Evan Sellers from The Legendary Shots throws a ball from the top of the Vulcan monument in Birmingham, Alabama. To our knowledge, this is the farthest shot (direct distance from shooter to goal) ever made. Whether it’s also the longest (horizontal distance) is debatable (Dude Perfect’s at Kyle Field is about the same length). THANK YOU VULCAN STAFF!
MEASUREMENTS:
Height: The platform is 134 feet above ground level, and the ball was released from about 6 feet above the platform. The goal was 10 feet high and was placed about 10 feet below the base of the statue, meaning the height from hoop to shooter was 140 feet.
Length: This is harder to tell, but we had a few people pace it off, and they came in at between 50 and 60 paces. The average person’s pace is about 3 feet, so the length of the shot is about 150-180 feet.
Direct distance: Since height^2 + length^2 = distance^2, the distance from the shooter’s hand to the hoop is about 205-228 feet.
Duration : 0:0:23
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
i bet they tried …
i bet they tried alot to have a good lookin expression of success ..
with 1 ball up there … we seen this alot everywhere .. every is a pro BB player nowadays .. i mean internet BB players
im sick of these FAKE BULLSHIT VIDEOS
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Офигенно!
Офигенно!
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Amazing. You’ve got …
Amazing. You’ve got to be really patient to try to make a shot like that!
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Everybody check out …
Everybody check out my video on my page…..it’s an xtranormal video its made of like cartoon characters…..it’s short but funny so check it out
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@Cromine45 This is …
@Cromine45 This is how I usually talk. What’s wrong with the way that I talk?
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@xcooper23x Where …
@xcooper23x Where left and right are defined by the ground camera’s perspective, yes. It’s hard to tell if it actually hit the left side of the rim, but it at least “hit” the left side of the net much more than it hit the right side of the net, and it did travel to the right afterwards.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot Did you …
@acrefoot Did you hear the noise at the first part of the video? That was wind, and you also didn’t see that the ball grabbed on to the net which forced the ball to loose momentum. Also it’s on grass which is much more dense than concrete. So you haven’t calculated everything.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Fake
Fake
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot stop …
@acrefoot stop talking like ur smart
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@xcooper23x Of …
@xcooper23x Of course it did; I’m not saying it’s completely fake–someone probably took a shot from a much closer distance, then either exaggerated it or merged it with another attempt. I’m just belittling dirk5432321′s analysis, since he showed me no respect (not even the common respect two strangers should have for each other).
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acre-foot- you’re …
@acre-foot- you’re a no on cares
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot but it …
@acrefoot but it did hit the left side and then wnet right???
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
fake..
fake..
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@dirk5432321 …
@dirk5432321 Newton’s third law states equal and *opposite* forces: if it bounced off of the left side of the rim, it should have moved to the *right*, and vice versa. Don’t be so hasty to call me a dumbass.
The bouncing off the rim aspect mostly affected the ball’s horizontal velocity component, not its vertical component, unless you can show otherwise.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@basketballion I …
@basketballion I just woke up, so I mistyped, but I corrected it a few minutes after I posted my comment. It would bounce 35 *feet* in the air, so apologies there.
My coefficient of restitution may have been high, but my calculations were an order of magnitude estimation, not a detailed analysis. The bounce was still in the wrong order of magnitude.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
No way to know if …
No way to know if it’s real or fake. These days the technology is available to a lot of people to fake that.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
AWESOME
AWESOME
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot wow it …
@acrefoot wow it prally took you 3 hours to come up with that and its compleatly wrong… SOMEone needs to get a life…
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot don’t …
@acrefoot don’t pretend u kno physics tough guy. Any decent physicist would not measure height in mph. and a coefficient of restitution of 80% is quite generous on grass, and is quite variable depending on how dry or wet the ground is
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
That ball should …
That ball should have bounced approximately 35 feet in the air, not 2 feet like it did.
Assuming a drag coefficient of 0.4, dropped from a height of 140 feet, the ball should have reached a velocity of 45mph at the lowest point. Assuming an coefficient of restitution of 80% (%of speed that remains after the bounce), the height of the first bounce should be about 35 feet high, or some serious damage should have been done to the net/ball to slow it down.
FAKE.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@acrefoot -_- the …
@acrefoot -_- the ball bounced off the left side of the rim causing it to lose velocity and get pushed to the left. Newton’s Third Law Dumbass. REAL
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
mulher gostosa …
mulher gostosa rebolando,vem ver
mulher gostosa rebolando,vem ver” de sainha
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
mulher gostosa …
mulher gostosa rebolando,vem ver
mulher gostosa rebolando,vem ver” de sainha
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I’ll admit, that …
I’ll admit, that was tight.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
@isastrange WIND
@isastrange WIND