What is the most difficult job in all of sports?

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:40 am

Referee

However good you perform, there's always somebody blaming you

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:53 am

aussie77 wrote:Or alternatively either form of Rugby, where they don't typically wear padding or helmets. Then we could look at boxing, lacrosse, hocky, or any other contact sport in existence. Again, a single down will cause *no* permanent harm barring a freak injury. To pretend it does is just bullshit. Personally I'd love to hear some details as to what kind of permanent harm this single down would potentially do. I could use a good laugh.

I have it on good authority that the types of impacts involved in a typical football down cause normal people to miss months of work and experience lifelong residual pain. Of course my authorities are seeking insurance settlements.

Then there's the strange case of Jack Tatum and Darryl Stingley, which was a typical downfield hit. Even on the vast majority of plays that don't result in quadriplegia, that's going to do some muscle and ligament damage.

Of course RunningMn9 was exaggerating but his point is a valid one.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:18 am

Tareeq wrote:
aussie77 wrote:Or alternatively either form of Rugby, where they don't typically wear padding or helmets. Then we could look at boxing, lacrosse, hocky, or any other contact sport in existence. Again, a single down will cause *no* permanent harm barring a freak injury. To pretend it does is just bullshit. Personally I'd love to hear some details as to what kind of permanent harm this single down would potentially do. I could use a good laugh.
I have it on good authority that the types of impacts involved in a typical football down cause normal people to miss months of work and experience lifelong residual pain. Of course my authorities are seeking insurance settlements.

Those impacts repeated over and over and over again certainly cause damage, and in some cases permanent damage. No denying it. But there is a big difference between that and a single down.

Then there's the strange case of Jack Tatum and Darryl Stingley, which was a typical downfield hit. Even on the vast majority of plays that don't result in quadriplegia, that's going to do some muscle and ligament damage.

And that would fall under the category of freak accident. The same one of my hitting partners tore his acl just by turning the wrong way at the wrong time in the middle of a point. His knee will never be the same again as long as he lives. Does that mean playing a single point of tennis damages you such that you are 'never 100% again'?

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:14 pm

Yes it does. His life is over.

I view it the same as if you've ever accidentally ran into somone else hard. Will you be okay? Maybe. If you do it over and over again? No. You won't.

Default · Post by **Default** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:30 pm

On a lighter note, anyone who plays in the secondary for the Packers.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:02 pm

Or alternatively either form of Rugby, where they don't typically wear padding or helmets.

Right. That actually works in their favor. You have a greater urge to take care of yourself when you aren't feeling like you are wearing invincible body armor.

Example #1 from "Why Things Bite Back" is how protective gear has made the NFL more violent and more dangerous. As have the changes in offseason conditioning that are producing the physical specimens that are playing in the NFL today.

How many Rugby players are built like NFL players? I'm no expert on Rugby, but I've never seen anyone like Ray Lewis running around playing Rugby.

Boxing? A whole different world. Taking a punch from a heavy weight (when you are trained on how to take that punch) is just not the same kind of stress that NFL players put on their body every down.

Lacrosse? Again, I've never seen NFL-type athletes playing lacrosse, running into each other as hard as they possibly can.

Hockey? You're starting to see the effects of better body protection and the kinds of injuries that are starting to become common that used to be rare in the NHL. NHL analysis courtesy of Trent Steel.

There is no other contact sport on Planet Earth that contains the violence of the NFL. None.

Again, a single down will cause *no* permanent harm barring a freak injury.

I think you aren't understanding the point of the comment. You can't get to your first down in the NFL without going through high school and college football, and your first training camp. The point of the comment isn't so much that your body is permantly damaged on your first play, so much as the human body cannot hold up to the strain placed on it by playing in the NFL.

And that wear and tear begins with your first play in the NFL. From that point on, it's all down hill.

Personally I'd love to hear some details as to what kind of permanent harm this single down would potentially do. I could use a good laugh.

Depending on the position, your knees and your back will never be the same.

rhinohelix · Post by **rhinohelix** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:11 am

I think the miscommunication here is a result of this: Imagine John the accountant thrown in the middle of an NFL play. That is what I think the NFL people are trying to impart here.

Rhino

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:14 am

Actually, it would be pretty funny seeing an accountant in a game. I could use a good laugh. Actually, I think there were some in the Packers secondary tonight.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:35 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
Or alternatively either form of Rugby, where they don't typically wear padding or helmets.
Right. That actually works in their favor. You have a greater urge to take care of yourself when you aren't feeling like you are wearing invincible body armor.

Riiiiight. So by wearing no protection and still getting tackled and hit and piled on they are actually *safer*. Of course! I'm guessing you haven't watched all that much rugby, because there are some pretty freaking big hits there.

How many Rugby players are built like NFL players? I'm no expert on Rugby, but I've never seen anyone like Ray Lewis running around playing Rugby.

How about Jonah Lomu. 6'5, ~270 lbs and runs 100 meters in under 11 seconds. Or Daniel Vickerman who is 6'8 and 250 lbs. Except these boys aren't carrying 50 lbs of fat around their belly like some linemen you see in the NFL. Again I'm guessing you just don't watch a whole lot of rugby.

Boxing? A whole different world. Taking a punch from a heavy weight (when you are trained on how to take that punch) is just not the same kind of stress that NFL players put on their body every down.

Right. So I guess that's why fighters take months between fights. Why so many of them end up with some level of brain damage. Seen Riddick Bowe lately? When evaluted for his kidnapping case he was declared in the "borderline range of intellectual functioning".

Lacrosse? Again, I've never seen NFL-type athletes playing lacrosse, running into each other as hard as they possibly can.

Neither have I, but then I don't watch a lot of lacrosse

Hockey? You're starting to see the effects of better body protection and the kinds of injuries that are starting to become common that used to be rare in the NHL. NHL analysis courtesy of Trent Steel.

Regardless of the cause, this would indicate hockey to be damaging, no?

There is no other contact sport on Planet Earth that contains the violence of the NFL. None.

Highly arguable. And that is without even going into the full-contact martial arts where people get arms, legs, ribs and facial bones broken on a regular basis. Would you rather get tackled by Ray Lewis or step into the ring with this guy:

It's hard to tell because he's not standing next to anyone, but that hombre is 6'9 or so

I think you aren't understanding the point of the comment. You can't get to your first down in the NFL without going through high school and college football, and your first training camp. The point of the comment isn't so much that your body is permantly damaged on your first play, so much as the human body cannot hold up to the strain placed on it by playing in the NFL.

And that wear and tear begins with your first play in the NFL. From that point on, it's all down hill.

Well, I can only comment on the quote in the context you provided it. Which was:

Madden followed up by saying that if you play one down in the NFL, your body will never be 100% again.

In that context, it seems pretty clear to me. One down in the NFL causes some form of permanent damage to the human body. He didn't even imply wear and tear from college and high school football in the context you provided so unless he made a series of follow-up comments, he was grossly exaggerating for the average viewer at home. Spoon-feeding bullshit for the masses.

Depending on the position, your knees and your back will never be the same.

After a couple of years sure. But one down? Methinks not.

EDIT: To remove and unnecessarily snarky comment on my part

Gotta love mondays.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:59 am

Riiiiight. So by wearing no protection and still getting tackled and hit and piled on they are actually *safer*. Of course! I'm guessing you haven't watched all that much rugby, because there are some pretty freaking big hits there.

Yes. The continual tearing of knee ligaments, the ridiculous rise in concussions, etc. All can be traced to two things. Better protection equipment which results in players taking less care to ensure their own safety, and the offseason conditioning program which has added 70 pounds of muscle to the average player in the NFL.

Jamal Anderson's injuries were a product of his massive legs and the fact that his knees could not hold up to the stress put on that knee simply by cutting to his left. No contact. Just too much stress put on his knees by his freak of nature thighs.

Take another example - Mark Kelso, former safety in the NFL. He wore TWO helmets so that he could hit harder and not die in the process. Slap a thin leather helmet on his head or take his helmet away and see whether or not he starts taking care of himself.

How about Jonah Lomu. 6'5, ~270 lbs and runs 100 meters in under 11 seconds. Or Daniel Vickerman who is 6'8 and 250 lbs. Except these boys aren't carrying 50 lbs of fat around their belly like some linemen you see in the NFL. Again I'm guessing you just don't watch a whole lot of rugby.

Ray Lewis isn't a lineman, nor is he carrying around a lot of fat, nor is he particularly large for the NFL. Are the two guys you mentioned considered gigantors in rugby or average size?

Lineman in the NFL push 330 to 340 pounds. And those fat sons of bitches can still move and still hit you with authority.

Again I'm guessing you just don't watch a whole lot of rugby.

No - that's why I relied on the wisdom of the individual that I know that played both football and rugby and concluded that rugby players were not as tough as football players.

Right. So I guess that's why fighters take months between fights. Why so many of them end up with some level of brain damage. Seen Riddick Bowe lately? When evaluted for his kidnapping case he was declared in the "borderline range of intellectual functioning".

We would have to pick a comparison here that makes sense. I was talking about one punch, you are talking about the cumulative effects of an entire heavy-weight career. If we are comparing how a career in either sport affects the athletes, I would suggest that both sports destroy the athletes that compete in them.

But then, neither my nor Madden's comments had anything to do with boxing, rugby, or hockey. So I'm not sure why your panties are in a bunch. He made a comment about the NFL. Even if rugby was tougher (it's not), that's got nothing to do with the truth of what he and Marshall Faulk were saying.

Regardless of the cause, this would indicate hockey to be damaging, no?

Again - I didn't say that hockey wasn't damaging. It's becoming a lot more damaging, for the same reasons that the NFL did.

Highly arguable. And that is without even going into the full-contact martial arts where people get arms, legs, ribs and facial bones broken on a regular basis. Would you rather get tackled by Ray Lewis or step into the ring with this guy:

I wouldn't want to do either. And that UFC shit ain't "sports" - it's lunacy.

In that context, it seems pretty clear to me. One down in the NFL causes some form of permanent damage to the human body. He didn't even imply wear and tear from college and high school football in the context you provided so unless he made a series of follow-up comments, he was grossly exaggerating for the average viewer at home. Spoon-feeding bullshit for the masses.

You're acting like an ass. Madden and Faulk are simply saying that your body starts to break down from your very first play in the NFL. You can think that they are full of shit. So what?

For three days now you've been acting like an ass to try and prove that they are exxagerating. You've never played a down of football in the NFL (or at all?) and have no frame of reference to comment on it other than your own personal doubt. Which is fine, I've never talked to a former NFL player, or talked to anyone else that has talked to a former NFL player that didn't agree wholeheartedly with Madden and Faulk.

Get over it.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:38 pm

What exactly is the argument here? Is it whether or not NFL football is the toughest sport? If so then I side with the "NFL football *IS* the toughest sport" camp.

If the argument is only about the effects of playing one play in the NFL, well that's just silly.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Hitting a round ball with a round bat, is still the most difficult thing to do in all of sport.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:38 pm

You're acting like an ass. Madden and Faulk are simply saying that your body starts to break down from your very first play in the NFL. You can think that they are full of shit. So what?

For three days now you've been acting like an ass to try and prove that they are exxagerating. You've never played a down of football in the NFL (or at all?) and have no frame of reference to comment on it other than your own personal doubt. Which is fine, I've never talked to a former NFL player, or talked to anyone else that has talked to a former NFL player that didn't agree wholeheartedly with Madden and Faulk.

Get over it.

You know what RM9? For a little while there we were having a civil discussion. It was enjoyable. We may not have agreed with each other, but hey that's alright. So at what point did I begin acting like an ass? When I disagreed with you?

Well piss off. You quoted Madden who made an absolute bullshit statement and I called it out. Whoopedy doo. If you truly believe that an NFL player who walks in and plays one down in the NFL will never be physically 100% again then I don't quite know what to say except that you think Madden's bullshit is tasty. Lap it up then and ask for seconds but next time at least try to be civil instead of turning into a fucking tool.

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:13 pm

You may cite the fatasses in the NFL, and there are many, but to dismiss them as unathletic due to extra weight is ridiculous.

There used to be a nose tackle in the NFL, played for the Lions, named Jerry Ball. He was 6'1", 330 pounds. And he could slam dunk a basketball without a running leap. His vertical was near 40 inches. That's NBA basketball player ability.

LaVar Arrington, 6'3" 250 pound linebacker, runs a 4.4 second 40 yard dash. Some NFL players are not athletes. Some are true freaks of nature.

The wear and tear it puts on your body is terrible. One of my close family friends is an orthopedic surgeon; he deals with peripheral neuropathies mainly. He sees a lot of athletes in his practice for some reason. He said by far the athletes with the most disabling injuries are professional NFL football players. This includes soccer (DC United), football (Redskins), Hockey (Capitals), NBA (Wizards), and even baseball (Orioles players). And before you talk about australian rules football, while on his residency he did a post-doc for a year in Melbourne.

I think he'd have the best view on it, no?

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:16 pm

Eightball wrote:There used to be a nose tackle in the NFL, played for the Lions, named Jerry Ball. He was 6'1", 330 pounds. And he could slam dunk a basketball without a running leap. His vertical was near 40 inches. That's NBA basketball player ability.

When I used him in Tecmo Bowl, the QB couldn't even get off a play unless he went shotgun.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:22 pm

Eightball wrote:You may cite the fatasses in the NFL, and there are many, but to dismiss them as unathletic due to extra weight is ridiculous.

There used to be a nose tackle in the NFL, played for the Lions, named Jerry Ball. He was 6'1", 330 pounds. And he could slam dunk a basketball without a running leap. His vertical was near 40 inches. That's NBA basketball player ability.

LaVar Arrington, 6'3" 250 pound linebacker, runs a 4.4 second 40 yard dash. Some NFL players are not athletes. Some are true freaks of nature.

I absolutely agree. I wasn't trying to dish on the NFL players because their explosive ability in some cases is just remarkable. I was merely pointing out that these are guys of similar size to offensive lineman, but much leaner.

The wear and tear it puts on your body is terrible. One of my close family friends is an orthopedic surgeon; he deals with peripheral neuropathies mainly. He sees a lot of athletes in his practice for some reason. He said by far the athletes with the most disabling injuries are professional NFL football players. This includes soccer (DC United), football (Redskins), Hockey (Capitals), NBA (Wizards), and even baseball (Orioles players). And before you talk about australian rules football, while on his residency he did a post-doc for a year in Melbourne.

I think he'd have the best view on it, no?

And again I absolutely agree with that. The injuries can be insane. You have big, strong guys who more importantly are incredibly explosive. And they are hammering into each other as hard as they can repeatedly. The wear and tear is just incredible and it takes a lot of sacrifice. I'm not denying for one moment how tough it is to be a player in the NFL. Hell almost all professional sports players experience the grind to some degree. Training for pro tennis I can tell you I feel 'good' maybe 1 or 2 days a week. The rest of the time I'm hurting. My back is stiff, my shoulder aches, so on and so forth. When you add the physical contact element to that it just becomes punishing.

I was simply saying that to claim playing a single down in the NFL meant you were never 100% again is rubbish. And it is rubbish. I absolutely believe Marshall Faulk that he hasn't been 100% since he started playing in the NFL. Because he's been playing for a long time without a serious break. Given how long he has played, he probably will never be 100% again even after he quits, because I am sure his knees are ground down from all the pounding. But that is accumulation of years of playing without allowing his body to heal fully in the interim. The price you pay for being a starting back. I guarantee you however that if Faulk had come out of college and played an entire NFL game then quit, barring a freak injury within that game he would be "100%" again within weeks, let alone months or years.

I'm not saying that being an NFL lineman isn't the toughest job in sports - in all honesty I think it is a hard call to make, although certainly NFL lineman is *physically* one of the top 3-4 without a doubt. I'm just saying unless there was more to what Madden said on tv which RM9 hasn't shared, his statement that playing one down in the NFL means you are never physically 100% again is just crap.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:33 pm

aussie77 wrote:So at what point did I begin acting like an ass? When I disagreed with you?

When it was three days later and you're still trying to prove that Madden's comment was bullshit. When it was three days later and you're trying to do it with strawmen about the potential difficulties in other sports.

I don't care whether or not you disagree with me. As Trent points out - the idea that it was being discussed at all was silly.

Devil · Post by **Devil** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:42 pm

I see an opportunity here to bring RM9 and Aussie back together, hand-in-hand, skipping merrily through the sun-drenched, daffodil-laden fields off sporting dissent: Peyton Manning

I bring people together!

Along those lines: The toughest job in sports is the guy who has to clean up the 'mess' when RM9 and Aussie are watching a Colts game.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:48 pm

Devil wrote:The toughest job in sports is the guy who has to clean up the 'mess' when RM9 and Aussie are watching a Colts game.

Yeeeeah... that's disgustin'.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:49 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
aussie77 wrote:So at what point did I begin acting like an ass? When I disagreed with you?
When it was three days later and you're still trying to prove that Madden's comment was bullshit. When it was three days later and you're trying to do it with strawmen about the potential difficulties in other sports.

I don't care whether or not you disagree with me. As Trent points out - the idea that it was being discussed at all was silly.

Ah, so it is fine when three days later you're still continuing your side of the discussion, but I was supposed to capitulate before the great RM9 and cower in the corner in shame? Takes two to tango buddy and I didn't see you breaking off the dance. And there was no straw-man argument. You made a blanket statement that the 'violence' in the NFL was unmatched, and I didn't necessarily agree with you. I didn't realize you had a calibrated "Violence-O-Meter" that you'd taken around the world, taking scientific measurements of each sport and that the NFL had ranked on top by such a clear margin that apparantly it isn't even a subject worthy of discussion.

So at the end of the day, I think you do care whether people agree or disagree... or

A: you wouldn't have continued the discussion for the same three days you so nicely called me an "ass" over

B: you wouldn't have become so irate at someone disgareeing with you that you felt the need to get offensive about it.

EDIT: Rearranged a sentence so it actually made some kind of sense!

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:19 pm

It's good to see my pal Running Man - someone I've known for 16+ years - has managed to piss someone off that lives on the other side of the planet.

I knew he'd accomplish great things one day, but after he e-mailed John Romero about Daikatana, I thought he was done.

Have at it then.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:26 pm

Smoove_B wrote:It's good to see my pal Running Man - someone I've known for 16+ years - has managed to piss someone off that lives on the other side of the planet.

I knew he'd accomplish great things one day, but after he e-mailed John Romero about Daikatana, I thought he was done.

Have at it then.

Hehe. I actually am stuck in Atlanta, GA for now so although I originate from the other side of the planet I wouldn't say I live there right now

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:10 pm

Ah, so it is fine when three days later you're still continuing your side of the discussion, but I was supposed to capitulate before the great RM9 and cower in the corner in shame?

Capitulation wasn't a requirement to avoid being told that you're acting like an ass. Not getting your panties in a bunch over the paraphrased comments of a guy who went on national TV and tried to tell the world that "ohm" (a measurement of resistance in an electrical circuit) actually stands for Auditory Honing Mechanism (which curiously would spell ahm) would have helped you avoid such a charge.

The intent of Madden's comment is *not* that your health goes from 100% to 92% and stays there for all eternity after your first down in the NFL. The intent of Madden's comment is that they only time you are truly healthy in the NFL is before you've played your first down - it's all downhill from there.

Takes two to tango buddy and I didn't see you breaking off the dance.

Clearly I have my own issues. That doesn't absolve you.

And there was no straw-man argument.

Of course there was - as soon as you starting talking about other sports in an effort to refute Madden's comment.

You made a blanket statement that the 'violence' in the NFL was unmatched, and I didn't necessarily agree with you.

You're allowed to be wrong. There's no shame in it.

So at the end of the day, I think you do care whether people agree or disagree... or

Most people conclude that I care. They aren't familiar with my particular psychosis which results in me not really caring at all what you think, and not being able to shut up about it.

B: you wouldn't have become so irate at someone disgareeing with you that you felt the need to get offensive about it.

Irate? I pointed out that you were acting like an ass for over-reacting to Madden's comment. Hardly irate.

Smoove_B - I'm confident that I've irritated people on every continent already.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:26 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Capitulation wasn't a requirement to avoid being told that you're acting like an ass. Not getting your panties in a bunch over the paraphrased comments of a guy who went on national TV and tried to tell the world that "ohm" (a measurement of resistance in an electrical circuit) actually stands for Auditory Honing Mechanism (which curiously would spell ahm) would have helped you avoid such a charge.

Ah, so *I* got my "panties in a bunch", even though I wasn't the one who started personal attacks. Good to know.

The intent of Madden's comment is *not* that your health goes from 100% to 92% and stays there for all eternity after your first down in the NFL. The intent of Madden's comment is that they only time you are truly healthy in the NFL is before you've played your first down - it's all downhill from there.

Now see, if you'd said something to this three days ago, I don't think there would have been any disagreement. I thought I made it quite clear I was talking about permanent damage from a single down, which is how I took your paraphrasing of Madden's statement. You then took up the other side of that argument and kept at it.

I made the following observations:

aussie77 wrote:Well, I can only comment on the quote in the context you provided it. Which was:

Madden followed up by saying that if you play one down in the NFL, your body will never be 100% again.

In that context, it seems pretty clear to me. One down in the NFL causes some form of permanent damage to the human body. He didn't even imply wear and tear from college and high school football in the context you provided so unless he made a series of follow-up comments, he was grossly exaggerating for the average viewer at home.

and you didn't come in and say that my interpretation was wrong, nor did you provide any further context to change my interpretation. So I'm left with the conclusion you were arguing that yes, a single down causes permanent damage to a player, which is something altogether different from what you said in your last post.

Clearly I have my own issues. That doesn't absolve you.

No, but if you have your own issues why are you pointing fingers and calling me an ass and then not even having the grace to apologize for it?

And there was no straw-man argument.
Of course there was - as soon as you starting talking about other sports in an effort to refute Madden's comment.

Err, no. Because again I didn't use other sports are a reference to refute Madden's comment. As I clearly stated in my last post, I used other sports to argue your blanket statement that the NFL was without doubt the most violent sport.

You made a blanket statement that the 'violence' in the NFL was unmatched, and I didn't necessarily agree with you.
You're allowed to be wrong. There's no shame in it.

Is there no shame in acting like a condescending asshole? Damn I need to get me one of those Violence-O-Meters so that I can act like I am 100% right about something which is completely subjective.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:52 pm

Ah, so *I* got my "panties in a bunch", even though I wasn't the one who started personal attacks. Good to know.

You're the one that started with the "that's the biggest piece of bullshit I've heard" business. That's what I'm talking about.

Now see, if you'd said something to this three days ago, I don't think there would have been any disagreement.

I said it yesterday, it didn't seem to help.

and you didn't come in and say that my interpretation was wrong, nor did you provide any further context to change my interpretation.

Really? When did I type this?

The point of the comment isn't so much that your body is permantly damaged on your first play, so much as the human body cannot hold up to the strain placed on it by playing in the NFL.

And that wear and tear begins with your first play in the NFL. From that point on, it's all down hill.

Hint: I said that yesterday, to no avail apparently.

which is something altogether different from what you said in your last post.

And my post yesterday.

No, but if you have your own issues why are you pointing fingers and calling me an ass and then not even having the grace to apologize for it?

I didn't apologize for it because I wasn't mischaracterizing you and I'm not sorry about it.

Whether or not I'm acting like an ass in the process is a separate question that doesn't mean you were or were not acting like an ass.

Err, no. Because again I didn't use other sports are a reference to refute Madden's comment. As I clearly stated in my last post, I used other sports to argue your blanket statement that the NFL was without doubt the most violent sport.

Fair enough.

Is there no shame in acting like a condescending asshole?

Nope.

Damn I need to get me one of those Violence-O-Meters so that I can act like I am 100% right about something which is completely subjective.

Did you think you were arguing like you were wrong?

Devil · Post by **Devil** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:21 pm

See what happens when you guys yell at each other? It gets ugly. I hate seeing the two of you going at it like this!

Typed words can still hurt!

Start attacking me - I feel better that way.

Faldarian · Post by **Faldarian** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:23 pm

The Meal wrote:Ice Hockey Goaltender.

~Neal

I'm going with this one, too. Not only is it incredibly challenging, demanding, and strenuous but you are the key to whether or not your team is even capable of winning any given game.

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:39 pm

Devil wrote:See what happens when you guys yell at each other? It gets ugly. I hate seeing the two of you going at it like this!

Typed words can still hurt!

Start attacking me - I feel better that way.

You suck!

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:25 pm

Bygones. That solves everything, right?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:06 am

Please, can't we all just live together . . .

Stop, you're hurting America . . .

Grifman

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:12 am

Here's an interesting article on concussions and potential brain damage in NFL players:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs0 ... id=1718306

I've also read here and there that the average lifespan of an NFL line is between 55 and 60 years. Wonder if the money/fame/fortune is worth shortening your life by 15 to 25 years?

Grifman

Crux · Post by **Crux** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:19 am

Grifman wrote:Here's an interesting article on concussions and potential brain damage in NFL players:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs0 ... id=1718306

I've also read here and there that the average lifespan of an NFL line is between 55 and 60 years. Wonder if the money/fame/fortune is worth shortening your life by 15 to 25 years?

Grifman

I'd be curious as to what most of them die of. I imagine heart problems due to the fact so many of them are seriously overweight + they partake in strenuous activity which just means uber-strain on the heart. Sucks because the weight is such a huge factor in their being able to block effectively in a lot of ways