View Single Post
05-10-2013, 02:48 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,631
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
For example, many people in this thread seem to feel that learning to hit when you're smaller is safer in the long run, because you learn how to take a hit at a time when there's less chance to receive a serious injury. That's a logical deduction, and one that "makes sense," but unless there's some actual empirical data that states that this is in fact the case, all the logical reasoning in the world is meaningless.
Nice post Alan.

I did think this when I first started this thread and first encountered this logic. Initially it made sense to me, just thinking about the laws of momentum relating to the players speed and size.

What changed my mind was when I found out two things.

1. Female hockey players suffer from an unusually high rate of concussions because their necks aren't as strong as a mans in comparison to the mass of their heads. Same head mass, weaker neck strength. This same issue is present in boys naturally and is one of the reasons doctors claim they are 3 fold more likely to receive a concussion.

2. They had the guy from the Crush performance show talk about some testing they did on a grade 3/4 football team in the states. They put sensors in their helmets to measure the g-force these little tykes exerted on themselves. Turns out the helmets experienced the exact same amount of g-force as a college football player. It was shocking to hear.

Knowing this I came to the conclusion that even if they did learn to protect themselves better as teenagers it doesn't seem worth the risk for them to learn that skill when they're adolescent's and even more vulnerable.

Lacaar is offline   Reply With Quote