Setting world record in Pole Vault

[Lash444]

No friggen kidding about the #9 comment. You've to be be kidding me on that one. Obviously a laker's fan, who was trying to come up with some way to put a snippet in there about his favorite team in some way or another. There are 50,000 other things you could put in there... a number of them basketball related. The best you could come up with is "defending Kobe Bryant?" Hell, Pierce is shutting him down right now. We are seeing history in the making! A truly once in a million occurence.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Wasnt the only player to ever hit .400 for a season ted williams? I could be wrong /shrug

Link

Better Link

 

[nick1985]

I guess i should use google before I open my fat mouth.

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
ALLISON STOKKE IS HOTT!!!!11one


edit = BTW, link is not about Allison Stokke. Google Allison Stokke if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Yes, Allison Stokke could...vault...my pole...any time of the day.

Yeah that was weak but I'd hit it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Injury
It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span... I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

However, even some the best pitchers don't have a no-hitter under their belt, let alone two (maybe two dozen or so have [at least] two?)... dare I say that only 4 pitchers have ever had two no-hitters in the same SEASON.

Like I said, it's apples and oranges, but more players have hit over .400 in a season than have pitched back to back no-hitters, right?

Firstly, this that you said: "It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span...

In no way, shape, or form, logically proves this that you followed it with: I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

That logic fails, utterly and completely.

Tu as compris?

The very last hitter to hit .400 for a season was Ted Williams, 67 years ago! For reasons that you seem blissfully but ignorantly unaware of:

1. Night games.
   
   The 4 instead of 5 man rotation.
   
   Waves of well rested relievers.
   
   THE INVENTION OF THE SLIDER.
   
   (Not to mention the split-fingered fastball)

-- knowledgable baseball agree that hitting .400 FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it was when Ted Williams last did it 68 YEARS AGO, and unlikely ever to happen again.

One pitcher throwing consecutive no-hitters, otoh, is an anamoly whose duration is not so daunting to the odds as a batter topping .400 for 162 consecutive games.

The hitter's average will always regress somewhat to mean. But consecutive no-hitters by one hot pitcher could happen eventually.

And that same pitcher might not even win, say, 18 games that same season.

DURATION is your logical failing. Apparently knowing dick about baseball is your other.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Injury
It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span... I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

However, even some the best pitchers don't have a no-hitter under their belt, let alone two (maybe two dozen or so have [at least] two?)... dare I say that only 4 pitchers have ever had two no-hitters in the same SEASON.

Like I said, it's apples and oranges, but more players have hit over .400 in a season than have pitched back to back no-hitters, right?

Firstly, this that you said: "It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span...

In no way, shape, or form, logically proves this that you followed it with: I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

That logic fails, utterly and completely.

Tu as compris?

The very last hitter to hit .400 for a season was Ted Williams, 67 years ago! For reasons that you seem blissfully but ignorantly unaware of:

1. Night games.
   
   The 4 instead of 5 man rotation.
   
   Waves of well rested relievers.
   
   THE INVENTION OF THE SLIDER.
   
   (Not to mention the split-fingered fastball)

-- knowledgable baseball agree that hitting .400 FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it was when Ted Williams last did it 68 YEARS AGO, and unlikely ever to happen again.

One pitcher throwing consecutive no-hitters, otoh, is an anamoly whose duration is not so daunting to the odds as a batter topping .400 for 162 consecutive games.

The hitter's average will always regress somewhat to mean. But consecutive no-hitters by one hot pitcher could happen eventually.

And that same pitcher might not even win, say, 18 games that same season.

DURATION is your logical failing. Apparently knowing dick about baseball is your other.

Pretty sure George Brett had .390 about 30 years ago, and a handful of people who hit in the high 300's so if you're telling me that someone can't do .400, you're off your rocker.

I understood everything you're getting your panties in a bunch over from the get-go, but if you ask me which one I feel is more likely to happen in my lifetime, then I think we'd see a player bat .400 before we see another pitcher throw back to back no-hitters.

This is my OPINION and I'm entitled to it. No amount of you being a complete asshole is going to change that I think batting .400 is more likely to happen first. It may be the harder, less attainable goal, but I think it will happen again before back-to-back no hitters.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Injury
It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span... I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

However, even some the best pitchers don't have a no-hitter under their belt, let alone two (maybe two dozen or so have [at least] two?)... dare I say that only 4 pitchers have ever had two no-hitters in the same SEASON.

Like I said, it's apples and oranges, but more players have hit over .400 in a season than have pitched back to back no-hitters, right?

Firstly, this that you said: "It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span...

In no way, shape, or form, logically proves this that you followed it with: I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

That logic fails, utterly and completely.

Tu as compris?

The very last hitter to hit .400 for a season was Ted Williams, 67 years ago! For reasons that you seem blissfully but ignorantly unaware of:

1. Night games.
   
   The 4 instead of 5 man rotation.
   
   Waves of well rested relievers.
   
   THE INVENTION OF THE SLIDER.
   
   (Not to mention the split-fingered fastball)

-- knowledgable baseball agree that hitting .400 FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it was when Ted Williams last did it 68 YEARS AGO, and unlikely ever to happen again.

One pitcher throwing consecutive no-hitters, otoh, is an anamoly whose duration is not so daunting to the odds as a batter topping .400 for 162 consecutive games.

The hitter's average will always regress somewhat to mean. But consecutive no-hitters by one hot pitcher could happen eventually.

And that same pitcher might not even win, say, 18 games that same season.

DURATION is your logical failing. Apparently knowing dick about baseball is your other.

Pretty sure George Brett had .390 about 30 years ago, and a handful of people who hit in the high 300's so if you're telling me that someone can't do .400, you're off your rocker.

I understood everything you're getting your panties in a bunch over from the get-go, but if you ask me which one I feel is more likely to happen in my lifetime, then I think we'd see a player bat .400 before we see another pitcher throw back to back no-hitters.

This is my OPINION and I'm entitled to it. No amount of you being a complete asshole is going to change that I think batting .400 is more likely to happen first. It may be the harder, less attainable goal, but I think it will happen again before back-to-back no hitters.

What about a guy Clean and Jerking 3x bodyweight? There has only been 3 guys to have ever done this in the history of olympic weightlifting. A few guys have been close but no cigar.

Koing

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: RESmonkey
ALLISON STOKKE IS HOTT!!!!11one


edit = BTW, link is not about Allison Stokke. Google Allison Stokke if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, first thing I thought about when I heard Pole Vault.

I knew it was the Yelena Isinbayevag. Stokke isn't an Elite World Class athlete, and NO ONE gets near Yelena Isinbayeva.

As for making the pole longer, that isn't the solution. You will need the force to bend the pole and to flick yourself over at the top.

Also with new pole technology it is easier to get higher. I'm not sure how good the sticks are now as I don't pole vault but a bunch of guys I know did. I use to train with the British Record holder. He was such a gifted athlete it was unreal. He can do front lever on a pull up bar!

Back in the day they use to jump with metal sticks!

KOing

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: Injury
Pretty sure George Brett had .390 about 30 years ago, and a handful of people who hit in the high 300's so if you're telling me that someone can't do .400, you're off your rocker.

I understood everything you're getting your panties in a bunch over from the get-go, but if you ask me which one I feel is more likely to happen in my lifetime, then I think we'd see a player bat .400 before we see another pitcher throw back to back no-hitters.

This is my OPINION and I'm entitled to it. No amount of you being a complete asshole is going to change that I think batting .400 is more likely to happen first. It may be the harder, less attainable goal, but I think it will happen again before back-to-back no hitters.

What about a guy Clean and Jerking 3x bodyweight? There has only been 3 guys to have ever done this in the history of olympic weightlifting. A few guys have been close but no cigar.

Koing

This is more of a limitation of human capabilities than anything. I don't know much about weightlifting, but I'd imagine that the 3 who did it all had some advantage in the way they were built that allowed them to do it (specifically bone structure and such).

As far as the baseball stuff goes, there's a bit of luck involved in it.

 

[GasX]

DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak is one of the all-time greatest sporting achievements - not on the list

Guarding Kobe Bryant - on the list

The author has his head so far up Kobe's ass that his kneecaps show up on the xrays

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Injury
This is my OPINION and I'm entitled to it.
It may be the harder, less attainable goal, but I think it will happen again before back-to-back no hitters.

Your ignorance is profound, and apparently bulletproof.

Excuse me for assuming you were someone who could be persuaded by painstakingly outlined logic and a compelling and knowledgable rejoinder.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Firstly, this that you said: "It's not uncommon for a great player to have a series where they go well over .500, and there are players that sit above .400 for a month span...

In no way, shape, or form, logically proves this that you followed it with: I don't see why a hot streak can't last for a season.

That logic fails, utterly and completely.

Tu as compris?

The very last hitter to hit .400 for a season was Ted Williams, 67 years ago! For reasons that you seem blissfully but ignorantly unaware of:

1. Night games.
   
   The 4 instead of 5 man rotation.
   
   Waves of well rested relievers.
   
   THE INVENTION OF THE SLIDER.
   
   (Not to mention the split-fingered fastball)

-- knowledgable baseball agree that hitting .400 FOR AN ENTIRE SEASON is several orders of magnitude more difficult than it was when Ted Williams last did it 68 YEARS AGO, and unlikely ever to happen again.

One pitcher throwing consecutive no-hitters, otoh, is an anamoly whose duration is not so daunting to the odds as a batter topping .400 for 162 consecutive games.

The hitter's average will always regress somewhat to mean. But consecutive no-hitters by one hot pitcher could happen eventually.

And that same pitcher might not even win, say, 18 games that same season.

DURATION is your logical failing. Apparently knowing dick about baseball is your other.

Ummm... Not to assail your logic skills or anything, but I have to disagree with you. Let me start by saying that I know very little about baseball; I don't follow it, I don't pay attention to it, and I don't pretend to know anything about the game. That said, when given two numbers, I'm pretty good at picking the larger one. So when I see that batting over .400 has been done 33 times in the history of baseball, whereas pitching back-to-back no hitters has been done once, I'm going to say that hitting .400 is more common (33 times more common as it were). Your logic fails even further because you argue that .400 hasn't been done in 67 years, which, while true, is not as long ago as the only back-to-back no hitters in history, which was done 70 years ago.

So, at best, you can argue that it is your opinion that batting .400 for a season is less likely now than pitching back to back no hitters. The numbers are not on your side, and your comments implying that someone else's opinion is unequivocally wrong are patently absurd.

 

[Poulsonator]

Atomic Playboy hits the nail on the head. 33 times (.400 or better) vs 1 time (back-to-back no-hitters). This is such an easy argument it's laughable, but the back-to-back no hitters is a much, MUCH more impressive feat and something that will never be done again.

Hitting .400 or better over a whole season is damn impressive and obviously ridiculously hard, but it's not as hard as the back-to-back no-hitters. The numbers prove it.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Injury
This is my OPINION and I'm entitled to it.
It may be the harder, less attainable goal, but I think it will happen again before back-to-back no hitters.

Your ignorance is profound, and apparently bulletproof.

Excuse me for assuming you were someone who could be persuaded by painstakingly outlined logic and a compelling and knowledgable rejoinder.

I guess my ignorance coincides with your superiority complex.

 

[jalaram]

Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Atomic Playboy hits the nail on the head. 33 times (.400 or better) vs 1 time (back-to-back no-hitters). This is such an easy argument it's laughable, but the back-to-back no hitters is a much, MUCH more impressive feat and something that will never be done again.

Hitting .400 or better over a whole season is damn impressive and obviously ridiculously hard, but it's not as hard as the back-to-back no-hitters. The numbers prove it.

But but... his "painstakingly outlined logic" proves your numbers wrong.