Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   Secretariat, cheated of the Preakness Stakes record 39 years ago by a timing snafu, now credited with a faster time than he actually ran. Next up: awarding Hank Aaron 8 retroactive homers   (deadspin.com) divider line 52
    More: Strange, Preakness Stakes, Preakness, Secretariat, Hank Aaron, Maryland Jockey Club  
•       •       •

1300 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jun 2012 at 9:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 09:49:46 PM  
Good for Secretariat! Does this automatically increase by a couple of thousand dollars the individual values of all his blood descendants??

/wonder how many there are ...
 
2012-06-19 09:56:32 PM  
Who's that at the door???
 
2012-06-19 10:01:45 PM  
In before the neighsayers.
 
2012-06-19 10:10:02 PM  
Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.
 
2012-06-19 10:14:12 PM  
I'd be OK with crediting Aaron with as many homers as it took to overtake Bonds*. Hell, for good measure, add Josh Gibson's lifetime home run total to the MLB record books. That'll take care of Bonds* for sure!

/and yes, include the homer that went from one side of PA to the other
 
2012-06-19 10:20:29 PM  

JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.


baseballhistoryblog.com

One of those guys used drugs to improve performance - the other is Japanese.
 
2012-06-19 10:33:15 PM  
Subby DRTFA, and doesn't know WTF they're talking about.

No, he was credited with the time he actually ran, as hand timed, not the time on the farking scoreboard- scoreboard times are never official, dipshiat.
 
2012-06-19 10:48:04 PM  
Maybe now is the time to change Dempsey's field goal to 62 yards.
 
2012-06-19 11:05:45 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Subby DRTFA, and doesn't know WTF they're talking about.

No, he was credited with the time he actually ran, as hand timed, not the time on the farking scoreboard- scoreboard times are never official, dipshiat.


Subby did RTFA, YAWFU, and nothing in the article explains how they got to 1:53 flat. Neither did the CNN article I read. He was hand-timed at 1:53 2/5, and this unofficial time has been the accepted one for 39 years. Somehow, they not only managed to find a way to give Secretariat a share of the record most racing fans had conceded to him for years, they gave him the whole thing outright.

The whole thing smacks of major revisionism in a dying sport that is hanging onto the memory of its dead legends in any way it can. That's my read on it. Read it how you will.

So STFU, YAWFU. TTYL!

XO,
NR
 
2012-06-19 11:06:40 PM  
I say we just take away 250 or so from Bonds and another 200 from Sosa. That'll fix everything.
 
2012-06-19 11:26:40 PM  

UCJJ: I say we just take away 250 or so from Bonds and another 200 from Sosa. That'll fix everything.


Let's not be taking away, lets be giving. You can make a pretty good case that Ruth would have had another fifty odd home runs under modern rules (namely the rules regarding foul balls). Let's say 49 to be conservative

/would love to see Bonds off the top of the list, but the only player with a (slim) chance of doing that any time soon is A-Rod. And that isn't much of an improvement.
 
2012-06-19 11:45:22 PM  

JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.


Sure, only 4000 more at bats than Ruth to get an extra 41 homers.

/that's like a guy shooting hoops with Michael Jordan to see who can make the most baskets. Jordan hits almost all of his baskets, and goes home. The shlub hit half of his, and keeps shooting for hours after Jordan went home, until he finally surpasses him. I'm impressed
 
2012-06-19 11:57:41 PM  

hbk72777: JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.

Sure, only 4000 more at bats than Ruth to get an extra 41 homers.

/that's like a guy shooting hoops with Michael Jordan to see who can make the most baskets. Jordan hits almost all of his baskets, and goes home. The shlub hit half of his, and keeps shooting for hours after Jordan went home, until he finally surpasses him. I'm impressed

Except that it's not. For starters, Aaron hit his home runs against the best baseball players in the world; Ruth hit his against the best white baseball players in the world.

I'm okay with giving Hammerin' Hank the "didn't use steroids" bonus homers. In fact, I think MLB did that a couple years ago, according to this credible news source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/mlb-credits-hank-aaron-with-50-lost-h ome-runs,2194/
 
2012-06-20 12:04:44 AM  

NakedReporta: The whole thing smacks of major revisionism in a dying sport that is hanging onto the memory of its dead legends in any way it can. That's my read on it. Read it how you will.


No, they used the film and counted how many frames from start to finish. Since film runs at a set speed (usually 24 fps) they know exactly what the time was.
 
2012-06-20 12:13:09 AM  
Big sugi

Comparing talent levels across eras is always difficult, but

1) Aaron played against the best players in the United States and a few international players, not the world. Weren't too many international stars when he played.
2) Most of Aaron's career was played in the expansion era. Adding more players to the talent pool while adding more teams evens things out in terms of quality of play.

That said, for career records, longevity is important in its own right, because they all measure who was good enough to play for a long time as well as who was best at their peak. Babe Ruth could have hit more home runs in his career - he was on pace for 20 his last season - but he was too out of shape to play the field, and hit below the Mendoza line, so he retired in May.
 
2012-06-20 12:16:12 AM  

NakedReporta: Your Average Witty Fark User: Subby DRTFA, and doesn't know WTF they're talking about.

No, he was credited with the time he actually ran, as hand timed, not the time on the farking scoreboard- scoreboard times are never official, dipshiat.

Subby did RTFA, YAWFU, and nothing in the article explains how they got to 1:53 flat. Neither did the CNN article I read. He was hand-timed at 1:53 2/5, and this unofficial time has been the accepted one for 39 years. Somehow, they not only managed to find a way to give Secretariat a share of the record most racing fans had conceded to him for years, they gave him the whole thing outright.

The whole thing smacks of major revisionism in a dying sport that is hanging onto the memory of its dead legends in any way it can. That's my read on it. Read it how you will.

So STFU, YAWFU. TTYL!

XO,
NR


Obviously, you're subby... and you're an illiterate retard. Congrats.
 
2012-06-20 12:16:57 AM  

Pinhead Patriot: Who's that at the door???


clap clap clap, I thank you.
 
2012-06-20 12:22:43 AM  

birdboy2000: Big sugi

Comparing talent levels across eras is always difficult, but

1) Aaron played against the best players in the United States and a few international players, not the world. Weren't too many international stars when he played.
2) Most of Aaron's career was played in the expansion era. Adding more players to the talent pool while adding more teams evens things out in terms of quality of play.

That said, for career records, longevity is important in its own right, because they all measure who was good enough to play for a long time as well as who was best at their peak. Babe Ruth could have hit more home runs in his career - he was on pace for 20 his last season - but he was too out of shape to play the field, and hit below the Mendoza line, so he retired in May.


Well, that and the whole he-was-a-pitcher-the-first-5-years-of-his-career thing.
 
2012-06-20 12:27:40 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Good for Secretariat! Does this automatically increase by a couple of thousand dollars the individual values of all his blood descendants??

/wonder how many there are ...


There's at least one:
top-people.starmedia.com
 
2012-06-20 12:38:22 AM  
Nein

And he got three rings and some of the most stellar pitching ever seen in a World Series for his trouble.

But you can always play the what if game. Imagine Ted Williams' numbers if he never joined the army, for instance. What if Ruth played his whole career in Fenway - his home run total jumped 25 the year he moved to the Yankees, and he was playing as an outfielder the year before to boot.
 
2012-06-20 12:46:28 AM  

birdboy2000: Big sugi

Comparing talent levels across eras is always difficult, but

1) Aaron played against the best players in the United States and a few international players, not the world. Weren't too many international stars when he played.
2) Most of Aaron's career was played in the expansion era. Adding more players to the talent pool while adding more teams evens things out in terms of quality of play.

That said, for career records, longevity is important in its own right, because they all measure who was good enough to play for a long time as well as who was best at their peak. Babe Ruth could have hit more home runs in his career - he was on pace for 20 his last season - but he was too out of shape to play the field, and hit below the Mendoza line, so he retired in May.


Every baseball star in the world, international or otherwise, played MLB during Aaron's era. There weren't many foreigners, true, but they all were allowed to play. Some, like Roberto Clemente, made an impact that wouldn't have been allowed in 1927. The US population also doubled (approximately) from Ruth's era. And participation in baseball also increased greatly, thanks in no small part to the increase in popularity attributable to Ruth. Meanwhile, the number of teams was still at 16 for the first seven years of Aaron's career; it went to 20 in 1961/62, and didn't make it to 24 until 1969, when Aaron had been playing for 15 seasons.

As you note, comparing play across eras is difficult. But even so, I don't think you can simply say that "expansion weakened the talent pool" and that the competition therefore was comparable. Any one of the main factors creating stronger competition--increased population, increased participation, and integration--would offset the effects of team expansion. Taken together, they overwhelm those effects.
 
2012-06-20 12:57:17 AM  
Whatever. Enjoy your victory. Secretariat is still dead. And so's horse racing. The article never clearly explained how they got from 1:53 2/5 to 1:53 flat, just that evidence was presented and testimony heard. Nowhere in the article does it say that the argument was put forth that the 1:53 2/5 time was itself slow, so when the article reaches its conclusion, the reader is left to wonder, "How'd they get there?"

It's a poorly written article, and I say that as a writer, former journalist and editor. It jumps to the verdict without fully explaining how we got there. Granted, it's Deadspin, and it's not meant to be comprehensive, but putting something earlier in the article explaining that they were arguing for 1:53 flat would've been helpful.

And I still say it's revisionist history. There's plenty of times and records across multiple sports that we'd have to change if they were put under the same scrutiny.

And the thing about your original post that got me irritated, FU, wasn't the bit about not RTFA or knowing WTF I was talking about. It was this:

"No, he was credited with the time he actually ran, as hand timed (my emphasis), not the time on the farking scoreboard- scoreboard times are never official, dipshiat."

He was hand-timed at 1:53 2/5 that day. Not 1:53 flat. Now who didn't RTFA? Save your "illiterate" comments, please. Dipshiat.
 
2012-06-20 01:01:44 AM  

birdboy2000: Nein

And he got three rings and some of the most stellar pitching ever seen in a World Series for his trouble.

But you can always play the what if game. Imagine Ted Williams' numbers if he never joined the army, for instance. What if Ruth played his whole career in Fenway - his home run total jumped 25 the year he moved to the Yankees, and he was playing as an outfielder the year before to boot.


Ruth as a pitcher did hold other teams scoreless for 29 2/3 straight innings. It was the record he was most proud of, beaten later by another Yankee (Whitey Ford upped it to 33 2/3).
 
2012-06-20 01:09:20 AM  
www.majhost.com
 
2012-06-20 01:51:51 AM  
Bonds would have 1,000 homers if he hadn't had to have faced pitchers on the juice.
 
2012-06-20 03:02:30 AM  
Secretariat used ROIDS. That's why the motherfarker's heart was so farking big. Cheating ass "Big Red". Glad that piece of shiat's dead. fark him and his mother.
 
2012-06-20 04:10:36 AM  

mc_madness: Secretariat used ROIDS frog juice.

 
2012-06-20 07:43:40 AM  

big sugi: Every baseball star in the world, international or otherwise, played MLB during Aaron's era. There weren't many foreigners, true, but they all were allowed to play. Some, like Roberto Clemente, made an impact that wouldn't have been allowed in 1927. The US population also doubled (approximately) from Ruth's era. And participation in baseball also increased greatly, thanks in no small part to the increase in popularity attributable to Ruth. Meanwhile, the number of teams was still at 16 for the first seven years of Aaron's career; it went to 20 in 1961/62, and didn't make it to 24 until 1969, when Aaron had been playing for 15 seasons.

As you note, comparing play across eras is difficult. But even so, I don't think you can simply say that "expansion weakened the talent pool" and that the competition therefore was comparable. Any one of the main factors creating stronger competition--increased population, increased participation, and integration--would offset the effects of team expansion. Taken together, they overwhelm those effects.


Conversely, Babe Ruth played during the era when baseball, literally, was the national sport, and those who had the ability would be playing baseball (or working on a farm). Basketball was nothing, and football was growing but still not the juggernaut it later became.
On the other side, breaking pitches were not as prevalent, so it may have been easier to obtain square contact hits. Ruth also had a relatively short porch for much of his career. Of course, spitballs, scuffed balls, dirty balls, and other means of cheating was more prevalent as well, which would not have helped things. The bats being so much larger (and likely less consistent in grain) during the twenties, as well as more irregular baseballs probably didn't help those in Ruth's era.

So, yeah, you should probably just stick to the "you can't compare eras" argument. Because one could think of logical reasons to support one side or the other until the cows come home.

Let's just put it this way, put a 40-42 ounce bat in Aaron's hand and a 33-34 ounce bat in Ruth's hand, and see who does better.
 
2012-06-20 07:44:52 AM  
I only brought that last thing up because I do have an opinion on the subject, and I also know bat weight is one thing that CAN be compared across eras.
 
2012-06-20 08:18:19 AM  
Here's something that can be compared across eras, though not until they have passed: Name recognition.

Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron will still be recognized names in MLB long after anyone can recall the names of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. There is more to greatness than stats. There is more to being a legend than the numbers. Ruth and Aaron lifted up the entire sport in the eyes of the American public, and will always be remembered for it. Rose and Bonds tore it down, and will be deliberately and purposefully forgotten because of it, despite their numbers. That is how baseball works.
 
2012-06-20 08:28:03 AM  

bluorangefyre: I'd be OK with crediting Aaron with as many homers as it took to overtake Bonds*. Hell, for good measure, add Josh Gibson's lifetime home run total to the MLB record books. That'll take care of Bonds* for sure!

/and yes, include the homer that went from one side of PA to the other


You can't add the one that went across PA because is was actually an out. He hit the the HR in Pittsburgh one day, and the same two teams were playing in Philadelphia the next day. During BP, one of the players on the other team sees a ball falling from the sky, sticks out his glove, and makes the catch. The umpire sees it, looks at Gibson, and says: "You're out! Yesterday - in Pittsburgh."
 
2012-06-20 08:38:39 AM  

Balchinian: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron will still be recognized names in MLB long after anyone can recall the names of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. There is more to greatness than stats. There is more to being a legend than the numbers. Ruth and Aaron lifted up the entire sport in the eyes of the American public, and will always be remembered for it. Rose and Bonds tore it down, and will be deliberately and purposefully forgotten because of it, despite their numbers. That is how baseball works.


I think Rose will eventually be slightly more accepted. Both are assholes, but I think people can respect Rose's playing career (even if they're going to wait until after he dies) because it was obvious he busted his ass. Bonds busted his ass, but he also had to cheat in order to keep his ass in the sport for such a long time (and to make him a far better player than he ever was in his true prime).
 
2012-06-20 08:40:03 AM  

hbk72777: JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.

Sure, only 4000 more at bats than Ruth to get an extra 41 homers.


In an era of far better pitching and without significantly smaller parks Ruth was hitting in.
 
2012-06-20 08:54:25 AM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Good for Secretariat! Does this automatically increase by a couple of thousand dollars the individual values of all his blood descendants??

/wonder how many there are ...


I don't know about the number, but Take Charge Indy was a descendant of both Secretariat and Seattle Slew.

He finished 19th in the Kentucky Derby. And farked up my trifecta.
 
2012-06-20 09:13:34 AM  
/csb

I went out for a few years with Ron Turcotte's (Secretariat's jockey) niece. She was nice, he was an asshole. Most likely from the riding accident that left him crippled.

/csb
 
2012-06-20 09:24:57 AM  
Are they going to count the frames of the other two races where the winner came in at 1:53 2/5 to give them a chance to shave a second off of their time?
 
2012-06-20 09:28:36 AM  

Balchinian: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron will still be recognized names in MLB long after anyone can recall the names of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. There is more to greatness than stats. There is more to being a legend than the numbers. Ruth and Aaron lifted up the entire sport in the eyes of the American public, and will always be remembered for it. Rose and Bonds tore it down, and will be deliberately and purposefully forgotten because of it, despite their numbers. That is how baseball works.


I'd be shocked if people forget Rose or Bonds. They may not have the aura of Ruth or Aaron, but they probably wouldn't even if they didn't commit the transgressions they did. But baseball doesn't forget its flawed legends. Ty Cobb is still celebrated as one of the greatest players of all time, we still have running debates about Shoeless Joe, and Gaylord Perry's name is still among the first to come up whenever there's a discussion about cheating.

puffy999: I think Rose will eventually be slightly more accepted. Both are assholes, but I think people can respect Rose's playing career (even if they're going to wait until after he dies) because it was obvious he busted his ass. Bonds busted his ass, but he also had to cheat in order to keep his ass in the sport for such a long time (and to make him a far better player than he ever was in his true prime).


I'd argue that Bonds actually might have cost himself a few years. Nobody would touch him after 2007, even though he played 126 games and had a 1.045 OPS, including a .480 OBP. Why no offers? Because of the steroids taint (of course, it didn't hurt that he was perceived as a major jerk). But before the steroids taint, he was the kind of player you could envision having a very long career based on his tremendous batting eye and very short swing. We'll never know if chemicals significantly masked any injuries, but if he stayed healthy, I would not have been surprised to see him still hit pretty effectively into his mid-40s.
 
2012-06-20 09:37:45 AM  

JosephFinn: hbk72777: JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.

Sure, only 4000 more at bats than Ruth to get an extra 41 homers.

In an era of far better pitching and without significantly smaller parks Ruth was hitting in.



That may be hard to quantify. Ruth played in some small ballparks, but he played in several stadiums with enormous alleys, too. It's probably not a coincidence that Ruth's triples rate (136 in 8,399 AB) is much higher than Aaron's (98 in 12,364 AB).
 
2012-06-20 10:07:02 AM  

puffy999: Balchinian: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron will still be recognized names in MLB long after anyone can recall the names of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. There is more to greatness than stats. There is more to being a legend than the numbers. Ruth and Aaron lifted up the entire sport in the eyes of the American public, and will always be remembered for it. Rose and Bonds tore it down, and will be deliberately and purposefully forgotten because of it, despite their numbers. That is how baseball works.

I think Rose will eventually be slightly more accepted. Both are assholes, but I think people can respect Rose's playing career (even if they're going to wait until after he dies) because it was obvious he busted his ass. Bonds busted his ass, but he also had to cheat in order to keep his ass in the sport for such a long time (and to make him a far better player than he ever was in his true prime).


Rose will be remembered more if his image isn't rehabilitated. There will always be regular arguments about him getting into the Hall (at least until he is admitted, if he ever is). Much like the Black Sox are remembered today. People love scandals.
He won't be the household name Ruth is, but no other long retired player (even Aaron) else is or probably ever will be.
 
2012-06-20 10:25:55 AM  

NakedReporta: The whole thing smacks of major revisionism in a dying sport that is hanging onto the memory of its dead legends in any way it can. That's my read on it. Read it how you will.


Were you talking about baseball or horse racing here? No one tops baseball for dead legends reverence. Break a record in baseball today, you are guilty of everything and need an asterisk and should be put in prison.
 
2012-06-20 10:32:34 AM  
Time to pull out the ol' stopwatch and a YouTube video of the race and see what I get...1 minute, 54 seconds flat.

I could probably do it 10 times and get 10 different results.

/Not a horse guy at all
 
2012-06-20 10:40:14 AM  

Krustofsky: Time to pull out the ol' stopwatch and a YouTube video of the race and see what I get...1 minute, 54 seconds flat.

I could probably do it 10 times and get 10 different results.

/Not a horse guy at all


You don't need a stopwatch. Again--and this is pretty clear from the article--they counted the number of frames in the film. Since cameras run at a specific frame rate, they can figure out the exact time by counting the number of frames from start to finish then dividing by the frame rate.
 
2012-06-20 12:18:29 PM  

dywed88: UCJJ: I say we just take away 250 or so from Bonds and another 200 from Sosa. That'll fix everything.

Let's not be taking away, lets be giving. You can make a pretty good case that Ruth would have had another fifty odd home runs under modern rules (namely the rules regarding foul balls). Let's say 49 to be conservative

/would love to see Bonds off the top of the list, but the only player with a (slim) chance of doing that any time soon is A-Rod. And that isn't much of an improvement.


Wait, what was the rule regarding fly balls that you are referring to?
 
2012-06-20 02:39:27 PM  
Initially, the foul lines extended beyond the field of play. A ball would either need to land fair in the stands to count instead of just leaving the field of play in fair territory.

As I recall, Ruth also lost a home run for the rules that a walk off home run was only counted as the number of bases to force the winning run home.

Though there were probably beneficial rules at the time as well.
 
2012-06-20 03:49:55 PM  

JosephFinn: Why? Hank Aaron is still the lifetime HR record holder.


bonds is up on him by seven runs as of just a couple years ago.


ol' hank even publicly asked barry if he'd retire before beating the record just to let it stand.
 
2012-06-20 03:53:09 PM  

dywed88: Initially, the foul lines extended beyond the field of play. A ball would either need to land fair in the stands to count instead of just leaving the field of play in fair territory.

As I recall, Ruth also lost a home run for the rules that a walk off home run was only counted as the number of bases to force the winning run home.

Though there were probably beneficial rules at the time as well.


Aside from the walk-off rule and the foul pole rule, there was also:
1) A rule allowing balls that bounce over the fence to be called HRs instead of ground rule doubles
2) A rule that batted balls that leave the field of play, hit an object in the stands, and bounce back into the field of play are live balls and not HRs.

There is no way to quantify some of these, since no one really kept track of batted balls that fit the criteria. It is, however, believed that all things considered, playing under today's rules would have added a few homers to Ruth's total. These mainly come from the walk-off rule that you mentioned. Someone (maybe FanGraphs) had an entry about this a while back but I can't seem to find it right now. I might have it bookmarked on my home computer - I'll check later tonight.
 
2012-06-20 04:06:56 PM  

puffy999: Balchinian: Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron will still be recognized names in MLB long after anyone can recall the names of Pete Rose and Barry Bonds. There is more to greatness than stats. There is more to being a legend than the numbers. Ruth and Aaron lifted up the entire sport in the eyes of the American public, and will always be remembered for it. Rose and Bonds tore it down, and will be deliberately and purposefully forgotten because of it, despite their numbers. That is how baseball works.

I think Rose will eventually be slightly more accepted. Both are assholes, but I think people can respect Rose's playing career (even if they're going to wait until after he dies) because it was obvious he busted his ass. Bonds busted his ass, but he also had to cheat in order to keep his ass in the sport for such a long time (and to make him a far better player than he ever was in his true prime).


Rose "artificially" kept himself in the game longer than anyone else would have as well. It wasn't cheating, but it is well agreed that he was pumping his own stats at the expense and to the detriment of the team.
 
2012-06-20 04:07:53 PM  
I believe there was a book that argued 50-75 extra from foul balls.

I haven`t read it, but I would guess that the best evidence would be newspaper reports and any recorded radio broadcasts that might make reference to it.

Of course there are numerous rule changes that would indirectly increase or decrease his total between numerous years. That was really a joke, but I would love to see Bonds off the top.
 
2012-06-20 04:37:24 PM  

fonebone77: NakedReporta: The whole thing smacks of major revisionism in a dying sport that is hanging onto the memory of its dead legends in any way it can. That's my read on it. Read it how you will.

Were you talking about baseball or horse racing here? No one tops baseball for dead legends reverence. Break a record in baseball today, you are guilty of everything and need an asterisk and should be put in prison.


Hey, at least it's not boxing.

/wish Henry Aaron still had the record
/Hammering Hank signed a ball for me when I was a kid in Milwaukee
 
2012-06-20 04:40:13 PM  

bubbaprog: Krustofsky: Time to pull out the ol' stopwatch and a YouTube video of the race and see what I get...1 minute, 54 seconds flat.

I could probably do it 10 times and get 10 different results.

/Not a horse guy at all

You don't need a stopwatch. Again--and this is pretty clear from the article--they counted the number of frames in the film. Since cameras run at a specific frame rate, they can figure out the exact time by counting the number of frames from start to finish then dividing by the frame rate.


Dang it, should have read the article the whole way through.

If it's accurate, that Triple Crown is the greatest run in horse racing history. Even if it isn't, it's still the greatest run in horse racing history.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report