Jump to content
MSU158

Askren.......OUCH!

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Newton was around before the late 18th century, so you don't have an excuse for this ahamilton.  There is much more force impacted on a brain from a 4oz glove than a 16 oz glove.  The weight may be less, but 1/2mv^2 is the kinetic energy, and most importantly the material of the 4oz glove is less soft than the 16 oz glove (less of the energy from the collision is absorbed by the glove).  Lastly, pressure= force/area so the force impacted on the brain from the smaller glove is greater because it is centered over a smaller area rather than spread across the larger 16 oz glove.

 

In terms of repetitive trauma, you are correct.  But there is no evidence that repetitive sub-concussive impact trauma is worse than a single devastating concussion.  While both can lead to CTE, it can take months to recover from a serious concussion.  

Yesssss.... but the near misses with 4 oz gloves become hits with 16 oz gloves, especially when all sparring as a boxer is stand-up.

 

Eat that Newton!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Katie said:

Heavier gloves allow for more blows to the head. That, in turn, means they allow for more subconcussive head trauma. 

Heavier gloves are bigger.  The bigger glove helps block punches and disperses the punch across a greater area.

Lighter gloves are smaller.  The smaller glove allows more and faster punches to land with the punch concentrated in a smaller area. Smaller gloves have less padding adding to the damage when the punch is landed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Easyyyy nowww Dr. Biily.... I'm just saying ...

You may have your own theories.  The truth is the doctors do not know what exactly causes CTE, but it seems as repetitive sub-concussive trauma is a MAJOR issue. How that compares to a few concussions over a career?  No one knows.  Not sure why you are coming at me so hard?

Anyway, this is an interesting journal article by some guy named Dr. Bennet Omalu, talking largely abour Mike WEbster who had very few recorded concussions:

https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article-abstract/59/5/1086/2559104?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Also: MMA guys don't spend all their time sparring stand-up, boxers do.  Therefore, MMA guys take fewer hits to the head in fights and training over the course of their career.  Especially guys who come from grappling disciplines.

 

P.S. Where is your medical degree from?

That is not a study demonstrating that sub-concussive impacts are a greater cause of CTE than more impactful concussive impacts, which is the claim you are making. I don't doubt that both can lead to CTE.  If you want to make the claim that the weaker impacts are worse, you have to provide evidence for it.  We don't know whether MMA is more dangerous than boxing over an extended period of time because MMA is too new of a sport.  At some point, there will be a study examining the long term effects of each sport, but until then, we can't make a conclusion either way.  Undoubtedly, both sports are extremely damaging to the brain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

That is not a study demonstrating that sub-concussive impacts are a greater cause of CTE than more impactful concussive impacts, which is the claim you are making. I don't doubt that both can lead to CTE.  If you want to make the claim that the weaker impacts are worse, you have to provide evidence for it.  We don't know whether MMA is more dangerous than boxing over an extended period of time because MMA is too new of a sport.  At some point, there will be a study examining the long term effects of each sport, but until then, we can't make a conclusion either way.  Undoubtedly, both sports are extremely damaging to the brain.  

It was not the claim I was making.  Go back and read... I say that bigger gloves in training lead to more sub-concussive blows.  I also later said that kicks and knees are hugely problematic.

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

Newton was around before the late 18th century, so you don't have an excuse for this ahamilton.  There is much more force impacted on a brain from a 4oz glove than a 16 oz glove.  The weight may be less, but 1/2mv^2 is the kinetic energy, and most importantly the material of the 4oz glove is less soft than the 16 oz glove (less of the energy from the collision is absorbed by the glove).  Lastly, pressure= force/area so the force impacted on the brain from the smaller glove is greater because it is centered over a smaller area rather than spread across the larger 16 oz glove.

 

In terms of repetitive trauma, you are correct.  But there is no evidence that repetitive sub-concussive impact trauma is worse than a single devastating concussion.  While both can lead to CTE, it can take months to recover from a serious concussion.  

You have to remember that heavy gloves protect hands from injuries. That, in turn, makes punching the head more attractive, and punching harder more attractive.

And to repeat, the recent study I read about suggests that blows to head cause CTE, whether the blows cause concussions or not. If you know of any studies where they have been able to separately study concussive blows and subconcussive blows, and weigh the relative damage they cause to the brain, I'd be interested in reading the abstracts from those studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Katie said:

You have to remember that heavy gloves protect hands from injuries. That, in turn, makes punching the head more attractive, and punching harder more attractive.

And to repeat, the recent study I read about suggests that blows to head cause CTE, whether the blows cause concussions or not. If you know of any studies where they have been able to separately study concussive blows and subconcussive blows, and weigh the relative damage they cause to the brain, I'd be interested in reading the abstracts from those studies.

I'm sure he will be happy to produce numerous journal articles saying exactly that!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

That is not a study demonstrating that sub-concussive impacts are a greater cause of CTE than more impactful concussive impacts, which is the claim you are making. I don't doubt that both can lead to CTE.  If you want to make the claim that the weaker impacts are worse, you have to provide evidence for it.  We don't know whether MMA is more dangerous than boxing over an extended period of time because MMA is too new of a sport.  At some point, there will be a study examining the long term effects of each sport, but until then, we can't make a conclusion either way.  Undoubtedly, both sports are extremely damaging to the brain.  

You don't doubt both can lead to CTE?   More sub-concussive impacts over the course of years are worse that fewer sub-concussive impacts. Is it that hard to understand?

Or do you think you know more than Dr. Umalo?

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

You don't doubt both can lead to CTE?   More sub-concussive impacts over the course of years are worse that fewer sub-concussive impacts. Is it that hard to understand?

Or do you think you know more than Dr. Umalo?

I never said more sub-concussive impacts aren’t worse than fewer sub-concussive impacts. I said there is no evidence that many sub-concussive impacts (like jabs from boxing gloves) are worse than fewer concussive impacts (getting KOed by MMA gloves). You haven’t produced a shred of evidence suggesting they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Katie said:

You have to remember that heavy gloves protect hands from injuries. That, in turn, makes punching the head more attractive, and punching harder more attractive.

And to repeat, the recent study I read about suggests that blows to head cause CTE, whether the blows cause concussions or not. If you know of any studies where they have been able to separately study concussive blows and subconcussive blows, and weigh the relative damage they cause to the brain, I'd be interested in reading the abstracts from those studies.

And lighter gloves do more damage per punch even if fewer punches are thrown. I don’t know of that study, which is why AHamilton’s claim is not backed by evidence. I’m not claiming one is worse than the other-just that we don’t know which is worse and it’s very possible MMA is in fact much more dangerous than boxing (but to reiterate, we don’t know). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

And lighter gloves do more damage per punch even if fewer punches are thrown. I don’t know of that study, which is why AHamilton’s claim is not backed by evidence. I’m not claiming one is worse than the other-just that we don’t know which is worse and it’s very possible MMA is in fact much more dangerous than boxing (but to reiterate, we don’t know). 

Where's your studies? Published studies, not conjecture.  I will reiterate my point: sub-concussive events seem as likely to cause CTE as TBI.  Mike Webster's brain showed no signs of TBI, yet he had horrible CTE.  Why? Because he was a Center and was hit by 2-3 guys every single play for over 200 NFL games, plus college, plus previous action.  If boxers are repeatedly being hit in the head way more than MMA, they are more likely to get CTE.

I produced a study published by Oxford U showing this.  Your inability to show anything beyong anecdotal conjecture shows that you are nothing more than a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, July092019 said:

Heavier gloves are bigger.  The bigger glove helps block punches and disperses the punch across a greater area.

Lighter gloves are smaller.  The smaller glove allows more and faster punches to land with the punch concentrated in a smaller area. Smaller gloves have less padding adding to the damage when the punch is landed. 

 

Leading to more cuts and more stoppages due to cuts. And more broken hands which punch softer and less often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, July092019 said:

Speeding is a general intent offense. In other words, no intent is necessary.

Again, no intent is necessary for the CHARGE itself, the PENALTY or lack there of still falls squarely into interpretation of intent.  Why do you think they actually have an option to plead guilty with an explanation?

Come on guys, don't be willfully obtuse just to argue.  Intent is a very strong word that NO ONE would, should or could ignore when dealing with ANY transgression.  I clearly stated that it doesn't excuse negligence or recklessness, so you should still be found culpable in those situations.  BUT, the D E G R E E of culpability swings heavily on the INTENT in all situations.

Degree was the key word and point of my argument from the beginning.  There are charges specifically for no intent, but that same transgression becomes considerably more severe with equally more severe consequences if varying degrees of intent are found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, July092019 said:

Heavier gloves are bigger.  The bigger glove helps block punches and disperses the punch across a greater area.

Lighter gloves are smaller.  The smaller glove allows more and faster punches to land with the punch concentrated in a smaller area. Smaller gloves have less padding adding to the damage when the punch is landed. 

 

Are you disagreeing with me or agreeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MSU158 said:

Again, no intent is necessary for the CHARGE itself, the PENALTY or lack there of still falls squarely into interpretation of intent.  Why do you think they actually have an option to plead guilty with an explanation?

Come on guys, don't be willfully obtuse just to argue.  Intent is a very strong word that NO ONE would, should or could ignore when dealing with ANY transgression.  I clearly stated that it doesn't excuse negligence or recklessness, so you should still be found culpable in those situations.  BUT, the D E G R E E of culpability swings heavily on the INTENT in all situations.

Degree was the key word and point of my argument from the beginning.  There are charges specifically for no intent, but that same transgression becomes considerably more severe with equally more severe consequences if varying degrees of intent are found.

Many crimes include an intent element. Others don’t. 

But I don’t see why you think criminal law has any bearing on the regulation of sports. Participants of a sport freely agree to the consequences of the sport.

(In fact, in many or all US jurisdictions, mutual combat is either not a crime or a defense to a crime. Look it up.)

The real question is a policy question. That is, Is MMA so dangerous that we must override fighters’ decisions to participate in the sport?

That same question can be extended to football, where a recent study found CTE in 99% of the brains they examined from deceased NFL players. 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wrestlingfan25 said:

Askren is good but it’s pathetic that he’s been in mma for so long and has horrible stand up

Askren is not quick. He is not explosive. He is strong, flexible and has good technical skill. He maximizes his best skill set at the expense of skills he could never be good at. This is the same thing he did in wrestling. So far it has served him extremely well. Dont let a flash knee become a confirmation bias for you. The moment Ben starts focusing on a good stand-up and not forcing the fight to go where he is dominant is the moment he can no longer compete IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Katie said:

Many crimes include an intent element. Others don’t. 

But I don’t see why you think criminal law has any bearing on the regulation of sports. Participants of a sport freely agree to the consequences of the sport.

(In fact, in many or all US jurisdictions, mutual combat is either not a crime or a defense to a crime. Look it up.)

The real question is a policy question. That is, Is MMA so dangerous that we must override fighters’ decisions to participate in the sport?

That same question can be extended to football, where a recent study found CTE in 99% of the brains they examined from deceased NFL players. 

To be clear, all I was trying to do was relate intent across the board of life in general.  To me, atleast, I always try to look at the intent of every person, thing, situation, policy, game, etc.  I then judge these things based on that.

For a further life example:

1.) A man walking down the street saw a burning house and jumped in to save a child and DID.  Hero, right?

1.)A man accidentally started a fire and then jumped back into a burning house to save a child and DID save that child.  Still every bit a hero, right?

2.)A man jumped into a burning house to save a child and DID save that child.  However, he started the fire INTENTIONALLY.  Not so much a hero, but at least he draws a line.

3.)A man jumped into a burning house to save the money in his safe, but happened to come out with a child in the process.  At least he isn't truly selfish.

4.)A man jumped out of a burning house and ignored the child.  Not good.

5.)A man started the fire and let the child burn.  Very not good.

6.)A man started the fire TO burn the child.  Do I need to clarify?

 

Hopefully, we can move on from this and let you guys argue about boxing gloves!!!!

Edited by MSU158

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MSU158 said:

To be clear, all I was trying to do was relate intent across the board of life in general.  To me, atleast, I always try to look at the intent of every person, thing, situation, policy, game, etc.  I then judge these things based on that.

For a further life example:

1.) A man walking down the street saw a burning house and jumped in to save a child and DID.  Hero, right?

1.)A man accidentally started a fire and then jumped back into a burning house to save a child and DID save that child.  Still every bit a hero, right?

2.)A man jumped into a burning house to save a child and DID save that child.  However, he started the fire INTENTIONALLY.  Not so much a hero, but at least he draws a line.

3.)A man jumped into a burning house to save the money in his safe, but happened to come out with a child in the process.  At least he isn't truly selfish.

4.)A man jumped out of a burning house and ignored the child.  Not good.

5.)A man started the fire and let the child burn.  Very not good.

6.)A man started the fire TO burn the child.  Do I need to clarify?

 

Hopefully, we can move on from this and let you guys argue about boxing gloves!!!!

I agree that intent is an element of many crimes. I also agree that intent plays a role in many of our moral judgments.

But what I do not understand is what all your discussion of intent has to do with the regulation of sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Katie said:

I agree that intent is an element of many crimes. I also agree that intent plays a role in many of our moral judgments.

But what I do not understand is what all your discussion of intent has to do with the regulation of sports. 

Ok.  To me, regulating sports HAS TO look at the intent of the sport itself.  What IS the intent of the sport?  Is it to highlight athletic skills by trying to injure an opponent or is that injury solely an unintented result.  If the former, you have serious questions to answer when trying to get people to accept it.  How can you regulate something that NEEDS to have this to be itself?  MMA and even boxing, to a lesser extent, have to deal with this.  Meanwhile, Football injuries are usually(I know there are bounties and things of that nature) a byproduct of the physical nature of the sport itself.  As such, the powers that be have continued to try to make rule changes to try to minimize the unintended injuries.

So, to be CLEAR, I believe the intended design of the sport itself creates its own issues with regulation or even the ability to regulate it.  I am not saying I have an issue with MMA or boxing.  If both parties know the risks and accept them, I am fine with them doing it.  But, we are, at least when it is visual, a "PC" society.  Having guys make a living beating each other up, is hard for many to get behind.  If the INTENT is not to injure, but it happens as a by-product, it IS much more acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MSU158 said:

Ok.  To me, regulating sports HAS TO look at the intent of the sport itself.  What IS the intent of the sport?  Is it to highlight athletic skills by trying to injure an opponent or is that injury solely an unintented result.  If the former, you have serious questions to answer when trying to get people to accept it.  How can you regulate something that NEEDS to have this to be itself?  MMA and even boxing, to a lesser extent, have to deal with this.  Meanwhile, Football injuries are usually(I know there are bounties and things of that nature) a byproduct of the physical nature of the sport itself.  As such, the powers that be have continued to try to make rule changes to try to minimize the unintended injuries.

So, to be CLEAR, I believe the intended design of the sport itself creates its own issues with regulation or even the ability to regulate it.  I am not saying I have an issue with MMA or boxing.  If both parties know the risks and accept them, I am fine with them doing it.  But, we are, at least when it is visual, a "PC" society.  Having guys make a living beating each other up, is hard for many to get behind.  If the INTENT is not to injure, but it happens as a by-product, it IS much more acceptable.

I’m not sure why anyone would consult your intuitions about the “intent” of a sport rather than hard data about the consequences of a sport.

Lawn darts, for example, were banned because they sent 762 people to the ER per year, not because someone disapproved of the game’s “intent.”

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Katie said:

I’m not sure why anyone would consult your intuitions about the “intent” of a sport rather than hard data about the consequences of a sport.

Lawn darts, for example, were banned because they sent 762 people to the ER per year, not because someone disapproved of the game’s “intent.”

How about you clowns stop clogging this thread with worthless Law and Order horse sh*t. It would be much appreciated. You seem to have this " holier-than-thou now" attitude every time you post. It's a wrestling forum for gods sake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ultimatepip said:

How about you clowns stop clogging this thread with worthless Law and Order horse sh*t. It would be much appreciated. You seem to have this " holier-than-thou now" attitude every time you post. It's a wrestling forum for gods sake!

You get 5 pages deep on any of these in the offseason that's what your gonna get man. Welcome to themat.com

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ultimatepip said:

Amen brother, it's nice to see rational people on here!! I hope you have a great night.

Oh, I'm not rational. I'm one of the worst offenders at times, but it's a fair warning... but yes, you have a great night too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, russelscout said:

You get 5 pages deep on any of these in the offseason that's what your gonna get man. Welcome to themat.com

I can see why pip is on my ignore list. I do not enjoy comments that seem both sensitive and aggressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...