There may have been less diagnosed concussions in the past, but that doesn't mean the actual number of brain injuries was lower. Listen to any of the old-timers talking about not missing a shift after their bell was rung.inthestands wrote: I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past. That's just one area of major change. Boxing, Football, Hockey and on and on.. Take a look at professional soccer.. The concussion outlook for that sport is much different than the more "protected" sports we are used to seeing.
New hand signal for ref's calling new penalties?
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
almostashappy
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm
-
puckbreath
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:08 pm
I would bet the kids are also stronger and bigger themselves.inthestands wrote:You ask some very good questions.StanleyCup55 wrote:What if we took the face masks off and even wore less padding? Athletes wear a ton of protection nowadays and there are more injuries than ever. Taking checking out of Pee Wees doesn't help the situation either, unless you're going to get rid of checking at all levels. Kids learning to deliver and take hits at age 14 and 15 instead of 12 or 13... I just think that was a step in the wrong direction to prevent injuries and a step in the right direction towards putting more kids at risk of being severly injured. Or maybe it's the start of abolishing hits for good. In 100 years, the only sport that will exist is golf, but that will probably be considered too dangerous too because you could get hit by a golf ball and die. People just need to man up. If it's too physical for you or your kids, do something else... play basketball. There are plenty of alternatives. The thing I can't understand is why people always feel we should accomidate their needs? If you don't like something the way it is and you don't call the shots, then do something else.
All sports today are at a much higher speed than 20 years ago. The protection has improved drastically and gives the participants much more confidence.
When hockey players didn't have total face protection, most players had respect for their counterparts as well as themselves. Overall pucks and hits were lower. As the protection increased, so did the aggression.
I'm not sure what's right or wrong, but the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past. That's just one area of major change. Boxing, Football, Hockey and on and on.. Take a look at professional soccer.. The concussion outlook for that sport is much different than the more "protected" sports we are used to seeing.
I'm not sure I'd say the concussion issues today weren't nearly as prevalent in the past.
More of a "weren't nearly as much attention paid to them" vs. a higher number of them today, I believe.
I remember getting a couple concussions, during football practice, when I was in high school.
Saw stars, black, the whole nine yards.
Never even mentioned them to the coach at the time, just kept on practicing.
-
inthestands
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am
-
puckbreath
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:08 pm
-
inthestands
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am
I agree with the aggression aspect with more pads now. I think it has a lot to do with the mental state that they won't get hurt with all that padding. I look at another sport that I play and have a lot of passion for which is rugby as the best way I can prove this. Rugby is a very physical sport but compared to football which I played in high school, you're less likely to get hurt I would say. Having no pads makes people almost hold up for a second before you hit. If you watch a rugby player hit compared to a football player the difference in clear, its much more cautious and way more fundamental. Not that nobody gets hurt in Rugby, as concussions still effect that sport a lot but compared to football its a big difference. I think relating it to hockey all these high end pads that now have harder shells along with bigger kids make them feel like they are invincible.
-
inthestands
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am
-
bestpopcorn
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am
-
inthestands
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am
-
almostashappy
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:07 pm
I agree with rugby being a useful comparison. The main difference is the fact that the elbows thrown within the scrum travel a whole lot slower than pucks flying face-high.green4 wrote:I agree with the aggression aspect with more pads now. I think it has a lot to do with the mental state that they won't get hurt with all that padding. I look at another sport that I play and have a lot of passion for which is rugby as the best way I can prove this. Rugby is a very physical sport but compared to football which I played in high school, you're less likely to get hurt I would say. Having no pads makes people almost hold up for a second before you hit. If you watch a rugby player hit compared to a football player the difference in clear, its much more cautious and way more fundamental. Not that nobody gets hurt in Rugby, as concussions still effect that sport a lot but compared to football its a big difference. I think relating it to hockey all these high end pads that now have harder shells along with bigger kids make them feel like they are invincible.
Oh, and hockey doesn't have the haka.
-
StanleyCup55
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:36 am
I replied to you and I am not an expert. Maybe try to offer some information on why your point is valid before giving up. Otherwise it kind of proves you're wrong. Should we all just apologize to you so you feel better? Do you work at a fast food restaurant?inthestands wrote:Sounds good.
It appears you are experts, and my opinion is foolishness.
I'm good with that.
Carry on.
-
bestpopcorn
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:47 am
-
inthestands
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:09 am