upvote
I agree with you and what baffles me even more is MMA. This just seems insane to me and I can't imagine that every MMA fighter doesn't have CTE.
reply
Like any sport where hitting the head is a winning move, MMA is bad. Nonetheless it is much less dangerous than boxing.

In MMA there are alternative winning methods which decide a large fraction of the matches, even if hitting the head still remains the most frequent method for winning a match before the time limit (strangling is the 2nd most frequent, and unlike head knockouts it does not have persistent effects even when the loser fails to accept defeat, strikes to the liver are the 3rd, then joint locks and strikes to the legs).

Moreover, a MMA fighter has much more effective defense methods than a boxer, so a much lower percentage of the attempts to hit the head of the opponent are successful, in comparison with a boxing match. Also, the lighter MMA gloves do not allow strikes to the head as powerful as in boxing, because those would result in hand injuries.

MMA matches look more gory, because of frequent skin cuts, which result in bleeding, but those pose very little danger in comparison with the strikes to the head given with heavy boxing gloves, which do not produce visible external bleeding but they produce much more harmful internal damage to the brain.

In any case, sports like boxing or MMA are unsuitable for amateurs. They are acceptable only for professionals who are willing to accept the risk of health damage in exchange for a sum of money big enough to allow them an early retirement, hopefully before accumulating too much damage.

reply
deleted
reply
i think no one cares. it’s a “you know what you’re signing up for” sort of thing akin to the military, oh and you’re compensated hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so
reply
I’m sure my values are just different, but it is hard to hear people complain about sports CTEs. I can’t get this itch out of my brain that it’s more about signaling that you yourself aren’t the brutish sort that would approve of such violence.

But then again I’m generally suspicious of people strongly condemning the free, legal, and informed choices of others.

reply
[dead]
reply
*millions

And yet, when I watch videos of these guys at 50 barely able to speak, it makes me sad, so I support changes that reduce the likelihood of CTE without sacrificing the nature of the sport. Which yes, is inherently violent.

reply
deleted
reply
> Redesign the line of scrimmage.

What are your thoughts on how to redesign the line of scrimmage?

reply
CTE is not just about concussions but any amount of damage consistently over time that accrues.

Current line of scrimmage situation is the worst case scenario. Linemen are a couple feet away from each other and they start from a crouched position. They explode up and hit the opposing line, very often with their helmet/crown, down after down, 60-70 times a game. You could not plan a better way to get CTE.

1) Neutral zone at the line, they start 2 yards away from each other.

2) Have to start from standing position, and/or:

3) First contact has to be arms

It would be a bit of an adjustment like it was for dynamic kickoff. You're never going to stop all head trauma in a contact sport but the mechanics of the line positions are basically designed for it.

reply
What about the ball? Would the offense effectively lose a yard every play?

Or would the center be at the ball and do a short long snap to the backfield?

What would be considered a "standing position"? I guess both feet on the ground, can't use hands or arms to brace against the ground or self.

reply
Similar to the CFL. Offense lines up per usual with the ball. Defense is pushed back 1 or 1.5 yards (2 is probably excessive) and can enter the zone the second ball is snapped.

There are some side effects (goodbye tush push) but it drastically reduces helmet contact for those 8-10 players every down.

And indeed, disallowing brace against ground is all you'd need to get the standing result.

reply
I think the league would be weirdly resistant to the standing rule. So much of technique is taught from the three-point stance that I can see a lot of position coaches becoming worried that they'd essentially be starting over.
reply
No doubt, it's very deeply entrenched and would face a ton of opposition... Which I do sympathize with. You spend your life mastering the dynamics of these stances/positions and then the rug's ripped out.

The game would change but I don't think it would be existential, more of an evolution. It may even make it more fun to watch. Speed becomes much more important as does general athleticism.

reply
Not the OP but I don't think you can. The issue is you're stopping a moving object with your body. That is always going to cause damage. I think the armor itself also promotes big hits. I truly think that's the reason Rugby is a safer game; the hits are more painful, and you're not hitting each other with a carbon fiber helmet.
reply
So.. NFL but remove all padding?
reply
Many people have advocated for this to reduce the speed of impact. Rugby has similar amounts of hitting, but fewer concussions.
reply
deleted
reply
I'd get some hate for this on football forums, but targeting needs to be enforced a lot more strictly than it is. The NFL also did a good job reforming kickoffs, they're much safer now than they were, but we need to do something about punts.
reply
100% agreed
reply
Surprised that Guardian helmets are still optional. Seems like the least they could do
reply