On 7 Feb 2005 at 17:04, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 07 Feb 2005, at 4:17 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 6 Feb 2005 at 23:39, Darcy James Argue wrote: > >> That's like saying "There is nothing important in basketball that > >> comes from physics." > >> > >> On the one hand, Lebron Lames doesn't actually need to know the > >> first thing about Isaac Newton or his theories in order to reliably > >> put the ball in the hoop. > >> > >> On the other hand... > > > > The laws of physics apply equally to all basketball players. Some > > are brilliant, some less so. Clearly, fine playing has nothing to do > > with physics, and everything to do with individual talent and skill. > > You don't think Lebron James has a better intuitive understanding of > the physics of basketball than the average person?
I think he doesn't give any thought to physics at all while playing. > You don't think Tiger Woods has a better intuitive understanding of > the physics of golf than his competitors? I don't think he gives a thought to physics while hitting the golf ball. > You don't think world-class pool players have a better intuitive > understanding of the physics of pool than the two-bit shark at the > dive down the street? I doubt they think anything about physics while playing. > > And how often is Newton discussed by the broadcasters calling a > > basketball game? I would say probably NEVER. > > You don't think basketball commentators (and coaches, and players) > talk about angle, rebounds, arcs, etc? That's not physics, except using a rather debased definition of it that includes just about anything involving motion. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
