Early 90's NYNY vs Big Brother Full Game Broadcast

[Gray]

This game was shot by a professional crew but I don't know
if this ever aired on tv. The only 2 people that I know of
in the video are Kenny Dobbyns (sp) and "Cribber". You can
tell the sport has come a long way from the style of
clothing to the style of play. Can anyone identify any of
the other players in here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDEVkudJKoY
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com

[ian p]

very cool. Thank you!

[california_encounter]

very cool! thanks for posting! things i noticed:
1) even in the early 90's, they frequently spiked the disc
after scores.
2) discussions/arguments were MUCH shorter. it seems there
was a call, and it was contested or not contested right
away, and play resumed. i liked it
3) the announcer (the non ultimate player one) kept on
talking about how great SOTG game was. great discussion
about it at 10:30.
4) some interesting rule changes since:, it seems there was
no brick. at one point a pull floated out of bounds in the
endzone, it was taken in the middle of the goal line. Also
pulls that were caught in the endzone were walked up to the
goal line. I like the new rules better.
5) nice short shorts!

[ulticritic]

On Jan 21, 2:45 pm, california_encounter <jsi...@mednet.ucla.edu>
wrote:

> very cool! thanks for posting! things i noticed:
> 1) even in the early 90's, they frequently spiked the disc
> after scores.

i only noticed one......by lenny. pretty damn conservative (in
frequency and verosity) compared to todays spikes.
------------------------------------------------

> 2) discussions/arguments were MUCH shorter. it seems there
> was a call, and it was contested or not contested right
> away, and play resumed. i liked it

yea, those guys werent all about making it theraputic.......but it was
still obvious that there were quite a few bail out calls in which
players were "drawing fouls".
-----------------------------------------------

> 3) the announcer (the non ultimate player one) kept on
> talking about how great SOTG game was. great discussion
> about it at 10:30.

eh, it was alright. i think plugging sotg is somthing every ultimate
announcer has to do at some time during an ultimate game as how else
is he gonna explain that ther arent any refs. what a waste of air eh?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 4) some interesting rule changes since:, it seems there was
> no brick. at one point a pull floated out of bounds in the
> endzone, it was taken in the middle of the goal line. Also
> pulls that were caught in the endzone were walked up to the
> goal line. I like the new rules better.

that second one was an original toad/nua rule so your welcome. i dont
know who the genius was that invented the brick but he definietely
deserves credit as even after the "bring it to mid field" rule was
established (thats right, at one time if a pull went ob you had to
bring it in on the sideline) pullers would still intentionally pull ob
so defenses could set up.

[JB]

Thanks for this. I picked up with some of these players at
Fool's Fest in Virginia a few years back. Incredible throws,
and a knack for completely infuriating opposing teams. Very
fun to play with.

[barkan]

Great to see. New York was a team packed with superb all-stars, deeper
than any time of its time and in my opinion, the most potent team that
has ever played. Beating them was a great accomplishment for any team
as they never went down without a fight. Someone posted on the video
that it would have been fun to see a Revolver/NY match-up (assuming
time travel, whatever). Yes, it would have.

Just for fun, as I imagine it, NY would have had no problem matching
up with Revolver's height and speed combo, and their feisty nature in
a close game (which it would be be) would put Revolver's calm to the
test. Both so stingy on offense, Revolver and NY would be a low
turnover game decided by nasty team defense and converting under
pressure. I like Revolver's game and they have a fantastic winning
formula, but at least in a first game, they would get knocked down and
dragged out - NY by 2.

[Lance Marput]

bump...

[homrbush]

dbarkan52 wrote on Sun, 22 January 2012 12:51

> <johndborgme...@gmail.com[/email]> wrote:
> > Thanks for this.  I picked up with some of these
> > players at
> > Fool's Fest in Virginia a few years back. Incredible
> > throws,
> > and a knack for completely infuriating opposing
> > teams. Very
> > fun to play with.
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

Out of curiosity, how would NYNY defend the horizontal
stack, an offence they've never seen before?

[seanc]

or the various junk defenses, or beau climbing a ladder in the endzone
-- not to say that nyny wasn't athletic, just that i've never seen
that era of ultimate player hit the stratosphere to the same extent as
this current crop of highlight makers. i think ny's intensity,
consistency, and physical play would make the game a challenging one
for revolver, but i'm also in the camp of believers that the game is
evolving, and that the improvements put the odds in favor of san
francisco.

sean

sean

[Euh]

Just for fun, as I imagine it, NY would have had no problem
matching
up with Revolver's height and speed combo, and their feisty
nature in
a close game (which it would be be) would put Revolver's
calm to the
test. Both so stingy on offense, Revolver and NY would be a
low
turnover game decided by nasty team defense and converting
under
pressure. I like Revolver's game and they have a fantastic
winning
formula, but at least in a first game, they would get
knocked down and
dragged out - NY by 2.

15-1 Revolver. And that's only beacause they would be
laughing at the outfits on the lone point.

[barkan]

FYI, NY helped invent junk and combat it for years, had brilliant
strategists that adjusted instantly to new D and O structures, and
would have had little difficulty with modern day strategies, which,
let's face it, are just not that sophisticated.

More importantly, the level of athleticism has not improved
significantly in 20 years, sad to say, though what has changed is
there are MORE talented players per team, just not better ones, in my
opinion. If you want to compare to Beau... Cribber jumped higher than
him (plus threw much better and played more athletic D). Revolver has
no one that was as nasty or intimidating as Jonny Gewirtz on defense.
Bottom line was NY simply did have athletes and throwers of the same
Caliber as Taylor, Watson, Cahill, Wiseman, etc (Dobyns, Blau, Skip
Kuhn, Demann, KIng)...

I still like my chances with NY, as they had a will and way to win
that was true "lightening in a bottle" as KD described it.

More interesting to me is if you step up a few thousand feet from this
conversation and look at the athletic level of our sport's best
athletes, I would say this - until we see Ultimate filled with Div 1
athletes who could otherwise be playing hoops, soccer or football, the
athletic level will stay pretty much the same over the next 20 years.
Not that it's bad or unexciting right now. It's great, but let's not
pretend true "Elite" athletes are populating our sport, even though we
call them by that name.

[Corley]

In re: athleticism levels, this comes out every time there's
one of these discussions. Barkan, you may be right that
ultimate is still not recruiting DI-quality athletes. But
let's remember that athleticism isn't just a number you're
born with--it's also the conditioning and fitness
commitments you make both individually and as a team. That's
where I think modern teams would in general outperform
historical teams--my understanding (and I could easily be
wrong) is that the sophistication and intensity of
elite-team conditioning and strength programs is much higher
now than it once was. So even if it's the same guys coming
in the door it stands to reason that they'd start the season
as better athletes.

What does this mean about Revolver-NYNY? Very
little--everyone seems to agree both teams are outliers from
the contemporary averages, and it's hard to gauge between
outliers. But I'd take the nationals-average team in 2011
over the nationals-average team in 199x any day of the
week--and that leads me to say that if I had to pick I'd
probably have revolver over NY.

Shorter version of the above: think the speed of the game is
faster now, maybe more due to conditioning techniques than
genotypes. Would favor Revolver.

[ultimate7]

On Jan 25, 10:25 am, barkan <dbarka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> More importantly, the level of athleticism has not improved
> significantly in 20 years,

This is not true. In the last 10 years the game has gotten faster,
considerably. Everyone that plays on elite club teams is fast now.
I'm not saying that this guarantees Revolver beats NYNY, but the depth
of athleticism is obvious.

[Drew]

To Corley's point, ie "my understanding (and I could easily

be wrong) is that the sophistication and intensity of
elite-team conditioning and strength programs is much higher

now than it once was", I would say not in this case. NYNY
apparently practiced up to 5 times a week during certain
times of the season. That's unheard of today. So I don't
think you're going to win any argument that any team today
has a greater intensity than NYNY, in any facet of the game.


Yes it's hard to compare teams and athletes across eras but
the accomplishments of teams like NYNY and DoG definitely go
beyond mere athleticism. I think its obvious that the
records of both of those teams speak not just to their
athletic ability but even more to their mastery of the
mental aspect of the game. So even if you think Revolver has
more athleticism, you'd have to give the edge to a team like
NYNY in the mental game...

[barkan]

New York practices were notorious for being completely physically and
emotionally exhausting - night after night. They would show up at
tournaments and not only be in unbelievable physical shape from brutal
work-outs, but it felt like they'd been let out of jail and just
wanted to release all that pent-up emotional angst from fighting with
each other on their competition. Maybe it was not "sophisticated", but
it was very effective.

[Corley]

Hmm. Thanks for taking the time to educate, guys. NYNY
definitely seem the far fitter team in the game above.

[3Jane.]

For me, that was painful to watch, the foul calling after you'd been
beaten was sort of sad and hopefully a relic of bygone days and no
reasonable non-ultimate sports fan could have watched it for more than
10-15 minutes without turning away in disgust at these prima donnas
shouting at each other while people are waiting to watch sports. If
it's worse than that now, I'm glad I don't see much high level
Ultimate anymore.
I know some of the guys, played against Mooney, with/against Dobyns
(both), King (the best NYNYer IMO), some of the older NYNYers, Mata
Phillips and his brother Chris were teamates, all good guys but for
better or for worse, the type of foul calling in that game is more or
less responsible for observers/refs movement today-people proved they
would cheat to gain advantage and can't be trusted, maybe some of them
ended up on Wall St. in 2006.
That said, I enjoyed the action video, I thought the camera angles
were great with the 3 or 4 cameras they had, they captured a lot of
the passing close up..

[luke smith]

I pasted this from a similar discussion on win the fields.

To weigh in on the discussion, the thought that 'the
grandparents just didn't play as well as we do now' is well,
to be kind, a crock -- on a lot of levels.

Prior to 1991, they were playing with the Whamo 80e and
older. Deeper dish, harder to hyzer (inside out). For
comparison, go throw with one of those Innovas. Makes anyone
better. I don't know what they are playing with in 1991 at
worlds. That is the transition year.

The whole 'we're all better now' comes up every couple
years. Unfortunately, while the short shorts and cotton may
not be cool now (and Cork's 'shirt longer than shorts' look
is a particularly unfortunate choice) these guys could play.
Period. If you are adamant that you know better, then fine.
But, I guess I'd say, ask Bart how good Biscuit was, and ask
Biscuit how good Cribber was. Or if you live on the east
coast, ask George how good Fortunat was, and ask him how
good Seeger was.

You don't have to ask Jim or Alex how good they were.
They'll be the first one to tell you.

Zing.

[Euh]

lukesmith wrote on Fri, 27 January 2012 23:11

No need to ask...the few videos speak by themselves.
Players were less fit, had less skills with the disc and
strategies were more basic.

[Drew]

wow, EuhnGroups, congrats on your "Dipshit Statement of the
Week on RSD" award, surprisingly snapping Toad Leber's
seemingly unbeatable streak of 118 weeks (although his hold
on the record is debatable since he only says the same thing
over and over, albeit with different, innovative spelling
choices).

[Reggie Fanelli]

> No need to ask...the few videos speak by themselves.
> Players were less fit, had less skills with the disc  and
> strategies were more basic.

~~~~~~

--more basic?.......why, because they didn't play the 'spread' offense
so that only 2 or 3 of their players were allowed to throw forward
passes?

[ulticritic]

On Jan 29, 1:05 am, Drew <drus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> wow, EuhnGroups, congrats on your "Dipshit Statement of the
> Week on RSD" award, surprisingly snapping Toad Leber's
> seemingly unbeatable streak of 118 weeks (although his hold
> on the record is debatable since he only says the same thing
> over and over, albeit with different, innovative spelling
> choices).

so you are saying that ME saying "a sport should have refs" is a
dipshit thing to say?
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

[Corley]

lukesmith,

It's pretty clear that you're a much more accomplished
frisbee player than I am, and that you have a far higher
probability, generally, of knowing what you're talking about
in discussions like this. But in this case the cut-and-paste
shows a little bit--you're debunking an argument that I
don't think anyone here has actually made. No one (except
Euh, who posted after you) is seriously claiming that 'the
grandparents' individually were bad players, or couldn't
hack it in today's game, or anything like that.

The argument, instead, is that vintage TEAMS would have a
difficult time with modern TEAMS. To wit:

I've just come from watching the first 10 points of this
game and of the
http://www.usaultimate.org/news/revolver-vs-ironside--open-final--oct-30-2011/#1st_half
game on the UPA website. Although it's a small sample, it'd
seem on its face to be a pretty apt comparison: a
championship game won by the teams we're comparing. The
opposition is even from Boston in both cases!

In the NYNY-Big Brother matchup, the first 10 points ended
7-3 NY (BB pulled). NY had 10 offensive possessions and
scored on 7 of them. Their 3 non-conversions were all
unforced: an overthrown swing that landed out of bounds, an
under near the sideline that curved out (and was nearly
saved), and a third throw to the sideline which was actually
borderline--the Boston defender got a hand on it but it
looked (and poor, blurry, could-be-wrong camera angles play
a part here) like both players landed at least a yard or two
out of bounds and it would've been out regardless of the d.
So either 3 unforced or 2-and-1.

Big Brother, on the other hand, had 9 offensive possessions
and scored 3. There were two big fat NY Ds(one on a hammer
and one where the guy threw a high-release right into
Dobyn's poach) and four unforced turns (one drop, an
overthrown huck, a throw out of bounds in the endzone, and
what looked a handler miscommunication on their own goal
line).

In Revolver/Ironside, the first ten points end 6-4 Revolver
(Ironside pulled). Each team had 8 possessions. Revolver
scored 6, with 1 handblock and one throwaway. Ironside
scored 4, was D'ed 3 times (twice on deep shots and once on
a layout handblock) and took one stall (not sure whether to
count this as forced or unforced).

So what's to make of all this? I don't think you can make a
whole lot out of 6/8 vs 7/10 as Revolver's scoring rate vs
NY's. What I'd emphasize instead is the much lower rate of
giveaways in the modern game. In the modern game, 10 goals
meant 16 possessions and just a single solitary throwaway
(and one stall). In the older game, 10 goals meant 19
possessions--but a massive 7 OB, long, dropped,
miscommunicated, or otherwise given away throws. That's
fairly stark. Even starker, maybe, is the ratio of unforced
to forced turnovers. In the modern game, there's one
unforced turn for every four Ds. In the earlier, there's
seven unforced turns to just two 'earned.'

Now there's admittedly a lot of issues with this kind of
analysis. The sample size is pretty darn small and I'd bet
selecting a different set of points would give different
results. You could also argue--and I'm sure people
will--that New York's famed 'psychological edge' and
'high-pressure' game led BB into making a lot of difficult
throws, and deserves some credit for all those OB turnovers.
There's probably some truth to that, and more sophisticated
frisbee-stats guys will probably take issue with my
categories.

But still: 1:4, 7:2. That's .25 giveaways per D in the
modern game, and 3.5 giveaways per D in the clip at top. If
the same ratio held today, the first ten points of
Revolver-Ironside would have seen 14 giveaways. Fourteen!

It's actually a bit weird--I was expecting for the lesson of
the comparison to be that 'modern defense is much
tighter'--and that certainly does seem true. There's just
two Ds in the first ten points of NY/BB and 4 in the first
ten of Rev/Ironside. (Though I didn't keep careful count,
the number of attempted layout blocks is MUCH higher in the
modern game--there's one early point where Revolver is
hitting the ground in vain on practically every throw.)What
I was surprised to find is how much tighter the offenses
are--even though there's twice as many Ds in the modern game
(4/2), there's 1/7 the number of throwaways (1/7).

All of this isn't to say--and I don't think--that New York
wasn't a great team, or a group of fierce competitors, or a
fearsome, dominant frisbee machine. But the numbers
suggest--even without appealing to arguments about
athleticism, or marks, or speed-of-disc movement, or how
closely defenders play their men--that you simply have to
work much harder to get the disc these days. At the top of
the club game you certainly won't encounter a team that
throws it away more often than they score.

I think the soccer people have a pretty good handle on this,
incidentally. Pele's generally agreed to be one of the two
or three greatest players ever--so are Garrincha etc. of the
Brazil 1972 squad, which is hailed rightly as one of the
best of all time. Yet no one seriously argues that they'd be
competitive with today's top international or (especially)
club sides. The way the game is played has changed too
much--modern players have much less time on the ball and
defenses are far better organized. I'd say a similar (if
less extreme) thing about New York New York. Many great
players on both sides of the disc. Dobyns is clearly a star,
and they're utterly dominant in this game and their era.
They deserve their place in history and for my money what
they accomplished is as impressive as anything that's been
accomplished since. With a year or two to prepare I think
they'd probably be competitive with anybody. But if the team
from this clip found themselves transported to Halloween
weekend of 2011, and saw Revolver across from them? It's
hard for me to envision anything other than a Revolver win,
probably by a good few breaks.

[jt]

On Jan 30, 1:20 am, Corley <corleyamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Not sure when the discraft started being used but the difference in
discs was huge. Can't tell what they were using in this game but if
it was the 80, then i those TO's are easily understandable.

jt

[barkan]

Nice analysis. I think this argument will be easier to have with
future comparisons, as stats become more prevalent. I like the way you
are thinking about it alot.

So, I think it's mostly a case of "you had to be there". What some of
us know, Corley, that you can't possibly know, is that NY would
typically play a semi or final game with 2-3 turnovers. That their
best players were as fast, athletic, and skilled as today's best,
blowing the competition and crowds way with breathless displays of
individual and team performance. That they had the best mental game in
the history of the sport. We saw them and we see the present day's
best, and in my case, I am waiting anxiously for the next level, and
it is nowhere in sight.

On Jan 29, 10:20 pm, Corley <corleyamil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lukesmith,
>
> It's pretty clear that you're a much more accomplished
> frisbee player than I am, and that you have a far higher
> probability, generally, of knowing what you're talking about
> in discussions like this. But in this case the cut-and-paste
> shows a little bit--you're debunking an argument that I
> don't think anyone here has actually made. No one (except
> Euh, who posted after you) is seriously claiming that 'the
> grandparents' individually were bad players, or couldn't
> hack it in today's game, or anything like that.
>
> The argument, instead, is that vintage TEAMS would have a
> difficult time with modern TEAMS. To wit:
>
> I've just come from watching the first 10 points of this

> game and of thehttp://www.usaultimate.org/news/revolver-vs-ironside--open-final--oct...

[Corley]

The evidence for the 'different disc' argument actually does
seem to be pretty strong. I didn't keep careful track, but
I'm given to understand that the biggest difference the disc
makes is 'more difficult i/o throws.' And there's very few
i/os on display in NY/BB. You see a few of the wacky 'o/i
under break,' notably by NY on the first (?) point, but very
few i/o. One of NY's unforced turns is on an attempted i/o
break that ends up looking like--well--mine, sailing high
and either out or into a D. (may have been called back, I
can't recall just now)

Anyways, think the argument's pretty reasonable. Not sure
how--or if it's even possible--to account for this in a
discussion like this. Do we have any footage of ny ny from
the ultra-star era?

[Euh]

druse77 wrote on Sat, 28 January 2012 22:04

> wow, EuhnGroups, congrats on your "Dipshit Statement of
> the Week on RSD" award, surprisingly snapping Toad Leber's
> seemingly unbeatable streak of 118 weeks (although his
> hold on the record is debatable since he only says the
> same thing over and over, albeit with different,
> innovative spelling choices).

Name one single professional sport that has not evolved
drastically in the last 20-30 years

[luke smith]

nba basketball.
honestly, do you think that either of last years finalist
hangs with the celtics or lakers of the mid 80's? to be
fair, some of that is due to talent dilution due to
expansion. but, both of those teams started 4 top 100
players.

[Slade]

Luke,

Yes- even though you are pitting them against a pair of
teams competing in their second NBA finals ever, the series
would be close for at least two reasons.

1. The substantial gains we have made in player longevity,
recovery time, and training for peak performance that we
have made in the last couple of decades. If we pick a random
'vintage' from the decade

2. The strategy, scouting and tactics (on both the offensive
and defensive side of the ball, but especially D), are also
far more advanced.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2009-05-13-video-data-analysis_N.htm

NBA TEAMS are bigger, faster, and smarter (esp. on D) than
their colleagues from 25 years ago. So are today's ultimate
players. And in our young sport, two extra decades of
polish, development, and game tape can make a huge
difference. Especially on defense. Help defense is better.
Zone/Junk defenses are more varied and confusing. Marks are
MUCH better.

Revolver (and all other elite teams) are built on the
shoulders of elite teams from the generation before. It's
not fair to pit 1991 NYNY against today's Revolver because
of the debt Revolver 2011 owes NYNY and teams like them.

But Revolver would win, possibly by a lot. And if 2031's
champion can't neutralize today's Revolver, I will be
disappointed.

Ben

P.S. A side note: I believe a team could be considered 'the
greatest ever' and yet not beat today's champion. They can
and should be measured against the success they had against
their contemporaries.

[barkan]

Ben, did you play against NY? Did you study them over time? I wish you
were right but you are not. LIke I said, until we get athletes from
the next level of elite athleticism, the difference between teams the
best from 1992 and 2012 will be negligible. Team training is a nice
advantage, but so is collective mental fortitude. In the end though,
it's all about genetics, and Ultimate is not getting the elite
specimens, not yet.

On Feb 1, 4:50 am, Slade <bslad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> Yes- even though you are pitting them against a pair of
> teams competing in their second NBA finals ever, the series
> would be close for at least two reasons.
>
> 1. The substantial gains we have made in player longevity,
> recovery time, and training for peak performance that we
> have made in the last couple of decades. If we pick a random
> 'vintage' from the decade
>
> 2. The strategy, scouting and tactics (on both the offensive
> and defensive side of the ball, but especially D), are also
> far more advanced.
>

> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2009-05-13-video-data-a...

[Slade]

Danny,

You are right- my information is limited. I did not play
against them, and what I have seen was gleaned from
available video footage. Perhaps ultimate is different from
other sports, and we have been treading water for the last
couple of decades when it comes to player talent, strategy,
and ability.

But through my eyes, I've seen the speed, complexity, and
depth of college and club teams increase steadily over the
last 9 years.

More players can do more things both with and without the
disc, which has led to better ultimate teams at the elite
(and every other) level.

I am unabashedly optimistic that the team performance
required to win a championship will be set even higher over
the next decade.

Ben

[Drew]

I think perhaps the funniest, strangest and dumbest line of
argument that keeps being promoted in this thread is the
"Zone/Junk defenses are more varied and confusing" and that
"strategies were more basic."

Anyone proffering this (inane) thesis should feel free to
elaborate and please tell us what "new" zone or junk
defenses have been developed over the last ten, fifteen,
twenty years? And while we're at it, please elaborate on the
new advanced forms of offense that have been spawned.

(Second dumbest line: "Marks are MUCH better.")

[Lk]

druse77 wrote on Wed, 01 February 2012 09:37

> Anyone proffering this (inane) thesis should feel free
> to elaborate and please tell us what "new" zone or junk
> defenses have been developed over the last ten, fifteen,
> twenty years?

Not supporting the thesis new defenses are better, but at
High Tide last year we had absolutely no answer for one
player on the opposing team who ran faster, jumped higher,
and out performed everyone on our team. Their offense ran
through him and we could not slow him down.

So we made up a new defensive strategy focused on him. It
was a basic junk zone D but we had one guy following him the
entire time always on his hip. Not only did this strategy
help us defeat this team (twice) BUT they didn't figure out
our scheme until late in our SECOND matchup. by then it was
too late.

Has anyone else needed drastic schemes to win games? I
think we've tried the same thing on a different team and it
failed miserably...
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos

[Lance Marput]

bump

[Slade]

Druse77,

How have you seen the game change over the last 20+ years?
If you're still active in the game, you probably have a
better perspective than most about how it has evolved. I'm a
bit hesitant to try to provide specific examples, because I
can't verify for sure that they were not already in use in
1991. Perhaps there are parallels to football (where new
defenses/offenses are dredged up and recycled with a twist).


Two examples on offense (as I understand it) is that the
horizontal stack offense was less common / brand new and the
two handler Condor zone O was not in common use yet.

Defensively, I believe that flat marks, with defenders
sagging off of handlers, is more common now. 4-man trapping
cup variations are seen more often in the women's game, but
are certainly present in the men's game as well. I haven't
seen a reference to gradient/transitional marks in any
80s/early 90s material I've read. Clam defenses and other
man/zone hybrids were around by 1996, but I'm not sure if
NYNY had seen much of them in 1991.

[Slade]

Druse77, do you think any of these things would help the
best teams become better? Might any of these lead to more
advanced tactics, better marking/defending/throwing
technique, new innovations, or appropriation and improvement
on old ideas?

Some things that are more common in 2012 than 1991:

-Video of elite games for scouting/technique/strategy
lessons.

-Strategy articles and discussions (e.g. The Huddle).

-Players that began playing organized ultimate in high
school or earlier (e.g. 25 y.o players with ten years of
experience).

-Elite College ultimate, with players gaining considerable
experience from the structure of regional and national
college competition.

-Deeper rosters, in terms of both skill and numbers, giving
people more rest as needed and ensuring that the ability
'replacement-level' player if a starter gets injured is
closer to the starter's.

-Coaches with elite playing experience (either for the team
itself, or for the players on the team who have benefited
from it in the past).

-More 'institutional knowledge' about what has worked and
not worked in the past within the ultimate community.

-A substantially larger pool of club players from which to
select the best for elite teams.

-Greater parity amongst elite teams, forcing 'the best' to
play close games more often throughout the year (and benefit
from that experience).

-Better international competition, bringing new styles which
the best in the US can learn from.

-Improved tryout processes, making it more likely that the
best players will actually be selected for elite teams.

-An increase in 'real wealth' in the U.S., giving many more
people the freedom to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars
training and traveling each year?

-An increased emphasis on sports and athletics within the
culture, especially youth athletics? And a corresponding
meteroric rise in people playing organized sports into and
beyond college?

[Lance Marput]

For me it's the throwing skills which are the most obvious
improvements in the last 30 years.

The average team in the 1980s would have 2 or 4 guys tops
who truly had their throws honed. Not the case anymore.


Peter Mc
Columbia, MO

[Slade]

This is a post from Steve Mooney in 1996, which talks about
a number of defensive strategies in vogue at the time:
http://abel.math.harvard.edu/~lee/concept3.html

A lot of it can be applied and built upon today, although I
thought these two comments were interesting (and reveals
some limitations of players at the time):
"most players can't throw a two finger more than 30-40
yards"
"Few players throw the inside out backhand well."

[Drew]

Yeah, for the record, I did not mean to put myself out there
as an expert on the state of the game or its evolution. I
was merely making a point that some of the arguments being
made were based on unfounded assumptions.

Yes, the game has evolved, grown and developed, especially
at the youth and college level. Even at the club level,
where you probably do have more parity and a greater pool of
athletes playing the sport. The unproven assumption being
put forth though was that this, ipso facto, would make
Revolver superior to the champions of bygone ages such as
NYNY and DoG. I think the mistake here is to draw
comparisons between the state of the general population of
players and the state of the "elite of the elite" teams (the
average club team may be better now than it was then, but
this does not make the best team now automatically better
than the best team then).

Also thrown into the mix was the useless, unsupported
assumption that strategies are far more complex now. Maybe
this was based on the sole game film that was the impetus of
the thread but I just declared it was a stupid statement
because no evidence was provided to back it up (and I'd bet
that no one can).

Early teams such as NYNY and DoG faced multiple defensive
looks and zones like the clam, 2-3-2, 1-3-3, the 4-man cup,
the box and one etc. Worse, they either faced them for the
first time and actually devised the strategies to counter
them (which again I would bet most teams today still use or
learned when they learned the so-called 'fundamentals' of
our sport) or they invented/tweaked/improved upon them.

In the recent open finals, how many innovative
offensive/defensive strategies were employed? Really?
Ironside broke out a zone for 2 or 3 points when they were
down 3 or 4 breaks in the 2d half.

[Slade]

Regarding the 'elite of the elite'... my belief is that
quality trickles up as well as down. Teams that play better
overall competition, select from a better talent pool, and
have richer history/strategy to draw on become stronger
teams. And the very best of the teams brewed in that
environment will probably beat a team that did not have
those advantages.

"Early teams such as NYNY and DoG faced multiple defensive
looks and zones like the clam, 2-3-2, 1-3-3, the 4-man cup,
the box and one etc. Worse, they either faced them for the
first time and actually devised the strategies to counter
them (which again I would bet most teams today still use or
learned when they learned the so-called 'fundamentals' of
our sport) or they invented/tweaked/improved upon them."

Do you think teams since 1991 have also
invented/tweaked/improved upon these fundamentals? Or did it
stop at NYNY? I would include DoG's innovations in the
post-1991 evolution, not with 1991 NYNY since their string
of championship began in 1994, even though Boston teams were
around before then. Having many of those fundamentals
already tested, summarized, evaluated, filmed, and refined
has been a tremendous boon as I have played and coached.

[Slade]

druse77:

"Also thrown into the mix was the useless, unsupported
assumption that strategies are far more complex now. Maybe
this was based on the sole game film that was the impetus of
the thread but I just declared it was a stupid statement
because no evidence was provided to back it up (and I'd bet
that no one can)."

I sheepishly realize that I was baited a bit into trying to
brainstorm new offenses/defenses created since 1991 to
defend my original post. Looking back, I realize I didn't
bring up the idea of 'new' at all. My phrase ('Zone/junk
defenses are more varied and confusing') did not have
Revolver in mind as much as the many different flavors of
zone that different elite teams execute today. I still
believe it is true, but I should have stuck to my central
thesis (better ultimate = better ultimate players = better
teams = best team in 2011 better than best team in 1991).

"In the recent open finals, how many innovative
offensive/defensive strategies were employed? Really?
Ironside broke out a zone for 2 or 3 points when they were

down 3 or 4 breaks in the 2nd half."

You're right- this year's final was relatively bland from a
defensive strategy perspective, although there was a
possession or two where Ironside ran a very unusual 'red
zone' zone after a short turnover (and got the turn). Lots
of straight-up marks, as I remember it. Ironside's D line is
probably more creative than Revolver's, and their style was
hampered by fewer points on the field (i.e. Ironside O
getting broken) and two O.B. pulls in the first half.

The open-side side stack that Revolver sometimes ran would
probably have caught the NYNY strategists a bit off guard,
and the aforementioned horizontal stack. I would say that
deep cuts are usually deeper before the throw goes as
compared to 20 years ago, making it more difficult to
poach/help from the back of the stack.

There are probably more, but that can give us enough
material to work with. Would NYNY make adjustments on the
fly after getting beaten by these differences to try to
minimize the damage? Sure, they were an excellent team with
a history of discipline and winning. And it would be a hell
of a game to watch. But I still think Revolver would win,
possibly by a lot.

[Drew]

ok, once again, I am not an expert on NYNY and their style
of play, there have been others on this thread, such as
Barkan, that have much more first hand knowledge about them
but I feel like statements such as, "Would NYNY make
adjustments on the fly..." is laughingly absurd. Every good
team makes adjustments and your talking about a team that
won 6 national championships and every final of every major
tournament they ever played. Your argument seems to envision
older teams like NYNY and DoG as being comprised of the
cavemen from GEICO commercials and they just won because
everyone else sucked.

And again, the statement 'Zone/junk defenses are more varied
and confusing' is a statement that just has no evidence to
support it and seems to exhibit some sort of "delusions of
grandeur" regarding the 'modern' state of the game. There
are many defensive strategies that we all take for granted
now that were created just to stop NYNY's four-person play.
I'd go so far as to say the Clam was a much more innovative
defensive scheme than any of the wrinkles that have been
developed since.

None of this means that I am saying NYNY (or D0G for that
matter) would beat Revolver or that I even really have an
opinion one way or the other. I'm just saying you gotta
recognize the heavy cognitive bias going on when you compare
the glorious present to the supposedly prehistoric past
(it's like the reverse of Republicans and Glenn Beck
fantasizing about the idyllic America of their youth in
comparison to the hellish nightmare that is now).

[Slade]

I'm confused why you're merging overlapping-but-distinct (in
my mind) eras on top of each other with your arguments. Do
you mean to say that the game became more advanced and that
innovation lasted beyond NYNY, but stopped after DoG's
string of championships?

I also don't understand why a debt of gratitude incurred to
players and teams that come before us somehow prevents teams
from making any advances in strategy or tactics. We aren't
comparing relative contributions or having a pissing contest
about who did the most to advance the sport, we are
comparing the absolute level of strategies/tactics available
to the best team in either era.

"I'm just saying you gotta recognize the heavy cognitive
bias going on when you compare the glorious present to the
supposedly prehistoric past (it's like the reverse of
Republicans and Glenn Beck fantasizing about the idyllic
America of their youth in comparison to the hellish
nightmare that is now)."

As a psychologist with a heavy emphasis on judgment and
decision making research, I am not familiar with the
'reverse nostalgia' cognitive bias- at least, not more often
than regular nostalgia.

[Slade]

By the way, I don't think you understand what I have been
saying (or are intentionally misinterpreting it). I have a
tremendous amount of respect for current and past elite
teams and players, and value their material and research
more than you or they know.

Over the past four years, I've ordered two hundred copies of
Parinella and Zaslow's technique and tactics book for the
leisure skills students that I teach at Clemson. Almost no
other L.S. classes have textbooks, paid for by the school,
but I convinced my boss because I think the past is
important. That's about $2000 worth of respect for teams in
the 1990s.

Access to information from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s makes
today's players better. I think this is such an advantage
(along with the many aformentioned and listed reasons) that
a team with six championships in the 1980s/1990s would
likely lose to a team with 2 championships in the 2010s.

20 years from now, NYNY (or DoG, since you keep bringing
them into this conversation) might still be regarded as a
'better' team and dynasty, perhaps the greatest of all time,
because of their sustained success, tactical contributions
to the game, and prominent position in the story of the
sport. But in a H2H game, I think Revolver wins. Possibly by
a lot.

[dan nonjax]

http://youtu.be/LypZIYEOawk?t=1m40s

I did just find this from a 1989 club championship. That is
the best example of explosiveness I have found from that
era.

[dan nonjax]

I am very intersted in the development and evolution of
ultimate, so this is a fascinating question.

Focusing on athleticism, I don't really see NYNY keeping up
with todays elite teams.

Lets look at the video:

From the NYNY game, this is basically the best highlight
reel moment, the one the announcers talk about and is
replayed at the end of the game.

Dobyns Highlight

http://youtu.be/yDEVkudJKoY?t=34m30s

Compare that to any of these, from Chain vs. Ironside:

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=5m5s

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=11m40s

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=14m50s

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=52m45s

Dobyns has decent ups, but his defender doesn't really
challenge the catch. You put any of the starting 7 D line
players from chain, ironside, or revolver in that situation,
I don't think Dobyns ever sees the disc on that catch.

In Ironside vs. Chain, you see lots of plays from a variety
of players that are more athletic and explosive than the one
highlight from NYNY, from their #1 athlete/player, KD.

Now, lets look at a negative example.

http://youtu.be/yDEVkudJKoY?t=4m22s

Here a NYNY player has clearly superior position to a
defender, but allows the defender to come from behind and
get the D. Not a very good shot, so it is hard to tell what
really happens, so not making too many judgements based on
that.

THis time from a Big Brother player, but a good example of
the athleticism of the period.

http://youtu.be/yDEVkudJKoY?t=14m50s

How many players on Chain, Ironside, Revolver, or Doublewide
DON'T make that catch? Tough to tell, obvoiusly. It is a bad
angle for a catch, but the reciever doesn't really have any
of the explosive push that you see from current high level
players. His bid is basically a fall toward the disc.

Compare to:

This failed defensive bid:

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=42m23s

Or this failed bid for a catch:

http://youtu.be/K7OQRf003Ag?t=20m26s

In both cases, the person bidding leaves their feet and
propels toward the disc in a manner dramtically more
explosive than the Big Brother player.

The activity and athleticism of the marks also seems to be a
big difference. In the NYNY vs. BB game, many of the marks
arrive and plant two feet to deter the break, but you don't
see the constant movement and intensity of the marks that
Ironside vs. Chain features as consistently. But, this is
sort of a generalized feel, didn't really do a complex
analysis to tell if there is real difference.

Obviously this is comparing two games, small sample size,
but I didn't see anything in the NYNY game that looked like
the athleticism that is now common on the elite club teams.

I'd love for someone to post some specific plays to the
contrary for a better comparison.

[kenneth44]

Not to suggest that I think my highlight is equal to any of
the many others you included in your post (truthfully, I
didn't actually watch any of them), but are you serious?

Consider for a moment that we're talking about 20 years ago.
Videotaping of tournaments was rarely done, it was usually
only the final, and the quality was extremely low. Don't
assume that just because you can't find video to show that
players 20 years ago were explosive it means they weren't.
That's some serious present day bias.

[Stephen Young]

Just for fun, in the context of comparing athletes, let's
look at 100 meter dash speeds in the modern era. Basically,
between 1968 and 2007, the world record fell from 9.95 to 9.
74 seconds. That's a massive, um, 2% decrease over, hmmm,
about 40 years in total. So, clearly, frisbee players from
the 80s were WAY slower, by like at least, um, say, 1%, than
the players today. Well, okay, if you throw in the insane
Usain, you get almost 4% faster, which actually might make a
difference in a game or two, but only if he himself is
actually playing. But, by and large, um, no.

And I've seen Kenny play, and played against him, and I've
seen the players of today play, and played against them. I
assure you, in his prime, he would be just as much a factor
today as he was then.

Stephen

[Corley]

Without taking any position about the veracity of your
claims, dannonjax, I think the only way the 'increased
athleticism' argument is going to get any traction is if
someone steals Dobyns' secret tryout notebook from 1992 and
compares the 40 times and verticals with those of current
players. The plural of anecdote, as they say, is not 'data.'


But now that you've brought KD himself out of hiding I'd be
very interested in his (and others) thoughts on the
drastically different takeaway/giveaway ratios in the modern
game.

[Slade]

Stephen,

Agreed- any difference in absolute levels of athleticism is
probably 2% or less. dannonjax, I think you are overstating
the case. In most of the clips you showed, the offensive
player made the catch despite the defensive bid.

However, since the sport is a lot younger than running,
technique/skill elements could advance more quickly than in
the 100m example. For example, footwork may be better now
(e.g. perhaps defenders are better able to
turn/explode/decelerate/time jumps/jump off of either foot),
but it's tough to conclude from a few highlight clips.

That being said, both of the KD grabs were damn impressive,
and showed all the elements (timing, explosiveness, speed)
that would make him an all star in any era.

Of course, we all know the most important factor in a
highlight reel catch...

[Corley]

Actually, Ben and Stephen, I think the 2% absolute
athleticism argument is less than totally sound. Pushing the
100-meter-dash time downwards is sort of the sports
equivalent of trying to reach absolute zero. We're already
pretty damn close to 'as fast as a human body can move,'
which means that even huge revolutions in biophysical
understanding are only shaving hundredths of a second off
the best time. The low hanging fruit there were eaten long
ago.

By contrast, I think the argument about ultimate athleticism
is precisely that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit.
People certainly are not moving as fast a human body can
move, nor jumping as high as a human body can jump. More
saliently, the advances that have been made at the moneyed
frontiers of professional sports about effective training,
nutrition, practice and etc have not been incorporated in
ultimate. To wit: our important events involve like 12 hours
of extremely high-impact activity over a 36-hour period.
It's practically miraculous for a team to go into the last
game on sunday with all their guys fit. This is NOT an
athletically optimized sport and even though people are
doing good work it won't be for some time.

So the argument about ultimate athleticism (and I think I'm
on board with it though not totally) is that because there's
still a pretty wide margin between 'what humanity knows
about athletics' and 'what ultimate players implement' it's
pretty darn plausible for athleticism in the sport to grow
at a rate much faster than the 100-meter-dash time does.
Ben, I think you were saying something similar.

[dan nonjax]

KD-

That is not quite what I was trying to say. You are
obviously correct in stating that there is going to be more
footage of explosive, highligh reel plays on current teams
because there is more footage in total.

I was trying to draw a comparison between two games: NYNY
vs. BB and Chain vs. Iron. In those two samples, I found
more examples of explosive, highly athletic play from more
players in the Chain vs. Iron game than in the NYNY vs. BB
game.

However, I freely admit I was a bit more familiar with the
Chain vs. Iron video. I was at that game, watched that video
more than once, and did not give the NYNY vs. BB game a full
viewing at 100% attention. There may be more plays within
that game that I missed that refute my point, I just missed
them, hence the request for others to post clips that may be
better examples.

The goal was to present a comparison between the athletic
plays of two games, one current, one past. Since we have
these two complete games to compare, it is a useful
comparison. Again, small sample size so there is a limit to
what can be said, but at least it is evidence of some sort,
which is more useful to observe than just speculation.

Admitting that this is an inconclusive judgement, but based
strictly on the comparison of these two games, evidence
points to current players being dramatically more athletic
and explosive.

Similar comparisons between more games might yield different
findings.

As for your highlight, it isn't even the best highlight I
have seen of you, you make it look pretty routine in this
case. But, it is the best highlight that I found from this
one game.

[Drew]

I think that again people are trying to infer things and
compare things that are just not equivalent. Yes it may be
true that skills and athleticism have gotten better,
increased generally in the sport of Ultimate but that does
not mean that the skills and athleticism at the very elite
level of the game have changed much.

Players from teams such as NYNY thought about ultimate more
than a human being probably should and worked on their game
and the necessary skills more than anyone else. Have you
heard of any present day team practicing 5 times a week? Or
are you just going to wave that off by assuming that team
practices are more efficient now? (That last sentence was
just a troll, "efficient practice" is obviously an
oxymoron.)

I made the mistake once of saying "Nice catch" to Ron
Papanek and was treated to a five-minute dissertation on his
footwork, the angle of the disc and the exact amount of
nanoseconds that he decided to reach for it. So, maybe all
ultimate players are more athletic and faster now (although
we have no hard evidence and those clips from the
Chain-Ironside game were hardly revelatory) but to say that
the skills and strategic development of elite level teams
are greater based solely on the passage of time (or one
video of a worlds final) is unfounded.

[Cris Shaikh]

@kenneth44, "I haven't watched the clip but I'm going to
base a judgement on it"
really? That's a pretty huge cop out. Take the 30 seconds
and then say you were just as explosive as those guys, it'll
mean more.

I know someone mentioned it but we also have to take into
account that people have been playing for a longer period of
time now. We have middle schools in Boston that have
ultimate as part of their gym curriculum. We have powerhouse
HS programs like Amherst that beat colleges. We have College
teams producing guys like the NextGen players.

A rambling, sarcastic few paragraphs about how 100M dash
times have decreased marginally in 40 years really has
nothing to do with the development of a sport that isn't
even 40 years old. I mean, look at what Tim Morrill is doing
with training and fitness.
NYNY was good, we know that. They were more than good, they
were a dominant dynasty. But that doesn't mean they could
beat top teams in 2012. This is not disrespect, or
"contemporary bias" -- it's just what happens over time.

[dan nonjax]

druse77 wrote on Wed, 08 February 2012 07:29

> So, maybe all ultimate players are more athletic and
> faster now (although we have no hard evidence and those
> clips from the Chain-Ironside game were hardly revelatory)

I am chiefly considering athleticism at this point, so
addressing only this point.

while it is imperfect, I feel that it is the closest thing
we have to solid evidence of the comparative athleticism of
two eras. We can't put KP and KD in a foot race to see who
is faster.... Well, I guess we could, but with all due
respect to KD, I think KP wins that race today. So, we are
left with anecdotes about playing against these guys and
video. I have no means of judging the accuracy of someone's
memory of playing someone 20 years ago, so the most
objective tool I see for evaluating the question is to watch
video and compare. We can all watch the same video,
reference common points of information, and discuss the
relative merits of a claim based on that evidence. In this
case, I am comparing one game to one game.

This leaves me with two questions.

In general, do you think you can make comparative judgements
regarding athleticism from watching video footage of two
teams games?

If yes, what DO you see when you watch the two videos and do
a comparison?

If no, why not? What is a better source of evidence? Can you
compare current teams, but not teams from different eras?

[dan nonjax]

bslade86 wrote on Tue, 07 February 2012 22:14
> Stephen,

>
> dannonjax, I think you are overstating the case. In most
> of the clips you showed, the offensive player made the
> catch despite the defensive bid.
>
> However, since the sport is a lot younger than running,
> technique/skill elements could advance more quickly than
> in the 100m example. For example, footwork may be better
> now (e.g. perhaps defenders are better able to
> turn/explode/decelerate/time jumps/jump off of either
> foot), but it's tough to conclude from a few highlight

> clips...


Most of the clips I was highlighting the athleticism of the
offensive players, except for the failed bid on the huge
huck. I did not see offensive players making those kinds of
athletic grabs with the same frequency in the NYNY game.

On the defensive side, the biggest thing I noticed is the
prevelance of layout d's from behind a cutter. This is one
of those highly explosive plays that demonstrates improved
athleticism. There are several examples of this in the chain
vs. iron game, but I did not spot any in the NYNY
(remembering that I did not comb through it second by
second, so I may have missed something).

Again, not saying that they did not happen in 1995, just
that in comparing these two games, I see a lot more examples
of highly athletic play in the more recent game.

[jacob]

I played from 1986 (NYC high school) to 2006 (masters). I still
occasionally spectate top open tournaments.

1) The best players on NYNY would still dominate today. I understand
that those of you who were not there are left to cherry-pick
highlights in order to discuss this, but I was present spectating this
game at 1991 Worlds, and as Kenneth alludes to above, the poor quality
of the video does somehow make the players look less athletic than
they actually were.

When discussing Cribber, people talk about his skying and his throws.
Fair enough. But let's also remember his uncanny lateral quickness
for a tall guy. He layed out like a cat. I don't mean he layed out
in the sun and relaxed. Although cats do that, and Cribber probably
did that when he was not playing, so maybe this was a sloppy simile.
Where was I? OK, I'm back. I have seen a small handful of players his
height who can throw like him, a small handful with his height with
his field sense, a medium handful with his height who can jump like
him, quite a few his height with his straight line speed, but only one
with the whole package: Mike Grant (who is maybe one or two inches
shorter); who edges him out as best offensive player ever because he
had a weaker supporting cast on the way to multiple rings and because
he had fewer turnovers. But I digress.

I am saddened to read a younger player be so quick to dismiss Dobyns'
athleticism. There really has not been an ultimate athlete quite like
him since. Too quick for the strong guys to guard, to strong for the
quick guys to guard. Pro athlete level vertical. Never mind about
the top throws and clutch blocks. He picked up with Team USA at
Potlatch 2001, when he was about 7 years over the hill(!), and was
still one of the best players out there. (For the record, I did lobby
against Dobyns being in the hall of fame because of the time he backed
his truck up against a port-a-potty door on a 100% degree day in order
to trap a nun inside. Yes, a nun.)

Skip Kuhn never gets his props. Great athlete by today's ultimate
standards. Matty J would still get open at will. Bob Deman and Dave
Blau would still be a dominant big men with throws ala Andrew
Lugsdin.

2) My friend and Hall of Famer David Barkan is wrong when he states
that the top ultimate athletes in NYNY's heyday were across the board
comparable to today's players. This may be true when it comes to
smaller players. It may be true when comparing Cribber to Beau
(although Mike Grant, recent retirement notwithstanding, would be a
more apt comparison, as Grant could also throw), but the # 5 to # 50
athletes in the game who are 6 feet or taller are much more explosive
than their contemporaries 20-25 years ago. There are teams who can
easily field 7 players who can all dunk. That was pretty much unheard
of back in the day.

3) The argument about today's players training harder than NYNY is a
wrong turn. The point is that they are training smarter, not harder.
Weights, plyometrics, diet, track workouts ... and rest. Even
assuming equal athleticism and hours spent training, Revolver's
players are physically more prepared to play ultimate than the NYNY
players.

4) Who would win between NYNY and Revolver? I don't know, and neither
do you. It's fun to write about it and think about it, but please
don't be so certain about your conclusions here, gents ... apologies
to those who were cautious with their words here.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> 1) The best players on NYNY would still dominate today.

~~~~~~~~

--- 'nuff said!

[Stephen Young]

[quote title=jacob wrote on Wed, 08 February 2012 11:24]

1) The best players on NYNY would still dominate today.

2) . . . but the # 5 to # 50 athletes in the game who are 6

feet or taller are much more explosive than their
contemporaries 20-25 years ago.

That sounds about right to me.

[Euh]

jacob wrote on Wed, 08 February 2012 11:24

> 4) Who would win between NYNY and Revolver? I don't
> know, and neither
> do you.

Yes we know.
I don't see why it should upset the old players, the same
could be said for just about every sports. The top ulti
players in 20 years from now will be better than today's
best.

They were the best at their time, that's what should matter
to them.

[jacob]

Euh,

I am not "upset", I am annoyed. And I am not annoyed at the the
notion of Revolver beating NYNY, but rather your unsupported degree of
certainty that this notion is correct.

Also, please note that I am a decade younger than most of the NYNY
guys, so even if it a diss to write about them theoretically losing to
Revolver, it is not a diss to my generation of players - about 10 of
my former teammates have played for Revolver. I played at club
nationals 4 times between 1995 and 2000, after the fall of NYNY. In
the early 2000s, I played on solid, non-qualifying teams in the very
competitive northwest region, so I got a good look at Jam, Furious,
Sockeye, etc. I was a Jam practice player in 2007 and had the good
fortune to play at 2007 ECC; probably the #2 tournament, after
nationals. And, as I stated earlier, I still sometimes watch top
level ultimate. I went to Labor Day in Santa Cruz in 2011; which had
most of the nationals quarterfinal qualifiers present. So if I say
that NYNY in their prime would beat top modern teams (and I didn't so
much say this as say: "don't be so sure it wouldn't happen"), I may be
wrong, but I'm not speaking out of some bias against the teams that
followed NYNY.

While the 1994-1999 DOG dynasty was incredible, other than a last-
minute infusion of Fortunat and Safdie in 1999 for the sixth and final
ring, that team's core was primarily guys who NYNY had owned in the
early 90s, and those DOG guys were not inexperienced as individuals or
at working as team during those days. DOG had only a handful of close
games during their 6-peat run, so it's fair to say that the guys NYNY
owned in turn owned everyone else for 6 years.

I probably should have stated earlier that overall, today's teams are
much better than teams from 20 years ago, so we probably agree more
than we disagree about hypothetical match-ups between past and present
teams. The # 8 team at 2011 nationals beats the # 8 team from 1991
nationals by about 15-9. It's just that comparing today's top teams
to NYNY is bit different than comparing their # 8 counterparts. I
wish I could do this argument more justice, but if you have no respect
for oral history in the face of grainy video footage, even a better
argument would probably fall on deaf ears. Your loss, Euh, and
probably not just in this forum.

Your comparison to other sports' advancement in the past 20 years
doesn't really hold up. Those sports have had a huge wave of money,
recruitment, professional training, diet, etc. that, as I wrote above,
top ultimate has benefited from, but nowhere near to the same degree
as big-time sports. It is also worth mentioning that most other
sports have improved largely due to their top athletes having much
more muscle on their bodies from regular, heavy weight-lifting and
steroids/HGH, etc. This phenomenon has not hit ultimate. We just
have skinny guys who are, on the whole, a step faster and in better
shape.

* As a side note; I think many more modern teams could have hung with
the late 80s NYNY teams, and likely beaten them. However, NYNY got
much stronger in the early 90s.

[Slade]

Thanks, Jacob. Very insightful post.

[jacob]

Then again, this isn't really "oral history." Doh.

[Drew]

Now I remembered why I bothered typing anything, and I
realize that I could have been much more concise:

"EuhNGroup is just an ignorant moron."

I did quickly confirm this by a quick review of some of his
other posts on other topics and his stupidity is actually
fairly consistent. Good work.

[corey]

I might be the only one that went to club natties with players from
both NYNY and Revolver. I still remember being a practice player for
NYNY summer of '94 before they went off to win their last title. And
I've played non-natties tourneys with at least 5 guys from Revolver.


So here's how it goes:

NYNY in their prime could be Revolver.

Speed? -- Skippy might still hold high school track records today, so
they had that. I don't even think he was the fastest guy.

Height? -- crib, blau, demann, others. Those guys had it.

Throws? -- Let's play this game with a whamo, does everyone still love
revolver? because those things were hard to throw. Everyone is a
thrower in today's discraft world.

Strategy? -- I still have my mimeographs (haha, OK photocopies) of the
handwritten playbooks that I believe came from the 80s. They were
just as in-depth as anything the Condors from 10 years ago had. Trust
me, those guys thought about and understood the game.

Experience? -- this is the only one on here where I'd guess revolver
might have the true advantage. one of the best points made on this
thread was that today's players started the game at a much younger
age. That's the big difference I'd see in this game, that the 25 year
old athletes on revolver might already have 10+ years of playing.
That said, NYNY had guys like Ben Usadi (sure there were others, can’t
remember) that played for years in high school, even in the 80s.

JAM won natties in 2008 with many of the guys that had been playing
since the '90s. If the sport had really changed all that much, there
should have been no chance that all those guys could win nationals
that late in their "careers." Could the game have changed that much
since then? Don't think so.

When I was coming up in the game, I couldn't get enough of stories
about the 80s rivalries. But today, I feel like there just aren't as
many "students of the game" that are interested in the history. That
lack of knowledge leads to this misperception that there is no one
better than today's players.

And that just ain't true.

[kenneth44]

@ilyas - I never made a judgment about the clips I didn't
watch. Try to read a little more carefully.

So yes, I have joined the discussion, but I can't make any
valuable contribution to a discussion of the different
takeaway/giveaway ratios in the modern game. I just don't
follow it. But there is one point that I think is worth
making.

While athleticism can be impressive, it's often over-rated
when it comes to determining the outcome of a game.

As our dynasty was winding down in '92 and '93, we heard
stories of the up and coming teams and their rosters packed
with impressive ultimate athletes. Our roster was filled
with older guys, we hadn't really groomed enough young
talent, and the next generation was ready to supplant us (or
so the stories went). But 40 yards splits and 40 inch
verticals don't win games.

In 1992 we were met at Nationals with an admonition to watch
out for the NW Regional champs, Rhino Slam, because they
were young, fast, talented, and gunning for us. I think our
semifinal against them ended 21-4. The following summer in
the semis at worlds they had a 3 goal lead at game point,
and we scored the last 4 to win.

In 1993 it was Double Happiness who was going to run us off
the field and out jump us all day long. We beat them by 8 in
the finals at worlds. But at Nationals that year they handed
us our only pool play defeat in seven years, 19-12, and when
we met in the finals they may have imagined they were going
to prevail again. They were wrong, again by 8 goals.

I won't even pretend that our 1993 team was as athletic as
today's champions. Hell, we weren't even as athletic as the
teams we were beating by large margins back then.

We were just better.

[joaq]

The real question should be how would the old school teams
do in a tournament where there are more quality teams and
more hard games, like, say, 2011 club nats vs. 1991 club
nats. I don't have the answer. Corey? Jacob?

-Joaq

[Euh]

A grainy video footage vs biased oral history; which would
win in court ?

[Corley]

@kenneth44--thanks, to you and the other guys who were
there, for generally being part of a constructive,
respectful and polite dialogue about this stuff.

The point about takeaway/giveaway ratios (which I made at
possibly-tedious length in one of the posts above) is that
the biggest quantifiable difference between the modern game
(as exemplified by the revolver/ironside footage from this
years natties) and the early-90s game (as
admittedly-inadequately exemplified by the nyny-bb footage
that started this whole thing) is the kind of turnovers that
occur.

Basically, in the first ten points of the nyny/bb footage
there's 3.5 of what I call 'giveaways'--throwaways, drops,
out of bounds--for each active 'takeaway' in which a
defender actively makes a play. In the first ten points of
rev/ironside footage there's only .25 'giveaways' for each
actual D.

I don't really know why this is (someone mentioned
less-cooperative discs) and I don't have a very strong idea
of what it means, but to me that's the most radical and
least hand-wavey difference between the two clips: BB
politely hands you the disc whereas you have to take it away
from Ironside.

Obviously a more valuable version of this argument would
result from watching the whole clips, or from having better
footage. But the two games seem quantitatively different, at
least to me.

[Cris Shaikh]

kenneth44,
You make a good point about the athleticism. When watching
Elite games currently, it is not always the more athletic
team that wins. Focus, chemistry, and intensity seem to play
a big part as well(something your team seemed to have to
spare).
I have two questions for you, and I'm sorry if it seemed
like I was attacking you before.
Did you guys really play with a WHAM-O in that video?
What do you think was the final straw that allowed the DOG
era to begin?

[Euh]

The point about takeaway/giveaway ratios (which I made at
possibly-tedious length in one of the posts above) is that
the biggest quantifiable difference between the modern game
(as exemplified by the revolver/ironside footage from this
years natties) and the early-90s game (as
admittedly-inadequately exemplified by the nyny-bb footage
that started this whole thing) is the kind of turnovers that
occur.

- Why inadequately ? Was that a game or not ?

I don't really know why this is (someone mentioned
less-cooperative discs) and I don't have a very strong idea
of what it means, but to me that's the most radical and
least hand-wavey difference between the two clips: BB
politely hands you the disc whereas you have to take it away
from Ironside.
Obviously a more valuable version of this argument would
result from watching the whole clips, or from having better
footage. But the two games seem quantitatively different, at
least to

- The video is perfectly watchable...

[Corley]

Inadequately because I think that we'd all like to have more
to base our speculation on than 45 minutes of a single
not-particularly-close game and various recollections, and
because--although the

'better' probably my error: more appropriately 'more
complete' or just 'more.'

[jacob]

Joaq - I don't know. There are legit arguments in both directions.
You could argue that NYNY would not be as sharp by the time they got
to finals because they would be tired from playing a greater number of
good teams. You could also argue that playing more competitive games
would keep them in a better rythym than crushing relatively much
weaker teams all weekend and then having to bring it out of the blue
against two teams for semis and finals. But I'm still not really sure
that the #5 - # 16 teams at nationals in 2011 would actually give 1992
NYNY a close game, so this probably is not "the real question."

[jacob]

Euh,

Speaking as an attorney, I can tell you that either oral history or
grainy video could "win in court", depending on context, quality of
the attorneys, and brain-power of the jury. In any event, the
underlying breakdown in our communication stems from the fact that you
simply do not respect the opinions of people who have actually
witnessed all the players we are discussing, while rather mysteriously
putting a great deal of stock into your own, rather poorly-informed
opinion.

Many experts will tell you that eyewitness testimony to crime is quite
unreliable, so if there is some overlap between the mental/emotional
state of witnessing crime and that of witnessing high level ultimate,
your skepticism may actually be well-grounded. But if you heard a
really, really, low-quality recording of Jimmy Hendrix circa late 60s
and used that as a basis to qualitatively compare him to modern guitar
players, that would still be foolish. This foolishness would be
compounded if you wrote with utter conviction that you "knew" modern
guitar players were better than Hendrix while corresponding with
musicians who disagreed with this and who were familiar with both
Hendrix and modern guitarists.

Also, while Dobyns has a valid point about less athletic teams using
focus, grit, etc. to beat more athletic teams, and while NYNY did have
supreme focus and grit, neither 1992 Rhino nor 1993 Double Happiness
were more athletic than the NYNY teams of those years, at least when
comparing starting players.

[thefan]

Euh knows jack about jack. has repeatedly filled up space
on this forum that would have been better used as an ad for
hand warmers or laxatives. he barely knows anything about
ultimate today much less ultimate in the early 90's, likely
before he was born.

[Euh]

jacob wrote on Wed, 08 February 2012 19:56

> Euh,
>
> Speaking as an attorney, I can tell you that either oral
> history or
> grainy video could "win in court", depending on context,
> quality of
> the attorneys, and brain-power of the jury. In any
> event, the
> underlying breakdown in our communication stems from the
> fact that you
> simply do not respect the opinions of people who have
> actually
> witnessed all the players we are discussing, while
> rather mysteriously
> putting a great deal of stock into your own, rather
> poorly-informed
> opinion.

- The video is clear enough (pic quality wise) to make a
fair judgement for THIS game. It's better than many live
streams we've had recently.

- I'm ready to change my opinion if you tell me that THIS
particular game wasn't representative of a typical high
level game of that era. (although I expect you to tell me
why: exhibition game ? they had a party the night before ?).
As of now you're telling me to not beleive what I see (CGI
didnt exist at the time right ?).
-But I'm also skeptical about your claims because this video
is in line with all the old footage available. I doubt I'm
the only one who thinks this (No, I didnt write any of the
comments in youtube...)

[jacob]

Euh,

I have given up on changing your mind.

I do understand where you are coming from on this. I have watched
ultimate footage from the 1980s and been astonished at how much the
quality of the top teams has advanced in 20 years. As I alluded to
before, most current top teams would crush most top teams from 20-25
years ago.

I have just not been able to convince you that NYNY was special.
Vastly superior to their competition and vastly superior to most teams
playing today. It is your loss that you did not see them play.

I am not telling you "not to believe what [you] see", I am telling you
not to have so much confidence in your ability to accurately assess
NYNY. Whether you are "the only one who thinks this" or not is of no
consequence to me, and of no consequence to the issue at hand - again:
not that you believe Revolver would beat NYNY (maybe they would), but
rather that you are so certain of your opinion, particularly as you
know so little about this.

[pacemaker]

Euh,

May I suggest analyzing the DoubleWide-Revolver semi-final
last year. The first point took 16 minutes and featured 17
or 19 turnovers. The game on the next field over
(Ironside-Chain) finished, I think, 5 points in that time
frame. I could recheck the twitter log, but nah..

Could I show you those two 15 minutes of ultimate and have
you draw a conclusion? What if I had you compare the
Revolver-DoubleWide footage to the NYNY footage.

What conclusions can you draw? None!

pacemaker

[dk]

Easily one of my favorite threads on RSD in a long time.

Like my friend Jacob I spent the majority of the '90s and a
good chunk of '00's playing on and against the best teams.

While on Saucy Jack, a year on PCS (swear allegiance),
Double Happiness, Jam, and Sockeye - I had the chance to
play against and watch the last few years of the NYNY
dynasty, the entire DoG dynasty, as well as the rise of the
Condors and Furious to world powerhouse status.

In fact, much like Corey, I played against all of these
teams multiple times - except ironically NYNY who I only had
a chance to watch due to being on the other side of pool
draw at nattys - unless your count Randall's Island which i
don't think one can.

My perspective, which along with $4 will get you a coffee at
starbucks, breaks down this way:

1) The quality of teams in today's game, from a depth pov is
much higher. The #17-30 teams in the country today would
consistently beat the #17-30 teams from the early to mid
90's.

2) At the #6-16 (aka natty's qualifiers who would not be
considered a favorite at possibly winning a ring) the
comparison is not quite apples to apples as nattys only had
12 teams during the '90's, but still should be close enough.
For this set bucket of teams i would expect today's teams
to take 6 to 7 out of every 10 games played. There are
multiple reasons for this, ranging from the higher quality
of athlete (on average, variances at the top are very
possible), the explosion of high school/youth ulty in the
past decade which has resulted in 25 year old club players
having 10-15 years of experience in some cases, and ability
to scout and prepare game plans on a per team basis.

3) The cream of the crop goup of #1-5, this is where it gets
super tough. I'm going to go with a 50/50 split for every 10
games played, with perhaps a slight edge in the 4 and 5
teams going to today's teams. The top teams then and today
seem to be centered around 1-2 superstars with plenty of
other high caliber talent surrounding them. These superstars
are not always the fastest or can jump the highest, but they
are near the top in those areas AND are considered great
leaders.
Boston had Moons and [fill in literally any one of 3-4
guys though if i say Jim P. his head may get too big to fit
thru a door and we don't want to see that happen].
NYNY had Dobyns and Cribber - a very good argument could
be made for this being the greatest thrower/receiver combo
ever, especially as Cribber was also an excellent thrower in
case he didn't catch a KD score.
Condors had Dugan and much like Boston you can choose
from 3-4 here, incldung Andy Crews who i believe was a track
stud.
Jams had Damien and Biscuit (arguably the best mix of
hops + spacial awareness/reading in the '90's/early '00's)
Furious had Mike Grant and Lugsdin - this combo was
brutal given that both guys were fast enough to go deep at
any moment and had the combo of hops and spacial awareness
to dominate if thrown to while streaking.
Z had Paco (a top 5 thrower from the '90's imho, but a
guy most people this decade have never heard of)
Ironside has Stubbs.
Revolver has Bart.
Chain has Zippy and SammyCK
The one thing all of these guys have in common is that going
into the game against them, you realize that the odds of
shutting them down is near zero and your best outcome is to
contain them. And granted i'm mixing a bit of the "compare
teams from 20 years ago" with "compare teams from the 10-20
years ago", but whatever it's my post ;). I would take the
Boston and NY star combos to more than hold their own
against today's star combos. The rest of the team would
feed off of these guys and the games would be much closer
than people believe.

And for those of you who don't recognize many of the names
above, perhaps you've had an experience playing against a
masters team at sectionals or regionals. The last guy on
your club roster was probably faster and could jump higher
than the best player on the masters team, but most likely
they gave you a pretty good game - maybe even beat you.
Maybe it's fair to think that those same guys, 5 years
younger, probably would have given you a better game, maybe
even beat you by more? How about 10 years younger? 15?

FLG someone get that time machine perfected...

Dennis K.

[jacob]

Could you please repeat that?

[Cris Shaikh]

DSKY, I think you have to throw Brodie/Kurt in as a
comtemporary powerhouse duo

[dk]

ilyas wrote on Mon, 13 February 2012 10:31

> DSKY, I think you have to throw Brodie/Kurt in as a
> comtemporary powerhouse duo

That's a good duo for consideration. I'd be more apt to add
them more quickly once they have some years of leading their
clubs to some rings or at least consistent Finals
appearances.

[dk]

EuhNGroups wrote on Sun, 12 February 2012 16:58
> dsky88 wrote on Sun, 12 February 2012 12:07

> > Furious had Mike Grant and Lugsdin - this combo was
> > brutal given that both guys were fast enough to go deep
> > at any moment and had the combo of hops and spacial
> > awareness to dominate if thrown to while streaking.
>
>

> J.Cruikshank was probably as (more ?) intrumental as
> (than) Lugsdin.



Very fair point. Picked Lugsdin as while Jeff was the
better thrower (his release points caused havoc with even
the lankiest of markers), Lugsdin was a more dominating
defender (when he wanted to be) and was a threat to come
down with skyballs when going deep.

[Jim Mallon]

What DK said ^

Excellent take.

Don't forget NYNY also had Danny Weiss AND Pat King, both
already in the HoF and both unassailable field leaders
virtually equal to KD and Crib in importance and influence.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that NYNY also
had 3 or 4 (or more) other veritable superstars in Gewirtz,
Walter, Billy, Blau, Blair....etc.

The other thing is, as I mentioned in a PM discussion of
this topic elsewhere, NYNY had one other thing that few if
any other teams can ever truly claim: and that was big brass
balls the size to two suns. They put the fear into other
teams.

[Euh]

Jim Mallon wrote on Tue, 14 February 2012 15:11

Guys wearing girly shorts....woooooooooo the fear

[pacemaker]

Oh yeah...those Revolver players with their Speed Lines
carved into their hair and beards. That was something to
fear.

Go ahead. Make fun of shorts from 20 years ago, yet not
heckle the styling choices of Revolver. Add in the
Beau-hawk and you really got a strong argument there buddy.

Once you are old enough to be able to look back even a
decade on any of your own or society's fashion choices,
please report back.

And none of this has anything to do with the play on the
field.

That Paco guy and someone named Dugan were playing in that
(gasp) live-streamed Master's Final if'n you'd like to take
a look.

pacemaker

[barkan]

Hey, this really has been a thoughtful and respectful conversation.
Refreshing. No insertion of the ref issue either. Sweet.

My conclusions, now sharpened by the conversation:

1. Teams today certainly have deeper pools of talent across the
country than 20 years ago. At the top level, I'd have to say much
deeper
2. More talent on teams does not mean the players are more talented.
Its about numbers. I still say there has been no significant advance
in talent in the last 20 years, meaning the best of today are not
better then the best of back then.
3. NY NY was very unique, the deepest in talent of its time, and
without a doubt (in my mind), rivaling today's teams in terms of
depth.
4. Saying NY NY could beat Revolver takes nothing away from Revolver.
They are state of the art and will be tough for any team to dethrone.
This statement is all about NY's legacy, which I believe transcended
the era in which they played.
5. NY NY had that elusive collective killer instinct and will to win
that can and did trump the talent of opponents
6. The pair of KD and Cribber was devastating then and would still be
so today, not just because they could go nuclear at any time, but
because 7 or 8 other guys on their team could it too.
7. In my opinion, Dennis "Cribber" is the best two-way Ultimate player
in the history of the game, and I have been playing and watching for a
long long time.
8. When there are a number of players significantly better than
Cribber in the game, that will be a sign (to me) that the game is well
on its way to the next level.

[Euh]

Just for the sake of discussion, who could currently be
considered the best sub 5'6''-7'' player ?

[Cris Shaikh]

Max on DW?

Also, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but which
player is Cribber in the original video?

[Jim Mallon]

Happy to be able to ID Cribber for you in the original
video...

He's the 6'5"-ish guy who returns the disc to the thrower
after a foul call with a 65-yard, on-the-money hammer from
the far goal line cone on the right side of the screen.
IIRC, whoever's calling the game actually remarks on the
throw.

[Cris Shaikh]

where in the 52 minute video is that?
What number is he?

[Knappy]

"Just for the sake of discussion, who could currently be
considered the best sub 5'6''-7'' player ?"

kenny's online bio has him at 5'7".

Southpaw is a two time quarterfinalist & one of their
primary handlers during that run is Dave Brandolph, who
might be 5'7". Southpaw is not a very tall team, they have a
bunch of impact players under 5'10" (miggs, purifico, baer,
schmucker are all midgets)

Brett Matsuzka on Ring was the most dominant player that I
saw at MA open regionals, & he is listed at 5'8". He looked
shorter to me in person, but I'll go with that number.

Revolver has 4 dudes listed at 5'8" or shorter, and I recall
that Ryo dude being an impact player at nationals & he can't
be much taller than KD.

I am not sure what your point is here, Euh. Are you saying
that a shorter player could not dominate today's ultimate
game? If that's your implied point, it's a moronic one.

[Euh]

Knappy wrote on Thu, 16 February 2012 14:19

Well none of the guys you mentioned are exactly superstar
material.

[Cris Shaikh]

Matsuzka is a stud.
And Max on DW is one of the engines of that team

[tyler kinley]

How aboooouuuuuut.....

Fortunat Mueller - DoG/Ironside
Ryan Todd - Ironside
Paul Batten - Ironside
Jaime Idaho Arambula - Sockeye/Condors
Max Cook - DW
Patrick Bayliss - Revolver
Kevin Cho - Machine
Hensley Sejour - Chain/Machine/Cash Crop
Aly Lenon - Sockeye
Brett Matzuka - Ring
Nick Handler - Revolver
Danny Karlinsky - Sockeye
Nick Schlag - Revolver
Joel Schlachet - Revolver
Mauro Ortiz - Furious
Jit Battacharya - Revolver
Breeze Strout - Rhino
Jay Hammond - Chain
Scotty Nichols -Goat
Josh Markette - Chain/Ironside
Kris Bass - Ring
Jason Zhang - Jam

Euh, you are the best! Keep giving me reasons to recognize great
players!

[Euh]

players![/quote]

A lot of these guys are over 5'7'' and/or retired from the
open scene. The question is: who is CURRENTLY the best 5'7''
(or under) player ?

PS: in your case, does the height take into account the
bandana effect ?

[Ulty Arnie]

To add to TK's list, I figured I would name a few I remember playing
top level disc from low level height this past season

Tyler Kinley - Sockeye
Josh Wiseman - Revolver
Ryo Kawoaka - Revolver
Raj Prasad - Cash Crop
Derek Alexander - Goat

Keep'em coming boys!

[Euh]

And the follow-up question:
Given that a 5'6''-not-excatly-wire-thin K. Dobyns was
apparently among the top 5 players in the early 90's and
that none of the current top 50* players is below
5'10''...How can people still claim that the level of
play/athletism hasnt changed in 20 years even for the best
of the best ?


*On that fantasy draft from 2009, Nick handler is picked at
#111...
http://www.the-huddle.org/features/2009-mock-draft/open-draft-board/

[Euh]

Tyler Kinley - Sockeye: you mean the commentator at the last
championship ? I'm talking about players... (jk)

Josh Wiseman - Revolver: listed at 5'8''

Ryo Kawoaka - Revolver: listed at 5'8''
Raj Prasad - Cash Crop: listed at 5'8''
Derek Alexander - Goat: listed at 5'9''

Keep'em coming boys![/quote]

on tiopic please

[Drew]

You just continue to make the dumbest arguments. I will give
you credit though for at best being an excellent troll and
getting more attention than someone with your limited
brainpower ever deserves.

"One of the best players in 1990 was only 5'7" + "There are
no dominant/great players who are 5'7 presently", ergo,
"Athletes today are way better than 1990." Socrates could
not have held a candle to the genius mastermind of logical
argument that is EuhNGroup. Bravo sir. I pray to god you
never have offspring.