Mintbread wrote:Did you read anything that I just posted?
I did read what you posted, hence why I called my father to ask him why he wrote what he did and posted a response. I respect your opinion that you feel that the armor protected your ankle by moving the break beyond the armor. It is my opinion and that of my fathers that your fracture does not represent all fractures experienced while wearing boots and his 30 years of surgical experience has resulted in him being able to evaluate a great number of cases. Statistically you need a base of at least 30 subjects to begin drawing any sort of significance and with the hundreds of cases he's seen, I believe that he has some right to his own opinions.
To reiterate what was stated before and not to draw more conflict- in some cases, it is better to have a boot with no armor. There was never an all inclusive statement saying that a flexible boot was better than one with armor. As a matter of fact, it was mentioned that an armored boot is actually preferable in some crashes.
Also, in my unprofessional opinion, I believe there are many possibilities of force distrubution that wouldn't create a distal fracture regardless of the boot you were wearing.