Who fell harder?

i think dumonts is harder, but anyone with better vision than your average 80 yearold can see tanner didnt hit pow, there might be a few inches of give in that at most.

when candide went splat, he made a 3 or so foot crater travelling at the same speed => softer snow
 
Didn't Simon walk away from that? And didn't Tanner brake both his ankles? Soooooo wouldn't Tanner have fallen harder?
 
simons just because it is a shit load scarier and you know your gona get fucked the whole time
 
tanner went 120 feet to steep uphill53 mph to 0 in a fraction of a second, he hit the snow so hard after he ejected, he bounced 5-6 feet in the air, dumont went like 70 feet to flat hardpack, both are extremely brutal, but i would say tanner
 
ya i think simons looked alot worse but i think if you look at the x rays tanners would be just as bad with differnt bones
 
ya i think simons looked alot worse but i think if you look at the x rays tanners would be just as bad with differnt bones
 
Simon , because imagine how he felt during those almost complete 10 seconds in the air. It was probably like "I'm going to die.."... 8 seconds... then BOOM.
 
Just because he got messed up worse it doesn't mean he fell harder, just that he was unlucky. There's people who has slipped on an icy sidewalk and borken their neck, would you say they fell as hard as mike wilson when he broke his neck ?
 
that was a lot higher than 70' and tanner didn't go from 53 to 0 he tumbles which absorbs some of the impact...simon went SPLAT. simon def. had the worst of the two hands down, and i give him props for not acting ghetto and bitching about it
 
oh yeah i'd much rather have a couple broken ankles than a ruptured spleen, a ruptured spleen is life-threatening, a couple broken ankles means you're in a wheel chair for a few months, not in a coffin
 
you are a fucking idiot man they were both skinig crashes....think about it..if a dude was in a car adn slid out on ice and slmmed sideways into a pole...upon doing so became paralysed and got massive head trauma would it not be worse than if a dude rolled his car 10 times but came out with just a broken arma and a few scratches.....think about it you douchebag tanners crash was worse purely because his injuries were worse plain and simple there are facts to back that up
 
^ok here are the facts..the thread says "who fell HARDER" ok tanner was going 53 mph and he crashed onto a few inches of snow that wasn't hard pack, dumont was going 60 mph and crashed on hard pack so therefor...dumont had a harder crash, and last i checked a couple of broken bones isn't as serious as a ruptured spleen
 
well basically tanner is still recovering whereas dumont is basically fully healed ruptured spleen is not as bad as it sounds whatever you guys reckon tanners was obviously worse for his career as he was outta skiing for longer...
 
just because the recovery time is longer doesnt mean the injury is worse. a ruptured spleen can be life threatening whereas some broken ankles just means wheelchair for som time.
 
dude its the facts plain and simple i arugue for what is right....plus T is a dope skier and noone on this site will say that the all rip on him and his gangsta image..they would rather watch ganier ruin our sport im just fighting to keep it alive...
 
dummont fell harder, i mean, 100 foot drop seems painful, but tanner broke both ankles, and you can hear it in the original, so like both seem pretty extreme.
 
fuck tanner hall, people are like "oh if pipe is ever in the olympics we can all thank tanner" fuck off pipe in the olympics, our newschool style of skiing isn't olympic material, we have our own shit for that (ie the X games). personally i don't want every fucking 12 year old on twin tips thinking they're the shit lying down on th landings thinking they can do shit just because they saw tanner do it...ENOUGH ALREADY
 
^ dude freeride skiing is a lame adaptaion of snowboarding and snowboardin is in the olyompics so its juts natural fer it to follow
 
whoever said they did the physics...i call bullshit. If you wanted to do that right you would need a lot more info. The picture offtrail posted had the table length and landing length.

For simon's, you would need the takeoff height and angle, the landing height and angle, dumont's weight, and speed going into the jump. Pretty much the same for tanner's situation. That would still only give you a rough estimate of the amount of force they hit with, and I'm sure their position when they land factors into it. Basically there's so many factors that comparing with physics is kind of pointless.

How about the risks of each? My guess is that dumont was way closer to death, especially from a concussion or something involving his spine had he landed differently. On the other hand, if Tanner got a bad compound fracture of something like his femur, he could have bled to death before getting off the mountain.

I definitely disagree with anyone comparing based on who healed faster. My fractured wrist took 6 months and a surgery to heal. If I had a clean break in my forearm instead, it would have been like 6 weeks in a cast and done. Which sounds worse though, broken arm? or fractured wrist.

In the end, both were horrible crashes, and shoul remind you that at the highest level, skiing and boarding can be extremely dangerous. Pros are so practiced that stuff like that doesn't happen much, but the chance is always there.
 
you could get a general idea though, and you'd only need their speed and how much of a crater they made
 
simon, just imageine the feeling he had in air. my life would pass by in my head if i went that high and straight down to falt ground
 
both of them are bad in separate ways. tanner came around from his 9, and had a split second to see that he was smoked. simon had about 2 or 3 seconds to telll himself that he was going to be in a lot of pain soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top