If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   More studies show what everyone already knew: Getting repeatedly hit on the head is bad for you   (cnn.com) divider line 60
    More: Followup, brain diseases, Boston University School of Medicine, CTE, football, Chris Nowinski  
•       •       •

767 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Dec 2012 at 1:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 01:48:17 AM
In other news, water is wet.
 
2012-12-05 02:00:11 AM
no farking shiat. look at the game this was ALWAYS apparent. i find it funny that the "public" and/or "media" is just now catching onto this. who ever thought football was brain safe? damn, folks are slow. like you didn't know kids who's parents wouldn't let them play football in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or the 00s because the parents realize that butting heads like rams would lead to brain injury. it's not rocket science here.
 
2012-12-05 02:17:36 AM
I'll get it out of the way now:

They knew what they were getting into, therefore the NFL should not be liable for any chronic conditions that result from playing the game.

/Yep, still ridiculous reasoning.
 
2012-12-05 02:18:55 AM
It's always been dangerous, but only somewhat recently have studies been somewhat conclusive about the causal mechanism of brain damage. While parents have always worried about their kids getting injured, it was generally seen as something to be afraid might happen than something that would happen to damn near everyone if they played long enough and brain damage wasn't as much of a concern as spinal injuries/broken bones. Also, I think prior to the internet, people were more susceptible to dumb arguments like "so and so played football and he turned out fine" or "it's kinda dangerous, but you learn a lot of life lessons, that I wouldn't have grown into a man without."

What will really be interesting is how this relatively new knowledge (and increased awareness of it) affects 1) the number of kids who play; 2) their talent level; and 3) the popularity of the NFL.
 
2012-12-05 02:39:04 AM
Well it can cause further damage but one part of the article is saying these hits change people and I dont buy that, and according to one guy Javon terrorized his kid every day at school so bad he moved them away......

Still doesnt change the fact they need to limit the hits players take, college needs to be forced to only be in pads a couple days a week.....

IlGreven: They knew what they were getting into,


.......I say let them crash.........

/obscure?
//probably not
 
2012-12-05 02:43:09 AM
That's ridiculous. Sure when someone bonks you you're out cold for a few hours but when you wake up you're usually able to get it together, escape your bonds, and go beat the bad guy within a few minutes.
 
2012-12-05 02:54:25 AM
In other news, water is wet.
 
2012-12-05 03:10:14 AM

davidphogan: In other news, water is wet.


So have you taken a lot of shots to the head as well?
 
2012-12-05 03:47:46 AM
No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go "Waaah." Try it again.

\stupid concept
 
2012-12-05 03:58:33 AM

IlGreven: I'll get it out of the way now:

They knew what they were getting into, therefore the NFL should not be liable for any chronic conditions that result from playing the game.

/Yep, still ridiculous reasoning.


thetrendguys.com
"They knew what they were getting into. Hell, look at how many times kids kept coming over to my house!"
 
2012-12-05 04:03:15 AM
I think that we should be careful to not immediately assume that these suicides are CTE related. It's tempting to do in Parker's case (I wonder if they can study his brain material despite the nature of his death), but let's remember that there's percentages of people in the real world who do these sorts of things. And even if there were no brain damage going on, there would still be some ex-NFLers doing these sorts of things.

Imagine this, though. In a few years, we could rig it so that every helmet has detectors in it that sense exactly when the head is receiving a blow that could cause brain damage. Remember that these sorts of blows happen all the time in football, and often go completely unnoticed by those receiving them. You could then make it a rule that every time we detect these sorts of blows, we pull the player whether he wants to or not, and make him sit until his brain has had enough time to recover so it's not building up the damaging tissue as discussed in these studies. To off-set the gains made by the opposing team for "knocking out" an opponent this way, players who inflict these blows are immediately ejected. If it's determined that the player who was injured more or less caused it with his own movement, then obviously no ejection. How much different of a game would we be talking about?
 
2012-12-05 04:05:03 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's new is that we have quantifiable evidence that knocks to the head, which cause no visible effects, are indeed damaging to the brain.

I've honestly been wondering if football can live through the next 20 years. People have been talking about lawsuits from former players being a possible death blow, but money solve that. But what do you do when the best athletes are all playing NOT-FOOTBALL, professionally? Even HS football greatly increases the odds one will develop dementia later in life, and at an early onset. I've got to think information like that will lead to fewer kids allowed to play football. No one wants to see the unskewedpolls guy playing QB.
 
2012-12-05 04:20:28 AM

NorCalLos: It's always been dangerous, but only somewhat recently have studies been somewhat conclusive about the causal mechanism of brain damage. While parents have always worried about their kids getting injured, it was generally seen as something to be afraid might happen than something that would happen to damn near everyone if they played long enough and brain damage wasn't as much of a concern as spinal injuries/broken bones. Also, I think prior to the internet, people were more susceptible to dumb arguments like "so and so played football and he turned out fine" or "it's kinda dangerous, but you learn a lot of life lessons, that I wouldn't have grown into a man without."

What will really be interesting is how this relatively new knowledge (and increased awareness of it) affects 1) the number of kids who play; 2) their talent level; and 3) the popularity of the NFL.


The HUGE problem right now is that so many NFL defensive players were taught, "Lead with your helmet!" The ones currently in the NFL are having to work against what they have been trained to do ever since they were playing Pop Warner, or even fireplug.

I find it interesting that rugby players play with far less padding, and NO helmets, and do not suffer this kind of traumatizing or long-term injury. I'll be the first to admit that "armor-padded nancy-ball" has much, much harder hits, as an elite league of the 1200 or so best players out of the tens of thousands of college players are paid millions of dollars to train their bodies nonstop in order to play the most physical game with the hardest hits humanly possible. But see, the difference between rugby and American football is about the difference between greco-roman wrestling and boxing - a rugby tackle is designed to pull someone down to the ground, not hit them so hard they are knocked off their feet and fall to the ground.

Some people believe that the entertainment value of American football is based on these huge, hard hits; I disagree, as it seems the game has become more popular as the quarterback position has become refined, and the biggest portions of instant replays on SportsCenter are scoring plays not involving any huge hits. (Huge hits are sometimes shown, but they are no longer glorified through the "Jacked Up" segment). Yet we watch SportsCenter every bit as much as we did when "Jacked Up" was aired.

I believe that if millions of drunken Europeans can get every bit (some might say more) involved in a bunch of nancies kicking a ball up and down a soccer pitch for ninety plus minutes and MAYBE scoring one goal as Americans do over "real football", we can get just as drunk and celebrate our own sport even if there is less violence.

So here's what I propose: don't hit so much. Teach players from junior high on to tackle rugby style. Penalize players that launch themselves at others, and eject anyone who leads with their helmet. Get back to arm tackles rather than "hit the guy so hard his Dad's balls feel it", and you'll see a game built more on speed and finesse than brute force, which will prove to be every bit as entertaining.
 
2012-12-05 04:24:46 AM

digistil: No one wants to see the unskewedpolls guy playing QB.


Well.... some people might consider anyone an upgrade at this point...

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2012-12-05 04:29:01 AM

digistil: But what do you do when the best athletes are all playing NOT-FOOTBALL, professionally?


You could do what they do in Europe: play not-football and call it "football".

upload.wikimedia.org
 

/the key to enjoying soccer is to get as drunk as a soccer fan
 
2012-12-05 04:37:02 AM

ox45tallboy: you'll see a game built more on speed and finesse than brute force, which will prove to be every bit as entertaining.


I want to believe what you're saying, but what makes you so sure a large portion of the audience isn't watching for the crashes?
 
2012-12-05 04:56:31 AM

digistil: I want to believe what you're saying, but what makes you so sure a large portion of the audience isn't watching for the crashes?


Ah, the NASCAR argument.

Honestly, I don't have a shred of real evidence to prove that the NFL would continue to be as popular (absent any other factors) if the violence were to be reduced. I can't prove it, because there are so many other factors to take into consideration. Many fans are dissatisfied at the increasing price of stadium attendance, so much so that some franchises aren't selling out home games. Due to the NFL blackout rules, this means that a local following in cities like Jacksonville will never come to fruition, as people can't even watch the team on TV when they can't go to the game. Were a program implemented to reduce violence, and NFL revenue subsequently declined, I am sure that this would be brought up, although it may or may not be the real factor.

The only real "evidence" I have to show is that

A.) SportsCenter did not lose viewers during football season when they discontinued the "Jacked Up" segment

B.) People tend to get more enjoyment from a 35-38 QB shootout than a 7-3 defensive snoozefest, as can be seen from ratings on any Sunday, especially when multiple games are available on different channels in the same market

C.) A large portion of the viewers are hugely interested in the fantasy football aspect, and no one gets bonus points for these huge hits; as a matter of fact, many people become very upset when one of their players is knocked out of a game or six due to a concussion

I'll readily admit that these factors may not add up to a reduction (notice I said "reduction", not "elimination") in violence NOT resulting in a loss of viewership, but I think they are indicators that this is worth considering.

Finally, since your question did (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not) bring up NASCAR, I would point out that NASCAR itself is a test-bed for all kinds of safety features. The people who work in that "sport" (for lack of a better term) place REAL emphasis on the safety of those involved, to the point of fining and even ejecting drivers who intentionally cause accidents, even those which do not result in any injury.
 
2012-12-05 06:49:27 AM
Additional factors are the size and speed of the players. The average weight for all positions has been going higher. 30 or so years ago in college I could play linebacker at 180, my brother was a defensive lineman at 230 and considered big, and defensive and running backs were rarely over 200 pounds. Now its rare in college for any position to be less than 200 pounds. lineman, who get hit on every play, have to be at least 260-270 and many over 300. My son played wide receiver at 185 and was among the smallest players on his team. The speed is faster as well, so the combination makes the hits worse.
 
2012-12-05 07:05:16 AM

lacydog: magine this, though. In a few years, we could rig it so that every helmet has detectors in it that sense exactly when the head is receiving a blow that could cause brain damage.


They are already doing this at Virginia Tech (according to TMQ on ESPN).

I also vaguely remember reading that their results showed that linemen are even more susceptible than anyone else because even though the impacts are at a relatively lower speed, the repetition of them causes a lot of problems.

/Won't let my future kid play football
 
2012-12-05 07:29:15 AM

ox45tallboy: People tend to get more enjoyment from a 35-38 QB shootout than a 7-3 defensive snoozefest


Personally, I prefer the 7-3 defensive snooze-fest.
 
2012-12-05 07:32:23 AM
Bob Costas said nothing about this.
 
2012-12-05 08:30:42 AM

t3knomanser: ox45tallboy: People tend to get more enjoyment from a 35-38 QB shootout than a 7-3 defensive snoozefest

Personally, I prefer the 7-3 defensive snooze-fest.


35-38 with all points scored by the defenses is where it's at.
 
2012-12-05 08:35:35 AM

wombatsrus: Additional factors are the size and speed of the players. The average weight for all positions has been going higher. 30 or so years ago in college I could play linebacker at 180, my brother was a defensive lineman at 230 and considered big, and defensive and running backs were rarely over 200 pounds. Now its rare in college for any position to be less than 200 pounds. lineman, who get hit on every play, have to be at least 260-270 and many over 300. My son played wide receiver at 185 and was among the smallest players on his team. The speed is faster as well, so the combination makes the hits worse.


celebritynewsgossiptv.com

"So what you're saying is the key to the Jets' second Lombardi is to field an entire team of midgets." - Woody Johnson
 
2012-12-05 08:52:04 AM

IlGreven: I'll get it out of the way now:

They knew what they were getting into, therefore the NFL should not be liable for any chronic conditions that result from playing the game.

/Yep, still ridiculous reasoning.


i.ytimg.com
 
2012-12-05 09:11:47 AM
Flag football would still be way more entertaining than soccer.
 
2012-12-05 09:14:02 AM

ox45tallboy: I find it interesting that rugby players play with far less padding, and NO helmets, and do not suffer this kind of traumatizing or long-term injury. I'll be the first to admit that "armor-padded nancy-ball" has much, much harder hits, as an elite league of the 1200 or so best players out of the tens of thousands of college players are paid millions of dollars to train their bodies nonstop in order to play the most physical game with the hardest hits humanly possible. But see, the difference between rugby and American football is about the difference between greco-roman wrestling and boxing - a rugby tackle is designed to pull someone down to the ground, not hit them so hard they are knocked off their feet and fall to the ground.


We don't hear about them because rugby isn't big in the US.

Link

Link

Link

This one was fatal.

Some people believe that the entertainment value of American football is based on these huge, hard hits; I disagree, as it seems the game has become more popular as the quarterback position has become refined, and the biggest portions of instant replays on SportsCenter are scoring plays not involving any huge hits. (Huge hits are sometimes shown, but they are no longer glorified through the "Jacked Up" segment). Yet we watch SportsCenter every bit as much as we did when "Jacked Up" was aired.

This is one of the few things that Colin Cowherd says over and over that I agree with. And for the record, they stopped "Jacked Up" before the 2007 season (when Kevin Everette broke his neck in a Bills game), which was impressively ahead of the curve compared to some other programs.
 
2012-12-05 09:22:12 AM

UNC_Samurai: We don't hear about them because rugby isn't big in the US.


Exactly - much like the leagues that excessively punish off-the-field behavior, you hear about football more because it's in the news more. Same with cycling - why does it look like everyone's cheating compared to other sports? Because they're the ones testing. Why does football seem to be the only one causing concussions? Because that's the only one people are looking into (well, at least that continually gets reported on in the US) - rugby and soccer also result in many concussions, but no one gives a sh*t about those sports so there's no real reason to report on it here. Same goes for hockey.

"HEY THIS SPORT YOU'RE NOT PLAYING AND NEVER WATCH MIGHT BE DANGEROUS TO YOU!" isn't really much of a sell for news.
 
2012-12-05 09:43:44 AM
Ya don't say?
icons.iconarchive.com
 
2012-12-05 10:14:01 AM

IAmRight: Flag football would still be way more entertaining than soccer.


I'm going to hold you to that.
 
2012-12-05 10:26:42 AM

wombatsrus: Additional factors are the size and speed of the players. The average weight for all positions has been going higher. 30 or so years ago in college I could play linebacker at 180, my brother was a defensive lineman at 230 and considered big, and defensive and running backs were rarely over 200 pounds. Now its rare in college for any position to be less than 200 pounds. lineman, who get hit on every play, have to be at least 260-270 and many over 300. My son played wide receiver at 185 and was among the smallest players on his team. The speed is faster as well, so the combination makes the hits worse.


Size is a small part of it, the past few years has seen coaches basically teach players to slam into kids at the college level to try and dislodge the ball rather than make a tackle. Which meant launching at the ball carriers mid section with your shoulder and that the defender usually lowers his head too much, then one slight change by the defender or protective movement by the carrier means the defender has to be helped off.

They need to force change at every level of the sport and limit contact at practices, high school and the pros already limit contact but college doesn't and that needs to change. I think it was the HBO sports Bryant gumble show I was watching who said they need to keep hits under 1000 per year to avoid permanent non recoverable brain cells. They could achieve that by just doing two days of contact a week but college coaches resist that by saying it makes them better players. That's bullshiat, what they are really saying is that they are willing to risk a kids long term well being just to win now, its times like this I really hate college football.
 
2012-12-05 10:35:38 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Oh, three or four
 
2012-12-05 11:41:52 AM

digistil: IAmRight: Flag football would still be way more entertaining than soccer.

I'm going to hold you to that.


I never really cared about the hits anyway. Besides, you still get to block in flag. If they make the retarded rules that some leagues have about how you can't push while blocking, then that'll be lame.

/no one even actually tackles in the NFL anymore anyway, it's all just "run into them and hope they fall down"
//f*cking wrap up, pull down
 
2012-12-05 11:53:30 AM
no one even actually tackles in the NFL anymore anyway, it's all just "run into them and hope they fall down"
//f*cking wrap up, pull down


Maybe, just maybe, this is because it's difficult for a 200lb DB to wrap up and tackle a 230lb NFL-level running back?

Or for a LB to actually get two hands on an NFL level receiver?

Plus they're taught to try and jar the ball loose from a receiver, and you can't do that by wrapping up.
 
2012-12-05 11:58:15 AM

UNC_Samurai: We don't hear about them because rugby isn't big in the US.


If you'll notice, all of the links you provided were to single instances of injury. I am in no way trying to say that these injuries were any less significant than those seen by those at any level of football in the US - but that is kind of my point. We see these kinds of injuries at the amateur college level frequently, and in high school infrequently but not to the point they are unheard of.

Because of the nature of rugby scrums, they do not suffer repeated blows to the head from helmet-to-helmet (or in their case, head-to-head) contact that is seen by football linemen EVERY DOWN. In a rugby scrum, you more or less start off already in contact with the opposing team and push at one another; there is no "collision" as there is in American football.

If you ask any NFL player, I think they are perfectly okay with risking their bodies, even with the possibility of loss of use of one or more of their limbs. It becomes something completely different when they consider the loss of use of their minds. This is what is NOT being explained to many players, and why so many linemen shrug off repeated blows to the head - they just deal with the pain as part of the game.

I am not advocating removing all violence, just reducing it a bit.
 
2012-12-05 12:14:07 PM

ox45tallboy: I am not advocating removing all violence, just reducing it a bit.


This is why I've been advocating substantial changes in US football, or it will fade away much like boxing because no top athletes will want to compete.

*Eliminate the neutral zone so that the two lines start the play in near contact with one another. It removes the constant collision on every play

*Penalties for any tackles above the shoulders or below the thighs

*Reduce/change padding & Helmets to remove the feeling of invincibility. I say go to soft padding and soft helmets. It'll protect head-to-head collissions, but players won't feel safe diving head first into another player anymore.
 
2012-12-05 12:33:49 PM

MugzyBrown: ox45tallboy: I am not advocating removing all violence, just reducing it a bit.

This is why I've been advocating substantial changes in US football, or it will fade away much like boxing because no top athletes will want to compete.

*Eliminate the neutral zone so that the two lines start the play in near contact with one another. It removes the constant collision on every play

*Penalties for any tackles above the shoulders or below the thighs

*Reduce/change padding & Helmets to remove the feeling of invincibility. I say go to soft padding and soft helmets. It'll protect head-to-head collissions, but players won't feel safe diving head first into another player anymore.


I agree with your first two points, but I think players have been doing this too long to change the equipment. They'll just hit the same way and kill each other.
 
2012-12-05 12:59:14 PM

MugzyBrown: Maybe, just maybe, this is because it's difficult for a 200lb DB to wrap up and tackle a 230lb NFL-level running back?


Ronnie Lott(200-210lbs) never had that problem, probably because he actually tackled properly and wrapped up the guy to drive through him, this new thing of tackling someone at their shoulders is what is hurting guys worse.
 
2012-12-05 01:00:18 PM

MugzyBrown: Maybe, just maybe, this is because it's difficult for a 200lb DB to wrap up and tackle a 230lb NFL-level running back?

Or for a LB to actually get two hands on an NFL level receiver?

Plus they're taught to try and jar the ball loose from a receiver, and you can't do that by wrapping up.


I say more scoring = more viewership. Sure, this may result in fewer tackles. However, since it is fewer tackles for both teams, you might see more scoring. Also, linebackers and safeties will make more plays on the ball, rather than the receiver, meaning more interceptions.
 
2012-12-05 01:01:43 PM

Dafatone: MugzyBrown: ox45tallboy: I am not advocating removing all violence, just reducing it a bit.

This is why I've been advocating substantial changes in US football, or it will fade away much like boxing because no top athletes will want to compete.

*Eliminate the neutral zone so that the two lines start the play in near contact with one another. It removes the constant collision on every play

*Penalties for any tackles above the shoulders or below the thighs

*Reduce/change padding & Helmets to remove the feeling of invincibility. I say go to soft padding and soft helmets. It'll protect head-to-head collissions, but players won't feel safe diving head first into another player anymore.

I agree with your first two points, but I think players have been doing this too long to change the equipment. They'll just hit the same way and kill each other.


They need to just make anything above the bottom of the numbers a penalty increasing in lost yardage the higher it goes, force players to tackle with their shoulders by forcing them out for leading with their heads.

Too many of these guys are looking for the big hit for attention to make more cash....
 
2012-12-05 01:05:28 PM

Dafatone: I agree with your first two points, but I think players have been doing this too long to change the equipment. They'll just hit the same way and kill each other.


This is also a valid point, and as I said earlier, there is currently a major problem in the NFL because so many defensive players were taught from Pop Warner on to "lead with the helmet", and now they are forced to re-think their whole way of playing the game.

You could phase it in in the high school level first, then college, then the pros, but one might argue that this changes the nature of play so much so that as one graduated to the next level before the new equipment is phased in, his body would not be prepared for the play style and he would be more subject to injury even though the amount of armor and padding is increased.

I think no matter what you do, if changes are made to the safety equipment, injuries will actually increase for a period of several years before dropping down below previous levels, simply because players will not be used to the playing style.
 
2012-12-05 01:08:28 PM

MugzyBrown: ox45tallboy: I am not advocating removing all violence, just reducing it a bit.

This is why I've been advocating substantial changes in US football, or it will fade away much like boxing because no top athletes will want to compete.

*Eliminate the neutral zone so that the two lines start the play in near contact with one another. It removes the constant collision on every play

*Penalties for any tackles above the shoulders or below the thighs

*Reduce/change padding & Helmets to remove the feeling of invincibility. I say go to soft padding and soft helmets. It'll protect head-to-head collissions, but players won't feel safe diving head first into another player anymore.


Looks like you should have been wearing a helmet through your childhood. Jesus Christ.
 
2012-12-05 01:18:25 PM
Ronnie Lott(200-210lbs) never had that problem, probably because he actually tackled properly and wrapped up the guy to drive through him, this new thing of tackling someone at their shoulders is what is hurting guys worse.

Walter Peyton was a straight-ahead power style back in that era and weighed 200lbs

Brian Westbrook was considered under-sized and weighed 203

Arian Foster weighs 220lbs

Jerry Rice was 200lbs

Megatron is 236lbs
 
2012-12-05 01:25:45 PM

Serious Black: In other news, water is wet.


No in other news brain trauma for children playing football is visible in as little as three practices. Full contact football is child abuse and should be a banned school activity throughout all public schools at all levels.
 
2012-12-05 01:27:25 PM

IlGreven: I'll get it out of the way now:

They knew what they were getting into, therefore the NFL should not be liable for any chronic conditions that result from playing the game.

/Yep, still ridiculous reasoning.


Except much like the tobacco industry the NFL has know about this research for decades before it came to light. They have knowingly and deliberately lied to their players, college players, and children players for decades negatively impacting their health. That lawsuit by former NFL players may be the end of the NFL as we know it.
 
2012-12-05 01:30:54 PM

digistil: IAmRight: Flag football would still be way more entertaining than soccer.

I'm going to hold you to that.


I'm guessing he never watched elite level football, no not even the Olympics.
 
2012-12-05 01:32:33 PM
Luckily, football is a voluntary activity.
 
2012-12-05 01:34:29 PM

doubled99: Luckily, football is a voluntary activity.


So is going to work
 
2012-12-05 01:56:10 PM

steamingpile: MugzyBrown: Maybe, just maybe, this is because it's difficult for a 200lb DB to wrap up and tackle a 230lb NFL-level running back?

Ronnie Lott(200-210lbs) never had that problem, probably because he actually tackled properly and wrapped up the guy to drive through him, this new thing of tackling someone at their shoulders is what is hurting guys worse.


This simply isn't true. Ronnie Lott more frequently ran through people, and relied on the force of the shot to make them fall down. He actually knocked himself unconscious several times. Although he was certainly cleaner by today's standards than Jack Tatum, a lot of his play would be flagged if he'd begun his career this decade, instead 30 years ago.
 
2012-12-05 02:06:13 PM

Slaves2Darkness: digistil: IAmRight: Flag football would still be way more entertaining than soccer.

I'm going to hold you to that.

I'm guessing he never watched elite level football, no not even the Olympics.


They have flag football at the Olympics? Everybody in this country has seen elite level football. It is the only thing worth watching on Sundays.
 
2012-12-05 02:39:35 PM
More studies show what everyone already knew: Getting repeatedly hit on the head is bad for you

We also already knew the Earth was flat. I know some things may seem obvious to you subby, but "it's totally obvious" or "it totally makes sense" doesn't count as scientific fact, you actually have to prove it.

What's more, these studies specifically address how bad getting hit on the head repeatedly is. We already knew it was bad through scientific studies. By all means, perform one yourself, hit your head on the wall. It hurts, right? Yeah, that's "bad." But then wait a few minutes. The pain goes away. Does that mean all of the bad went away? Many people think yes. "I'm fine now." Actually, you're not fine now.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report