The memories of being a teenager and too cocky. Thinking I was invincible thus, several times I almost drowned like my grandfather in Hull, MA 1943. He was 42. RIP Always ✊ RESPECT THE OCEAN
I’ve been there on days like that. I can’t imagine how much courage it takes just to try and get out there. When you see fins and boards wash up and nobody claims them, you wonder where the owners ended up. Scary crazy waves.
I know me and my cousin would of swam in here on this day, because we both love swimming in high dangerous waves, but we won't be swimming far in, or for so long
You said you've been out there on days like that, then say you can't imagine the courage to go out. Which one is it? You're full of doody. You prob spend your time swimming around little corona.
@ 73 we may have shared a few in "our day" John. I do recall diving thru that wall of water splashing straight up at the feet of the onlookers and riding the backwash out to the next line-up; often holding onto a shifting ocean floor! Hope you are well ~ (Garth)
@@reggiebald2830 - at 76, I was probably there, too, in the 50s and 60s. I developed an underwater take off so as to come out further down the face and not have to make the drop.
For that people calling thoose waves less the 10 ft. The wave is falling down or breaking from creast to trough for example at 0:11 in 1,2 secundes. The free fall formula is h = 0,5 * g * t^2. So easy calculation: h = 0,5 * 9,81 (m/s^2) * (1,2 s)^2 = 7,1 m which is 23,3 ft. So "back measuring" don't know what it means. The faces ist 23 ft the amplitude is 11,5 ft (from x-axis to creast). Funny that every can meassure the high of the waves in front of the computer just like this.
Nice crowd. Love the applause, all stoked about the power of nature. Also, the camera never gives waves their justice. Those were bombs. I wouldn’t doubt the bigger sets were at least 15-25 foot faces.
@@phialpha_jude24 you’re spot on dude, the internet never lies ... ever .... I’d forgotten that truth and how well it’s served your county over the past few years now .... nice one ... can always trust the old intent ... yep .... for sure ... the inter ... net ... nice 👍
@@jacklucas4665 - no that is not what I am saying. I started bodysurfing there when I was 13. I am now 77. There were a few guys bodysurfing there then. Nobody was board surfing there at that time and sponge had not yet been invented . So, that was 1957, 54 years ago. As an adult, I lived in Hawaii until I was 65 and was still bodysurfing the big waves. I still have my Vipers! Given the opportunity, I would give it a go!
@@footycardstuff1232 it’s basically measuring in meters but saying it’s feet. A part of it is because it just gets generally big and people know the Hawaiian scale here the other part is slight underplaying the true size
I love watching these. Now as a noob who's never really surfed, I understand there are two ways to measure wave height, but my question is, for the surfing experience, wouldn't it make more sense to measure the full face height from the top where it's about to curl over, to the bottom where it's going to crash? Because that's what you're riding in, right? That's what you experience? Forgive if I look like I'm talking out my arse, I've been in smaller waves a lot but only know my physical experience with that.
Hawaiians and Australians usually call waves size on what a buoy would read as deepwater swell, or half the breaking wave height or even the size of the wave as measured from the back. It's pretty subjective and even they have disagreements on wave size as there are so many factors in play such as the local bathymetry of where the wave is breaking. I agree that measuring from the front is the most scientific and logical way to get an exact reading of a breaking wave face. The world record for largest wave ever ridden was 25' of deepwater swell but the bathymetry of Nazare canyon turned it into 80' face of a breaking wave(measured from the front). This hurricane swell in the video peaked at 10.5' @14 seconds so it's all very confusing as the wedge amplifies swell with constructive interference. I would say these waves are 10-12' hawaiian-10' austalian-25 foot californian-an exact measurement can be found by calculating the size of people in the water, measuring the size of the wave face, divide by ego and add prestige, then subtract location and finally a true wave size will be discovered.
I think when someone is taken out by the waves, you just multiply that height by 10. The higher the number the more interesting for the media and viewers.
Hey Cristofer Tamarit, do you have an email address at which we could contact you regarding this video? We would be interested to discuss a license to use this video if this is generally possible? (i.e. via email) :) Cheers, Felix
The camera definitely does NOT show how big the wave truly is, so I’ll give this guy that, but by no means is it 30 ft. The biggest wave was 18-20 MAX.
I stopped this video 2 times with the body surfer and the outside wave that nobody got...15’ to 18’ max. But to say 30’??? Nah, bradduh been out here when the poles were still on the jetty back in 1980’s and beyond with my UDT fins and then Viper Fins with the “Wedge Crew” Fred Simpson, Mel, Cashbox, Terry Wade, Beets and Romanaski. I sat out to the right of the peak and waited my turn being a “punk ass 16 year old from Hawaii” I believe it was called respect...or you got your A$$ kicked in. 🤙🏽😎
laughs from anywhere in the world a surfer is quoting a wave height I’d say .... if you called that 20 to 30 ft. in West Oz, you’d be laughed out of the state, too ashamed to paddle out again ...
Nothing in this clip is over about 15 feet. The set which arrived about the time the photographer lost control of the camera may've been 18, but there was nothing bigger. Peter Swanson Wedge local 1963 to '68
::DDD New new Hawaiin scale? Funny everybody has an other height of the waves. Because the wave is falling down or breaking from creast to trough for example at 0:11 in 1,2 secundes. The free fall formula is h = 0,5 * g * t^2. So easy calculation: h = 0,5 * 9,81 (m/s^2) * (1,2 s)^2 = 7,1 m which is 23,3 ft. So "back measuring" don't know what it means. The faces ist 23 ft the amplitude is 11,5 ft (from x-axis to creast).
There is point when the waves at the Wedge get so big that the waves off the jetty will over take the Main Peak and turn it into a big mush burger at first.
9 foot sets maybe the occasional 11 footers ,the place won't hold bigger ,the wedge V's up and always looks bigger cause of the way the peak rares up,waves are measured from the back mate just for future reference
@@masonmunkey6136 yeeeaaaahh nah .... regardless, all surfers play the face height down.... no way those waves would be called 20 to 30 ft anywhere in the world ...
@@Aromatic-ring whooooaah whoah whoah .... whhoooaaaahb .... easy there Big man, Brycey J ... the Brysyter.... Bryceabrodude, The Brycenator, BJ .... yeeeeeahhh nah ... it was lucky to be 10 ft ... I’ll give ya 12-13” max for the bigger sets ... it also looks bigger cause it’s near the shore too , as opposed to open ocean breaks where the surf often appears smaller and less powerful from the shore ...
@@Aromatic-ring mmmmm ?? not sure what you mean there old pal ? I thought we were talking about the surf / waves /what they were catching ... swell means something slightly different in my books, and not something you could really measure from the vid shown ... any- who, nice weather we’re having ...
Eehmm wrong: Because the wave is falling down or breaking from creast to trough for example at 0:11 in 1,2 secundes. The free fall formula is h = 0,5 * g * t^2. So easy calculation: h = 0,5 * 9,81 (m/s^2) * (1,2 s)^2 = 7,1 m which is 23,3 ft. So "back measuring" don't know what it means. The faces ist 23 ft the amplitude is 11,5 ft (from x-axis to creast).
People calling this 8feet don’t understand measurement. Pause the video at the night peaks and look at the people. No way those peaks are less than 15 feet.
Casey Mullennix: isn’t that only people in Hawaii? What other logical reason, aside from some quirk of history, would someone chose to measure wave height by the back of the wave? Seems kind of silly.
You're encountering the ludicrous undervaluing of wave height in parts of the surf world. It's a stupid macho trip. "Hawaiian" count apparently originated in lifeguards there playing down wave height in media surf reports to discourage surfers from Waikiki (South Shore) coming to the big wave North Shore, in order to cut down on rescues needed. And I've NEVER met a surfer who measures waves from the back; I've been surfing 43 years. Least arguable way to communicate wave height is comparing it to an average adult's height: head high, head-and-a-half, double overheard etc. The bigger waves in this video are double/triple overhead- like you said, 15 feet minimum, heading toward 20. All these commenters are FOS.
I mean no disrespect by any means, but why are people just hanging around getting wasted by waves? I don't even see any boards. I'm generally curious. Are conditions too rough to catch anything? Are they all photographers? I don't surf, just a huge and curious fan of the sport.
Old school style, local style, Hawaiian style? Funny everybody has an other messure methode of the waves. Because the wave is falling down or breaking from creast to trough for example at 0:11 in 1,2 secundes. The free fall formula is h = 0,5 * g * t^2. So easy calculation: h = 0,5 * 9,81 (m/s^2) * (1,2 s)^2 = 7,1 m which is 23,3 ft. So "back measuring" don't know what it means. The faces ist 23 ft so far away from 12-15 ft. The amplitude is 11,5 ft (from x-axis to creast).
The cameraman was doing well but then he lost it, as so often happens. When will people realise that it's not enough just to buy the equipment, you have to know how to use it and panning the camera in this fashion is lesson number one on what not to do.
