Mixed Gender-Equality Problem
Dave Klink
threads, so here goes...
Note to readers: This thread isn't intended for the whiners who like
to say "mixed is bad because the level of play is lower" or
"mixed is bad because Idris and P.Hard should be in open" or
"mixed is bad because it hurts ultimate's image" or whatever other
shtuff usually gets thrown around on RSD whenever mixed is brought
up....hell, I'm not disagreeing with any of that...or
agreeing...I'm actually going to start a different topic, totally
unrelated. So potential repliers might consider what they are replying
to. OK, to my topic:
I think there are 2 big problems with gender equality in the mixed
game. 1, the best strategy is usually to exclude women on offense, and
that sucks for players (especially females) and fans. 2, it does not
do enough to encourage/demand the development of female players. I
argue mixed would be a more exciting and better for equal development
if some rules changed.
On problem #1: I do think it is important to incorporate capable women
on D and O to win at high levels. It's also important to have
everyone willing/able to involve them when it's intelligent. Some high
level teams can successfully pass from woman to woman to woman
downfield if they are really open (so you need capable female
defenders). Teams are also willing to have their females poach lanes
if they know you aren't willing to throw to yours, so you have to have
women who can recognize poaches, cut to get open (which is harder with
all those male defenders floating around), and not only catch it in the
end zone, but also be able to turn around and complete their throw most
of the time when they catch it outside of the end zone. The reason
that some teams can win big by incorporating women on O is disparity in
talent. When talent between teams is reasonably equal, the female
completion percentage is lower than the male...that's not new news.
The reason that some team's women (the good ones) up that percentage
is that they get insanely open (so their team never gets stalled), have
chumpy marks on them, and always have another easily open
fem-cutter/handler. The only time you (should) currently see women
dominating is when one team has much better women than the other. Even
if it's just one killer 6' fast lady that catches 5 touchdowns per
game, it's because she's so much better than her defender.
When mixed teams someday have more equally talented women, it will be
bad strategy to try to run the offense through (or even with) the
ladies, even on the really good teams, as the percentages will go back
to the status quo. The only time it is good strategy for ladies to
touch it on O is when her defender gets big timed burned AND the
there's no male defender in the vicinity AND the person with the disc
is comfortable make the tougher throw and the lady who happens to get
open won't turn it over reasonably more than her male teammates.
Only other time might be the rare amazing exceptions...there might be
one or two playing ultimate right now...where the lady is so amazing
that it would be heresy to not involve her in the offense.
Summary: When all things are reasonably equal male and female between
two teams, the percentages tell you the best strategy is to run the O
through the men. Therefore, rules should change to make it more equal
in touches, involvement, etc, for both genders at every level.
On problem #2: I strongly believe that mixed can develop players (to
the extent that they can become great mixed players, at least), and it
easily does so on the men's side. On the women's side, though,
it's much harder. Mixed is not self-sustaining in the same way that
open and women's are. The full squad of talented ladies necessary
for high levels can't develop from scratch in mixed without many
years of PC play or intentionally sacrificing wins for
development-until the high levels there isn't the playtime to go
around, and even if they get PT they don't get the touches. If you
are an average male athlete, you can become a great mixed player on a
mixed team quickly because of all the playtime and touches you'll
get, but if you are an average female athlete, you'll maybe get good
at mixed defense and learning to stay out of the way for mixed O, but
your disc skills won't get the chance to develop no matter how many
points you play. In order to get touches as a mixed lady, you have to
come into the game with a lot of disc skills and knowledge already, or
else come onto a team willing to sacrifice some wins to train you.
With these 2 problems in mind, here are some rule ideas to get women
more involved in mixed...I like my ideas here, but I'll bet others
have better ideas:
1. Puller must rotate male-female each pull for each team. If both
teams had to have a female puller 50% of the time, they'd have to
teach at least one female to pull well and likely more than one.
I've seen many women with great pulls in ultimate, but rarely in
mixed, and if she is in mixed, I'll bet she learned to pull in
women's (or the REALLY rare PC or 5-year-development-plan mixed
team). This rule would not be difficult to implement-just require a
bit of memory or a stats taker keeping track. You could do gender of
puller switches at half time rule too if you wanted it to be really
easy.
2. Women must pick up the disc every other possession for each team.
It could be a violation, travel, even turnover, whatever, if males or
females ever picked it up twice in a row for either team. This rule
would require both teams to think a bit, and could lead to a few
arguments, but so do a lot of ultimate rules, and this would force
teams to have women making exactly 50% of the throws off of dead discs.
3. Mixed-gender scores count for 2. I really like this rule. At first
I hated it, but mixed gender scores are more fun to watch and be a part
of, and they really emphasize what mixed is all about-it shouldn't
just be having roughly equal numbers of men and women on the field.
If these three rules got added to the mixed game today, you'd see a
whole lot more women's development in mixed starting in 2006. Anyone
have thoughts on any of this? Anyone have different rule ideas?
Back to work,
Dave Klink
Flaming Moe #21
scoop
As for the current state, maybe you should make woman-to-woman goals
worth two points.
Dave Klink
Another transitional idea might just be to just make all goals thrown
by a woman worth 2, although that's only slightly more in the mixed
spirit.
In that contrived means "Obviously planned or calculated" I couldn't
agree more that it's contrived, and maybe even too contrived. I agree
that it's complicated, especially rule #2, which is my least favorite
of the three. I love #1 and like #3.
Thanks very much for scoop reading the post (or at least part of it) so
quickly!
Dave Klink
mui...@gmail.com
goes up a guy near the endzone who catches it almost on the line and
has a wide open guy streaking for the score. Guy with the disc...
calls timeout. Sets up throw to woman to win the game.
That's pretty lame.
Dave Klink
2-point-mixed-score.
To further your argument maybe after the timeout all the men on the D
team mark up on the O women and D women mark up on O men to try to
limit them to one point...probably ensures they get 1 though.
I also find it lame when a mixed team just hucks or throws from guy to
guy for 100% of their scores...although I sure can't disagree with
their strategy if it's working for them, and their women (and less
talented men) don't mind working hard on D and hiding on O.
Again, maybe folks have some better ideas for rule changes...
Really any rule change where a score can be worth more than 1 point is
going to cause some weird end-game problems in theory, but no one
complains when two football teams exchange field goals back and forth
and then right at the end the team down by six scores a touchdown and
extra point and wins. Maybe that's a bad comparison...
Dave Klink
mui...@gmail.com
team mark up on the O women and D women mark up on O men to try to
limit them to one point...probably ensures they get 1 though.
Actually I would love for that to happen if I was on O, because I would
just immediately dump to a woman and then throw to a guy being guarded
by a woman.
Dave Klink
her...but I won't doubt your skills ;) of disk placement seeing as how
I don't know you. I will say that were I in that position I would not
change gender matchups because I'd want my ladies to shut down theirs.
Maybe encourage the men to poach the front corners though.
In any case, if situations like this could arise, I'd say teams sure
would have more incentive to teach their ladies to be able to get open
for dumps, throws scores, cut to get the disc, etc, than if they could
simply ignore them and take the next throw to the next open guy.
Dave
Handy
Some of the best mixed teams I've played against did the opposite of
what you're saying and had women getting most of the discs on O,
capitalizing on their superior talent to many other teams. One team I
played against played a HoStack with three female handlers. There you
need great defenders for both women (who need to cover those give and
go and fast moving handler cuts) and men (because covering a good
HoStack is a bitch if Sockeye and Furious have taught us anything with
their recent successes). This was devastating for many teams at the
tourney.
Rethinking the team organization makes sense in light of this, but
rethinking rules is too contrived. Having gender switched disc pickups
totally bastardizes the flow of the game (as if people are keeping
track of who had the last pick up was anyway...) and switching the pull
seems more a formality than an equalizer.
In short, mixed teams could stand to change some strategies, but the
rules are not hindering the game any more than any other division.
Zontal
you do have some interesting ideas) I am just curious what your playing
background is? Are you a mixed player? How long have you been playing
mixed? At what level? etc...
I ask because its been my experience that peoples views of mixed vary
greatly due to their playing background, including (but not limited to)
any or all of the above.
Just wondering what you are basing your arguements off of. Thanks
Dave Klink
rule changes aren't the way to go, but no one has yet suggested a good
solution to either of the problems...and I have yet to hear an argument
that they aren't problems either.
Handy, I actually completely agree that if your team's women are better
than the other team's, then your women should run the O and the men
should stay out of the way...I think I highlighted that in my
post...the team I play on played 4 lady cutters all the time last year
in a horizontal, and it worked great. However, my team's women were
much better than the other team's women in games we did that, or at
least compared to the disparity between the two team's male squads.
Problem is that when all things are about equal (ie. both teams have
equally good women and men or close), then it's the best strategy to
just play through the men, as that's the higher completion percentage
based on what we know statistically about ultimate, at least until the
other team starts leaving women uncovered to poach the male passes.
Dave
Dave Klink
Is a good idea only good because it comes from someone with quality
ethos? Well, don't know if I've got that or not, but anyway, here's
that bio you wanted...
I play on Flaming Moe in mixed. We've never been to natties as a team
but we've beaten a lot of teams that go there...and obviously lost to a
lot of them too...so I guess I've played at pretty high level mixed the
last 2 years, but probably a lot more in the mid-range. I captained
St. John's in college (open)...a decent regionals level MN
team...recent grad.
I've been on Moe for 4 years...every year we have picked up more
talented women from college teams, other mixed club teams, and even a
few from women's club, and every year we've gotten better. My opinion
on the team's development:
2002: we had fairly avg talent on the whole...probably a lower-end
central regionals team.
2003: better men (picked up some and also some just improved) but women
were about the same level (picked up some new young ones though). In
the 5th-8th range at regions.
2004: even better men (again a few pickups and a lot of improving old
players), and women were getting a little better (picked up new talent
and improved old talent). Had a rough regionals, but beat CLX 3 times
that year (lost 4) and beat Hot Action (7x) and Carleton (2x) (the
other two nationals goers) every time we saw them.
2005: men and women were roughly equally good (picked up a few very
talented women and the vets got even better in off-season...men's team
improved perhaps a bit too). Regionals competition was very tough
compared to previous 3 years (new teams were created and other teams
got better too), more teams as good or better than us this year, but I
still think we got better than '04.
I guess I have not yet even considered what these or other rule changes
would do to my team...might work to our advantage for a bit since we
are ahead of the game on women's talent in mixed, although most of our
biggest comp. is too, but I would hope it would quickly bring up more
teams with more talented women. I do know that we've worked very hard
to get talented people (women especially) on the team, and also yes
we've worked hard to develop all our players.
Once again, to summarize the two big problems:
1. When women and men are roughly equally talented on both teams,
regardless of quality of skill, it's currently good strategy to mostly
ignore the women on O (with few exceptions).
2. Because of this and other factors, the incentive to develop men on O
is much greater than the incentive to develop women on O in mixed.
Dave Klink
Zontal
First an apology, I didn't notice the "Flaming Moe" portion at the end
of your original post. However, even knowing that doesn't go to
completely give a background.
Re: Your question "Is an idea good because it comes from someone with
quality ethos?" it may not ultimately affect the validity of an idea
but at some level it does. However it can, and it can affect if people
are willing to attempt to enact change or even engage in a
conversation. If someone that had never played ultimate suggested major
changes in how the game is played (which the 2 point rule could be
considered) I would guess that a good portion of the community would be
put off by that and respond (possibly without thinking) with some sort
of variation of "what does he/she know? He/she has never played". The
reason I asked you directly of your experience is that there is often a
lot of criticism of mixed by folks that don't play mixed (no comment on
my opinions of those criticisms) At times I feel that before one across
the board criticizes or suggests changes for something they need to
experience it. For something like ultimate that has a wide range of
levels of play, from pickup to nationals level, what level someone
plays at can very easily color their view of the sport.
Regarding your background, you seem to have a wide spread background of
ultimate, both mixed and open. So in that sense you know what you are
talking about. You might not be on a Nationals level team (by virtue of
not ever qualifying in 4 years) but you have experience on what could
be described as an upper echelon team. You have played open and mixed,
and I assume watched some women's so you have an idea of the
differences in the games. In my mind (maybe not in anyone else's, but
I'd be surprised) that gives you a lot of base to be talking from.
In fairness to you, my background: Been playing with the UPA since July
2001. Prior to this Feb 2005 it was all club mixed since then its been
college open and club mixed. However the college open has been as
someone trying to form a college team in what amounts to the middle of
nowhere. The nearest teams to play are two hours away (2 teams) and
then everyone else is at least 6 hours. Last spring sectionals for us
was over 14 hours away. So we are still a very young team a very new
team. My club mixed experience was in the Mid Atlantic and was for
teams of varying levels. Never finished better than middle of the pack
at regionals though (competed 2001-2004) and then in mixed in the NW
this past fall when my team was the same as my college team with some
women added. Needless to say we didn't make it out of Sectionals. I
have gotten to experience a lot of levels of ultimate and seen a lot
more.
Regarding your ideas: In general I think that in mixed you should play
to your strengths/matchups/etc. If your women are better than the other
teams, you focus on them, and vice versa. With teams that are able to
play 4 women/3 men its because they feel their 4th woman (at least) is
better than the other teams 4th woman. If a team's women are average I
think you are right, the team plays to the men. However I have been on
teams that as a result stop guarding the women. The guys matchup and
the women play a very poachy, switch-heavy defense, guarding lanes more
than their person. I don't think that teams can truly succeed in mixed
by completely ignoring their women. As a result I think that the
incentive on any team is to develop your best matchups. Unfortunately
that happens to be men in most cases.
I think forcing an artificial rule, like the two point rule, on to
mixed doesn't really incorporate women any more. All it does is either
create women cherry picking, or maintaining a male dominated offense
until just outside the endzone when you then involve the women. Is that
really addressing the issues you bring up?
By the same token do either of the other rules really involve women
more in the game? Alternating pulls doesn't involve women in the
offense or the defense. It just means someone else is pulling.
Alternating gender pickups on turns, same kind of thing. Woman picks it
up, dumps it, and then is out of the offense again. Or perhaps the
ideas could hinder the development of women...a smart team, knowing
that a woman has to pick up every other turn, switches on the turns as
much as possible. Now instead of a woman picking up and being guarded
by a woman the opposing team switchs a guy with a "great mark" onto
that woman (if possible). The guy gets the block and the woman is
discouraged and turned off by the whole experience.
I think your intentions are great, but I think that we (the ultimate
community) need to come up with ideas, or just work on our respective
teams to develop everyone more, and to involve everyone more. In
regards specifically to women, I honestly don't know how to do that. I
think that ideas such as yours are good ideas, but in practice in the
greater ultimate community and at tournaments they might be
ineffective, or at worst counter productive. Do I have concrete
solutions to the two problems you bring up? Not really but then again
on the teams I have played with or captained, particularly mixed, we
make an effort to develop everyone equally. I don't know if the level
of our play has suffered as a result or not.
la.donn...@gmail.com
this topic here. Plus, I have two X chromosomes, and I probably
qualify as a woman who feels a bit excluded from a lot of play, since
I'm a pretty new player on a team whose players' experience levels are
all over the map.)
Near as I can tell, stacking the rules in a gender-biased fashion
mostly results in a lot of whining and bitching on everyone's part,
often for reasons that have little to do with actually playing the
game. Personally, while I think a fair percentage of ultimate-playing
men could stand to involve their female teammates a bit more in the
actual playing of the game, I don't think the rules should be changed.
Players of whatever gender who don't utilize the capacity of every
single person on their team do so at their extreme disadvantage. They
do so to the detriment of the team as a whole, as well, but I think
that's just simply the hazard of not understanding team dynamics.
(Side note: our university has an intermural league which could
probably be described as Pee-Wee Ultimate. The level of play is...
minimal, though it is a lot of fun. During the co-ed season, a score
caught by a woman counts as two points, which is therefore relevant to
the current discussion.)
I think the two-point rule is a dandy thing in intermurals, but
shouldn't go any farther. It's an excellent way to get absolute
beginners into the game, and it also forces guys who would otherwise be
oblivious to women (on the field) to recognize that They Are Players
Too. Otherwise, it's a little demeaning, and if I never hear it
discussed again, I will be a happy person.
We do end up with a bit of a Catch-22, in that most people will not
throw to someone who they do not think has a good chance of catching or
throwing, but that nobody will get better at either unless they catch
and throw in a game. I have spent far, far too many games feeling
dispirited and frustrated because I never touch the disc, but I don't
think forcing a rule change is going to improve that situation. If a
player doesn't feel that he or she gets enough playing time, he or she
should discuss it with the rest of the team, make whatever improvements
are necessary to his or her playing, or join another team. I really
enjoy the fact that ultimate can be played as a co-ed sport, and I
think that automatically assuming that all female players need special
assistance built into the rules to get the mean ol' guys to let them
play goes against the entire spirit of the game. It's also just asking
for some teams to get completely smoked by really good women, which
will be amusing, but won't improve anyone's game.
Mortakai
implement the "no time-outs in a time or hard cap" rule. ... or even
have it agreed beforehand as part of the captain's clause. Then your
example would simply be a turnover... final score 16-13 because the
other team obviously would score woman-to-woman just to rub it in!
Eitan
what I have seen recently, Mixed is attracting more top players and
young athletic players than it has in the past. With these players in
hand, more teams have been experimenting with different offenses
depending on the matchups the team comes across. For instance, my team
(Slow White and the Seven Dwarfs), in the last year has used a vertical
stack, a split stack, and a 3-1-3 offense with our women as the primary
cutters. Another example from the Northeast is uncivil union who
always seems to come up with clever and tough to defend offenses which
rely heavy on their women.
At Nationals it seemed like all the teams had particular strategies for
how to use their men and women, which altered depending on the opponent
and weather. When we played Bad Larry on Thursday, they used a
poaching strategy pretty effectively. On Saturday, that strategy did
not work, so they came up with something else. This is why I am so
fond of mixed...in addition to the regular strategies of ultimate,
gender strategy must be employed, especially at the top levels. I say,
let mixed run the course it is on, and see where it ends up.
Eitan
Slow White
lumberjack
when those rule changes are predicated on sex -- will serve only to
confuse players. More over, this will necessarily add elements of
sexism into the game. If a badass woman catches a score, why should
that be worth more than a klutzy male's scoring catch?
CLX is a perfect example of a Mixed team successfully utilizing their
women to further team goals. More than a handful of people have
commented on CLXs extensive use of their women. (Some will argue they
play the most well-balanced game in Mixed.) Their results in Nationals
the past two years speak to this.
The Mixed team for which i play often fielded 3/4 lines because our
women are higher quality players than our men. (One of our female
opponents once berated our men for playing 3/4: "you're men are weak
bitches," as if there is some sort of machismo that dictates playing
4/3.)
Also, many Mixed teams can't field 3/4 lines consistently because their
teams are little more than a Sausage Fest with two or three
girlfriends. As such, it was often to our advantage to play 3/4 simply
to wear out the other team's women.
I realize much of this might not address the concerns listed above when
elite Mixed levels are discussed, but they are quite apropos to
average-to-low level Mixed competitions. But take a look at the
point-by-point summaries at the recent World Championships. Those
women were just as integral to the success of a team as the men. You
want a better balance of men/women being involved in the flow of Mixed
Ultimate? Recruit and train better women (and men; when everyone on
the team is a badass, there is no need to "play percentages").
Personally, i always throw to whomever is open. It never occurs to me
to check and see if the open reciever was the bloke who dropped my last
pass, is a rookie, has tits, is wearing an eye patch, etc. Until i
play for an elite level Mixed team, the dubious strategy of passing
primarily to men will never enter my mind. Throw to the open person,
sex be damned.
Dave Klink
changes are lacking (in that they don't fix the whole problem by any
means). I also dislike my rule change suggestions more after reading
all you've said so far, especially #2. I have comments.
I absolutely agree that whether it's out of a sense of good will,
fairness, or strategy after realizing that good women can really
improve a mixed team performance in a division where most teams don't
have good women yet, some teams, leagues, etc do work to develop women,
and most teams throw to ladies all over the place on offense even when
it may not be strategically the best move. So, maybe the problem isn't
as big as it might look on paper. I do say, though, that teams like
Flaming Moe, Slow White, Whor$hack, etc that use their women
effectively are not where you see the development or equality problems.
Yes, teams like those do benefit right now from using their women, but
that's because their women are often so much better than the
competition--they get open under easier (without much deep threatening
at times) than their male peers because their defenders aren't as good
yet or because many of the women in mixed just aren't as athletic of
defenders yet...in any case...I don't mean to mixed women bash, as
that's not what all this is about...but when two equal teams play each
other, say two teams that both use their women a lot and have really
good women, and the lady cutters aren't getting 5 yards of separation
on their cuts, and their marks are preventing the easy breaks and hucks
(yeah, good mixed women huck), and their fellow female teammates aren't
open easy for the continues, then the best strategy is to not run the O
through the ladies, as their completion percentage with tight D is
lower than the men's completion percentage with tight D.
All I'm saying is based on big theories and broad generalizations. I'm
not saying that there aren't certain ladies on each team that have
higher completion percentages with tight D than certain men. That
would be very inaccurate. Most nationals level mixed teams have
talented ladies, or at a minimum talented female defenders, although
there's also probably still a long way to go (both male and female)
before it all peaks. Problem is that unless the mixed game develops
much different than open and women's have, the female side of mixed is
not going to be able to have as few turnovers as the male side when
it's all said and done. And actually, it may be even easier for the
3-4 men on the mixed field to minimize turnovers because there are less
comparable defenders out there than in open.
If that's what the rest of the players want, I'm fine with letting
mixed run the course it is on rules-wise--I love playing it! But, I
think that as the competition gets better and better, it's going to get
less and less fun for the ladies if teams want to win...and less and
less good for their development...as we already see it being rather
poor for ladies development at the lower levels (except for the "good
will" atmospheres). Sure that's a broad generalization, sure I could
be wrong, but that's what I worry about as I go to bed at night, and
it's not a chivalrous worry, it's not charity that I want us to do
something about it, it's too make sure that this division gets as
strong as it possibly can and attracts as many really talented players
as it can and doesn't turn off all the talent on the women's side once
push comes to shove and it turns out that it's best played 4v4 or 3v3
with 6-8 active spectators. The fact that high level games aren't like
this right now proves nothing except that they are not yet to the top
level and do not yet have the best strategy for the highest % chance to
win. Eventually, the best mixed teams will have to balance out
throwing to their women to keep them happy on the team (which they'll
mostly do in non-close games), and not throwing to most of their women
to keep the O percentage as high as possible. If they choose the good
will approach, the spirit approach, or whatever the spin is you want to
put on it, then they'll have a lower chance of winning. Just my
opinion.
Will possibly regret some of this posting tomorrow, but like I said, I
don't have a blog.
Dave Klink
Matt
you did. It is a stab at making the game better... which is exactly
what everybody wants to do.
Thank you
Skippy
I also play in the Northeast (WMD), and we have placed 7th in our
Region two years in a row. For my part, I feel like my team feels the
slow trend in competition having an impact on the recruiting side of
things. Men's and Women's are very elite-oriented. Most teams, in
most Regions, have one or two very strong teams that represent that
area. As Mixed is much newer, there has still been some parity among
teams, but that is changing. If you have a top-level team, and you can
recruit and attract the top players, both male and female, you will
have an advantage, no doubt. ( That's not to say that practice and team
chemistry don't also matter as well as many other factors). (the rich
get richer, the rest have to find a way to beat the rich).
Playing in the Northeast, where competition is fierce, it is very hard
to say that changing rules would make a difference in how the game is
played. Some teams may only use their men on offense. If that is the
case, then when they play a team with equally strong men, they will
lose, mostly cause their opponent's women will beat them. (or bad
karma, if you ask me). (p.s. sure, it may be popular to play that way,
but if the women are not reliable and can't compete, you will have
problems. Why? Because the huck to your tall guy won't work every
time, and you have to be able to play solid zone offense)
It is coed for a reason. It is human nature that men and women are
different, but most women I know would be pissed if we went and changed
the rules for them. I know lots of women who don't like coed because
they don't get the PT, but the fact is, it is up to the team to decide
what it's strategy will be. (Also, simply put: some people are better
athletes than others. Experience and athleticism go a long way, no
matter what your gender.)
My team has played against, and beaten pretty much every team from our
Region (at a major UPA event) that has played at Nationals, and on "any
given sunday" (as it were) any team can win. That's why it is a sport.
I would never play mens. I hate the testosterone and attitude. I
would never play anything other than coed because it is much more
interesting, and requires new and innovative ways to play O and D that
you don't get in a single-gender situation.
I say, if you are a woman and you don't get the disc, or you are a man
in the same situation, and you are not happy, then that's not the team
for you.
My name is Skippy and I have been playing ultimate for 15 years. High
School (Newton South) and College (U. Mass. Zoodisc) and I have been
playing with Weapon's of Massachusetts Destruction from Cambridge, MA
for 3 years now...
...And I still have to fight hard to get PT as everyone, men and women
alike, are very athletic and dedicated to their teammates.
Dan "Skippy" Sigel
WMD
p.s. Like coed? Come play disc in ACAPULCO!!! sign up NOW. Very few
spots left. Check the UPA tournament site for the link! 3rd week in
Jan 2006. Don't miss it! :)
bills
although I have played a lot of mixed ultimate over the last decade. I
hope to join a mixed team for next year's club series, depending a bit
on where I find myself living.
I really, really like your rule suggestion #1: alternating the pull
between males and females. What does that hurt? It ensures more
female participation while introducing very little
I really don't like rule suggestion #2: alternating who picks up the
disc. This would create too much confusion on the field, as it would
not be easy to remember who picked up last.
I'm not sold on rule suggestion #3: cross-gender scores worth 2. I
think I'd be more open to this rule if there were a bit of a tweak to
make it more difficult, such as cross-gender scores of at least half
the field (or maybe just outside the brick mark) count for 2. Without
a restriction, that would give too much power to the women and make
end-zone strategy too discrete (once you get close to the end zone,
don't score until you find an open woman).
Too few ladies have commented on these suggestions. Any other women
(who play either Mixed or Women's) have any thoughts?
$$bills
bob_...@hotmail.com
That's pretty lame. "
I see a lot of problems with a 2 point for female scores rule.
Similar to muis' example consider this one: Guy catches disc in the
endzone. Refuses to acknowledge he is in (the rules do not say he must)
and looks to throw to a woman.
It is not just near the end of a game that the two point rule leads
to wierdness. In an upwind downwind game if you are near a score a
turnover could be preferable to having a guy score for a single point.
One of the perceived problems is that men are sometimes able to
poach off their man and catch up to a throw to a woman. If a throw is
potentially for two points this poaching will happen more often and not
less often.
Lastly though is the philosophy that coed ultimate "works". Special
rules are contrary
to that spirit.
,Bob Koca
AW
confusing and people would aurgue a lot more. I think if you are a
woman and have issues with your team not thrwoing to you then you need
to tlak to your team and jsut practice throwing a lot. I think playing
mixed has made me a better player and i am going to say the same for
someother females on teams i have played with. When we played a lot of
our points were scored by our women and i almost think its kind of
insulting that someone thinks women dont know how to catch so their
scores should be worth more points, and i think it would be way to easy
for many good mixed teams to jsut ahve there women score all the time
and the game would be changed a lot.
Bell
Gambler
> that's because their women are often so much better than the
> competition--they get open under easier (without much deep threatening
> at times) than their male peers because their defenders aren't as good
> yet or because many of the women in mixed just aren't as athletic of
> defenders yet...in any case...I don't mean to mixed women bash, as
> that's not what all this is about...but when two equal teams play each
> other, say two teams that both use their women a lot and have really
> good women, and the lady cutters aren't getting 5 yards of separation
> on their cuts, and their marks are preventing the easy breaks and hucks
> (yeah, good mixed women huck), and their fellow female teammates aren't
> open easy for the continues, then the best strategy is to not run the O
> through the ladies, as their completion percentage with tight D is
> lower than the men's completion percentage with tight D.
It seems that this part of your logic is slightly flawed because it
seems to assume that women playing against someone at the same level of
skill can't contribute to the offense (i.e. they don't get open or
can't break the mark or can't huck). All you have to do is take a look
at the women's division to see that isn't true. Talented women still
manage to get open against talented defenders. Good throwers still
break the force against athletic marks. Smart teams still create
opportunties for open hucks against good defense.
Sure, there might be more turnovers in the women's game than in open,
but I think that a mixed team with an eye for maximizing its completion
percentages would realize that utilizing all 7 players on the field
makes it easier for any one person to get open which would in turn
improve the entire team's completion percentages.
Neva Cherniavsky
college ultimate, then played Nationals and Worlds with a mixed team.
Since then I've only played women's. Mixed was a great experience and
probably improved my play in some areas; however, these happened to be the
areas I was already good at (cutting deep and defending).
I would be interested to hear from women who felt that their throwing or
handling skills got better as a direct result of playing mixed ultimate.
I know there are great women handlers that have had a real impact on their
mixed teams (Pam Kraus comes to mind) but my impression is they had these
skills before they began playing with that team.
On the other hand, on a woman's team every player is expected to be able
to make upfield throws. Throwing in general is drilled (in my experience,
more often than on a mixed team). Women work on their pulls and long
throws because they may actually be useful. On a mixed team, the average
man can usually throw farther than the best woman, so there's not really
any point in having your women huck it.
My advice to young women just out of college is always to play women's,
because it makes you a better and more complete player. Obviously, if the
women's team in the area is boring and the mixed team is super-fun, or if
the women's team is struggling and the mixed team goes to Nationals, they
should take that into consideration. But I also think it's much more fun
to actually contribute in a tangible way to a team's success, and that's
more likely to happen on a women's team.
Finally - super-long post I know - I played the 2 point mixed-gender rule
at a tournament (BOTB or WUFF) a couple of years back. It had to be a
huck to count as two points. I liked it a lot. I seem to remember Becky
LeDonne playing us and hucking it a lot.
- Neva
Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins
The average male player is faster than the average female player. Right?
If you can accept that theory, keep reading.
In a 4/3 game, whenever a woman has the disc, there are 4 males and 2
females running around on D. When a man has the disc, there are 3 males
and 3 females. Purely based on speed, there is going to be better
defensive coverage of the field, on average, when a woman has the disc.
(I am assuming that the male and female mark, which aren't based on speed,
are similar relative to the thrower in terms of field coverage).
Add to this that in any given throw, a man v. woman matchup is tilted
purely based on speed, at least marginally.
Translation: Men in general poach onto women's throws more often/effectively
than women poach onto men's throws.
Conclusion: If everything else is totally equivalent, you are better off
with male players touching the disc relatively more often.
Problems with this logic: Obviously, if only men touch the disc, you are
more predictable, which a D can exploit. This difference in minimized by
good throwing, which tends to exploit poaching. Poaching is also more
difficult if the other team can recognize switches well, and has the
organization to work together to exploit them.
Also, it neglects what I think is a general trend in the differences
between female and male cutters (also based on speed):
[Begin tangent]
Men get 'open' by larger distances, but also give up these separations
often. Women, generally, get less separation from a defender, but give it
back less often. As the players in general get faster, better, and have
better marks, the field starts to effectively shrink. In this case, it
becomes more beneficial to have players that can reliably get open in less
space (See Team USA for an example of a team with so much speed that it
became hard to find open spots on the field until they learned to adapt.
Players that reliably get open in small acreage, like Deb, Dom, Miranda
and Zip, become incrementally more valuable)
[Ok, back from the tangent.]
Why is this difference important at all? I can think of 2 reasons:
1) There is a legitimate reason for why it can be a dominant strategy to
not use women as much or more than men...and why the best teams typically
use their women well. Male touches have a benefit in terms of defensive
field coverage. As the average skill in marking, throwing, cutting
and reading the field increases, the benefit in riding the men decreases,
until it starts to hurt you.
2) The legitimate reason for this strategy is NOT a difference in skill.
Many people have tried to use this "difference in average skill" argument
to explain why there are, in general, more turnovers in women's ultimate
than in coed, and more in coed than in men's. The real reason is that, for
women, the field is effectively larger.
Making up a random number here...but say the average woman is 80% as fast
as the average man (Average Guy runs a 8 second 60-yard-dash, Average
gal runs a 10 second 60-yard-dash? I have no idea.) If this is true, then
to compare skill, the men's field needs to be more like 95 yards long. Add
another 25 yards of playing field and tell me that men will score at a
higher rate than women.
When every 1-2-huck-goal play becomes a
1-2-huck-swing-swing-gainer-dump-gainer-goal...how many men's teams would
keep their high success rates?
While female athletes are not encouraged (in most sports) as well as male
athletes are...if there is a difference in skill due to this...then this
is surely (hopefully) a temporary situation, and will correct itself eventually.
So I conclude; the only real difference in male and female players is
speed. The higher the level of play, the less this advantage makes
men-only offenses a dominant strategy in co-ed. The best way to even out
the genders in terms of touches, In The Long Term, is not to change the
rules, but rather to increase the level of skill in all players.
In the short term, who knows? Lots of coed flag football leagues have very
specific rules to increase female roles in the game...short term
effective, but there isn't exactly a co-ed SuperBowl coming any time soon.
Gambler? Someone else? Defy/Grade/Improve my logic.
blw
danfri...@yahoo.com
like to read more of your thoughts.
D
ultimat...@gmail.com
(STOLEN, unabashedly, from the new breakmark.com shirt, i loved it)
I haven't seen or watched too much mixed ultimate late - haven't seen
many women pulling in the game. I started working on pulls because I
wanted a reason to be on the line when it mattered.
A mixed team is only going to be as good as its men - not necessarily
skill-wise or athletic-wise, they gotta be smart as well to know how to
distribute to their women and stay outta the way.
I haven't read the entire thread because some of the posts are soooo
long - but I think women can develop skills playing co-ed but they also
typically develop some bad habits and don't usually develop the skills
that are necessary for the elite club women's game.
> On a mixed team, the average
> man can usually throw farther than the best woman, so there's not really
> any point in having your women huck it.
totally disagree with that. it doesn't matter if a dude can huck it
farther if a woman can put it to an open defender deep.
becky
pgw
Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins wrote:
> 2) The legitimate reason for this strategy is NOT a difference in skill.
> Many people have tried to use this "difference in average skill" argument
> to explain why there are, in general, more turnovers in women's ultimate
> than in coed, and more in coed than in men's. The real reason is that, for
> women, the field is effectively larger. [Cogent argument to this effect
> snipped, but the upshot being that BLW thinks and/or hopes that the only
> reason the women's game has more turnovers is that they have to go
> farther, relative to their speed, than do men, to get to the endzone.]
> Gambler? Someone else? Defy/Grade/Improve my logic.
Someone else here. My comments are that I think there is at least one
other factor, and I think it's probably more important than the one you
mention, though I will not try to back up this second claim with
argument because I wouldn't know where to begin. Call it a hunch.
The other factor I refer to likewise has to do with speed, but also
size and leaping ability, which I hope even the most fair-minded
readers will readily concede are generally different as between the
genders.
My point is this: a man is a far bigger target than a woman. I don't
just mean that he's six feet tall with a six foot wingspan, and she's
5'5" with a 5'5" wingspan. He can also jump higher and farther, and
can cover more ground more quickly. This means that your average male
receiver can get his hands on a lot more errantly thrown discs than
your average female receiver. This makes no difference on a perfect
throw, but how common is that? Anyone who's ever played cups knows
that it's surprisingly tough to routinely hit a small target with
precision.
It is also possible that because of differences in strength (e.g. in
the muscles of the hand and forearm), men have fewer drops, and fewer
and less severe errant throws -- especially as fatigue sets in. (You
could reasonably call this a difference in "skill," but you could also
call it a difference in strength only, as it would have nothing to do
with technique.) But I have no data to support that hypothesis. Call
it another hunch.
Paul P
Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins wrote:
> It comes down, I think, to one variable: speed.
Ben, you make a lot of sense here and your post really put some of the
pieces together for me.
Some have said here and in the past that women's throws are a big part
of the limitation of the women's and mixed game and I'm not sure I buy
that. I have played with quite a few women who had full-field hucks.
On average, there may not be as many who have it as on men's, but there
is a pretty sizable number of them. They are a *huge* asset in the
mixed game because it isn't expected and there is, as you point out,
more speed on the field to run the throws down. (On O as well as D.)
I think the best point you make is that the field is bigger for the
women. Hucking isn't as rewarding in the women's game not necessarily
because they can't send it, but because they can't always go get it.
Does this seem right or am I out of my mind?
Paul P
rshe...@gmail.com
with the rules you suggested. All they would do is make them start or
end the play while they could be ignored the rest of the point. I've
played high level coed for 3 years now and have gone through a lot of
the frustration of not getting thrown to regardless of thinking that I
was open. No one has yet discussed why women don't get thrown to
other than guys looking women off because they 'turn it over more.'
I think the lack of women touching the disc is more a result of the
style of play more often than someone consciously thinking about
throwing only to guys because its 'high percentage' or because
women are slower and a male will poach off when they see a woman
cutting. And they are match ups. Either you can beat your defender
(who is normally the same gender) or you can't.
I think a big portion of why women touch the disc less than men in a
coed game is due to two main reasons. First, women's ultimate is
mainly short-medium passes while men's is medium-long passes. There
are a lot more swings and dumps in women's also. In a coed game, a
lot of women continue to make these shorter cuts and the men don't
throw it them because they are not looking for that short 10 ft pass.
A lot of women don't adjust to what the thrower is looking for and
since its not what the male thrower is used to, they won't throw that
pass.
The second difference is style as pointed out above is the amount of
space a defender has on their player. If I am 4 feet in front of my
girl, she will not D a decent pass thrown to me. However, I would not
even consider throwing to a guy whose defender is 4 feet behind him.
Men are used to seeing/requiring a larger space between O and D players
in order to want to throw that pass. Consequentially, women tend to
get 'looked off' when they think they are open. After adjusting my
cuts and trying to make myself more open that what I think I have to be
to get the disc, I touch it a lot more.
And to the argument on speed, after 3 years playing of coed, other than
long floaty hucks where it is a distance speed/height competition, I
think I have seen just as many, if not more, women poaching men to get
D's than men poaching women that result in D's. Possibly because
some women end up standing around b/c they don't feel like they are a
part of the offense so the female D players start playing the lanes so
they feel like they are doing something. If you're an active part of
the offense (or not standing in the way close to the disc), you should
be able to make your defender actually guard/respect you so they
can't go poach off regardless of your gender.
rs
Dave Klink
hearing all the perspectives. There's been a lot of interesting
points...
Gambler--I think you are right that if my premise was that women with
good D on them can't contribute to the O, then my logic would be
flawed. I think basically my intended premise was that women with good
D can't contribute to the O at as high of a completion percentage,
but certainly they can contribute to the O. Certainly women can get
open on good D, throw around good marks, etc, as we see in women's and
mixed all the time. However, for whatever reason, the disc seems to
switch possession more in the women's game when they have good D on
them than in the open game with similarly good D (relatively speaking).
In light of that, I tried to claim that given the choice between an
offense that sets up primarily (if not exclusively) male throwers and
receivers (both as primary cutters and dumps), or an offense that is
more inclusive (or female driven), it would make for a higher offense
completion percentage to choose the male-dominated setup.
One flaw in my logic may lie in the jump from comparing two different
divisions and applying that to a third division...especially if the
relative field size/speed stuff Wiggins discussed is the only real
factor. There are two main issues here I want to consider:
1. Poaching (and other D strategy). So, you go with that male
dominated offense because of some crazy theory (or whatever reason) and
it flows well your first 2 scores of the game...your ladies clear out
well, stay actively uninvolved, etc, and the guys work their apparently
higher completion percentages as they easily isolate 1v1 matchups all
over the field. BUT, the 4th point of the game, the females on the D
team get a feel for what's going on, and poaching ensues. They start
clogging your male's lanes instead of chasing their women, doubling
up defense on the primary male dump instead of blocking the big swing
to their women who has yet to touch the disc, etc. This would likely
force the O team to start passing the disc to their female counterparts
who are now mostly uncovered, right? I'd assume so. Maybe it would
even encourage high level teams to develop their ladies for when this
happens. Wiggins is probably right that smart O teams can benefit from
being poached with good throws and smart general O. However, even if
that is the case, that just goes to show my worry-that the co-ed game
is set up so that, when talent equals out, it's better to set up your
male-dominated O, and only involve the women when they start getting
really insanely open because their defenders leave them to
poach...maybe it's better news than I first preached though, since
development might still be important (at least to some teams), although
not sure about the fun level.
2. These have to be generalizations because there are always
exceptions, so let's worry about the avg joe's and jane's of
ulti. There are differences between the avg male ulti player and the
avg female. But, which differences matter for a team's offensive
scoring percentage/completion (OSP I'll call it)? Furthermore, you
can't compare the difference just between open and women's because
what really matters to this post is: which differences between the avg
mixed man and the avg mixed women make the OSP different when the disc
is primarily in the possession of one sex vs. the other?
Wiggins seem to claim (unless I am mis-interpreting) that the only
relevant OSP difference between the sex's is speed, and because of
speed difference, a number of factors make the female OSP lower than
the male, especially since we play on the same sized field despite the
speed difference (this is sorta like in B-ball with the different
heights of the hoop and different sizes of the ball, no?).
Furthermore, he applied it to mixed with the argument that it's
better for a male to have the disc because the total speed/coverage of
the 6 non-marking defenders will be lower than if a female had the
disc. All this sounds pretty good, but are we missing anything? I'm
not sure...maybe speed is the biggest thing, or at least coverage area
(which might include more than speed), and that alone might be enough
to keep me from sleeping at night. But what about height/jumps? I
guess that counts as coverage area, but if the thrower (doesn't
matter the sex) makes a bad toss (which happens at every level),
doesn't the avg male players (who is 5'10" or whatever with a
larger veticle) have a better chance at the save than the avg female
player (5'5" w/ possibly smaller vert)? Also, what about throwing
range, and how that factors into getting open? Is that just a skill
difference? I'm not so sure...the avg experienced female hucker
(there's probably less of them out there than men right now because
of development issues...if that clears up confusion) probably can't
put it as many yards as the avg experienced male hucker...so the D is
probably going to adjust when they have that knowledge too. Lastly,
and this is back to the size of the basketball, is there a difference
between the ability of a person with small hands and a person with big
hands to catch or throw the disc? What about long limbs and short
limbs? I could go on, I think, and not all of them would be favorable
to the avg male, but don't any of them make a difference in addition
to speed?
I agree with the assessment that talent differences across or within
divisions should not provide sufficient evidence to necessitate a rule
change. However, the important differences between males and females
in mixed (or wherever) have nothing to do with talent-they just have
to do with ability...and even that sounds mean. A man and a woman that
are seen as equally talented in ultimate will likely NOT run at the
same speed, have the same throwing range, or be able to uphold the same
part of their team's OSP...if that stuff is equal between them, then
damn, either he should quit or she should play a sport where she can
get paid to play, cuz she's amazing. Maybe I've made a bad
argument somewhere in this thread, but I think I have tried to keep
TALENT difference discussion irrelevant to my arguments (other than the
development stuff as a result of the problems I'm seeing).
Lastly, the only rule change I now support from my original three is
the mixed gender pull rule. I also like the idea of a 2 point mixed
gender line, although that gets complicated because if the avg male can
throw further, then where do you put the line?
Respectfully unsure, of everything,
Dave
Dave Klink
I think a mixed team will only be as good as their women and men
together. I'm just not sure they MUST to be good at the same things
though, and I basically think that when both teams are evenly matched
all around, mixed is set up to encourage a male-dominated offense.
Yeah, if your ladies can't huck, that's a HUGE disadvantage.
Can anyone save mixed from the criticism that women should all go play
women's? I'd like to, but none of my posts have helped much so far.
On the other hand, I know a lot of talented women who are in mixed, but
I have thus far attributed that to their being so much better than most
of their defenders etc for why they get the chance to improve...in
other words they didn't come into the mixed game avg.
Paul P
rshe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The second difference is style as pointed out above is the amount of
> space a defender has on their player. If I am 4 feet in front of my
> girl, she will not D a decent pass thrown to me. However, I would not
> even consider throwing to a guy whose defender is 4 feet behind him.
Really? Four feet in front of the defense is pretty open, I don't care
what level you are playing at.
Go to, dude!
Paul P
Dave Klink
I've personally not discussed much of anything about what actually
happens right now in practice, or at least not argued much based on
that, but rather what could and possibly does and will happen
theoretically, based on some broad generalizations that I may have just
made up.
That being said, I think it's definitely worthwhile to discuss why
women aren't as involved in the current game (in the places where they
aren't as involved, assuming some places they are as or more involved),
and certainly that discussion would cover a great many more issues, and
would differ amongst a wide variety of different situations, teams,
etc, than this thread has so far covered.
I fear, though, that if reality starts being discussed more on this
thread, it may cause a lot of confusion between issues (although we
have already started to do that), and thus I recommend that folks start
to distinguish theory discussion from reality discussion before making
an argument...assuming that this thread is not about to die, in which
case, no worries about confusing anyone.
Also, rs, let me make some quick reality comments, as I believe our
teams have competed against each other on many occasions. I would
definitely backup what you have said that you do create a lot of
separation in order to get the disc as compared to most female cutters,
and that's more than should probably be required to warrant a throw,
although it also keeps the completion percentage higher than if your
defender were breathing down your neck (let's the thrower make an
easier throw with more touch, etc). I also think you are accurate in
saying that most of the men on your team (and mine, and most I've
played) tend to look for longer passes more than shorter as compared to
most of the ladies. I also think it's true that women get a lot of
poach D's in the current game.
Got any ideas to get women more involved in the real game?
shwanyboy
chumps into 3rd place Central Region chumps. The women, including rs,
will not throw to us unless we are 7 feet away from our defenders who
must at the time be a victim of a bear and/or cougar attack. As the
animal mauling has been occuring less and less frequently (which is
really a matter of tournament format - George?), us boys have
implemented a training regimen of cliff jumping, eating old VHS copies
of the Karate Kid, and mandatory bikini waxes for aerodynamism to
achieve the speed necessary to be a legitimate target in the CLX
offense. Our Dominatrices keep the leash tight. We ask them to pull
tighter.
Hot.
Shawn
Skippy
men getting used to throwing to women...
As a Spring/Summer/Fall league team captain, I feel it is my duty to
throw to any person who is open, especially if they are newer. I
always encourage my players to throw to the open cutters, but mostly it
is important to lead by example. That's the league level of play, of
course.
At the club level, it is up to the team to decide how or what they will
practice. For my own team, we encourage the development of everyone's
hucks and pulls, no matter what the gender. The more you can see what
each other is capable of the more things open up when you are in a game
situtation. For example: how many times does a woman have the disc
and everyone cuts in for her, and doesn't expect that they may have a
long throw in their arsenal. (Heck, it happened on my own team, and
when we finally opened our eyes, we suddenly had new weapons to add to
our offiense).
Also, men have to lose the ego and learn how to clear for women. A
woman can run deep but what good does it do if one of her male
teammates allows their defender to poach her? Again, that's a popular
strategy that some teams employ in order to open up other cuts.
Women do contribute. The top players, men or women, are top players
because they work hard, have worked hard, and continue to work hard on
the things they need to in order to succeed. All it takes for some
people, is to just get out the throw with someone.
Finally, there are lots of ways to play this sport. There are some
great coaches, teachers and captains, and some not-so-great. My advice
is to find the people you work well with, or would like to work well
with, and practice with them. Get on a practice squad and develop your
skills. You don't have to play womens to get the experience and
coaching that you need to become a great player, that is a myth if you
ask me. (ALSO, I know many women who have come and played mixed, and
then gone back to womens only to find they don't like it because it is
too SLOW for them. And that's what makes mixed so interesting and
different.)
Skippy
gramps
> Got any ideas to get women more involved in the real game?
from my perspective--veteran of swill-fests through club worlds--women
are involved in the mixed games when they have the disc handling
skills. period.
quick analogy:
if you have a person (any? gender) who is slower/shorter but can catch
everything they can reach and throw money passes--they're definately
out there--then they find a way to be involved in the offense as a
valuable handler and a sneaky cutter.
to get more women more involved in real games, they need to practice
their throws (i/o, o/i, invert, high release, blade, huck), their
catches (high, low, one-/two handed, thumb up/down), and decision
making skills (dump/huck at stall 9?).
which brings me to what i see as a main problem for the coed game--the
informality of "practice." except for the uber-elite club teams, most
coed practice is community pickup style or community league play where
the only structure is a set of cones and a vague agreement to stack on
a dead disc. in this setting, it's especially hard for women to improve
because of male-thrower gender bias and no one get the reps that a more
traditional practice allows.
so, if you've got a personal mission to get more women involved in the
game--which i do and hopefully those interested enough to read this do
to--then take the time to pass on your knowledge of quality ultimate
("how to ____", "when to ____", etc.) whenever you get the chance.
and, don't forget to buy Disc 3 (Potlatch 2005) from UltiVillage.
-chad
cannonball
Dave Klink
rules are contrary to that spirit."
,Bob Koca
Dear Bob Koca,
I like what you said in your post because it really got me thinking. I
had mentioned that I thought rule changes would be in the spirit of
mixed because they would ensure that team members of both sexes have to
be able to catch/throw/pull/whatever to succeed. You seem to
contradict that by saying that making special rules to ensure more
gender equality in mixed play go against the spirit of mixed because if
such rules exist, then mixed ultimate does not work on its own. Please
correct me if I'm twisting your words...I'm certainly not stating them
as simply (could be confusing myself).
Here's my struggle with your theory of the spirit of mixed--if we
really wanted to show that coed ultimate "works," would we not have to
define what "works" means? Also, are there any existing rules in place
that are there to make coed ultimate "work?" For example, the rule
that defense must gender match offense 3-4/4-3...isn't that a rule put
in place to help make coed ultimate work better? Does it also go
against the coed spirit in that it implies that it coed only "works" if
the same number of male and female players are out there at the same
time? I can't answer that question without defining "works."
Dear Everyone,
What is the spirit of mixed ultimate?
Sincerely,
Dave Klink
jenny
Since then I've played 5 years of mixed. I think Neva's probably right
that in general, women will develop into more complete players on a
women's team than on a mixed team of comparable level. But here are
some reasons why they might still want to play mixed instead:
1. Most of the women's teams I know of practice 3 or 4 or 5 times per
week, often with 4-hour long practices both Saturday and Sunday. Most
mixed teams I know of practice once or twice a week, even at the elite
level.
2. A lot of women's teams involve a fair bit of drama. There tend to
be a lot more personality conflicts.
3. It's fun to have boys around.
4. At least at this point in history, there is more parity among mixed
teams than among women's teams, making competition more exciting, and
meaning more teams have a shot at qualifying for nationals (and at
doing well at nationals). The same women's teams make nationals every
year (obviously this is a gross generality), so if you make one of
those teams, then great, but your chance of qualifying with another
women's team is pretty low. And nationals is fun.
Note: most of these reasons also apply to why men might want to play
mixed rather that open too. Not sure about the drama element on men's
teams...
Whether to play women's or mixed is a decision that will obviously
depend a lot on the specific teams in your section, and on what you're
looking to get out of your team. Seems like a lot of people here
assume all anyone wants to get out of ultimate is to become the
absolute best player they can, but for me a large part of it is the
social aspect.....and in my experience the social dynamic of mixed
teams is generally way better than that of women's teams. Plus I like
to have a little free time outside of ultimate, and that's a luxury
most women's teams don't allow.
Handy
>be a lot more personality conflicts.
I have no personal experience in this regard but this is a major
complaint I've heard, especially after mayhem broke up. Some of their
players went from going to naty's one year, to not playing women's ulti
cause the drama the next year.
You would think this would be more of a problem with both sexes
involved, but evidently it isn't.
As far as open ultimate, there are obviously personality conflicts, but
the only personality tic that has driven guys away from the open
division that I've heard is it can be too agro for some folks.
George Cooke
touches/player by Team USA. The data is here:
Perhaps this is useful information as it is the best that Mixed
Ultimate has to offer.
I won't analyze the data too much as it is right there to see. Deb
Cussen has already been mentioned as a caliber of player not seen on
too many Mixed teams. Regardless, I would be interested in comparing
the # of touches/player on Team USA with top Open and Women's teams. I
would not be surprised if it was somewhat similar (a small number of
players, say 2-3, getting roughly 50% of the touches).
-George
scoop
67% of passes thrown by men.
33% of passes thrown by women.
If you throw out the most active woman (cussen) and the most active man
(deaver) you get:
77% of passes thrown by men.
23% of passes thrown by women.
alexia.m...@verizon.net
Of course, it's purely subjective, but I think my throwing and handling
skills have improved playing mixed club over the last three (?) years,
especially in game situations. I have/had speed. I'm also not
(relatively) short. So, I typically only played deep. That meant I
didn't have to do a great deal of throwing compared to a handler or a
mid.
Playing mixed has meant that, even when I'm a deep, I have to cut back
in more underneath. I think that's a function of there often being men
poaching deep. I'm also placed as a mid more often playing mixed than
I was playing women's. I get more touches on the disc in a game.
I've also had to learn how to throw for both men being defended by men
and women being defended by women. I think generally the men need a
bigger lead due to various factors. I've also had to learn to
incorporate longer throws than I would have made before when I was
playing women. (I still don't huck often, if ever.)
I've also had to work harder at my throwing "tool box." I still can't
pull worth a damn, though.
All of that said, I think having played women's for a few years before
moving to mixed helped me in many ways. It made me confident on the
field in a way I don't think I would have been if I hadn't started out
playing women's. Sometimes, it has silly results. Me bidding in the
air for a disc being thrown to nearby tall man must look highly
comical. Nevertheless, I do it as a reflex. Of course, playing having
played women's also gave me the willingness to say when I think it's
crap on the highly infrequent occasion our offense is resembling a
"sword fight" and not using the women, when it would be to our
advantage to rely on our women.
I hope all of this makes sense.
Alexia
mtb...@gmail.com
bills
jle...@gmail.com
I'm not sure I would change anything, but I think there are two tweaks
that I would be interested in checking out.
One would be to cap the number of men allowed on a mixed roster.
Constraining a team's male resources could conceivably induce teams to
use the 4w/3m ratio more often, as well as run more offense through the
women, to spare the men.
Secondly, 20 yard endzones would probably diminish the deep game, which
more commonly relies on male throwers and receivers, while elevating
endzone offense which enjoys more gender equity IMO. This is a change
I would like to see across the board.
James
scoop
and drops for "total turnovers."
Turns Total Percentage
Women: 21.5 49%
Men: 22.5 51%
Pass attempts (includes turns)
Women 274 33%
Men 562 67%
Goals Thrown
Women 16 20%
Men 64 80%
Goals Caught
Women 24 30%
Men 56 70%
I've included the by-game list i compiled below, though the format will
probably be crappy.
V. Oz Turns GT GC
Deb Cussen 2.5 1 3
D. Fontinette 0 1 1
K. Halmos 0 0 1
M. Roth 2.5 2 0
Witt 0 0 0
Deaver 0.5 1 0
Eastham 0 0 4
Namkung 0 1 1
Sparling-Beck 3 0 2
Watson 0.5 6 0
Ziperstein 1 3 3
V. Canada
Deb Cussen 1.5 1 0
D. Fontinette 0 0 1
K. Halmos 1 0 0
M. Roth 1 0 1
Witt 0 1 0
Deaver 0 3 2
Eastham 1 1 2
Namkung 0.5 2 1
Sparling-Beck 2 2 2
Watson 1 0 3
Ziperstein 0 3 1
V. Finland
Deb Cussen 1 1 0
D. Fontinette 0 1 0
K. Halmos 0.5 0 1
M. Roth 1.5 1 0
Witt 0 0 2
Deaver 2.5 1 0
Eastham 0 0 3
Namkung 1 4 1
Sparling-Beck 1 1 3
Watson 0.5 1 0
Ziperstein 0 3 3
V. Germany
Deb Cussen 1 2 2
D. Fontinette 0.5 0 1
K. Halmos 1 0 0
M. Roth 2 1 2
Witt 1 0 0
Deaver 0 3 0
Eastham 0 2 1
Namkung 1.5 2 2
Sparling-Beck 1 1 1
Watson 0 2 0
Ziperstein 0 0 4
V. Japan
Deb Cussen 1 1 1
D. Fontinette 0 0 0
K. Halmos 0 2 2
M. Roth 0 0 1
Witt 1.5 0 0
Deaver 0.5 3 1
Eastham 0 1 4
Namkung 1 0 1
Sparling-Beck 0 3 1
Watson 1 1 0
Ziperstein 0 2 2
V. oz (final)
Deb Cussen 0 0 2
D. Fontinette 1 0 1
K. Halmos 1 0 1
M. Roth 0 1 0
Witt 0 0 1
Deaver 0 3 1
Eastham 1 1 1
Namkung 0 2 1
Sparling-Beck 2 0 2
Watson 0 3 0
Ziperstein 0 3 3
Turns Total Percentage
Women: 21.5 49%
Men: 22.5 51%
Pass attempts (includes turns)
Women 274 33%
Men 562 67%
Goals Thrown
Women 16 20%
Men 64 80%
Goals Caught
Women 24 30%
Men 56 70%
George Cooke
http://parinella.blogspot.com/2005/11/gender-ratios-in-coed.html#comments
(you are welcome, Jim).
There are some very interesting comments. Flo, in particular, makes
some interesting points. His comments at the very end of his post are
sort of along the lines of what I was trying to say at the end of my
post above.
-George
scoop
Turns Per Pass Attempt %
Women 7.8%
Men 4%
Goals Thrown per pass attempt %
Women 5.8%
Men 11.4%
Evan Pearce
It would be naive to suggest that the reason for this disparity is that
the men are simply better. However, where else can we look for an
explanation?
It doesn't seem to be random, to produce a similar percentage the women
would have had to throw 10 less turns or the men 21 more. That seems to
be a substantial difference.
I would guess that due to the larger number of turnovers in the women's
game, turnovers are perhaps psychologically more acceptable. This may
lead to some slightly riskier throws, as the women may feel that those
risks are more acceptable than the men. It also appears to me (and
correct me if I am wrong) that there were more "huckers" among the women
than the men. Bart is the only guy who I would view as a regular
threat to throw deep. I'm sure the other guys can throw a long ways,
but it doesn't seem to be a large part of their regular game.
Perhaps an additional contributor to the greater percentage of turnovers
thrown by the women was in recognizing which of the men's cuts were
open. With the higher speeds of men in the game, sometimes throwing
lanes that might appear unpoachable (nice word there) to someone used to
the women's game, are in fact in danger. It also takes some time to get
used to throwing to cutters that are moving at much faster speeds than
you are used to.
Obviously this was not a big problem for the team, but it there does
seem to be a real discrepancy and I would not attribute it to a
difference in skill.
Evan
Elizabeth D Murray
Pearce" <epe...@stanfurd.edo> wrote:
I'm not sure if it is fair to use the Team USA stats to make any
generalizations about the Mixed game. None of the players that went to
Germany play in the Mixed Division and I'm pretty sure most of their
competition was in the same boat.
Jessi Witt said in the Fall 2005 issue of Ultimate News-
"Adjusting to co-ed was really hard, and finding your own role on a new team
is always difficult. Cuts that your regular teammates wouldn't hesitate to
throw to would get looked off, and adjusting hucks depending on whether you
were throwing to a guy or a girl took a lot of practice. We didn't get a lot
of practice together, so it was hard to learn what your teammates could do
and what types of throws and cuts they make."
In Germany I watched Jessi attempt a couple of hucks that would have been
great in a women's game but were plucked from the sky with little effort by
an opposing dude. These games were FAST. Much faster than most women's games
and way faster than most high level mixed games.
In general I do not think that any World Games team was truly representative
of Mixed. I think it takes longer than they had to start to really discover
the subtleties and strategies of the mixed gender game.
:Elizabeth
Note: I am a member of the Board of Directors of the UPA. This is a personal
message and is does not represent the opinions of the Board or its other
members.
scoop
George Cooke
as a guess on my part, "typical" in the sense that a few players get
most of the touches. I recall looking at the stats for Dog in semis
and finals in 1995??? Again, based on recall, Mooney had approx 68
touches, Lenny had 65, then the next was around 25 touches. In Jim's
blog post, Flo refers to a team like Furious running their O through
4-5 guys.
My point is not to say that inequality does not exist. I just think
there is a pattern in which a few players get more of the touches. In
the case of Team USA, Deb and Will saw most of the touches. Any
inequality seems to come in the next tier in which it is three
guys(Zip, Bart, Mike N). Then you have Miranda, Chase, and Jeff E.
-George
Evan Pearce
>
> I'm not sure if it is fair to use the Team USA stats to make any
> generalizations about the Mixed game. None of the players that went to
> Germany play in the Mixed Division and I'm pretty sure most of their
> competition was in the same boat.
>
> Jessi Witt said in the Fall 2005 issue of Ultimate News-
>
> "Adjusting to co-ed was really hard, and finding your own role on a new team
> is always difficult. Cuts that your regular teammates wouldn't hesitate to
> throw to would get looked off, and adjusting hucks depending on whether you
> were throwing to a guy or a girl took a lot of practice. We didn't get a lot
> of practice together, so it was hard to learn what your teammates could do
> and what types of throws and cuts they make."
>
> In Germany I watched Jessi attempt a couple of hucks that would have been
> great in a women's game but were plucked from the sky with little effort by
> an opposing dude. These games were FAST. Much faster than most women's games
> and way faster than most high level mixed games.
>
> In general I do not think that any World Games team was truly representative
> of Mixed. I think it takes longer than they had to start to really discover
> the subtleties and strategies of the mixed gender game.
>
> :Elizabeth
> Note: I am a member of the Board of Directors of the UPA. This is a personal
> message and is does not represent the opinions of the Board or its other
> members.
>
I do not consider it a fair comparison either. However I found it an
interesting situation to consider especially since we had some stats to
work with. Your examples and Jessi's quote seem to support some of the
theories I was considering.
Jenny N
series because I have preferred to play in the women's series.
I completely agree with Neva, and I think the intent of Dave's original
post: that women's weaker skills generally do not develop in the mixed
game mainly due to a lack of opportunity to use and improve them. This
illustrates on of my major complaints with the implementation of the
UPA mixed division concurrent with the single-sex series. It forces
both men and women players to choose a division, when each division has
its own draws. Demographics plays a huge part in that decision. In
many sections or regions, there are not enough players or feasible
(nearby or competitive) tournaments to support women's teams, so those
women must choose a mixed team in order to play competitvely. This
further diminishes the pool of committed women's players for the
series. It think the same is true for men's teams in those areas.
I personally prefer the women's game for a lot of reasons. Certainly
PT is one reason, though as I get older, not so much. And it is
probably true that comparative advantage of my skills is much larger on
the women's field. As a moderately athletic player (in terms of
aptitude and not necessarily in current fitness level), my skills as a
handler made me very valuable on the field. While I think a woman
handler is actually pretty ideal for the mixed game (less emphasis on
the straight-line foot race, or skying in the endzone), the speed of
the game with men affects the timing and my ability to get open at will
for a handler cut. So even though I may get open, I find it more
difficult to get the timing just right so that a male thrower will see
me at the time that I'm open, in a space that is not easily poached by
a clearing defender or clogged by an impatient teammate.
That said, the mixed game can do a lot to improve that area of my
game--the timing of cuts and clearing. I have learned a lot about
field flow and changing angles from watching a fast paced mixed or
men's game. But I learned that more from watching that participating
in most cases, though I have occasionally played in a mixed game where
the cutting and clearing was so deliciously perfect that it was SO easy
to get involved.
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. I think to address the concern about
what the mixed game (or a mixed team) can do to improve the skill and
enjoyment of its women players is to work on team dynamics on the field
to create that perfect flow that allows any player to get open, thereby
reducing the need for the offense to go through the men. As with any
team, that strategy will depend on the strengths and weaknesses of the
team's players so the trick is to commit to finding that strategy.
Yeah that takes time and effort and great leadership, but to me it is a
more genuine "fix" to the problem Dave presents, rather than contriving
gender based rules, which I do find demeaning.
Cheers,
Jenny
PS, My only rule-based suggestion is that the mixed format should
always be 4/3. I've found that the 5/2 game makes the male domination
(in speed and height) very difficult to overcome. A 4/3 game requires
the women to be involved, more often than not.
scoop
got far fewer goals (thrown and scored) than the team USA women did.
murp...@yahoo.com
While I can appreciate the place where your email comes from, I really
really disagree with your initial premise. The "best" strategy is to
throw to the open player in the best position. End of story. There is
nothing inherent in the rules that creates an incentive to exclude
women from play. And starting with the premise that women are not
going to be the open player is a big part of the problem - when someone
like you, who is aware of the problems, writes that statistically it is
better to throw to a guy, I just cringe.
As I see it there are two reasons why women are not more involved in
play. First, they may not be at the same skill level as the men on
their teams. Some of the suggestions you have could be very help at a
certain level of play - "casual" tournaments, pick-up, summer leagues
- to help with this situation and I would applaud any attempt by the
UPA to encourage these sorts of developmental options. Most of the
teams you see at Nationals today started with a group that encouraged
everyone to be involved.
The second reason is that men don't throw to them, as you alluded to by
noting that the average guy will progress faster than a female because
he will get a lot more touches in a game. This is, in my opinion,
based on pure sexism and a misunderstanding of what mixed ultimate is
all about. I think males often think "I should throw to a male
teammate because he is better (in terms of strength/speed) than a
female one" when they should be asking "which teammate is better than
the person guarding them?". How often have you seen a woman make a
strong cut in, only to be frustrated because they were looked off for
the cross-field hammer to a guy who hasn't caught anything all day?
And people wonder why women stop playing or jioin women's teams.
The best teams fully incorporate all their players to the best of their
ability and encourage their players to better their skill sets. You
don't need to be a high level team to have your women work the disc
down any more than you need high level men -- you just need smart and
experienced women with men who are willing to keep their defenders
occupied in the stack so they don't poach. I think the responses from
women to this post are clear: they don't want special treatment, just
equal one.
scoop
> ability and encourage their players to better their skill sets.
The best teams win. Period.
>....writes that statistically it is better to throw to a guy, I just cringe.
But it is statistically better. Men have bigger catching windows.
pari...@gmail.com
George Cooke wrote:
> I think the point I was trying to make is that Team USA seems, purely
> as a guess on my part, "typical" in the sense that a few players get
> most of the touches. I recall looking at the stats for Dog in semis
> and finals in 1995??? Again, based on recall, Mooney had approx 68
> touches, Lenny had 65, then the next was around 25 touches. In Jim's
> blog post, Flo refers to a team like Furious running their O through
> 4-5 guys.
That's not right, George. While there is a large difference between
the guys with the most and the average player, it's not that extreme.
1994 semis+finals: 77 (Alex), 70 (Mooney), 56 (Dennis), 37, 32, 29,
21, 20, <20.
1995 finals: 23, 22, 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, <10 (no film of semis)
1996: 53, 34, 32, 30, 26, 20, 18, 14, 14, 10, 10, <10
1998: 44, 40, 28, 27, 20, etc.
etc.
I suggest using a nice Pareto chart (including a cumulative %).
I would guess that for an offense like DoG on a day where we score half
the possessions, the breakdown would be something like 30, 25, 15 for
the handlers and 20, 18, 15, 10 for the receivers. (plus whatever the D
gets).
Sadly, no one knows what "typical" truly is.
Dave Klink
take the LSAT, and also giving me a chance to argue a lot. We'll see
if it helps tomorrow.
Now as usual, more comments...
George-Didn't your blog say that you weren't going to get drawn into
RSD anymore? Look but don't touch or something?
To all the people saying mixed is bad for women's "weaker skills"
development: I completely disagree with that broad of a statement.
Right now, I don't even think that mixed is generally worse than
women's for women's development. I think that it varies greatly in
different areas and different teams. The way the game is right now, if
you can get ahead of the curve (or are in a position on a team where
they benefit from getting you there), you are probably going to get
lots of touches and attention in either division. Also, there is a lot
of good will even at the low levels of mixed (probably especially in
leagues etc where winning isn't as important of a goal as learning).
My initial post highlights a theoretical problem--that eventually when
the division gets to the point where most everything is fairly equal,
there's going to be more of a trend towards a male-dominated offense,
and not more of a trend towards an all-inclusive offense, as some
suggest. If I'm right, that could lead to discontent and uneven
development in mixed. But maybe I'm starting to be swayed away from
that concern...maybe. Right now, the reasons for bad female
development in some mixed atmosphere's are not the same, I'd say...but
are more along the lines of what any team in any division might not
develop certain players.
Bottom line--if you are a lady (or man) trying to decide which to play,
take a look at the teams in your area, decide what your goals are, and
try to figure out which team helps you achieve those best...that's
going to vary greatly person to person and area to area. This bottom
line has been said before in this thread.
Jenny-I think your 4-3 comment is a good one. club mixed is all 4-3
now, or at least in UPA stuff. It's not always 4-3, though, in leagues,
pickup, practices (even top notch teams can't always get 6+ ladies to
every practice), etc, and so there's a long way to go to get enough
women interested, involved, and dedicated in mixed play to keep their
ratios good all over the place. This relates a lot to JP blog about
gender ratios, as they propose a lot of reasons why mixed teams have a
lot more men than women.
And lastly Murphy, oh murphy...I never said (or if I did sure didn't
mean) that the best strategy right now in mixed is to just throw to men
no matter what. I said if all things are equal then that would be the
case. All things are definitely not equal right now in 99.9% of mixed
games, and maybe they'll never be. However, I also disagree with your
argument that "The 'best' strategy is to throw to the open player in
the best position." Here's an easy counterexample, and we'll make
every player male for it if that helps:
Player A has the disc. He completes 90% of his throws. Player B makes
an open cut up middle. If thrown and caught, it would be a 50 yard
gain. Player B catches 15% of discs he is thrown, and completes 10% of
this throws. Player A also sees player C in the stack, waiting to make
a cut after player B clears out. Player C starts his cut and will be
open soon. If thrown and caught, it would be 30 yard gain. Player C
catches 98% of the discs he is thrown, and completes 95% of his throws.
Therefore, there's a disgustingly low chance of completion if A
chooses to throw to B, the "open player in the best position," and a
very, very high % chance of completion to throw to C. A is best off
either waiting for C's cut, or dumping/swinging so someone with a
restarted stall count can hit C, but man it'd be dumb strategy to throw
to B, no matter how open he is.
All that being said, if your goal was player development and not
keeping possession, then bombs away to player B.
You are right, nothing in the rules excludes women from equal
involvement in mixed play. However, that doesn't mean that women are,
will be, have been, whatever, equally involved. My proposal to add a
rule or two is not based on the premise that the rules themselves
exclude women, but rather that they could do more to include them. If
the game actually required more of the abilities of both genders to
play succesful offense, pull, etc, then that might make the game
better. It would likely also offend a lot of people
initially...although the fact that the game already requires an equal
number of the two different genders on the field does inherently
recognize that there are differences between the two genders and this
division is designed to put them on the field together anyway...maybe
I'm wrong about that.
Also Murphy, on your two reasons:
1. I agree that it's a good idea to consider special rule changes and
different strategies at the lower level leagues and tournaments so as
to boost women's development. One thing that the summer league in my
area often does (whether intentionally or no) is give women more
playtime than men in the league, by putting more men on the team
relative to the number of spots on the line...so the male ratio isn't
as good as the female ratio for playtime. I'd love to see more things
incorporated, like the equal pull rule or the mixed gender 2 point huck
rule or whatever, even if they were only incorporated in the building
leagues and just for fun tournaments...stuff like that might even be
more effective at that level, as more people play at that level (MAYBE
more reasons too).
Oh yeah, and I'm not sure I care whether or not women want or will say
they want rules that could be interepreted as "special treatment." No
offense intended anyone. I don't recommend making any sort of rule
"for the women," but rather for the good of the quality and future of
the game and it's players.
2. I'm not sure that sexism is the root of why men don't throw as much
to women, but I definitely think a perception of sexism in many
situations can be fair. I obviously disagree that they should just be
asking "who has a better person guarding them," but really they should
be asking "which option has a higher likelihood of keeping a possession
alive that will eventually result in a score if I throw it to them?"
And the answer to that question is going to be completely different
depending on the 14 people on the field...it includes a consideration
of the defense, but also of many, many other factors. if you just
assume it's always a man, then that's WAY sexist, yeah. But if you
know that all things are equal in a mixed game, then you have a better
chance to keep possession until the score if you set up the offense to
primarily run through men, and that's a big problem I think if all
things ever become equal (or close to equal).
Definition of all things equal: Everyone on both teams is on the same
level within their gender, and the relative talents/abilities between
the men and women on the field are equivalent.
Since we in mixed (at least) still have big disparity between players,
possibly between sexes, etc, all things aren't even close to equal.
And, since there will always be superstars of both sexes, all things
may never be equal (for the superstars anyway, but take them out of the
equation and it still might suck for the non-superstar females on the
team).
OK folks, someone's going to need to keep this discussion going without
me (not that it has depended on me after the first post) for a few
hours (or days), because I really need to study and then take some test
that only matters because people say it does.
Dave
PS: Murphy, sorry if I'm a jackass...just felt you misinterpreted my
opinions and message, and don't want to be the poster boy for any sort
of "experienced mixed player says 'don't throw to women unless the
rules change'" campaign, cuz in my humble opinion, in my personal
Flaming Moe experience, had we not thrown to women in 2005 we wouldn't
have made it past sectionals.
pari...@gmail.com
parine...@gmail.com wrote:
> George Cooke wrote:
> > I think the point I was trying to make is that Team USA seems, purely
> > as a guess on my part, "typical" in the sense that a few players get
> > most of the touches. I recall looking at the stats for Dog in semis
> > and finals in 1995??? Again, based on recall, Mooney had approx 68
> > touches, Lenny had 65, then the next was around 25 touches. In Jim's
> > blog post, Flo refers to a team like Furious running their O through
> > 4-5 guys.
>
> That's not right, George. While there is a large difference between
> the guys with the most and the average player, it's not that extreme.
>
> 1994 semis+finals: 77 (Alex), 70 (Mooney), 56 (Dennis), 37, 32, 29,
> 21, 20, <20.
> 1995 finals: 23, 22, 13, 12, 12, 10, 10, <10 (no film of semis)
> 1996: 53, 34, 32, 30, 26, 20, 18, 14, 14, 10, 10, <10
> 1998: 44, 40, 28, 27, 20, etc.
>
> etc.
>
> I suggest using a nice Pareto chart (including a cumulative %).
>
% of touches for the whole team:
#1 guy: 16-19%
#1 and 2: 28-35%
#1-3: 38-46%
#1-5: 52-63%
#1-7: 65-77%
pgw
> While I can appreciate the place where your email comes from, I really
> really disagree with your initial premise. The "best" strategy is to
> throw to the open player in the best position. End of story. There is
> nothing inherent in the rules that creates an incentive to exclude
> women from play. And starting with the premise that women are not
> going to be the open player is a big part of the problem - when someone
> like you, who is aware of the problems, writes that statistically it is
> better to throw to a guy, I just cringe.
I think you're replying to the original poster here. I would take
issue with your characterization of his assertion (that the best
strategy is to throw mostly to your men) as a "premise." He doesn't
provide any rigorous exposition, but it's clear he thinks that his
assertion is borne out by the facts. That's not a premise, it's a
theory. You disagree, which is fair enough.
But I hope you don't expect "end of story" to convince him you're
right. Of course the rules create no gender imbalance (other than that
based on the number of players of each gender on the field, a byproduct
of the fact that a team fields an odd number of players.) If there is
any imbalance, it is created by the fact, which no one can reasonably
deny, that men are on average faster, stronger and larger than women.
Nor is it purely a matter of relative matchups. If you gave me the
choice between throwing to a wide open woman or to a blanket-covered
guy, I'd almost certainly choose the former. But I'd be a fool if I
didn't first convince myself that no matter how open, the woman could
catch the disc and throw a completion. That's an absolute
consideration. If she is, for example, blind with two broken arms, I'm
probably gonna take my chances with the covered dude.
The question here is whether it is in general more effective to try to
run the offense through one gender or another. There is no doubt that
this question is complex (not to mention sensitive.) But one factor
which would figure heavily in the answer would be the fact, if it is a
fact, that either gender is more or less likely to either drop the disc
or throw a turnover.
It is clear that a lot of people believe that, yes, women are more
likely to do one or both of those things. Some people may have
statistics to back this claim up. All I have is anecdotal evidence,
but I have a lot of it, and it seems clear to me that at all levels,
the average men's game has significantly fewer turnovers than the
average women's game.
One can and should ask (among other things): (1) why this is so; and
(2) whether this fact entails that a woman is more likely than a man to
create a turnover on a given opportunity in the same coed game.
Theories abound as to the answer to (1), but what's of real interest
for present purposes is (2). Here's where I admittedly have little to
go on, not being a frequent close observer of, or participant in, the
mixed game. But there seem to be plenty of people who think the answer
is "yes." (See several posts in this thread.)
If these people are right, it goes a long way toward validating Mr.
Klink's assertion that the best strategy is to try to run the offense
through the guys. There are, to be sure, hosts of complicating and/or
countervailing factors, but I don't think it's enough to just say
"always throw to the openest person" and leave it at that. For one
thing, a smart team is going to try to figure out ahead of time how to
structure the offense to ensure that certain people turn out to be the
open person more often. Depending on the team's personnel this may
mean running it through the guys. (Of course this will vary by team.
You can bet that if Deb Cussen decides to go play for Shazam, they are
gonna try to get the disc in her hands as often as possible; I doubt
many of their guys can throw as well as she can. But if the "fact"
under discussion above is true, then on average, the better strategy
may well end up excluding women a lot of the time.)
Another thing that would tend to validate Mr. Klink's assertion (and is
more along the lines of what he seemed to be saying in the first place)
would be actual evidence that in the real world of mixed ultimate,
there is a correlation between teams who enjoy competitive success and
teams who don't throw to their women. I have ZERO evidence of this.
But my impression of some of the earlier posts in this thread was that
some people think such a correlation can be demonstrated. Clearly, for
those people it is not a mere premise, it's an established fact.
Again, you seem to disagree, which is all well and good. But you're
either going to have to (1) provide some counterexamples or (2) agree
to disagree.
It seems to me that playing mixed brings up a whole lot of complex
strategy considerations that playing single-gender by and large
wouldn't. At the very least it tends to magnify the importance of
certain considerations based on the disparity in athleticism (read:
sheer strength, speed and size) that exists between the various players
on any field. To ignore that in the interest of egalitarianism strikes
me as a poor choice for any team that wants to maximize its chances of
winning. People can and should grapple with these issues and they can
and should factor gender equity into their thought process, but they'd
be crazy to ignore the real differences between male bodies and female
bodies.
Zontal
years) of UPA mixed in the NW and the MA combined with my experiences
last spring and this fall playing college open I would argue the other
way in terms of a catching window.
In the mixed game if a male cutter is making an in cut and his male
defender is within, say 2 feet (arbitrary distance), then I view that
matchup as my cutter is basically covered.
Same situation only this time the cutter is female. I view that woman
as open.
Admittedly that assumes that I can make the right throw to the right
spot and the receiver doesn't have to adjust. But basically the point I
am trying to make is a woman doesn't have to have as much seperation
from her defender as a guy does to be "open". (Let me also add that
this was drilled into me by my previous female captains on mixed teams)
I
pgw
Zontal wrote:
> Could someone elaborate "larger catching window"? As a veteran (4
> years) of UPA mixed in the NW and the MA combined with my experiences
> last spring and this fall playing college open I would argue the other
> way in terms of a catching window.
>
> In the mixed game if a male cutter is making an in cut and his male
> defender is within, say 2 feet (arbitrary distance), then I view that
> matchup as my cutter is basically covered.
> Same situation only this time the cutter is female. I view that woman
> as open.
>
> Admittedly that assumes that I can make the right throw to the right
> spot and the receiver doesn't have to adjust.
That's the whole point. Few throws are really on target. Men, on
average, can adjust to and catch a wider variety of errant throws than
can women, because they are (again on average) larger and faster, and
can jump higher.
George Cooke
and on my assumptive point.
-G
George Cooke
I hesitated and waited until post 42 until I made my benign little
point. I kept my cool and didn't freak out.
Thanks for the thread. Very interesting stuff.
-G
mtb...@gmail.com
That's an odd coincidence... I would have been more involved in this
discussion, but I've been trying to be good about studying for the
LSAT. Who knows, if all goes well, perhaps I'll see you at U of MN
next year.
Good luck on the exam.
$$bills
Olaf '04
murp...@yahoo.com
1) With this large posts, it may be hard to keep track of what was
said. I was responding to your first post, second paragraph: "the
best strategy is usually to exclude women on offense." You did go on
to qualify a bit.
2) I accept your example of where it would not be a good idea to throw
to a particular player. I'm in favor of making those decisions based
on an individual's skill in a competive situation -- I'm against making
them based on gender, which happens entirely too often.
3) My objection to creating special rules for mixed is two-fold. One,
they are often designed to correct issues that are sociological rather
than inherent in the nature of the game. Rules that give extra points
or advantages / handicaps based on gender create a sense that women can
not play the game as well as men, which in my experience is not the
case. Second, mixed already is the poor stepchild of the UPA with most
of the attention on single-sex teams. Creating special rules will
further distant it from the mainstream.
4) We differ on what is best for the future of the game. I think
having more men like yourself speak out or, better still, listen when
these issues are raised is in the long term interest of mixed. New
players learn from experienced ones -- all it takes is one veteran
turning to someone on the line and saying "next time don't look off the
open woman cutting towards you" and the message will be spread.
5) I don't understand the sentence "I definitely think a perception of
sexism in many
situations can be fair". Most of my interpretations put you in a
negative light, so I'll leave it at that.
6) If all things are equal (teams are equally matched and no
significant gender differences), then how can you have a better chance
of keeping possession by throwing to males?
And no, I don't think you are a jackass and I'm not trying to be one
either. I applaud your attempts to raise these issues, even if I don't
agree with your suggestions on how to deal with them. Good luck on your
tests.
murp...@yahoo.com
something that is assumed or taken for granted. Hard to say he has a
theory, given the lack of data presented... more like a hypothesis.
However, this whole discussion suffers from a lack of statistics so
perhaps your use of the word "assertion" is the best choice yet.
Yes, "end of story" was meant to say that is all there is to my
criteria as to whether or not to throw rather than any expectation that
discussion would or should stop. And further discussion has pulled out
that there are other factors that could come into play for me, such as
whether the receiver is blind with two broken arms. Gender isn't one
of them.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether women cause more turnovers.
The numbers from Team USA support less turn-overs by women. My own
experience is that it is about equal -- men have a greater ability to
get to a poorly thrown disc but are also more prone to throw it away.
But I accept that with a complete lack of statistics neither one of us
has a particularly sturdy leg to stand on.
As for the correlation between use of women and success:
1) The thread's author says his team would not have made it to
Regionals if they didn't play their women.
2) Eitan from Slow White (the Cinderella story of this year's
nationals) notes that their primary offense relied on women cutters.
3) He also points out that Uncivil Union (my team, nationals 2002 &
2004) has developed specific offenses that showcase women.
Maybe it is PC thinking or fear of retribution but can't find a single
post of someone saying "My team has done better since we stopped
throwing to our women". Maybe you could provide some examples or agree
to disagree.
The issue of athleticism is an important part of the strategy of mixed
but comparing teammates against teammates is besides the point in my
opinion. You have to have 4 of one gender, 3 of the other -- the best
strategy is to see how your players of each gender stack up against
their respective opposing players and respond accordingly.
Dave Klink
caught your name...I hope it's ok), I've tried to respond to each
one.
"1) With this large posts, it may be hard to keep track of what was
said. I was responding to your first post, second paragraph: "the
best strategy is usually to exclude women on offense." You did go on
to qualify a bit."
I agree. I think I went too far there, as no qualification can erase
the rather large error I made there, as I made it sound like I was
talking about the actual game today. It was a silly approach to get at
what I was really trying to say, although it did get people to
read/respond.
"2) I accept your example of where it would not be a good idea to
throw
to a particular player. I'm in favor of making those decisions based
on an individual's skill in a competive situation -- I'm against making
them based on gender, which happens entirely too often. "
I think you are right. If someone chooses not to throw to someone else
just because of gender, that's awful. I think I'd want to base my
decision on who to throw to on "which option makes it most likely
that my team will be the one to score this point." There's a lot
factoring into that one, but gender shouldn't. Just because (I
believe) members of one gender tend to have better completion
percentages than the other when they are relatively equal, that
certainly doesn't mean anything as far as individual players...and to
assume so would be sexist. It would sorta be reversing my logic, which
I hear doesn't always work.
"3) My objection to creating special rules for mixed is two-fold.
One,
they are often designed to correct issues that are sociological rather
than inherent in the nature of the game. Rules that give extra points
or advantages / handicaps based on gender create a sense that women can
not play the game as well as men, which in my experience is not the
case. Second, mixed already is the poor stepchild of the UPA with most
of the attention on single-sex teams. Creating special rules will
further distant it from the mainstream. "
I think the well documented physiological (biological?) differences
between average men and women are the ones that I'm most worried
about...the sociological ones, I think, are actually what make it good
strategy for most above average mixed teams to use their women a ton.
Maybe I'm being too general here.
Yeah, I'm not sure rule changes are the way to go anymore either, but
if they aren't, then I still think we've got some big problems, and
need to do more to fix them. One problem is that women perhaps
generally aren't as well developed or included in mixed as men, which
many people seem to indicate in their posts...another might be that
there aren't as many women in the division as men. I think this
thread has discussed a lot of those issues, but those aren't the root
of the problems I based my concerns on. The other problem (perhaps
more controversial) that I'm worried about is that when all things
are equal (by my relative definition), offenses will tend to be
male-focused.
"4) We differ on what is best for the future of the game. I think
having more men like yourself speak out or, better still, listen when
these issues are raised is in the long term interest of mixed. New
players learn from experienced ones -- all it takes is one veteran
turning to someone on the line and saying "next time don't look off the
open woman cutting towards you" and the message will be spread "
Yeah, talking is good. Not sure how much we differ on what is best for
the future, seems to me like we both want mixed to be around and
respected for a long time (well, I guess maybe we need to get it
respected first ;p). Some of my ideas for doing that you have
disagreed with though, and that's cool. I've been argued down from
a lot of ideas.
"5) I don't understand the sentence "I definitely think a perception
of
sexism in many situations can be fair". Most of my interpretations put
you in a
negative light, so I'll leave it at that. "
You applaud my attempts to raise issues and say you don't think I'm
a jackass, so unless you are playing with semantics (ie. I'm not a
jackass I'm a sexist pig), saying you put me in a negative light
seems inconsistent. I'm not sure, in fact, what you were trying to
say there. What are your interpretations? Here's what I think I was
trying to say where you quoted me there... I was thinking in terms of
the actual game today, and the problem (many have discussed it) that
women aren't always included as much as they should be. That thing I
typed, that you quoted me on, was essentially trying to say that I
don't believe it is intentional sexism that is the driving force
behind the exclusion of women in the game today...I didn't say it
well. Basically, I don't think most of the men on the non or
less-inclusive teams in today's game think "well she's a woman so
I'm not throwing to her." I guess that's a very separate issue
from the one I've been focusing on, but a good one to discuss.
"6) If all things are equal (teams are equally matched and no
significant gender differences), then how can you have a better chance
of keeping possession by throwing to males? "
My use of "all things equal" has been explained, I believe, by
saying 1, that teams are equally matched and 2, genders are RELATIVELY
equal. In other words, if the men out there are all Olympic-level
athletes, then so are the women. If they men out there are all short,
slow, and oddly good looking, then so are the women (relative to the
men). Since they are RELATIVELY equal, that often means they aren't
actually equal in any specific abilities/attributes/whatever you want
to call them. For example, Olympic-level male sprinters run faster
than females. Also, the average man is taller than the average woman.
Leaping ability, limb length, strength, hand size, etc, aren't all
necessarily equal between the genders when "all things are equal"
as I have been using the phrase. Does that clear up that one?
As for the other post you just made, Murphy I'm not sure if it was
all directed at me, but here's some thoughts I have in response to
it:
-I took logic in college, but it's been a few years. Also might have
had some science, and I agree that what I really have is not a theory
(in the technical scientific use), as it has not been widely accepted
or specifically tested. I'm haven't been too concerned with
semantics here, nor careful...but maybe I should have been more so.
Hypothesis might be fair based on the biological stuff (that is fairly
well established), but probably is just an assumption if based on
sociological perceptions. Meh.
-I haven't studied the team USA stuff. I also have no idea if all
things were equal relatively on that team...but I am pretty sure that
all things were not equal in their games, as they were likely the best
team there, or at least finished that way (given someone has to win,
but were more of their wins not fairly convincing?).
-I'm not sure that I agree that men are more prone to throwing it
away. Maybe I'd agree that generally there are more men attempting
tougher throws in mixed, but even that would just be a random thought
of mine that I'm not 100% sure I even agree with. Were your
assertion that men are more prone to throwing it away true, though,
wouldn't there be more turnovers in most open games than most
women's games? I'm no expert on this either, but I have watched a
fair amount of each, including semis and finals at natties this year
(which has been used as an example several times in this and other
discussions lately). In mixed right now, I would say that most of the
turnovers are caused by men, but I also think that's because (in most
games) men have a lot more touches than women...that sentence is all,
again, just a really random personal thought.
Lastly, I want to respond to when you said, "the best strategy is to
see how your players of each gender stack up against their respective
opposing players and respond accordingly." I think you said that in
regards to how to decide which gender ratio to put out there. I
already said a lot on this topic in the other thread, but let me just
say here that I totally agree with you if "stacking up" well means
that you have the highest chance of scoring that point.
Thanks for keeping the thread going. I appreciate your comments, and
hope to see you on the field sometime. I will also definitely continue
to read and respond if I have anything more to say (or just feel like
repeating the usual), as well, that's sorta what I do in this thread.
Dave
alexia.m...@verizon.net
Dave Klink wrote:
>
> Jenny-I think your 4-3 comment is a good one. club mixed is all 4-3
> now, or at least in UPA stuff. It's not always 4-3, though, in leagues,
> pickup, practices (even top notch teams can't always get 6+ ladies to
> every practice), etc, and so there's a long way to go to get enough
> women interested, involved, and dedicated in mixed play to keep their
> ratios good all over the place. This relates a lot to JP blog about
> gender ratios, as they propose a lot of reasons why mixed teams have a
> lot more men than women.
>
Dave that is inaccurate. In the club series, the receiving team chose
whether to field three or four women. I played in a game where 3/4 was
employed by both teams.
When we scrimmaged at practice, we went both 4/3 and 3/4since that was
an option in tournaments.
pgw
murp...@yahoo.com wrote:
> We'll have to agree to disagree on whether women cause more turnovers.
> The numbers from Team USA support less turn-overs by women.
Actually, they don't. From an earlier post in this thread:
> Turns Per Pass Attempt %
> Women 7.8%
> Men 4%
Extrapolating from these numbers (which for a whole variety of reasons
would not necessarily be a valid move) indicates that if the women had
had more of the touches, the turnover totals would have gone up, and
vice versa.
> Maybe it is PC thinking or fear of retribution but can't find a single
> post of someone saying "My team has done better since we stopped
> throwing to our women". Maybe you could provide some examples or agree
> to disagree.
As I said before, I am not a close enough observer of the mixed game to
provide any examples. I don't even disagree, because the situation is
far more complex than this discussion makes it out to be. If there are
examples, I doubt they would come in the form you indicate -- probably
more like a third party saying "look at Teams X, Y, and Z, they never
throw to their women and they [enjoy considerable success given their
apparent talents], whereas teams J, K, and L take an inclusive approach
and [are less successful than it seems they should be.]"
> The issue of athleticism is an important part of the strategy of mixed
> but comparing teammates against teammates is besides the point in my
> opinion.
I don't agree. Any smart team is going to structure its offense to get
the disc in the hands of its best players.
> You have to have 4 of one gender, 3 of the other -- the best
> strategy is to see how your players of each gender stack up against
> their respective opposing players and respond accordingly.
The best strategy is the one that makes you win the most. I agree that
the thought process you describe is a big part of coming up with the
best strategy. All I'm saying is that part of that calculus involves
thinking about the relative likelihood of each player causing a
turnover, regardless of their matchup. One hopes (for several reasons)
that people will make those considerations on an individual basis
rather than by making generalizations. That is, the thought process
should not be "I'd rather have the disc in a guy's hands than a
girl's," but rather, "I'd rather have the disc in Bob's hands than
Jenny's." But if it is indeed true that more ladies are more
turnover-prone than men, then the end result will look similar to what
it would look like if the decisions were made on a sexist basis, that
is to say, women will have fewer touches.
scoop
Projected turns per 100 passes thrown, from USA World Games Stats
Women 7.8
Men 4
Dave Klink
What is inaccurate? I made a lot of statements in that quoted
paragraph. The first thing you elaborated on was something that I
never argued against. I'm pretty sure UPA Club mixed IS ALL 4-3 now,
as we both said. It's either 4 women and 3 men or 4 men and 3 women.
Also, at least in my experience (and from what I've seen, been told,
read etc), the rest of the stuff you quoted me on is reasonably
accurate too.
I think it's great that your team could and did scrimmage 4 women 3 men
sometimes at practice. I also think it's rather rare. Many mixed teams
(especially the mid and lower range) I competed against had less than 8
women at tournaments, much less practices. My team actually also had a
lot of women, and did sometimes play 4 women at practice. However, we
also had some practices where we didn't have 8+ women there. Even when
we did, though, since we had something like 16+ guys on the team, we
didn't play 4 ladies much, as that could often mean each scrimmage team
would only have 0-2 ladies sitting out while 5+ men sat out for each
squad, which wasn't the best for fair practice playtime, which is
something we were shooting for.
Maybe something else was inaccurate that I'm missing...I'll give the
benefit of the doubt until you explain further.
Dave
Joe Buck
Thank you for being a crackpot. It was getting quiet here without Toad
and Billy.
Your rules ideas are fascinating in their worthlessness.
Your other assumptions often seem fair.
Please post more.
Sincerely,
JB
Coed brings more players into the game.
alexia.m...@verizon.net
differences. Around here, 4/3 is commonly used to mean four men and
three women, 3/4 to refer to three men and four women.
I guess we're lucky around here (DC) in terms of women players in
mixed. I can't think of any of the teams -- this year or last --
(except one -- but they were just put together for Sects. & Regs.) that
didn't have at least 8 women on their rosters.
josh.d....@gmail.com
Two examples I can think of off the top of my head would be:
1) Game 13-14, 1st to 15 wins (though it could happen at any point in a
game really). Team with 13 has disc...male player sends a throw toward
the endzone. Another male on the team attempts an in-bounds greatest
throw to a female to get the 2-pt conversion for the win. - sure it
could be interesting to watch but does it improve the game...doubtful.
2) Game 13-14, 1st to 15 wins (again it could be at any point in a game
though). Team with 13 has disc...male player throws disc toward the
endzone. Another male toes the line to stay OUT of the endzone - but
still in the 'field proper'. Then attempts throw to female IN endzone
for the 2-pt conversion win. - this seems especially counterproductive
to the progress of the spot. IMHO a rule should not cause a player to
attempt to avoid scoring.
I think the rules are fine as they stand today. I think the rules are
there to provide guidelines and some structure...but not to alter the
flow, style, and type of play between each division. If that were the
case we could enact a rule to allow master's or women's division
players to pull from the brick because they are old and/or women...and
yes there is some sarcasm in that statement. Additional changes could
be to change the disc size for women's division (similar to women's
basketball) or shrinking the field size. Again, not advocating these
changes in any way.
I do think that in lower-level ultimate (i.e. some leagues and
intramurals) the 2-pt rule could help keep women involved. Even better
to 'force' them to get their hands on the disc would be to mandate
throws to alternating genders. Again in competitive this would cause a
slew of problems - but in beginner ultimate it could help women to get
the disc more than some disc-hungry dudes.
Neva - your advice to women just out of college is interesting.
depending on their skill level they might get a lot more PT on a coed
team. As some people have mentioned, some coed teams (though usually
not of National's caliber) carry a roster of 15 men and only 6-7 women.
A mediocre female college player could play 1/2 of the points in this
situation whereas if they were to join a women's team they might be 3rd
string or on a much lower tier women's team. I think the best advice
to give those women is to play on teams where they can improve the
most...I think it is dangerous to advise them to "always play women's".
Some coed teams are not only dying for great women...but when they get
them they use them A LOT. I suppose with any team they will (or at
least should) use their assets to provide the greatest advantage
against the opposition - and with that gender shouldn't really matter.
Josh
Dave Klink
Yeah the rule change ideas didn't go over so well. Probably because I
just threw 'em out there after 5 minutes of thought, and even I wasn't
very attached to them. I suppose that Toad and Billy (errr...Frank)
have probably put more thought into their "crackpot" rule change ideas,
and they certainly spend a lot more time and energy defending them.
There. I posted more. You got anything to contribute to the
discussion?
Dave
Dave Klink
Colonel before my last name and address me as such? Brilliant!
Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins
thoughtful discussion of a sensitive topic. No need to address those who
are trying to lengthen the waders necessary to slog through RSD.
Of course, this is why Ultimatetalk.com was brought about...you could try
to post there and insure yourself a much higher thoughtful
response:ignorant response ratio...but then you'd lose a larger audience.
At least for now.
Dave Klink
Thanks for the advice, and for participating in the thread. I was
mostly joking in my last post re: JB, and don't have much experience
posting like mad on RSD until recently, but yeah, it probably is an
unproductive use of my time to respond to flames, plus half of his post
was actually kinda nice.
I read Ultimatetalk.com fairly religiously since I found out about it,
and it definitely got me thinking about starting a thread about mixed
over here. Seems like a lot of really intelligent and experienced
folks are blogged into it, and that definitely includes mixed's very
own George C, not to mention the recent mixed convert (or whatever he
is) Idris N. I personally didn't respond over there though because the
thread in question was mostly just about mixed gender ratios, and I
didn't want to hijack anyone's personal blog (although Jim may not have
complained if anything controversial I may have said increased his hit
count). Furthermore, it's weird enough seeing my posts on the same
webpage as some of the biggest ultimate celebrities (well, like you)
that chose to post here on RSD, but I guess you get used to that in
this small of a community, so maybe I will try to float some ideas over
there now and then (either as responses to posts where it somewhat
relates, or just in that cool live comments box).
The smaller audience is probably doing those bloggers a favor--just
think how many comments they'd have to delete if all of us started
posting over there...
Dave Klink
PS: Thanks to those who keep discussing the huge # of issues now
brought up in this thread. I think I've learned a lot, and my ideas on
many of these topics have definitely developed and changed in the last
week.
Joe Buck
I think a lot of times women get better playing women's ultimate
because they practice more.
There are very few (none?) coed teams that practice more than twice a
week.
Other than that, I see that top flight women's teams keep a lot of
bodies on the sideline.
There will be girls that touch the field 3 points a day, in coed, your
worst female is on the field for 1/3 of the points.
In our town, you have to let people play, or they won't come back,
there's too many other options for playing time.
There are 7 coed teams that have organized practices, and each one runs
things differently. There is a national runner up that has a woman
calling all the lines, down a team that plays pretty much close to last
back as far as subs go.
As far as our team's strategy goes:
If we get hucked on successfully, we're going to 4 women.
If we get a run of 3 points against us, we're going to 4 women.
In zone D, we have two women in the cup.
The only woman based strategy I hate, is the 3 women weave.
And that's because women seem to hate hucking to guys.
There's my one generalization.
At the end of the year we switched to a zone style offense at all
times.
Three handlers back (usually men, but probably only two of them touch
the disc on any one point) they are not supposed to advance past the
disc.
Our first cut in is by a man, and that leaves three women to go deep,
with no man to help out, unless he is poaching.
Unless we run a woman with good throws breakside, and then she gets to
put it up.
The team I was on two years ago lost its best player (woman) to
Whorshaq, and last year's team lost its best player(woman, obviously)
to Schwa.
This year hopefully no one noticed our best player was once again a
woman, and she'll stick with us a little longer.
Currently our men are a real low point for the team, and every win we
had was due to our women.
We do whatever we can to take advantage of that.
And since we have proven ourselves to be the worst pulling team in the
NW, whoever catches the score is allowed, and encouraged to pull. So
we'll have a woman pull more often than other teams.
I just really feel like any artificial rules changes are pointless.
Changing those rules is like declaring that coed is a joke.
murp...@yahoo.com
Dave Klink wrote:
> "5) I don't understand the sentence "I definitely think a perception
> of
> sexism in many situations can be fair". Most of my interpretations put
> you in a
> negative light, so I'll leave it at that. "
> You applaud my attempts to raise issues and say you don't think I'm
> a jackass, so unless you are playing with semantics (ie. I'm not a
> jackass I'm a sexist pig), saying you put me in a negative light
> seems inconsistent.
Dave, this thread seems to be winding down but I wanted to clarify what
I meant here. As I read that sentence I could only think you were
saying that there were times when it was ok to be sexist. As nothing
in your previous posts made me think this is something you would
support (as you do not appear to be a jackass or sexist), I felt it was
fair to just ask you to expand on what you meant. Given your response
I'm glad I just didn't assume.
kama...@yahoo.com
Joe Buck wrote:
> There is a national runner up that has a woman
> calling all the lines,
It only LOOKS like I call all the lines because I hold the clipboard.
But no stats would actually make it to paper if I didn't hold -- and
subsequently write upon -- said clipboard.
Joe Buck
Maybe I was making a disparaging remark against Shiv then?
And you know the women run your team anyway.
Every guy you have is baggage for a much better female player.
Crash
scoop wrote:
> Do any of the teams who played at coed nationals have stats available?
Well, KRU didn't make Coed Nationals, but won our section, and beat
some Nationals teams.
We kept stats over 4 tournaments (we actually kept track of stats for
six, but i thing dogs ate the stat sheets from two of our summer
tournaments).
Total Passes Thrown:
Men: 2116
Women: 801
Throws incomplete: (no distinction made between errant throws, Ds, or
dropped passes):
Men: 238
Women: 88
Passing completion:
Men: 88.75%
Women: 89.01%
Passing completion for passes under 10 yards:
Men: 94.35%
Women: 91.39%
Passing completion for passes 10-30 yards:
Men: 86.33%
Women: 84.52%
Passing completion for passes over 30 yards:
Men: 57.14%
Women: 47.37%
Note: Despite having better completion percentages in each category
(Short/Medium/Long), the composite completion percentage for men was
lower, primarily due to the fact that men attempted significantly more
long throws. Men attempted 189 long throws (representing 4.2% of
passes thrown), while women only attempted 19 long throws (representing
2.37% of passes thrown).
Goals thrown:
Men: 247
Women: 46
Goals caught:
Men: 200
Women: 102
Men threw roughly 72.5% of the total throws (and 90.8% of the long
throws)
Men threw roughly 84% of the goals and caught roughly 66% of them.
(and yes, there are *clearly* some issues with the stats, as there were
more goals recorded as being caught than goals thrown.)
I hope we all realize that most of the time, we were playing 4/3 men,
so there should alread be a 57/43 disparity in touches favoring the
men, regardless of any gender issues.
Crash
KRU
Mortakai
Crash wrote:
> Passing completion:
> Men: 88.75%
> Women: 89.01%
>
> Passing completion for passes under 10 yards:
> Men: 94.35%
> Women: 91.39%
>
> Passing completion for passes 10-30 yards:
> Men: 86.33%
> Women: 84.52%
>
> Passing completion for passes over 30 yards:
> Men: 57.14%
> Women: 47.37%
How can women have a higher passing completion overall, while being
lower in ALL sub-categories that seem to represent all of the options?
Mathematically, at least ONE women's sub-category should be higher.
> Note: Despite having better completion percentages in each category
> (Short/Medium/Long), the composite completion percentage for men was
> lower, primarily due to the fact that men attempted significantly more
> long throws. Men attempted 189 long throws (representing 4.2% of
> passes thrown), while women only attempted 19 long throws (representing
> 2.37% of passes thrown).
This *might* be intended to explain the discrepancy, although it
doesn't for me. It just doesn't seem to follow mathematical logic.
> Goals thrown:
> Men: 247
> Women: 46
>
> Goals caught:
> Men: 200
> Women: 102
...
> (and yes, there are *clearly* some issues with the stats, as there were
> more goals recorded as being caught than goals thrown.)
... unless 9 of the goals caught were Callahans?
pgw
> How can women have a higher passing completion overall, while being
> lower in ALL sub-categories that seem to represent all of the options?
> Mathematically, at least ONE women's sub-category should be higher.
Yeah, doesn't seem possible, does it? But looky:
Option 1: Men 1-for-1, Women 99-100
Option 2: Men 1-for-100, Women 0-for-1
Overall: Men 2-for-101, Women 99-for-101
Women lose both battles, but CRUSH in the war. Go figure.
ultimatep...@gmail.com
men short 1339 1263 94%
men medium 588 507 86%
men long 189 108 57%
2116 1878 89%
women short 588 538 91%
women medium 175 148 85%
women long 19 9 47%
782 695 89%
although, there seems to be a women's completion missing or two...
pgw
> > Note: Despite having better completion percentages in each category
> > (Short/Medium/Long), the composite completion percentage for men was
> > lower, primarily due to the fact that men attempted significantly more
> > long throws. Men attempted 189 long throws (representing 4.2% of
> > passes thrown), while women only attempted 19 long throws (representing
> > 2.37% of passes thrown).
>
>
> This *might* be intended to explain the discrepancy, although it
> doesn't for me. It just doesn't seem to follow mathematical logic.
Here's why it should explain it:
Note that both genders had much lower percentages on their long throws
than on their not-long throws. Because long throws accounted for a
larger percentage of the men's overall number of throws than for the
women, the long throws drug down the overall average much more for the
men than for the women. The women were pretty close on the non-long
throws to begin with, so the larger hit in overall percentage that the
men took when the long throws were factored in dropped them below the
women in the overall stats.
This is basically the phenomenon at work in my extreme example in the
other post (say option 1 is short throws and option 2 is long throws.
The men on my hypothetical team are idiots!)
bettyf...@gmail.com
thread...
:: on changing the rules
the people are right. don't go changing the rules if they don't need to
be changed. all that does is morph the strategy around a little bit to
capitalize on a greater reward (more points). plus chicks don't like
people making special exceptions for them. like that whole argument on
avoiding contact with a woman or endangering a chick by getting a
layout d or skying her in coed. it's so dumb. quite often, our learned
gender roles are affecting the argument instead or what is right or
wrong.
:: on physical differences between men & women
it's true. most dudes do run faster and jump higher than most chicks.
based on the whole downfield coverage argument it makes total sense on
why duders are going to touch it more than the ladies. thanks - that
was interesting.
:: on why you should capitalize on your strengths of all players
i think it all starts on the team level. i have played with teams that
depend on (or have designed the offense around) the dudes and played
with teams where it didn't really matter who you were out there on the
line. the latter was more successful overall in my opinion. i believe
that if you're playing hot then you get in the pull play, are
designated as the iso or whatever. as a result you'll get more touches
on the disc. man or woman.
after the last season of ultimate, i am a firm believer in using the
beginning of the season to just let people play in different roles to
get the feel for different types of plays, cuts and throws. personnel
changes every year and you've got to adjust to make your offense work.
i think that having your teammates believe in your abilities is
imperative to a team's success and if you haven't practiced what you
preach you won't be successful.
one situation that comes to mind is the female dominator. i can't
believe how many times my old team would call that in a game at a
critical time and nobody had practiced it together all year long.
although the intent was good - "you chicks can school their chicks" -
that puts a lot of pressure on you to do something that you might not
really be good at. if it didn't work, then everyone would be like "see.
clearly the lady dom can't work". now that was unfair.
:: on how playing time affects ability
girls are used to playing more savage than guys. so many tournaments
i've been to there are shortages of women. i believe this leads to the
endurance jog vs sprinting mentality for many women out there. they've
gotta make themselves last all weekend long. and if you're running your
guys in the ground, they are eventually gonna burn out. especially at a
3 days tourney like nationals. ya gotta have depth.
:: on how playing time affects morale (tangential)
girls who play on most coed teams that i have played on will not
tolerate reduced playing time. they just don't have the mentality that
duders do about subbing. a good number of women on a coed team is 8.
that's enough to have a few injuries and have numbers at practice while
keeping everyone happy on PT. i read a blog entry by idris about
reflecting Jam's 2004 subbing strategy on Jam and how it was all based
on how happy the team was. "because we knew that as along as everyone
was involved, everyone was happy, we'd make a run at some point. but
we needed the entire support of the team to make that run... and then
make the adjustments to finish the game." i found this very
interesting.
:: on coed vs womens roles
i started out playing womens for 2 seasons (spring + fall) and started
playing coed for the next 3 years and learned how to cut better and
learned more strategy and gender strategy. now i've went back to
women's but have brought some bad habits back to the game. like
poaching deep - i got used to doing this ALL the time in coed when a
dude went deep. now that those hucks don't go up as much in women's i
am caught looking at the disc too much and not playing sticky d. i am
also bad about hucking when i'm called as the "go-to" in many
situations cuz i'm just not used to it.
:: on coed vs women's drama (tangential)
i've experience more drama on mixed teams due to interteam dating than
i have with "cattiness" on womens teams. i also think it's important to
keep in mind personality types when choosing a team to decrease your
chances of major conflicts.
thanks everybody for all your comments. there was some brain
stimulating stuff here. much more than i'm used to in dar's posts.
:)
kelley
Parinella
Crash wrote:
> scoop wrote:
> > Do any of the teams who played at coed nationals have stats available?
>
> Well, KRU didn't make Coed Nationals, but won our section, and beat
> some Nationals teams.
>
> Men: 2116
> Women: 801
>
> Throws incomplete: (no distinction made between errant throws, Ds, or
> dropped passes):
> Men: 238
> Women: 88
And do you have stats on passes thrown TO men (and to women)?
Knappy
One small correction: KRU finished second at sectionals, behind DB.
Happy holidays,
Knappy
DB
Knappy
if you really want to involve women more in mixed, why not switch
gender ratios at the half?
e.g., first half is 4 women/3 men and second half is 4 men/3 women
This can be determined at pre-game flip/roshambo, or first half ratio
could be determined by team receiving the pull.
The "con" that was mentioned in the other thread is that this change
would take away the strategy of offense deciding gender ratio on a
point-by-point basis. I like strategy as much as the next guy, but I
actually wouldn't mind seeing that convention go away as it has (in my
experience) caused a lot of downtime between points. It can be painful
to have to wait to call a D line because the opponent can't decide
whether to go 3 or 4 ladies.
I am not suggesting we need to change things....most of my recent team
mates seem genuinely happy with the current dynamic in mixed. But, it
does seem to be the simplest solution if people really think that Mr.
Klink has identified a wide-spread trend/problem. More women on the
field = more women involved in the game.
jtf...@yahoo.com
> Do any of the teams who played at coed nationals have stats available?
i have stats for whor$hack. we keep totals for games and include
goals, assists, turns (drops and throwaways) and d-blocks. i don't
have a lot of time right now to break them out, but we have them for a
few tournaments late in the season and all of the fall series through
quarterfinals. (we stopped recording stats in semifinals):
here's a teaser...
fem goals - 28
male goals - 43
fem assists - 15
male assists - 54
(yes, i know they don't add up... we aren't prefectionist stat
keepers.)
anyway, i would be happy to share our stats with anyone who is
interested, but i'm busy preparing for a week-long whitewater kayaking
trip in costa rica at the moment. when i'm back from the trip and
holiday travels, i am sure the puzzle that is mixed co-ed will still be
a compelling topic of discussion.
laters,
shiv
whor$hack #74
jtf...@yahoo.com
baggage. (plus one) but i posted a response that got placed dozens of
pages back in the discussion (minus one) but at least i have stats for
whor$hack and will some day share them with the online world. (a
future plus one at which point i break even and die content.)
out,
shiv
whor$hack #74
Crash
The stat sheets we used provided some useful information, but also
lacked some details.
Crash
men: short 1327 1252 94.3%
med 600 518 86.33%
long 189 108 57.14%
2116 1878 88.75%
women: short 627 573 91.39%
med 155 131 84.52%
long 19 9 47.37%
801 713 89.01%
Crash
I really don't know what i was thinking.
Crash