I love football, but the truth is that it is the most brutal of sports (except maybe rugby) that young men risk a lifetime of nagging injury pain for money. 90% of all football players who never make big money will get the lifetime of nagging pain anyway. I love it, but I would understand if it went away someday.
This article puts a damper in the claims that football can be made safe if the proper precautions are taken. No, actually it can't.
If the average career of an NFL football player is 3.5 years, then most careers are done by the age of 26. This highlights the fact that football is primarily a pediatric sport, with the vast majority of participants under the age of 20.
Football is definitely not the most brutal of sports...Yes I agree that rugby is by far the most brutal, but hockey would be right behind. A football play last only seconds, while in hockey a player can be repeatedly hit throughout a 20 minute period, or the game for that mater. No only that, you are also getting slammed against board, while at the same time dodging a piece of frozen rubber flying at 70+ MPH. How often do you see a football player loosing teeth after a play?
You seem to mix up attributes of sports to suite your argument, but it is a house of cards at best. The word "Brutal" for instance. A hockey player may get hit "brutally" into the boards and or another player - on average, maybe a 12 to 15 maybe even 20 times a game. A RB, offensive lineman or defender (lineman/linebacker) have an equal or greater degree of "Brutal" contact on every play. To say a hockey player had it easy would be foolish and wrong, but to say a football player has it easier in terms of contact is ludicrous. You can make arguments suggesting that stamina of a particular kind may be more required in hockey or rugby, but at the professional levels these are truly unimportant distinctions. Ultimately, the stamina in your arguments is brutally insufficient =-)
Football is a physically brutal and demanding sport (I loved my knees too much to play it!). That said, the people playing, esp. in the pros, are big boys. They are old enough, and most smart enough to know the risks. They also have a union that is to look after their interests, and if they make it past 3 certified playing seasons, they get a pension.
A real hot button issue that the NFL (and media) should focus on is concussions and spinal injuries. You tear up a knee, modern medicine can pretty much fix it (knee and hip replacements have been around for a while, and they are getting better). Brain and spinal injuries are another matter...and very serious, not to mention hard to treat. Stories of former pros like HOF Jim Mackey should make the front office take note.
You must know nothing about football. The collisions in football are much greater than any other sports. In fact the equipment allows collisions much greater than can occur in rugby. Ask former NFL players who went on to play rugby. Football is by far the worst. Hockey is not even close. The average career for a NFL is 3.5 years. Both hockey and rugby are considerably longer.
you are correct regarding equipment allowing more violent collisions, thus more potential injury. After playing through grade and high school, with two years in college, I was glad I quit otherwise I probably would not have graduated much less stay relatively intact!
I've played a lot of ice hockey and some rugby. They are very physical, but the forces against joints is not as great or as dangerous as football.
Having grown up playing both football and hockey,( to the collegiate level,) I offer this view. (Also as Defensive player in both.) Football is the more `brutal on the body.`Simply as the body is locked to the ground by your cleats. In hockey, the skate gives a slight reduction in felt force as its not anchored to the ice. ACL injuries are more common in football, than in hockey,(where they are most often from illegal knee on knee hits,) because of the cleats. In Rugby the force of the colisions are lower because of the grass, (as opposed to turf or ice), and it's body meeting body. Rugby is a contact sport, hockey and football are colision sports.
The average hockey players pro career is usually around 5yrs NHL, but many play longer in the AHL, or European leagues, for up to 6 or 7 more years. Football players,( after college,) do not have that option.
I don't want to play this down....but, "is this surpising?" The knee (and the ankle for that matter) are marvels....but when needed to support a professional football player, especially linemen, they are quite imperfect. The rare long term lineman (say 10 years or greater) is not necessarily "superior" to those who have had career-ending knee injuires (in terms of physiology)....but they are certainly luckier. It is an unsolvable problem. If you wish to play....you must accept the risk that at any moment your playing days end. And, in order to be successful, you can't ever think about it, you must continue to improve, you must figure out how to get the upper hand to win your competition in the trench. But at any moment lightning can strike a knee, an ankle, even a shoulder and change your vision of the future forever. It pains me to see it. And every year it happens to many many players at all levels.
I love football, but the truth is that it is the most brutal of sports (except maybe rugby) that young men risk a lifetime of nagging injury pain for money. 90% of all football players who never make big money will get the lifetime of nagging pain anyway. I love it, but I would understand if it went away someday.
This article puts a damper in the claims that football can be made safe if the proper precautions are taken. No, actually it can't.
If the average career of an NFL football player is 3.5 years, then most careers are done by the age of 26. This highlights the fact that football is primarily a pediatric sport, with the vast majority of participants under the age of 20.
Football is definitely not the most brutal of sports...Yes I agree that rugby is by far the most brutal, but hockey would be right behind. A football play last only seconds, while in hockey a player can be repeatedly hit throughout a 20 minute period, or the game for that mater. No only that, you are also getting slammed against board, while at the same time dodging a piece of frozen rubber flying at 70+ MPH. How often do you see a football player loosing teeth after a play?
That's a great point - do you know if there are any statistics on how long the typical hockey career is?
You seem to mix up attributes of sports to suite your argument, but it is a house of cards at best. The word "Brutal" for instance. A hockey player may get hit "brutally" into the boards and or another player - on average, maybe a 12 to 15 maybe even 20 times a game. A RB, offensive lineman or defender (lineman/linebacker) have an equal or greater degree of "Brutal" contact on every play. To say a hockey player had it easy would be foolish and wrong, but to say a football player has it easier in terms of contact is ludicrous. You can make arguments suggesting that stamina of a particular kind may be more required in hockey or rugby, but at the professional levels these are truly unimportant distinctions. Ultimately, the stamina in your arguments is brutally insufficient =-)
Football is a physically brutal and demanding sport (I loved my knees too much to play it!). That said, the people playing, esp. in the pros, are big boys. They are old enough, and most smart enough to know the risks. They also have a union that is to look after their interests, and if they make it past 3 certified playing seasons, they get a pension.
A real hot button issue that the NFL (and media) should focus on is concussions and spinal injuries. You tear up a knee, modern medicine can pretty much fix it (knee and hip replacements have been around for a while, and they are getting better). Brain and spinal injuries are another matter...and very serious, not to mention hard to treat. Stories of former pros like HOF Jim Mackey should make the front office take note.
You must know nothing about football. The collisions in football are much greater than any other sports. In fact the equipment allows collisions much greater than can occur in rugby. Ask former NFL players who went on to play rugby. Football is by far the worst. Hockey is not even close. The average career for a NFL is 3.5 years. Both hockey and rugby are considerably longer.
David,
you are correct regarding equipment allowing more violent collisions, thus more potential injury. After playing through grade and high school, with two years in college, I was glad I quit otherwise I probably would not have graduated much less stay relatively intact!
I've played a lot of ice hockey and some rugby. They are very physical, but the forces against joints is not as great or as dangerous as football.
Having grown up playing both football and hockey,( to the collegiate level,) I offer this view. (Also as Defensive player in both.) Football is the more `brutal on the body.`Simply as the body is locked to the ground by your cleats. In hockey, the skate gives a slight reduction in felt force as its not anchored to the ice. ACL injuries are more common in football, than in hockey,(where they are most often from illegal knee on knee hits,) because of the cleats. In Rugby the force of the colisions are lower because of the grass, (as opposed to turf or ice), and it's body meeting body. Rugby is a contact sport, hockey and football are colision sports.
The average hockey players pro career is usually around 5yrs NHL, but many play longer in the AHL, or European leagues, for up to 6 or 7 more years. Football players,( after college,) do not have that option.
I don't want to play this down....but, "is this surpising?" The knee (and the ankle for that matter) are marvels....but when needed to support a professional football player, especially linemen, they are quite imperfect. The rare long term lineman (say 10 years or greater) is not necessarily "superior" to those who have had career-ending knee injuires (in terms of physiology)....but they are certainly luckier. It is an unsolvable problem. If you wish to play....you must accept the risk that at any moment your playing days end. And, in order to be successful, you can't ever think about it, you must continue to improve, you must figure out how to get the upper hand to win your competition in the trench. But at any moment lightning can strike a knee, an ankle, even a shoulder and change your vision of the future forever. It pains me to see it. And every year it happens to many many players at all levels.
Which is why you raise your son(s) to play professional golf. :-)