At 04:21 PM 5/28/99 -0500, Adam wrote:
 
>There's another wonderful revelation ...
>
>If you play more, you have a better chance of getting hurt.
 
That's not a given. In fact, hockey is one of the rare sports where that is
true (football being another). As one who was involved with coaching and
training athletes at various levels I've read that in numerous places.
Vicki pointed out specifically the research that shows this.
 
In the majority of sports -- whether team or individual -- injuries occur
most often to the athletes that are not the most prepared, especially
physically.
 
I remember talking to Chris Drury this past fall, asking him what facets of
the NHL game might take the longest to adjust to. His response: "Speed and
injury." He explained that one of the biggest difficulties that rookies
have in the NHL is avoiding injury. In particular, he mentioned that
learning how to take a check and avoid sticks to the face are keys to a
succesful rookie season -- after all, you're not going to prove yourself if
you have to sit out shifts and/or entire games.
 
Mind you, his comments can serve to strengthen both sides of the argument.
My personal opinion is that whether college or pro, set a minimum standard
and let the players decide. If at the college ranks this means half-shields
are OK, then the NCAA, coaches, officials and players need to police
high-sticking and related activities much better than they do now.
 
I've heard numerous people on this list talk about how poorly helmets fit,
at how worn-down the padding inside is, and at how so many players just
don't wear their helmets properly. As I said earlier in the week, it seems
that a better helmet wouldn't be too hard to make, with a better retention
system and one that can't be worn improperly.
 
Nonetheless, hockey does have a shockingly high amount of injury to it, and
it's mostly concentrated at the upper-competitive levels. Again, this is
something valuable to be learned from the research that Vicki has cited.
 
And regardless of the outcome of the helmet debate, it is something that
should be addressed.
 
 
 
>That's like saying a fireman has a better chance of getting burned than a
>dentist.
 
Now that's just plain stupid.
 
Logic would suggest that a dentist would have the better chance of being
injured as he's not as aware of the risks nor results of being burned.
 
You probably think that since doctors are exposed to illness they have a
higher chance of getting sick. Or that a lifeguard on a California beach
has a better chance of drowning.
 
Whether sports or everyday life, the more prepared and experienced you are
the lower your chances of injury or other failure.
 
This past winter I spent about 35 days hiking backcountry peaks here in
Colorado. Does that mean I have a better chance of dying in an avalanche
than someone from Florida, out on vacation?
 
I'm prepared (shovel, beacon, probe pole, water) and never travel alone.
I've never been caught in a single avalanche, except during avalanche
awareness training.
 
And every year Colorado sees a number of avalanche-related deaths, with
nearly every single one resulting from lack of training and experience.
 
 
 
greenie
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.