Power / weight calculations

[Langthorne]

Hmmm, interesting, but where is the measurement for toughness, hardness, dogged determination. The velocity at the point of impact, plus the follow through are the all important, and I supect the hard hitters are the ones who if anything speed up (rather than slow down) in anticipation of impact.

Also, all big hits must be judged against Brian Lima.

 

[Groucho]

Langthorne, I think you're onto something here. We need a G&GR formula, our very own pseudoscience to make us rich and famous.

The unit of defensive energy that the formula outputs can be the BL, for Brian Lima.

For example (and this is just a starter, to illustrate the idea):

BL = a(e + am)/s

Where
a = acceleration
e = kinetic energy at contact
am = angular momentum (wriggle and squirm)
s = softness (this one needs some work)

Any ideas?

 

[Scarfman]

No.

But I have another thought experiment. It's based on a theory of mine about hardness.

Scenario One: you have to put a hit on a telegraph pole as hard as you can. Go do it. How hard did you hit it? What if I gave you a really good motivational speech? What if I said I'd give you a million dollars if you could hit it a bit harder? I reckon you can hit it just a little bit harder, but waay off 100% because of the knowledge of the broken bones you will receive if you do.

Scenario Two: I am God. I have just given you the power of invulnerablity. No matter how hard you hit that telegraph pole - no matter how hard - I promise you will not break anything, in fact, it will feel like hitting a nice thick tackle bag. Now, go do it.

In scenario two, you hit that telegraph pole a LOT harder than in any version of scenario one. Imagine it - no matter what the motivation, you still pull back on contact knowing that you're going to fuck yourself up pretty badly. It's a core self-preservation instinct. In scenario two, you nail that motherfucker. You bring it.

Conclusion: the hardest hitters in the game are those who break the least easily. Because they don't pull back from contact at all. E.g., Bakkies Botha. The next hardest hitters in the game are those who can live with the fact that they are very likely to get injured in the next contact. E.g., Stirling Mortlock.

 

[Groucho]

BL = ha(e+am)

Where
h = hard

 

[DPK]

Groucho, want to have a crack at explaining General Relativity?

 

[Scarfman]

To get back to the science of Tom Carter, the essential thing is that bulking up by 10% means that you can afford to lose somewhere between 6% and 10% speed, depending on which calculation you use. I reckon 6% to 8% is probabaly the real number.

And this has some real world validity, since we can keep Tom's other skills (wriggliness, hardness, etc) constant.

 

[daz]

Also, all big hits must be judged against Brian Lima.

Three words: Catt and Lomu.

 

[Groucho]

Maybe defensive energy should be measured in Limas and offensive energy should be measured in Lomus?

 

[Joe Blow]

There is also body height and/or position when going into contact.
If you are upright, a la MMM, then you make a pretty easy target despite the fact that you are moving very quickly, have a reasonable amount of mass and are tough as nails.

 

[cyclopath]

There is also body height and/or position when going into contact.
If you are upright, a la MMM, then you make a pretty easy target despite the fact that you are moving very quickly, have a reasonable amount of mass and are tough as nails.

Nails usually don't break when they do their job.

 

[Langthorne]

I have to concur that the unit of measurement for defensive devastation should from now on be the Lima.

Scarfman - the best defenders are those for whom scenario 2 makes the smallest difference to how hard they hit.

Another factor that might be included in the formula is 'murderous intent'.

 

[Scotty]

Conclusion: the hardest hitters in the game are those who break the least easily. Because they don't pull back from contact at all. E.g., Bakkies Botha. The next hardest hitters in the game are those who can live with the fact that they are very likely to get injured in the next contact. E.g., Stirling Mortlock.

Disagree, at least about the Mortlock one. The hardest hitters are the ones that have very little (if any) thought as to the consequence of the hit. They don't think before going into contact, they just do. TPN is a good example of this. I reckon if there was a telegraph pole on the field he would launch himself at it if it had the ball.

One of the worst tacklers in Australia I believe fails due to this very reason. He is worried about the consequence of the contact (I'm talking about QC (Quade Cooper)).

 

[Scotty]

Conclusion: the hardest hitters in the game are those who break the least easily. Because they don't pull back from contact at all. E.g., Bakkies Botha. The next hardest hitters in the game are those who can live with the fact that they are very likely to get injured in the next contact. E.g., Stirling Mortlock.

Disagree, at least about the Mortlock one. The hardest hitters are the ones that have very little (if any) thought as to the consequence of the hit. They don't think before going into contact, they just do. TPN is a good example of this. I reckon if there was a telegraph pole on the field he would launch himself at it if it had the ball.

One of the worst tacklers in Australia I believe fails due to this very reason. He is worried about the consequence of the contact (I'm talking about QC (Quade Cooper)).

 

[Scarfman]

That's what I was trying to say with your Stirling Mortlock / TPN types. They DO tend to get broken, but they are awesome anyway because they launch themselves without a care for the consequences.