Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] TV technology, the World Series and physics





-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Anthony Lapinski
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] TV technology, the World Series and physics

Golf is in a category all by itself, so that is not a good comparison
is.
[Bill Nettles] Why do you put golf in a different category? That doesn't make sense. That statement simply fits what you want to happen, but I could just as easily assert that baseball is in a category all by itself.

Again, football stadiums are all the same size (100 yards), and so
baseball stadiums also should be,
[Bill Nettles] Lemons are yellow, so we should dye oranges to be yellow, too. That makes as much logical sense as your statement.

And one doesn't have to follow a game
every day to understand a game. The basic fact is that it is easier to
hit
a home run in a smaller park. So at least change what can be changed --
the park size. Other factors (weather) are much more difficult to
control,
unless all stadiums are enclosed. That's a whole other issue. I'm
simply
talking about the basic dimensions of the playing field, and nothing
else.

[Bill Nettles] Why not make the turf exactly the same, too? Why not make all golf courses the same yardage with the same hazards? I think that the importance of the size of the field is inversely related to the size and the intensity of the action. Ping-pong: size is extremely important. Tennis: important, but less so. Golf: not critical. In football, size is slightly more important than in European football. Baseball has larger spaces with less continuous action...are all cricket fields the same? (I don't know).