If you want to give yourself a bit of light entertainment, watch any NFL or Rugby 'Big Hits' compilation on YouTube and read through the comments of users arguing about which sport is tougher 'rugby or American Football'.
There's arguments about pads, tackle technique, athleticism required to play different positions, but even in the blackhole that is a YouTube comment section, there is still a general consensus that you have to be an elite athlete to play both sports professionally.
ESPN writer
Kevin Van Valkenburg thinks that the gap between both sports is much larger that that.
Van Valkenburg argued that all he needs is one year, an elite coach and a handful of the NFL's elite players, coupled with those on the very fringes of the NFL, to start dominating world rugby.
Inevitably, he was shredded for his take on the ease at which a team that has never played the sport could start to dominate world rugby, and while there may be an element that his tweet could be taken in jest, the rugby world was quick to out Van Valkenburg for his odd comparison.
https://twitter.com/JiffyRugby/status/1003541618513850368
https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1003450494499553282
https://twitter.com/IGuryashkin/status/1003329627073458178
https://twitter.com/RugbyLAD7/status/1003591528974036992
https://twitter.com/__Briggsy__/status/1003401390511804416
https://twitter.com/neil_treacy/status/1003572331422339072
The matter was covered in
The Hard Yards [
from 57:30 below] and host Andy McGeady made a couple of great points about why the comparison, and bold claim, does not stack up.
Well said by McGeady.
