Women's Fast-Pitch: Field Dimensions Need Changing
MissSouth
school programs, fast-pitch SOFTBALL is fast-becoming a joke! Today's
"women" are not the retiring, unconditioned "girls" of the 1950s and
'60s, who were often relgated to field hockey for fear that a SOFTball
might hit 'em in their pwetty, wittle, angelwic faces!
Today's softballers, especially at the big-time collegiate level are
rugged, in-shape, muscular jockettes who can catch, throw, and bat
relatively as well as their male baseball-playing counterparts. Young
women today have all the power, speed, quickness, and surehandedness
needed to make for good sport and good entertainment.
The one BIG problem? A pitcher's mound that's only 35- or 40-feet from
the plate! This makes softball competition ONLY as good (translation:
fast) as a team's star pitcher(s) can underhand a ball 35-40 feet at
velocities in the range of 85 or more MPH! So you get yawningly dull
no-hit and one-hit shutouts ad nauseam. And if a team lacks a
fireballer? It just doesn't stand a chance! This situation makes many
softball games as dull as ... soccer!
Result: Fast-pitch softball basically is a one-player sport, with
assistance from the catcher, natch.
Solution? Move the mound back, to at least 50 feet. This would lead
to more interesting games and permit the fielders--not to mention the
batters--to actually be a PART of the
game. And while we're at it. of course, the bases need to be stretched
farther apart; from
60 feet to, say, 80 ft. Let's make it a real adult's game.
I know that today's softball moms and dads will decry such a drastic
change to the game--since many a scholarship dream is based upon a gal
pitcher's high school hurling reputation. But I think with a
lengthened pitching distance, more people might actually come out to
watch softball--not just the relatives. And they'd actually see TEAM
competition--not just a bunch of strikeouts.
One final note. My real aim is to encourage softball pitchers, at 50
or more feet, to throw OVERHAND, like in baseball. Gals can do it.
Just requires some rule changes. And, hey, baseball made a change in
1920 when MLB went to the "lively ball." And it and the Babe brought
out the crowds!
http://www.sportsknowhow.com/softball/dimension/softball-field-dimensions.html
http://www.sportsknowhow.com/pops/softball-fast-pitch-field-dimensions.html
Steve Cutchen
MissSouth <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Today's softballers, especially at the big-time collegiate level are
> rugged, in-shape, muscular jockettes
A few. But it seems most are Roller Derby Queens. "Built like a
fridgerator with a head."
MissSouth
Ron Blancarte
wrote:
I would say very few. I would even disagree that most are the RDQ's.
I think you have a few tanks, but most are just girls who are in good
shape. Hell, best player on our team (Cat) - beanpole.
Though I would disagree with much of what the other post said. I will
get to that later.
RonB
--------------------------------------------------
"It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking"
--------------------------------------------------
dave kelley
Ron Blancarte <ron@---TAKETHISOUT---.blancarte.com> wrote:
> >A few. But it seems most are Roller Derby Queens. "Built like a
> >fridgerator with a head."
>
> I would say very few. I would even disagree that most are the RDQ's.
> I think you have a few tanks, but most are just girls who are in good
> shape. Hell, best player on our team (Cat) - beanpole.
Watch it! I have a wicked crush on Cat, and I won't have you calling her
a beanpole!
dave
Steve Cutchen
<ron@---TAKETHISOUT---.blancarte.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 04:15:19 GMT (while OU was sucking), Steve Cutchen
> wrote:
> >In article <1147620446.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> >MissSouth <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today's softballers, especially at the big-time collegiate level are
> >> rugged, in-shape, muscular jockettes
> >
> >A few. But it seems most are Roller Derby Queens. "Built like a
> >fridgerator with a head."
>
> I would say very few. I would even disagree that most are the RDQ's.
> I think you have a few tanks, but most are just girls who are in good
> shape. Hell, best player on our team (Cat) - beanpole.
>
> Though I would disagree with much of what the other post said. I will
> get to that later.
>
> RonB
Cat's a hottie. Especially since she's named Cat. That is cool just
in and of itself.
I just remember watching some of the SB NCAA WS last year, and there
were son DAMN big girls in that herd. And 'round hhere, the girls that
are too big around to play basketball or volleyball or soccer or
lacrosse or golf or do cheer or pom or whatever do softball. They put
the chorus in "I like big butts"
---Steve
Ron Blancarte
wrote:
Ok! Ok! Ok! Maybe that was the wrong way to say it. She is petite
(and I like petite).
And let me say that I (to quote Kumar) would let her touch my penis.
Hell, I totally (to quote Chet) want to butter her muffin. Trust me,
I very much lust after that girl.
slipu...@yahoo.com
enlarged playing field.
But I wouldn't want to eat any o' that steamy, sardiney pussy right
after a game!
Seriously, as things stand, all FP girls' softball needs is a pitcher
and a catcher. So let's rename it "underball."
Ron Blancarte
>The one BIG problem? A pitcher's mound that's only 35- or 40-feet from
>the plate! This makes softball competition ONLY as good (translation:
>fast) as a team's star pitcher(s) can underhand a ball 35-40 feet at
>velocities in the range of 85 or more MPH! So you get yawningly dull
>no-hit and one-hit shutouts ad nauseam. And if a team lacks a
>fireballer? It just doesn't stand a chance! This situation makes many
>softball games as dull as ... soccer!
>
>Result: Fast-pitch softball basically is a one-player sport, with
>assistance from the catcher, natch.
>
>Solution? Move the mound back, to at least 50 feet. This would lead
>to more interesting games and permit the fielders--not to mention the
>batters--to actually be a PART of the
>game. And while we're at it. of course, the bases need to be stretched
>farther apart; from
>60 feet to, say, 80 ft. Let's make it a real adult's game.
I will just say that you are trying to repair a problem at 2 points,
and I think you will find that you don't fix either.
I agree with most of what you say about pitchers being too close,
especially for their velocity (which, is not in the 80s, but upper
60s, mind you). I think that a move back would be good for the game.
It would certainly increase the play in the ball and increase offense.
But moving the bases back would be a big mistake. By moving the
pitching circle, you get more action, but enlarging the base paths
would take that away and more. Doing this would make the game even
more of a joke. Just think how close the plays are now, all the close
plays with bigger base paths - outs. Things like players being thrown
out at first from right would not only occur more often, they would
probably be common, or worse, the norm. No hitters would even be more
common than they are now (and right now it is a joke too)!
>One final note. My real aim is to encourage softball pitchers, at 50
>or more feet, to throw OVERHAND, like in baseball. Gals can do it.
>Just requires some rule changes. And, hey, baseball made a change in
>1920 when MLB went to the "lively ball." And it and the Babe brought
>out the crowds!
Big mistake. Too much wear on the arms and would drastically change
the game. Let's take this 1 step at a time.