The Numbers Are In . . .

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

You are kidding, right? Sorry to be so complex.
I was just trying to relate to you that I have had had a variety of bell-ringing helmet wearing experiences in addition to a lightweight umpire mask, and the Shock effects helmet takes a straight shot and absorbs more of the shock than any mask hit by any ball. Why is it so arguable? It's a high-tech, full-coverage titanium helmet for God's sake... of course it's more absorbent and safer.

Do you have any way to prove that the shots you took with the HSM would have been worse with the standard mask? Can you prove that the shots you took with the standard mask would have been not as bad with the HSM?

You have no support for anything you have said. There are many variables which have an effect on what happens to you when the ball hits your face. What was the trajectory of the pitch? What was the speed? What part of the mask did it hit you in? Where you moving when it hit you? What stance were you using?

In order to say that one is safer than the other an experiment must be done controlling all the variables and only changing the mask.

PBUC says that after all their research they don't know which is safer. What makes you think you know more than them just because you've gotten hit hard 5 times wearing different kinds of masks?