who is considered the greatest president of the united states

Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often the three highest rated presidents among historians. The remaining places in the top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy. More recent presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are often rated among the greatest in world opinion polls, but do not always rank as highly among presidential scholars and historians. The bottom 10 often include James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant, Zachary Taylor, and George W. Bush. Because William Henry Harrison (30 days) and James A. Garfield (200 days, incapacitated after 119 days) both died shortly after taking office, they are sometimes omitted from presidential rankings. Zachary Taylor also died after serving as president for only 16 months, but he is usually included. In the case of these three, it is not clear if they received low rankings due to their actions as president, or because each was president for such a limited time that it is not possible to assess them more thoroughly.

Historical rankings of presidents of the United States

In political studies, surveys have been conducted in order to construct historical rankings of the success of individuals who have served as President of the United States. Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion. The rankings focus on the presidential achievements, leadership qualities, failures, and faults.[1][2][3]

Political scientist Walter Dean Burnham noted the "dichotomous or schizoid profiles" of presidents, which can make some hard to classify. Historian Alan Brinkley stated that "there are presidents who could be considered both failures and great or near great (for example, Nixon)". Historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon, "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"[4]

David H. Donald, noted biographer of Abraham Lincoln, relates that when he met John F. Kennedy in 1961, Kennedy voiced his deep dissatisfaction and resentment with historians who had rated some of his predecessors. Kennedy said that "No one has a right to grade a President—even poor James Buchanan—who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions."[5]

Historian and political scientist Julian E. Zelizer argues that traditional presidential rankings explain little concerning actual presidential history, and that they are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House".[6] Libertarian political commentator Ivan Eland wrote a book titled Recarving Rushmore (2008; updated 2014), in which he wrote that historians' criteria are poor in their capacity to reflect presidents' actual services to the country. In the book, Eland chose to rate 40 U.S. presidents on the basis of whether their policies promoted prosperity, liberty, and non-interventionism, as well as modest executive roles for themselves; his final rankings varied significantly from those of most scholars.

The 1948 poll was conducted by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. of Harvard University.[1] The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians.[7] Schlesinger's son Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., conducted another poll in 1996.[8]

The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune. A notable difference from the 1962 Schlesinger poll was the ranking of Dwight D. Eisenhower, which rose from 22nd in 1962 to 9th in 1982.

The Siena Research Institute of Siena College conducted surveys in 1982, 1990, 1994, 2002, and 2010. The 1994 survey placed only two presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points and two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.[9][10] The 2010 Siena survey had George W. Bush plummet from the initial 2002 ranking of 23rd down to 39th.

The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1988 to 1996 by William J. Ridings Jr. and Stuart B. McIver and published in Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent.[11] More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part. Participants from every state were included, and emphasis was placed upon getting input from female historians and "specialists in African-American studies", as well as a few non-American historians. Poll respondents rated the presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments and crisis management, political skill, appointments, and character and integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at 8th. Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[12] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight". Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

A 2006 Siena College poll of 744 professors reported the following results:[13]

Thomas Kelly, professor emeritus of American studies at Siena College, said: "President Bush would seem to have small hope for high marks from the current generation of practicing historians and political scientists. In this case, current public opinion polls actually seem to cut the President more slack than the experts do." Douglas Lonnstrom, Siena College professor of statistics and director of the Siena Research Institute, stated: "In our 2002 presidential rating, with a group of experts comparable to this current poll, President Bush ranked 23rd of 42 presidents. That was shortly after 9/11. Clearly, the professors do not think things have gone well for him in the past few years. These are the experts that teach college students today and will write the history of this era tomorrow."[13]

A 2010 Siena poll of 238 presidential scholars found that former President George W. Bush was ranked 39th out of 43, with poor ratings in handling of the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments, and intelligence. Meanwhile, the then-current president, Barack Obama, was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience).[14][15]

The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership consists of rankings from a group of presidential historians and biographers. The C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership has taken place three times: in 2000, 2009, and 2017.[16][17][18] The most recent survey was of 91 presidential historians, surveyed by C-SPAN's Academic Advisor Team, made up of Douglas G. Brinkley, Edna Greene Medford, and Richard Norton Smith. In the survey, each historian rates each president on a scale of one ("not effective") to 10 ("very effective") on presidential leadership in ten categories: "Public Persuasion", "Crisis Leadership", "Economic Management", "Moral Authority", "International Relations", "Administrative Skills", "Relations with Congress", "Vision/Setting An Agenda", "Pursued Equal Justice for All", and "Performance Within the Context of His Times"; each category is equally weighed.[19] The results of all three C-SPAN surveys have been fairly consistent. Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey, and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five, while James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin Pierce have been ranked at the bottom of all three surveys.[18]

In 2008, The Times daily newspaper of London asked eight of its own "top international and political commentators" to rank all 42 U.S. presidents "in order of greatness".[20]

In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre (USPC), the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London's School of Advanced Study) released the first ever U.K. academic survey to rate U.S. presidents. This polled the opinion of British specialists in American history and politics to assess presidential performance. They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey (had he been included, he would have attained eighth place overall).[21]

In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama as the best since that year.[22]

A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Obama's presidency on an Aâ€“F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity, and crisis management, and most poorly for his relationship with Congress, transparency, and accountability.[23]

A 2015 poll administered by the American Political Science Association (APSA) among political scientists specializing in the American presidency had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson making the top 10. The results of this poll are reflected in the table below.[24]

Incumbent President Donald Trump is not included in any survey, as none have been conducted since his inauguration on January 20, 2017.

Within each column:

Note: Click the "sort" icon at the head of each column to view the rankings for each survey in numerical order.

Note: Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, serving as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States; to date he is the only person to have achieved this distinction. Because of it, the total number of people who have served as president is one fewer than the number of presidents in order of succession.

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues.[31] The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. Both groups agreed on the composition of nine of the top ten Presidents (and were split over the inclusion of either Lyndon B. Johnson or Dwight D. Eisenhower), and six of the worst seven (split over Jimmy Carter or Calvin Coolidge).

Scholars have explored whether historians' rankings of a president are correlated with quantifiable measures. Economist David R. Henderson and Zachary Gochenour applied a linear regression model to explain the C-SPAN Survey of Presidential Leadership rankings.[32] They found the following correlations to be statistically significant:

They concluded that "the results indicate that military deaths as a percentage of population is a major determinant of greatness in the eyes of historians."

In 2002, Ronald Walters, former director of the University of Maryland's African American Leadership Institute, stated that presidents ranked by how each one balanced the interests of majority interests and the interests of excluded groups was practical in respect to American debate on racial politics. Presidents have traditionally been ranked on personal qualities and their leadership ability to solve problems that move the nation in a positive direction. Walters stated there was a qualitative difference between white and African-American intellectuals in evaluating presidents. In the 1996 New York Times poll by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., 31 white historians and one black historian ranked presidents on differing categories of greatness. In a survey done by professors Hanes Walton Jr. and Robert Smith, in their text book American Politics And The African American Quest For Universal Freedom, 44 African-American political scientists and historians ranked presidents in terms of racial attitudes and racial legislation proposed.[33] Individual presidents' attitudes, policies, and perspectives were historically ranked in five categories: White Supremacist; Racist; Racially Neutral; Racially Ambivalent; Antiracist.[34]

According to a Rasmussen poll conducted in 2007, six presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy—were rated favorably by at least 80% of Americans.[35]

A Gallup poll about presidential greatness taken February 2â€“5, 2011, asked 1015 adults in the U.S. "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"[3]

In addition, "Other" received 1%, "None" received 1%, and "No opinion" received 5%.

These polls evaluate recent presidents only.

A Gallup poll, taken on November 19â€“21, 2010, asked Americans to say, based on what they know or remember about the nine most recent former presidents, whether they approve or disapprove of how each handled his job in office.[36]

A Public Policy Polling poll taken between September 8â€“11, 2011, asked 665 American voters, based on what they know or remember about the nine most recent former presidents, whether they hold favorable or unfavorable views of how each handled his job in office.[37]

A Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll taken on February 18â€“19, 2011, asked respondents about 11 former presidents plus the current president and whether each was a good or bad president.[38]

A Gallup Poll taken November 7–10, 2013, asked 1039 adults in the U.S. "How do you think each of the following presidents will go down in history—as an outstanding president, above average, average, below average, or poor?"[39]

A Quinnipiac University poll taken June 24â€“30, 2014, asked 1446 registered voters in the U.S. who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.[41]

Best president since World War II:

Worst president since World War II:

Four years later, a Quinnipiac University poll taken January 20â€“25, 2017, asked 1190 voters in the U.S. who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.[42]

Best president since World War II:

Worst president since World War II:

Including for the first time President Donald Trump, a Morning Consult poll taken February 9â€“10, 2017, asked 1791 registered voters in the U.S. who they thought were the best and worst presidents since World War II.[43][44]

Best president since World War II:

Worst president since World War II:

In November 2014, Henry L. Roediger III and K. Andrew DeSoto published a study in the journal Science asking research subjects to name as many presidents as possible.[47][48] They reported data from three generations, as well as from an online survey conducted in 2014. The percentage of participants in the online survey sample who could name each president was:


who sings lift me up with five finger death punch

"Lift Me Up" is the first single from The Wrong Side of Heaven and the Righteous Side of Hell, Volume 1, the fourth studio album from Five Finger Death Punch, and is the fifteenth single overall from the band. The song features Rob Halford, lead vocalist for Judas Priest. Halford joined the band at the Revolver Golden Gods Awards on May 2, 2013 to premiere the tune, with lead singer Ivan L. Moody referring to himself as being "the guest (vocalist)" on the song.[1]

Lift Me Up (Five Finger Death Punch song)

The song was number one in the Internet music app Spotify in its first week of release over pop songs from Mariah Carey, Daft Punk, Fergie, and others. The list represents the most viral tracks on Spotify based on the number of people who shared it divided by the number who listened to it from Monday, May 13, to Sunday, May 19, via Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter and Spotify.[2]

In April 2014, the song won a Revolver Golden Gods Award for "Song of the Year."[3]

According to Moody, the composition was about overcoming routine roadblocks and less-than-ideal circumstances in life. He then goes on to say that while most of us weren't born into wealth, if life deals you a bad hand, you still have to play with the cards that life deals you. Moody closes by stating that the song is intended to inspire and that if you play your hand right, you might still come out on top.[4]

The song begins with Moody singing the first verse along with the chorus, followed by Halford singing the second verse and the two of them singing the final refrain.[5] The current lyric video features dark skies, lightning as well as microorganisms attacking one another.[6]


1 electron volt is equal to how many kilo joule per mole

1 kJ·mol−1 is equal to 0.239 kcal·mol−1 or 1.04×10−2 eV per particle. At room temperature (25 °C, 77 °F, or 298.15 K) 1 kJ·mol−1 is equal to 0.4034

k

B

T

{\displaystyle k_{B}T}

.

Joule per mole

The joule per mole (symbol: J·mole−1 or J/mol) is an SI derived unit of energy per amount of material. Energy is measured in joules, and the amount of material is measured in moles. For example, Gibbs free energy is quantified as joules per mole.

Since 1 mole = 6.02214179×1023 particles (atoms, molecules, ions etc.), 1 Joule per mole is equal to 1 Joule divided by 6.02214179×1023 particles, or( 6.022×10^23 particles/mole),1.66054×10−24 Joule per particle. This very small amount of energy is often expressed in terms of a smaller unit such as the electronvolt (eV, see below).

Physical quantities measured in J·mol−1 usually describe quantities of energy transferred during phase transformations or chemical reactions. Division by the number of moles facilitates comparison between processes involving different quantities of material and between similar processes involving different types of materials.  The meaning of such a quantity is always context-dependent and, particularly for chemical reactions, is dependent on the (possibly arbitrary) definition of a'mole' for a particular process.

For convenience and due to the range of magnitudes involved these quantities are almost always reported in kJ·mol−1 rather than in J·mol−1. For example, heats of fusion and vaporization are usually of the order of 10 kJ·mol−1, bond energies are of the order of 100 kJ·mol−1, and ionization energies of the order of 1000 kJ·mol−1.


when was the first composite hockey stick made

Fiberglass, along with the traditional wood, was the first composite stick material, being added as laminate or coating to wooden sticks. Manufacturers have experimented with 100% fiberglass ice hockey sticks, but they suffered from poor "feel" and poor durability and never really caught on. Today, fiberglass is most commonly used as a composite with other materials, such as wood, graphite, or kevlar. Generally speaking, a higher density of material was needed in order for the players to perform. As of 2011[update], two 100% fiberglass sticks are available: the Warrior Disher and the Warrior Esquire.

Ice hockey stick

An ice hockey stick is a piece of equipment used in ice hockey to shoot, pass, and carry the puck across the ice. Ice hockey sticks are approximately 150–200 cm long, composed of a long, slender shaft with a flat extension at one end called the blade. The blade is the part of the stick used to contact the puck, and is typically 25 to 40 cm long. Stick dimensions can vary widely, as they are usually built to suit a particular player's size and preference. The blade is positioned at roughly a 135° angle from the axis of the shaft, giving the stick a partly 'L-shaped' appearance. The shaft of the stick is fairly rigid, but it has some flexibility to benefit some shots.

The blade is slightly curved in one direction, either way, to aid in retaining or lifting the puck off the playing surface. This can be to the left or right, depending on the player's shooting orientation.

The goaltender has a slightly modified stick. The lower part of the stick is wider, the angle is smaller, and the blade is slightly curved towards the direction of the play. New goaltender sticks also are made of the same composite technology as used in regular sticks.

The oldest known hockey stick dates to the mid-1830s; it was made by William "Dilly" Moffatt (born 1829) from sugar maple wood and is now owned by the Canadian Museum of History.[1] In 2006, a stick made in the 1850s, at the time the oldest known, was sold at auction for $2.2 million; it had been appraised at US$4.25Â million.[2]

The Moffatt stick may have been made by Mi'kmaqs. Starting in the 18th century, there are numerous references to the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia playing ice hockey, and starting in the 19th century, there are claims that they invented the ice hockey stick.[3] In the mid-19th century, the Starr Manufacturing Company began to sell Mic-Mac hockey sticks nationally and internationally.[4] Through the first decade of the 20th century, it was the best-selling hockey stick in Canada. By 1903, apart from farming, producing them was the primary occupation of the Mi'kmaq on reserves throughout Nova Scotia, particularly Shubenacadie, Indian Brook and Millbrook.[4] In 1927 the department of Indian Affairs for Nova Scotia identified that the Mi'kmaq remained the "experts" at making hockey sticks.[5] Mi'kmaq continued to make hockey sticks until the 1930s.[6]

Hockey sticks were mostly made from the maple or willow trees, which was also a common choice for golf club shafts and wooden tools. However, as hornbeam supplies diminished, it became more cost effective to use other hardwoods, such as yellow birch and ash. Ash gradually became the preferred medium, and by the 1920s an ash hockey stick crafted from a single piece of wood was the type most commonly used. These early sticks were extremely heavy and not very forgiving, although they were extremely durable (Hall of Famer Moose Johnson famously used the same extra-long stick, which gave him a 99-inch (2,500Â mm) reach, his entire career).

There were only a handful of major developments in hockey stick technology between the 1920s and the 2000s. Foremost among these was creation of the laminated stick in the 1940s, where layers of wood were glued together and sandwiched to create a more flexible and durable design. In the 1960s, companies began adding another lamination of fiberglass or other such synthetic compound as a coating, which further added to the durability and usability of the stick. Also in the 1960s, players began curving the blade of the stick, which dramatically changed the physics affecting players' shots.

In the 1970s, cricket and baseball bat manufacturers began experimenting with lightweight steel alloys as a replacement for the traditional willow or ash bat. Hockey stick designers followed suit in the early 1980s, introducing first a single piece all-aluminium stick. This design was not popular, as the stiff aluminium did not have the proper "feel", and so a design featuring an aluminium shaft and a removable, replaceable wooden blade was tried. This became very popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s, challenging the prevalence of the traditional wooden stick for the first time.

In recent years, the aluminium stick, as well as its wooden counterpart, have largely been replaced by more advanced composite designs. Common building materials include fiberglass and carbon fiber, and some manufacturers have even explored using materials such as kevlar. Composite sticks generally weigh less than their aluminum forebears, and they can be manufactured with more consistent (and varied) physical properties than their wooden counterparts. They are, however, considerably more expensive than wooden sticks, and are not nearly as durable as the older aluminum sticks.

Over the last two decades, there have been tremendous advances in the material technology used to create hockey sticks. The vast majority of sticks are made with one (or a combination) of the following materials:

Wooden sticks are usually constructed by laminating multiple types of wood into a high quality plywood, then coating the stick and blade with thin plastic or fiberglass. Some manufacturers use fiberglass as a laminate between wood layers. Today in the NHL, only a handful of players still use wooden sticks.

The main advantage that wooden sticks enjoy today is their relatively low cost and strong base. Few wooden sticks cost more than $40 per copy, compared to $200+ for some composite varieties. This makes them a popular choice by younger and amateur players. Wooden sticks also enjoy a reputation of having a good "feel" compared to aluminium or titanium. The main disadvantage that wooden sticks suffer from is their relative irregularity and poor durability.[8][9] Wood has a tendency to warp, and over time its flex and stiffness properties will change. Additionally, being a natural material, wood also creates variations in production (even between identical patterns), and it cannot be made as "responsive" as certain composite materials (which decreases velocity and accuracy on wrist and snap shots).

It is a common misconception that, for most players, aluminium or composite sticks make for harder slap shots. Specifically for slap shots, wooden sticks have very similar properties to composite sticks, and for most players there will be very little difference in velocity between wood and other materials.[10]

Aluminium sticks were the first non-wood sticks to appear. Most aluminium sticks consist of a shaft made of an aluminium alloy and a wooden blade or composite blade, which is held in the shaft by glue and the compression of the shaft itself. There was a time when a majority of NHL players used aluminium sticks, but today all players use composite sticks.

The main advantage aluminium sticks enjoy is their unparalleled durability. It is fairly rare for an aluminium shaft to be broken or damaged, even at the professional level, and since the blades can be easily replaced, a shaft will typically last for a relatively long period of time. Aluminium sticks will not suffer wear or warping like a wooden stick, and they can be manufactured with a great deal of consistency in flex and weight. The biggest disadvantage of aluminium sticks is their heavy or hard "feel", which is a result of the relative hardness of the metal and the imprecise joining of the stick and blade.

Graphite has become by far the most common building material for sticks used in the NHL, and it is growing rapidly in popularity for amateur and recreational players. Carbon fiber sticks were originally sold as shafts alone, much like their aluminium counterparts. "One piece" sticks, which consist of a single piece shaft and blade, have become the predominant type.

Carbon fiber sticks have become so popular due primarily to the way they combine features of wooden and aluminium sticks. They offer the classic "feel" and performance of the best wooden varieties, and the manufacturing consistency and precision of aluminium sticks, due to the material's light weight. They can also be manufactured with extraordinarily precise "flex patterns" which can aid in the power and accuracy of wrist and snap shots, and their manufacturing process makes it extremely simple to add any number of different materials and features which can dramatically change the properties of the stick (a good example of this being the silicon injections made in certain high-end sticks that are claimed to further enhance their "feel").

Their main disadvantage is their high cost coupled with their relatively poor durability. While their average life is not quite as short as their wooden counterparts, it is poor enough that competitive senior players will usually break one every week or two, which for an entire team over the course of a season can become extremely expensive. This can be a particularly nasty burden for "nonprofit" competitive teams (such as college hockey teams in the United States), some of whom have begun restricting their players from using the most expensive composite sticks.

Kevlar, most commonly thought of in bullet-resistant vests, has become a common component of composite sticks. Originally added to increase the durability of aluminium stick blades, it became an ideal addition to the more fragile wooden and carbon fiber sticks, and today it is a material used by many manufacturers. Properties that make Kevlar an ideal strengthening material are its tendency not to shatter like carbon fiber. Kevlar will yield; stretch permanently without exploding when the yarn exceeds its maximum tensile strength. However, Kevlar is not as stiff as carbon fiber, and does not attach as strongly to the epoxy resin in the manufacturing process as carbon fiber. Price wise, Kevlar and Carbon Fiber are similar on a cost per yard basis.

Titanium sticks are a fairly new development, and were first introduced in the shafts of the TI or Mission Titanium series. They are usually just a shaft, which will be coupled with a wooden or carbon blade in much the same manner as an aluminium stick. Other sticks have titanium added as a composite material to carbon fiber or kevlar.

Titanium is similar to aluminium in general properties, although it is lighter, stronger, and is said to have notably superior "flex" properties (due mainly to the relative thinness of the walls of the shaft).

The lie of a stick refers to the angle between the shaft and the blade. A lie value of 5 corresponds to a 135° angle, and each additional lie value corresponds to a 2° smaller angle.[11] With the bottom of the blade flat on the ice, a higher lie value causes the shaft to stand up straighter. Typical values range from 5 to 7; most sticks now are near 5.5. Goalie sticks typically have a lie between 11 and 15.[12]

Players usually seek a lie that will put the blade flat on the ice while they are in their typical skating stance. Hall of Fame center Wayne Gretzky, for example, used a stick with a low lie to correspond with his deep skating crouch and shorter height, whereas Hall of Fame defenceman Rod Langway used a stick with a very high lie number as he was very tall and tended to skate in a very upright position.

Hockey stick shafts, much like golf club shafts, are highly flexible, and this flexibility is a key component in their performance. Flex, bend, stiffness, and whip are all terms used to describe the amount force required to bend a given stick shaft a certain amount.

With most composite and alumimum sticks, their flex characteristic is correlated numerically. This number, which ranges from 40 through 160, is printed on the stick and corresponds to the amount of force (in pounds-force) that it takes to deflect or bend the shaft one inch. For example, 100 pounds-force (440 N) is required to bend the shaft 1 inch (2.5 cm) and would be labelled "100 flex". The flex rating of a stick applies to its original length and increases if it is cut to a shorter length.

Stick flex is viewed as a very important characteristic by most players. Commonly, defencemen seek stiffer flex shafts, as their greater stiffness imparts more force on slap shots and improves stick-checking. Forwards will commonly seek more flexible shafts, as they require less force to bend and are thus better suited to create quick and accurate wrist shots, as well as improving passing and stickhandling.

Flex is also correlated to player strength; stronger players will often prefer stiffer flexes, as they have a sufficient amount of strength to fully bend (and thus maximize potential energy) using such shafts, whereas younger players and players with less strength will generally have more success using more flexible shafts which they are capable of bending to their optimal degree.

Until the early 1960s, hockey stick blades[13] were typically not curved. However, in the late 1950s, New York Rangers center Andy Bathgate began experimenting with "breaking" his stick blades to impart a curve, which he found made his slap shots behave in highly erratic ways. Soon after Chicago Black Hawks forwards Stan Mikita and Bobby Hull stumbled onto the "broken blade", and subsequently began asking their stick manufacturers to create sticks with pre-curved blades.

Soon after, much of the NHL, and Hull in particular, became a proponents of the "banana blade", or stick with extreme amounts (often up to 3 inches (76 mm)) of curve in the blade. These curves made slap shots behave very erratically, and in an era in which goalies did not wear masks, this eventually became an unacceptable danger. By 1967, the NHL began to limit the amount of curve a stick blade could legally have. In the NHL today, the legal limit is 19 mm, or 3⁄4 of an inch.

Much like the shaft's flex, a blade's pattern is a very important characteristic of a stick's performance. There are three primary variables in blade design: curve, face angle, and toe.

The curve refers to the basic amount the blade curves from toe to heel, as well as the part of the blade where that curve is located. A "toe curve" means that the curve is concentrated near the toe of the blade, and it is usually preferred by forwards, who seek better puckhandling and more accurate wrist shots. A "heel curve" is generally better for slap shots, and is thus used more by defencemen.

Face angle is the angle between the ice surface and the front surface of the blade (this characteristic is comparable to the difference between the different irons in golf). A more "open" blade means that the face of the blade is turned up more sharply, and thus will cause a higher trajectory than a "closed" face angle.

The toe shape refers to the basic shape of the end of the blade, and it is typically either round or square. Square toes make it easier to pull a puck off the boards or to do "toe drags" (stickhandling moves using the toe of the blade), whereas round toes make it easier to "flip" the puck, and also offer slight advantages in basic puckhandling.

Blades also differ in length and thickness, based on player preference.

The curve of a blade is limited at most levels of competitive hockey, generally to an amount between 1⁄2 and 3⁄4 inch (13 and 19 mm). Hasty measurements can be made by attempting to roll a dime under the j blade placed face down on the ice, but accurate measurements require a "stick gauge" which measures curve precisely.[14] Currently, the NHL limits blade curvature to 3⁄4 inch (19 mm).[14] Being caught using an illegal stick is typically punished with a two-minute minor penalty.[14]

The genesis for this rule was the "banana blade" of the 1960s. At the height of this era, players would often simply cross the blue line and let fly with a slap shot, hoping that the bizarre behavior of the puck would beat the goaltender. In this era, goaltenders were irritated by the danger such wild shots posed to them and in response, the NHL began gradually reducing the amount of curve a blade could legally have.

In the modern game, the emphasis on shooting accuracy has largely eliminated any preference for extreme blade curves. However, hockey still retains illegal stick rules, which has become a cause of debate.[14] The argument is that since blade curvature does not impart any significant advantage, that penalizing it is unnecessary. Additionally, coaches have used the "illegal equipment" penalty at key moments in games to win a power play, and in some cases, swing the momentum of an entire series, including the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals.

The top of the shaft is most commonly wrapped with cloth tape in a manner which improves the grip on stick by the player's top hand. Most players also apply a "knob" of tape which will create a small gap between the shaft and the ice in the event the stick is dropped, making it easier to pick up the stick. Goaltenders often wrap rather large "knobs" on the ends of their sticks (sometimes up to 2 inches (51Â mm) across), which makes it easier for them to poke check without losing the stick (as well as making it easier to pick up a dropped stick).

The blade of the stick is most commonly wrapped with friction tape, a cotton tape that has been impregnated with adhesive so that it is moderately sticky. This is done to improve puckhandling and to avoid water damage to the stick. Some players will also apply wax to the tape in order to increase the adhesion. Preferred amounts of puck adhesion vary among players; some players will use a regular cloth tape instead of friction tape, while Wayne Gretzky used friction tape and then applied baby powder to lower its adhesion. There is also variation in color, white being the most common choice.


where do they live in cheaper by the dozen

Tom Baker is a football coach at a small rural college in Midland, Michigan, where he raised twelve children, and his wife, Kate, has written her story into a book and hopes to send it to her friend to publish the book. Tom unexpectedly receives an offer from his old friend and football teammate Shake McGuire to coach at his alma mater in his hometown of Evanston, Illinois. Tom accepts the offer, and he and Kate begin making plans on moving back to Evanston. The kids find out and demand the move be put to a vote, even though Tom says it won't have any power. He loses the vote, even after he and Kate join, but goes ahead with the move anyway, claiming there will be more money and that they will be a "happier and stronger family". The atmosphere at the Bakers' new house is tense and the situation at school is even worse.

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film)

Cheaper by the Dozen is a 2003 American family comedy film directed by Shawn Levy, and stars Steve Martin and Bonnie Hunt. The film was released on December 25, 2003 by 20th Century Fox to negative reviews, but was a box-office success ultimately grossing just over $190 million worldwide.[1]

When her book is ready to pick up for publication, Kate is required to do a national book tour to promote it. Tom thinks that he can handle everything in the family's household while Kate is away, so he decides to hire the family's oldest child, Nora, and her self-absorbed boyfriend, Hank, to manage the children. When Nora and Hank arrive, the children plan to make Hank the target of their prank by soaking his underwear in meat and assisting the Bakers' pet dog, Gunner, to attack him by chewing his bottom, prompting him to refuse to assist in babysitting. As a result, Nora drives off with Hank, while Tom lectures them for their prank. After Kate departs for her book tour, Tom realizes that he cannot handle the children on his own after a chaotic night. In reply to this revelation, Tom tries to hire a housekeeper, but nobody is willing to work with a family as large as the Bakers, so Tom decides to bring the football players from work into the family's house for game practicing in the living room to prepare for the Saturday night football game as the children perform chores and their household games. However, the children start causing trouble at school. Kate overhears from the children about the chaos and cancels the book tour to take charge of the situation. Kate's publisher decides to create an additional promotion for her book by inviting Oprah Winfrey to tape a segment about the Bakers in their home instead.

Despite much coaching from Kate, the Bakers are not able to demonstrate the loving, strongly bonded family that Kate described in her book. When Mark becomes upset that his pet frog has died, a heated fight erupts moments before the segment starts, leading the cameramen to call Winfrey to cancel it. Mark runs away from home, prompting the Bakers to find him. Tom indulges a hunch that Mark is trying to run back to the Bakers' old home, and eventually finds Mark on an Amtrak train departing from Evanston, Illinois to Midland. Reuniting with the rest of their family, the Bakers begin to address their issues with each other, and Tom ultimately resigns from his position at his alma mater with Shake.

The film's director Shawn Levy makes a cameo as a reporter

The film was mostly shot in various cities in Los Angeles County with the exception of the outdoor scenes of the Baker Family Home in Midland, Indiana which was shot outside of Petaluma and the Midland Train Station scene which was filmed in Santa Rosa, California.

A sequel, Cheaper by the Dozen 2, was released in the United States on December 21, 2005.

Other compositions used in the movie are "Classical Gas" by Mason Williams and Carl Orff's "O Fortuna", among others.

The review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 24% approval rating based on reviews from 118 critics, with an average score of 4.5 out of 10, and the site's consensus reading: "In this family of twelve children, much chaos ensues, but little hilarity."[2] On Metacritic, which determines a normalized rating from mainstream critics, the film received a score of 46 out of 100 based on 30 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews."[3] Despite initial reactions, the film was given "Two Thumbs Up" from Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper on their television show, and became a box office hit. The film opened at #2 ranking in US$27,557,647 in its first opening weekend and, despite being kept from the top spot by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, went on to gross $190,212,113 worldwide.[1] Ashton Kutcher was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor for his performance in this, Just Married, and My Boss’s Daughter.[citation needed]

The film was released on VHS and DVD on April 6, 2004.[citation needed]


who plays ben wyatt on parks and recreation

Adam Paul Scott (born April 3, 1973) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and podcaster. He is known for his role as Ben Wyatt in the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation. He has also appeared as Derek in the film Step Brothers, Henry Pollard in the Starz sitcom Party Down, and Ed Mackenzie in the HBO series Big Little Lies.

Adam Scott (actor)

Scott was born in Santa Cruz, California,[1] to Anne (née Quartararo)[1] and Dougald Scott,[2] both of whom are retired teachers.[3][4] He is of one quarter Sicilian descent, on his mother’s side.[5] He has two older siblings, Shannon and David.[3] Scott has said that David "looks like me but is far more cerebral and inherited the intellect of our parents". He graduated from Harbor High School[6] and the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in Pasadena, California.[7]

Scott has appeared in several feature films, including Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), The Lesser Evil (1998), High Crimes (2002), The Aviator (2004), Torque (2004), Monster-in-Law (2005), Who Loves the Sun (2006), Knocked Up (2007), Step Brothers (2008), August (2008), Piranha 3D (2010),[8] and Leap Year (2010).

Scott's name appears next to Jon Hamm's name in the film Anchorman in one of the broadcast's credits. In an appearance on G4's Attack of the Show! program on April 21, 2011, he confirmed that this was due to his and Hamm's friendship with producer Shauna Robertson, who put their names in the credits as an Easter egg. He played Ted Hendricks, Walter Mitty's detestable corporate boss, in the 2013 remake of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.

Scott appeared in the films Our Idiot Brother (2011) as Jeremy[9] and Bachelorette. He also starred as Jason Fryman in Friends with Kids (2012). He starred as Caleb Sinclaire in the 2010 film The Vicious Kind, a more dramatic role than his previous comedic endeavors, for which Scott was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for best actor. The film itself received positive reviews, and he won two individual awards at two separate film festivals. He starred in the film Passenger Side, released on DVD on October 26, 2010.[10]

Scott's film A.C.O.D. premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival.[11] In 2015, he worked as executive producer on, and portrayed Alex in, the comedy film The Overnight,[12] and also co-starred in the Christmas comedy slasher film Krampus.[13]

On television, he appeared as Griff Hawkins in the series Boy Meets World and Josh on Party of Five, as well as David's love interest, Ben Cooper, on Six Feet Under. He played Palek on the HBO drama Tell Me You Love Me (2007). Scott played a cocaine-addicted, delirious baseball front office representative in the first and second seasons of the HBO series Eastbound & Down. From 2009 to 2010, he appeared on the Starz network show Party Down. His role in Party Down earned him an Entertainment Weekly Ewwy nomination for Best Actor in a Comedy Series in 2009.[14]

In 2010, Scott joined the cast of NBC's acclaimed comedy series Parks and Recreation, in which he played Ben Wyatt, a state auditor who arrives in the fictional town of Pawnee, Indiana to evaluate the town's funds.[15] He appeared as a guest star along with Rob Lowe in the second season before becoming a main character for the remainder of the series. The show's seventh and final season concluded in February 2015.

Scott has appeared in the Adult Swim comedy Childrens Hospital. He was also on the show NTSF:SD:SUV::, in the episode "The Risky Business of Being Alone in Your Home", and the annual Adult Swim special The Greatest Event in Television History, which he also created and produced. Scott has also appeared in the Comedy Central television show Nick Swardson's Pretend Time, as a newscaster in the episode "Relapse into Refreshment". He has appeared in a series of commercials for ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

In Nov 2016, Scott guest starred in The Good Place Season 1 as Trevor.

In 2017, Scott appeared in HBO's Big Little Lies. Scott is currently co-starring with Craig Robinson in the sitcom Ghosted,[16] which premiered on October 1, 2017 on Fox.[17]

With Scott Aukerman, Scott is the co-host and co-creator of the Earwolf podcast U Talkin' U2 To Me, launched in February 2014.[18] The series is introduced at the outset of each episode as "the comprehensive and encyclopedic compendium of all things U2," but it generally uses discussion of the band as a jumping off point for improv and absurdist humor. In February 2018 Scott and Scott launched another podcast in the same format, this time covering the career and work of the band R.E.M., titled R U Talkinâ€™ R.E.M. Re: Me?.

Scott has also been a guest on numerous podcasts, including Comedy Bang! Bang!, How Did This Get Made?, and Kevin Pollak's Chat Show.[19]

Adam Scott married Naomi Sablan in 2005. They have two children.[20]

During a Jimmy Kimmel Live! appearance on May 4, 2017, Scott revealed he invited actor Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker from the Star Wars franchise) to his second grade birthday. Guest host Kristen Bell surprised Scott with the guest appearance of Hamill wielding a lightsaber in observance of the unofficial holiday "Star Wars Day."[21]