>I think it's very safe and long-term healthy in comparison to Rugby and Handball.
I don't know much about injuries in those sports. Are players routinely hurt, or does the lack of padding ensure only the most durable men dare play?>>17607
>handegg players are well protected
That's true. Everything is padded except for their knees, and unfortunately that's where you get the most devastating injuries(excluding CTE of course).
>why would you guys call it not "american rugby" instead of "american football"?
In its current form the game resembles rugby, but it evolved from a combination of Association Football
(Soccer) and Rugby Football
(Rugby), which came to be called, simply, Football.
Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open(tennis) on Sunday, giving him 15 Major(Grand Slam)titles. He is now in 3rd place on the list of Grand Slam winners behind Federer(20), and Nadal(17), both of whom are, of course, also active players. A comparable era where three great players had overlapping careers would be the mid 70's to mid 80's with Borg, Connors, and McEnroe. They had only 26 titles between them. Since it's short-sighted to think of the current best players as the best ever, I'm wondering if the historical dominance is due to modern training and nutrition allowing them to extend the peak of their careers and therefore win more titles. In a sport typically dominated by players in their 20's, they are all over 30 and still on top of the rankings. Or this may just be a unique period where the best tennis players are really that much better than the rest the field.
Also, with Andy Murray close to retirment (due to injuries) it would be disrepectful to not mention him when talking of the current great players. I had hoped Murray would be well enough to play one last Wimbledon, but that looks unlikely.