>>God, I hate astroturf.
>Me too! Does anyone have any approximate percentages of grass stadiums
>versus turf. You'd think with the increased number of injuries these
>last couple of years, that mabye, just maybe, they could try and persuade
>the new expansion teams to use real grass!?!?!?
real difference between rates of injury on grass and on turf.
(a) I'm pretty sure average career lengths have gone up in the years
since turf was installed, which you wouldn't expect if turf caused so
many terrible injuries. Many more players are playing to age 30 and
beyond than there used to be; you could argue that turf _prolongs_
(b) grass fields often have unique ways of causing injury (thin grass,
baseball dirt infields to slip on: just ask Marino) that cancel out
the injury-causing aspects of turf fields.
(c) today's injuries are better reported (and earlier treated) than
in years before grass, leading to the illusion of a rash of injuries.
Some anecdotal evidence to chew on:
Two of the *** teams of the modern football era have been
Dallas and Pittsburgh. Their players got to be good, one would
think, because they never got hurt and could concentrate on
developing their talents rather than rehabbing. How in the
world can you claim turf causes injuries when presented with
these two teams and their incredibly durable superstars?
The team that is probably most commonly associated with
injuries today, the Redskins, plays on a grass field.
Jim Otto, the player I associate most with football-related injuries,
played almost his whole career on grass.
Every year we say "Wow, this is one of the worst years for
injuries I can remember." We tick off all the superstars that
have hit the sidelines, and we blame artificial turf for it. But
we simultaneously forget all about the injuries that ravaged teams
in the pre-turf past.
I.e., we forget that pro football is by its very nature ***, and
that playing surface has very little to do with how hard you get hit.
Greg Franklin "If it's not on the net,