> >You've managed to completely miss the point of Adam's comment.
>
> Actually, no. But you've missed one of the points of the research, one of
> the things that separates hockey from so many other sports. At most levels
> of pro sports, the players suffering injuries are not the ones with the
> most time on the ice, and not the premier players. Hockey's rate of injury
> among its top players is phenomenal.
 
Greenie ...
 
This is a perfectly understandable comment ... but this is the problem I have
with Vicki's arguments...
 
It may be true that premiere players in hockey get injured more than other
sports ... I guess that's the point that she was trying to make ... but YOU
COULD NOT GLEAN THAT FROM THE INFORMATION GIVEN.
 
This is basic SAT stuff folks.  Remember those questions where you're given a
list of facts, and you're supposed to select from a multiple choice list which
comment is true? Sometimes the right answer is, "You cannot tell from the
information given."
 
Vicki puts up a bunch of numbers that show injuries increase as playing time
increases.  Well, what in god's name does that prove?  Nothing.  It proves that
if you play more, you can get hurt more ... just like if you fight more fires,
you have better chance of getting burned.
 
I've said it again and again -- it's not the topic that's the problem, it's the
presentation of it.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.