The Rock On Rugby Compared to American Football

**Shockage** · 11-26-2012, 01:15 AM

Source: WrestleView.com

Couriermail.com.au is featuring an interview with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson where he talks about what a tough sport rugby is and getting to watch more of it filming in London.

"I use to live in New Zealand for sometime and I went to school in New Zealand and I played rugby. I have been very lucky, I played American football for a very long time, American professional wrestling for a very long time and had my fair share of action in Hollywood ... there is no tougher sport than rugby.

And for those who have played it and understand the game know what I am talking about and those who don't and I have this argument with my American buddies all the time who are great football players and I tell them 'so as amazing as you are in football I want you to take all your pads off including your helmet and go play the game and see how long you last'. So no I don't wish I was playing."

**Mighty Boosh** · 11-26-2012, 12:30 PM

Rock's a smart guy, unlike a lot of Americans he can actually see both sides and make a non biased decision

**Goldie79** · 11-26-2012, 01:04 PM

The only protection Rugby players have is their mouth guards.... no shoulder padding or helmets like the NFL guys.

That said I hated playing Rugby... haven't done so since my school days, and thats the way it'll stay

**chaoskid** · 11-26-2012, 01:27 PM

Got to agree fully, American can be right softies with all that padding, would they survive without the padding?

**Mighty Boosh** · 11-26-2012, 02:24 PM

Probably not. American Footballers are well looked after, with the padding and all but also they compete on a lovely, soft playing field at least in NFL. You don't see much of that in Rugby, they play in the mud and aren't afraid to get their hands dirty. Then there's the scrum, anything can happen in the scrum.

American Footballers are of course in great shape but there's a lot more toughness needed for Rugby.

**Turley** · 11-26-2012, 11:32 PM

i dare say the actual collisions in NFL are more high impact. However, rugby is by far the tougher sport. NFL guys get a break every two minutes because they are fatty americans. Go onto the field, lay a tackle and then come straight off.... Nothing tough about that

**DevinJAM** · 11-27-2012, 03:19 AM

anyone with common sense knows Rugbys tougher, you dont have to play it to know that.

**nbdynprtcular** · 11-28-2012, 11:31 AM

This whole football vs rugby argument is so stupid. It's like comparing a lemon to a lime and arguing which one is more citrus. Much like this thread, rugby fans just feel jealous of the attention football gets, so they have to use the argument as nothing more than a reason to once again insult Americans. Something this forum leaps at every chance to do.

**Shockage** · 11-28-2012, 11:34 AM

Rugby has been ordained by the Lord as a man's game. The reason why Rugby isn't called New Zealand Rugby, Australian Rugby, French Rugby is because the sport isn't confined to the sheltered environment of one country.

**Turley** · 11-28-2012, 11:49 AM

Sorry nbdynprtclr gridiron players don't actually get attention here, so that jealousy theory sounds stupid.

It's not an argument it's a fact

**Mighty Boosh** · 11-28-2012, 01:47 PM

Yeah, no one even pays attention to American football here so the jealousy is non-existent. This is only like comparing the citrus of a lime to the citrus of a lemon if one clearly has more than the other. The fact is rugby is tougher, you Americans think otherwise because you're biased and that's why so many people on the forum take the chance to call you out on it.

And your arrogance doesn't end there, America is so arrogant that they ignore the fact that every other country calls soccer football because they want the sport they don't like to seem inferior to the one they do. Fair enough, like one sport over another but it's down right arrogant to rename football soccer so you can call the sport where 90% of players use their hands "football"

**MartelFlair3** · 11-28-2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mighty Boosh

Yeah, no one even pays attention to American football here so the jealousy is non-existent. This is only like comparing the citrus of a lime to the citrus of a lemon if one clearly has more than the other. The fact is rugby is tougher, you Americans think otherwise because you're biased and that's why so many people on the forum take the chance to call you out on it.

And your arrogance doesn't end there, America is so arrogant that they ignore the fact that every other country calls soccer football because they want the sport they don't like to seem inferior to the one they do. Fair enough, like one sport over another but it's down right arrogant to rename football soccer so you can call the sport where 90% of players use their hands "football"

If its arrogance to rename football Soccer just so we can call another sports football, in both Canada and the US, i find it to be just as arrogant to not even acknowledge the fact that Soccer is also called International Football here in north America.

**Mighty Boosh** · 11-28-2012, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by MartelFlair3

If its arrogance to rename football Soccer just so we can call another sports football, in both Canada and the US, i find it to be just as arrogant to not even acknowledge the fact that Soccer is also called International Football here in north America.

But you said yourself that it's called both soccer and football, so it's not like they haven't renamed it. Besides the majority of America call football soccer, how is anyone outside America supposed to know parts of America call it International football when the majority of America not only call it soccer but try and insist that their football is the only one that should be referred to as such. So some parts of America call it International football, ok cool, but how are other countries supposed to take note when the rest of America arrogantly try to rebrand a world wide sport to their own tastes.

**Darth Shizzel** · 11-28-2012, 10:25 PM

Wait are we talking League or Union ?

**Turley** · 11-29-2012, 01:12 AM

Im assuming that The Rock was talking about Union but anyone that has seen a game of league knows that it is much tougher than Gridiron. For a start, the defenders dont get a rest once they win the ball. Thats easily the softest thing about Gridiron. Ive got no problem with them wearing pads as the collisions have been proven to be extremely high impact but the fact of the matter is that most of the players only have to play half a game.

Whats the turnaround in game time in the NFL? Rugby players can have to play 3 matches in a week. Its pretty tough to recover that quickly and go again.

**Shockage** · 11-29-2012, 02:35 AM

There's two types of people that wear pads - women and American football players

**El Weasel** · 11-29-2012, 02:51 AM

yeah, I would much rather prove my manliness and end up partially retarded from repeated concussions, good call. Us Americans must look really small while you're looking down your noses at us, yet we're the arrogant ones.

**Darth Shizzel** · 11-29-2012, 02:55 AM

We're not looking down at you but take away the pads and some of the other crap your sport is pretty bad and boring the only worse then it is AFL and Soccer.

**El Weasel** · 11-29-2012, 03:06 AM

Sure, take away the pads from Hockey and it's the most worthless sport I've ever seen (it probably is with the pads as well). Take away the Black guys from the NBA and it's awful. Take steroids from Major League Baseball and it's horrible. Take a competing company away from WWE and it becomes crap.

I can't say this for sure, because I don't have the knowledge of the sport, but will be interested to know what people think. If you ADD pads to Rugby would it become less fun to watch?

**nbdynprtcular** · 11-29-2012, 03:23 AM

Ok let me put this the best way i can. Take the best rugby player you can find, put him in a 3 point stance 2 yards away from the average NFL lineman. Now let them hit each other 30 times, which is about the average number of times the lineman takes a snap in a given game. I DEFY your rugby player to come away injury free. Football players wear pads not because they are "fatty Americans", but because they are smart enough to take the proper precautions to not suffer injury. Does wearing your seatbelt and having an airbag in your car make you a wimp? No it doesn't. So let me take this opportunity to tell all of you who insist time after time on this forum to take shots at America once and for all, just shut the hell up.

**Darth Shizzel** · 11-29-2012, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by nbdynprtcular

Ok let me put this the best way i can. Take the best rugby player you can find, put him in a 3 point stance 2 yards away from the average NFL lineman. Now let them hit each other 30 times, which is about the average number of times the lineman takes a snap in a given game. I DEFY your rugby player to come away injury free. Football players wear pads not because they are "fatty Americans", but because they are smart enough to take the proper precautions to not suffer injury. Does wearing your seatbelt and having an airbag in your car make you a wimp? No it doesn't. So let me take this opportunity to tell all of you who insist time after time on this forum to take shots at America once and for all, just shut the hell up.

Put your NFL boy against our NRL boys your boy loses Even our weakest player the fullback could handle the collisions better then your best American Player.

NFL is nowhere near as tough as League sorry to my american friends but thats just plain fact

**nbdynprtcular** · 11-29-2012, 05:45 AM

Wow Darth, delusional much? Didn't realize Australia was raising hordes of superhuman rugby players able to defy the laws of physics like that.

**Darth Shizzel** · 11-29-2012, 08:05 AM

Not my fault your paddy boys arent as tough as league boys you might have had a chance against the union boys they don't even tackle.

**Mighty Boosh** · 11-29-2012, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by nbdynprtcular

Ok let me put this the best way i can. Take the best rugby player you can find, put him in a 3 point stance 2 yards away from the average NFL lineman. Now let them hit each other 30 times, which is about the average number of times the lineman takes a snap in a given game. I DEFY your rugby player to come away injury free. Football players wear pads not because they are "fatty Americans", but because they are smart enough to take the proper precautions to not suffer injury. Does wearing your seatbelt and having an airbag in your car make you a wimp? No it doesn't. So let me take this opportunity to tell all of you who insist time after time on this forum to take shots at America once and for all, just shut the hell up.

If you're "footballer" isn't wearing pads for this, then I doubt he'd make it past 12-15 hits never mind 30. To let him wear pads and not the rugby player would be unfair and if both wear pads then you're trying to make up for you're football player not being tough enough to go it with out pads.

The problem is you're doing exactly what makes other countries hate America: You're getting opinion confused with fact. You're opinion is that American Football is better than Rugby, if that's what you think fine. But because you like American Football more, you're arguing against the FACT that rugby is tougher. That's it. No one here has called US Football crap or boring, we merely stated the fact that Rugby is tougher and if you can't see that then you need to read this topic again only this time don't get over sensitive instead look over why rugby is tougher as it has already been stated.

**nbdynprtcular** · 11-30-2012, 12:42 AM

No Boosh, I am not arguing against the fact that rugby is tougher, I never once said that. The point I was trying to make is that football players do not wear pads because they are soft or wimps, they wear them because it is the smart thing to do. And by the same token, isn't pretty much everyone else's opinion in this thread due to the fact that they like rugby more than football? So I am not the only person who would be arguing based on a perceived bias, now would I?