View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 10:32 AM
  #255
eyeball11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
The fact that you would even post such a stupid comment shows me you aren't capable of understanding anything.

But just for closure, what percent of Canadian males (as a proxy for overall NHLers) are red-headed? What percent of Canadian NHLers have red hair? I would imagine it's a very similar percentage because it is totally irrelvant.

Now, what percent of the Canadian male population is smaller than 6'1? What percent of Canadian defenseman are smaller than 6'1? I just told you that 26% are. Are you meaning to tell me that only 26% of the male population in Canada is under 6'0? Because if you are you're exceptionally wrong.

And because I can see from your previous comment that you're going to need this: please don't get hung up on the Canadian part of the post it's only going to confuse you.

The argument isn't that you can't be 6'0 and be outstanding. Hell, the best defenseman in the league right now is 6'0 and Doughty is also 6'0. It's just a rare breed, that's all anyone was ever saying, I can't believe we are still discussing this.
The fact that you don't see how red hair has about as much bearing on the discussion we are having (heights in the norm of a bell curve) gives me idea that you like asinine arguments. Why you think we are debating heights of the general populace versus heights of NHL players is beyond me. We are debating the importance of height for people within the norm in the NHL. Unless you or others are foolish enough to believe that Da Vinci's Vitruvian man (created over 500 years ago) is some fool proof idea (one which science will clearly show you to be incorrect), I'd LOVE to hear all the clear benefits of 2 or 3 inches in height.

eyeball11 is offline   Reply With Quote