Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
Let's see here......
Pythagorean theorem: the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/6/a/56a04a849a1772efc82b68e21880cef4.png[/img]
10 feet from floor to rim. X = 10
13 feet from freethrow line to rim. Y = 13
X x X = 100
Y x Y = 169
Square root of 269 = 16.41
So. free throw line to rim, at the shortest possible angle, we have 16.41 feet.
Wilt was 7'1" or 7.083 feet long. But we have to consider wingspan, not height. Cavs tells us Chamberlain's wingspan was 7'8" or 7.67 feet.
So, if the player travelled along the shortest path - directly along the hypotenuse, from free throw line to rim - we get:
16.41 - 7.67 = 8.74 feet
Naturally he has to not just touch the rim but dunk the ball, so we add that in too: 9 inches or .75 feet.
8.74 + .75 = 9.49 foot leap.
Of course, he'd have to get 9 inches higher, to get the ball over the rim.
[B]The standing long jump record is nearly 3 feet further, at 12.17 feet.[/B] But that is feet leaving, and feet landing.
A guy sprawled out trying for [B][I]reach[/I][/B] would not have to go so far with his feet in order to make the basket. And of course, the claim is with a 3 step leap, not a standing long jump. Spring is vastly improved with steps.
Looks possible from the pure math side.
All that is aside from the fact that the chairman of the NCAA Rules Committee, Tex Winter, went to KU, watched Wilt Chamberlain dunk free throws and got the NCAA rules changed to outlaw... dunking free throws.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Let's see here......
Pythagorean theorem: the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/6/a/56a04a849a1772efc82b68e21880cef4.png[/img]
10 feet from floor to rim. X = 10
13 feet from freethrow line to rim. Y = 13
X x X = 100
Y x Y = 169
Square root of 269 = 16.41
So. free throw line to rim, at the shortest possible angle, we have 16.41 feet.
Wilt was 7'1" or 7.083 feet long. But we have to consider [B]wingspan[/B], not height. Cavs tells us Chamberlain's wingspan was 7'8" or 7.67 feet.
So, if the player travelled along the shortest path - directly along the hypotenuse, from free throw line to rim - we get:
16.41 - 7.67 = 8.74 feet
Naturally he has to not just touch the rim but dunk the ball, so we add that in too: 9 inches or .75 feet.
8.74 + .75 = 9.49 foot leap.
Of course, he'd have to get 9 inches higher, to get the ball over the rim.
[B]The standing long jump record is nearly 3 feet further, at 12.17 feet.[/B] But that is feet leaving, and feet landing.
A guy sprawled out trying for [B][I]reach[/I][/B] would not have to go so far with his feet in order to make the basket. And of course, the claim is with a 3 step leap, not a standing long jump. Spring is vastly improved with steps.
Looks possible from the pure math side.
All that is aside from the fact that the chairman of the NCAA Rules Committee, Tex Winter, went to KU, watched Wilt Chamberlain dunk free throws and got the NCAA rules changed to outlaw... dunking free throws.[/QUOTE]
Why wingspan, though?
I think you meant standing reach.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=Psileas]Why wingspan, though?
I think you meant standing reach.[/QUOTE]
true. I hate math though. I ain't doing all those gyrations again
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
OK, since Toni Kukoc (6-10 or 6-11) could dunk from the FT line and there is a video of that while Wilt could not !?
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
The articles and pics in the OP do not constitute a proof (that would be live footage during a game) but they provide strong indications that Wilt did indeed do this. I mean we have newspapers mentioning rule changes and several live accounts. And of course seeing his leaping ability from other videos it doesn't sound unreasonable at all. In fact I'm 99% sure that Wilt could dunk from the free throw line.
However... that doesn't indicate that such a strategy of making free throws would be viable in a game.
1) He'd need to take off from behind the line. If he stepped on the line he would commit a violation. He would have to practice quite a bit to take off at the right spot.
2) He would get tired dunking the ball from the FT line 10-15 times a game.
3) How would it work on the second free throw when the defensive players would enter the lane to get a rebound?
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=dankok8]The articles and pics in the OP do not constitute a proof (that would be live footage during a game) but they provide strong indications that Wilt did indeed do this. I mean we have newspapers mentioning rule changes and several live accounts. And of course seeing his leaping ability from other videos it doesn't sound unreasonable at all. In fact I'm 99% sure that Wilt could dunk from the free throw line.
However... that doesn't indicate that such a strategy of making free throws would be viable in a game.
1) He'd need to take off from behind the line. If he stepped on the line he would commit a violation. He would have to practice quite a bit to take off at the right spot.
2) He would get tired dunking the ball from the FT line 10-15 times a game.
3) How would it work on the second free throw when the defensive players would enter the lane to get a rebound?[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a "proof" in the scientific or historical community, just bodies of evidence. Only in the world of math is there such thing as proof, and we aren't trying to solve a mathematical problem here.
This body of evidence is very strong. Footage would make the body of evidence even stronger but it isn't necessary, as the body of evidence is already much stronger than anyone who might try and take a stance that such events never happened.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=CavaliersFTW]There is no such thing as a "proof" in the scientific or historical community, just bodies of evidence. Only in the world of math is there such thing as proof, and we aren't trying to solve a mathematical problem here.
This body of evidence is very strong. Footage would make the body of evidence even stronger but it isn't necessary, as the body of evidence is already much stronger than anyone who might try and take a stance that such events never happened.[/QUOTE]
There is such a thing as proof in scientific method actually. A proof is unequivocal evidence. For instance if we can ascertain that the court dimensions and rim height are regulation and we actually see through footage that Wilt dunked from the free throw line that would constitute a proof.
Remember we're not discussing a hypothesis dealing with an all-explaining theory (for theories we cannot prove them we just don't reject them... for example we have no evidence to refute string theory and lots of evidence that goes in its favor but that doesn't make it true as there could be many situations where the theory fails). Here we're simply discussing whether a certain well-defined event - Wilt dunking from the free throw line - happened. With footage and ascertained court dimensions we can PROVE it. Unfortunately for historical events before the age of photography/film there is no such thing as concrete proof only supporting evidence. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Sometimes indirect evidence can be rather overwhelming in favor of something.
Like you said the body of evidence is strong and I'm 99% sure Wilt could do it even without the video footage. That's the bottom line. The rest is you and I discussing the scientific method. :roll:
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=Shade8780][IMG]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/157/234/99124221did_not_read.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
:oldlol:
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
those free throw dunks sound like he would shoot a free throw then run and grab the rebound and dunk it.
Re: Wilt Chamberlain free throw dunks:
[QUOTE=buddha]those free throw dunks sound like he would shoot a free throw then run and grab the rebound and dunk it.[/QUOTE]
no, read/watch Tex's description again, the description is quite clear that he would just take a 3 stride running start take off and stuff, it was the actual attempt not a rebound