This should be enough to ban cleats in High School

[Skarp]

But I am learning a lot about the demographics of this board.

Well there's a cryptic comment if I've ever read one. That could mean about a million different things (approximately two of which are good).

Oh well...I'm almost certainly guilty as categorized, whatever it means.

[ssarge]

Well there's a cryptic comment if I've ever read one. That could mean about a million different things (approximately two of which are good).

It's a neutral comment - demographics are what they are. And if the metallic or non-metallic shoe fits, each of us should wear it, I guess.

Some people listen to sports talk radio, some listen to MOR, some listen to country. None more "valid" than the other. In the case of softball, we have varied interests, and are involved at different levels. The members of this [new] board will define the collective interests over time. No surprise if that is starting to happen. And constituents will be attracted - or otherwise - as their own interests coincide or differ.

Nothing wrong with that, and no judgments should be inferred. A board like UCS will be of more interest to folks whose daughters are playing in college or tracking towards it. Another board might be of interest to the far larger group whose daughters are playing 12U ball. And the parochial interests all along the spectrum become clear as trends start to emerge. People will gravitate to a board - or fade away - based on their perception of whether or not their personal views reflect the mainstream.

I am certainly no exception to that. And if my wry - if oblique - posit that perhaps my opinions are not in the board's mainstream is viewed by others as a "cryptic" criticism of that mainstream, I believe more is being read into the comment than is warranted. The comment was observational, not critical. And basically was an inward-facing realization that I may be coming from a different place than the majority aroud here. I can deal with that, certainly. It's just that I was previously obtuse to it.

Best regards,

Scott

[FPdaddy]

Scott,

I hope that your realization that this board's mindset is different than your will not prevent you from continuing to post here. We NEED your point of view.

To clear a few things up:

1) Women's hockey is NOT like men's hockey. The women cannot check...that's the difference between tackle football and two-hand touch. Seriously, very different animal when you can carry the puck without the ever-present threat of being jacked up.

2) Technically, they are not skirts...they are skorts like in field hockey, and the girls love them!

3) Women DO play rugby.

Keith

[ssarge]

Skarp:

BTW - and I mean NOTHING by this comment beyond what I am stating - the statistics you cite about deaths in boxing prmpt me to an observation. I believe that if you delve further into the statistics, you wll see that the vast majority of deaths have occurred in lighter weight classifications. Most typically somewhere in the span of 135 - 160 lbs.

This seems at first counter-intuitive (to me at least). My assumption would be that heavyweights - who strike with far more force - would suffer more fatalities. But I don't think the facts warrant that.

Why not?

Well possibly, it is because bigger guys can also absorb more punishment. And I am sure they can. But I think that a 220 lb guy has only incrementally more strength in his neck, jaw, and head.

I would suspect that the more probable factor is that when a 220 lb guy hits you, you tend to STAY hit. As in you collapse, knocked out (or close). And the fight gets stopped. In contrast, the middleweight guy may pummel someone for a while before he is knocked unconscious. He just doesn't hit quite as hard - though I'm sure it would feel plenty hard to any of us. But the collective force of repeated blows can do some really serious damage. While one may not be forceful enough to knock out another highly trained athlete, ten of them may be enough to do incredibly serious aggregate damage.

I remember watching Emil Griffith kill Benny "the kid" Paret on National Network TV (Saturday Night at the Fights) in 1962. Two world-champion welterweight (147 lb) fighters. I was seven, and it was horrifying. What I remember most was Griffith hitting Paret over and over. Paret was almost - but not quite - out, and his arms were tangled in the ropes. He really couldn't fall to the canvas. And so he just took punch after punch - about 30, total, including almost 20 in a 6-second span. When Ruby Goldstein (the referee) FINALLY stopped the fight, it was too late for Paret, who was in a coma and died a week later. It was pretty controversial, first because it was on prime-time network TV. And also because of Goldstein's non-action. It was all compounded by the fact that Paret had called Griffith a "maricon" in the pre-fight press conference, and this was a very personal grudge match (the two had fought twice before, and each had won once).


Your numbers are off a little, though. Since 1980, there have actually been about 200 deaths from professional and amateur boxing, MMA, and toughman contests. Which sounds staggering, and is.

However, it is far from the riskiest endeavor out there, at least at the professional level:

[From Wikipedia:]

Fatality rates per 100,000 participants -

Horse racing: 128
Sky diving: 123
Hang gliding: 56
Mountaineering: 51
Scuba diving: 11
Motorcycle racing: 7
College football: 3
Professional boxing: 1.3


I don't know what to conclude from any of that, other than boxing is not a sport for the timid, and there are real risks associated. (It is also about the only sport where the OVERT INTENT is to inflict damage on the opponent, making it repugnant and offensive to many.) But in terms of death, the risks are greater for a couple of "normal" sized boxers than they are for the behemouths. And it is far from the riskiest sport out there as measured by fatality. As measured by brain damage over the span of a career, it may be THE riskiest, though I suspect football is close.

Anyway, not very relevant to softball, I don't think. But your comments were of interest.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

1) Women's hockey is NOT like men's hockey. The women cannot check...that's the difference between tackle football and two-hand touch. Seriously, very different animal when you can carry the puck without the ever-present threat of being jacked up.

2) Technically, they are not skirts...they are skorts like in field hockey, and the girls love them!

3) Women DO play rugby.

Keith:

They play tackle football, too. And wrestle, both against females and males, in some cases.

I do understand the point about checking in hockey. The lack of it is certainly a difference in the women's game. There are stil collisions, though, and you could argue they are potentially even MORE devestating than in men's hockey, because the men are in a constant state of expectation for contact. When it happens in women's hockey, it can be a total "blindside."

Anyway, both genders wear steel skates, right? And unlike baseball or softball, they get run through the skate sharpening machine pretty frequently?

Tongue-in-cheek comment. I hope that folks will spare me the obervation that steel blades are a requirement for ice. I get that. I also get that roller hockey is an alternative for those who care to play it. For whatever reason, including fear of having their jugular vein cut open by an ice skate. I also get that there is no option to high school softball WITH spikes (no alternative forum without them).

My final comment on this general subject:

I don't care if female lacrosse players like the shorts / skorts / skirt / culotte / whatever they wear. I personally still think it looks ridiculous. Only thing that comes close in all of a sports is a baseball manager built like Tommy Lasorda (or me, for that matter) wearing a full uniform. THAT guy should be spiked.

Scott

[Martin]

Excellent posts, as always, Ssarge.

For a snapshot of the conventional wisdom on the capabilities of women circa 1943, I offer the following:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2ih75hg.jpg

It's hard to imagine what we'll be thinking in another 65 years!

[EDGE]

My kid was seriously injured due to these "metal spikes" . She broke her ankle in two places and tore a tendon in her leg when her "metal" cleat hung. The high school coach said it wouldnt have happened had she been wearing her regular ringors. My kid knows how to slide, she has had the best travel coaches in the country. She still got hurt. She didnt even know she had to worry about a cleat being hung on a bag as she had never worn them. Using metal cleats in high school is stupid. There are many, many , many injuries around here that didnt even make the paper. Players are not being taught of the differences between the two types of cleats and how you need to be careful and there are too many kids being needlessly hurt. The injuries being caused by metal cleats are much more serious than ones that could be caused by plastic. Safety, not performance should be the focus here.

[FPdaddy]

Scott,

If I'm following your logic (and I may not be). If your disdain of girls lax and field hockey players wearing skorts lies in your disdain for treating girls and boys differently...how do you feel about girls wearing SHORTS in softball? Clearly, NO boys wear shorts in baseball! Has Kelly ever worn shorts as a part of her softball uniform? How about sliders? Is the Univ. of Texas a sexist institution because they wear shorts in softball but pants in baseball. My DD plays volleyball as well...what do you think of those uniforms?

Keith

[Sam]

Allow me to clarify my position.....I am not MANDATING that metal cleats be outlawed for boys....I have even stated that metal cleats can be justified in baseball....since they really offer more traction on grass and much more of baseball is played on grass ( about 95% of softball is played on the dirt where metal cleats offer little help). Boys have been wearing metal cleats every year after LL...since they were 13. This provides the HS scrubbinis experience in wearing them....experience girls don't have. Metal cleats also wear out rather quickly and are more expensive.

Plus....only one out of six guys will ever wear a cocktail dress by the time they are 25 years old. 86.3% of our DD's will wear a cocktail dress by the time they are 25...

[Sam]

Allow me to clarify one more thing....UCS is interesting to absolutely no body who has ever looked at it....the most boring board.....UCS put the bore in board.