Great link. It should also be mentioned that 98% of those hits were perfectly legal at the time they were made. Let me say for a moment that I love Steve Atwater and Earl Campbell. Great vintage stuff.
Yeah, about the only ones I saw that would have been illegal were a few that looked like face mask violations.
Well, they used to allow interlocking offensive formations in American football, but they were banned in 1910 after the death rate (caused by the combination of rugby and American-football styles of play…to wit, the tendency to get large numbers of players together and hit members of the other team at full sprint) became unacceptable. It was a huge issue. In 1905, in fact, 18 players died in collegiate football games.
That’s about as close to a maul or ruck as American football has, except perhaps for the formations noted above.
But tough? Hell, the Georgia center this past weekend played with (IIRC) two broken fingers, torn ankle ligaments, and cracked ribs. Even so, he was absolutely dominant. Tough son of a bitch.
Just like in rugby, players play with severe injuries. Happens all the time. The only difference is that the pads in American football, as has already been noted, serve 1) to let players hit each other much, much harder than would otherwise be possible, and 2) as weapons.
That’s what I get for not previewing.
Also, great link. I was trying to find a video I once saw online of some great Alabama Crimson Tide plays that includes some huge hits (it’s the vid they play on the jumbotron before Tide games at home,) but was unsuccessful. I have a copy, but I’m afraid posting it on my site might be a copyright violation. Anyway, the abvove link is even better.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand one more.
Here is a fun article about rugby captain Martin Johnson going to visit the San Francisco 49ers’ training camp. He notes in particular the physicality of the players (especially the linemen) thus:
Wait, am I reading that rule correctly? Rugby players aren’t allowed to slam into anyone? As in, the only legal tackle is an arm tackle?! WTF?
Thats basically correct. They can crash into them so long as they are making an attempt to wrap them up at the same time. Can’t lower a shoulder on them though. They basically are reduced to grabbing and pulling down as opposed to knocking down.
This is an untrue statement. It puts the cart before the horse.
Most other football versions do not allow padding specifically to discourage the type of violence one sees regularly in American football any more. By putting state of the art helmets and pads on players, they feel protected enough to engage in mayhem that as often puts themselves in danger as it does the one they are hitting.
Aussie rules, a MUCH more “vicious” sport than rugby (in the sense that what will be called a foul in rugby won’t get a second look in and Aussie rules match) is also played without pads; yet if you watch it, you will see that they are careful about how they engage in their particular form of mayhem. If you put helmets and pads on them, they’d be just as nasty, if not nastier, than the NFL.
Pads lead to roughness, not vice versa. Association football refuses to allow padding for just that reason.
Speaking of which, I’m surprised in this football dominated thread that no one is mentioning Australian Rules Football. It involves aggressive tackling, considerable running (the pitch on which it is played is a cricket oval, much larger than Rugby, gridiron, or association football play. It runs for 4 20 min. quarters of fairly fast action, with few stoppages. They don’t wear pads. Because one of the ways to score is to gain a free kick from catching the ball in the air as it is kicked in your direction, you see a lot of times where guys jump quite high to catch the ball, without much regard for how they are going to land.
I’d put it ahead of rugby for overall toughness, which I define to be more than just physical strength or ability to soak up violence.
Triatheletes are awesome. I’ve always thought that. But no one hits them while they do their thing, so I guess it depends upon how you define “tough.”
That’s one opinion, but I’m not the one to follows that particular school of thought. As someone who wore pads in football I was completely aware that they only offered me limited protection. I remember when someone blind sided me with a block that knocked me flat on my back. My head hit the ground so hard that I just laid on the ground and squeezed my eyes shut because it felt like my they had been knocked out. Of course those pads don’t do much to protect the neck, arms, ribs, back, or anything on your legs.
From what I’ve read it looks like pads in the United States were adopted to protect players from a violent sport. Perhaps the violence increased with the adoption of pads, specifically the helmet, but I remain unconvinced. I think it was a more violent sport than rugby to begin with.
Marc
… wow is this thread is about Football vs Rugby? :smack:
My vote, since the OP did not specify “human” athlete" I add An Iditarod Dog ever try running 1149 mile in less than favorable weather, in less then 10 days…just my POV
dsw in BFE
Boxing is like ballet, except there’s no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
This statement is no more true than the one you retort. It’s a symbiotic thing. The game changes as pads are introduced, for sure, but pads are introduced as a response to the game.
Though I do agree that Aussie Rules ranks a step ahead of rugby on that list.
To get off the football-centric chatter and address the OP directly, I tend to agree with those fighting sports as being the toughest.
I wrestled in school and it was unbelievable how much strength and conditioning you needed. You’d never believe how exhaused you could get in just 6 minutes. I never boxed, but I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that it was a similar feeling and probabaly worse. Kickboxers and Thai boxers and extreme fighters are clearly heavyweights in the toughness discussion.
On the whole, football was tougher than wrestling, but not by much. And I’d put one of the combat sports as being the toughest overall.
Those endurance guys certainly have a brand of toughness that’s respectable, but physical contact and human opposition add such a huge dimension both mentally and physically that they fall short. It’s tougher to try and run down a flat field with someone trying to stop you every inch of the way than it is to run up the steepest of hills alone.