specialized surgeons.

In American Football, although certain basic characteristics are desirable in all players -- speed, quickness, intelligence, toughness -- the skill sets needed to play different positions do not overlap that much. What an interior lineman does is very different from what a tight end does which is different from a receiver to the full back to the halfback to the quarterback. And that's just on offense.

In Rugby, by contrast, there is a basic breakdown in duties for forwards and backs -- forwards handle set plays while backs are responsible for advancing the ball -- there is a broader set of skills that all players must share. In the course of an average rugby match, all players will handle the ball, all players will have to pass the ball, all will have to ruck and present the ball and all will at some point have to make a tackle.

The OP is an interesting one but one that I think is subjective. In the end, IMHO, the "gruelingness" of a sport depends on so many different factors including injuries and training that comparing them is difficult. Jerry Rice, for instance, loved training, was always in shape, rarely hurt and in his 20+ years of playing organized football probably never found it grueling. Conrad Dobler or the family of Mike Webster might have a different opinion (I did see the piece on HBO). The principal thing I took from the HBO piece, though, was that players now disabled wouldn't change what the game asked of them in the past. Rather they want the game and the union to provide them more now in the way of pensions and benefits, especially medical care. I think they're entitled to that. One player (I don't recall who) pointed out that although the NFL does not consider him disabled, the federal government does for which he receives support through Social Security.

American Football, in my mind, leaves the greatest number of permanent cripples of any sport on any continent. That is because a premium is paid to sheer size and the body is used as a weapon. There is only one place in the modern game for the small and that's at kicker, the most specialized position of all. Human joints can't handle the speed and size of today's players and I don't see things changing any time soon. It is an issue the NFL will have to deal with eventually.

Rugby, by contrast has a place for smaller players -- although bigger is better -- and does more to protect the individual, especially from injuries to joints, than american football. That's not to say rugby is any less grueling. I found myself less tired after playing a 48-minute football game in high school at offensive guard than I did playing an 80-minute rugby match in college where I had to set in at prop 30 or 50 times (not uncommon when players are inexperienced).

In a recent interview, Bryan O'Driscoll, captain for Ireland and Leicester, mentioned that his new contract limits him to about 25 games a year. I'm not certain that includes games with the national team or not, but it seems an awful lot either way. If it doesn't he might play as many as 40 during the course of a year. I would add that few players in any professional sport play a whole season or, to be more exact, in every possible game or match they're eligible for. Most are injured or rested or scratched at some point during a long season.

I wasn't a very good football player in high school, so I didn't play very much and really didn't get injured. I played rugby between ages 20 and 30 and matured into a respectable player. In those 10 years, I broke my nose twice, a wrist, both thumbs and twisted both ankles innumerable times. I was probably concussed twice. Today, 12 years later, my mind is fine, but I have arthritis in both ankles and my knees creak and hurt in the morning but are otherwise okay. I love the game of rugby and feel lucky I played. I wouldn't change the time I played for anything. It was tough, but not grueling.

[Queuing]

Hockey.

No other sport gives you a weapon and allows you to use it basically as you see fit with the punishment generally being 2 minutes or less.

[Lemur866]

Somebody mentioned "playing in the cold" about hockey. But NHL hockey players don't play in the cold. The temperature is constant in an indoor rink, and when you're playing in full gear you sweat like crazy. You might get a bit chilly if you were sitting in the stands watching the game, but not playing. Football players probably have to worry about cold more than hockey players.

As a kid I did get cold when we played outdoor hockey, but kids don't put the all-out effort. And we only canceled games at -20F.

[si_blakely]

There are no national differences between English and Australian Rugby...The rules may be the same, but...

Southern Hemisphere Rugby has a longer season and is played at a higher intensity than Northern Hemisphere rugby.

In NZ, top players play internationals, national provincial and Super 14 matches. The Super14 are super-regional teams from South Africa, Australia and NZ, so 14 matches over about 18 weeks with international travel. The teams are all made up of international and ex/near international players. The NPC in NZ is almost as intense. And the TriNations series (Australia, South Africa, NZ) is hugely tough.

As for the physical impacts felt by these guys, I agree that the quality of impact is different to something like American football, pads or no pads. But the fact is that for 80 minutes these guys are running into each other hard. They split skin and get stitched up on the sidelines and come back on. They climb all over each other with studded boots. They bruise all over, and climb into an ice bath for 10 minutes after the game so that they can move the next day.

These guys are hard.

Si