An argument at work

[Deebs]

Currently discussing the following subject:

Which sport has more impact on the human body: Tennis or football.

Feel free to join in the discussion and please post any informative urls.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I'd go for Tennis. They train for longer than most footballers, and their season is 11 months long.

 

[Jimmy]

bit of both really imo footballers more risk of been hurt but tennis one of those balls hits u in the face ouch

 

[JingleBells]

Hmm, Tennis is more likely to suffer from repetitive strain like injuries, but football suffers from impact related injuries (danger Kevin Muscat!).

Most tennis injuries are joint related (wrists, elbows, knees and the like) which with a bit of physio can generally be dealt with, wheres footballers can suffer anything from fractured skulls, broken legs, broken 4th metatarsal's and in Chris Kirkland's case broken finger nails.

Football has more impact by far.

 

[TdC]

tbh I agree with Wazzerswift. dunno what it's like over there, but over here footy players seem to winge if they have to play more than two games a month, and they train by running down people with their X5's while drunk and having it off with underage teens.

give me tennis any day tbh!

 

[leggy]

Tennis.

I have no scientific evidence other than the fact that Federer has a better body than rooney.

Saying that, so do I and don't play any of those sports.

 

[Frizz]

Depends. If you're going for physique, then look no further than David "Calamity" James, or even better Cristiano "****" Ronaldo. I can't think of any tennis player with a body like those two. Footy then.

If it's the severity of injuries, then as Jinglebells said, football is the winner with broken limbs and if anyone remembers Kieron Dyer crashing into advertising hoardings last season, nasty gashes.

If it's length of season and length of matches, tennis has the upper hand as Grand Slam sessions can last in excess of 4 hours as opposed to footballs 90 minutes, +/- a half hour.

2-1 footy with that criteria then.

edit:// I know David Beckham carries himself atleast 10 kilometres across the pitch when he plays. Don't really know what tennis players cover, but I wouldn't have thought it would be more than that, regardless of playing time. Not forgetting the amount of breaks in between sets for tennis compared with half time in footy.

 

[dysfunction]

Rooney may not look fit but he can certainly run very fast and his speed doesnt seem to dimish that much towards the end of a game.


I would say tennis due to the sudden changing of direction in a game and the amounts of streching of the body due to serving and reaching difficult shots.

 

[caLLous]

I'd say tennis, there's a lot of impact related stuff there for lower body joints - very sudden changes of direction, stretching, etc. My mum played squash semi-professionally for ages when she was younger and has subsequently had to have both knees replaced because of the impact type stuff that occurred then. I know squash is a bit more hardcore (smaller court, harder surfaces) but I reckon similar injuries apply to tennis.

Again, no scientific fact to back this up.

 

[Utini]

I have no scientific evidence other than the fact that Federer has a better body than rooney.

Poof.
And besides that, i'd bet Rooney wins physically too. People who call him fat dont have a clue heh.

And in response to the question: define 'impact on the body'. Is this including injuries, self inflicted, inflicted by others, etc? But overall, yes tennis is the more girly sport.
Another vote for football, basically.

 

[Calaen]

Tennis but only because they can end up playing for 3 hours in a particular game and be expected to play another game the day after.

Take in to the warming up before a game and also the constant strain on the body constantly running 3-5 yards then stopping and shooting of again in another direction for 3-5 yards. You never hear of tennis players complaining like footballers about being tired bless their cotton socks.

 

[Trebz]

I'd have thought tennis would have the most impact, mainly because of the surfaces you play on, when its not grass they're a lot harder than a footie field.

 

[Deebs]

Interesting. I think it is football too but my colleague is not having it. When I say impact I mean along the lines of impact on the body doing the sport.

eg. running puts a strain on the knee/ankles and is classed as high-impact.

 

[Frizz]

Rugby.

 

[Utini]

Yes, but the fact is, footballers at the top level these days, for all we (me included) love to slag them off for being overpaid asses who fallover when a raindrop hits them.....do have an incredible amount of time and money throwing the very best sport has to offer at them, in getting them to athlete level fitness. The sheer billions of pounds involved dictates this. So i wouldnt discount their claim that they're feeling tired/jaded. (I'm not a big tennis fan, but i imagine they get more breaks than the footballer, getting knocked out in round x of a tournament, and a delay before they start the next, whereas that footballer is going to be playing next game, as long as he's able to). I sort of agree with the surface thing trebz, thought about it before, but didnt post it because i thought it was balanced out by the more potential for awkward landings (ball/other player in way/studs, etc etc), which even if it didnt resulting in a play-stopping injury could repeatedly put severe extra-stress on joints, muscles et al.

 

[Utini]

Having just seen your post above after the above reply...
If you discount, the ball, studs, uneven ground (ok which it shouldnt be at the top leve), other players, basically everything. Then yes Tennis is worse, purely running 1,2,5,10 yards back and forth is worse than the footballer doing 5,10,200. But thats not really a fair comparison. So in a fair comparison i'd still vote football as worse like you would.

 

[Guest]

let them try doing a real job like coal mining then see how well they do.

thats high impact for you.

 

[mank!]

your average central midfielder must cover far more ground in 90 minutes than a tennis player would in three hours, surely?

a tennis player on hard clay courts would probably suffer worse impact injuries but then i've heard of plenty of footballers who have required surgery due to repeated jumping for headers etc.

i don't think it's fair to compare the two really, they're so different. you need fitness in different areas as well, no?

everyone knows cricket is best, look at dwayne leverock

 

[Calaen]

Its to difficult to compare, For example Nicholas Mahut Who got into the final of the Stella Artois tourny before Wimbleon then had to try and qualify for Wimbledon in doing so he ended up playing 11 games over 11 days. While we only see the luxurious tournaments, there is always a tennis match being played for something.

The better the player the most matches they play due to reaching the further rounds, but for the players of lesser ability they still have to play in all the qualifiers just to get a shot at a named player.

So in all I do not think you can compare like for like, but as Mank has said, Tennis players change surfaces and constantly run and stop but a midfielder of the likes of Lampards/Gerard cover so many yards in a game.

 

[Draylor]

everyone knows cricket is best, look at dwayne leverock

If you were throwing yourself around on solid cricket pitches youd want a little extra padding too!

 

[Skyler]

Football.

Utini is saying the right stuff really.

Tennis is probably more stressful on certain joints, but when it comes to overall strain football has to be the winner.

 

[Scouse]

Tennis but only because they can end up playing for 3 hours in a particular game and be expected to play another game the day after.

I think it's quite obviously football. The fact that tennis players are able to play tennis at the same level day after day, when football players cannot, proves it.

And it's not 'cause footie players are poofs - it's because the levels of performance expected of them in the highest echelons of the sport are so high the effect of playing matches is measurable a few days after the event.

I daresay that tennis players suffer a lot more RSI tho

 

[old.user4556]

Both poof sports.

Rugby > *

(when it comes to stress imo, still prefer watching football)

 

[Ch3tan]

Football. What Utini, Skyler and Scouse said.

 

[leggy]

Poof.
And besides that, i'd bet Rooney wins physically too. People who call him fat dont have a clue heh.

I never said federer was physically fitter. I said he was sexier fitter.

And I also never called Rooney fat. I suspect most of the lard is in his skull. Thick twat.


/edit :

Just in case I get classed as moody or something