New article: Dementia Pugilistica in HEMA

[KeithFarrell]

I have researched and written an article about the subject of dementia pugilistica (brain damage from repeated head hits in boxing and other sports) with relation to the practice of historical European martial arts.

The article introduces the condition, discusses its occurrence in boxing and other sports, looks at risk mitigations used by various to prevent concussions, and makes some recommendations for HEMA practitioners to reduce the likelihood of this condition developing in our most active athletes, competitors and instructors.

The document is available on the Academy of Historical Arts website at this link:
http://www.historical-academy.co.uk/files/research/keith-farrell/Dementia%20Pugilistica%20in%20HEMA.pdf

[Randall Pleasant]

Keith

Thanks,

[KeithFarrell]

Very welcome - I hope it is useful!

[Corey Roberts]

Hello Keith,

Thanks for this well written article on an important topic. By the way, do you happen to know where you can find the protective rating of a mask? You mention that masks should at least be CEN level II? I am not sure where one finds that on the mask.

Thanks.

[Corey Roberts]

Also, there is some evidence that wearing too much protective gear in various sports actually leads to more injuries rather than less. This is often due to the fact that participants are able to hit harder and heavier than they normally would be able to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... uries.html

What are your thoughts on this issue?

[KeithFarrell]

Hi Corey. Usually the supplier will say on their website if their masks are rated to CEN level 1 or 2. On the masks themselves, there is usually a small label somewhere with the vendor's name and the mask's rating. I know that Leon Paul make it very easy to find this information, but other vendors may not make it quite so easy.

I have heard the theory that too much protective gear can lead to more injuries, rather than less. It is an example of the risk homeostasis theory: if you feel less safe, you carry out your activity in a safer fashion; if you feel safer, you may carry out the activity in a riskier fashion, because there is no the same incentive or perception of risk.

For example, with cars: small cars with few safety features tend to be involved in fewer crashes, because people drive them more safely than bigger, more expensive cars, but the crashes tend to be more catastrophic when they do occur. However, bigger cars with more safety features tend to be involved in more crashes because the drivers are not quite so conscious of the risks when driving the safer vehicles; although there are more crashes in the safer vehicles as a result of less careful driving, the crashes are less catastrophic, because the vehicles have so many safety features.

In boxing, there is definitely a theory that lowering the amount of safety gear would help to prevent injuries, since people would not hit each other as hard if there was not the perception of safety. I have seen that theory in a lot of places, and boxers themselves often believe this. When I was researching for my article, however, I could only find scientific studies that said that more safety gear would be beneficial. I could not find a single scientific study saying that reducing safety gear would improve safety.

Maybe I just missed those studies, that is entirely possible, but the only sources in favour of reducing safety gear for boxing to improve safety in the ring were "popular science" websites without any reference to actual scientific studies.

I believe that the risk homeostasis theory is very much true and in effect. We see examples all the time, in every aspect of life! However, without the scientific evidence to link reducing safety gear with improved safety in contact sports, we should probably follow what science has proven, and accept that safety gear is our best chance to prevent catastrophic injuries.

[Corey Roberts]

My understanding of the safety gear in boxing issue is that it actually has to do with felt impact rather than perceived risk. Getting punched in the head is painful. Thus, when wearing no head protection a fighter is not willing to take as many big shots to the head due to the fact it hurts and rattles him.
When wearing head protection the felt impact to his head is less, but the actual impact acceleration on his brain is the same. Thus he feels the shot less due to the fact the outer structure of his head and face is protected by the headgear, therefore he feels less pain when the shot hits him. But since the headgear does not actually provide any stabilization of the head from impact acceleration his brain is being rattled the same amount. Since his face and head don't hurt as much when he gets punched, he gets slammed in the head more and is able to take more shots to the head, thus contributing to a greater number of overall accelerations to his brain.

Pain, sometimes is a good thing in that it keeps us away from damage. I unfortunately cannot think of any specific scientific studies confirming this concept but that was my understanding of why the headgear leads to more brain trauma.

[Corey Roberts]

By the way I am in no way saying that we should not be wearing masks. I am however questioning how much padding we should have on underneath or in addition to the mask as it may contribute to a similar effect.

[KeithFarrell]

I have heard that explanation for safety gear in boxing as well. It also sounds plausible, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find any studies showing some scientific evidence for it.

I definitely see your point with the extra padding around the mask - if it is there, people may feel willing to accept harder hits, or give each other harder hits. I think in the end it all comes down to the culture of each club or school. If the culture is to play hard, then padding is probably a good idea; if the culture is to emphasise control and light hitting, then perhaps the padding is not so required.

[Corey Roberts]

I will have to look into it, thankfully I don't think we take the big head shots as in boxing.

What are your thoughts on appropriate hand protection? There is varying debate as to the amount and type of hand protection for our craft.

[KeithFarrell]

Personally, I feel rather attached to my hands, so I like to keep them safe without taking risks. Therefore my gloves of choice are the Arcensis gloves; fingered and dextrous like lacrosse gloves, but much better protected. Not in the same league of protection as the Polish Sparring Gloves, but good enough for everyday use. I intend to get myself a pair of Sparring Gloves as well, so that I have the opportunity to play harder and still keep my hands safe.

My point of view is that it is useful to play lightly (with control and little gear), and it is also useful to play hard (requiring significantly more gear), and at levels of intensity and force in between. Whatever choice we make about levels of contact and therefore safety gear will introduce one type of artefact or another - so if I train different levels of contact and learn to work in different situations, then I have the best opportunity to learn different skills and improve my abilities. Therefore I need to have different options of equipment, so that I can choose the appropriate level of protective gear for the level of contact I am about to use.

The three pairs of gloves that currently live in my kit bag are motorbiking gloves (lightly padded), Arcensis gloves (well protected yet still dextrous), and the Absolute Force gloves (high levels of protection, but terrible mobility). I want to replace the AF gloves as soon as possible, because they are simply not in the same league as the Sparring Gloves.