Originally posted by KingD19
So you honestly think that shooting a guy behind you can compare to shooting several people in front, behind, and on the side of you, in the span of a few seconds? While flipping in the air?
Okay, fine. Zero is a better shot. Robocop still never misses, when in proper working order.
Originally posted by RobtardNot an answer.
About as fast as Jackman can run.
Here's a reference. When I was 20 and in killer shape, I used to run full basketball court sprints. I covered the court in around six seconds.
Consider that Wolvie is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than I was, and that a basketball court is 94 feet long.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not an answer.Here's a reference. When I was 20 and in killer shape, I used to run full basketball court sprints. I covered the court in around six seconds.
Consider that Wolvie is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than I was, and that a basketball court is 94 feet long.
It's the correct answer.
We see Wolverine run a few times in the movies, he runs as fast as a 30+ year old guy in decent shape runs.
Now if they had used SFX to indicate/portray that he had super-sprinting speed, that would be different; they didn't though.
Originally posted by RobtardHe's a mutant, dude, mutants are faster than humans.
We see Wolverine run a few times in the movies, he runs as fast as a 30+ year old guy in decent shape runs.Now if they had used SFX to indicate/portray that he had super-sprinting speed, that would be different; they didn't though.
Let's say he can cover 100 feet in six seconds, that's probably far less than he actually can though.
The ninja vid shows it taking six seconds for Robo's leg to open, the gun to pop out, Robo grabbing the gun and raising it.
So unless Logan is more than 100 feet away, Robo never gets a shot off.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Not an answer.Here's a reference. When I was 20 and in killer shape, I used to run full basketball court sprints. I covered the court in around six seconds.
Consider that Wolvie is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than I was, and that a basketball court is 94 feet long.
So, the levels to which you'll try to gas people knows no bounds.
28 metres of basketball court in 6 seconds? That's 4.66 metres per second. That's 100 metres in 21 seconds. That's terrible for a 20 year old in "killer shape". Actually terrible. I was running it a whole six or seven seconds faster than you at that age, when I used to bike and run every day.
I know 20 year olds who ran 100 metres in 12/11 second times, for the city team. THAT'S killer shape.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
He's a mutant, dude, mutants are faster than humans.
Not necessarily. Mutant means a victim of genetic mutation at birth, not inherent superior speed.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo you ran 94 feet in zero seconds? Wow. Teleport?
So, the levels to which you'll try to gas people knows no bounds.28 metres of basketball court in 6 seconds? That's 4.66 metres per second. That's 100 metres in 21 seconds. That's terrible for a 20 year old in "killer shape". Actually terrible. I was running it a whole six or seven seconds faster than you at that age, when I used to bike and run every day.
I know 20 year olds who ran 100 metres in 12/11 second times, for the city team. THAT'S killer shape.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So you ran 94 feet in zero seconds? Wow. Teleport?
I was referring to the projected 100 metres time you would have if you travelled at the speed you travelled when running the court, compared to my actual 100 metres times. If you didn't get that, then you're being intentionally dense. Why would I claim to be able to travel a basketball court in zero seconds?
28 metres in six seconds is four metres per second. Extrapolate that to 100 metres and your speed would allow you to travel 100 metres in 21 seconds, roughly.
My P.B. for THAT distance was around 13/14 when I was 20 and in top shape. So around seven or eight seconds faster actually. I was much faster than average, but not prodigious. My point is that it's the kind of time a 20 year old in "killer shape" should be producing.
You were not in killer shape if you could mathematically run 100 metres in 21 seconds. I know a chubby kid who ran it in 17/18 seconds.
Now we know how much salt to take with any claim of yours that pertains to your younger years. You made a claim that you think makes you look epic (You wouldn't have if you didn't think it was impressive), but you didn't do the maths.
So yes, OBVIOUSLY Wolverine is way faster than you. Going by science and measurable time given by you and I, I was even faster than you. If I ran a 13 second 100 metres sprint and you ran a 21 second sprint, I'd have enough time to sit down and take my shoes off before you'd finished. I don't even bring shit like this up, because it's dumb, but having been a sprinter for my school, I can safely say you're talking nonsense.
Naturally, I expect this to be dodged or ignored because you hate being upstaged, but my point is that you either lied or were running against obese people if you think that's a fast time for a 20 year old in "killer shape".
-AC
Lookie lookie, AC:
Watch Ray Allen. He is at the top of the key. He takes off on a fast break sprint and reaches the opposite end of the court in a little more than 4 seconds. Distance is about 75 feet.
I ran the full length of the court, baseline to baseline, in 5.6 seconds. 5.6 seconds is "around 6 seconds."
Ray Allen is one of the best players in the NBA. You saying he is in "terrible shape?"
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lookie lookie, AC:Watch Ray Allen. He is at the top of the key. He takes off on a fast break sprint and reaches the opposite end of the court in a little more than 4 seconds. Distance is about 75 feet.
I ran the full length of the court, baseline to baseline, in 5.6 seconds. 5.6 seconds is "around 6 seconds."
Ray Allen is one of the best players in the NBA. You saying he is in "terrible shape?"
Make your mind up.
Did you run 94 feet in six seconds or 75 feet in ABOUT six seconds? What distance was it, 94 feet or 75 feet? What speed? Nearly five seconds flat or a whole second longer? In two posts you've shaved a second off your time, and six metres off the distance you ran.
What is it with you and NOT reading my posts? I never said you were in terrible shape. I said that 21 seconds for a 100 metres sprint IS a terrible time for someone who is young and claims to be in killer shape.
That is if your claim is true and you can run 94/95 feet in six seconds, which has now become almost five seconds. 5.6 seconds is not "around" six seconds, not in sprinting time it's not. It's around five.
To be on topic, the whole point I'm making is that you're acting like you're a good comparison to Wolverine. You're not even a good comparison to the average 100 metres time for a 20 year old male at optimum health, dude.
75 feet is 22 metres. 22 metres in four seconds is 5.5. metres per second. Extrapolate that, again, over 100 metres and you've got a total time of 18 seconds. He's still a whole three seconds faster than you. That's an eternity in sprinting and any coach will tell you that.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Make your mind up.Did you run 94 feet in six seconds or 75 feet in ABOUT six seconds? What distance was it, 94 feet or 75 feet? What speed? Nearly five seconds flat or a whole second longer? In two posts you've shaved a second off your time, and six metres off the distance you ran.
What is it with you and NOT reading my posts? I never said you were in terrible shape. I said that 21 seconds for a 100 metres sprint IS a terrible time for someone who is young and claims to be in killer shape.
That is if your claim is true and you can run 94/95 feet in six seconds, which has now become almost five seconds. 5.6 seconds is not "around" six seconds, not in sprinting time it's not. It's around five.
To be on topic, the whole point I'm making is that you're acting like you're a good comparison to Wolverine. You're not even a good comparison to the average 100 metres time for a 20 year old male at optimum health, dude.
-AC
Actually it was a bit more. I was at one end of the gym, a few feet from the baseline, against the wall, took off at a sprint, and was at the opposite wall in 5.6 seconds. Probably more like 98-100 feet.
The time is a second shorter and the distance is 100 feet and not 94.
100 feet is 30 metres. 30 metres in around five seconds is six metres per second. Extrapolate that to 100 metres, covering six metres per second and you've got a time of 16 seconds. So now you've gone from three seconds slower than your Ray Allen, to two seconds faster?
Even so, 16 seconds is still a couple of seconds slower than the average speed for a man in his early 20s, in "killer shape". You still aren't a good example for a comparison to Wolverine.
Is there honestly no end to how far you'll lie? I caught you out inarguably and now everything's changed. Had I not said anything, you would never have said what you just did.
You do realise this undermines everything you just said, right? There's no way you can be taken seriously.
Why not just concede? It's honestly more dignified.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThe time is less than a half second shorter. 🙄
The time is a second shorter and the distance is 100 feet and not 94.Is there honestly no end to how far you'll bullshit? I caught you out inarguably and now everything's changed. Had I not said anything, you would never have said what you just did.
You do realise this undermines everything you just said, right? There's no way you can be taken seriously.
Why not just concede? It's honestly more dignified.
-AC
I said "the full length of a basketball court" because that's what I was timed on. I quoted the official length of an NBA court (same as the gym I played in). Baseline to baseline is 94 feet. I failed to mention that I started out a few feet behind the baseline, that was an error on my part.
I never claimed to be a world class sprinter. I never claimed to be epic. I was trying to stress how fast Wolvie is, that he could cover that distance in less than six seconds (easily, and probably more), and that Robocop took a full six seconds to draw and fire. Unless Wolvie is 150-200 feet away, Robo never gets a shot off.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The time is less than a half second shorter. 🙄I said "the full length of a basketball court" because that's what I was timed on. I quoted the official length of an NBA court (same as the gym I played in). Baseline to baseline is 94 feet. I failed to mention that I started out a few feet behind the baseline, that was an error on my part.
I never claimed to be a world class sprinter. I never claimed to be epic. I was trying to stress how fast Wolvie is, that he could cover that distance in less than six seconds (easily, and probably more), and that Robocop took a full six seconds to draw and fire. Unless Wolvie is 150-200 feet away, Robo never gets a shot off.
Yes, you conveniently failed to mention that, and only did so when I had mathematically and scientifically proven your claim false.
You clearly do this knowing that you can't be proven wrong if you suddenly change your claim, due to the fact that there are no witnesses or proof. It's shameful, but what can you do. Now it's just your word against mine and yours has been changed throughout.
Of course he could cover that distance in more than six seconds (Your actual time), or even five, because that's not exactly a good time for that distance.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, you conveniently failed to mention that, and only did so when I had mathematically and scientifically proven your claim false.You clearly do this knowing that you can't be proven wrong if you suddenly change your claim, due to the fact that there are no witnesses or proof. It's shameful, but what can you do. Now it's just your word against mine and yours has been changed throughout.
Of course he could cover that distance in more than six seconds (Your actual time), or even five, because that's not exactly a good time for that distance.
-AC
Failed to mention the additional sixish feet? Yeah, those extra six feet make all the difference in the world.
So tell me, in your professional opinion. What is a good time for someone in good shape to run 100 feet? Taking off from a dead stop, accelerating to top speed, and reaching the 100 foot mark?