The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   The most expensive mask (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/51526-most-expensive-mask.html)

briancurtin Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6 (Post 577156)
Another one. Here it is:

http://www.honigs-canada.com/detail....ub=36&Item=790

Even for a mask that gives the best view, protection, comfort, and appearance (if you like HSM's), would you be willing to pay this much?
No.

SethPDX Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:48pm
Um, guys:

That price is Canadian dollars. The conversion to US dollars might still make it relatively expensive.

Welpe Tue Feb 10, 2009 01:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SethPDX (Post 577486)
Um, guys:

That price is Canadian dollars. The conversion to US dollars might still make it relatively expensive.
About $444 USD per my previous post. ;)

greymule Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:24am
Prices do vary with exchange rates. I checked the price in the YSISF catalogue: 13 goats (includes tax and shipping). One of the UICs over there tells me he got his for 11 goats, though.

LDUB Tue Feb 10, 2009 05:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 577431)
I answered this, but I guess my response violated some kind of rule about how you can respond to certain insiders, irrespective of how they treat you or others.

Well, let's see ... no, I don't have any scientific studies. The protection is just superior, sir, with all due respect. But if you don't feel that's the case, then, of course, I no longer believe that's the case.

How's that?
So you admit to not having anything to back up your wild claim. Currently no one knows which is safer and for your to pretend like you do is just incorrect. You saying "the protectiuon is just superior" does not make it true.

Durham Tue Feb 10, 2009 05:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6 (Post 577156)
Another one. Here it is:

http://www.honigs-canada.com/detail....ub=36&Item=790

Even for a mask that gives the best view, protection, comfort, and appearance (if you like HSM's), would you be willing to pay this much?
I would.

I bought the Titanium mask b/c I don't like the bucket and it is the best mask I can get at the moment.

I bought my WV mask in 1997 for $80 and at the time it was the best one I could get and the most expensive too if I remember correctly.

The way I see it, is you buy the best you can get and use it for as long as you can. The WV mask ran me about $7 per year that I used it. If I have this titanium mask as long, then it will run me less than $19 per year, and I think that I can handle that.

It is like buying a computer now a days, get the best one you can, because the second you buy it it is out dated. The next new thing will come along, but me and the Titanium will be together for awhile.

I probably would have gotten this one if I used a bucket.

Kevin Finnerty Tue Feb 10, 2009 08:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 577871)
So you admit to not having anything to back up your wild claim. Currently no one knows which is safer and for your to pretend like you do is just incorrect. You saying "the protectiuon is just superior" does not make it true.
Thank you for being there. It's nice to know there is someone out there to rely on for the ultimate point of view.


For the record: I have caught with a Rawlings, an All-Star and an Easton and taken many high velocity blows. I have recently tested the Shock FX by being purposely drilled by college pitchers. I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask. The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all. Even a decent bucket offers a less jarring blow on straight shots to the face than any mask after years of personal testing. Everyone I have ever known to discuss the subject makes the same attestation. Every single one.

Luckily, I am blessed with an open-mindedness that doesn't cause me to doubt absolutely everything unless there is some $cientific $tudy to prove whatever point that the interested parties want proven. I am neither that naive, nor that gullible, nor that intractable.

Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring.

$cientific $tudy ... :D

MrUmpire Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 577904)
Thank you for being there. It's nice to know there is someone out there to rely on for the ultimate point of view.


For the record: I have caught with a Rawlings, an All-Star and an Easton and taken many high velocity blows. I have recently tested the Shock FX by being purposely drilled by college pitchers. I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask. The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all. Even a decent bucket offers a less jarring blow on straight shots to the face than any mask after years of personal testing. Everyone I have ever known to discuss the subject makes the same attestation. Every single one.

Luckily, I am blessed with an open-mindedness that doesn't cause me to doubt absolutely everything unless there is some $cientific $tudy to prove whatever point that the interested parties want proven. I am neither that naive, nor that gullible, nor that intractable.

Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring
$cientific $tudy ... :D
Lighten up. His point is simple and apparently accurate...there has been no study to determine which is safer. There are plenty of conclusions based on individual observations and there is much anecdotal evidence.

Some will choose to accept that which is available as Gospel. Some will defer until they see reliable data.

Does anyone really care?

LDUB Wed Feb 11, 2009 09:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 577904)
I have taken straight blows to the grill with four different buckets and every single one of them offers a less jarring blow than any mask.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 577904)
The Shock FX is the most resilient of them all.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 577904)
Yeah, right, "currently no one knows which is safer," except all of us who have used both extensively for many years and dozens of blows. I'll continue to pretend that I know that a bucket is safer, while I continue to use a mask for umpiring.
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.

Kevin Finnerty Wed Feb 11, 2009 09:43am
You are a different kind of person. You are one of those imperious people who must feel he is right about everything, whether you are or not.

If you like $cientific $tudies, then believe what you wish. I believe what I know to be true, and not what a $tudy concludes. The Shock FX is the softest straight-on blow I have ever received of any helmet or mask as a catcher or umpire.

So that means I am concluding that the Shock FX is safer than a mask and in my case, you are wrong, and the $tudy you are so apt to believe can line my daughter's bird's cage.

Why don't you teach a class where everyone has to act like they think you're right?

Opinions are what they are. If you disagree with everything certain people say, you know and will continue to know less than you should about life and people. Good luck.

Kevin Finnerty Wed Feb 11, 2009 09:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDUB (Post 578020)
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?"
:D:D:D

canadaump6 Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:09am
Come on guys let's not fight. If you want the mask then buy it, if you don't want it then don't buy it. If we disagree about its quality fine, but it seems silly to make things personal over a mask.

Kevin Finnerty Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:16am
Yeah, I know. He should have never made this personal.

Why did he pick me to disagree with no matter what the subject, whether he's right or wrong?

I have to go. There are some variables that need controlling.

bob jenkins Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 578041)
Yeah, I know. He should have never made this personal.
Based on my recollection of the thread (and I admit not going back to read it all) he didn't -- any more than you did.

Knock it off. Both of you.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1