Use of Goggles on the Squash Court...

for reference: http://www.squashmagazine.com/vcm/squashmagazine/FEATURES/State_of_Game/Archive/your_eyes.html

To the author of the article, "For Your Eyes Only," and the editor of Squash Magazine:


Hello,

First, even though the article seems to favor the use of eyewear, and uses firm examples of accidents that have occurred (if rare), I interpreted this as a fair representation of the general argument -- and I want to thank you for a "non-biased" approach to this debate. The article is quite informative, and I hope it is well-received by all sides concerned.

So, my background: started playing at age 12 in Nigeria (wood racquets, single yellow dot balls primarily -- sometimes used whites, reds and blues for quasi-training) -- a "long ball" style [very hard shots 'kill' shots the norm, no dinks, ALWAYS letting the ball bounce, no off-the-back-wall shots, long rallies]. I have played off-and-on, in many areas since (England, Washington, Oregon, and California). I am now 40, and still enjoying the best addiction in my life! Even with the change in the ball (double dot yellow), and with the change in approach to the game (dinks, mid-air volley returns, etc.), I have adapted to a semi-competitive level.

Assertion: "I am vehemently against wearing goggles on squash courts!"

I ask that you re-read that statement immediately above, and treat it with the same lack of bias with which you presented your article, and understand that I am a huge believer in safety, in all areas of life (not just sports).

There is not a low risk to eye injury in squash as cited by the many "studies" -- statistically speaking, it is a null factor, at least as far as the ball is concerned. Ironically, you will see anomalies occur, such as the examples you offered in your article, but most of these are due to poor technical skill training, and very poor application. Squash players, especially decent players on the technical scale, should know to look at the opponent's position, feet placement, and approach of the ball to the opponent racquet at the time of return -- we utilize this critical information to anticipate the redirect (rail, cross-court, boast, corner, lob, dink, etc., etc.). A sufficiently skilled player will NOT look at the ball as the opponent strikes, and has already turned to face the front wall BEFORE the opponent's stroke! Unfortunately, even pro's forget this vital technical aspect, hoping that waiting for the stroke will allow them to follow the track of the ball when "killed" and give them an opportunity for their own return (a misleading habit, as the ball travels, when "killed," at far higher speeds than the mere 110mph you quoted -- and could lead to injury if practiced so often as to become common for the respective player).

The risk associated with squash has been lumped in from all racquet sports -- and this might sound crazy, but squash is NOT racquetball. I would not dare step onto a racquetball court without goggles on. But racquetball has very specific strokes that are NOT present in squash: sidewall shots above the chest, high shots to the ceiling, many more off-the-back wall shots, etc., and all at high velocity. The squash stroke for a kill, rail, cross court and corner are all below the waist -- one more time: ALL below the waist. The lobs, off-the-back wall shots, dinks, etc., are hit at low to medium velocity, simply because we have a formal restriction in place (the top line). Hit a high ball too hard in squash, lose the point; do so consistently, lose the game. Therefore, we simply don't practice this, as a RULE.

Tennis involves a ball hit directly at the opponent at high velocity, with the recipient crouching low in the trajectory path of the ball, and they DO NOT require goggles for this sport -- I'm not sure I agree with that, especially for doubles play. Badminton involves over-the-net strikes which are hit directly at opponents, with the travel of the cock at very high speeds off the racquet -- they DO NOT require goggles for this sport. Racquetball is notorious for high velocity balls hit at all angles, with drastic variations of spin -- it is nearly impossible to anticipate all the combinations of ball reactions and resulting paths -- they ABSOLUTELY (and correctly, in my opinion) require goggles for this sport.

Can you get hit with a squash ball at all? Asking that question means you've probably never been on the court. I've been hit and/or hit my opponent, guessing here, approximately 30 times in my experience, and 25 of those occurred when I was first learning as a young teenager -- but this is not because I was a reckless kid: we simply "hit around" our opponent (or through their legs) as an informal rule. Currently, I get the sense that strokes/lets are called more often, and the culture is lending itself more toward safe play than "hit the ball at all costs" which I formerly witnessed. But getting hit is still a "high potential": hit in the back and hit in the back of the legs are probably the most common -- again, since we do not face our opponent as they move through the stroke.

But what of the racquets themselves? There is a solid (not very high, but statistically sound) potential for being hit with an opponent's racquet -- lack of proper stroke/let calls leads to hits in the leg, hits across the face, hits in the ears, hits in the back of the head, hits in the elbow, and the occasional "oops lost my racquet, and threw it at my opponent." Even more common -- at least for me, unfortunately -- is that wonderful kill shot with the back hand: you swing very hard, and "THWACK!" as you hit your own balancing hand, and it starts to swell immediately.

Is that all? No, of course not! This is a physical sport after all! We have knee injuries (some due to lack of warming up, or off-the-court causes that squash intensifies) including the "slide on the wood" which leaves a wonderful burn (I have one of those burns just below my right knee even as I write this). We have shoulder injuries. We can run into the walls, sometimes at great speed -- result: smash the body where-ever contact with the wall is encountered, be it hand, elbow, knee, foot, head, chin, etc.

Is there a reason to not wear goggles? Sure, and you were spot on mentioning a couple of these reasons: misting, sweating, peripheral impairment, improper sizing, etc. Any other reasons? Yes! And these are serious: vertigo (or related dizziness), general reduced vision, impaired depth perception -- basically, increasing the statistical likelihood of contact with the opponent, their racquet, and/or the walls. And it gets worse: remember, this is not tennis, this is not racquetball, this is squash -- we have longer point-by-point rallies by definition, and if you become a better player, the rallies get longer still. Our rallies are in the minutes -- tennis and racquetball players are lucky to achieve a single minute. The longer we play, the more tired we get, and adjusting to the refracted light through goggles is a stroke-by-stroke effort -- you never really get used to it, and the longer you play, the greater danger you are placing yourself in.

Essentially, when speaking of safety: wearing goggles is vital to racquetball, benign on a tennis court, a good idea for badminton (in my opinion) and definitively detrimental when playing squash. One more time: you wear goggles while playing squash, you are placing yourself at an increased safety risk!

So the debate ensues: some "old-timers" don't want to wear goggles, and the growing majority "safety-advocates" seek their solid mandatory requirement. Where did this come from? Well, "safety" is a tremendous, emotive buzz word -- who can argue against it? All I have to do is say that word and I win the argument. Of course, no one has looked at squash as a unique game -- they are looking at "racquet sports."

And those goggles are expensive too, so when Head and Ektelon started losing sales (tearing down racquetball courts and replacing them with our better sport! -- see, I am somewhat biased!), they needed somewhere to off-load inventory, and where better than the squash players themselves? So they lobby groups and use the buzz word: safety. They cite studies demonstrating "high risk among racquet sports" for eye injury, and provide anomolies (just as you did for your article) as supporting evidence.

Summary of safety wear on the squash court:
• eye injury from ball -- statistical null factor inherent -- goggles increasingly required
• dizziness from wearing goggles -- very high potential -- goggles still increasingly required
• hitting the hand with a racquet -- statistically not uncommon -- protective gloves not required
• hitting the back of the legs with a ball or racquet -- statistically low but present potential -- full leg wear not required (in fact, I remember a female player in England a few years back who tried to advocate wearing a thong!)
• hitting the ears, back of the head with a racquet -- statistically low but present potential -- helmets not required (and why not? hockey players and skaters have to wear them! and you used the hockey analogy in your article!!)
• hitting the jaw, face, elbow, knee, hand against the wall at high speed -- statistically low to medium potential in any given game -- mouth piece, knee pads, elbow pads, and helmet are not required

So what happened to "safety"? When you bring the actual physics of squash and the associated statistics into the argument, goggles are not only providing little protection to the null factor, they are simply UNSAFE due to the exacerbating factors of other potential injuries. But what about those "Safety-Advocates"? Maybe they need to look into the details of the sport before taking a generalist approach -- maybe the USSRA needs to take another look at its rules, rules established for squash (not "racquet sports" in general), and take into account our play, our techniques, and our culture, before imposing a warrantless, unjustified, mandatory requirement that has been lobbied to them by outsiders!

Could a freak anomaly cause an eye injury while bowling at the local lanes? Yes -- could happen, though extremely unlikely. Do you wear goggles when bowling? No -- goggles would impair vision, and you might over step the line, and slip on the lane and HURT yourself! Although not a racquet sport, this is not a false analogy -- bowling is a physical activity, and requires use of vision (hopefully "unimpaired" vision).

Here's a better analogy for you: there is a statistically sound possibility that one of us (myself the writer of this message, or any of you reading it) might be involved in a car accident within the next year -- a MUCH higher potential than getting hit in the eye with a squash ball in an entire combined set of our respective lifetimes (decades) of playing squash -- and we all know that car accidents involve broken glass. Broken shards of glass flying inside the car have a high potential of causing eye injury -- and I don't think you need me to get out pictures as evidence of just how drastic those injuries could be. These injuries -- caused by flying bits of glass in a car accident -- could be prevented by wearing goggles. Using YOUR logic: wearing goggles while driving is recommended, and should be mandatory. Let me know when you start wearing goggles while driving... as for myself:

"I am vehemently against wearing goggles while driving!" [that statement should resemble my original assertion, and not by coincidence] However, I am absolutely in favor of any safety device or safety wear that is used where/when warranted: such as seat belts while driving. Point being: goggles do not sustain such a warrant when suggested for use on a squash court.

I don't recommend publishing this valid and relevant response -- after all, you have sponsors (such as Head) that might withdraw their financial support of your magazine. It is "safer" for you to ignore my assertions, my logic (based on sound physics and statistics), and my supporting argument -- it is safer for you to ignore an "old-timer."

Are you wearing goggles while reading this? Be careful: you could slip out of your chair and hit your eye on the corner of your computer! That is statistically a null factor -- but that doesn't seem to matter to those who don't consider accurate, statistical potentials, eh?

Regards,
Matthew Campbell