Alltime Pitcher VS Hitter matchup

[medric822]

I see Williams coming out with the upper hand in that at bat.

[philliesphan18]

I see Williams coming out with the upper hand in that at bat.

Yeah - Williams would definately conquer the Big Unit.

[Darkslide820]

I don't know. 98 MPH plus the slider? That's a tough call.

[medric822]

Ted also had 7/20 vision, which means that he can see at 7 ft what others see at 20 feet. Not very good, almost blind.

[philliesphan18]

Ted also had 7/20 vision, which means that he can see at 7 ft what others see at 20 feet. Not very good, almost blind.

Wait, I thought you had him coming out on top Medric? Changed your mind?

[medric822]

No, I have faith in him, But I'm also stating the facts.

[northpaw]

Ted also had 7/20 vision, which means that he can see at 7 ft what others see at 20 feet. Not very good, almost blind.

7/20 means what other people see at 7 ft he can see at 20......his eyes were impeccable

still say hank aaron vs Koufax

[medric822]

No, your thinking of 20/7.

[medric822]

Also, I think that Koufax would sit down Aaron in a hurry.

[Darkslide820]

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-7Y2T...clnk&cd=2&gl=us

medrick wins, if Ted Williams did indeed have 7/20 and not 20/7.

[tywiggins]

According to this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sbbw0725.htm

Ted Williams had 20/10 vision when he entered the Navy.

[el_jefe061]

Doc Gooden in his first year versus Teddy Ballgame. People forget about how untouchable Doc was in his early, pre coke years. I think you'd hav eto throw vintage Pedro in any conversation.

[medric822]

I've read in countless magazines and books, that he had 7/20 vision. They may have altered his Navy admission papers for two reasons.

Reason 1- He's Ted Williams for God's sake!

Reason 2- (Most Likely) He was in the Air Force, or am I thinking of Hank Greenberg, but during the 5 years at war that Ted was in, both WWII and Korea, the military took just about any man that signed up.

[tywiggins]

I've read in countless magazines and books, that he had 7/20 vision. They may have altered his Navy admission papers for two reasons.

Reason 1- He's Ted Williams for God's sake!

Reason 2- (Most Likely) He was in the Air Force, or am I thinking of Hank Greenberg, but during the 5 years at war that Ted was in, both WWII and Korea, the military took just about any man that signed up.

The first number is always 20.

[owls]

Like ty said, they don't use the expression 7/20. It's 20/n so what medric's saying would give him 20/60 vision - not good, no, but not almost blind either. It's always been said Ted had 20/10 vision which is considered perfect acuity (for a human). Ted has commented on this himself noting that he's always noticed his eyesight to be exceptional - he just didn't like people claiming it was his super senses and not he.

[medric822]

Ok, fact is that Ted had poor vision, lets forget the 20/20 thing before Barbra Walters gets involved.

[owls]

No, 20/10 would be excellent vision. Even if 20/10 was an unlikely exaggeration, he wasn't "almost blind." If you read this in countless books and magazines, can you give me a couple sources? I'd like to see what was said considering Ted himself has always said he has very good eyesight.

[medric822]

I didn't say he had good eyesight, I said he had bad eyesight. I read it in an biography a few years ago, and once in a Baseball Digest about a year earlier.

[Homer]

you are correct, it's 20/n, at least in this country where we use feet instead of the metric system. 7/20 is non-sensical. 20/10 vision is thought to be the optimal acuity without corrective lensesl for humans because the research has shown as such. there is no such thing as "perfect vision" for "humans." individuals can have perfect vision. perfect vision varies from one individual to the next. it's completely dependant on the physiology of the sensory organs in the eyes. therefor, perfect vision is well established as the optimal vision that each individual can physiologically obtain. for some people, 20/20 is perfect vision for them. for others, it's 20/10. and so on. wikipedia (i can't believe i keep pushing that site, but damn it's good) actually has a very good thread on it. look up "visual acuity."

and back on topic...i've read several sources that williams had 20/10 vision also. it's been said many times that he was even able to see the stitching of the ball as the pitch was thrown. but that again sounds like an urban legend.

[owls]

I understand what you're saying. However, it's always been published and said (including by Ted) that he has 20/10 vision - that is considered perfect vision for a human. You say you've read in countless books and magazines that he had 7/20 vision. This would be incorrect form but the equivalent of 20/60 vision which isn't great but not very bad. You're saying though that he had very bad vision ("almost blind"). Considering this is some significant discrepancy, I was wondering what exactly you read. Since you said you read it many times it's quite strange and figure it'd be easy for you to give me an exact source to see for myself. Guess not...?

[tywiggins]

Medric, is this by chance the article? It's from March 2002 of Baseball Digest.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FC...i_82472897/pg_3

[owls]

there is no such thing as "perfect vision" for "humans." individuals can have perfect vision. perfect vision varies from one individual to the next. it's completely dependant on the physiology of the sensory organs in the eyes. therefor, perfect vision is well established as the optimal vision that each individual can physiologically obtain. for some people, 20/20 is perfect vision for them. for others, it's 20/10. and so on.

But I said "considered perfect visual acuity." The laymen's term for this (20/10) is called "perfect vision." Of course this doesn't mean your vision is indeed "perfect" since the scale is an average to begin with and estimates a "normal." Technically, 20/20 means you have "normal" vision though it's an old standard. It's only a semantic difference between what you said and this though.

[Homer]

yeah, gooden was pretty damn good that year. as good as it gets. that was just brilliant. but when we're talking the greatest pitchers of all time versus the greatest hitters of all time, i'm thinking guys like pedro, koufax, mo rivera, the big unit vs the babe, teddy ballgame, and barry bonds (roids or not). in their prime, those guys were the untouchables. and i'm not referring to one season either. if i were to give it based on single season accomplishments, then there are tons of guys we could throw in the mix, eventhough it wouldn't really be relevant (i.e. bob welch, dave stewart, eric gagne...)

i just personally haven't seen anyone better than river, johnson, and pedro at their best. when they were on top of their game, they were just dominant unlike anything else. so i'd take the pitchers any day of the week. hell, even when the batters are at their best, the pitchers still win 60% of the battles. those are good odds, even for vegas.

[Homer]

But I said "considered perfect visual acuity." The laymen's term for this (20/10) is called "perfect vision." Of course this doesn't mean your vision is indeed "perfect" since the scale is an average to begin with and estimates a "normal." Technically, 20/20 means you have "normal" vision though it's an old standard. It's only a semantic difference between what you said and this though.

i know. what's your point? just thought i'd shed some light in the topic.

and technically 20/20 vision being considered normal is an old concept that has been misinterpreted time and time again by textbooks off of the original research.

but in laymen's sense, it's perfectly fine to refer to it as you did. i'm not disagreeing. just my giving my lesson of the day

but again, we're going way off topic.

edit: and again, laymen's term is fine. scientifically speaking, there's a difference. it may be semantics to most people, but if knowledge of our basic sciences is considered merely an argument of semantics, then we're in a world of hurt. anyhow, i don't want to argue over this. it's pointless. and it was just jackie robinson day! it was very strange seeing all the arguments taking place on here today bearing in mind what we were celebrating today. so let's move on.

i still take the pitchers. and my pitcher would be pedro or rivera.

[owls]

i know. what's your point? just thought i'd shed some light in the topic.

and technically 20/20 vision being considered normal is an old concept that has been misinterpreted time and time again by textbooks off of the original research.

but in laymen's sense, it's perfectly fine to refer to it as you did. i'm not disagreeing. just my giving my lesson of the day

but again, we're going way off topic.

edit: and again, laymen's term is fine. scientifically speaking, there's a difference. it may be semantics to most people, but if knowledge of our basic sciences is considered merely an argument of semantics, then we're in a world of hurt. anyhow, i don't want to argue over this. it's pointless. and it was just jackie robinson day! it was very strange seeing all the arguments taking place on here today bearing in mind what we were celebrating today. so let's move on.

The bolded part answers the question for me as well. I was only clarifying and acknowledged in the last sentence that it was a semantic difference between what you and I were saying. Then, I know the "normal" acuity is outdated - I called it an old concept in the same sentence! It isn't misinterpreted it's just that the "average" eye has changed. I don't see what you mean by there's a scientific difference. And I never said science is semantics. If you want to be "scientific," there is no such thing as "perfect" vision nor "normal" vision. I thought that was your point from the beginning - that the only "perfect vision" is individually pure vision. 20/10 is just commonly labeled "perfect vision" since it's considered the maximum acuity but yes, technically it's not perfect either. But yes, it's pointless. Don't get the wrong impression though, you're acting like it's a negative argument. It's just a discussion. We'll move on anyway.