Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB
Did you control the possible variables such as speed of the ball, where it contacts the mask, position of the head....? If not then you can't say that any mask is better as each blow to your head was different. I could take 50 blows to the mask by pitches moving at the same speed but only be injured by one of them. The fact that you haven't got hurt yet using the HSM doesn't actually mean anything.
What about the PBUC study saying that the Shock FX users were injured more often than other HSM users? I know that study has a small sample size but the fact that you reached the conclusion that it is the best mask and PBUC says it is the worst proves the point that one cannot judge a mask by only how often its users get hurt. One must control the variables in order to reach a definitive conlusion.
If the odds of getting injured by a baseball hitting you in the mask are 1 in 50 then you saying you were hit dozens of times doesn't really matter. 36 shots to the face without getting hurt doesn't mean that your mask is super awesome when the odds of getting injured with the average mask are 1 in 50. Everyone on here knows that the HSM may be safer but no one knows for sure. It is weird that you fail to see what is obvious to many others.
|
I have to say that this last part--and the first part too, really--is some of the most ridiculous crap I have ever read.
I almost can't believe you are serious.
"Did you control the variables?"
