Isnt it the humidity thats really bad. i remember seeing an interview once with, I think the mayor, but someone involved with the bid for the Atlanta Olympic Games. Apparently it was awful for the athletes with the high temperatures and humidity. He said we guaranteed the Bid committee it wouldnt be more than 75 degrees at 3 everyday. We just didnt tell them that was 3 in the morning...
My wife has a cousin who lives in Fort Worth. I visited her on business trips during the 70's/80's and she came to visit us with her husband when we lived in Sydney. Her husband is an ex-Texas Ranger Colonel and his mother an American Indian who lived with them when I visited. My wife has never visited FW.
I always assumed American Football was just a circus act of people running into each other with **** load of padding on (a kin to it's a knockout) to provide some distraction to yanks inbetween the adverts.
... and while eating hotdogs. Otherwise, you are 100% correct. My kids would disagree with me, though.
Agree that of what I know about American rugbeh I'd choose the Packers over any other team not in Hull.
I've just been for a three mile walk, up through Kowloon Park, it was only 7.30am, but already 28 degrees and 84% humidity. I'm soaked.
Dolphins for me, I'm going to see them again over Xmas, looking forward to seeing the finished stadium, it was a building site when I went last year. Why are Dallas so big? Apart from a brief stint in the 90s they've never really been that successful on the field yet they're the most valuable sports club in the world, seems bizarre.
The Cowboys were a very successful team during the late 60s and 70s, and had a Navy man at quarterback most of that time, Roger Staubach. He and coach Tom Landry were two of the most respected men in the sport. They made it to 5 Super Bowls in the 70s, winning 2. I supported a rival team back then, but though I didn't like Dallas I still respected them. Their present owner is an assclown and the organization lacks the class it once had.
Don't be daft! How many g's do you think are experienced when two 5,000lb vehicles crash head-on at 20mph?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/sports/a2954/4212171/ "We see 100-g impacts all the time," says Stefan Duma, director of the university's Center for Injury Biomechanics, "and several over 150 g's."
The numbers quoted refer to what a sensor rigidly affixed to the helmet would measure in a worst-case scenario. This is FAR greater than what the head or any other body part would experience (and would explode under that force), because of the padding, which drastically reduces the acceleration (by increasing the distance over which the speed-reduction occurs). It also spreads the load over a wider area. The article quoted relates to an unrepresentative example: a weighted helmet gives a very poor simulation of a full, articulated, human body. The quoted '1600 pounds of tackling force', moreover, represents a FAR smaller force than the impactive force corresponding to 150g.
So how do you explain it when sensors in mouth guards measure the same rate of acceleration in actual tackles, during real games? If something is measuring the rate of acceleration inside a players skull then the readings are measuring the effect of the tackle on the body AFTER the protective equipment has already reduced some of the impact. https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2013/01/04/stanford-investigates-the-hits-that-cause-concussions/
As I've said, the bit about 'in actual tackles' is nonsense. There's obviously a large and dangerous impact (similar to a knockout punch in boxing) when a player's helmet hits the hard ground, but the effect on his actual head is waaaay smaller than the stated 150g which relates to a different, unrealistic measurement.
