bobble Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 saw this on yahoo... <a href=" " title="Image2 by snurfer64, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4719303998_b5fe994dbf_b.jpg" width="848" height="662" alt="Image2" /></a> looks like alpine to me. article didn't say much... just blah, blah, blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 This is lazy writing: "Miyamoto's team reports that most of the injured snowboarders (88 percent) had not taken snowboarding lessons from a licensed instructor. Only about 12 percent did. Most of the injured snowboarders were beginners." Without also saying what percentage of all snowboarders have taken lessons, that statistic is totally meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopestar Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I too saw this. All the "yo boarders" here in So-Cal don't think hardbooting is snowboarding. I am so sick of the mentality or lack there of in the 17- 20 something year olds especially here at our local resorts. They are totally disrespectful. 25" stance on 145cm deck. Sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopestar Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 :lol: kind of like a basketball player with million dollar moves and a 25 cent shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!MaineCarver! Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I am not sure whether to take that as an complement or an insult. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 ok, is it just me or does helmet + sunglasses = DORK? and Dan, I can't understand how that stat isn't valid...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I find it interesting they exclude a lot of accidents "After excluding injuries from jumps, half-pipe and collisions<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="3" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->" I would like to know what the numbers of accidents related to those crashes are in comparison to what was counted. I do agree that taking a lesson to start off helps get rid of bad habits before they start. However there are no detailed numbers of riders who took lessons versus riders who did not. As a coach and Instructor get a bit nervous telling people how to fall. I wonder if I am opening myself to any liability. Main observation i can make is sliding is better then a direct impact. A lot of injury prevention comes down to training yourself to reduce the number of crashes you take. But realizing that crashes and injuries happen and try to lessen their severity. The biggest issue i have seen to cause injury is just poor decision making. And i have been guilt of this on many occasions, and have the X-rays, hospital records and body hardware to prove it. Cam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopestar Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 ok, is it just me or does helmet + sunglasses = DORK? Helmet and glasses are fine together as long as you carve a nice trench! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Dold Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 ok, is it just me or does helmet + sunglasses = DORK?When it's not snowing, that's what I wear. I don't care about fashion. This was interesting: "...4 to 7 of every 1,000 visits resulting in some type of injury" This is a lot less than I thought it would have been. And I always assumed wrist injuries were mainly the result of forward falls, not backward ones. I would like to know what percentage of those suffering wrist injuries were wearing wristguards. The rider looks very familiar, anyone know who it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 and Dan, I can't understand how that stat isn't valid...? Because we don't know what the overall rate of boarders taking lessons is, we cannot tell whether the group being injured are any different in their rate of instruction compared with riders overall. SunSurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Because we don't know what the overall rate of boarders taking lessons is, we cannot tell whether the group being injured are any different in their rate of instruction compared with riders overall.SunSurfer ding ding ding! Exactly. The writer kind of sneakily suggested that lack of instruction puts you at higher risk of suffering an injury. It might even be true, but they didn't present enough data to make that conclusion (probably because it seemed like too much work to dig up that statistic). What if 96% of snowboarders have never had lessons, but self-taught boarders only account for 88% of injuries? Then having a lesson would make you more likely to suffer an injury... (Have I ever mentioned I work in market research? :) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 It's odd when they do that. It seems like they decided before they started what the answer was (that more people should take lessons), and then wrote the article to justify that. Scientific it's not. In fact they'd be laughed out of school for trying tricks like that. Well actually they probably were laughed out of school, which is why they write garbage for Y!. But they also missed one key issue... If you look at the injury rates for snowboarders in a class versus those for snowboarders who are not in a class, you'd find that the injury rates for the former was higher than for those in the general population because people in a class are generally early stage learners, which is likely the risky time. So if you compare people who have had tuition (who are therefore later stage than raw beginners) versus raw beginners (who may comprise the highest injury risk), you will be comparing more experienced with less experienced riders, which is not a fair comparison. I'm not sure precisely where the peak risk is (they did not say), or if they corrected for this (they did not say). As per earlier posts... insufficient data, the article is pretty worthless other than in telling us the journo's opinion. And the fact that he doesn't know a hardbooter when he sees one (duh:the guy in the shot is not likely to be accepted in a class irrespective of the effect that class would have on his risk). Still, it's a change from a journalist telling us that helmets should be mandatory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slopestar Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 It's odd when they do that. It seems like they decided before they started what the answer was (that more people should take lessons), and then wrote the article to justify that. Scientific it's not. In fact they'd be laughed out of school for trying tricks like that. Well actually they probably were laughed out of school, which is why they write garbage for Y!.But they also missed one key issue... If you look at the injury rates for snowboarders in a class versus those for snowboarders who are not in a class, you'd find that the injury rates for the former was higher than for those in the general population because people in a class are generally early stage learners, which is likely the risky time. So if you compare people who have had tuition (who are therefore later stage than raw beginners) versus raw beginners (who may comprise the highest injury risk), you will be comparing more experienced with less experienced riders, which is not a fair comparison. I'm not sure precisely where the peak risk is (they did not say), or if they corrected for this (they did not say). As per earlier posts... insufficient data, the article is pretty worthless other than in telling us the journo's opinion. And the fact that he doesn't know a hardbooter when he sees one (duh:the guy in the shot is not likely to be accepted in a class irrespective of the effect that class would have on his risk). Still, it's a change from a journalist telling us that helmets should be mandatory i got it. my brain hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjvircks Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Does anyone besides me find the choice of photos out of whack and misleading? The article is discussing getting hurt but shows a rider NOT getting hurt. I think that most people out there who do not know the rythm and style of alpine would believe this guy is falling over and is going to get hurt when nothing is farther from the truth. Maybe he will snag a hand, jam some fingers or dislocate a shoulder... but he is not falling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateW Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Worthless journalism... The fact that 9 out of 10 injured snowboarders didn't take lessons basically tells me that 9 out of 10 snowboarders didn't take lessons. I'm totally with Dan and SunSurfer on this... In order to prove something interesting, they need a control group. Also, did anyone look at abstract linked from the article? http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/27/0363546509361190.abstract Conclusion: Two snowboarding stances as well as 2 falling directions had a significant influence on the frequency of the injured side in the upper extremity. In an earlier report, these same researchers found that water, at room temperature, is wet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shred Gruumer Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Sorry Buggs.. that looks like you .. wait I think I have a picture.. same red jacket!!! RSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunSurfer Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 The problem of bad use of science, statistics, etc. in the media is very widespread. A great way to amuse yourself but also to open your eyes to how widespread the problem is, is to read Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Science". or just go to http://www.badscience.net/ Like Dan, I'm also trained to critically evaluate research findings, in my case primarily medical research. "Bad Science" will help someone without that training spot much of the crap out there! SunSurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrider Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 99.999% of snowboard injuries are by riders not using plates!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateW Posted June 23, 2010 Report Share Posted June 23, 2010 99.999% of snowboard injuries are by riders not using plates!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol: Whoah, that's profound. Hard boots must be a whole lot safer. I had no idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.