Parents please get informed..

Here's a related article. I'm sure the reporter just happened to guess that there might be an executive summary of a meeting between LTG Caslen and the medical folks at The Pentagon. No one "on the inside" tipped him off. No way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/generals-sought-more-positive-coverage-document-shows.html?_r=0

"Two top Army generals recently discussed trying to kill an article in The New York Times on concussions at West Point by withholding information so the Army could encourage competing news organizations to publish a more favorable story, according to an Army document."

I am aware of the article and document. Didn't want to get into it because its tangential to the boxing issue discussed on this thread but I am surprised you would bring it up. It paints Caslen as apparently either unprofessional (released minutes of important meeting on important topic without reviewing them for accuracy - not sure how many would believe that), or acting in a manner contrary to the West Point Honor Code, no? "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

LYING: Cadets violate the Honor Code by lying if they deliberately deceive another by stating an untruth or by any direct form of communication to include the telling of a partial truth and the vague or ambiguous use of information or language with the intent to deceive or mislead.

To say I am unimpressed would be an understatement. Can we get back to boxing?
 
Last edited:
Be careful. By your own standard in this thread, you might be verging on libel. The irony.
 
What do you suggest? Not all problems have solutions. We live in an imperfect world. I am all all "teach[ing] that lesson without increasing the risk of concusission or worse repreated concussions" if it is possible. So from my perspective, there is no substitute for the boxing experience (at Ranger School, during hand to hand combat training, we slapped each other, but having participated in both boxing and Ranger school "slapping," not the same. I can even throw in my IOBC pugil stick competition or getting pushed during a flag football game where my head bounced off the ground, not the same as boxing).

There are ways to reduce concussions from boxing as I suggested on my previous post. But if you read the headline or some posters, the solution is to get rid of boxing PERIOD. Did anyone else suggest ways to reduce concussions during boxing other than me? No, because the agenda by the otherside is to get rid of boxing because they don't like it, regardless what is does for leadership development.

Again, please read what I wrote. And what you wrote. You offered some suggestions.

I largely agree with you. There is little that triggers the fight or flight instinct quite like an actual fight! Personally, I view the actual boxing skills as less important than the lesson of how to manage yourself in a fight. There are other ways to teach that and some of them are even fun, but I agree none are as consistent and cost effective as boxing. That does not mean we should not look at alternatives or means by which to make the training safer (i.e. fewer concussions).
 
At first I just thought of this article as a poorly written article by not giving good numbers on the whole concussion thing. After getting caught up on this thread I see that this article was written perfectly. I wasn't written to give us information or highlight a potential issue, it was written to illicit an emotional response.

The heart of the problem is if mandatory boxing is teaching what it needs to teach and if that lesson is worth the concussions that are happening in the class. We can get emotional and say "look at this sport and that sport they have concussions too" or "it's a old tradition that needs to be abolished because of all the concussions", etc. Personally I think we don't have enough information to make any assessment at all. The number in the article aren't enough and in my personal opinion are cherry picked to slant the article.

Basically if we can answer these questions we could have a debate on it:
  • What lesson is being taught here?
  • What are the true numbers of concussion?
  • What happens to these cadets after they have one?
  • Is the lesson worth the concussion cost?
  • If it's worth the cost why isn't is a mandatory class for everyone? (females, ROTC, OCS, and Enlisted)
Once again I have to say that I'm a huge fan of teaching boxing but I understand that getting your bell rung can have huge consequences. My DD received a mild concussion during a soccer game. When I say middle she didn't lose consciousness but her cognitive and reasoning were affected. We didn't realize it until she took the test how bad it was. So I can see both sides of this debate but without those number I have to go with my gut and it says it's worth it.
 
Be careful. By your own standard in this thread, you might be verging on libel. The irony.

No, the NYT would be if they misquoted folks.

Chris Gates, president of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates transparency in government, called the details of the meeting as described in the document “disturbing.”

“To think that high-level officials at the U.S. Army and West Point would intentionally delay responding to a FOIA request in order to place a more favorable story in another outlet,” he said in an email. “Every level of the U.S. government should follow the spirit of the law and comply with FOIA, not use it as an opportunity for media manipulation.”

In a statement last week, General Caslen said the document had “inaccurately portrayed my discussion with Lieutenant General Horoho.”

“I allowed it to be distributed without my review and take full responsibility for any misperceptions this may have caused,” he said.​

Can we get back to boxing?
 
As long as they teaching them how to box and take a punch, I hope they are also teaching them how to fight dirty and seek unfair advantage...not with each other of course. This is not a joking comment.
 
Baseline Testing has been required at the beginning of the year at the High School both my daughters attended if they were participating in a contact sport. If not mandatory at all High Schools (it should be) now it should also be required at all SAs. One daughter fell down her dorm stairs (klutz) and was restricted from contact since her Baseline did not meet her original pre sport test. I don't know what it entails but it sounds like a good place to start. The original from the NYT. What do you expect?
 
If I remember correctly my DS made a comment that at AFA during BCT they take a baseline test but I could be wrong. During BCT he did get knocked down during intramural handball. They checked him out and put him on rest for a period of time can't remember for how long. The wife smacked me in the head last night so I might not be remembering 100% correctly!

Sorry bad joke I know but I had to take the shot.
 
If you think the word ‘spin’ is foreign to the PAO and the leadership of WP, then you are grossly mistaken.

Separately, at the rate we’re going, I think in about 3-4 years we’ll be able to safely remove the ‘M’ from USMA.
 
It paints Caslen as either unprofessional (released minutes of important meeting on important topic without reviewing them for accuracy - not sure how many would believe that), or apparently acting in a manner contrary to the West Point Honor Code, no? "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."

NO.

Do you expect LTG Caslen to review everything before they get release to the public? How many important meetings or topics do you think LTG Caslen has. Did you actually read the trip report on the NYT site? I tried and I couldn't go beyond the first page (perhaps I am having a techncial issue). From the page I could read, "engage the Surgeon general reference concussions study and the 2016 Warrior game." Hope there is more on the trip report as the first page alone does not provide any details.

Lastly, there are several variation within the article, so with me this article doesn't have any creditability - from "sought", "suggest" to "kill"

Title - Generals Sought More Positive Coverage on Head Injuries, Document Shows

"In a meeting summary created by West Point staff, the Army surgeon general suggests that to undercut a New York Times report on concussions at the academy, the Army could stall fulfilling a request, and instead try to publish findings of an Army study elsewhere."

"Two top Army generals recently discussed trying to kill an article in The New York Times on concussions at West Point by withholding information so the Army could encourage competing news organizations to publish a more favorable story, according to an Army document"
 
Last edited:
USNA has the entire class box and still has a pretty good chunk less concussions than the other schools. 29 in 3 years if I read that right. Why? I think we need to first look at why the differences? What can be done to reduce the risk of concussions? I have taken the boxing class. We (as in men and women) put a pretty good beating on each other. Its funny we all sort of start by saying that we will take it easy on each other, but that goes out the window the first time someone lands a hit! We were matched up by weight, wore head gear, mouth guards and heavy gloves. As a female who graduated awhile ago we didn't have many ladies in class,so basically we lined up by weight and you paired up with the person next to you. We were usually within 10 lbs of one another. The guys were usually within 5 lbs of one another. Most of boxing class consisted of learning how to punch properly, conditioning, movement, technique. We sparred only a few times. Some of the gear is really old and worn out, maybe new gear would help. Remember 1000-1200 people use this. Maybe its better to issue everyone their own gear (gloves and headgear aren't that pricey) to make sure it fits properly. They issue us the cheap $1 mouthpieces. There are some expensive ones ($10-20) that alot of boxers and MMA fighters wear that help reduce concussions and knockouts as it re-positions the jaw. Maybe those could help? At USNA we also take mandatory judo (that was my least favorite class, it honestly sucked to be hip tossed over and over again) and wrestling. USNA has all Mids, regardless of gender, take these classes. If the guys have to take the class, so should the women, but that is a different argument.

The issue of if boxing should be mandatory is another question? I don't know the answer to this. As someone who has gone through USNA, the boxing classes, was a D1 athlete, Marine Officer who served multiple combat tours, I honestly don't know if boxing helped me or not. I agree there is nothing like punching you in the face that sort of shocks the system in a way that can't be replicated with other training such as wrestling, hand to hand training, etc. Like I said we all sort of just said we would be nice, but the minute someone lands something, it turns into a different story. Its a whole body reaction that sort of takes ahold of you. I have done pugil sticks and Marine Corps Martial Arts Training, but none of them were the same as being drilled in the faced. Is this something that made me a better officer? To be honest, I don't think so. I never faced a hand to hand combat situation, but know some who have. Would it have better prepared me for those situations, I don't know, never was in one. ROTC and OCS officers don't box, are they less officers? No.

I have actually had 3 concussions, all from basketball. 2 of them were in the severe category with facial fractures involved. I haven't had any lasting effects from these, but I had great medical care for them. And this was really before all the concussion stuff had come to light with football and an emphasis in youth sports about head trauma.
 
'Self-inflicted' might have been a bad choice of phrase. 'Avoidable' is closer to what I was getting at. Concussions are, by definition, a form of brain injury.

If evidence suggests that a concussion sustained during one activity, like football, makes one more vulnerable to sustaining concussions in other sports, like boxing, doesn't that reinforce the argument against boxing in the SAs?

The parallel between PTSD and PCS (Post Concussion Syndrome) is both are to a degree subjective in diagnosis and share many of the same symptoms. The question would be if these symptoms interfere with long-term performance.

And again, for the record, I'm not suggesting SA graduates are ill-prepared leaders. I am suggesting that perhaps concerns about mandatory boxing classes not be dismissed out of hand just because it is a long-held, beloved tradition. I do get that as a perceived threat.

But really, have you seen Muhammad Ali over the last several decades? Bless his heart!

But then by your argument, the academies should get rid of football. Applying your argument, they should get rid of any sport or activity which could potentially result in a concussion. Do you know concussions are sustained during physical training sessions as well? Perhaps we should stop the physical training then.

Also, it's not how you get the concussion, it is how serious it is. I could get a very serious concussion by accidentally heading another player in soccer.

Any concussion can make you more susceptible to another concussion. It doesn't matter where or how the concussion was sustained.

And Muhammad Ali? Really? These kids are taking a single class in boxing. They are NOT boxing professionally for years, they are wearing head and protective gear and they are limited in what they are permitted to do. This is an absurd comparison.

There are injuries just as in any other sport or activity. It's always good to examine a curriculum and asses whether the pros out weigh the cons. Are there better safety equipment? Are there better activities to learn what it is like to be hit violently? You don't want your first experience to being hit in a real life fight.

Am I happy my kid had to take boxing and water hazing? Am I thrilled he is introduced to various weapons ? Am I thinking, oh gee, isn't it great he gets to be gassed as part of his training? Or believe it must be so much fun to be put in the high altitude chamber until he pukes or passes out? Of course not. I want to wrap my kid in bubble wrap and stick him in a padded basement with an opening to pass food in and out. However, he has decided to become part of the military, and that means being prepared for violence in all it's various forms. I don't like it, but I understand the need for it. And if my son has committed to the military, then the military better do a D&&& good job preparing him to handle what ever may come his way. I want his odds of survival to be as close to 100% as possible.
 
Again, please read what I wrote. And what you wrote. You offered some suggestions.

I largely agree with you. There is little that triggers the fight or flight instinct quite like an actual fight! Personally, I view the actual boxing skills as less important than the lesson of how to manage yourself in a fight. There are other ways to teach that and some of them are even fun, but I agree none are as consistent and cost effective as boxing. That does not mean we should not look at alternatives or means by which to make the training safer (i.e. fewer concussions).

I read what you wrote, but what I am asking for is what is your recommendation? Saying "other ways" or "alternatives" is not constructive in my opinion.
 
NO.

Do you expect LTG Caslen to review everything before they get release to the public? How many important meetings or topics do you think LTG Caslen has. Did you actually read the trip report on the NYT site? I tried and I couldn't go beyond the first page (perhaps I am having a techncial issue). From the page I could read, "engage the Surgeon general reference concussions study and the 2016 Warrior game." Hope there is more on the trip report as the first page alone does not provide any details.

Lastly, there are several variation within the article, so with me this article doesn't have any creditability - from "sought", "suggest" to "kill"

Title - Generals Sought More Positive Coverage on Head Injuries, Document Shows

"In a meeting summary created by West Point staff, the Army surgeon general suggests that to undercut a New York Times report on concussions at the academy, the Army could stall fulfilling a request, and instead try to publish findings of an Army study elsewhere."

"Two top Army generals recently discussed trying to kill an article in The New York Times on concussions at West Point by withholding information so the Army could encourage competing news organizations to publish a more favorable story, according to an Army document"

I hope you take this as the joke its intended to be, but are you a marine? Read what I wrote. It begins with "IT PAINTS..." as in the article paints... You tell me no it doesn't and then proceed to post the details of why it does paint him in that light. With respect, you guys sometimes seem so quick to jump to the blind defense of anything SA that you don't appear to stop, read and think sometimes.

My personal view, which can only be a guess, is that those meeting minutes accurately reflect exactly what happened. Judge for yourself how to apply the honor code if that is true. Perhaps its not, but I suspect that to think the meeting minutes are not accurate is a naive view, but others might suspect I wear a tin hat!

I read what you wrote, but what I am asking for is what is your recommendation? Saying "other ways" or "alternatives" is not constructive in my opinion.

Well the best I could offer absent some study and decent data would be SWAGs and that does not seem constructive either. NavyHoops has an excellent post on how one might begin to find solutions. What are the difference between the SA and are there best practices that could be adopted? That seems a much more productive use of tax payer money than oh, I don't know, lets say avoiding FOI requests?! :benny monkeysmilies: Not that that would ever happen.

Perhaps the whole debate should be settled in the ring!!

To be serious, if the USMA concussion rate is high, and there is at least some reasonable suggestion it is, then its likely a function of the quality of the gear, the training protocol (similar heights/weights and abilities), the quality of training itself, as well as the level of oversight. Look for differences and correlations to outcomes and note that correlation does not equal causation. The main point is that its likely knowable. They have whole a school full of smart people who could figure this out.

Well at least Air Force does. :tomcat:
 
Last edited:
That kid makes the best videos! Navy PAO needs to pick that kid up and just let him be creative!
 
With respect, you guys sometimes seem so quick to jump to the blind defense of anything SA that you don't appear to stop, read and think sometimes.

My personal view, which can only be a guess, is that those meeting minutes accurately reflect exactly what happened. Judge for yourself how to apply the honor code if that is true. Perhaps its not, but I suspect that to think the meeting minutes are not accurate is a naive view, but others might suspect I wear a tin hat!

I am not expecting you to read my 2000+ postings, but what those postings might tell you is that I don't defend SAs blindly. Perhaps my writing and reading skills need improvements, but I like to think that I think.

What I don't like is folks implying or "painting" SAs in negative ways without supporting evidence. I also think there is a lot of groupthink on this board and someone needs to present an opposing view.

If all you have is the article and the assumption that the meeting minutes, that appeared to be posted also but in reality it wasn't, are accurate, in my opinion you are not thinking either. If the meeting minutes link worked and it showed what you assumed, I would have stopped my replies. Based on your postings, I can assume a lot of things and "paint" you in a negative way, but I don't as there is no supporting evidence.
 
LG - We are miles from the topic which is boxing and I really feel like we are beating dead horse here but the article says about the document:

During a Sept. 16 meeting at the Pentagon, the Army surgeon general, Lt. Gen. Patricia D. Horoho, recommended to the superintendent at West Point, Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., that the Army delay responding to The Times’s request, according to the document. General Horoho then suggested trying to get The Wall Street Journal or USA Today to publish an article about a more favorable Army study on concussions.

According to the document, described by Army officials as an executive summary of the meeting, the public affairs staff at West Point and the surgeon general’s office were instructed to promote that study, by a West Point sports medicine doctor, Col. Steven Svoboda, to the other publications.

“I recommend you let us publish this article BEFORE you release the FOIA to the NYT reporter,” General Horoho is quoted as saying in the summary, using an acronym for the Freedom of Information Act.

“Timing is everything with this stuff,” she added, according to the document. Neither the Journal nor USA Today published an article about the Svoboda study.

Both generals acknowledged the authenticity of the summary [emphasis added], but said it misrepresented their discussion. The Times obtained the summary from a military official who opposed the Army’s plans to delay release of the concussion information. The official said not being transparent with journalists “damages democracy.”
Caslen is then quoted as saying:

In a statement last week, General Caslen said the document had “inaccurately portrayed my discussion with Lieutenant General Horoho.”

“I allowed it to be distributed without my review and take full responsibility for any misperceptions this may have caused,” he said.​

One may like or dislike the NYT but can we at least agree that if they were inaccurate with regards to Caslen's quote or the summary contents which they describe and which the Army acknowledged as authentic, they could be facing libel charges? Is it fair to say that they are not that stupid? They are a business and this is pretty simple risk/reward math.

My point is only that the document - the minutes and summary - is authentic and almost certainly says exactly what the article says it says. No amount of hatred for the NYT (not from you) can change that simple apparent reality. This is why as a parent who has only had positive things to say about West Point, to say I am unimpressed is to put it mildly. It give me serious pause about their leadership.

I have read your postings, respect your view (it was intended as a joke as I said) and I would guess that if you really read the article carefully and reflect on it, I suspect we would actually align if not agree. I doubt we are far apart on the boxing issue either. My wish is that USMA put as much effort into studying the boxing and concussion problem and finding solutions as they apparently and almost certainly did in my opinion put into ducking and bobbing and weaving to avoid timely responding to a FOI request on the same topic.

I say that as a parent with a second child who has some interest in USMA.

As for this weekend, perhaps we will pass in the lot. I promise to leave the gloves at home.

Go Navy; beat Air Force. I am sure you will agree that.
 
My point is only that the document - the minutes and summary - is authentic and almost certainly says exactly what the article says it says.

Like you said, we probably mostly agree on many things. I will still disagree on the NYT assertions until I can actually read the minutes and summary. As posted before, the link only shows the first page. It could have a simple technicial oversight or the NYT just posting a related to document to give undeserved creditability. How many people will actually clik the link to actually read the minutes? Many things media reports, they only need a small truth. Many cases, the Army won't fight the media stretching the truth as they already lost if they have to explain things or get technical. The fighting the media will only generate more interest rather than a quick death most stories have.

This discussion probably have to do with how I don't trust the media. On a sidenote, many folks shared the same opinion.

Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Historical Low http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-remains-historical-low.aspx

"Since 2007, the majority of Americans have had little or no trust in the mass media."
 
Back
Top