Reebok Plate Shoe?

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Cool. What's his jock made of?

I'm sorry if I offended you by dispelling the rumor that Reebok plate shows do not have steel toes. I assumed some would like the correct information. I happened to see Reilly's earlier this year.

Feel free to report on any plate shows with which you are familiar. I will not insult you.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ump153

I'm sorry if I offended you by dispelling the rumor that Reebok plate shows do not have steel toes. I assumed some would like the correct information. I happened to see Reilly's earlier this year.

Feel free to report on any plate shows with which you are familiar. I will not insult you.

What difference does it make who owns them? And if it makes no difference, why bother dropping the name?

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What difference does it make who owns them? And if it makes no difference, why bother dropping the name?

The last time I wrote about "an MLB umpire" doing such and such I was challenged for not being specific. This time I was specific and I am challenged for not being generic.

I'm sorry professor. I'll try to find a third method to communicate next time, one that might suit you better.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Ump153,

The only thing wrong with naming a major league umpire in a post is that it makes people that don't know any major league umpires jealous of your association with said umpire. What we think is just being factual about having a certain conversation, or working with a certain big league umpire, etc., other people perceive as "name dropping," which is not necessarily the case. Every time I've ever mentioned a situation involving a MLB player or umpire I've officiated/worked with, I get a bunch of static from the peanut gallery, as if it's a sin to mention knowing these people personally. Some people don't know the difference between having acquantances and jock sniffing.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ump153

The last time I wrote about "an MLB umpire" doing such and such I was challenged for not being specific. This time I was specific and I am challenged for not being generic.

I'm sorry professor. I'll try to find a third method to communicate next time, one that might suit you better.

When someone makes a claim and refers to a source, it matters who the source is. Then it's reasonable to "challenge" the claim until the source and the source's credibility is known.

If you're making a claim about shoes, then the identity of the shoes' owner isn't really relevant.

[kylejt]

I'd rather see a carbon fiber or ceramic toe and instep, but I'm sure it's a trickle down from the industrial shoe folks.

[Delaware Blue]

Originally Posted by kylejt

...but I'm sure it's a trickle down from the industrial shoe folks.

There are non-metallic composite toe industrial shoes that meet the I/C-75 and ASTM F2413-05 standards. Those are the same standards used for steel toe industrial shoes, so the technology is out there.

If someone came up with composite toe plate shoes that met those standards, I would not hesitate to wear them. Until then, no way. That said, I'm willing to bet there are a few cheap steel toe plate shoes that don't meet those standards.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

When someone makes a claim and refers to a source, it matters who the source is. Then it's reasonable to "challenge" the claim until the source and the source's credibility is known.

If you're making a claim about shoes, then the identity of the shoes' owner isn't really relevant.

The way to keep a source is to not reveal the source. To anyone, ever.