It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:20 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 4737
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?


I used examples that have a chance of head injuries, severe injury and/or immediate death. I really don't care how you parent. That's up to you. I won't stop my kid from playing football because there is a chance he'll have a 10 year NFL career and result in dementia when he is 60. Gymnastics thoroughly fucks bodies up. Like 16 year olds with arthritis. So yeah, that is something you should think about before letting a child get into hyper competitive gymnastics.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:20 am
Posts: 3267
Competitive cheerleading also has a risk of some pretty bad injuries, landing on that gym floor if the dude that's supposed to catch you misses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7831
R S wrote:
IGymnastics thoroughly fucks bodies up. Like 16 year olds with arthritis. So yeah, that is something you should think about before letting a child get into hyper competitive gymnastics.


I did not suggest I would be forcing my kid into a gymnastics program when he turns five. Gymnastics does not carry the same risks for brain trauma. And since the topic was brain trauma, not joint trauma, I reacted as I did. But, hey, with football, you can get both! Double bonus points!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 1120
Honest question here:

Are the effects of brain/head injuries in football (or any other sport) as prevalent at the peewee level as they are in HS or college or beyond? Should we be taking data related to NFL & College sized guys and applying it to little kids (who aren't hitting each other anywhere near as hard)? Two jacked up adults colliding at full speed seems alot more impactful that a couple of 70lb 9 year olds hitting each other.

Just thinking out loud, and I am well aware that could be a stupid question.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:58 pm
Posts: 2005
Still Lit wrote:
R S wrote:
fortythree wrote:
My son won't be allowed to play football.

My rule, but my wife supports it.

Cody's snarky comment about driving is dumb because driving is pretty much a necessity in our world today whereas no one needs to play football.



There are thousands of things that are potentially dangerous that are not a necessity. It's each parents right to say no to them, whether it be riding ATVs, boxing, MMA, soccer, or gymnastics. Football is the new whipping boy. MMA exploded in the last 10 years and you don't hear a peep about the safety of getting your head beat in with fists, elbows and knees.


In all fairness, only utter morons think MMA might not be extremely hazardous to your health.

The driving example is silly because you do not have your head knocked about every time you drive, whereas during a game of football, it is pretty much required. Who cares whether it is necessary.

It's not about parenting from a "scared" attitude. It's about being prudent about your kid's activities. You can't too much shelter kids from physical danger because then you run the risk of turning them into adults with dispositions more soft than is appropriate. But my response to Cody, to which he has no good response, is that there are many ways of exposing your kid to physical endurance that requires courage that does not involve the risk of repeated micro-head trauma.

There is nothing especially noble about football. So the risks associated with it outweigh the glory. I'd rather have my kid do, say, BMX racing, which is damn risky, takes balls, but involves less head trauma. Sure, break your arm, wrist, hand a few times en route to glory. But you won't end up possibly a vegetable. Or high school wrestling. I mean, it's not like football is the only option. Now if my kid wants to join the Marines, I won't like it, but now the nobility is real and makes the risk worth it, even beautiful. Football? Who gives a shit, really.

In short, the idea that one must allow his or her kid to engage in a sport that carries a real risk of head trauma in order to teach him endurance, courage, toughness, camaraderie or the idea that if one chooses not to let their child play football that it follows with any scintilla of necessity that they parent "scared" is risible, unimaginative, plodding, and fails even a cursory round of logical analysis.

Gymnastics carries as high a risk as football or MMA for head trauma? Really?


I didn't respond because it's your opinion, which you're already sold on. No reason to beat a dead horse.

BMX is dangerous as hell, much more dangerous than football. Buddy of mine races competitively and has had an assortment of injuries including a collapsed lung. Sure he loves it and makes solid money, but THAT shit is crazy. Disagree 100% on the Navy or any branch, because people die for nothing. The orange haired fuck (Add this to your list Swiss) is going to start WW3, and for what? Nothing noble about going to a pointless war between two assholes. (Kim un cock and Trump)

My main point is you can be killed doing pretty much anything, so there's no reason to ban kids from any sport. I wouldn't suggest football before Middle School, but to each their own.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 110 out 111 former player brains evince CTE
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:55 pm
Posts: 3390
Nick79 wrote:

I played high school football, but after senior year, never again did I play real football, so I feel like the problem likely stems from long term play, like 15-20 years? I guess some players get pretty banged up in high school too, but they are probably the exception. But where do you draw the line? Ban sports or any activity where you might get hurt? My daughter also does ballet and one of the girls in her dance class tore knee ligaments dancing. You can't ban everything. Although of all activities that I've tried, football is over the top brutal, it is something where you ALWAYS get hurt to some degree every season, even if it's not enough to put you out of action.


I think the missing link here is college football. You've got the elite programs who have significant resources/doctors and then you've got the lower tiers where they perhaps don't. I think there's a ton of damage that happens and starts in the college ranks. Guys are much bigger vs HS and much faster - that's a bad combo when colliding with each other. I think by the time players make it to the NFL, they have probably suffered a number of concussions undocumented or otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group