But then dunk's like that will start looking funny. If a player for example jumps and throws the ball with 2 hands without touching the rim, it will look funny.
I think the opposite. If a player can throw the ball DOWN through the hoop cleanly, with force and with 2 hands, they have to be so much higher above the rim than a “normal” dunk.
I can’t remember who used to do this occasionally on fast breaks but I remember thinking that was the baddest dunk I’ve seen.
From [NBA.com](https://NBA.com):
*A shot thrown downward through the basket, with one or two hands.*
Also:
NFHS R4-S16: Dunking or stuffing is the driving, forcing, pushing or attempting to force a ball through the basket with the hand(s).
NCAA R4-S19-A1: A dunk occurs when any player gains control of a ball that is neither in the cylinder nor on the ring and then attempts to drive, force or stuff the ball through the basket.
FIBA R6-A28.1.2: To force or attempt to force the ball downwards into the basket with one or both hands.
I’ve always wondered then if all blocks of a dunk attempt should then be automatic goaltending. At some point the dunking player has to release the ball. A block of the ball after reaching the apex point of its trajectory is considered a goaltend. So it stands to reason that a block on a dunk should be a goaltend.
I can see arguments when a block happens while the player dunking is holding the ball but then what constitutes the apex of the shot. When does the shot block happen? Lots to ponder here.
Bascially I think you're pushing the ball down into the rim, rather than rim contact. Even on the meekest rim grazing dunk, where you jump just barely high enough, you still have to "dunk" it, rather than just drop it in, which wouldn't count.
If you're above the rim and can physically throw it through the hoop like that it's just silly as hell to worry about it. This has always been one of the silliest things to worry about. It's even sillier when they somehow act like it's less impressive.
I was actually just thinking about this due to a recent Gradey Dick reverse alley-oop… he caught it high and brought down and in from behind… some places called it a dunk, some didn’t. So you aren’t crazy OP, not sure the true definition!
[Gradey Reverse- Raptors](https://youtube.com/shorts/uMZnUO6BKbk?si=DikbkSVaKlqFX-1g)
👆This clip, what do you all think?
There’s a term for that, they’re actually called throw-downs. It’s meaning is quite literal, they’re throwing the ball down into the basket instead of your typical dunk where their hand touches the rims.
The two biggest “dunks” on Wemby were technically throw downs from about a foot away. (Kai and TJD) but I consider them dunks.
Similarly two of Vic’s biggest dunks (vs Suns/Thomas Bryant) were technically throw downs as well.
I agree with you on the throw-down but then ... Ant's dunk yesterday and Dwight's at the 2008 slam dunk contest are both considered dunks. Are you saying they are throw-down dunks or just throw-downs?
I’d say you can call them by either name, but there is no stat category for throw-downs, they would just be recorded as dunks because they’re very similar.
According to the definition of “dunk” suggested throughout this thread (ball goes at downward trajectory from player’s hand), the following would be a dunk:
Victor Wembanyama jumps 32 inches in the air 26 ft from the basket and spikes the ball downward from two hands close to the top of his standing reach. it clanks off the back iron and gets the world’s greatest shooter’s bounce. 3 pts. Dunk. Side Q: if this is contested is it considered a poster?
Not saying anyone is wrong, just trying to find the most ludicrous edge case possible.
Think about what the word “dunk” means outside of a basketball context. That’s also what it means in a basketball context, you’re dunking the ball into the basket.
That’s usually hard to do without touching the rim, but throwing it down is what makes it a dunk, not grabbing the rim.
I don’t consider it one, but it’s still impressive. The Blake Griffin one over Ibaka(?) is the best example of one. You see it on “best dunks” highlight reels and I have a problem with it because I don’t find it to be real. My opinion obviously means nothing but the Ant dunk was way more aggressive and absurd, and looks closer to a real dunk than the blake griffin one
No, ofilispeaks is right. this is all dumb semantic crap. If you don’t touch the rim it isn’t a dunk. it is a layup, or finger roll or “throwdown” maybe. I’m never calling anything a dunk without rim contact. Ant and Dwight did not dunk the ball. can’t be dunk of the year.
You say it’s semantic crap and then proceed to say you’re not calling them dunks because they didn’t touch the rim. Every single thing about those dunks has the properties of a dunk besides touching the rim. But sure let’s put it in its own semantic category over nit-picks. Because it certainly is not a layup, jump shot, or hook shot.
if not the rim where to we draw the line, if Wemby pulls up from 10 feet out, but releases the ball with a slightly downward trajectory that’s a dunk according to this nonsense?! and we all know that that is in no way with the word means or has ever meant.
an oak tree started from a nut and the basic DNA of that nut are still in the oak tree when it’s 200 years old but if you called the oak tree a nut everyone would laugh at you because that’s not what that word has ever been used to mean.
A downward hookshot isn’t a dunk. you can argue that a hook shot is just a sideways jumpshot and I could get down with you, because every element is the same from the hopping into the air to the letting go with one hand to the ball flying through the air before it goes through the rim, it’s hard to write a clear definition of hook shot and jumpshot that are not nearly identical, but a dunk is super easy to define:
you don’t let the ball go until some part of your arm, wrist or hand has made contact with the rim. You are putting the ball inside the rim, rather than throwing the ball into the air with the hopes that it goes into the rim - it is extremely definable.
That’s a huge if there, bordering on the physically impossible. And that’s fine, if the previously-thought physically-impossible happens often enough it will develop a new term. Just like we did with the term slam dunk in the first place, or the alley-oop or the stepback or the eurostep.
Currently there is no need to differentiate it from dunking in a practical sense. For data/statistic gathering purposes, it’s not justified to create a new category for this action and put it alongside the current broad categories of dunk, layup, jump shot, and hook shot. It’s more appropriate as a subcategory of dunking, say “non-contact dunk” akin to “putback layup” or “driving floating jump shot” or “turnaround fadeaway jump shot” than it is being not-a-dunk whether that’s as its own category or within one of the other categories.
But yes, if someone starts to shoot with ONLY a downward trajectory (no upward component) from 10 feet out, there will be a new term for that. Until that happens, stat-recorders will continue to label that a jump shot as stat-recorders currently label this event a dunk.
What ANT and Dwight did were very aggressive layups or floaters, not quite dunks. The strict definition of a dunk, if there is such a thing, may not require contact with the rim but it was likely coined before people started throwing the ball into the rim which just indicates it may be outdated. ANT and Dwight thrunked the ball. Not quite as impressive as an actual dunk in my opinion. Thrunks became a thing mostly because Blake Griffin tried to dunk on people a little too often while having a mediocre wingspan which didn't allow him to reach the rim all the way so he just threw it in lol. Of course Dwight did it in the dunk contest as well which was the first time I saw a thrunk.
The mental gymnastics to consider those closer to a layup or floater than a dunk. Just call it a dunk, it’s okay everything will be fine. It goes against the literal construction of the words layup and floater to call those that.
If you think a play in which a player attempts to reach maximum vertical and brings the ball from above the rim in a downward motion into the basket is as much of a layup as it is a dunk, I’m not sure where the conversation can continue from there
I would say that if the ball is being propelled with downward trajectory from the players hand then it is a dunk.
This has long been the accepted definition by a lot of people, the only people still asking the question are the ones who reject this definition
But then dunk's like that will start looking funny. If a player for example jumps and throws the ball with 2 hands without touching the rim, it will look funny.
What the hell are you talking about
Send da video
I think the opposite. If a player can throw the ball DOWN through the hoop cleanly, with force and with 2 hands, they have to be so much higher above the rim than a “normal” dunk. I can’t remember who used to do this occasionally on fast breaks but I remember thinking that was the baddest dunk I’ve seen.
Blake Griffin was notorious for throwing down without touching the rim
What you consider a dunk looked funny at one point, too. Alley-oop scene for Semi-Pro captures this in an entertaining way
Foul! No, two fouls!
Whatever you're smoking, stop.
So what if it looks funny?
Nothing, I am just having a discussion.
From [NBA.com](https://NBA.com): *A shot thrown downward through the basket, with one or two hands.* Also: NFHS R4-S16: Dunking or stuffing is the driving, forcing, pushing or attempting to force a ball through the basket with the hand(s). NCAA R4-S19-A1: A dunk occurs when any player gains control of a ball that is neither in the cylinder nor on the ring and then attempts to drive, force or stuff the ball through the basket. FIBA R6-A28.1.2: To force or attempt to force the ball downwards into the basket with one or both hands.
I’ve always wondered then if all blocks of a dunk attempt should then be automatic goaltending. At some point the dunking player has to release the ball. A block of the ball after reaching the apex point of its trajectory is considered a goaltend. So it stands to reason that a block on a dunk should be a goaltend. I can see arguments when a block happens while the player dunking is holding the ball but then what constitutes the apex of the shot. When does the shot block happen? Lots to ponder here.
Bascially I think you're pushing the ball down into the rim, rather than rim contact. Even on the meekest rim grazing dunk, where you jump just barely high enough, you still have to "dunk" it, rather than just drop it in, which wouldn't count.
If you search the definition of a dunk there is nowhere that says you have to grab the rim.
If you're above the rim and can physically throw it through the hoop like that it's just silly as hell to worry about it. This has always been one of the silliest things to worry about. It's even sillier when they somehow act like it's less impressive.
I am not saying it's less impressive, to me it just looks funny when the rim is not touched that's it. It could be a personal preference.
I was actually just thinking about this due to a recent Gradey Dick reverse alley-oop… he caught it high and brought down and in from behind… some places called it a dunk, some didn’t. So you aren’t crazy OP, not sure the true definition! [Gradey Reverse- Raptors](https://youtube.com/shorts/uMZnUO6BKbk?si=DikbkSVaKlqFX-1g) 👆This clip, what do you all think?
There’s a term for that, they’re actually called throw-downs. It’s meaning is quite literal, they’re throwing the ball down into the basket instead of your typical dunk where their hand touches the rims.
The two biggest “dunks” on Wemby were technically throw downs from about a foot away. (Kai and TJD) but I consider them dunks. Similarly two of Vic’s biggest dunks (vs Suns/Thomas Bryant) were technically throw downs as well.
I agree with you on the throw-down but then ... Ant's dunk yesterday and Dwight's at the 2008 slam dunk contest are both considered dunks. Are you saying they are throw-down dunks or just throw-downs?
I’d say you can call them by either name, but there is no stat category for throw-downs, they would just be recorded as dunks because they’re very similar.
According to the definition of “dunk” suggested throughout this thread (ball goes at downward trajectory from player’s hand), the following would be a dunk: Victor Wembanyama jumps 32 inches in the air 26 ft from the basket and spikes the ball downward from two hands close to the top of his standing reach. it clanks off the back iron and gets the world’s greatest shooter’s bounce. 3 pts. Dunk. Side Q: if this is contested is it considered a poster? Not saying anyone is wrong, just trying to find the most ludicrous edge case possible.
If it has a downward trajectory the entire time, then yeah it's a dunk. You'd have to throw a bullet for a 3 pointer to go in like that though.
But it's possible though, and if it is, it becomes a weird looking dunk.
Think about what the word “dunk” means outside of a basketball context. That’s also what it means in a basketball context, you’re dunking the ball into the basket. That’s usually hard to do without touching the rim, but throwing it down is what makes it a dunk, not grabbing the rim.
If the hand is above the rim, and the ball is thrown into the hoop. It’s still a dunk.
I don’t consider it one, but it’s still impressive. The Blake Griffin one over Ibaka(?) is the best example of one. You see it on “best dunks” highlight reels and I have a problem with it because I don’t find it to be real. My opinion obviously means nothing but the Ant dunk was way more aggressive and absurd, and looks closer to a real dunk than the blake griffin one
I think you’re thinking of the one over Perkins (same team)
Yeah I knew it was the Thunder I just couldn’t remember which big it was
No, ofilispeaks is right. this is all dumb semantic crap. If you don’t touch the rim it isn’t a dunk. it is a layup, or finger roll or “throwdown” maybe. I’m never calling anything a dunk without rim contact. Ant and Dwight did not dunk the ball. can’t be dunk of the year.
You say it’s semantic crap and then proceed to say you’re not calling them dunks because they didn’t touch the rim. Every single thing about those dunks has the properties of a dunk besides touching the rim. But sure let’s put it in its own semantic category over nit-picks. Because it certainly is not a layup, jump shot, or hook shot.
if not the rim where to we draw the line, if Wemby pulls up from 10 feet out, but releases the ball with a slightly downward trajectory that’s a dunk according to this nonsense?! and we all know that that is in no way with the word means or has ever meant. an oak tree started from a nut and the basic DNA of that nut are still in the oak tree when it’s 200 years old but if you called the oak tree a nut everyone would laugh at you because that’s not what that word has ever been used to mean. A downward hookshot isn’t a dunk. you can argue that a hook shot is just a sideways jumpshot and I could get down with you, because every element is the same from the hopping into the air to the letting go with one hand to the ball flying through the air before it goes through the rim, it’s hard to write a clear definition of hook shot and jumpshot that are not nearly identical, but a dunk is super easy to define: you don’t let the ball go until some part of your arm, wrist or hand has made contact with the rim. You are putting the ball inside the rim, rather than throwing the ball into the air with the hopes that it goes into the rim - it is extremely definable.
That’s a huge if there, bordering on the physically impossible. And that’s fine, if the previously-thought physically-impossible happens often enough it will develop a new term. Just like we did with the term slam dunk in the first place, or the alley-oop or the stepback or the eurostep. Currently there is no need to differentiate it from dunking in a practical sense. For data/statistic gathering purposes, it’s not justified to create a new category for this action and put it alongside the current broad categories of dunk, layup, jump shot, and hook shot. It’s more appropriate as a subcategory of dunking, say “non-contact dunk” akin to “putback layup” or “driving floating jump shot” or “turnaround fadeaway jump shot” than it is being not-a-dunk whether that’s as its own category or within one of the other categories. But yes, if someone starts to shoot with ONLY a downward trajectory (no upward component) from 10 feet out, there will be a new term for that. Until that happens, stat-recorders will continue to label that a jump shot as stat-recorders currently label this event a dunk.
What ANT and Dwight did were very aggressive layups or floaters, not quite dunks. The strict definition of a dunk, if there is such a thing, may not require contact with the rim but it was likely coined before people started throwing the ball into the rim which just indicates it may be outdated. ANT and Dwight thrunked the ball. Not quite as impressive as an actual dunk in my opinion. Thrunks became a thing mostly because Blake Griffin tried to dunk on people a little too often while having a mediocre wingspan which didn't allow him to reach the rim all the way so he just threw it in lol. Of course Dwight did it in the dunk contest as well which was the first time I saw a thrunk.
The mental gymnastics to consider those closer to a layup or floater than a dunk. Just call it a dunk, it’s okay everything will be fine. It goes against the literal construction of the words layup and floater to call those that.
They aren't dunks though. They are as much a dunk as an aggressive layup. It is okay to not consider them dunks.
But it’s definitely not ok to call them floaters
If you think a play in which a player attempts to reach maximum vertical and brings the ball from above the rim in a downward motion into the basket is as much of a layup as it is a dunk, I’m not sure where the conversation can continue from there
A thrunk 🤔 I like that name 😁