Is a protective cup for men required?

[erooMynohtnA]

By the way, Seattle's emergency rooms do gangbuster business with bicyclists who, right up to the moment their heads met the pavement, would assert that they've been riding their bikes for 30 years and have never needed a helmet. They seem to apply the same logic to helmet use that you do to wearing a cup.

I hope you never need one.

That reminds me that I know all these people who never wear shoes at home. They're asking to have their toes STUBBED!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HURTS!! Why would anyone not wear shoes whenever they're walking?? This one time I stubbed my toe, and now I learned to never (except in the shower when I wear water booties because I don't want to slip) take off my shoes EVER!!

Modern shoes are COMFORTABLE, why would anyone not insist upon ALWAYS wearing SHOES, ALWAYS when in locomotion?

Additionally, I wing myself in the nuts far more often while sitting at my desk and eating or whatever than I do fencing, so it makes more sense for me to wear a cup at dinner. Besides, when you get hit in the balls, it's just that. It hurts. Get over it. It's not like Darth Vader force chokes your heart until you die.

[oiuyt]

Additionally, I wing myself in the nuts far more often while sitting at my desk and eating

*decides never to go to the Moore house for a meal*

-B

[Foiled in Seattle]

That reminds me that I know all these people who never wear shoes at home. They're asking to have their toes STUBBED!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HURTS!! Why would anyone not wear shoes whenever they're walking?? This one time I stubbed my toe, and now I learned to never (except in the shower when I wear water booties because I don't want to slip) take off my shoes EVER!!

Modern shoes are COMFORTABLE, why would anyone not insist upon ALWAYS wearing SHOES, ALWAYS when in locomotion?

Additionally, I wing myself in the nuts far more often while sitting at my desk and eating or whatever than I do fencing, so it makes more sense for me to wear a cup at dinner. Besides, when you get hit in the balls, it's just that. It hurts. Get over it. It's not like Darth Vader force chokes your heart until you die.

That's some powerful, well-considered logic there, and I want to thank you for it. You've completely turned around my thinking and changed my mind on the cup issue. I will immediately spurn all the simple precautions I typically use, simply because I can. Since the odds of me actually putting to use any of these precautions are small, what's the point of using them? Since I've already taken an epee blade to the cup, fractured two bike helmets and had to rely on an airbag to save my life, I'm now going to abandon or disable all of these devices, because the odds are pretty low I'll need them again.

You can expect to see my cup on eBay. Some poor schmuck is going to pay 2 bucks for it, and for what? Boy, I sure hope he doesn't see your post first.

[erooMynohtnA]

What you are ignoring are the various consequences of not using those devices:
Seat belt - death
Helmet - death
Air bag - death
Cup - momentary discomfort

Here is a risk assessment that is in a pretty standard industry format: http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/images/whs/riskmanfig05.gif

All those other consequences push risk into category 3 or 4, but not wearing a cup is clearly a category 1. Comparing them as the same thing is fundamentally flawed. It is not the likelihood, it is the consequence. Getting hit in the nuts is not a big deal. Quit comparing it to death.

Things that are like getting hit in the nuts: stubbing your toe, brain freeze, a charlie horse, banging your head on a cabinet door

Things that are not like getting hit in the nuts: death, AIDS, severe burns, blindness, breaking a bone, losing a limb.

Please use the former in your comparisons, rather than the latter.

[Foiled in Seattle]

What you are ignoring are the various consequences of not using those devices:
Seat belt - death
Helmet - death
Air bag - death
Safety glasses - blindness
Cup - momentary discomfort

Here is a risk assessment that is in a pretty standard industry format: http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/images/whs/riskmanfig05.gif

All those other consequences push risk into category 3 or 4, but not wearing a cup is clearly a category 1. Comparing them as the same thing is fundamentally flawed. It is not the odds, it is the consequence. Getting hit in the nuts is not a big deal. Quit comparing it to death.

Things that are like getting hit in the nuts: stubbing your toe, brain freeze, a charlie horse, banging your head on a cabinet door

Things that are not like getting hit in the nuts: death, AIDS, severe burns, blindness, breaking a bone, losing a limb.

Please use the former in your comparisons, rather than the latter.

I'm confused, Anthony. You think it's unfair to compare the consequences of being stabbed in the groin with death or a head injury. If that's the case, how do you allow yourself to go 180 degrees in the other direction and compare a possible groin injury to the consequences of eating ice cream too quickly? Are they equal to you? If so, then your frame of reference is limited.

Maybe it's because I'm a long-time athlete, or a former marine, or just that I'm likely older than you. Whatever the reason, I've seen groin injuries before, and I'd never be so callous as to equate them with brain freeze or toe stubs.

But you seem to want to fixate on consequences -- comparing the awfulness of this to that -- which was never my point. My point was about precautions -- and how simple, cheap, and effective they can be. If you, in the depths of your imagination, can't possibly envision the worst that three feet of steel can do, then don't wear a cup. But please don't assert a position that states that the chances you'll need one are slim, therefore you might as well forgo the precaution, and then expect reasonable people to buy in to that logic. So what if fencing-caused groin injuries are rare. The precaution is ridiculously cheap and simple.

[erooMynohtnA]

I'm confused, Anthony. You think it's unfair to compare the consequences of being stabbed in the groin with death or a head injury. If that's the case, how do you allow yourself to go 180 degrees in the other direction and compare a possible groin injury to the consequences of eating ice cream too quickly? Are they equal to you? If so, then your frame of reference is limited.

Toe stubs cause momentary pain, but no lasting injury; charlie horses cause momentary pain, but no lasting injury; shots to the balls cause pain but no lasting injury.

While my friend was at combatives level 2 he didn't wear his cup one day (it was the only day he didn't wear one). He has a genital piercing. A guy kneed him in the crotch and ripped it out. The pain was terrible. Even so, he was still fine after ten minutes. I think he got it repierced recently. That's the type of horror story people tell you in order to convince you to wear a cup, but, really, wasn't a big deal.

Maybe it's because I'm a long-time athlete, or a former marine, or just that I'm likely older than you. Whatever the reason, I've seen groin injuries before, and I'd never be so callous as to equate them with brain freeze or toe stubs.

Now, I can certainly see penetrating groin injuries from broken blades as a potential problem if they occur, however: 1. Now we're moving into the realm of the astronomically unlikely 2. A cup really isn't going to protect your entire groin. I would be much more worried about puncturing the femoral artery than losing a testicle.

I saw a guy die from a groin injury. He bled to death from his femoral artery. A little piece of plastic covering his balls (for all I know he was wearing one) wasn't going to prevent it.

It doesn't matter if you were a football player, Marine, the President, an alien, an Olympian, or a comic artist. People who are used to wearing cups don't see why anyone else ever wouldn't and refuse to accept that maybe it's founded in reality. You know, I can't understand why people don't like boxer briefs. I can't understand why you wouldn't, and I turn off my brain when people try to explain.

Do you wear FIE knickers? Because, frankly, that's the thing that's going to prevent a major groin injury in fencing, not a cup. Getting your balls smashed isn't pleasant, but having a sharp piece of metal penetrate your scrotum, arteries, or organs is worse.

But you seem to want to fixate on consequences -- comparing the awfulness of this to that -- which was never my point. My point was about precautions -- and how simple, cheap, and effective they can be. If you, in the depths of your imagination, can't possibly envision the worst that three feet of steel can do, then don't wear a cup. But please don't assert a position that states that the chances you'll need one are slim, therefore you might as well forgo the precaution, and then expect reasonable people to buy in to that logic. So what if fencing-caused groin injuries are rare. The precaution is ridiculously cheap and simple.

The whole point I've been making is that you have to balance the consequences against the likelihood. You can't view either in isolation.

[Inquartata]

I think I understand at last.

It's OK to risk getting hit in the groin, because "It's only a little temporary pain", and it shows what a tough guy you are to laugh at the prospect.

But wearing a cup is "uncomfortable", and tough guys just can't abide that...

"Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other".

[erooMynohtnA]

Yes, I would rather have intense discomfort every once in awhile than minor discomfort every time I fence.

It's not about being tough. It's just that a cup bothers me more than an occasional balltagging.

[Foiled in Seattle]

Anthony,

I think the point you're trying to make is a moving target that conveniently shifts depending on whom you're replying to.

To me your point is this: "The whole point I've been making is that you have to balance the consequences against the likelihood."

To Inqy your point is this: "It's not about being tough. It's just that a cup bothers me more than an occasional balltagging."

I think it's clear that you just like to argue a point. Any point.

[erooMynohtnA]

You find it odd that when I respond to different people saying different things I respond differently?

I wasn't even arguing with Inq. I agree with his reasoning. I was just clarifying that toughness isn't the issue. If you selectively quote him to remove some of the sarcastic tendencies you'll find my basic stance: "It's OK to risk getting hit in the groin, because It's only a little temporary pain ... but wearing a cup is uncomfortable,"

My point to you has been that you're acting like getting whacked in the balls is somehow a serious injury. People who wear a cup don't neglect it due to the fact that they'll never get hit there, but that they'll get hit rarely enough and it won't hurt enough to balance the comfort they get from not wearing one. (which is surprisingly similar to Inq's manipulated quote.)

If you can find it, you'll see I've been saying that through cup threads long before this one.

I do appreciate the poor flip-flop straw man, though. The arguing any point quip was particularly delightful, especially in a thread in which you're on the same side as Inquartata.

[spiff]

I think there is a simple idea that can be applied to all guys that fence: take care of your boys. That simple. And how do you do this? By wearing a cup. I've come extremely close to taking the hit from hell without a cup. It was traumatizing and painful. Again, take care of your boys and they'll take care of you.

[DangerMouse]

Summary:

Point A: How can you be so stupid not to wear a cup. I suck, so I get hit there all the time

Point B: The risk is really small that anything really bad will happen and I find a cup uncomfortable, therefore I choose not to wear one.

Conclusion: Either the rules don't require a cup or the rule requiring one (in an appendix) is not enforced. Therefore, the choice to wear one or not is a personal decision based on a PERSONAL assessment of acceptable risk levels.

[epee_0.0]

Parry 8 should take care of immediate threats to the target area in question. And If that fails there is always parry 7.

For everything else there is FIE shorts with integrated sunspensorium.

[chinbeard]

I never fence without a cup. But then again, I have a tendency to lead with my balls.

[spiff]

Leading with your balls is not a problem. But since they're acting as point men, you should make sure they have proper cover. No one wants to get hit first on the charge. Take care of your boys people!

[migopod]

Actually the question of "required" seems like a reasonable one.
Specifically, is the "must be protected" clause of the appendix a rule or suggestion?

[wbowman]

I think that's the real issue.
We've gone on and on about everyone's opinions pro and con in this and at least several other threads that I can remember. And if it's optional, then it's just that -- people are entitled to wear one or not. But if the rule actually requires it -- instead of being just a vague suggestion -- then people's opinions and preferences are simply a side discussion.
As for checking for compliance -- if it ever comes to that -- it can be done the way most refs check for breast protectors: Either ask and accept a verbal response, or have the fencer rap his or her knuckles on the relevant area for an audible cue.

[Superscribe]

Frankly this is all ABSURD. I believe in adaptation. I don't wear a cup in practice so that they'll become tougher. The light wacks and pokes they get during the weekdays only serves to make them stronger for the tournament situations.

The calluses and thick skin that develops from training makes them impervious to puncture and hard hits.

Wusses

[Lady Quindecim]

I wear one to protect me from you boys, but not when I fence. When I fence, I have an epee for that. :wink:

(The preceding comment was made in the interest of humor and in no way was intended to be taken seriously. Seriously.)

[Lady Quindecim]

But what I am seeing on the board and what I hear in the clubs is that the rule exists, but in not enforced, except for women's breasts... Possibly because they are the ones that can be discretely checked in a family environment?

(The preceding comment was made in honest spirit of the thread and not intended to be deemed humorous by anyone, anywhere, at any time.)