Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:33 am
Its_asdf wrote:NBA's rims are 10 feet and the diameter of the rims are smaller I believe. Playground rims and such tend to be shorter, or at least they look shorter.
Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:36 am
Are you serious? We're talking about jumping over someone who's crouched down and is probably 6 feet if they made it to the NBA. You have to be a very athletic person to even attempt a dunk on NBA rims, so I don't think that you have a clue about what you're talking about. If you show me evidence that you can dunk over a six foot guy sitting down on a chair then I'll bake you a cake.....
Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:43 am
Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:44 am
Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:50 am
True that, I read about a crew of 5 foot-something guys that aren't anything special as a player but admired Nique so much that they started training their nothing but their vertical leaps. No they're these kind of dunk wonders but still, nothing special as players.VanK wrote:These guys train only their verticals and dunking is for them an ultimate basketball skill, but I still salute them.
Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:27 am
Fewrookies-From2kW/Love wrote:Matt wrote:Remember Weis. A 7'2" STANDING!!!!!
and getting his head pushed down.....offensive foul ref!
Its called body contact.
If you otta say something bad about the dunk. Name something else that are better or better yet, name someone who can do the same dunk.
He went over a 7'2", period!
Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:31 am
Fewrookies-From2kW/Love wrote:I don't care if he was 4 feet tall and are doing all these dunks. You judge everyone by the same standards. In the dunk contest, the judges didn't do that. Thats why spudd and nate were able to win.
You can say he is the best at 5'11"
Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:08 am
The Black Death wrote:Fewrookies-From2kW/Love wrote:I don't care if he was 4 feet tall and are doing all these dunks. You judge everyone by the same standards. In the dunk contest, the judges didn't do that. Thats why spudd and nate were able to win.
You can say he is the best at 5'11"
That's a very shitty point. It is 500 times more difficult to be 5'8" and do a between the legs dunk compared to being 7' and doing a between the legs dunk. How can it be fair not to take height into consideration? Nate and Spudd wouldn't even stand a chance, and it would discourage little guys everywhere. Heck, I saw TayShaun Prince do a between the legs dunk in the 04 rookie game. Would you say that that dunk is equal to Nate Robinson's dunk in the dunk contest?
Think man, the judges judge on degree of difficulty. For a 6'9 forward like Josh Smith to do a between the legs dunk is difficult, but not as difficult for a guy that's a whole foot shorter. If you're 5'8, you have to jump alot higher than a 6'9 guy and you have to be able to hang more too. If Nate Robinson jumped over a 7'2 guy would you be saying VC's dunk was better?
Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:14 am
Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:22 am
Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:41 am
But now if you give the lil guy an edge just because he is shorter, that wouldn't be fair for those that are regular hight, wouldn't it? AI2 should have won. But because the judges saw it the way you did, they gave it to Nate. How fair is that for AI2 then? Are those dunks that AI2 did wasn't dificult?
Its like boxing. If you put a light weight up against a heavey weight, and the dude survive 10 rounds with the monster. Should the judges give him the w just because of that?
Or like baseball. a migit step up and hit the ball nearly out the ball park, would you consider that a home run just because of his inferior abelities?
In any professional competetion,
Its only for the fans and the HYPE.
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:15 am
Laxation wrote:for starters, Ill put $20 on the fact that you CANT dunk
it is harder to dunk when youre shorter. As a taller person, you have abigger advantage and therefore should be able to make way better dunks. AI2 kept on going through his legs, something that nate was doing, and has a much lower degree of dificulty for the same dunk.
Im sorry (not really) but it ISNT like boxing. in boxing, you just dont put lightweights vs heavyweights. How the fuck is it like boxing? In basketball, all sizes are matched up against each other
Since when is being does being a midget mean that you have inferior abilities when it comes to playing baseball? Just because you are small it dooesnt mean you cant hit a fucking ball. If anything, its easier because the pitcher has a smaller area to aim at. Its pretty fucking pathetic that youre using midgets for this example too
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:29 am
Do you know what is a metaphor or simile? When your girlfriend call you a pig, are you really a pig?
What I'm saying is that if a lightweight will be judge the same way as his oppornet, a heavey weight, the judges of an NBA dunk contest should judge Nate, a light weight, the same way they judge AI2, a heavey weight.
I'm just saying its harder for him to do it, just like its harder for Nate to dunk it; If he didn't hit the ball out of the ball park, then its not a homerun. If Nate's dunk don't deserve a 50, then its shouldn't be consider a perfect dunk
Whether a migit can hit the ball or not has nothing to do with my simile.
a migit step up and hit the ball nearly out the ball park,
Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:06 am
but that doesnt make me understand why it is harder for midgets to hit a ball... just because theyre short it doesnt mean they are bad at hitting stuff
Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:12 am
but that doesnt make me understand why it is harder for midgets to hit a ball... just because theyre short it doesnt mean they are bad at hitting stuff
Are you fucking serieus? If migits can hit just as good as a regular size person, why arn't there any in the major leagues?
Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:56 am
Fewrookies-From2kW/Love wrote:but that doesnt make me understand why it is harder for midgets to hit a ball... just because theyre short it doesnt mean they are bad at hitting stuff
Are you fucking serieus? If migits can hit just as good as a regular size person, why arn't there any in the major leagues?
I don't know way you bold your "is." Have you been reading my posts? I never once said that it wasn't harder. My point is that it don't matter if its harder or easier. Only the outcome matters.
Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:38 pm
Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:22 am
Yohance Bailey wrote:Co-sign on your comment there bud.
If you argue that the difficulty of dunks and "outcome" are what matters....then really Igoudala only had one dunk that was superior to nate's..which is the behind the backboard dunk. What one considers to be spectacular is relative....and the fact is..for most people..the shorter you are and dunk..the more difficult and spectacular it looks. That is why nate won....and the fact that there is no penalty limit to dunk attemps.
With that said..the guy who this thread is named after...because of his height..and the degree of difficulty of his dunks..most would say he's atleast as good as vince carter..if not better. By the looks of it...i dont think that there is any dunk vince can do..and he can't.
Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:51 am
Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:01 am
Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:19 am
j.23 wrote:dude, get your head out of your ass. i like vc as much as anyone here, but this guy is a better dunker than VC, period. VC's dunks in the ASG better than the dudes dunk in this video? please. the best dunks in the ASG by vince were the 360 windmill, between the legs, and elbow hang. this guy jumped over a car. he jumped over three guys and still managed to do the rock a cradle dunk. can you fathom how hard that is? you're from canada, so i can see your bias, but come on.
Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:24 am
Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:55 am
Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:11 am
Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:58 am
VC jumping at his highest, his head can go 2-3 inches above rim level. None of those dunks that dude did was above rim level.