Homer Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 no, i don't think it was a negative argument at all. i only said that cuz i didn't want it to head down that road. those arguments around here just get tiresome. know what i mean? and i didn't say you said science is semantics. when i said there's a difference scientifically, i just merely meant compared to the laymen's interpretation. that's it. i'm just saying, that most people, and most medical students typically brush this topic off as semantics. but scientifically, it's not semantics. it doesn't make a lick of a difference practically, but scientifically it does make a difference. and yes, there actually is perfect vision but i think i've already stated that. i said it's individually based, and not based on a species as a whole. but that was semantics. haha and there is a normal also, it's just not in the connotation most people interpret the word normal as. but since we're on it, do you have an expertise in this or is it a special interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 and yes, there actually is perfect vision but i think i've already stated that. i said it's individually based, and not based on a species as a whole. but that was semantics. haha and there is a normal also, it's just not in the connotation most people interpret the word normal as. Now we're saying the same things in different words. but since we're on it, do you have an expertise in this or is it a special interest? Neither really. Just lots of school, books and teachers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 like i said before, i was just merely shedding some light on it. no pun intended. when i was in school, this whole topic got half the doctors up in arms saying that it's merely semantics, and the other half saying it's being true to science. it was a mess. i've found that it just merely brings on more confusion. so i don't even know why i brought it up. anyhow, what was your answer to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorQuiz Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 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 lol. From the Article: "I think I had good eyesight, maybe exceptional eyesight, but not superhuman eyesight," Williams told John Underwood in his book. "A lot of people have 20-10 vision. The reason I saw things was that I was so intense. I saw ducks coming in becaue I was intent on seeing them. I was looking all the time, I was alert for them. And I trained myself as a sandlotter to know that strike zone so I wouldn't be swinging at bad pitches? Not a lot of talk about BAD vision in there. I wonder if anyone will find ANY citation where someone claims Williams had poor eyesight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 yeah, i'm really curious too. medric, no offense, so i hope you're not taking it that way. but i'm really curious to where you read these things, cuz as i've already mentioned, i've heard nothing except that williams had exceptional acuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkslide820 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 How about Walter Johnson vs. Albert Pujols? Or Lefty Grove vs. Stan Musial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 So I guess we can rest assured no one published Ted's eyesight as almost blind... He read it in "countless" books and magazines and when we ask for him to specify one of these sources we just get "some book I read a few years ago" and then he abandons the thread...? It's not a big deal if you made a mistake or misunderstood/misread/whatever, but this just makes it look like a fabrication. C'mon people, what's the point in doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tywiggins Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 So I guess we can rest assured no one published Ted's eyesight as almost blind... He read it in "countless" books and magazines and when we ask for him to specify one of these sources we just get "some book I read a few years ago" and then he abandons the thread...? It's not a big deal if you made a mistake or misunderstood/misread/whatever, but this just makes it look like a fabrication. C'mon people, what's the point in doing that? actually, medric has been suspended from mvpmods. Edit: I believe that he thinks it's true. But until someone comes up with a source that says that Williams had poor eyesight, I'm going to assume that Medric was mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannyt Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Koufax v. Gwynn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Edit: I believe that he thinks it's true. But until someone comes up with a source that says that Williams had poor eyesight, I'm going to assume that Medric was mistaken. I didn't think he was being intentionally malicious either. I thought he possibly saw a metric form (6/n) and that's where the confusion was; or something similar. But since he said he read it countless times it had be sincerely interested in what exactly he's reading or is being said since all of us have always read/heard the opposite. It was only when he wouldn't answer my question and then disappeared that I thought maybe he's just pulling a fib but... actually, medric has been suspended from mvpmods. ... I guess that explains it. Another case of MVPMods infamous moderators. Too bad we can't get an explanation now but I agree, I'll presume medric was mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Another case of MVPMods infamous moderators. let's not be hasty now and jump to conclusions on details you don't know anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 let's not be hasty now and jump to conclusions on details you don't know anything about. WHAT? Where is the haste? What details or conclusions did I give? There is absolutely none of that... He disappeared and I questioned why. The answer was he was suspended/banned. This is done by a site mod/admin. If someone disappears and ends up in jail, the heat got him. It doesn't mean he's innocent. There wasn't a word about why or what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowdrake Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I got a couple I would love to see Robert Hornsby v Robb Nen (I love to see how Hornsby would attack a 92 MPH Slider and High 90's fastball). My prediction Hornsby ends up on second with a double on a slider on the outside corner which he rips to the opp field. Pujols vs Three Finger Mordecai Brown ( I would love to see Albert try to take a rip at Brown's curve and he is a link with a picture of Brown's hand just try to think of the spin he could get on his curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai_Brown Smokey Joe Wood ( In His Prime when he went 34-5 and had a 1.91 ERA and struck out 258 and pitched 344 Innings) vs Sadaharu Oh I would love to see this match up a pitcher at the peak of his career vs a homerun htting machience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.