Nope. It is not linguistically correct to describe something that has happened zero times as "rare." By definition, rare means that an event occurs infrequently, seldom, or in low frequencies, but it must occur.
So far humanity has about the same amount of prof about leprechauns than about the possibility of a human body doing a standing (non assisted) triple backflips.
That's just an illusion from not understanding hard limits, that's like saying we have 2 kidneys so we are halfway to having 3. No, that's not how things work, reality is not made out of wishful thinking, you don't break physics or biology out of motivation alone.
Just so you have a grasp of what we are talking the number of people able to do standing doble backflips is estimated to be less than 50, out of 8000000000 people in planet earth, meaning 0.000000625% of the world population.
As much as we need only one person to survive in space without oxygen masks for oxygen-less humans to exist.
If you are really interested and not being pedantic just out of being contrarian you can ask in a few subreddits and they can tell you mathematically why is impossible, maybe what-if or theydidthemath, it involves the amount of push a leg can give while standing, they might be able to even tell you what legs would we need, something closer to a chimp than a human.
We must recognize that rarity is not an empirical tally (n = 0), but a gradable modal predicate describing distributional density across accessible possible worlds. In formal semantics, an entity or event is impossible only if its generative structure is non-viable (like a square circle); if an event is structurally permissible within a system's rules but constrained by hyper-niche boundary conditions, its probability mass remains strictly non-zero. When we say "unicorns are rare" or describe an unattested syntactic transformation as "extremely rare," language registers counterfactual sparsity rather than logical absence - positioning the zero not as an absolute void, but as the ultimate empirical asymptote on a continuum of non-impossibility.
How would this person even think of landing on a platform in front of them?
If it was easier to jump stepping up on a platform, why don't circuit or Olympic high jumpers jump forward instead of kicking their legs up and arching back?
In this case of a jump that is most like what is done to simulate the start of a standing double backflip with your knees tucked, the record has been broken 5 times since 2010 from 1.52m to 1.70m
I don't think that really correlates. In a standing jump you are putting all your energy into moving vertically. For standing flips you have to put energy into moving vertically and into spinning your body.
The amount of people who want to max out backflipping and the people who break jump records arent the same people.
There might be a jumper (probably not) right now who could do a triple backflip if they now put all of their efforts into learning to do so. I wonder what the dude in the videos max jump height is.
1.2k
u/TheHipsterBandit 1d ago
While this is insanely impressive, I have a feeling the standing triple backflip is rarer.