Question for the old football fans

[Chief Dick]

I've been thinking about the game and how it was before I really became a fan. I always rooted for the Chiefs because they were my hometown team, and back then you just rooted for your hometown team. I wasn't necessarily attracted to the violence of it, and to me the hitting and violence is just part of it.

 

So my question to the old farts like sky is this: Do you think the game today is more violent than when you first started watching football?

[Big John]

Football was more violent back then. But there was less concern about player safety and hurt players were just expected to "toughen up"

[Hugh B Tool]

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less violent than my formative years of watching and playing football in the 60's and 70's. Wayyyyyyyyyyyy less.

[Chief Dick]

My theory is that the media is making it appear more violent than it actually is relative to how football used to be. And the fact that you can actually "see" more now makes it appear more violent.

[skhyatt]

I've been thinking about the game and how it was before I really became a fan. I always rooted for the Chiefs because they were my hometown team, and back then you just rooted for your hometown team. I wasn't necessarily attracted to the violence of it, and to me the hitting and violence is just part of it.

 

So my question to the old farts like sky is this: Do you think the game today is more violent than when you first started watching football?

 

 

I'm not sure we can truly know unless you have actually played the game, which I have not. It does seem to me that, compared to the older years, there is much more emphasis by defenders on "tackling" by launching themselves at players with the attempt to knock them down using helmet or shoulders, rather than just wrapping a guy up for the tackle.

 

I never will understand players who want to lead with their helmets, either on defense or offense. Just seems like too much risk of injury to the spinal cord, etc. Now, if they did that back in the day, when I was younger, then maybe I just don't remember, but seems more prevalent in today's game.

[skhyatt]

My theory is that the media is making it appear more violent than it actually is relative to how football used to be. And the fact that you can actually "see" more now makes it appear more violent.

 

 

Would agree that this is definitely a possibility.

[skylive5]

Football has always been violent. However, there is a difference in the violence of old and what is occurring today. At least to my mind.

 

While you had people like Big Daddy Lipscomb who would pick up RBs and throw them down on the ground because he thought it was a fun thing to do, I think that was less the norm than all the stuff that went on in pile ups that you didn't see. The biting, kicking, and scratching that went on. But then again.... they had less "saftey" gear in those days too. No face masks, etc. So the game appeared to be more violent than it was. (And yes... I played football...so I am not just talking about things I have seen.)

 

For me the violence became more personal starting in the 80's. The head and knees became the target. The desire to hurt became more of a way to play the game than the game itself. The media and their love affair with the "big hit" and their making stars out of those that made those hits brought the level of violence way above what it was in the "old days".

 

So no... I don't think it was more violent back when I first got involved with following football. We had mean, nasty, hard chargers back then...but it never seemed that anyone was out to end someone or at least end their career. Unlike the players of today.

 

At least that is my POV.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Deacon Jones, Ray Nitsche, Dick Butkis, Bill Bergy, Mean Joe Green, The Mad Stork, the Assassin, the Hammer. Head slaps, clotheslines, even the flying wedge. The high knee action of John Brockington, the game before the quarterback protection rules. The gameI grew up with was way more violent.

 

Now, however, the equipment amounts to weapons and careers are extended due to medical advances so that guys can pay longer and really sustain a variety of damage over longer careers with more games per year.

 

It use to be that a ten yer career involved 120 games plus, if a team was good, fewer playoff games. Now a ten year career involves 1/3rd more games. That is a lot of accumulated damage.

 

 

 

 

I wonder how Chuck Cecil's brain is doing. He sure liked to stick his head in places heads maybe ought not to have gone.

[delusions of grandeur]

I put up this video for my friend because it featured his dad when he played for the Falcons, but I think it drives the point home that football was inherently more violent then. The segment was actually called "Top 10 Things We Miss About Football:

".

 

It seems like there's more emphasis on the violent nature nowadays for a couple reasons... 1) The NFL doesn't want to be liable or embarassed in public about the repercussions, and so there's an interest in bringing light to the inherent violent nature of the game and showing that they're trying to address it; 2) Players are in fact bigger, stronger, faster than they used to be, leading to more violent collisions, so while the players aren't necessarily more violent, the hits might be.

 

IMO anyway, but I think it's the perception that's changing and the NFL having interest in showing that they're against it, not the game actually being more violent. As that video showed, it's actually arguably far more friendly.

Edited May 8, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[BeeR]

Pretty much agree with everything said here.

 

Although you also have to keep in mind that players now are not just bigger but stronger AND faster.

[BeeR]

 

It seems like there's more emphasis on the violent nature nowadays for a couple reasons... 1) The NFL doesn't want to be liable or embarassed in public about the repercussions, and so there's an interest in bringing light to the inherent violent nature of the game and showing that they're trying to address it; 2) Players are in fact bigger, stronger, faster than they used to be, leading to more violent collisions, so while the players aren't necessarily more violent, the hits might be.

 

3) Our society continues to get more and more squeamish and generally wussified. On an order of magnitude. No that isn't to downplay or condone serious injuries or concerns about it/etc, a more general comment really.

[Chief Dick]

3) Our society continues to get more and more squeamish and generally wussified. On an order of magnitude. No that isn't to downplay or condone serious injuries or concerns about it/etc, a more general comment really.

 

 

The question is, would society have been just as squeamish about this stuff if it had been available ad nauseaum via video back in the day. My guess is yes. Same as all the other news we are exposed to today that we can actually see with our own eyes just how "bad" the bad news is.

[delusions of grandeur]

3) Our society continues to get more and more squeamish and generally wussified. On an order of magnitude. No that isn't to downplay or condone serious injuries or concerns about it/etc, a more general comment really.

 

Honestly, I think that's a cop out, and a label the NFL would gladly accept over "enablers who ignore life-threatening injuries"...

 

You think Goodell woke up one morning and said, "You know what people would like more... Turning the game into flag football!"?

Make no mistake, hard hits are as entertaining to viewers as they ever were... It's a matter of them not being liable, and also to protect the owner's investments (not ot metion a humanitarian aspect of not ruining someone's life). If it weren't for those things, then I can assure you that it would be just as gladiator-ish and brutal as ever, because people still do want to see that stuff, and defensive players do like to hit people...

 

It is not because the public doesn't want to see it that they cancelled segements like "jacked up", and now fine players for excessive hits. Of course people still want to see it; They just can't condone it because of PR and liability reasons.

 

Or are you referring to the players somehow being more wussy? Because I don't think it's wussy at all to want to have a life after football.

 

I agree that as a general commentary, men are becoming more domesticated, for lack of a better word, but I don't think it had anything to do with the state of football. It's a different world....

[silverback]

Honestly, I think that's a cop out, and a label the NFL would gladly accept over "enablers who ignore life-threatening injuries"...

 

You think Goodell woke up one morning and said, "You know what people would like more... Turning the game into flag football!"?

Make no mistake, hard hits are as entertaining to viewers as they ever were... It's a matter of them not being liable, and also to protect the owner's investments (not ot metion a humanitarian aspect of not ruining someone's life). If it weren't for those things, then I can assure you that it would be just as gladiator-ish and brutal as ever, because people still do want to see that stuff, and defensive players do like to hit people...

 

It is not because the public doesn't want to see it that they cancelled segements like "jacked up", and now fine players for excessive hits. Of course people still want to see it; They just can't condone it because of PR and liability reasons.

 

Or are you referring to the players somehow being more wussy? Because I don't think it's wussy at all to want to have a life after football.

 

I agree that as a general commentary, men are becoming more domesticated, for lack of a better word, but I don't think it had anything to do with the state of football. It's a different world....

 

It always comes back to lawyers.

[BeeR]

The question is, would society have been just as squeamish about this stuff if it had been available ad nauseaum via video back in the day. My guess is yes. Same as all the other news we are exposed to today that we can actually see with our own eyes just how "bad" the bad news is.

 

Nope, absolutely not. I see your point but it isn't/wasn't about "exposure." We were just not nearly as sensitized, much more "rough around the edges" (for lack of a better way to put it offhand) then - PS not saying that was all good either.

 

 

Honestly, I think that's a cop out, and a label the NFL would gladly accept over "enablers who ignore life-threatening injuries"...

 

You think Goodell woke up one morning and said, "You know what people would like more... Turning the game into flag football!"?

Make no mistake, hard hits are as entertaining to viewers as they ever were... It's a matter of them not being liable, and also to protect the owner's investments (not ot metion a humanitarian aspect of not ruining someone's life). If it weren't for those things, then I can assure you that it would be just as gladiator-ish and brutal as ever, because people still do want to see that stuff, and defensive players do like to hit people...

 

It is not because the public doesn't want to see it that they cancelled segements like "jacked up", and now fine players for excessive hits. Of course people still want to see it; They just can't condone it because of PR and liability reasons.

 

Or are you referring to the players somehow being more wussy? Because I don't think it's wussy at all to want to have a life after football.

 

I agree that as a general commentary, men are becoming more domesticated, for lack of a better word, but I don't think it had anything to do with the state of football. It's a different world....

 

Mostly agree with this. Again it applies generally better more than to the NFL. But I do think the public distaste for injuries is playing no small part.

[Ice1]

The game is very different than it was and there are more rules in place to avoid certain type of hits from several stars of yesteryear but the game today has way better athletes overall that are much bigger, faster, and stronger. The fields are also designed for speed. The hits today are more missile like hits due to the increased speed of the game. The game is also far more open and vertical which increases collision speed.

 

I guess one could argue it was more violent due to less regulation but I am certain the injuries today are worse and more common due to the speed of the game and the fact every roster is very deep in talent.

 

The game is simply way faster and speed increases risk at an increasing rate. The increased pad and helmet designs are really having a hard time keeping up with the pace of play.

 

Not sure the face mask was a very good invention.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Ice1

[Chief Dick]

The game is very different than it was and there are more rules in place to avoid certain type of hits from several stars of yesteryear but the game today has way better athletes overall that are much bigger, faster, and stronger.

 

 

This part I'm not so sure I agree with. Because the size thing is all relative. Remember, the guy getting hit is also bigger, stronger and faster.

 

And because rules are in place to protect players, AND the equipment is better, one could argue that today's NFL is actually less violent, as some of the guys above have said.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Chief Dick

[delusions of grandeur]

This part I'm not so sure I agree with. Because the size thing is all relative. Remember, the guy getting hit is also bigger, stronger and faster.

 

And because rules are in place to protect players, AND the equipment is better, one could argue that today's NFL is actually less violent, as some of the guys above have said.

 

But it's not the players, it's the impact of the collision. If you have not one, but 2 players going towards eachother at a greater speed and with greater force for the hit, it's going to lead to more violent collisions. Guys bulking up and being more athletic is not going to greatly change what the body can withstand.

Edited May 8, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[Ice1]

This part I'm not so sure I agree with. Because the size thing is all relative. Remember, the guy getting hit is also bigger, stronger and faster.

 

And because rules are in place to protect players, AND the equipment is better, one could argue that today's NFL is actually less violent, as some of the guys above have said.

 

 

Look at this way, if you have 2 object going 25 MPH with more mass and 2 objects going 20 MPH with less mass and they hit head on what causes the most damage? It is pretty much a math problem at that point.

 

This and the fact the game is vastly different than predominately running off tackle coupled with far more sophistication on both sides of the ball. There is no question the game is way faster today. It is not even close from a speed perspective.

 

The reason concussions are of such great concern is directly related to speed of impact. Regardless of technology the brain still moves violently when the body is hit with force.

[Grogansghost]

Not sure the face mask was a very good invention.

 

 

Does anyone think that part of the problem might be that helmets are too good now because they let the player feel protected and he ends up leading with his head?

 

I wonder if going back to less of a helmet with no face mask might reduce head injuries, because guys wouldn't be leading with their helmets. But it might just result in a lot of forearms and shoulder pads into now less protected heads.

[detlef]

Football was entirely less violent back in the late 70s when I played. Then again, I was only 10 years old so we weren't exactly capable of "jacking" someone up.

[stevegrab]

I think Sky summed it up pretty well. As did others talking about the speed of the game, the violent collissions (missle tackles instead of wrap ups), media plays a role as well.

 

The safety the players feel in their gear may also be a factor.

 

As far as the concussion, issue, the point about the speed is key. The brain (along with the rest of your body) is traveling at some speed, and then most stop (decelerate) quickly. The higher the speed the higher the potential for a worse injury. Advances in helmet design (really the padding inside) to reduce that speed of deceleration are what is needed, and I'm sure they're working on that too.

[Chief Dick]

But it's not the players, it's the impact of the collision. If you have not one, but 2 players going towards eachother at a greater speed and with greater force for the hit, it's going to lead to more violent collisions. Guys bulking up and being more athletic is not going to greatly change what the body can withstand.

 

Look at this way, if you have 2 object going 25 MPH with more mass and 2 objects going 20 MPH with less mass and they hit head on what causes the most damage? It is pretty much a math problem at that point.

 

This and the fact the game is vastly different than predominately running off tackle coupled with far more sophistication on both sides of the ball. There is no question the game is way faster today. It is not even close from a speed perspective.

 

The reason concussions are of such great concern is directly related to speed of impact. Regardless of technology the brain still moves violently when the body is hit with force.

 

 

Good points.

[Clubfoothead]

It is way more violent now but I'm only 40.

[matt770]

Although you also have to keep in mind that players now are not just bigger but stronger AND faster.

 

This is key. Whether or not the sport is more violent today, the speed and size of the players today means there is much more danger involved than ever before.