Titanium v Hockey Mask v Old School Steel

[Concernedcitizen2]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/mlb/lindsay-berra-old-school-catchers-masks-help-protect-from-concussions?ymd=20131014&content_id=62938052&vkey=news_mlb

 

Interesting article on mlb.com about catchers switching masks up this year.  Talks about the pros and cons of each.

[maineump]

A coach friend of mine just retired from baseball and was a AAA catcher.

I asked him about his thoughts -

He got a concussion wearing a traditional mask, but he was hit in the head with a backswing. He switched to a bucket and said he felt the direct shots worse with that, but he was more worried about the backswing injury.

 

As an umpire we don't have to worry about the backswing, but do have to wear the mask twice as much as a catcher does. So wearing a steel wire mask gives better protection because it absorbs the shot, but the weight can cause other problems? What to do?

 

I saw a new mask the other day from Rawlings. Titanium cage that flexes some. I think I am going to try that with the TW pads to see. My current titanium (Wilson) has a bent bar in the front (in front of the mouth), but the TW's seemed to do the job.

 

I guess there are drawbacks to every mask, you just have to see what works for you.

[kylejt]

The protective technology inside the bucket isn't that great. The chin pads are fine, but the forehead protection is really lacking. All Star is a bit better, but not on par with a mask loaded with TW.

 

Now if some manufacturer were smart, they'd partner with TW, and corner the market. Can you imagine a TW loaded System 7 HSM? They'd own the market overnight. Especially if they found a way to open up the ear holes, so the concusive sound waves don't kick back through our ears.

 

Then, they can work on that carbon fiber chest protector (right, Brad? ) A carbon fiber System 7 chest protector, with titanium rivets, loaded with Team Wendy padding. Can you imagine how that would sell?

[kanedog]

I have been contemplating switching from my Honigs w TW to titanium but this article along with the NCAA equipment discussion in Philly has made me hesitate.

If I do go titanium do I go with Wilson, Rawlings or All-Star. I tried the new Rawlings TI and it seems really small, as if it will barely cover your face.

[Platejob29]

I've been trying to find an article that came out a few awhile back that I read about umpires and the misconception about HSM vs traditional masks but I can't seem to find it. If I do find it I'll be sure to post a link in this thread. Basically the just of the article was that for an umpire a HSM does protect better if a bat breaks and hits the umpire from the side however with direct shots coming from head on foul balls or cross ups between the pitcher and catcher that they can actually be much worse for overall protection. The article mentioned that when an umpire is locked into his stance his head has no where to go if it is struck so all of the force goes into the head and doesn't allow the body to absorb any force like it would if he was standing straight up and not locked in. Because of the extra weight that a large majority of HSMs have it creates more of a whiplash effect and causes the brain to hit the interior of the skull much harder than if he were using a lighter traditional mask. It also mentioned that in a HSM the protection is built into the shell rather than the pads so the force only is spread out rather than diffused and spread out like a traditional mask with decent padding. The article had a smaller section as well comparing traditional style masks and the materials they were made out of. Some people on here may disagree but it ranked Titanium and Steel to be the two best materials as far as protection over materials like aluminum and magnesium because of the tolerances to flex and absorb impact that Ti and Steel offer as opposed to the hardening processes required to form magnesium and aluminum frames. It was a very well done and interesting article I'm just mad I can't seem to find it anywhere online now.

[Matt_A_B]

Here's my totally unscientific opinion. Given that HSM shell and pad set-ups are based on a design made to take a hockey puck, which is totally comparable to a baseball in size, weight, and speed, how could they not be at least comparable to a traditional style mask in their ability to take an impact? I mean, saying that a HSM is less safe would mean that hockey goalies would be better off using an updated version of the old "Jason" mask, right? I would be interested to see this article, and to see if it's the old one floating around the net that seemed to have some serious flaws in methodology. I don't argue that HSMs are superior in protection, but I have a hard time seeing how they could be drastically inferior either.

[dumbdumb]

A coach friend of mine just retired from baseball and was a AAA catcher.

I asked him about his thoughts -

He got a concussion wearing a traditional mask, but he was hit in the head with a backswing. He switched to a bucket and said he felt the direct shots worse with that, but he was more worried about the backswing injury.

 

As an umpire we don't have to worry about the backswing, but do have to wear the mask twice as much as a catcher does. So wearing a steel wire mask gives better protection because it absorbs the shot, but the weight can cause other problems? What to do?

 

I saw a new mask the other day from Rawlings. Titanium cage that flexes some. I think I am going to try that with the TW pads to see. My current titanium (Wilson) has a bent bar in the front (in front of the mouth), but the TW's seemed to do the job.

 

I guess there are drawbacks to every mask, you just have to see what works for you.

Did he wear that base coach like helmet turned backwards with the mask or did he just wear a hat turned backwards with the mask the old old way. Seems like players would just try wearing a helmet like the Little League batting helmet and just put a mask on one of those helmets worn the regular way before going to a bucket. Pretty good side protection including over the ear with one of those LL batting helmets. Of course, no, I have never seen anyone do that, but it just seems that would be another step above the coaching helmet and mask before going to the bucket.

Back to the good ole heavy masks eh.

[celt62]

Remember Ross also went with the unequal liner/skull cap for extra protection because of multiple concussions in his head gear and ditched that also.  I know it's not an unequal thread but take it for what it's worth.  If major leaguers and mlb umps aren't using it why go through the risk and expense just because it's the latest most expensive thing?

[kylejt]

Here's my totally unscientific opinion. Given that HSM shell and pad set-ups are based on a design made to take a hockey puck, which is totally comparable to a baseball in size, weight, and speed, how could they not be at least comparable to a traditional style mask in their ability to take an impact? I mean, saying that a HSM is less safe would mean that hockey goalies would be better off using an updated version of the old "Jason" mask, right? I would be interested to see this article, and to see if it's the old one floating around the net that seemed to have some serious flaws in methodology. I don't argue that HSMs are superior in protection, but I have a hard time seeing how they could be drastically inferior either.

A simple look inside a typical HSM will tell you something. Look at the forehead padding, and report back. Many times, it's just a flimsey piece of foam rubber.

[ricka56]

 

A simple look inside a typical HSM will tell you something. Look at the forehead padding, and report back. Many times, it's just a flimsey piece of foam rubber.

 

Mine is exactly like that (8 years old), I rarely use mine (only at young/bat slinging ages).

 

From the article:

Steel masks, though heavier than both the titanium and hockey masks, do give, and the bars are farther away from the face and backed up with thicker padding, allowing for better dispersal of the force of impact.

 

Is this true? How do steel masks "give" and do steel masks come with thicker padding? I don't understand the steel/titanium diff. Isn't the force distribution the same through the mask/pads onto our face.

[Platejob29]

 

 

A simple look inside a typical HSM will tell you something. Look at the forehead padding, and report back. Many times, it's just a flimsey piece of foam rubber.

 

Mine is exactly like that (8 years old), I rarely use mine (only at young/bat slinging ages).

 

From the article:

Steel masks, though heavier than both the titanium and hockey masks, do give, and the bars are farther away from the face and backed up with thicker padding, allowing for better dispersal of the force of impact.

 

Is this true? How do steel masks "give" and do steel masks come with thicker padding? I don't understand the steel/titanium diff. Isn't the force distribution the same through the mask/pads onto our face.

 

Rick it's just a matter of how much flex the metal has when it is hardened and welded into a frame. Steel and Titanium are already very strong in their natural states and don't have to be hardened all that much to be formed into a mask. Aluminum or magnesium on the other hand are very flimsily and can't be used to form a mask unless they are hardened. Because of that the masks with a greater hardness do not have any flex or "give" in them like titanium and steel framed masks do. It works almost like a recoil pad on a shot gun.

[ricka56]

 

Mine is exactly like that (8 years old), I rarely use mine (only at young/bat slinging ages).

 

From the article:

Steel masks, though heavier than both the titanium and hockey masks, do give, and the bars are farther away from the face and backed up with thicker padding, allowing for better dispersal of the force of impact.

 

Is this true? How do steel masks "give" and do steel masks come with thicker padding? I don't understand the steel/titanium diff. Isn't the force distribution the same through the mask/pads onto our face.

 

Rick it's just a matter of how much flex the metal has when it is hardened and welded into a frame. Steel and Titanium are already very strong in their natural states and don't have to be hardened all that much to be formed into a mask. Aluminum or magnesium on the other hand are very flimsily and can't be used to form a mask unless they are hardened. Because of that the masks with a greater hardness do not have any flex or "give" in them like titanium and steel framed masks do. It works almost like a recoil pad on a shot gun.

 

Putting that Texas public school system education to work...good for you.

 

I'm slow. I still don't get it. Avila disgarded his titanium mask for a steel one. I don't understand why. If the metal hardness is the virtually the same, and the pads are identical, why is there a difference ? The energy still has to be absorbed somewhere. Why is the heavier steel one preferable over the lighter weight titanium (wrt force absorption on the face/head)?

[noumpere]

 

 

Mine is exactly like that (8 years old), I rarely use mine (only at young/bat slinging ages).

 

From the article:

Steel masks, though heavier than both the titanium and hockey masks, do give, and the bars are farther away from the face and backed up with thicker padding, allowing for better dispersal of the force of impact.

 

Is this true? How do steel masks "give" and do steel masks come with thicker padding? I don't understand the steel/titanium diff. Isn't the force distribution the same through the mask/pads onto our face.

 

Rick it's just a matter of how much flex the metal has when it is hardened and welded into a frame. Steel and Titanium are already very strong in their natural states and don't have to be hardened all that much to be formed into a mask. Aluminum or magnesium on the other hand are very flimsily and can't be used to form a mask unless they are hardened. Because of that the masks with a greater hardness do not have any flex or "give" in them like titanium and steel framed masks do. It works almost like a recoil pad on a shot gun.

 

Putting that Texas public school system education to work...good for you.

 

I'm slow. I still don't get it. Avila disgarded his titanium mask for a steel one. I don't understand why. If the metal hardness is the virtually the same, and the pads are identical, why is there a difference ? The energy still has to be absorbed somewhere. Why is the heavier steel one preferable over the lighter weight titanium (wrt force absorption on the face/head)?

 

the actual physics are way beyond me but since F=ma, the higher the m, the lower the a.  The a is what translates eventually into moving your head.

 

Plus, I think the steel "gives" so that absorbs some more of the a.

[ricka56]

 

I'm slow. I still don't get it. Avila disgarded his titanium mask for a steel one. I don't understand why. If the metal hardness is the virtually the same, and the pads are identical, why is there a difference ? The energy still has to be absorbed somewhere. Why is the heavier steel one preferable over the lighter weight titanium (wrt force absorption on the face/head)?

the actual physics are way beyond me but since F=ma, the higher the m, the lower the a.  The a is what translates eventually into moving your head.

 

Plus, I think the steel "gives" so that absorbs some more of the a.

Ah, good point. You're a Newtonian, I see. I need to revise my profile to distinguish between the types of physics...on second thought, I don't need to distinguish them,

[kylejt]

Curvature, or shape, is also a factor. That's why many have ditched their flatter, New View masks.

 

Ideally, this would be the best shape for a helmet:

[boyinr]

I have never worn a HSM but why wouldn't this work? Given the numbers of HSM wearers can a TW set be too far from the market

http://www.teamwendy.com/products/helmet-liner-systems/zap-zorbium-action-pad-systems/

[Matt_A_B]

 

Here's my totally unscientific opinion. Given that HSM shell and pad set-ups are based on a design made to take a hockey puck, which is totally comparable to a baseball in size, weight, and speed, how could they not be at least comparable to a traditional style mask in their ability to take an impact? I mean, saying that a HSM is less safe would mean that hockey goalies would be better off using an updated version of the old "Jason" mask, right? I would be interested to see this article, and to see if it's the old one floating around the net that seemed to have some serious flaws in methodology. I don't argue that HSMs are superior in protection, but I have a hard time seeing how they could be drastically inferior either.

A simple look inside a typical HSM will tell you something. Look at the forehead padding, and report back. Many times, it's just a flimsey piece of foam rubber.

 

Here's where I have to disagree though. I wear a Shock FX 2.0, and the forehead pad is one inch thick, with multiple layers of padding, each varying in density. It starts off with a very soft, squishy layer up against the forehead, and then gets progressively denser as the layers move out towards the plastic shell. So, clearly some element of design has been used here, rather than a simple flimsy piece of foam. This is comparable to anything you would find in a high end hockey goalie helmet. Again, I would pose the question, do you think a hockey goalie, when talking strictly about frontal impacts, would be better off with an updated version of the old school "Jason" mask, as opposed to a modern goalie helmet?

On a final side note, I took a really weird, freak foul ball off the side of the head last summer, and I was very grateful that I had on my HSM. It was a Legion baseball game, so very high caliber, hard throwing pitchers. The pitcher had a fastball run high and tight on the batter, and the batter reacted by leaning way back, and taking a very slight, defensive check swing. The ball skipped off the bat, and fouled hard into my left ear area. Again, luckily I had the HSM, because, due to the odd angle that the ball came in at, I absolutely do not think a traditional mask would have gotten any piece of the ball, even with the ear extensions. I was a little woozy, I will admit, and I went into the ER that night, as a precaution. I got a CT scan, and everything came back 100% OK. So, in other words, the HSM did exactly what it was supposed to, which was save my skull on a really freakish incident. I don't expect to convert anyone over on this subject, but, for me, I don't think I would ever want to take the field without my head fully covered.