Is that actually correct, or is it a RLFans 'truth' that people have adopted as gospel?

On the face of it, it seems to me that a head that is violently accelerated will do far more damage to the brain, which is then also subjected to violent movement, consequently impacting not only the skull but damaging blood vessels and other tissue.

It also seems patently obvious that 'Hohaia's brain' didn't 'absorbed the full impact of the contact'. His cheekbone/eye socket did, and they did exactly what they evolved to do - absorb the shock and protect the tissue behind them. There was no great movement of his head on the floor, therefore I can't see why the brain would have suffered particularly as a result.

Put it this way: if I place an apple in a metal box, which will bruise the apple more - punching it out of my hand and letting it hit the floor, or placing the box on the floor and punching it?

Almost everything I've read on brain injury talks consistently about acceleration as the key cause of traumatic brain injury - of which there was practically none during that second punch, as outrageous as it was morally. If anything, the first one (which most people agree was fair game) did more damage - it knocked him out cold for a start, which isn't to be underestimated.

Oh God - here we go! Cronut's thinking again. Anything can happen in the next five minutes.





Is this a sentence?



You have no idea what Hohaia's brain did or did not absorb.



An apple is about as far away from a human brain in form and function as yours is.



You read as well!? What - "Apple Injuries For Dummies"?

Oh look, Mugchump's on the sauce again.


Only to those who can comprehend English.


Hence the question at the top. Is the claim factually correct or not? You clearly have no idea.


I'd say yours is pretty similar, and has been heading that way for some time.


I do! Occasionally from Mugchump's approved list of conspiracy authors - not that I approve of course. My brain isn't an apple.

Are you denying acceleration-deceleration is (apparently) the main cause of brain trauma? Or do you know better?

Oh, I forgot, Hohaia was a Saints player. Flower is a Wigan player. In your practically cider brain he should probably face a firing squad.

Nope ... you've sent me to sleep already.

Jesus wept....if the supposed overseers act like you two, what hope for the rest of this board

But ... but ... HE started it!

There's always one

Firstly, it's sad that LH is leaving this way but it is the best decision all things considered.

Second, headguards are not the solution, there are plenty of reasons why, if you check out why boxing removed them from the amateur game, why cycle helmets don't work for all but low end scrapes and bruises & why in the US there are thousands upon thousands of ex-NFL players with long term brain injuries you'll find out why.

Thirdly, the 2nd punch from BF is the least damaging of the two (IMO), certainly from the force of the impact (coupe) and the amount the brain moves (contrecoupe) compared to the first punch.
In the first punch (the 'knockout' punch), not only is there greater force imparted but also the amount the brain will have moved/rotated (comparatively to the 2nd punch) this lends itself to greater risk of diffuse axonal injury, that's the type of force injury that is the highest cause of brain damage.
as opposed to just a direct blow with little head movement.
That's not to say the 2nd punch didn't do [iany[/i damage but by comparison his head moves less (Less brain rotation) and the physical strike is with less force.
Certainly going by the obvious effects of the first and what damage occurs from certain situations (from a factual medical POV)it is the lesser of the two.

Insane and insular post......well done you

Insular AND insane


Aside from your obvious inability to post something intelligent I'll give you a second bite at trying to explain your viewpoint and why you disagree...away you go sonny

In Boxing you accept you will be punched in the head(albeit when stood up, conscious by someone with padded gloves on with a ref overseeing proceedings). In RL it is against the rules to be punched (when conscious) not once but for a second time in the head when unconscious on the floor. Do you see the difference?

Do that on a high street and you are facing prison and possible civil charges for damages.

possibly - however if the whole thing had happened on the street would both involved parties not be arrested. Lance elbowed flower in the head, would that not be classed as assault?