Please Sign the Petition against the Government's Digital Bill
in [UK Football]
|
Prev: Wheek 16 Sprouts+Broccoli
Next: Wheek 24 MooMooMoo
From: nigel on 25 Jan 2010 14:56 Joe Horowitz wrote: > > When you actually do the maths, a top golfer should earn something like four > thousand million trillion times as much as a footballer, because they > sometimes get a 'hole in one' from, like, five hundred yards or whatever. > Tiger Woods must have watched Figueroa's goal and thought 'that's difficult? > I'm in the wrong sport'. > I'd guess that a soccer equivalent degree of difficulty to a golf hole-in-one (usually 200 - 300 yards or so) would be kicking a football from the penalty spot and getting it to land partially or wholly covering the centre spot. The ratio of boot to soccer ball isn't too far from clubhead to golfball so the constraint of the end result should be approximately the same. Account needs to be taken of the superior distance capability of a well-hit golfball.
From: nigel on 25 Jan 2010 15:01 Joe Horowitz wrote: > > Better to read a tabloid, eh? > A rabid nulab tabloid recently condemned OnCamera's intention to use strict immigration controls to keep the population to below 70 million, saying it wouldn't work and he'd need a Chinese-style one baby policy. In the next column Phil Woolas appeared to promise to keep the population below 70 million without using strict immigration controls and without disclosing any other means of achieving the target. When politicians make direct quotes in newspapers, or write their own columns, it's much easier to pin them down than if they evade questions on tv progs by spouting meaningless party dogma.
From: JC on 25 Jan 2010 16:20 On 25/01/2010 6:26 PM, Joe Horowitz wrote: > "nigel"<useweb(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:xcadnaLP9KXOT8DWnZ2dnUVZ8lidnZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... >> I think footballers would not emerge covered in glory. > > I emerged covered in glory once. > >>> Does that mean it is or isn't a fluke? >>> >> >> Probably not, but who knows for certain. > > Well, we'd have to arrive at a workable definition of 'fluke' first. I'm > not convinced we have yet. > Hmmm, as I understand it a fluke is an accidental occurence/stroke of luck so by definition intending to do something and achieving it , however improbable, cannot be a fluke as it is not accidental. Walking away from a basketball hoop, tossing the ball backwards over your shoulder, it hitting a passing crow and going into the basket would be a fluke - you couldn't realistically replicate it. Facing the basket and trying to get it in from the centre spot and doing it 1 time in 10 wouldn't be a fluke in my opinion as there is intention to do it and it could be replicated - its just difficult. If something being less than 100% likely makes it a fluke then every goal must be a fluke as the are always less goals than attempts on target.
From: nigel on 25 Jan 2010 16:32 JC wrote: > > This was a scientific study right? Dunno, you snipped the science bit.
From: JC on 25 Jan 2010 16:34
On 25/01/2010 9:32 PM, nigel wrote: > JC wrote: > >> >> This was a scientific study right? > > Dunno, you snipped the science bit. > No, no I didn't. There was none. |