@craig44 said:
All that arguing for years about adding 1 extra game. 1 game. that is how tough the game of football is. hockey plays 5 times more games
All that arguing to get paid for that extra game, not do it for free and just give the extra money entirely to the owners. That extra game is added revenue
NFL players currently dont even get 50% of league revenue which is what their salaries are based off of. Players had a 48% share and had to fight to get it to 48.8% for the extra game
all you have written is just distraction and misdirection from topic of this thread. to get back on track.
are you trying to make the argument that at any point in history the NHL was tougher than the NFL?
I was responding to using the extra game as evidence of it being tougher.
Yes it has been tougher in parts of the past but again the rule changes have changed that. Football basically plays/played 3 or 4 games a week with how practices were. Number of games isnt really evidence since they could just practice differently annd not just have your players destroy each other for hours a day all week. Thats changed as well but the fewer games means more revenue per game which they strike a balance with. Its like UFC where when it was once a month it was a big deal but being weekly its not as interesting
you very clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to football. in season practices are not players "destroying" each other. most are without pads. the games are so violent that recovery and film take up the first 2 days. then they practice wed, thurs and friday. lots of stretching, position group stuff, conditioning, red zone planning, game planning and walk throughs. the difficult practices are during the preseason. definitely not in season.
they are not, nor have NFL teams ever played (or practiced) the equivalent of 3 or 4 games a week. you have invented that to try to fit your false narrative.
To illustrate your false narrative of players destroying each other in practice, NFL teams are only allowed 14 regular season padded practices for the entire 18 week season. these guys are most assuredly not blowing each other up during practice and are definitely not playing the equivalent of 3 or 4 games a week because of these "grueling" practices. that is your false narrative.
again, when EXACTLY was it more tough to play in the NFL?
Why do you think some practices got changed to without pads, having the helmet padding on the outside and changes to the practice types. Its because the players used situations tin bargaining to the best of their ability to get those things implemented when the league wanted something in return.
If you think all practices are that way in camps and preseason you might want to check it more. Guys absolutely light each other up in padded practices which is equal to a game
Hockey requires more endurance over a longer season with a specialized skill set. If youre asking when is it harder to play hockey which I am assuming you meant NHL not NFL, always with the skills required and the grind. If youre asking about the psychical aspects of a grinding season for actual games 1990s to early 2000s was probably the last time.
Hockey and football arent just the NHL and NFL either
oh boy. i dont think you have fully realized yet that you are the last person arguing this losing notion. I have to give it to you though, you are trying really hard to introduce strawmen, misdirect and deflect.
the reason practices have gotten progressively easier is because throughout the years the length of the season has gotten longer. as the schedule went from 12 to 14 to 16 to 17 games it was necessary for practices to decrease in number and intensity. because the game of football is so incredibly tough on the human body.
players are not "lighting" each other up in season practices. on the odd occasion that it happens, that player is disciplined.
endurance is different from tough.
specialized skill sets is not germain to this question.
both of those examples are strawmen.
you truly believe it was tougher to play in the NHL in the 1990s than the NFL?
do you truly believe if the NFL had played an 82 game regular season and 4 rounds of playoff series in the 90s that there would be a single player left standing after?
If you do, you are seriously deluded. no one else on this board or anywhere else would make that argument.
If you feel the need to constantly take shots at me in your responses thats certainly your choice.
Tough means hard, or difficult. Endurance is absolutely relevant to what makes something difficult as is skating.
If the question was who hits harder its the NFL right now, but that wasnt the question.
The question was which is the toughest sport which means the answer is Ice Hockey. The endurance, having to know how to skate, and an added physical aspect with a longer grind yes that is tougher.
in the original question, DD asked which sport was "tougher" then he went on to mention suffering. I think myself and almost everyone else who answered the original question were equating "tougher" to mean physically demanding or the physical toll each sport takes on the body and not the difficulty/skill involved or the endurance requirements of the sport.
perhaps you are the only poster who did not understand that or perhaps you are being obtuse and do not want to admit your take is wrong.
if we take "tough" to mean physically demanding, there is no other correct answer than football. Do you think NFL players would make it through a 100 + game season? lets be real here.
How would endurance not be a part of physically demanding or a psychical toll?
endurance is being able to do something for a long period of time. the human body could not endure playing over 100 football games in an 8 month period of time. the human body can and regularly does exactly that in the NHL every year.
that is exactly why it take a FAR more physically demanding toll on players when they play in the NFL as compared to the NHL.
@craig44 said:
All that arguing for years about adding 1 extra game. 1 game. that is how tough the game of football is. hockey plays 5 times more games
All that arguing to get paid for that extra game, not do it for free and just give the extra money entirely to the owners. That extra game is added revenue
NFL players currently dont even get 50% of league revenue which is what their salaries are based off of. Players had a 48% share and had to fight to get it to 48.8% for the extra game
all you have written is just distraction and misdirection from topic of this thread. to get back on track.
are you trying to make the argument that at any point in history the NHL was tougher than the NFL?
I was responding to using the extra game as evidence of it being tougher.
Yes it has been tougher in parts of the past but again the rule changes have changed that. Football basically plays/played 3 or 4 games a week with how practices were. Number of games isnt really evidence since they could just practice differently annd not just have your players destroy each other for hours a day all week. Thats changed as well but the fewer games means more revenue per game which they strike a balance with. Its like UFC where when it was once a month it was a big deal but being weekly its not as interesting
you very clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to football. in season practices are not players "destroying" each other. most are without pads. the games are so violent that recovery and film take up the first 2 days. then they practice wed, thurs and friday. lots of stretching, position group stuff, conditioning, red zone planning, game planning and walk throughs. the difficult practices are during the preseason. definitely not in season.
they are not, nor have NFL teams ever played (or practiced) the equivalent of 3 or 4 games a week. you have invented that to try to fit your false narrative.
To illustrate your false narrative of players destroying each other in practice, NFL teams are only allowed 14 regular season padded practices for the entire 18 week season. these guys are most assuredly not blowing each other up during practice and are definitely not playing the equivalent of 3 or 4 games a week because of these "grueling" practices. that is your false narrative.
again, when EXACTLY was it more tough to play in the NFL?
Why do you think some practices got changed to without pads, having the helmet padding on the outside and changes to the practice types. Its because the players used situations tin bargaining to the best of their ability to get those things implemented when the league wanted something in return.
If you think all practices are that way in camps and preseason you might want to check it more. Guys absolutely light each other up in padded practices which is equal to a game
Hockey requires more endurance over a longer season with a specialized skill set. If youre asking when is it harder to play hockey which I am assuming you meant NHL not NFL, always with the skills required and the grind. If youre asking about the psychical aspects of a grinding season for actual games 1990s to early 2000s was probably the last time.
Hockey and football arent just the NHL and NFL either
oh boy. i dont think you have fully realized yet that you are the last person arguing this losing notion. I have to give it to you though, you are trying really hard to introduce strawmen, misdirect and deflect.
the reason practices have gotten progressively easier is because throughout the years the length of the season has gotten longer. as the schedule went from 12 to 14 to 16 to 17 games it was necessary for practices to decrease in number and intensity. because the game of football is so incredibly tough on the human body.
players are not "lighting" each other up in season practices. on the odd occasion that it happens, that player is disciplined.
endurance is different from tough.
specialized skill sets is not germain to this question.
both of those examples are strawmen.
you truly believe it was tougher to play in the NHL in the 1990s than the NFL?
do you truly believe if the NFL had played an 82 game regular season and 4 rounds of playoff series in the 90s that there would be a single player left standing after?
If you do, you are seriously deluded. no one else on this board or anywhere else would make that argument.
If you feel the need to constantly take shots at me in your responses thats certainly your choice.
Tough means hard, or difficult. Endurance is absolutely relevant to what makes something difficult as is skating.
If the question was who hits harder its the NFL right now, but that wasnt the question.
The question was which is the toughest sport which means the answer is Ice Hockey. The endurance, having to know how to skate, and an added physical aspect with a longer grind yes that is tougher.
in the original question, DD asked which sport was "tougher" then he went on to mention suffering. I think myself and almost everyone else who answered the original question were equating "tougher" to mean physically demanding or the physical toll each sport takes on the body and not the difficulty/skill involved or the endurance requirements of the sport.
perhaps you are the only poster who did not understand that or perhaps you are being obtuse and do not want to admit your take is wrong.
if we take "tough" to mean physically demanding, there is no other correct answer than football. Do you think NFL players would make it through a 100 + game season? lets be real here.
How would endurance not be a part of physically demanding or a psychical toll?
endurance is being able to do something for a long period of time. the human body could not endure playing over 100 football games in an 8 month period of time. the human body can and regularly does exactly that in the NHL every year.
that is exactly why it take a FAR more physically demanding toll on players when they play in the NFL as compared to the NHL.
Endurance is being able to do something a long time period in two ways. It can be over months or over a day consecutively, In both ways hockey is more psychically challenging endurance wise. Perk and George have both made great points about the dangers of both.
Trying to say its "FAR" more demanding for the NFL just looks like not knowing about ice hockey. Football plays far more games than just whats on the NFL schedule as well by the way
@perkdog said:
As I said before it's 100% debatable no matter what anyone comes up with because there are variables to the question
perk, do you think it would be physically possible for the NFL to play an 82 game regular season followed by 4 rounds of best of 7 game series?
No and you and Steve refuse to acknowledge my point
Hockey CAN be more dangerous than football at any given time,
I'm not on a soap box saying that Hockey is tougher overall but to dismiss the dangers of it is retarded
As I said I would take getting tackled hard on grass over getting knocked head first into the boards
There are variables that are debatable that's all I'm saying
sure, I agree, there can be individual plays in hockey that can be extraordinarily dangerous, but as a whole, the NFL is far far more physically demanding week in and week out.
that is why, at the most, NFL players only play 21 games per season.
Right but DD didn't ask which sport is more demanding he asked which is more "Tougher" and there are variables to that question so it is debatable and that's all I'm saying
The reason you can't play an 82 game football season has nothing to do with endurance. It has to due with the nature of the sport, which is full contact on every play. Out of a 60 minute game, how much of that is actual play? 15 minutes?
From a conditioning standpoint, I would take a hockey player 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
From an overall athletic standpoint, I would also take a hockey player.
While there are definitely more specimens in the NFL, that's because the tails of the bell-curve are longer. Yes, there are plenty of 300 lb guys who are good all around athletes, but there are many of them that just REALLY know how to block or tackle. Same with quarterbacks.
I would even go out on a limb and say that hockey players have, on average, a slightly higher level of pain tolerance. I only say this from seeing too many hockey players take pucks to unpadded areas, including their faces, or get cut up and manage to come back into the game. Of course, cuts, bruises and undiagnosed broken bones (hands and feet) aren't the same as torn ligaments.
So, back to the original question: I wouldn't say hockey players are tougher than football players, nor would I say football players are tougher than hockey players. They're both pretty damn tough.
Seems like even a tougher team game than football is Australian rules football. I've never watched a full game because I don't understand it, and frankly don't have any desire to. However I've watched some snippets of it, and it has a few similarities to American football with the tackling, etc, but with no pads for crying out loud. They are like maniacs running around out there.
Of course Australia is a penal colony, so I guess the madness should come as no surprise. 😉😆
@stevek said:
Seems like even a tougher team game than football is Australian rules football. I've never watched a full game because I don't understand it, and frankly don't have any desire to. However I've watched some snippets of it, and it has a few similarities to American football with the tackling, etc, but with no pads for crying out loud. They are like maniacs running around out there.
Of course Australia is a penal colony, so I guess the madness should come as no surprise. 😉😆
They have two versions of it. The NRL in the north and the AFL in the south. The AFL is more like soccer with a lot more kicking that has some big hits and the NRL is more like football with a lot more scrums. The punting academies which are producing all the college and future NFL punters are mostly AFL type players. NFL players hit harder though. Believe it or not its actually safer not having the pads because they think about their hits more and dont head hunt or lead with their heads
Back when ESPN started and they showed Australian Rules Football, I remember thinking that Reggie Roby would have been the greatest player who ever lived.
I guess we are all arguing different points here. I suppose to continue we would need to define the term "tough"
I was using the physical demands of playing the sport.
I think others are using how much endurance is needed to play a long season. and others are defining tough as how difficult the skill level of each sport is.
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
@doubledragon said:
I have to admit, I enjoy the fighting in hockey. I ran across this video and the announcer seems to indicate that there aren't many good fights in hockey these days, I don't follow the sport closely so I wouldn't know, but it is exciting when they drop the gloves and throw hands!
That would be Rangers rookie Matt Rempe whose gotten into 7 fights in the last two months. Hes an anomaly in the NHL today as the visors discourage fighting. He actually got into a fight in his NHL debut before the puck even dropped. He technically had 5 penalty minutes and 0 seconds of ice time.
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
>
>
You could also take this to mean hockey players are 5 times tougher than football players.
I'm amazed at the "logic" people use.
To me, the guy who goes to work 4 times a week is tougher than the guy who goes once.
This is just another silly argument. Both sports require toughness, and depending on the position, a different amount of "toughness".
A super tough hockey player I get to watch regularly is Marcus Foligno of the Wild. He's a hard hitter and always aggressively forchecking, plus he fights most of the fights. He's also expected to chip in with some goals.
I also can't imagine how tough a NFL running back must have to be, especially if he gets a lot of carries.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
>
>
You could also take this to mean hockey players are 5 times tougher than football players.
I'm amazed at the "logic" people use.
To me, the guy who goes to work 4 times a week is tougher than the guy who goes once.
This is just another silly argument. Both sports require toughness, and depending on the position, a different amount of "toughness".
A super tough hockey player I get to watch regularly is Marcus Foligno of the Wild. He's a hard hitter and always aggressively forchecking, plus he fights most of the fights. He's also expected to chip in with some goals.
I also can't imagine how tough a NFL running back must have to be, especially if he gets a lot of carries.
that would be a good point except for the fact that the job guy one goes to is so physically demanding that they need days of recovery and treatment before they can even practice doing their job again much less actually do it.
Joe, do you really think any players would be left to play in the super bowl "7 game series" if there were over 100 games to the regular season and playoffs?
@georgebailey2 said:
Back when ESPN started and they showed Australian Rules Football, I remember thinking that Reggie Roby would have been the greatest player who ever lived.
The 49ers actually tried that with an NRL star Jarryd Hayne and he was terrible in the NFL
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
>
>
You could also take this to mean hockey players are 5 times tougher than football players.
I'm amazed at the "logic" people use.
To me, the guy who goes to work 4 times a week is tougher than the guy who goes once.
This is just another silly argument. Both sports require toughness, and depending on the position, a different amount of "toughness".
A super tough hockey player I get to watch regularly is Marcus Foligno of the Wild. He's a hard hitter and always aggressively forchecking, plus he fights most of the fights. He's also expected to chip in with some goals.
I also can't imagine how tough a NFL running back must have to be, especially if he gets a lot of carries.
that would be a good point except for the fact that the job guy one goes to is so physically demanding that they need days of recovery and treatment before they can even practice doing their job again much less actually do it.
That's the prevailing ASSUMPTION. One could just as easily say that hockey players are tougher because they are able to recover more quickly and get out there more often. NEITHER opinion proves it one way or the other.
You are also ignoring the fact that the NFL gives their teams a week between games for their $ reasons. Their audience is gigantic compared to the NHL's, plus they have already got games on Monday and Thursday, so they just don't need a team to play three times a week.
>
Joe, do you really think any players would be left to play in the super bowl "7 game series" if there were over 100 games to the regular season and playoffs?
>
>
Same argument.
No, they aren't tough enough. Ever see a fat hockey player?😁
As I stated, this is really another stupid debate.
I've seen guys get hit square on the face with a 100 MPH slap shot and seen football players get their knees shredded.
Football played on turf has got to be brutal, getting tackled by 2-3 guys and landing on what amounts to indoor/outdoor carpeting on top of cement?
How about guys getting blown up in a hockey game and hitting their heads on the ice or the top of the boards?
I really don't care which sport is tougher, but simply stating football players are only "able" to play once a week and that in itself proves they are tougher is not proof football is tougher. It could be taken EITHER way.
Excluding the goalies, hockey is INFINITELY more difficult to play as you need to be able to do so many different things while skating. Football is much more specialized.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I've seen guys get hit square on the face with a 100 MPH slap shot and seen football players get their knees shredded.
Football played on turf has got to be brutal, getting tackled by 2-3 guys and landing on what amounts to indoor/outdoor carpeting on top of cement?
Turf needs to be banned. It saves a few 100 thousand in maintenance at best and has a higher rate of knee and achilles injuries than grass including non contact ones. International soccer leagues are banning turf and theres no reason for the richest individual league in the world which is the NFL to be playing on it
@JoeBanzai said:
I've seen guys get hit square on the face with a 100 MPH slap shot and seen football players get their knees shredded.
Football played on turf has got to be brutal, getting tackled by 2-3 guys and landing on what amounts to indoor/outdoor carpeting on top of cement?
Turf needs to be banned. It saves a few 100 thousand in maintenance at best and has a higher rate of knee and achilles injuries than grass including non contact ones. International soccer leagues are banning turf and theres no reason for the richest individual league in the world which is the NFL to be playing on it
I remember walking on the field at the Metrodome in Minneapolis.
Absolutely could not believe they played football on concrete.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I've seen guys get hit square on the face with a 100 MPH slap shot and seen football players get their knees shredded.
Football played on turf has got to be brutal, getting tackled by 2-3 guys and landing on what amounts to indoor/outdoor carpeting on top of cement?
Turf needs to be banned. It saves a few 100 thousand in maintenance at best and has a higher rate of knee and achilles injuries than grass including non contact ones. International soccer leagues are banning turf and theres no reason for the richest individual league in the world which is the NFL to be playing on it
I remember walking on the field at the Metrodome in Minneapolis.
Absolutely could not believe they played football on concrete.
Its crazy
The saddest part is that some of these NFL stadiums that will be host stadiums for the 2026 soccer world cup are required to switch to grass and will do so for that.
On a game to game basis, I think the NFL is physically more demanding for most positions. Obviously placekicker is essentially a walk in the park 99.9% of the time. However, the risk of catastrophic injury is way, way higher in the NHL. Guys have weapons in their hands and on their feet. They have an unforgiving playing surface under them and surrounding them with no out of bounds. They shoot a frozen rock at each other at 80+ mph. Getting rammed headfirst into the boards, having your throat slashed, an extremity amputated by a slash, or a neck injury front a crosscheck are all constant threats.
A pitcher in Major League Baseball is more likely to have his career get > @craig44 said:
this one seems pretty clear cut to me. Football is the only answer. and really is not debatable. I can sum it up this way.
NHL players have an 82 game regular season with multiple rounds of playoff series afterwards that could be an extra 28 games.
NFL players fought tooth and nail for years about adding a 17th game to the schedule. they do not play playoff series and have a maximum of 4 playoff games if they make it to the super bowl.
there would be no players left in the NFL if players were expected to play over 100 games in an 8 month period. for that reason NFL football is by far the toughest sport.
The NFL was not popular in the 1950’s and had to share stadiums with baseball teams.
The NFL players back then made more money working then playing football. They’d rather be working many of them.
The only reason the NFL season is the way it is is because they could only play when baseball wasn’t.
It has nothing to do with the physicality of the game.
Now they make enough money that they don’t have to play so much.
Back then they may have played year round if they had the stadiums and if they got paid more.
It’s always been about the money, not the toughness of the game.
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
>
>
You could also take this to mean hockey players are 5 times tougher than football players.
I'm amazed at the "logic" people use.
To me, the guy who goes to work 4 times a week is tougher than the guy who goes once.
This is just another silly argument. Both sports require toughness, and depending on the position, a different amount of "toughness".
A super tough hockey player I get to watch regularly is Marcus Foligno of the Wild. He's a hard hitter and always aggressively forchecking, plus he fights most of the fights. He's also expected to chip in with some goals.
I also can't imagine how tough a NFL running back must have to be, especially if he gets a lot of carries.
that would be a good point except for the fact that the job guy one goes to is so physically demanding that they need days of recovery and treatment before they can even practice doing their job again much less actually do it.
Joe, do you really think any players would be left to play in the super bowl "7 game series" if there were over 100 games to the regular season and playoffs?
Guys lift weights every 48 hours. Linemen can push each other every 48 hours.
More pitchers get injured then quarterbacks.
Running back is the only brutal position in football. Everything else you overstate.
Wide receivers could play 4 games a week easy. As could secondaries.
"Running back is the only brutal position in football"
we are going to leave this one right here for posterity. This is a sentence written by a person who has no knowledge or insight at all about sports. The same sentiment can be said about your previous post as well.
"Running back is the only brutal position in football"
we are going to leave this one right here for posterity. This is a sentence written by a person who has no knowledge or insight at all about sports. The same sentiment can be said about your previous post as well.
If NFL players knew they could make twice as much more each year playing two games a week they would simply play a less physical game in order to earn that money.
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
this is part of an abstract I found relating to head injuries in youth football and youth hockey. I understand it is not professional level, but I would imagine you could extrapolate it out as the sports stay the same the athletes just get bigger and stronger.
"Impact magnitude was determined through physical laboratory reconstructions and finite element modelling to estimate brain tissue strains. Tackle football demonstrated significantly higher impact frequency (P < 0.01) and magnitude of estimated brain tissue strains (P < 0.01) compared to ice hockey. A significantly higher number of higher strain head impacts were documented in tackle football when compared to ice hockey (P < 0.01). These differences suggest that youth football players may experience increased frequency and magnitude of estimated brain tissue strains in comparison to youth hockey."
@craig44 said:
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
60 tackles per game.
11 players on D.
They do a little pushing and shoving and 5+ tackles per game once a week.
@craig44 said:
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
60 tackles per game.
11 players on D.
They do a little pushing and shoving and 5+ tackles per game once a week.
Lololololololol
you didn't even read the whole post. good grief. 120 total tackles per game. that is not close to how many hits happen in the average game. ever watch a punt or kick return? ever see a 320 pound NT pull and run down the open field to block? How about Gronk blowing up a DB on a block? those are all devastating hits that happen every single game and are not counted as "tackles"
and the average NHL game sees 20-30 hits total.
Bwaahahahaha!!!
there are more hits on special teams in an NFL game than there are in a whole NHL game.
@craig44 said:
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
60 tackles per game.
11 players on D.
They do a little pushing and shoving and 5+ tackles per game once a week.
Lololololololol
you didn't even read the whole post. good grief. 120 total tackles per game. that is not close to how many hits happen in the average game. ever watch a punt or kick return? ever see a 320 pound NT pull and run down the open field to block? How about Gronk blowing up a DB on a block? those are all devastating hits that happen every single game and are not counted as "tackles"
and the average NHL game sees 20-30 hits total.
Bwaahahahaha!!!
there are more hits on special teams in an NFL game than there are in a whole NHL game.
You’ve missed the entire point I was making to you.
I could care less if the NHL or NFL is the tougher league.
I was simply pointing out to you that your reasoning for the short NFL season has nothing to do with the physical nature of the game.
It has everything to do with other factors related to money and stadiums over the years.
@craig44 said:
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
60 tackles per game.
11 players on D.
They do a little pushing and shoving and 5+ tackles per game once a week.
Lololololololol
you didn't even read the whole post. good grief. 120 total tackles per game. that is not close to how many hits happen in the average game. ever watch a punt or kick return? ever see a 320 pound NT pull and run down the open field to block? How about Gronk blowing up a DB on a block? those are all devastating hits that happen every single game and are not counted as "tackles"
and the average NHL game sees 20-30 hits total.
Bwaahahahaha!!!
there are more hits on special teams in an NFL game than there are in a whole NHL game.
You’ve missed the entire point I was making to you.
I could care less if the NHL or NFL is the tougher league.
I was simply pointing out to you that your reasoning for the short NFL season has nothing to do with the physical nature of the game.
It has everything to do with other factors related to money and stadiums over the years.
lets assume the small number of games scheduled in an NFL season was originally because of lack of fields/stadiums because they had to share with baseball teams (it wasn't)
the scheduling could certainly have been adjusted during baseball road trips had the football owners wanted to play a much more expanded schedule. remember, there were only 14 NFL teams in the beginning so only 7 games per week. then, after baseball ended in October, they could have had a wide open schedule had they wanted it. and you better believe the owners would have wanted it in the days before television contracts. Had they wanted a 40, 50, 60 game or more season they could have scheduled it. You really think the owners of those stadiums wanted them empty? no way, they would have rented them out as often as their baseball teams were on the road.
Why didn't they? well there wouldn't have been any players left after about the 2nd month of it. remember, back then guys played 2 ways. With leather helmets. with rudimentary pads. it was absolutely brutal
your whole premise is just wrong. completely wrong.
You said if the NFL wanted 50 games they could have. Heck no. Nobody was coming. Teams were folding.
It was not a big money maker until the 70’s. Jim Brown left the league because of poor money. He could make more elsewhere. Lol.
People went to church on Sunday in the 50’s. There were blue laws that forbade businesses from being opened on Sunday. Football stadiums were empty.
TV came along in the late 60’s to the NFL more and more. Blue laws were relaxed in the late 60’s and football became America’s #1 sport.
Before then they scheduled it after baseball ended and no one wanted to sit in a stadium in Cleveland and Detroit in January and February.
The NFL original schedule was initiated around baseball and all about money. It had nothing to do with the physical nature of the game. No money was being made.
Try starting an NFL summer league. No one would go. It’s a seasonal game.
@4Boston said:
You said if the NFL wanted 50 games they could have. Heck no. Nobody was coming. Teams were folding.
e.
.
.
.
.
1954 NFL teams:
"Are you sure about those five minutes?" That was 1954 and those franchises were consistent from that point on. There was some movement among teams before, just like baseball had team movement, etc...
You are saying nobody went to games because they went to Church in the 1950's??
Here is the weekly attendance for 1958 in the NFL:
Again, not accurate in what you are saying.
Just so you know the Cubs and Bears shared a stadium, and for the 1950's the Cubs drew a low of 8,598 fans a game in 1957 and a high of 12,726 in 1958. You can compare that with the Bears above. Fans most certainly came on Sunday's.
The Bears were packing Wrigley Field with well over 40,000 per home game in 1958. Wrigley was small. It had a capacity of mid 30,000's for baseball games and the added some bleachers to get it to a max of 45,000 for football games and they squeezed more in for some games somehow. That place was jam packed for football games.
I guess those fans skipped Church that day.
The Bears and NFL teams made money. Lots of it. They just didn't pass it down to the players very much.
The NFL most definitely would have played more games by that time if it was not for the physical nature of the sport. They played their championship game on 12/28.
If as you say, it had nothing to do with physicality, then they could have easily played twice a week inside their current season parameters of that time.
Packing sellout crowds, why do you think they did not play twice a week back then once their season started???
Football is way harder than hockey. You constantly have to jump through mental hoops to justify calling American Rugby "football" with a straight face.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@4Boston the Rams drew 100,000 fans in two different games in 1958. Fans were coming. Teams were making money. You don't think they would have played twice a week if they were drawing that many fans?
Maybe the priests were mad and didn't want them to play twice a week since they all skipped church on Sundays.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
after reading his posts I was just getting ready to formulate a response and then I scrolled and saw you had written pretty much exactly what I was going to already!
this guy is trying to make up history to fit his narrative.
@4Boston
I am not going to repeat what 1948 wrote above. can you admit now that your narrative is fraudulent? lots and lots and lots of people were coming out to watch football in the 50s.
lots of athletes from lots of sports had off season jobs. Stan Musial sold Christmas trees in the off season. Willie Mays sold cars. Yogi Berra worked at Sears.
There was lots of money in football. and lots of fans came out to see it. had they not the NFL wouldn't have lasted 5 years. The owners would have loved to multiply their earnings 4 or 5 (or more) times, but the health of the players wouldn't allow it. too much wear and tear. too many injuries. because the game is so tough.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: @4Boston the Rams drew 100,000 fans in two different games in 1958. Fans were coming. Teams were making money. You don't think they would have played twice a week if they were drawing that many fans?
Maybe the priests were mad and didn't want them to play twice a week since they all skipped church on Sundays.
Then tell us Father Robinson why if the owners and players could get richer by playing more why they chose not to ?
Also explain why Jim Brown left the league if it was such a great place of employment.
Why did the NFL only play 12 games when it could have scheduled 16 or more games ? They hired guys to play who didn’t even practice with the team all week. Were they against making more money?
Jim Brown wants to know good Father.
Comments
endurance is being able to do something for a long period of time. the human body could not endure playing over 100 football games in an 8 month period of time. the human body can and regularly does exactly that in the NHL every year.
that is exactly why it take a FAR more physically demanding toll on players when they play in the NFL as compared to the NHL.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Endurance is being able to do something a long time period in two ways. It can be over months or over a day consecutively, In both ways hockey is more psychically challenging endurance wise. Perk and George have both made great points about the dangers of both.
Trying to say its "FAR" more demanding for the NFL just looks like not knowing about ice hockey. Football plays far more games than just whats on the NFL schedule as well by the way
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Ice Hockey VS Football or Football VS Ice Hockey...???
Right but DD didn't ask which sport is more demanding he asked which is more "Tougher" and there are variables to that question so it is debatable and that's all I'm saying
The reason you can't play an 82 game football season has nothing to do with endurance. It has to due with the nature of the sport, which is full contact on every play. Out of a 60 minute game, how much of that is actual play? 15 minutes?
From a conditioning standpoint, I would take a hockey player 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
From an overall athletic standpoint, I would also take a hockey player.
While there are definitely more specimens in the NFL, that's because the tails of the bell-curve are longer. Yes, there are plenty of 300 lb guys who are good all around athletes, but there are many of them that just REALLY know how to block or tackle. Same with quarterbacks.
I would even go out on a limb and say that hockey players have, on average, a slightly higher level of pain tolerance. I only say this from seeing too many hockey players take pucks to unpadded areas, including their faces, or get cut up and manage to come back into the game. Of course, cuts, bruises and undiagnosed broken bones (hands and feet) aren't the same as torn ligaments.
So, back to the original question: I wouldn't say hockey players are tougher than football players, nor would I say football players are tougher than hockey players. They're both pretty damn tough.
Seems like even a tougher team game than football is Australian rules football. I've never watched a full game because I don't understand it, and frankly don't have any desire to. However I've watched some snippets of it, and it has a few similarities to American football with the tackling, etc, but with no pads for crying out loud. They are like maniacs running around out there.
Of course Australia is a penal colony, so I guess the madness should come as no surprise. 😉😆
They have two versions of it. The NRL in the north and the AFL in the south. The AFL is more like soccer with a lot more kicking that has some big hits and the NRL is more like football with a lot more scrums. The punting academies which are producing all the college and future NFL punters are mostly AFL type players. NFL players hit harder though. Believe it or not its actually safer not having the pads because they think about their hits more and dont head hunt or lead with their heads
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Back when ESPN started and they showed Australian Rules Football, I remember thinking that Reggie Roby would have been the greatest player who ever lived.
I guess we are all arguing different points here. I suppose to continue we would need to define the term "tough"
I was using the physical demands of playing the sport.
I think others are using how much endurance is needed to play a long season. and others are defining tough as how difficult the skill level of each sport is.
as for the physically demanding argument, I stand by that professional football is far more physically demanding and takes a much bigger toll on the human body than professional ice hockey. illustrated by the fact that the hockey season has over 5 times as many games scheduled every season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Throwing punches while on ice skates may be the hardest sports related thing to do.
>
>
You could also take this to mean hockey players are 5 times tougher than football players.
I'm amazed at the "logic" people use.
To me, the guy who goes to work 4 times a week is tougher than the guy who goes once.
This is just another silly argument. Both sports require toughness, and depending on the position, a different amount of "toughness".
A super tough hockey player I get to watch regularly is Marcus Foligno of the Wild. He's a hard hitter and always aggressively forchecking, plus he fights most of the fights. He's also expected to chip in with some goals.
I also can't imagine how tough a NFL running back must have to be, especially if he gets a lot of carries.
that would be a good point except for the fact that the job guy one goes to is so physically demanding that they need days of recovery and treatment before they can even practice doing their job again much less actually do it.
Joe, do you really think any players would be left to play in the super bowl "7 game series" if there were over 100 games to the regular season and playoffs?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The 49ers actually tried that with an NRL star Jarryd Hayne and he was terrible in the NFL
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
That's the prevailing ASSUMPTION. One could just as easily say that hockey players are tougher because they are able to recover more quickly and get out there more often. NEITHER opinion proves it one way or the other.
You are also ignoring the fact that the NFL gives their teams a week between games for their $ reasons. Their audience is gigantic compared to the NHL's, plus they have already got games on Monday and Thursday, so they just don't need a team to play three times a week.
>
>
>
Same argument.
No, they aren't tough enough. Ever see a fat hockey player?😁
As I stated, this is really another stupid debate.
I've seen guys get hit square on the face with a 100 MPH slap shot and seen football players get their knees shredded.
Football played on turf has got to be brutal, getting tackled by 2-3 guys and landing on what amounts to indoor/outdoor carpeting on top of cement?
How about guys getting blown up in a hockey game and hitting their heads on the ice or the top of the boards?
I really don't care which sport is tougher, but simply stating football players are only "able" to play once a week and that in itself proves they are tougher is not proof football is tougher. It could be taken EITHER way.
Excluding the goalies, hockey is INFINITELY more difficult to play as you need to be able to do so many different things while skating. Football is much more specialized.
Turf needs to be banned. It saves a few 100 thousand in maintenance at best and has a higher rate of knee and achilles injuries than grass including non contact ones. International soccer leagues are banning turf and theres no reason for the richest individual league in the world which is the NFL to be playing on it
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I remember walking on the field at the Metrodome in Minneapolis.
Absolutely could not believe they played football on concrete.
Its crazy
The saddest part is that some of these NFL stadiums that will be host stadiums for the 2026 soccer world cup are required to switch to grass and will do so for that.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
On a game to game basis, I think the NFL is physically more demanding for most positions. Obviously placekicker is essentially a walk in the park 99.9% of the time. However, the risk of catastrophic injury is way, way higher in the NHL. Guys have weapons in their hands and on their feet. They have an unforgiving playing surface under them and surrounding them with no out of bounds. They shoot a frozen rock at each other at 80+ mph. Getting rammed headfirst into the boards, having your throat slashed, an extremity amputated by a slash, or a neck injury front a crosscheck are all constant threats.
A pitcher in Major League Baseball is more likely to have his career get > @craig44 said:
The NFL was not popular in the 1950’s and had to share stadiums with baseball teams.
The NFL players back then made more money working then playing football. They’d rather be working many of them.
The only reason the NFL season is the way it is is because they could only play when baseball wasn’t.
It has nothing to do with the physicality of the game.
Now they make enough money that they don’t have to play so much.
Back then they may have played year round if they had the stadiums and if they got paid more.
It’s always been about the money, not the toughness of the game.
Guys lift weights every 48 hours. Linemen can push each other every 48 hours.
More pitchers get injured then quarterbacks.
Running back is the only brutal position in football. Everything else you overstate.
Wide receivers could play 4 games a week easy. As could secondaries.
@4Boston
"Running back is the only brutal position in football"
we are going to leave this one right here for posterity. This is a sentence written by a person who has no knowledge or insight at all about sports. The same sentiment can be said about your previous post as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Both posts are 100% accurate.
Why did Jim Brown retire early ?
Over money or injuries ?
again,
"Running back is the only brutal position in football"
bwaahaahaahaaha
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Why did Jim Brown retire early ?
Over money or injuries ?
It’s very simple.
If NFL players knew they could make twice as much more each year playing two games a week they would simply play a less physical game in order to earn that money.
Who missed more games ?
Chris Sale or Tom Brady ?
from the best i can find, there is an average of between 20-30 hits in an average NHL game.
there is an average of 60 tackles per defense per NFL game. which means 120 total tackles between both teams. that does not include all of the hits/takedowns/blocks/chop blocks special teams collisions etc. only play ending tackles.
according to what I could see, there are times that entire periods can be played in the NHL with little to no hits occurring. the information I read also said that some players in the NHL may not encounter a single hit in entire games.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/01/12/nfl-physics-violence/
an article about the violence of an NFL hit.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
this is part of an abstract I found relating to head injuries in youth football and youth hockey. I understand it is not professional level, but I would imagine you could extrapolate it out as the sports stay the same the athletes just get bigger and stronger.
"Impact magnitude was determined through physical laboratory reconstructions and finite element modelling to estimate brain tissue strains. Tackle football demonstrated significantly higher impact frequency (P < 0.01) and magnitude of estimated brain tissue strains (P < 0.01) compared to ice hockey. A significantly higher number of higher strain head impacts were documented in tackle football when compared to ice hockey (P < 0.01). These differences suggest that youth football players may experience increased frequency and magnitude of estimated brain tissue strains in comparison to youth hockey."
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
60 tackles per game.
11 players on D.
They do a little pushing and shoving and 5+ tackles per game once a week.
Lololololololol
Still waiting for you to answer.
Still waiting.
I found that NHL players have an average concussion rate of 5.8/10000 while NFL players have an average rate of 7.4/10000.
I find both of these numbers to seem low. I wonder how many go undiagnosed? I guess we can only go by the reported ones though.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you didn't even read the whole post. good grief. 120 total tackles per game. that is not close to how many hits happen in the average game. ever watch a punt or kick return? ever see a 320 pound NT pull and run down the open field to block? How about Gronk blowing up a DB on a block? those are all devastating hits that happen every single game and are not counted as "tackles"
and the average NHL game sees 20-30 hits total.
Bwaahahahaha!!!
there are more hits on special teams in an NFL game than there are in a whole NHL game.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
straw man
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
straw man
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You’ve missed the entire point I was making to you.
I could care less if the NHL or NFL is the tougher league.
I was simply pointing out to you that your reasoning for the short NFL season has nothing to do with the physical nature of the game.
It has everything to do with other factors related to money and stadiums over the years.
Go back to all my points and I never even mentioned the NHL vs NFL debate.
I simply pointed out that your response about NFL season length was totally inaccurate, which it is.
This coming from someone who knows nothing about sports.
Love people who put down others who disagree with them.
Well done Craig.
did I "put you down?" I believe the quote was "This is a sentence written by a person who has no knowledge or insight at all about sports."
I don't believe that was a "put down" just a factual statement.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
lets assume the small number of games scheduled in an NFL season was originally because of lack of fields/stadiums because they had to share with baseball teams (it wasn't)
the scheduling could certainly have been adjusted during baseball road trips had the football owners wanted to play a much more expanded schedule. remember, there were only 14 NFL teams in the beginning so only 7 games per week. then, after baseball ended in October, they could have had a wide open schedule had they wanted it. and you better believe the owners would have wanted it in the days before television contracts. Had they wanted a 40, 50, 60 game or more season they could have scheduled it. You really think the owners of those stadiums wanted them empty? no way, they would have rented them out as often as their baseball teams were on the road.
Why didn't they? well there wouldn't have been any players left after about the 2nd month of it. remember, back then guys played 2 ways. With leather helmets. with rudimentary pads. it was absolutely brutal
your whole premise is just wrong. completely wrong.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Football was making very little money before 1970.
College football was more popular and pro football was a step down from college before 1950.
There was no money in the NFL when the scheduling was originally made. The guys worked the next 6 months in real jobs.
Some NFL teams in the 50’s hired weekend warriors who didn’t practice with the team to play.
Most guys played two ways because there wasn’t enough money for offense and defensive players.
You really need to read this article.
The schedule has ZERO to do with the physicality of the game. Zero.
https://operations.nfl.com/learn-the-game/nfl-basics/rookies-guide/evolution-of-the-nfl-player/
You said if the NFL wanted 50 games they could have. Heck no. Nobody was coming. Teams were folding.
It was not a big money maker until the 70’s. Jim Brown left the league because of poor money. He could make more elsewhere. Lol.
People went to church on Sunday in the 50’s. There were blue laws that forbade businesses from being opened on Sunday. Football stadiums were empty.
TV came along in the late 60’s to the NFL more and more. Blue laws were relaxed in the late 60’s and football became America’s #1 sport.
Before then they scheduled it after baseball ended and no one wanted to sit in a stadium in Cleveland and Detroit in January and February.
The NFL original schedule was initiated around baseball and all about money. It had nothing to do with the physical nature of the game. No money was being made.
Try starting an NFL summer league. No one would go. It’s a seasonal game.
.
.
.
1954 NFL teams:
"Are you sure about those five minutes?" That was 1954 and those franchises were consistent from that point on. There was some movement among teams before, just like baseball had team movement, etc...
You are saying nobody went to games because they went to Church in the 1950's??
Here is the weekly attendance for 1958 in the NFL:
Again, not accurate in what you are saying.
Just so you know the Cubs and Bears shared a stadium, and for the 1950's the Cubs drew a low of 8,598 fans a game in 1957 and a high of 12,726 in 1958. You can compare that with the Bears above. Fans most certainly came on Sunday's.
The Bears were packing Wrigley Field with well over 40,000 per home game in 1958. Wrigley was small. It had a capacity of mid 30,000's for baseball games and the added some bleachers to get it to a max of 45,000 for football games and they squeezed more in for some games somehow. That place was jam packed for football games.
I guess those fans skipped Church that day.
The Bears and NFL teams made money. Lots of it. They just didn't pass it down to the players very much.
The NFL most definitely would have played more games by that time if it was not for the physical nature of the sport. They played their championship game on 12/28.
If as you say, it had nothing to do with physicality, then they could have easily played twice a week inside their current season parameters of that time.
Packing sellout crowds, why do you think they did not play twice a week back then once their season started???
Football is way harder than hockey. You constantly have to jump through mental hoops to justify calling American Rugby "football" with a straight face.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@4Boston the Rams drew 100,000 fans in two different games in 1958. Fans were coming. Teams were making money. You don't think they would have played twice a week if they were drawing that many fans?
Maybe the priests were mad and didn't want them to play twice a week since they all skipped church on Sundays.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
after reading his posts I was just getting ready to formulate a response and then I scrolled and saw you had written pretty much exactly what I was going to already!
this guy is trying to make up history to fit his narrative.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@4Boston
I am not going to repeat what 1948 wrote above. can you admit now that your narrative is fraudulent? lots and lots and lots of people were coming out to watch football in the 50s.
lots of athletes from lots of sports had off season jobs. Stan Musial sold Christmas trees in the off season. Willie Mays sold cars. Yogi Berra worked at Sears.
There was lots of money in football. and lots of fans came out to see it. had they not the NFL wouldn't have lasted 5 years. The owners would have loved to multiply their earnings 4 or 5 (or more) times, but the health of the players wouldn't allow it. too much wear and tear. too many injuries. because the game is so tough.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think it should also be mentioned that it's easier to fill a 20,000 seat arena than a 70,000 seat football stadium.
The NFL from 1947 through 1960 played a 12 game schedule.
The AFL in 1960 introduced a 14 game schedule.
Now the NFL plays a 16 game schedule.
Why do they keep increasing games if it’s so rough?
Jim Brown, the games greatest player left the league because there was better money elsewhere.
The league couldn’t keep its #1 star.
Lol
Did Gordie Howe leave the NHL ? Lol. Rocket Richard ?
Baseball was harder on Chris Sale then football was on Tom Brady.
How tough is punting and extra points ? Lol
5 tackles a game on defense once a week? Lol. That should be outlawed ! Lol
Then tell us Father Robinson why if the owners and players could get richer by playing more why they chose not to ?
Also explain why Jim Brown left the league if it was such a great place of employment.
Why did the NFL only play 12 games when it could have scheduled 16 or more games ? They hired guys to play who didn’t even practice with the team all week. Were they against making more money?
Jim Brown wants to know good Father.