Quote:
Originally Posted by GoJetsGo
Perhaps you could try reiterating the point you think you're making in one clear, concise sentence.
Because the real damage from taking big hits in hockey is sustained and reoccurring damage to the brain, which can happen regardless of how big you are (see Lindros etc).
Gaudreau is one of the most elusive, heads-up players in the game. I think the concern he's one hit away from oblivion is a contrived, manufactured falsehood.
|
For CTE, that's true. But the physics are undeniable. A bigger blow results in more rotation movement along the lateral axis, which is the biggest contributing factor for triggering a concussion. The helmets protect against projectile local blows, like safety glasses protect against debris, so the head rotates based on the forces of a collision. I know this because of my involvement with CSA standards.
Now we know not every hit results in a concussion. Anyone who's played sports will tell you they've been knocked down, accidentally taken elbows and sticks to the head and received no concussion, but those who have, received a big hit to trigger it. At least a hit directly to the head or one that caused their head to move quickly and extensively on the neck, either side to side or up and down.
So again, what's the driver behind forces in a collision? Well, you have moment, so the position the body was in that makes it vulnerable, or the position your opponent is in that makes them advantageous. And you have mass and speed. These are mathematical laws. And things like "Gaudreau is sneaky" might make for good variables for the moment, but in a controlled study, all things being equal, Gaudreau is more likely to sustain a concussion than a player of larger mass. That is not refutable.
A lighter player in a collision WILL sustain more lateral movement of the head because the opposing player is delivering more force than what would be delivered when colliding with a heavier player.