[QUOTE=Colophon]
Much as I hate to sound like I’m siding with Blake (I’m not), that doesn’t mean much. If your centre of gravity is somewhere around your belly button, and is three feet off the ground when you’re standing up, and if you can tuck your legs in even 18 inches or so at the top of your jump (which will only raise your CoG a comparatively small amount above your belly button - even less if you crouch your head and arms downwards at the same time) then you could easily clear well over four feet, without raising your centre of gravity by more than three feet.
When you consider that a lot of NBA players are a lot more than 6ft tall, their CoG might start off three and a half feet or more above the ground, with even more leeway for tucking their legs up.
I suspect the limit for raising your CoG is not much more than three feet for humans, but cats are much springier, as we have seen.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not how they measure vertical jump. There is this contraption for measuring it. My personal record was 26". I wouldn’t be surprised at all for an NBA player to be able to get 4 feet or more.
ETA: See this list of highest reaches compared to standing height. VertCoach.com is for sale | HugeDomains
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Well, I can’t say it looked that way from my point of view, but some of that impression doubtless comes from the other times Blake has stubbornly and aggressively pulled the same trick on me (and was wrong those times too).
[/QUOTE]
Like I said I’m no fan of Blake. As a matter of fact, I believe the reason I remember that thread so vividly is that we (unless memory fails me) had just had a dust-up in a thread regarding the existence of the soul, where he adamantly claimed that anecdotal evidence was evidence. That’s probably why I never posted in the cat-jumping thread; I couldn’t figure out whether to agree with Blake or post “Oh, so now anecdotes aren’t evidence all of a sudden?”.
My problem with Blake in that thread was that he refused to believe that his own cites were not the ironclad proof he wanted them to be. Essentially, they boiled down to “most animals can jump about 3 feet,” and he somehow interpreted that to mean “no animal can jump more than 3 feet.”
[QUOTE=sturmhauke]
My problem with Blake in that thread was that he refused to believe that his own cites were not the ironclad proof he wanted them to be. Essentially, they boiled down to “most animals can jump about 3 feet,” and he somehow interpreted that to mean “no animal can jump more than 3 feet.”
[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, that and ‘every scientist in the world agrees with me on this’.
Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily dubious or unreliable, it just means it may not represent the whole picture. Therefore anecdotal evidence can’t prove a statement, but it can disprove one. To whit:
No animal can jump higher than three feet. Here’s one that can. Statement is proven false.
All animals can jump higher than three feet. Here’s one that can. Statement not proven true.
Now a single anecdote may also be unreliable, so not really proof or disproof of anything, but that’s a separate issue.
I agree - it’s also necessary to weigh the claim to work out exactly how extraordinary it is:
No animal can jump higher than three feet. Here’s one that can jump four feet. Not very exceptional.
Vs
No animal can jump higher than three feet. I heard of one that can jump to the moon. :dubious: