Union or league, which is better?
What's better, rugby union or rugby league?
I have spent my whole life without having watched TV on a Tuesday or Thursday night because, your honour, they are rugby training nights. If you are rugby people you know what I mean.
Soon, when people ask if I have watched a programme I will be able to say no every day because it's weight training on a Monday and Wednesday night from now on.
The only problem in the old days was missing Top of the Pops and a potential Led Zeppelin, AC DC or Status Quo performance.
Luckily the Scottish professional rugby teams have started playing on a Friday night too and we cover them on the radio so that's another night out. It's almost a badge of honour.
How good it is to be back on the air. I never thought I would write this next line: I have missed Peter Wright.
Watching Sale Sharks play Glasgow in a friendly last Friday my mind drifted though. Glasgow are lighter, more aerobic animals and Sale, the winners, are powerful.
The tackles were ferocious and at one stage there were some fisticuffs and we were down to fourteen a side. The game opened up a little.
Almost rugby league and I wondered to myself: would rugby league lads handle this or are they tougher? Whose game is better?
Confession time here: I love rugby league. I watch their tackle technique, they way they drill their forearm into the face of the tackled player when he is on the ground, and their running lines.
I don't mind the shambolic scrums because their game is a passing and handling feast. The bravery taking the ball into contact at full speed is admirable, and their ability to spot an overlap shows a vision that not many union players possess.
League, of course, arose because working men needed paid to take time off their jobs to play rugby on a Saturday.
In an attempt to attract a crowd to pay them they did away with what they thought of as rugby's boring bits - lineouts and real scrums - made more space by taking two men off the pitch, and vowed to provide more entertainment.
And I think it works. I hate union's snobby view of the 13-man game.
But can you call one game better than the other? For instance does it mean anything that more countries have adopted rugby union or is that a quirk of its slightly more public school background?
League's hotbeds are the North of England, the cities of Australia and New Zealand, and some large swathes of Papua New Guinea.
Is union, with its greater number of facets and shapes and sizes a better game almost exclusively because of that? Is the tactical element of rugby union with its lineouts and scrums and kicks for territory more appealing?
Or is it better to watch constant movement and a game where catching, passing, and tackling are the key skills?
I went to Wigan v Bath at Twickenham in 1996, but it wasn't a fair contest. Wigan had Henry Paul, Martin Offiah, Andy Farrell, Jason Robinson and Shaun Edwards, but Bath had scrums and rolling mauls.
You can still see Wigan's three breathtaking tries on YouTube.
My opinion? I prefer real scrums and I like lineouts so it's union for me. Or maybe...
Right, what excuse can I drag up for Sunday nights?