Since sports is entertainment, I figured I’d ask in this area.
I was watching the WS and noticed a huge black cast-thing on Barry Bonds’ arm. How did he get injured? When did this happen?
Not that it’s a big deal, he hit a homer anyway. But if he did it with an injured arm, my respect factor goes up for him. I have a soft spot for players who play with pain.
Haha, when I read the thread title I thought this was going to be about his notoriously weak throwing arm.
That’s not a cast on his arm. It’s a protective piece that he wears because he stands right over the plate when he’s at bat. Given the size of the thing, I’d think that it would interfere with a natural, easy swing, but what do I know? It doesn’t seem to bother him at all.
Anyway, GO GIANTS!
Why don’t other players do this?
Protective armor? What has this sport come to? Talk about 180-degree turn from admiring his “toughness”
A few other players do it. Probably more than I’ve noticed since I’m more of a Giants fan than a Baseball-In-General fan.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least two other players who wear armor when at bat. Tsuyoshi Shinjo (also a Giant) where’s one. It’s alot smaller, but it’s there. I think Gary Sheffield wears one, too. There are more players who use them, I just can’t think of them right now. It’s really not all that uncommon.
What that giant thing on his arm is is an abomination unto the holy sport of baseball.
That’s interesting, minty green. I’ve heard the same sentiment on sports talk and I don’t quite understand it. How is it any different than wearing a batting helmet? Or the little protective piece on the inner ankle to protect oneself from foul tips?
I’m not trying to be confrontational or anything; I just would like to get an idea of why people are against the players protecting themselves better.
It allows the batter to crowd the plate, thereby reducing the pitcher’s strike zone, without fear of being hurt by a 95 mph fastball. If a batter wants to take away the strike zone like that, he should accept the risk of getting hurt on an inside pitch.
Well, why don’t we just do away with all that pesky armor that the catcher wears, and while we’re at it, let’s just do away with those silly fielding gloves and don’t forget to get rid of the batting helmets.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I think it’s going to hurt more then a little even if a guy does get hit on the pad by a 95+ mph fastball.
Oh yeah, the home plate ump has to get rid of that chest protector.
Now, what about hockey?
It’s unfair that the goalie gets to wear the mask right?
Sheesh.
WSLer–the goalie wears a mask (and other equipment) for protection. Barry Bonds wears that elbow pad so he can crowd the strike zone. The catcher’s equipment is protective. A batting helmet is protective. Foot pads against foul tips are protective. Elbow pads provide a distinct advantage to the hitter. There’s a difference.
And even if he did get hit in the pad, Bonds has still won–he gets to go to first base on a pitch that more than likely was a strike.
A comparable analogy would be oversized goalie equipment, which I think is a real problem in the NHL–take a look at Ken Dryden (70s) and Patrick Roy (now). The difference in the size of their equipment is ludicrous. There are rules on the books limiting the size of it, but it’s rarely enforced.