That's all well and good but did they find out what happened to Annie?
Boffins: Michael Jackson's tilt was a criminally smooth trick
New research from India into Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal tilt has concluded that, yes, it is physically impossible and dancers should really stop trying to recreate it because Achilles tendon and spinal injuries are not fun. The paper, "How did Michael Jackson challenge our understanding of spine biomechanics?" published …
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 12:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
"you also need a lot of core strength"
...relative to your body mass because the inverse cubed law applies here, and Michael Jackson didn't have much body mass.
Light people are relatively stronger, in proportion to their mass, than heavy people, so the strongest weightlifter might be able to raise a far greater absolute mass than a comparatively fit skinny person but they'd struggle to manage a couple of pull-ups/chin-ups. The skinny person, on the other hand, would be able to do the pull-ups/chin-ups with relative ease but wouldn't be able to lift anywhere near the same absolute mass as the weightlifter.
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 15:45 GMT disgruntled yank
skinny and bulky
That could be true at the limits--I've never considered what the Olympic weightlifter types can manage in the way of chin-ups. On the other hand, I imagine that if I were to take a sample of 6' Marines weighing 220 lb and 6' distance runners weighing the canonical 144 lb (2 lb x inch of height), the jarheads would manage considerably more chin-ups.
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 18:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: skinny and bulky
I imagine that if I were to take a sample of 6' Marines weighing 220 lb and 6' distance runners weighing the canonical 144 lb (2 lb x inch of height), the jarheads would manage considerably more chin-ups.
I'm sure you're right. But particularly because when told to do so, the jarheads would go "SIr!YesSir!" and get stuck in, whereas the distance runners would look puzzled and ask "Why the eff would I want to spend an hour or even five minutes doing chin ups?"
However, the Marines WOULD take part in a distance race, and then look puzzled as the (probably) Kenyans* disappeared in a cloud of dust. Horses for courses. And if I was going to be rescued from terrorist kidnap, I'd want the marines rather than Wilson Kipsang.
* Other nationalities of distance runner also available, enquire for further details.
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 19:14 GMT 2Nick3
Re: skinny and bulky
If asked to run with 40 pounds of gear the Marines would look at you like "Is that all?" while the marathoners would say "No."
Heck, even if asked to carry the marathoners the 26.2 miles the Marines would just ask what you want them to do with the other half of their day (14 hour duty day, ~4mph march speed, with a couple of water breaks).
-
-
Thursday 24th May 2018 09:03 GMT Allan George Dyer
Re: skinny and bulky
Rather than Marines vs. distance runners at chin-ups, you could try Marines vs. Rings gymnasts at chin-ups. Specialist vs generalist, it all depends on whether the competition is the specialist's speciality.
How about Marine in a pentathlon? The Marines have the training for everything except the equestrian show jumping.
-
-
Thursday 24th May 2018 09:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
> "Light people are relatively stronger, in proportion to their mass, than heavy people..."
Surely this can't be true? Assuming a similar skeleton and the same percentage of fat then organ weight will be constant and so any additional weight will be muscle and so they must be "stronger" (depending on how you want to define strength).
Unless you're just saying they're all fat?
-
Thursday 24th May 2018 14:39 GMT Eddy Ito
Surely this can't be true? Assuming a similar skeleton and the same percentage of fat then organ weight will be constant and so any additional weight will be muscle and so they must be "stronger" (depending on how you want to define strength).
The problem with muscle is that it gets stronger in proportion to the cross sectional area but the weight goes with the volume. Also a stronger musculature will necessarily require a stronger skeletal frame to withstand the increased stress which also adds weight so a slight person will have both lighter muscles and a lighter skeleton. As to their organ weight, it too will be different because both their caloric and pulmonary requirements to sustain their frame and musculature will differ substantially as well as their overall blood volume. So even if we assume their activity levels and fat percentages are even the balance equation changes simply so the person with more muscle doesn't break their own bones. It's why Superman is the man of steel, he kinda has to be.
I give you the ridiculous comparison: ants (~10 mm long) can lift 20-30 times their own weight but it's only because they are tiny. A man sized ant wouldn't survive because it wouldn't be able breathe adequately much less lift it's own weight. In the same way a human (say 1.75 m, 75 kg) who can lift their own weight shrunk to ant size would be able to lift 175 times their weight but would be blind in a sense as they would only see wavelengths near the X-ray band. Sorry for ruining all those '50s & '60s B movies.
In short, yes, more muscle equals more strength but the associated support infrastructure that goes with it also necessarily changes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 14:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Quite so, the register is now an IT and footwear site.
I take it the number of bootnotes (ie shoe-related items) will now increase in number, while decreasing in quality. This on-going decline in standards will require ever-greater numbers of bootnotes, until a shoe-like event horizon is reached and no IT related items will be seen at all...
... not even ones about Dev-Ops.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 16:03 GMT heyrick
Re: 45°? Pfft.
I recall a female performer (Sarah Brightman?) on a TV show ages ago (when TOTP was still a thing) beating that. She didn't move on stage and she had a big dress, clearly to hide the fact that her shoes were probably fixed to the floor, but she was bending to crazy angles - way more than 45 degrees.
But if we're talking about insane, try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZLldDtZYt8
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 19:17 GMT sisk
Re: So in order to lean over further than normally possible...
Does that deserve a patent? Surely that counts as "obvious"?
Clearly you haven't paid attention to patent litigation. "Obvious" may legally be a reason to deny a patent, but in practice I can name quite a few patents that have been granted to obvious ideas.
-
Thursday 24th May 2018 17:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So in order to lean over further than normally possible...
Does that deserve a patent?
I assumed the patent was more about preventing others performing the trick on stage. Lets face it, its a move that's synonymous with Jackson.
would another performer dare risk the legal wrath of the Jackson lawyers to ape him? Not when you consider that nobody would extend credit to Jackson because it would take a court order to get paid and his legal team can make ( not so smooth ) criminal charges vanish,
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 16:55 GMT Gambler
classics are classics
I watched this "kid" on Motown 25 perform Billie Jean and REINVENT the music video. I am not suprised that he invent a way to cheat gravity while performing live. His first four albums are still some of the best music I have ever heard then and since. It is a shame he became a circus show later in life. After he left us a vacuum formed and now music is full of imposters that can't tell if they are tone deaf or not(Taylor Swift) or are all just hype(Katy Perry). Don't get me started on Sucky Dweeber(Bieber). I could go on but this has to end sometime. He is sorely missed and despite the train wreck some of us liked having a once in a century talent around.
-
Thursday 24th May 2018 08:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Its a smooth trick has a double meaning, you think he was a great person....
1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351783/Michael-Jackson-spent-35-million-silence-dozen-boys-abused.html
2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026714/Michael-Jackson-paid-200m-hush-money-20-sexual-assault-victims-say-lawyers-two-claimants-prepare-sue-King-Pop-s-estate.html
3) https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1457111/michael-jacksons-first-sex-abuse-accuser-could-speak-publicly-for-first-time-about-relationship-with-popstar/
Biting the hand that feeds IT
