- Joined
- Oct 9, 2008
- Messages
- 25,662
- Reaction score
- 1,056
There's been a ton of AIDS and cancer research. They must be the safest diseases in the world, yah?
wow that was a swing and a miss
There's been a ton of AIDS and cancer research. They must be the safest diseases in the world, yah?
There's been a ton of AIDS and cancer research. They must be the safest diseases in the world, yah?
The NFL spent tens of millions on concussion research and came to the conclusion that football and concussions were unrelated.
The Tabacco companies spent tens of millions on cancer research and came to the conclusion that Tabacco and cancer were unrelated.
See any similarities?
So he actually has no scientific evidence to back up this fact?
Also, the NFL has spent tens of millions on concussion research for its players. The UFC has done what?
lol. safest sport in the world!
That is really scientific.
:redface:
If you only factor in the actual UFC Fights he would be right.
But when you factor in the training for MMA involves a lot of sparring and being hit in the head.... donno.
soft helmets would pretty much negate any head injuries in the nfl, but then there would be no cool sounds, so yea NFL dont' really care, just like how they wear pink for breast cancer.
NFL has about 1700 players that are playing for 20-24 weeks a year (including pre and post season). The UFC has what 150 guys that are active 1-4 times per year.
And it depends on what you define as a serious injury.
Also the NFL brings in what 9 billion in revenue that is split almost 50/50 with the players, UFC books are closed but I'm fairly sure the split is not so even.
What does that have to do with anything? The point is that Dana hasn't actually done any research to see how it is affecting his fighters. The NFL has and actually changed many rules.
1. the UFC has about 450-475 fighters
2. if the NFL revenue was not so much, and they needed foreign growth, and that foreign growth cost hundreds of millions, i bet they would not be paying a 50/50 revenue either.
Do you have a source for that?
Yet in a series of scientific papers from 2003 to 2009, members of the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee wrote that “no NFL player” had experienced chronic brain damage from repeated concussions. The committee, first formed in 1994, asserted that NFL players were different than boxers, whose susceptibility to brain injuries caused by the sport has been documented since the 1920s.
“Professional football players do not sustain frequent repetitive blows to the brain on a regular basis,” members of the NFL committee wrote in a December 2005 paper in Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
The league first acknowledged in December 2009 that repeated concussions could lead to long-term mental impairment.
Jason Luckasevic, a Pittsburgh attorney who represents some of the first players to sue the NFL over the concussion issue, said it was hypocritical for the NFL to award disability benefits based on football-related brain damage while, at the same time, denying there was a link to the sport.
“That’s completely fraudulent — you say these people have cognitive problems from playing football and award them benefits, and yet you lie and write studies telling the public that’s not the case,” said Luckasevic. “I don’t know that it gets more despicable than that.”
That same year(2004), the NFL published the 10th installment in its series on concussions research in the medical journal “Neurosurgery.”
The paper, whose authors included three members of the league’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, asserted that chronic brain injury “has never been reported in American football players.”
Anyone see the Cincinnati-Duke bowl game? (Not NFL I know) but one of the Duke guys collided head to head with an opposing player, and was on queer street for a good minute. Then he was back in the very next play.
Love this argument. Dana does it everytime. But why is NFL relevant?!! It's like Alex Jones saying there are more deaths from knives than there are guns. Yeah that's great and all, but it doesnt mean it's ok then just because there is something worse!
i knew there were a few other people who would see it the same way i do
this argument is pathetic, but also its very entertaining how others eat it up
this is a commonly used logical fallacy - people usually just use it bc they are dumb, but people like dana white know how to use it knowing that everyone will fall for the fallacy - its beautiful to see in real life
NFL Board Paid $2M to Players While League Denied Football-Concussion Link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...while-league-denied-football-concussion-link/
american football has to be one of the toughest sports in the world, is really brutal, way more than other "similar" sports with much less padding, the rules is what make the difference, for example, in rugby you cannot just go full speed and crush like a human bullet , because that is what the padding turns a 250 pounds dude running a full speed with a hellmet the size of a house... not only that, if a reciever jumps to catch the ball, he is getting tackle from multiple positions by those guys in the air...
Most people who complain about the brutality of MMA are big football fans.