A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Marlow wrote:In a poll, someone asked a group of athletes this question(I paraphrase). If you could take a pill that would guarantee a gold Medal, but you'd die in 5 years, would you take it? Most said 'yes'.
I take this sort of polls with a grain of salt (millions of grains, actually}. There is a huge difference between yapping fighting words to an interviewer and actually doing the deed. if the situation presented itself. This is about as believable as most polls regarding people's sexual conduct. Some embellish, some diminish, nobody is sincere.
Marlow wrote:In a poll, someone asked a group of athletes this question(I paraphrase). If you could take a pill that would guarantee a gold Medal, but you'd die in 5 years, would you take it? Most said 'yes'. Clearly there is a complete disconnect between what they think they want (glory, later wealth) and what they really want (life). Same goes for boxers and MMA fighters.
You're assuming that these folks have the same value system that you do. Has it occurred to you that there may be sane, intelligent adults in this world who don't share your value system? If someone could guarantee to you that you would have excellent health until you were 120 years old, but that you would have to spend the rest of your life living on a deserted island by yourself, would you take that deal? My point is that the quality of one's life is just as important as the quantity, and it's up to each one of us to decide what the right balance is. Obviously, some folks value the quality a lot more than you do. As Martin Luther King once said: The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not every former NFL football player becomes mentally and/or physically handicapped when they get older. For every Earl Campbell, there's a Sammy Baugh. They see Terry Bradshaw on TV, cracking jokes and analyzing games, in apparently good health and they say, "I'll be like him 30-40 years from now." It's the same mindset of combat soldiers. The folks who stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima knew that casualties would be high, but they figured they would be one of the lucky ones.
jazzcyclist wrote:You're assuming that these folks have the same value system that you do. The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.
So let me make sure I've got you right. A person who would exchange a gold medal for a life ending in their mid-30s, is sane AND intelligent.
jazzcyclist wrote:You're assuming that these folks have the same value system that you do. The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.
So let me make sure I've got you right. A person who would exchange a gold medal for a life ending in their mid-30s, is sane AND intelligent.
OK.
What I'm saying is that there are mentally competent people in this world who don't share your value system, and obviously MLK was one of them. Are you so close-minded that you're incapable of seeing this? Does anything at all matter to you other than longevity? Earl Campbell has said that if he had to do it all over again, he would do the same thing? Are we to assume that he's mentally incompetent? Ferdie Pacheco, Muhammad Ali's doctor, warned him about the damage that he was doing himself, and recommended that he retire in the mid-70's. Are we to assume that Ali's insistence on continuing to fight was due to insanity?
For the record, the value that I place on my long-term health and longevity is probably similar to yours, but I don't assume that those who don't share my values are insane.
jazzcyclist wrote:What I'm saying is that there are mentally competent people in this world who don't share your value system,
I certainly hope so. What a dull world otherwise.
jazzcyclist wrote:and obviously MLK was one of them. Are you so close-minded that you're incapable of seeing this?
WTF??!! Total non-sequitur.
jazzcyclist wrote:Does anything at all matter to you other than longevity?
Lots of things. Quality of life (Pursuit of Happiness) being chief among them.
jazzcyclist wrote:Are we to assume that Ali's insistence on continuing to fight was due to insanity?
If the old Ali could go back in time, he would beg the intermediate Ali to stay retired, if he thought he would prevent his current state.
jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, the value that I place on my long-term health and longevity is probably similar to yours, but I don't assume that those who don't share my values are insane.
I'm not talking about 'values'; I'm talking about people who make critically bad decisions, because they do not consider the ramifications of their actions.
Perhaps I can hijack this thread, so you two quit sniping at each other needlessly .
I have not seen Ali's MRI (pictures or reports), but of what I've seen of him, especially many years ago, in the beginning of his progression, it looked to me more like an idiopathic Parkinson's Disease than a secondary parkinsonism due to a battered brain syndrome.
jazzcyclist wrote:Are we to assume that Ali's insistence on continuing to fight was due to insanity?
If the old Ali could go back in time, he would beg the intermediate Ali to stay retired, if he thought he would prevent his current state.
You're making an assumption about something you can not possibly know, unless, of course, you have a magic crystal ball, which to my knowledge hasn't been invented yet. How do you know he doesn't think that it was all worth it? Putting Ali aside, what leads you to believe that George Foreman, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, men who are now all in their 60's, regret their decisions to box?
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, the value that I place on my long-term health and longevity is probably similar to yours, but I don't assume that those who don't share my values are insane.
I'm not talking about 'values'; I'm talking about people who make critically bad decisions, because they do not consider the ramifications of their actions.
You are absolutely talking values when you accuse all boxers and MMA fighters of making bad decisions.
Clearly there is a complete disconnect between what they think they want (glory, later wealth) and what they really want (life). Same goes for boxers and MMA fighters.
It's no different than accusing someone who volunteered for the Army of making a bad decision because of the likelihood of returning from Afghanistan or Iraq maimed or in body bag. I've seen interviews with soldiers, who returned from Iraq with limbs missing, say that they don't regret their decision to volunteer for military service? For some folks, athletic success, fame and money are very important, while others believe that serving their country at a time of war is important. And for the record, I know many people who think that anyone who would volunteer for the U.S. Armed forces is a sap, unless there are Chinese storming the beaches of California.
I'll put it another way: would you agree that the overwhelming consensus is that MMA is a very dangerous sport and most people would not want their loved ones engaged in it, if it were entirely up to them (not the person who wants to do it)? On the other hand, I would not stand in the way of my daughter wishing to join the military and ship off to Afghanistan.
Of course some people want to be MMA fighters (or prostitutes, another career path that most people would not want their loved one to embark upon). I'm just saying that most people would agree those are 'bad choices'.
Marlow wrote:I'll put it another way: would you agree that the overwhelming consensus is that MMA is a very dangerous sport and most people would not want their loved ones engaged in it, if it were entirely up to them (not the person who wants to do it)?.
Absolutely! I wouldn't want a relative of mine to be a boxer, mixed martial artist, bull-rider, Alaskan king crab fisherman, logger, etc. Hell, I don't want my cousin playing in the NFL anymore.
Marlow wrote:On the other hand, I would not stand in the way of my daughter wishing to join the military and ship off to Afghanistan.
I would discourage any relative of mine from enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces depending who the President was and what I expected the U.S. geopolitical posture to be during his/her enlistment period.
Marlow wrote:Of course some people want to be MMA fighters (or prostitutes, another career path that most people would not want their loved one to embark upon). I'm just saying that most people would agree those are 'bad choices'.
I'm very sympathetic to folks from dysfunctional families who end up being prostitutes and strippers. Though they may have been sane when they made these choices, many times these choices were made under duress. However, I'm sure even in professions like prostitution and "exotic dancing", there is a small percentage of sane individuals who chose those professions as adults without any duress due to such things as financial pressure and emotional baggage.
As for MMA, there are many folks in this world who I would describe as adrenaline junkies, who choose professions like this. I would also put daredevils (e.g. Evil Knievel), extreme sports athletes and even military special forces (e.g. Green Berets) in this category. I once heard an interview with a retired, middle-aged Navy Seal, who said that the thing he missed most is the adrenaline rush you get when you're scared out of your wits. Is this craving for adrenaline a form of insanity?
That was a very good post, jazz (IMO). I think you and I agree on much more than we disagree. As for your final question: an adrenaline junkie who wishes to take on imprudent risk (as opposed to calculated risk) is 'dysfunctional' in some ways. Have I ever done that? I'm sure I have and then my left-brain often scolds my right-brain for what it wants to do or has done. As I get older, the actual instances of 'have done' have diminished greatly, hence the phrase 'the folly of youth'. I'm a big fan of circumspection now. On the other hand, one of my favorite sayings is "Moderation in all things, including moderation."
Last week, Terrell Suggs was flagged for hitting Carson Palmer. This is a perfect example of the roughing-the-passer penalties that Staubach was talking about.
jazzcyclist wrote:Last week, Terrell Suggs was flagged for hitting Carson Palmer. This is a perfect example of the roughing-the-passer penalties that Staubach was talking about.
That was NOT RTP. That was wrapping up - pretty much what he's paid to do. Drilling the QB from the blind-side, after his release, is RTP. (the problem comes when the defender has already launched himself before the follow-thru, but hits after the ball is gone)
Evidently, NFL players took offense to Roger Staubach calling them wussies and set out to prove him wrong.
"This is crazy!'' Rodney Harrison said as we tried to process the sixth or seventh vicious NFL hit of the day in the NBC viewing room Sunday afternoon.
Then, almost under his breath, Harrison said quietly, "Thank God I retired.''
The games we watched Sunday seemed as violent a collection as I've seen. Judging from the tweets and e-mails I got as the day went on, the public was astonished too. The Dunta Robinson collision with DeSean Jackson in Philadelphia, concussing both the Atlanta corner and Eagles receiver and probably kayoing the invaluable Jackson for Sunday's game at Tennessee. Several shots in Pittsburgh, two vicious ones by James Harrison of the Steelers; his helmet-to-helmet shot against Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi will certainly draw a heavy fine, and it's incredible to me no official flagged what could be the textbook definition of hitting a defenseless receiver. In New England, Brandon Meriweather lighting up Baltimore's Todd Heap with a hit to the head so vicious that either a mouthguard or something flew high into the air at the moment of impact. And so on -- six or eight shots where you wondered, "Is that guy getting up?''
The NFL is about to make the most significant rule change in the history of the sport of American football, and passions are high among many former football players who seem to agree with Roger Staubach that NFL is wussifying the game. Even former wide reciever Chris Carter and former quarterback Trent Dilfer are saying that the game is changing for the worse. On the other hand, former linebacker Tom Jackson says that he agrees with the rule change despite the fact that he admits that he would have been one of the worst offenders under this new rule.
The NFL will announce by Wednesday that, effective this weekend, even first-time offenders face suspension for "devastating hits" and "head shots," according to Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations.
"We can't and won't tolerate what we saw Sunday," Anderson said Monday. "We've got to get the message to players that these devastating hits and head shots will be met with a very necessary higher standard of accountability. We have to dispel the notion that you get one free pass in these egregious or flagrant shots."
jazzcyclist wrote:many former football players who seem to agree with Roger Staubach that NFL is wussifying the game.
As they drool into their farina while staring into a vacant TV screen . . .
We are only now beginning to acknowledge the terrible toll that recurring concussions have on the brain. Modern football is all about producing brain damage (nice hit, Joe!).
Apparently they figured that out too - here's what's at the links now:
This photo is no longer available.
Hopefully, somebody had the foresight to do a screen capture and will post it on a blog somewhere. In the meantime, I will say that the James Harrison photo was really graphic.
jazzcyclist wrote:Even former wide reciever Chris Carter and former quarterback Trent Dilfer are saying that the game is changing for the worse. On the other hand, former linebacker Tom Jackson says that he agrees with the rule
I did watch that part of the pre-game show. Jackson mixed no words stating that every defenseman's mind is set to hurt the guy.
This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?
Pego wrote:This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?
Prolly. The paradox is that we need to protect the head with the greatest possible protection, but that also creates the greatest danger for others.
Pego wrote:This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?
The helmets are made out of hard plastic, not steel, to protect the head. The facemasks are made of steel (coated with rubber), but not the helmet. The downside is that these more advanced helmets also make them better weapons than the old leather helmets that lacked facemasks.
I am quite certain, you could create a helmet made of soft, cushy top plus the face mask. I appreciate your correction about plastic rather than steel, but the bottom line is the same .
The issue of concussions in football is a prominent one at all levels.
This past weekend was a particularly good weekend for those who love the headhunting aspect of the game....and I find it absolutely amazing at how many people are claiming the NFL is trying to "ruin" the game while posing serious threat to the players both on the giving and receiving side.
Not only did we have the hits....legal and illegal....in the games in the NFL, but there was the paralyzing hit the kid from Rutgers took. While that's not the NFL...I guarantee you it is having an affect on the sudden attempt to wean DBs from going for the "kill shot".
The NFL is being proactive in trying to keep a Congressional hearing from happening and raising even further negative publicity to the sport.
All I hear on the radio are people trying to justify the head hunting, explain it, blame it on others, claim it's not legislatable within the rules, etc. etc. Those people....including the players and coaches....don't get it.
The NFL MUST enforce a rule which states if you hit a guy in the head for whatever reason you're going to be penalized. That is why they are being almost arrogant with this issue.
With all the publicity regarding concussions and blows to the head, they absolutely do not want a situation in which a player is seriously injured or, heaven forbid, dies on the field.
During the 1905 college football season the loosely regulated violent tactics of the era caused eighteen fatalities; that in a day when varsity squads generally numbered below forty and only a hundred or so colleges played. . . . .
Excessive violence and brutal tactics caused major injuries and damaged the reputation of the game. Even the Harvard-Yale rivalry, the sport’s premier event, suffered as a result of this harmful publicity. University administrations enforced a two-year hiatus after a disgustingly vicious spectacle in 1894. Through the 1905 season, as young men died unnecessarily on a weekly basis, college Presidents grew sympathetic toward public and press appeals for institutions of higher learning to drop football. . . . .
On October 9th, two days after the highly publicized brutal beating of Robert “Tiny” Maxwell in the Penn-Swarthmore game, Roosevelt hosted a meeting at the White House between the Presidents of Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. The public impetus this meeting gave the cause of reform grew in the following months. After the season, rule changes proposed by the University of Pennsylvania led to larger meetings between the representatives of more colleges in New York. In February 1906 colleges replaced the antiquated rule committee with a new body - the Intercollegiate Athletics Association of the United States (renamed the NCAA in 1910).
This move established a regulatory body to enforce the spirit of amateurism, maintain safety, and promote gentlemanly conduct. For all its ills, American college athletics would likely never have achieved such prominent, lasting, cohesive, and structured success without the NCAA. That organization might never have come into being without the leadership and applied political capital of a President who saw a popular and valuable national sport stranded in controversy and crying out for reform.
Dutra wrote:The NFL MUST enforce a rule which states if you hit a guy in the head for whatever reason you're going to be penalized.
Totally agree. Modern culture seems all about trying to build a safer world, and then we have boxing, MMA, and football, where the OBJECT is to inflict great bodily harm. In 200 years the world will look at this no differently than we do the Lions vs. Christians thing from ancient Rome (though those are also the mascots of two local HS football teams! )
My memory's pretty much gone. There are a lot of times when I walk into a room and forget why I walked in there. I'm going through some studies right now and I am going to do a brain scan. It's unfortunate what the game does to you. . . . . You could only play the game one way. It was the only way I knew how to play. I wouldn't change anything. I'd do it again, even though I know it's going to hurt. . . . . I've been hit in the head so many times, it's hard to remember that far back. I don't remember specific games.
When I saw this play, I thought it was such an blatant example of on-the-field cowardice that it could not go unmentioned. I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about. I'm guessing even Randy "alligator arms" Moss would call LSU's Deangelo Peterson a wussy after seeing this play.
huh?! I'm not sure he even saw the ball; play isn't remotely looking like a short-arm pullup to me. (and as an old-school dude, I love to rip on today's wusses)
gh wrote:huh?! I'm not sure he even saw the ball; play isn't remotely looking like a short-arm pullup to me. (and as an old-school dude, I love to rip on today's wusses)
He saw the ball. Look at it again and you'll see that when he saw the safety coming up, he made a hesitation/studder step, hence the "he pulled up" accusation by the commentators. Furthermore, most receivers will extend their arms and/or dive in a futile attempt to catch passes that are a lot further away from them that one. The Ole Miss players would not have been taunting him if the pass was truly uncatchable. Probably the reason that he pushed the safety (#6), who hadn't laid a finger on him, is because he immediately knew how bad it looked and his pride was hurt. And if there is any doubt about what happened, all you have to do is look at the body language of his teammates.
jazzcyclist wrote: I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about.
It isn't.
In the sense that it's not related to football rule changes and penalty enforcement, I guess you're right. I guess there were football players back in Staubach's day who were afraid of contact also. But I had to post this somewhere. Perhaps I should have started another thread and called it Football Wussies.
jazzcyclist wrote: I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about.
It isn't.
In the sense that it's not related to football rule changes and penalty enforcement, I guess you're right. I guess there were football players back in Staubach's day who were afraid of contact also. But I had to post this somewhere. Perhaps I should have started another thread and called it Football Wussies.
If Staubach really believes what he was quoted as saying then he's lost all sense of reality.
Dutra wrote:If Staubach really believes what he was quoted as saying then he's lost all sense of reality.
A lot of retired football players, including some of the NFL talking heads, feel the same way he does. Have they all lost their sense of reality or is it more likely that they're nostalgic for the good ole days when quarterbacks weren't wearing aprons?
.