The Huguenard Report
Frank Huguenard
Ultimate Frisbee.
Is it a smoking gun? I think it is but you'll have to draw your own
conclusions and decide for yourself. I guess that it also depends on what
it is exactly that I set out to prove and whether or not you're willing to
accept some of my logic.
It's a long article but there is an incredible amount of evidence that I
assembled to make my case so please take the time to read through it all.
Go to www.z-boyz.org and click on the New Games Report.
Kebo
skateboarders that they were terrible skaters, that their skills were
nothing compared to his, and that what they were all disillusioned
kool-aid drinkers for skating in their own style.
I guess my opinion of him has changed...he's a prick.
nro...@gmail.com
the New Games tenants, as I am only 26, but I can see the connections
between New Games and Ultimate based on your evidence. I imagine the
founders of Ultimate were not intending for Ultimate to be as
expansive as it is today, and a split between New Games Ultimate and
competitive Ultimate would be interesting. I understand Disc Hoops is
an alternative, but I would still be interested in seeing a version of
the current Ultimate with the competitive rules put back in. Well done
Frank.
ulticritic
> I didn't realize that Jay made a constant point of telling other
> skateboarders that they were terrible skaters, that their skills were
> nothing compared to his, and that what they were all disillusioned
> kool-aid drinkers for skating in their own style.
he didnt have to....their sport evolved
ulticritic
you know you gotta think that such a testimony would be put "on file"
by some upa administrator.....but like they say, tell your
congressman. But really, forward this to that mike payne dude. his
contact is all over rsd now
Red
fun. I just think no one actually considers dischoops the next
"evolution" of ultimate. It's a separate game. It would be like saying
obviously Raquetball is an evolution of Tennis, because it is fast
paced and involves the same sort of actions, which is not true. They
are two individual sports with comparable skills, but are by no means
replaceable by one another.
chrisda...@gmail.com
jay adams has a tattoo on his face. going to kaimana? last i heard,
he's in the penal system for low level drug trafficking on one of the
islands. his attorney pleaded for leniency (sp?) citing his surfing
abilities at sunset.(not kidding)
there is nothing punk rock about ultimate. attempting any sort of
correlation between the two is an embarassment to skateboarding.
don't misunderstand here. i love ultimate, especially the prickly self
officiating aspect.
while i know you didn't start this topic, ulticritic, ultimate doesn't
owe you anything. better yet, why don't you get off ultimate's dick?
sincerely,
chris a.
Barrett
in the NFL legal? Why aren't picks allowed? Why is goaltending illegal
in the NBA? why aren't 700 lb goalies allowed in the NHL? More smoking
guns?
On the other hand, I know when I bring up to my naive basketball-
playing friends that their sport started with no hole in the bottom of
the peach basket, they get awful red-faced.
The real positive about your posts is that, by noting your spikes of
RSD activity, your family can keep track of when you've gotten back
off the meds.
ulticritic
theyr was back in the 80"s......when punk rock was in and ultimate
players were agro
-------------------------------------
>
> while i know you didn't start this topic, ulticritic, ultimate doesn't
> owe you anything.
this isnt about ultimate owen me anything......its about me owen
ultimate. Now as for the upa administration......they owe
me......they owe us all.
----------------------------------------
better yet, why don't you get off ultimate's dick?
i aint on ultimates dick, i'm on the upas dick......theres a
difference
Adam Tarr
effort into a response.
On Jan 30, 4:38 pm, "Frank Huguenard"
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As promised, here are my findings regarding the origins of the framework of
> Ultimate Frisbee.
Frank, firstly, I have to say that much of that was an interesting
read. I had never heard of "new games", and it was a nice little
historical background piece, well-researched and fairly well
presented. I learned something. Thanks.
To the rest of you - Frank has put together some fairly interesting
historical trivia here, and you might enjoy the read.
> Is it a smoking gun? I think it is but you'll have to draw your own
> conclusions and decide for yourself.
In my opinion, you proved none of the seven things you claimed to
prove at the end. What you did was present a lot of supporting
evidence for the first point, and some for the second and third
points.
The thing that is absurd (although not unsurprising) to me is that you
consider this a smoking gun. You haven't proven with any
conclusiveness that the founders of Ultimate were familiar with "new
games" and sought to include those ideas in the form of the SOTG
clause. But for argument's sake, let's say they did. So what? The
rules have gone through 10+ revisions since then. They can be judged
on their own merits, irrespective of their origins. To give you an
analogy - I don't accuse everyone driving a Jetta of supporting the
Nazis.
Now, I know you think the rules are fundamentally uncompetitive.
Great, then argue that (like you've been doing). I disagree with you,
and nothing about the origins of the rules really influences my
thought process. The rules and the way the game is currently played
can be judged on its own merits.
No, I didn't sign up for (as you put it) "[a game] designed to be fair
irrespective of age, race, gender, build (fat or thin, tall or short),
athleticism, intelligence and handicaps". I started playing ultimate
because I played three sports in high school, I missed competitive
sports, and a bunch of my friends were on the team. Sure, SOTG is a
funny name for an idea, but I played tennis and was already
comfortable with the idea of playing fair and respecting calls made by
opponents.
> I guess that it also depends on what
> it is exactly that I set out to prove and whether or not you're willing to
> accept some of my logic.
Fundamentally, you never proved that ultimate was intended to be all
of the things a "new game" is. You intermix "frisbee" (as the name of
a game) with ultimate, but that's a bit of a smokescreen as they don't
refer to the same thing, any more than volleyball and soccer do
(basically the same ball).
And you draw all sorts of unreasonable conclusions. Let's look at one
section of your piece:
Frank>"We've known for years that one of the beliefs woven into the
fabric of the game is the belief that penalties exist in sports
exclusively to prevent cheating (this is in the preface)."
Simply untrue. The current rules in no way imply that violations or
fouls exist to prevent cheating. If anything, I would argue that they
largely exist for nearly the opposite reason - to avoid unfair
situations produced by unintentional infractions. Obviously there is
an element of both, but reading the rules I really can't figure out
where you get the idea that violations/fouls only exist for cheating.
Frank>"But now we know without any reasonable doubt that another
cornerstone in the Ultimate Frisbee beliefs is that ultra-
competitiveness stems from games with firm, consistent and rational
boundaries. This is a proven fact."
You haven't even demonstrated that this is a fundamental belief of
"new games", much less proving that ultimate was intended to be a "new
game". Even if you had, you haven't proven that this idea formed a
guiding principle of the original rules, much less the (very specific)
current rules. In sum, you are miles away from being able to state
this as fact.
Frank> "Furthermore, again without any reasonable doubt, it is obvious
after reviewing all of this research that Ultimate Frisbee was created
under the belief that learning would happen best in a friendly and
fair environment."
There's some element of truth to this, although I didn't need the
article to know it - I can just look at the etiquette section of the
rules. It's hardly damning information, though.
Frank> "And of course the grand daddy of them all, it has been written
clearly in the rules for over a quarter of a century, is that Ultimate
Frisbee is a non-contact sport."
That's the grand daddy? Really? I already schooled you on this one,
Frank. There are multiple definitions of what a non-contact sport
is. By one definition, both ultimate and basketball are non-contact
sports. The FIBA rules still mention the word non-contact. Get over
it.
And finally, this is apropos of nothing, but what would be an
interesting essay on the cultural zeitgeist when ultimate formed would
be a much tighter and more enjoyable read if you avoided throwing in
lots of unrelated negative crap. The cheap seats piece could be done
about dischoops or cricket or hurling, or basically anything outside
the mainstream, and virtually the exact same jokes would work.
Claiming Stork is fouling that guy - I mean, there's extremely litle
contact on that play, he's clearly contorting his body to avoid
contact. I saw drastically more significant contact go uncalled in
the Nuggets game last night. These sorts of comments are nothing but
cheap shots at retired players. They don't advance your argument, in
stead, they just make you look petty.
wanie...@gmail.com
First, interesting article/writing Frank, the New Games movement is an
interesting phenomenon and I can accept that it may have had some,
even major, impact on the people who developed ultimate. However, I
don't see a direct line of correlation/causation from the New Games
movement to the CURRENT form of ultimate.
For example:
"In New Frisbee, for example, the player concentrates on perfecting
his own skills, not on defeating his partner. While New Frisbee looks
very much like Old Frisbee, it is philosophically quite different. The
player gets no points if he catches a good throw; on the other hand,
if he catches or even misses but makes an all-out attempt for a
difficult throw, he gains a point. Since the catcher calls his own
points, each player is competing against the limitations of not only
personal skill but personal integrity."
Does that bear any resemblance to even the earliest forms of ultimate?
As soon as you have an endzone and start keeping opposing scores, it
is no longer a "New Game" game. In the interview Josh did, Todd
describes a New Games variant of Ultimate. Unlimited players, no
boundaries, etc. etc. This still exists. However, New Game variants of
all sports exist. I've played 6 on 8 basketball where no one keeps
score and people are just throwing up goofy crap. Does this mean the
NBA isn't a sport? No, of course not. DOes it mean that the people
playing that game of basketball weren't competitive people? No, we
were all tired from playing a ridiculously hard fought game of pick
up, this was our way of relaxing afterward.
So, we know that ultimate was not an explicitly "New Game" creation.
Next questions, did the New Game movement influence the creation of
ultimate? Perhaps. You make a pretty good argument in your article
that the ideo of SOTG is connected to the New Games idea of Spirit. So
the New Game influence may have been present at the founding of
Ultimate, but how does that relate to the current version of ultimate
that I am playing today?
Your evidence that todays ultimate is still a New Game movement
consists of an analysis of rules that, in your opinion, are designed
to protect weak players.
"Double teaming is illegal because it's not universally fair. Picks
are illegal because they are not universally fair. Out of bounds
isn't really out of bounds because it's not universally fair. No
penalty for excessive fouling or traveling is because it wouldn't be
fair. "
"Extra steps to account for momentum (even out of bounds), no double
teaming, no boxing out, no penalties, 9000 square feet endzones, etc."
First, none of these come anywhere close to the New Games ideal.
Wether picks and double teams are illegal or not, a 13 year old video
gamer couch potato can't keep up in a mid level college game, much
less an elite club game. That was the idea of New Games, that EVERYONE
was completely equal.
So, at best, New Games has some influence on ultimate, it isn't a
direct line of descent.
But, are the rules that you cite even designed to protect weak
players? We've gone over this before, but I'll recap in brief. Here
are the rules you list.
Double teaming
Picks
Out of Bounds
Momentum
Boxing out
Large endzones
Excessive penalties for fouling and traveling
These fit into 3 categories.
Stylistic Changes
Safety
Possible residuals of "New Game" protectionism
One at a time...
Stylistic Changes~
Out of Bounds: You think the out of bounds rules are arbitrary. You
advocate a basketball style view of out of bounds because you think
the current rules protect weak players. Lets look at the rule.
The out of bounds rules are consistent. If you establish yourself in
bounds with the catch, you are in bounds. If you don't establish
yourself inbounds on the cath it is a turnover.
Pretty consistent, doesn't favor anyone or protect anyone. What you
suggest is to change the style. People would have to modify their
offenses to avoid catches going toward the sideline. Essentially, it
would narrow the field. That is about it.
But, for comparison, lets look at some other team sports out of bounds
rules.
Basketball: What you want. If you touch out of bounds while contacting
the ball or are the first person to touch the ball after touching out
of bounds, it is a turnover.
Soccer: As long as the ball stays in bounds (depending on what rules
you are playing under, possibly only PART of the ball stays in bounds)
the player can play the ball. Standing out of bounds, running out of
bounds then running back in bounds, doesn't matter. As long as the
ball is in bounds, players can play the ball. Is this to "protect"
weak players who can't stay in bounds?
Rugby: If you run out of bounds, the other team controls the ball
through a line out. However, if you kick the ball out of bounds,
depending on where you kick it from and wether it bounces before it
goes out of bounds, either team can get control of the ball. Is this
to "protect" weak players?
Lacrosse: A team can throw the ball out of bounds and still retain
possession. Happens a lot in fact. Is this to protect weak players?
Football: As long as you establish yourself in bounds on the catch,
you retain possession. You can run out of bounds and not lose
possession. Is this to protect weak players?
Each sport has devised different rules reagarding out of bounds to
cater to a specific style of play. Ultimate rules are designed to
allow for full sprints at the sideline to make a toe-dragging layout
grab. People like this and this is how they want to play the game. It
isn't to protect weak players.
Momentum and traveling:
Again, a style issue. You want to see a style of ultimate that is
short and quick. Most people like a style that is big, wide open, and
involves a lot of sprinting, skying and laying out. With a harder cap
on steps, you couldn't play this style. Wether it is the most
efficient style or most technically perfect style isn't the issue, it
is what people want to play. Basketball widened the lanes twice
because individual players were too dominant. People didn't want to
see George Mikan and Wilt Chamberlin post up and score ever time down
the floor, as "perfect" as that offense was. So, they widened the
lanes to force a particular style of play.
Boxing out:
Stylistic, but not really illegal. Not basketball style, where I try
to put a guy on his butt ever time a shot goes up by shoving an elbow
in his chest then sitting on his knees, but I can position my body in
such a way to shield a player from making a play on the disc while
making a play myself. Boxing out.
Large endzones
You want to see short, quick movement with precision. People want to
play with big, relatively accurate hucks into space for people to run
under and jump for. Big endzones help that. Make the endzones smaller,
you also change the length and speed of the game. Stylistic changes.
Safety~
Picks: Always has been safety, always will be safety, can't understand
why you won't accept this particular one. I understand that picks get
miscalled in non-safety circumstances and, if you can write a rule for
ultimate that maintains safety while preventing that misuse, I would
be all for it, but I can't think of a rule that does this
consistently.
Possible "New Game" residuals~
Excessive penalties for fouling and traveling:
This is secondary connection. The lack of excessive penalties is a
function of the self-refereed system. You can't allow people to force
large penalties on an opposing team in a self-refereed system or the
incentive to make bad calls increases greatly. So, as far as the self-
refereeing could be a residual of New Games, so might the lack of
excessive penalties.
Double Teaming:
An interesting one. I think there are two possible explanations for
this rule and it may have some to do with both.
First, double teaming isn't illegal. Having two markers within 3 yards
is illegal. You can double team, triple team, or whatever team a
thrower, just from 3 yards away.
Possible reasons:
1. New Games "protection." Want to keep weak players from getting
swarmed every time they catch the disc.
This could be part of the reason. Especially at lower levels, it would
be extremely difficult for players to get off throws against multiple
defenders marking right in their face. A good argument could be made
that it SHOULD be allowed, calling for the "dual rule" model of rec
league/park pick up rules that differ from the club and college series
rules. I don't think too many people would have a huge problem with
this, as long as both were available.
2. Pivoting, physicality, and the basic premise of a thrower:
I have always thought that an interesting and unique idea in ultimate
is that once a player has possession of the disc, they can pivot and
throw freely. Makes the game work the way it does. If you allow
multiple markers at disc space (which doesn't exist in elite ultimate
anyway, so "in the throwers grill), you have to give the thrower the
ability to get around this. That probably means allowing them to be
more physical and split/step through double teams. If this is what you
want, then great, change the rules and we will adapt. Especially at
higher levels, throwers are good enough/strong enough and teams could
adjust their strategies to avoid double teams that it could work,
might even be an improvement. But, I don't think that type of physical
play is what all players want. Again, "dual rule" system is a good
idea.
So, based on my analysis (which you are certainly free to contest), in
the current form of the game you have 1 piece of evidence that might
point to New Games influence indirectly through the self-refereeing
system and 1 piece of evidence that is a pretty strong connection, the
double teaming rule, although that is also a stylistic concern
regarding physicality and thrower movement.
Moving on rapidly without drawing all the connecting points because I
am getting tired of typing. Regarding your conclusions.
a) That cross-pollination occurred between The New Games Movement and
Ultimate Frisbee.
I can buy that
b) That The New Games Movement was propelled forward by individuals
who were not athletic or competitive and so therefore their bias was
towards creating a genre of games that they could enjoy.
Alright, true statement about New Games Movement
c) That by making fun for all and friendliness paramount, they
developed games that consequently and coincidentally excluded
competitive personalities.
Correct, that is what the New Games movement did.
However, this is not what is happening in Ultimate. Competitive
personalities (such as myself) certainly aren't excluded from
ultimate.
d) That by making Ultimate Frisbee 'fun' for all, the game would be
made to be easier for weaker players (no penalties, double teaming
illegal, huge endzones, no hard cap on traveling, no roster limits, no
penalties for Out of Bounds).
Mmmm....this is where it gets a bit iffy. Certainly there is ultimate
getting played that falls under this description (in parks, at camp,
on the beach), but that doesn't apply across the board to competitive
tourneys and teams.
e) That these rules created artificially false positives which had the
effect of inadvertently reinforcing fundamentally unsound techniques
and mechanics.
Didn't talk about this idea, but there are 3 positives for me in
ultimate. Getting a D, scoring a point and winning a game. Anything
else is just a way to get there.
f) That these false positives created an extremely addictive
environment.
All sports are addictive, that is why we play. That is why I watch
baseball on TV, even though I don't like baseball.
g) That this additive nature has prevented evolution from occurring
(the UPA's culmination of a year long Ultimate Revolution resulted in
a roster limit cap of 27, a ridiculously large and meaningless
adjustment to the current game
Uh...did you check out that list of changes they were considering that
was posted yesterday? A whole lot more than just roster changes.
Things like: "experiment with active up-down & travel calls and hand
signals." These active calls are what would need to be in place before
some of the rule changes you propose, such as harsher penalties for
traveling, could be implemented. There are others, check em out. Maybe
it isn't happening at the pace you want, but things are changing.
Ok, too much typing. Stopping now.
ultimate7
Adam Tarr
Baer
this article, even if we don't agree with his conclusions. I too
learned something I never knew about New Games and read some other
interesting points, even though I too disagree with the final overall
assessment.
Even IF Ultimate was created just for the purposes of having fun and
not being too competitive (it was created by a bunch of high school
kids in a parking lot, after all), that doesn't mean that it can't
become a more legitimate competitive sport. Even innocent diversions
like Scrabble and cup stacking have become competitive affairs with
major events and payouts. The difference is, as we have often heard on
this board, is that Ultimate has not taken the leap of going to the
next level of legitimacy.
Whether this is due to poor administrative management, the nature of
sports, or the info Frank presented, it's an argument that we debate
here every day!
danfri...@gmail.com
> To give you an
> analogy - I don't accuse everyone driving a Jetta of supporting the
> Nazis.
Wait - we're already onto the Nazi talk? Godwin's Law...
Adam Tarr
> Even IF Ultimate was created just for the purposes of having fun and
> not being too competitive (it was created by a bunch of high school
> kids in a parking lot, after all), that doesn't mean that it can't
> become a more legitimate competitive sport.
True.
> become a more legitimate competitive sport. Even innocent
> diversions like Scrabble and cup stacking have become competitive
> affairs with major events and payouts. The difference is, as we have
> often heard on this board, is that Ultimate has not taken the leap of
> going to the next level of legitimacy.
Hasn't it, though? It really depends what "the next level of
legitimacy" is to you. If "the next level of legitimacy" means semi-
regular coverage on ESPN2 or somesuch, then no, we haven't reached
that level.
As fas as organization, we have clearly defined tournament formats and
competitive structures, and strict roster rules (not referring to the
new roster limits - just the roster management in general). As far as
presentation, we now have lined fields, uniform requirements, and
extensive video and photographic coverage at the championship level.
As far as competition goes, aside from all the strategic evolution, we
have better and better athletes playing the game. The highest club
level is loaded with players who could have or did participate in
varsity athletics at the college level. As far as recognition goes,
we are steadily making progress, primarily through the growth of
leagues and the growth of youth ultimate.
I see all of these things as examples of moving to "the next level of
legitimacy". Your mileage may vary.
Baer
>
> Hasn't it, though? It really depends what "the next level of
> legitimacy" is to you. If "the next level of legitimacy" means semi-
> regular coverage on ESPN2 or somesuch, then no, we haven't reached
> that level.
>
> As fas as organization, we have clearly defined tournament formats and
> competitive structures, and strict roster rules (not referring to the
> new roster limits - just the roster management in general). As far as
> presentation, we now have lined fields, uniform requirements, and
> extensive video and photographic coverage at the championship level.
> As far as competition goes, aside from all the strategic evolution, we
> have better and better athletes playing the game. The highest club
> level is loaded with players who could have or did participate in
> varsity athletics at the college level. As far as recognition goes,
> we are steadily making progress, primarily through the growth of
> leagues and the growth of youth ultimate.
>
> I see all of these things as examples of moving to "the next level of
> legitimacy". Your mileage may vary.
Good points, Adam, and all true. What I mean is the next, next level,
as in wide media coverage, professional games, etc (like the
aforementioned Scrabble and cup stacking).
There have surely been a lot of advancements, just not as much (or as
quickly) as some of us dreamers would like. We'll keep working at it
though...
jerm...@gmail.com
Errr, no. Although I admit that that was my first reaction, too.
Tarr was using a comparison using Nazis to demonstrate the absurdity
of Frank's original assertion. In effect, he was saying "Frank, your
point is as ridculous as if I were to invoke Nazis, as in the
following comparison."
So, Tarr's statement was made with a full understanding that such an
anology would be ridiculous, that it would be akin to a Godwin's Law
violation. Little. Yellow. Different.
the long con
>
I must admit I would like to be able to watch Ultimate on TV in my old
age (which would be about tomorrow).
MrP...@gmail.com
format, Frank. Like so many others, I read your article, and like so
many others, I've opted to respond at length.
*** Quick summary just to make sure I'm responding to what you
intended to say ***
As I see it, your article consists of two major themes:
-Explanation of the New Games association (how we got here)
-Analysis of the Competition/Cooperation dichotomy in sports (what
all this means for Ultimate)
As others have noted, the New Games write-up was interesting. For
good or bad, I think we can all agree that the SOTG/Player Control/No
Ref setup is a glaring difference between Ultimate and other sports in
the class. Your efforts in speculating on "founder's intent" and
connecting the two smacked a bit of guilt-by-association, but I see
why that's important to you. Ultimate in your view is trying to be
two things at once and you want to show what happens when one follows
the "New Games" road to its conclusion. To the extent that Ultimate
is still a "New Game" (and I'd argue that it's not), the background is
relevant.
Moving on to the dichotomy, it looks like you're setting us up for the
infamous "runners vs joggers" debate that continues to plague the
running community. Ultimate has lax rules and lax rule enforcement.
Drawing on the New Games connection, you conclude that the situation
is intentional, and that the goal is to smooth the playing field,
nullifying the advantage that the most proficient might have over the
weaker players. You have as many throws as a carpenter has tools, yet
someone with a competent backhand, forehand and maybe scoober and/or
hammer can handle for an open team at Nationals. This is a crappy
situation for both of you. For you since it robs you of the advantage
that your carefully acquired skills might provide under an alternative
system. For him because it robs him of any incentive to improve his
skill set. Your growth is unrewarded, his is stunted. Worse, he
doesn't have the perspective to realize his weakness and interprets
his success as objective evidence of his superiority (this would be
the 'false positive' that he's addicted to).
*** End summary ***
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I'm not entirely in
agreement with your arguments. A few objections:
Is Ultimate a New Game?
No, at least not anymore. Not that I'm an authority on the
subject, but it seems to me that we're not in Kansas any more. Once
you're playing to a score and there's a winner and a loser, you've
crossed the line from cooperation to competition. And it's not like
Ultimate is only kinda-sorta competitive either. Any competitive
activity (sport or no) is equally competitive: it's only a matter of
figuring out what the focus of that competition is.
"Focus of Competition?"
In the NBA for example, the focus isn't whether or not you can
score a basket. Any scrub in the NBA can score a basket. What makes
a player great is his personal consistency (shot percentage in varying
situations) and his ability to increase team outcomes by playing good
defense, avoiding turnovers, and improving the consistency of his
teammates.
Much to your chagrin, beyond a basic degree of competence,
technical facility with a disc is not the focus of competition in
Ultimate.
While you're right that scoring isn't very difficult as compared
to, e.g., soccer, it doesn't follow that it's also easy to SCORE MORE
THAN THE OTHER TEAM. If you want to do that, you have to play tough
defense and score consistently on offense. Offense is about taking
calculated risks to keep the defense honest, valuing the disc and,
just like in the NBA, shooting a high percentage. IIRC, when the
Hodags won college nationals, they turned the disc over 5 times. If
avoiding turnovers were so easy that even weak players could do it,
their opponents would've had 5 turns too and wouldn't have gotten
blown out.
Is Ultimate technically difficult? If so, is it difficult enough?
Though competition-cooperation might be an either/or situation,
difficulty is a continuum. Using your example, allowing double teams
at a closer distance would make the job of the thrower more
difficult. That's true, but it's also arbitrary. Say we allow double-
teams within a foot. Aren't we still coddling throwers by prohibiting
defenders from blocking vision? Okay, let's allow that too. How
about contact? Isn't it easier to get a throw off if you're not about
to be hit? Or, going the other way, wouldn't the game be easier if NO
defenders were allowed within 10 feet? If we're looking to be anti-
competitive, why wouldn't we do that? Heck, why would we allow
opponents to play defense at all? What's so special about double
teaming among the universe of challenges that we might impose upon a
thrower or the defense?
Speaking of defense, there's another side of the coin. The easier
it is for throwers, the harder it is for defenders. Since teams have
to do both, any increase in difficulty for O is matched by a decrease
on D. It's zero-sum (Callahans aside). Defending an elite team is
really hard, precisely BECAUSE throwers have space, cutters can't be
fouled, end zones are large, etc. Why would we want to make the game
easier for the defense? Wouldn't that just reward weak defenders?
Do weak players and teams succeed at Ultimate?
It sure doesn't seem like it. Once we allow that "strength" and
"weakness" are measured according to the actual focus of competition
and not according to some technical standard that you'd prefer, it
becomes pretty clear that there are some people who are better at
Ultimate than others. Teams full of better people defeat teams full
of weaker people routinely and reliably. If the rules helped weaker
players compete, why are the same teams winning every year? If the
rules aren't doing a good job of allowing weak players to compete, why
does it matter if they might have been intended to do so?
But how can Ultimate evolve if we don't change the rules?
Certainly changing rules would change the sport, but it's not
explicitly necessary. The Fosbury Flop, the West Coast Offense and
the cut fastball were all innovations that took place without any rule
changes prompting them. The cool part about a sport isn't changing
the rules to make it a new sport, but innovating within the rules and
exploring what's possible within the boundaries that exist. I'm not
opposed to rule tweaks here and there and I'm not opposed to forking
off and creating a new sport either, but there's something to be said
for continuity of comparison. You can tell that the NBA has lost
touch with the game of earlier generations when NBA announcers have to
constantly announce stats as "in the shot-clock era." Modern NBA is a
few decades old, modern baseball is about a century. If some critics
had their way, modern Ultimate would never be any older than the most
recent thought they've had on what would showcase their particular
skills or please their hypothetical fan.
But shouldn't we change the focus of the game?
Changing the rules would of course change what I've taken to
calling the "focus of competition," but why is your proposed focus any
better than the other? What makes stopping in three steps or throwing
out of a double-team superior to skills like getting a huck off at the
appropriate moment or laying out for a D? DiscHoops might be fun and
it might test for the skills you care about, but isn't that a
subjective comparison? On what do you base your claim that your focus
of competition is objectively superior? Which is more "competitive?"
Women's Lacrosse or Men's? Football or soccer? The reason I'm pretty
sure that DH is no more competitive than Ultimate is that
"competitive" isn't a scale upon which a set of rules can really be
objectively judged.
Nowhere do I see this issue brought to light better than in your
point (e). You specify that players use fundamentally "unsound"
techniques. How on earth would one measure the "soundness" of a
technique by an objective standard? How did we know that the West
Coast Offense and the Flop were sound? Because their practitioners
used them to dominate their sports. A technique is sound if it
contributes to victory. You remain upset that a team as bad as
Sockeye could win Natties, but that's backwards. Bad can't exist
without good, so if Sockeye isn't good, what is? Probably none of the
teams they beat. Some hypothetical team that you'd captain, running
your hypothetical offense in a game with your hypothetical rule
modifications added? Of what real value is that comparison?
If you can make some argument for why Ultimate would be more fun
to play or watch with double-teaming, I guess I'd be all ears and
wouldn't put it beyond consideration. Of all the skills I'd
personally be interested in seeing or perfecting, I'm not sure that
the ability to squeeze throws through a tighter cup tops the list.
Honestly, more zone and zone-like sets would probably make the game
less watchable, not more... As for pivoting and boundaries: I
actually like the soccer-style boundary rules since they work so well
on unlined fields and since the "pivot foot = position" setup is so
parsimonious. We might have to agree to disagree there. Anyway, I'm
afraid I'd have to consider rules changes independently of whether or
not they'd make the sport more "competitive."
Stylistic concerns
I really care more for substance than style (except in severe
cases such as sentences penned by Mr. Critic with spelling and grammar
so atrocious that substance can't even be discerned). I'm clearly not
a style expert either. That said, if you intend to widely publicize
your article in hopes of winning converts, it wouldn't hurt to improve
the presentation a bit.
Your article is full of superlatives ("inescapable," "undeniable,"
"beyond a reasonable doubt," etc) and they hurt your credibility. It
just sounds like you're trying to hard when you should instead be
confident that your arguments can carry their own weight.
A quick once-over for spelling and missing words ("If you are AN
athlete...") might help.
"Begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Begging
the question" is the name of a logical fallacy where the conclusion is
assumed as a premise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.
I'm no enthusiast, but my understanding is that Harleys, while
cool-looking and quite romanticized, aren't exactly the pinnacle of
motorcycles when it comes to design, performance, quality, or
reliability. On the other hand, if you and Ulticritic want to go out
and celebrate your minority status by getting "1%" tattoos, I think
that would just be awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_club#One_Percenters
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm afraid that you failed to convince me
that Ultimate is any more or less a delusion than the rest of life,
but you didn't fail to be interesting. It's refreshing to find
snippets of cogent thought that aren't surrounded by reams of Kool-Aid
offers and penis jokes from Mr. Critic.
~p
twf...@comcast.net
Bobus
ulticritic
> Goddamn Mr. Pinto, I wish I could give you more than 5 stars.
dont you mean.....you wish you could give you more than 5
inches.......pinto sure does
ulticritic
>
> As others have noted, the New Games write-up was interesting. For
> good or bad, I think we can all agree that the SOTG/Player Control/No
> Ref setup is a glaring difference between Ultimate and other sports in
> the class. Your efforts in speculating on "founder's intent" and
> connecting the two smacked a bit of guilt-by-association,
and you smack of smacking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I see
> why that's important to you. Ultimate in your view is trying to be
> two things at once and you want to show what happens when one follows
> the "New Games" road to its conclusion. To the extent that Ultimate
> is still a "New Game" (and I'd argue that it's not)
your right, its a hybrid. But, first off, the wording that makes up
the spirit clause is just too similar to the new games wording. In
most sports sportsmanship is simply an unwritten rule........in
ultimate its not only a written rule but one that trumps all others.
And that written clause is still ancored to that archaic "new games"
philosophy. Like it or not there are aspects of the sport that are
still tied to the "new games" creed. Spirit scores for interest.
Talk about somthing smacking. What is the point of keeping track of
and/or making a commpetition out of whos the nicest, friendiest, most
honest.....all of which = gayest to me. If you cant see this as
obvious then you are blind........whether you support it or not you
got to acknowledge it. So to many of us we just dont see how the
sport can evolve and progress while tied down to a concept that, in
reality, ultimate (the sport) dosent even subscribe to. In other
words people dont train their asses off to win the spirit award at
nationals.....they do it to WIN the competition.....which means
someones got to lose.......awwwwwwwwe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Moving on to the dichotomy, it looks like you're setting us up for the
> infamous "runners vs joggers" debate that continues to plague the
> running community.
i think that this is where frank loses a lot of people.....including
me. But since you are such a pretentious ass hole.....i'm gonna back
frank
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimate has lax rules and lax rule enforcement.
> Drawing on the New Games connection, you conclude that the situation
> is intentional, and that the goal is to smooth the playing field,
> nullifying the advantage that the most proficient might have over the
> weaker players. You have as many throws as a carpenter has tools, yet
> someone with a competent backhand, forehand and maybe scoober and/or
> hammer can handle for an open team at Nationals
bad analogy.....as a carpenter you can have the best tools
made.....but if you dont have the experience or skill to use them then
you are a hack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I'm not entirely in
> agreement with your arguments.
and since you are a no one......who cares
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is Ultimate a New Game?
> No, at least not anymore.
Is it a hybrid of new games and normal sports comp.....yes......is
this fundamentally an conflict of interests.....yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that I'm an authority on the
> subject, but it seems to me that we're not in Kansas any more.
but you are still connected........cut the umbilical chord, free it
and let it be a sport already.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Focus of Competition?"
> In the NBA for example, the focus isn't whether or not you can
> score a basket. Any scrub in the NBA can score a basket.
not true.....look at shaq. and he's hardly a scrub
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes
> a player great is his personal consistency (shot percentage in varying
> situations) and his ability to increase team outcomes by playing good
> defense, avoiding turnovers, and improving the consistency of his
> teammates.
EXACTAMUNDO......so you see how normal sports dont put emphisis on how
spirited one is.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> fouled, end zones are large, etc. Why would we want to make the game
> easier for the defense?
give the game more balance.......i believe that most feel any rule
changes made should be done so to help the d (at this point anyways)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you ask...."do weak players succeed at ultimate"
yea.....they win the spirit award.......yay!, everybody gets a trophy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> But how can Ultimate evolve if we don't change the rules?
> Certainly changing rules would change the sport, but it's not
> explicitly necessary.
well then why not just go back to playing with a "master", play
barefooted, use trees and such as field boundries, no stall.....all
that stuff. Obviously the rules have already changed quite a bit and
in ways the sport has evolved. Why stop or even slow down now. The
current observer system, that is in drastic need of refinement, will
just become another hybrid of the present hybrid and normal sports
arbitration. And why do you think there is initiative being put forth
improve the present system......because currently IT AINT RIGHT! if
it was right they wouldnt be tryin to fix it now would they.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Fosbury Flop,
the fosbury flop???? is that one of those moves you use on your
boyfriends
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> changes prompting them. The cool part about a sport isn't changing
> the rules to make it a new sport, but innovating within the rules and
> exploring what's possible within the boundaries that exist.
i thought the cool thing about ultimate was the sotg thing.........oh,
my fault, you were actually talking about "sports".....not ultimate.
To which, there are alot of cool things about sports......just that
being a player and a ref at the same time aint one of em.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not
> opposed to rule tweaks here and there and I'm not opposed to forking
> off and creating a new sport either, but there's something to be said
> for continuity of comparison. You can tell that the NBA has lost
> touch with the game of earlier generations when NBA announcers have to
> constantly announce stats as "in the shot-clock era."
so what, they'll all be dead soon. They are smart for appealing to
their younger audience.......and you got to remember......the nba is a
business........to them the bottom line is what matters. So if the
changes they are making is improving their bottom line they must be
succeeding..... as the litmus test result is determined by ticket
sales and ratings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern NBA is a
> few decades old, modern baseball is about a century.
and modern ultimate is yet to be conceived.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But shouldn't we change the focus of the game?
to what?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stylistic concerns
> I really care more for substance than style (except in severe
> cases such as sentences penned by Mr. Critic with spelling and grammar
> so atrocious that substance can't even be discerned).
why is it that you are the only one here that cant understand me.
Surley with your deep knowledge and intellect you should be able to
desipher my chatter. Is it that fag gene that is makin it difficult
for ya.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm clearly not
> a style expert either.
wierd.....i thought you types were pretty style oriented.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ulticritic
> and celebrate your minority status by getting "1%" tattoos, I think
> that would just be awesome.
what does 1% refer to.......cause if i got a tattoo i'd go with one
that read "48%"..........where as a rainbow tattoo would probably suit
you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm afraid that you failed to convince
me
> that Ultimate is any more or less a delusion than the rest of life,
> but you didn't fail to be interesting. It's refreshing to find
> snippets of cogent thought that aren't surrounded by reams of Kool-Aid
> offers and penis jokes from Mr. Critic.
especially when they are at your expense, you terd burglar.......wait
a minute, you are probably a bottom......so i guess that would make
you a terd burglaree....burglee??.....you know what i'm sayin
Jed
too. Despite the many Frankisms, the article was fairly eye-opening
for me. I don't buy his conclusions, but I find the new games
connection very interesting, and don't think it can just be dismissed
as historical trivia.
The connection between SOTG and the "New Games" philosophy is hard to
deny; and it's not a great leap to think that the determination to
stick to the "player-controlled" aspect of the game (to the point
where it's now been written into the game's definition) is also tied
to these foundations.
The game and the rules have definitely come a long way. Yet there are
examples throughout the rules where they have been written with a
preference to limit arguments, rather than to provide an outcome that
is "right", in the traditional sports way of thinking. For example:
1) The continuation rule: In my mind, the "Right" thing would be for
play to stop the second a call is made - as though a whistle had been
blown. But with player controlled (i.e. non-impartial) arbitration,
that would lead to too many arguments - too much riding on whether a
throw came before or after a call. So we have the continuation rule as
it exists; outcomes don't really make sense, but at least there isn't
much room for argument.
2) Marker Fouls: The rule has been slightly modified, but basically,
contact is always the marker's fault. Shouldn't it be the fault of
whoever initiated the contact? That would seem "right" to me, but it
sure would lead to a lot of arguments (without impartial arbitration,
that is). So the rule is written such that arguments are minimized; if
there was contact, it's a foul on the marker.
These are the two examples that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure
there are others. The fact that the rules have an etiquette section
and spirit violations written into them (up to the 10th edition
anyway, maybe not in the 11th, not sure) are further evidence of the
"New Games" mindset.
My point being, I thing there is very strong evidence of a connection;
so it does us no service to deny it. Instead, let's try to be aware of
it, and start to think about how this history continues to shape the
sport as we know it today (for better or worse).
Adam Tarr
> The connection between SOTG and the "New Games" philosophy is hard to
> deny; and it's not a great leap to think that the determination to
> stick to the "player-controlled" aspect of the game (to the point
> where it's now been written into the game's definition) is also tied
> to these foundations.
Sure, it's not a big leap. The question is whether this leads to
irrational structures in the rules today. I don't think it does - I
think the current set of rules, having gone through many revisions by
clear-thinking rational people, are intended to serve the players well
and allow the game to be played the way most of us want it to be
played.
Your examples demonstrate this exact point - that these cases have
been considered and reconsidered in recent times - probably by people
who had never heard of "new games". There's a search for clarity and
easy applicability in the evolution of the rules, for sure, but no
more so than in any refereed sport.
> The game and the rules have definitely come a long way. Yet there are
> examples throughout the rules where they have been written with a
> preference to limit arguments, rather than to provide an outcome that
> is "right", in the traditional sports way of thinking.
While I don't think we can agree on what the traditional sports
"right" is, I agree there are situations where the rules make things
simple in an effort to limit arguments. But frankly, this is the same
as rules in every sport, to some degree or another. The only
difference is that in most sports, the simplifications exist to make
calls east and clear-cut. (Not that this always works - note the gray
areas surrounding holding calls in football or traveling calls in
basketball, among many examples I could pick from.)
> For example:
>
> 1) The continuation rule: In my mind, the "Right" thing would be for
> play to stop the second a call is made - as though a whistle had been
> blown. But with player controlled (i.e. non-impartial) arbitration,
> that would lead to too many arguments - too much riding on whether a
> throw came before or after a call. So we have the continuation rule as
> it exists; outcomes don't really make sense, but at least there isn't
> much room for argument.
I don't see this as the "right" outcome. Neither does basketball,
which allows a player to complete a shot after the whistle if he was
in the act of shooting. Neither does football, which does not whistle
plays dead when the penalty occurs, and allows a team to decline a
penalty by the opposing team if the result of the play is more
advantageous than the infraction. Continuation exists in many sports,
and for good reason - it avoids penalizing one team for the infraction
of the other team.
The UPA continuation rule was tweaked in the most recent edition. You
may not like the rule, but I think it's hard to argue that the SRT was
considering any sort of new game philosophy when they implemented the
changes. I see the goal of the new rule as trying to prevent picks
and fouls from slowing the play down unnecessarily, by reducing the
frequency of "do-overs".
That said, the WFDF rules don't have a continuation rule. So this has
been tried, too. Some people like it more and others like it less,
but I don't think whether continuation prevents arguments is the crux
of the discussion. It's more of a question of which rule speeds or
slows the game down more, and which rule drives down the incentive to
foul more effectively.
> 2) Marker Fouls: The rule has been slightly modified,
Actually, it was modified twice in the last 7 years - once in the 10th
and again in the 11th. Also, the marker violations were reorganized
in the 11th. Again, the rules are evolving and being refined.
> but basically,
> contact is always the marker's fault.
That's an oversimplification. In the current rules, if the marker's
extended arms or legs are moving, then contact is a foul on the
marker. But the marker's torso has positional rights even if moving.
And if the marker is stationary and legally positioned, contact is a
foul on the thrower.
This is a change from the 10th edition, where the marker's extended
arms and legs never had any positional rights, even if they were
stationary.
> contact is always the marker's fault. Shouldn't it be the fault of
> whoever initiated the contact?
Basically, that was the 9th edition rules. The thrower/marker foul
rules went way over toward favoring the thrower in the 10th, and have
swung a little bit back to the marker in the 11th. Although the
thrower now has unlimited "disc space" calls at his or her disposal,
which is a really nice tool to keep the marker from setting up
illegally.
> That would seem "right" to me, but it
> sure would lead to a lot of arguments (without impartial arbitration,
> that is).
Well it certainly led to disagreements on the legitimacy of calls, in
my experience with the 9th edition. That said, I haven't seen any
rule that completely eliminates this problem, although it's possible
that liberal use of the "disc space" call, once people catch on to it,
will help a lot.
And to reiterate my earlier point - I don't see the lack of impartial
arbitration as the key issue here. Refs need clear rules just as much
as player-officials need clear rules.
Rhett
or might not have been at its creation (wasn't there, don't really
care). I joined ultimate for competition and as a gateway to sports...
ultimate has in no way betrayed me by not evolving or by not having
refs or by getting too competitive or anything else.
Franks point that we are all addicted because everything we do in
ultimate rewards us and makes us feel happy is ridiculous...
I see ultimate as divided into two parts (ulticritic I believe would
say "MAKE UP YOUR MIND ULTIMATE" on this point). We have non-
competitive (rec, league, intramurals, pickup) just like any other
sport. At this level, far from being rewarded by everything they do,
most people stumble through the game, just trying to get a basic
handle on disc skills. They can rarely complete a few passes without
turning the disc over, and they find the game quite difficult (tiring,
tricky to get the disc where they want it, etc.)
Competitive play is different. We know how to play, and yeah, the flow
of the game makes us feel pretty good because we can move the disc and
everything is all nice and flowey and fun... however, how many
competitive games/practices have you come out of feeling just super
about your game? I probably leave 50% of my games feeling disappointed
in myself, could have played better, etc..and I know other competitive
players feel similarly.
So in both categories of ultimate (both of which can be found in other
sports and are legitimate) the sport makes you feel like you are
participating in a sport, not a game. It's tough sometimes, it's hard
on you, you lose, you get beaten, you are not all zen and drugged up
on a false sense of accomplishment as Frank so prolifically
suggested.
ache...@hotmail.com
just can't be bothered to read all those disjointed responses. Just
give us your thoughts written clearly all nicely organized in
paragraphs or bugger off.
MrP...@gmail.com
> sport can evolve and progress while tied down to a concept that, in
> reality, ultimate (the sport) dosent even subscribe to. In other
> words people dont train their asses off to win the spirit award at
> nationals.....they do it to WIN the competition.....which means
> someones got to lose.......awwwwwwwwe.
Spirit scores have no bearing on who wins or loses the championship.
> i think that this is where frank loses a lot of people.....including
> me. But since you are such a pretentious ass hole.....i'm gonna back
> frank
It's telling that you'd rather be an ass than right. You're more
troll than man now.
"You told me Ulticritic betrayed and murdered Todd."
"Todd was seduced by the dark side of Usenet. He ceased to be Todd
and became Ulticritic. When that happened, the good man who was the
Godfather of NC Ultimate was destroyed."
> > weaker players. You have as many throws as a carpenter has tools, yet
> > someone with a competent backhand, forehand and maybe scoober and/or
> > hammer can handle for an open team at Nationals
>
> bad analogy.....as a carpenter you can have the best tools
> made.....but if you dont have the experience or skill to use them then
> you are a hack.
I'm afraid that the analogy was fine and it's your reading
comprehension that is lacking. "More throws than a carpenter has
tools" refers to the NUMBER, not the QUALITY or the SKILL. I could
have said "more throws than an Ulticritic post has homosexual
innuendo*" and had the same meaning.
*By my count, 6 in the last post. Not sure if that's more or less
than the number of throws that Frank has invented.
> > This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I'm not entirely in
> > agreement with your arguments.
>
> and since you are a no one......who cares
There's a class of people who consider the focus of debate to be the
ideas under discussion rather than the people discussing them. That's
why "ad hominem" is a fallacy.
> EXACTAMUNDO......so you see how normal sports dont put emphisis on how
> spirited one is.
How did spirit help Sockeye win last year?
> >The Fosbury Flop,
>
> the fosbury flop???? is that one of those moves you use on your
> boyfriends
Mr. Critic, I'm sure that you could google it if you cared. Moreover,
I suppose we should add "track and field" to the growing list of
sports with which you are unfamiliar.
> so what, they'll all be dead soon.
Best argument EVER.
> why is it that you are the only one here that cant understand me.
I assume that most don't even try, which I must admit is probably a
better course of action than mine.
> Is it that fag gene that is makin it difficult
> for ya.
I thought your type was convinced that homosexuality was a choice? If
you believe that it's hereditary and you still discriminate against
gays, doesn't that just make you even more of an ass?
~p
ulticritic
> I've got a few minutes, so I'll respond.
>
> First, interesting article/writing Frank, the New Games movement is an
> interesting phenomenon and I can accept that it may have had some,
> even major, impact on the people who developed ultimate. However, I
> don't see a direct line of correlation/causation from the New Games
> movement to the CURRENT form of ultimate.
how about spirit scores.....imo "new games" is a contest as to who has
the most fun.......isnt the notion of winning an award for spirit/
behavior very, very "new games-ish". To which.....who in the fuck
came up with such a stupid fuckin idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For example:
>
> "In New Frisbee, for example, the player concentrates on perfecting
> his own skills, not on defeating his partner. While New Frisbee looks
> very much like Old Frisbee, it is philosophically quite different. The
> player gets no points if he catches a good throw; on the other hand,
> if he catches or even misses but makes an all-out attempt for a
> difficult throw, he gains a point. Since the catcher calls his own
> points, each player is competing against the limitations of not only
> personal skill but personal integrity."
and you dont see significant corilations there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does that bear any resemblance to even the earliest forms of ultimate?
> As soon as you have an endzone and start keeping opposing scores, it
> is no longer a "New Game" game.
yea.....now its a hybrid......which means its still has significant
elements of "new games".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interview Josh did, Todd
> describes a New Games variant of Ultimate. Unlimited players, no
> boundaries, etc. etc. This still exists. However, New Game variants of
> all sports exist.
yea but so do normal ones......except for in ultimate.......its stuck
in that hybrid state, No one is saying there cant, or shouldnt, be a
new games version of ultimate.....or a hybrid version of
ultimate.......but there are those sayin there shouldnt be a normal
version as well(which there isnt).......... we simply think there
should be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Next questions, did the New Game movement influence the creation of
> ultimate? Perhaps. You make a pretty good argument in your article
> that the ideo of SOTG is connected to the New Games idea of Spirit. So
> the New Game influence may have been present at the founding of
> Ultimate, but how does that relate to the current version of ultimate
> that I am playing today?
its still played under sotg 99.99999% of the time.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> First, none of these come anywhere close to the New Games ideal.
exactly.....so why use their creed as the neucleus of the rule
enforcement system of ultimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Uh...did you check out that list of changes they were considering that
> was posted yesterday? A whole lot more than just roster changes.
> Things like: "experiment with active up-down & travel calls and hand
> signals."
man thats some cutting edge stuff right there
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, too much typing. Stopping now.
preesch
----------------------------------------------------------------
ulticritic
> all I know is that ulticritic has become completely unreadable. I
> just can't be bothered to read all those disjointed responses. Just
> give us your thoughts written clearly all nicely organized in
> paragraphs or bugger off.
uhmmmmm NO
ulticritic
> On Feb 1, 11:39 am, Jed <jedhen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, it's not a big leap. The question is whether this leads to
> irrational structures in the rules today.
thats an easy one...yes......and the most irrational one- sotg clause
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it does - I
> think the current set of rules, having gone through many revisions by
> clear-thinking rational people,
pffffft, thats a joke (they were all subconciously ((some conciously))
under the influence of the spirit of new games).....you call that
rational?
------------------------------------------------------
are intended to serve the players well
> and allow the game to be played the way most of us want it to be
> played.
not those of us that are fans.....or would be fans
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a search for clarity and
> easy applicability in the evolution of the rules, for sure, but no
> more so than in any refereed sport.
well thats part of the problem, and why reffed sports are superior(lot
of catchen up to do). As for ease of application, that would occur if
you just handed over the rule enforcement process to a third party
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I don't think we can agree on what the traditional sports
> "right" is, I agree there are situations where the rules make things
> simple in an effort to limit arguments.
more simple than an impartial arbitraitor making an immediate and
desicive call.....where?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But frankly, this is the same
> as rules in every sport, to some degree or another. The only
> difference is that in most sports, the simplifications exist to make
> calls east and clear-cut. (Not that this always works - note the gray
> areas surrounding holding calls in football or traveling calls in
> basketball, among many examples I could pick from.)
thing is, once the whistle blows.....it all becomes black and
white.....just not the case in ultimate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well it certainly led to disagreements on the legitimacy of calls, in
> my experience with the 9th edition. That said, I haven't seen any
> rule that completely eliminates this problem, although it's possible
> that liberal use of the "disc space" call, once people catch on to it,
> will help a lot.
and you dont find that a little "new games-ish"(ie-dude, could you
please not foul me).....and i'll give ya a system (not a rule) that
elliminatres this problem......refs calling personal fouls and strict
foul limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And to reiterate my earlier point - I don't see the lack of impartial
> arbitration as the key issue here. Refs need clear rules just as much
> as player-officials need clear rules.
but whats amazing is how much more clear the rules of ultimate become
when there are refs........refs = clarity
ulticritic
> I don't think modern ultimate is
modern ultimate???? isnt that a cotradiction in terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I see ultimate as divided into two parts (ulticritic I believe would
> say "MAKE UP YOUR MIND ULTIMATE" on this point). We have non-
> competitive (rec, league, intramurals, pickup) just like any other
> sport.
how so....most rec leagues and intramurals have refs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Competitive play is different.
still no refs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> So in both categories of ultimate (both of which can be found in other
> sports and are legitimate) the sport makes you feel like you are
> participating in a sport, not a game.
funny.......it (ultimate) feels rather sand lotish to me. To me,
playing little leauge football,basketball,baseball made me feel like i
was participating in a (real)sport more so than any game of ultimate i
ever played in.
ulticritic
>
> Spirit scores have no bearing on who wins or loses the championship.
exactly, thats why they are pointless
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's telling that you'd rather be an ass than right.
in this case....to you.....damn straight its telling.......telling you
to shut the fuck up
------------------------------------------------------------------
I could
> have said "more throws than an Ulticritic post has homosexual
> innuendo*"
or more cocks than youve had in your mouth at one time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *By my count, 6 in the last post.
damn pinto, your a busy boy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How did spirit help Sockeye win last year?
in what? the ultimate contest or the spirit contest?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > why is it that you are the only one here that cant understand me.
>
> I assume that most don't even try, which I must admit is probably a
> better course of action than mine.
good idea, start plannin your exit strategy now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I thought your type was convinced that homosexuality was a choice? If
> you believe that it's hereditary and you still discriminate against
> gays,
you are the only one here i'm discriminating against
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>doesn't that just make you even more of an ass?
yeeeeeaaaaaaaaa(in my best homer simpson voice)
ultimat...@gmail.com
>
> dont you mean.....you wish you could give you more than 5
> inches.......pinto sure does
Ulticritic has a crush!
MrP...@gmail.com
idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling,
incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be
considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for
having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy
on your soul.
With all due respect, in what inner realm of your rant-addled mind do
you think it possible that anyone might continue to take you
seriously?
~p
ulticritic
> Oh, Mr. Critic, what you've just said is one of the most insanely
> idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling,
> incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be
> considered a rational thought.
yea i did......that sotg is stupid.......and that you are a faggot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in this room is now dumber for
> having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy
> on your soul.
they are only dumber if the didnt aggree with me.........you dont keep
score round here.........and this god person you speak of, whats he/
she got to do with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With all due respect, in what inner realm of your rant-addled mind do
> you think it possible that anyone might continue to take you
> seriously?
well since i dont give two fucks how anyone takes me to begin with,
thats kind of irrelevent.
and hey pinto.....just a little tip for ya........if your posts werent
so long and drawn out (blah blah blah blah blah blah blah) and an
obvious attempt to showcase your intellect and faggotry.......you
might get more response......other that me pointing out the
obvious.......cause it looks like you are gettin shut down in the most
recent "huguenard report" thread.
Canon
Spirit scores have nothing at all to do with who wins or loses. It's
just something on the side. While I agree that yes, maybe keeping
track of sportsmanship scores at the UPA National Championships is
kind of silly, and yes, it might have something to do with a New Games
influence, I don't see how it ties into any conclusions about
"survival of the weakest" or that Ultimate is a "non-competetive
sport." Perhaps I could see that if spirit ranking had something to do
with tournament placement...but it doesn't...
throw
decade now, why did UPA Josh even Want to interview Todd
"ulticritic" Leber?
Hank & Co.
ulticritic
> With the above spew being ulticritic's standard script for over a
> decade now, why did UPA Josh even Want to interview Todd
> "ulticritic" Leber?
probably for the same reason he DIDNT interview you.........ratings
Jared Smith
I agree spirit scores are meaningless to the outcome of the game, but
that doesn't mean they're bad. For instance the outcome of the
Superbowl would be the same regardless of whether afterwards Eli
Manning was named Superbowl mvp and the Patriots would still be 18-1
(so close suckers) regardless of whether Tom Brady had been recognized
as mvp. Those little side things don't affect the game and yet EVERY
single sport has little side things. So why is ulticritic so opposed
to have some little irrelevant recognitions if they appear in every
single traditional sport?
Additionally Ulticritic stop wasting your time posting the homophobic
stuff, it doesn't insult anyone who isn't five years old and anyone
who does bother to read you just disregards everything you say. You
may as well be writing and then immediately deleting what you say with
the effect that it has.
BigBabyJesus
Big difference between a most valuable player award and a spirit or
sportsmanship award. Kinda like Ms.Congeneality award in a pageant.
Nothing wrong with honoring or noting that but for it to be such a
focus or dogma, as some as termed it, is what I believe makes the game
of ultimate come across as soft, perhaps discouraging ultra-
competitive athletes from participating. Good sportsmanship and fair
play should be encouraged if not assumed. You can certainly define
what is unsportsmanlike behavior and establish penalties for that
behavior in the rules as most sports do without cramming it down
peoples throats as a holy tenet like its some kind of religion or
cult.
The idealistic concepts of spirit and self officiating in ultimate are
obviously (New Games based or not) appealing to a large group of
people and will always be attractive to a certain population. It is
what makes ultimate unique...and naive. Call me a cynic or a realist
but I just don't trust peoples (or my own for that matter) ability to
be impartial or honest all the time. And that does not make me a bad
person. Just don't be so condemning of those with other ideas of how
this cool game could be different and perhaps more popular. Or as
ulticritic would say "less gay".
Jared Smith
I'm not saying the game should be one way or another, but Ulticritic
is always very focused on how ultimate needs to be more like
mainstream sports, and I was pointing out a flaw in his logic. An
award unrelated to the outcome of the game is commonplace in
mainstream sports and does not make ultimate more or less of a sport.
The focus on spirit is what people may argue makes it more or less of
sport, I'm not stating an opinion either way on that. However ultimate
currently values spirit very highly and thus makes a note of it
occasionally. Do the spirit awards dominate the game? No. I would say
most people don't even pay attention to them most of the time, it's
just something that some people might enjoy.
chrisda...@gmail.com
> Nothing wrong with honoring or noting that but for it to be such a
> focus or dogma, as some as termed it, is what I believe makes the game
> of ultimate come across as soft, perhaps discouraging ultra-
> competitive athletes from participating.
really? you really think spirit, and noting spirit (at an ultra
competitive tournament) lessens our pool of ultra competitive
athletes? i don't know the emoticon for "confused wince/grimace
thing".
> Call me a cynic or a realist
> but I just don't trust peoples (or my own for that matter) ability to
> be impartial or honest all the time. And that does not make me a bad
> person.
self officiation allows me to practice being a honorable person in
very stressful situations. i'm not always honorable, but the beauty of
the thing is i do get to practice. i can't control your dishonest
tendencies, that would make me naive. i'm not playing this game for
you, and i have never lost a game of ultimate due to someone else
cheating (i'm attibuting losing to my teams' lack of ability). i have
won plenty that way.*
> Just don't be so condemning of those with other ideas of how
> this cool game could be different and perhaps more popular. Or as
> ulticritic would say "less gay"
why shouldn't i condemn an idea that would make ultimate less popular
for me? again the naivete, but not on my part.
sincerely,
chris a.
ps-if you killed yourself via hari kari, you wouldn't have the guts to
tell rec sport you lack confidence and honesty.
*actually only two games were won in that fashion, and both were at
kaimana so big whup.
bigdun...@hotmail.com
of them has some sort of homophobic or refrence to homosexuality. Many
times when someone is overtly homophobic it is simply an attempt to
mask thier own faggetry. So Senor Critic, why not just come out so you
can turn what are currently veiled as insults into outright flirting?
Butt loving aside i return to the intented issue of the thread.
New games was a bunch of pussys that tried to create games where
everybody wins. While frisbee may have been played by said girley men,
the new games movement is long dead and Ultimate has lived on and is
thriving. It is after all one of the fastest growing sports in the
world.
I can see franks point in saying,
"d) That by making Ultimate Frisbee 'fun' for all, the
game would be made to be easier for weaker players (no penalties,
double teaming illegal, huge endzones, no hard cap on traveling, no
roster limits, no penalties for Out of Bounds)."
I have also heard him complain that ultimate is boring to watch
and that strategies are not evolving. How fun would the game be to
watch if the endzone was 5 or 10 yards deep making scoring that much
harder? How are offenses supposed to evolve if every time the disc is
picked up the thrower is surrounded and mugged by 2 or more people
making passes nearly impossible to get off much less complete? These
rules allow for easier opportunities to score. If scoring is easier
people will score more. More scoring = a game that is more fun to
watch. The NHL in response to low attendance and television veiwership
recently changed multiple rules to increase scoring. ( moved back
bluelines, eliminated Icing calls etc.) It was too hard to score and
it hurt the game.
Ultimate came from a bunch of barefoot hippies. I have known that
since i started it. Thier attitudes live on in some aspects of the
sport today. This dosent mean that ultimate cant be competitive. Watch
any game that means something to either of the teams playing and that
fact will be glaringly obvious. Just because we try to trust our
fellow human beings simply isnt indicative that our game is only
played by pussys and faggots. Though the most frequent poster above
would lead you to that conclusion.
ulticritic
>
>
> I agree spirit scores are meaningless to the outcome of the game, but
> that doesn't mean they're bad. For instance the outcome of the
> Superbowl would be the same regardless of whether afterwards Eli
> Manning was named Superbowl mvp and the Patriots would still be 18-1
> (so close suckers) regardless of whether Tom Brady had been recognized
> as mvp. Those little side things don't affect the game and yet EVERY
> single sport has little side things. So why is ulticritic so opposed
> to have some little irrelevant recognitions if they appear in every
> single traditional sport?
i know of no other sport that gives an award for most
spirited.........mvp yes, but these are two intirerly different
attributes (spirit vs value)......which leads to the question.....what
the value in being spirited? Now if ultimate had the balls to
recognize someone on value alone as well, this might be less of an
issue. Shit, i'd like to see a KD award for the player that shows the
most grit and intensity........god forbid that the pious sport of
ultimate recognize those attributes.
>
> Additionally Ulticritic stop wasting your time posting the homophobic
> stuff, it doesn't insult anyone who isn't five years old and anyone
> who does bother to read you just disregards everything you say.
yet you still reply......and regard what i say....so you are wrong
about yet another thing.
throw
My guess is that UPA Josh's decision to interview yourself & Frank H.
was more of an "olive branch" gesture than anything....and the
decision didn't have much to do with ratings as you claim.
Have a good day on that end.
ulticritic
>
> I'm not saying the game should be one way or another, but Ulticritic
> is always very focused on how ultimate needs to be more like
> mainstream sports, and I was pointing out a flaw in his logic. An
> award unrelated to the outcome of the game is commonplace in
> mainstream sports and does not make ultimate more or less of a sport.
the fact that the rule enforcement system is a hybrid that still has
many facets that are tied to the "new games" philosophy does in fact
make it less of a sport. You cant have it both ways here
people......you cant tout ultimate as being unique (in the superlative
way that you do) and then go on to say that it is just as legit as
"other sports". Especially when that uniqueness is based on practicies
that "other sports" dont subscribe to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The focus on spirit is what people may argue makes it more or less of
> sport, I'm not stating an opinion either way on that. However ultimate
> currently values spirit very highly and thus makes a note of it
> occasionally.
and in doing so, award the "spirit" award to the team whos player
commited the most unspirited act of the entire season........so even
when you make note of it we are reminded of the hypocracy of the sport
and the absurdity of the concept (spirit that is)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Do the spirit awards dominate the game?
well when i played there were no spirit awards......so even if they
dont dominate they are becomming more and more prevelant........the
odd thing is that it seems more and more people are gravitating away
from the self officiation ideal and are accepting the merrits of using
normal rule enforcement procedures. So i'm just wondering.....who was/
were the person/people to spearhead this whole spirit score
nonsense.......one of them tired old new games proponents i'll assume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>No. I would say
> most people don't even pay attention to them most of the time,
so lets shelf em then.........and heres a novle idea.......how about
lets recognize the best player at nationals based soley on there value
to their teams success, period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>it's
> just something that some people might enjoy.
and we all know what kind of people they are, dont we
ulticritic
>
> self officiation allows me to practice being a honorable person in
> very stressful situations.
dont rely on a sport to do somthing your parents didnt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm not always honorable, but the beauty of
> the thing is i do get to practice.
so how do you keep yourself honest in the world outside of
ulti......seems like you are telling us that the notion of rules that
are actually enforced and that have consquences are things that would
make you less honorable and more likley to be disregarded...... boy,
thats one fucked up thought process
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i can't control your dishonest
> tendencies, that would make me naive.
and why baby jesus called you that. Anyone that wasnt naive would
seek out third party arb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm not playing this game for
> you, and i have never lost a game of ultimate due to someone else
> cheating (i'm attibuting losing to my teams' lack of ability). i have
> won plenty that way.*
well at the same time sports competition wasnt created so you could
have your little piety contest, nor was it made for you to sharpen
your honor. Those indeavors would better persued at a church or some
othe spirit bases organization. Dont be bringin it around the playing
field though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> why shouldn't i condemn an idea that would make ultimate less popular
> for me? again the naivete, but not on my part.
condemn away.....selfeshly as you admitt. Just dont be so offended
when your visions and ideals are equally condemned.
ulticritic
> so far on this thread I see 13 of 45 posts by ulticritic and every one
> of them has some sort of homophobic or refrence to homosexuality.
well arent you deligent in your research
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many
> times when someone is overtly homophobic it is simply an attempt to
> mask thier own faggetry.So Senor Critic, why not just come out so you
> can turn what are currently veiled as insults into outright flirting?
dung you devil........are you comming on to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> New games was a bunch of pussys that tried to create games where
> everybody wins. While frisbee may have been played by said girley men,
> the new games movement is long dead and Ultimate has lived on and is
> thriving. It is after all one of the fastest growing sports in the
> world.
so are you suggesting that present day ulti is in no way shape or form
has any ties to the original "new games" version, socially or
rulewise????
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ultimate came from a bunch of barefoot hippies. I have known that
> since i started it. Thier attitudes live on in some aspects of the
> sport today. This dosent mean that ultimate cant be competitive.
just not as competitive as it otherwise could have been had the
stewards been less coddleing and more savy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch
> any game that means something to either of the teams playing and that
> fact will be glaringly obvious.
I think the only thing glaringly obvious to anyone is how stupid it is
that there arent refs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because we try to trust our
> fellow human beings simply isnt indicative that our game is only
> played by pussys and faggots.
well it dosent help......you yourself said that the new games was for
pussies......many people (the general public) simply havent made that
disconnection yet.
ulticritic
> ulticritic,
>
> My guess is that UPA Josh's decision to interview yourself & Frank H.
> was more of an "olive branch" gesture than anything....and the
> decision didn't have much to do with ratings as you claim.
Key word.....GUESS.
ulticritic
Just because we try to trust our
> fellow human beings simply isnt indicative that our game is only
> played by pussys and faggots. Though the most frequent poster above
> would lead you to that conclusion.
quick clarification......i never said that "our game is only played by
pussys an faggots".......i simply imply that is RAN by them. Had the
highly competitive PLAYERS at the elite level been running the upa and
shaping our sport i would imagine they would apply some of the grit
and intensity that you see them display on the field by marketing and
promoting the sport more aggressively.
I have stated many times that the forfathers of the sport that didnt
initially incorporate a third party arbitration system into the actual
rules as well as the fabric of the game are the ones to really blame
(those that have carried it and continue to propagate sotg are still
carry a heavy burden of responsibility too....but they arent the
source).........and those that agree with me on this point, do infact,
see the huguenard report as the smoking gun. And while knowing who
actually pulled the trigger is pointless to a certian extent, i
believe it may indeed give the sport a kind of closure and maybe allow
it to continue on in "real sport" fashion.
SO WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER??? Any historians out there want to share?
Who wrote the rules of ultimate? Who allowed the spirit clause to be
paramont? And who actually wrote (copied) that actual spirit clause?
Jed
> On Feb 4, 2:50 pm, Jared Smith <emos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 11:41 am, Canon <eht1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree spirit scores are meaningless to the outcome of the game, but
> > that doesn't mean they're bad. For instance the outcome of the
> > Superbowl would be the same regardless of whether afterwards Eli
> > Manning was named Superbowl mvp and the Patriots would still be 18-1
> > (so close suckers) regardless of whether Tom Brady had been recognized
> > as mvp. Those little side things don't affect the game and yet EVERY
> > single sport has little side things. So why is ulticritic so opposed
> > to have some little irrelevant recognitions if they appear in every
> > single traditional sport?
>
> i know of no other sport that gives an award for most
> spirited.........
Strangely enough, the NHL award's the aptly named "Lady Byng" award to
the "most gentlemanly" player. Even that's not just about spirit
though - they give it the most sportsmanlike player who's still a
superstar. It's still a bit of a joke award though. My respect for
Alexander Mogilny was enhanced exponentially when he didn't show up to
receive it the year he won, saying he wasn't interested in the
"consolation prized".
MrP...@gmail.com
> spirited.........
Disney gives one to College Football programs. Here's the PR on
Tulanes win: http://tulanegreenwave.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/120105aaa.html
~p
Adam Tarr
> i know of no other sport that gives an award for most
> spirited.........mvp yes, but these are two intirerly different
> attributes (spirit vs value)......which leads to the question.....what
> the value in being spirited? Now if ultimate had the balls to
> recognize someone on value alone as well, this might be less of an
> issue. Shit, i'd like to see a KD award for the player that shows the
> most grit and intensity........god forbid that the pious sport of
> ultimate recognize those attributes.
Are we really having this argument again? Jeez. Can we just link to
the old threads and stop posting?
I'll do a quick review of the old thread:
1) Several major mainstream sports have awards that are supposed to
recognize only sportsmanship and/or service to the community.
Examples:
Olympics: Pierre de Coubertin medal
NHL: Lady Byng trophy
NFL: Man of the year award (Walter Payton award)
NBA: J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship award, and Sportsmanship award (Joe
Dumars award)
MLB: Roberto Clemente award
International soccer: FIFA fair play trophy
There are many others. Look up a major sport and you will almost
certainly find that it gives an award for community service, and it
probably gives an award for sportsmanship as well.
2) ZERO sports, including inherently violent sports such as football
and hockey, have awards for toughness or badassedness. There are
awards named for players who were known as badasses (e.g. the Richard
award in hockey or the Butkus award in college football) but they are
explicitly given out to players who PLAY well (top goal scorer gets
the Richard, outstanding linebacker gets the Butkus) with no regard
given to how tough or mean the player is.
ulticritic
well now i know of two thanks to pinto and jed........where as hockeys
spirit award is known to be a "joke of an award" as it rightfully
should.........i'de say college footballs (which gets no press and
most college football fans probably arent even aware of......again,
rightfully so) is more of a consolation prize for the team that fought
their way through the odds to have a pretty successful season
award..........so I'd bet 10 to 1 that boise state got it the year
before that........really more of a, couldnt play with the big boys
but gave it the ole college try anyway award.
So even if other sports do have spirit awards......#1 you are just
supporting that athleats can play with and show good spirit in
refereed sports.......and that #2 there aint a whole lot of emphisis
placed on winning a spirit award, comparitively to an mvp
award..........where as in ulti the spirit award and mvp are one in
the same.......only more emphisis is queerly placed on spirit.
ulticritic
> 2) ZERO sports, including inherently violent sports such as football
> and hockey, have awards for toughness or badassedness. There are
> awards named for players who were known as badasses (e.g. the Richard
> award in hockey or the Butkus award in college football) but they are
> explicitly given out to players who PLAY well (top goal scorer gets
> the Richard, outstanding linebacker gets the Butkus) with no regard
> given to how tough or mean the player is.
are you kiddin me.......you dont think that toughness is not a
prerequisit to even being considered for the butkus
award.........shit, toughness is a prerequisit to even play in the nfl
much less to be awarded as its primere linebacker. Butkus was tough
and mean......so how can you give an award in his name to someone that
dosent display those qualities to a certian extent.
As for toughness in general......i believe tom coughlin sumed it up
briliantly when he said, in his first post super bowl interview, that
their (NYG) motto from the first day of training camp was......."no
toughness, no championship"
Frank Huguenard
>there is nothing punk rock about ultimate. attempting any sort of
>correlation between the two is an embarassment to skateboarding.
It was totally punk in the 80's and you're embarrassing yourself with your
lack of knowledge.
Frank Huguenard
<wanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2024c8b0-39bb-4006...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> I've got a few minutes, so I'll respond.
>
> First, interesting article/writing Frank, the New Games movement is an
> interesting phenomenon and I can accept that it may have had some,
> even major, impact on the people who developed ultimate. However, I
> don't see a direct line of correlation/causation from the New Games
> movement to the CURRENT form of ultimate.
>
> For example:
>
> "In New Frisbee, for example, the player concentrates on perfecting
> his own skills, not on defeating his partner. While New Frisbee looks
> very much like Old Frisbee, it is philosophically quite different. The
> player gets no points if he catches a good throw; on the other hand,
> if he catches or even misses but makes an all-out attempt for a
> difficult throw, he gains a point. Since the catcher calls his own
> points, each player is competing against the limitations of not only
> personal skill but personal integrity."
> Does that bear any resemblance to even the earliest forms of ultimate?
Are you kidding me? This has EVERYTHING to do with ultimate for the past 28
years.
> As soon as you have an endzone and start keeping opposing scores, it
> is no longer a "New Game" game. In the interview Josh did, Todd
> describes a New Games variant of Ultimate. Unlimited players, no
> boundaries, etc. etc. This still exists. However, New Game variants of
> all sports exist. I've played 6 on 8 basketball where no one keeps
> score and people are just throwing up goofy crap. Does this mean the
> NBA isn't a sport? No, of course not. DOes it mean that the people
> playing that game of basketball weren't competitive people? No, we
> were all tired from playing a ridiculously hard fought game of pick
> up, this was our way of relaxing afterward.
Please use your head.
The new games influence on the rules of Ultimate is undenyable.
The rules were designed for the lowest common denominator. Double teams
being illegal is a case in point. The whole ruleset reeks of this
silliness.
> So, we know that ultimate was not an explicitly "New Game" creation.
>
> Next questions, did the New Game movement influence the creation of
> ultimate? Perhaps.
Nope. Not at all.
In 1968 there was no cross pollination but by 1979 when the UPA formed, the
cross pollination is unmistakable.
> You make a pretty good argument in your article
> that the ideo of SOTG is connected to the New Games idea of Spirit. So
> the New Game influence may have been present at the founding of
> Ultimate, but how does that relate to the current version of ultimate
> that I am playing today?
The entire set of rules is based on that ideology. No penalties (the
Preface comes straight out of New Games), no double teaming, 9000 sq. ft.
endzones.
> Your evidence that todays ultimate is still a New Game movement
> consists of an analysis of rules that, in your opinion, are designed
> to protect weak players.
That's not my argument. The fact is that Ultimate's Rules came straight out
of that movement and the rules have remained pretty much the same.
> "Double teaming is illegal because it's not universally fair. Picks
> are illegal because they are not universally fair. Out of bounds
> isn't really out of bounds because it's not universally fair. No
> penalty for excessive fouling or traveling is because it wouldn't be
> fair. "
> "Extra steps to account for momentum (even out of bounds), no double
> teaming, no boxing out, no penalties, 9000 square feet endzones, etc."
> First, none of these come anywhere close to the New Games ideal.
You keep on believing that.
> Wether picks and double teams are illegal or not, a 13 year old video
> gamer couch potato can't keep up in a mid level college game, much
> less an elite club game. That was the idea of New Games, that EVERYONE
> was completely equal.
>
> So, at best, New Games has some influence on ultimate, it isn't a
> direct line of descent.
At worst, it has poisoned it.
> But, are the rules that you cite even designed to protect weak
> players? We've gone over this before, but I'll recap in brief. Here
> are the rules you list.
>
> Double teaming
> Picks
> Out of Bounds
> Momentum
> Boxing out
> Large endzones
> Excessive penalties for fouling and traveling
>
I'm not even going to bother engaging you on these. You obviously are not a
very good player.
Frank Huguenard
"Barrett" <rob.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e253cae-8f29-489c...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Frank, in your world, why is running out of bounds after a reception
> in the NFL legal?
It is legal to run with the ball in football. Apples and oranges.
> Why aren't picks allowed?
They are, just not down field.
> Why is goaltending illegal in the NBA?
Your point?
> why aren't 700 lb goalies allowed in the NHL? More smoking
> guns?
> On the other hand, I know when I bring up to my naive basketball-
> playing friends that their sport started with no hole in the bottom of
> the peach basket, they get awful red-faced.
>
> The real positive about your posts is that, by noting your spikes of
> RSD activity, your family can keep track of when you've gotten back
> off the meds.
Unbelievable. Incontrovertible proof that Ultimate was designed for the
lowest common denominator and you still attack me.
Keep on believing...
Frank Huguenard
Use your head.
Point A) The game has only gone through 4 revisions since the UPA formed and
that is when the SOTG and Preface got defined and incorporated into the
rules.
Out of those 4 revisions, what real changes have been made that have taken
the game from survival of the weakest to survival of the fittest? None.
Most of those revisions have been more about clarifications for how the game
is played, not any significant changes to the basic rules.
Point B) The way the game is currently played is horrible. It is mediocre.
It is pathetic. This is a fact. Not my opinion.
Point C) I did not intermix Frisbee with anything. Everything in itallics
in the piece was quoted from another source.
Point D) The current rules in no way imply that violations or fouls exist
to prevent cheating. Adam, please you're embarrassing yourself. Read the
preface again. It is quite clear on this.
Point E) Schooled Me? You ain't schooled me on anything bitch.
"Adam Tarr" <ahtarr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1452b3ea-ebf1-4d05...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Frank, you clearly put a lot of effort in here, so I'll put some
effort into a response.
On Jan 30, 4:38 pm, "Frank Huguenard"
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> As promised, here are my findings regarding the origins of the framework
> of
> Ultimate Frisbee.
Frank, firstly, I have to say that much of that was an interesting
read. I had never heard of "new games", and it was a nice little
historical background piece, well-researched and fairly well
presented. I learned something. Thanks.
To the rest of you - Frank has put together some fairly interesting
historical trivia here, and you might enjoy the read.
> Is it a smoking gun? I think it is but you'll have to draw your own
> conclusions and decide for yourself.
In my opinion, you proved none of the seven things you claimed to
prove at the end. What you did was present a lot of supporting
evidence for the first point, and some for the second and third
points.
The thing that is absurd (although not unsurprising) to me is that you
consider this a smoking gun. You haven't proven with any
conclusiveness that the founders of Ultimate were familiar with "new
games" and sought to include those ideas in the form of the SOTG
clause. But for argument's sake, let's say they did. So what? The
rules have gone through 10+ revisions since then. They can be judged
on their own merits, irrespective of their origins. To give you an
analogy - I don't accuse everyone driving a Jetta of supporting the
Nazis.
Now, I know you think the rules are fundamentally uncompetitive.
Great, then argue that (like you've been doing). I disagree with you,
and nothing about the origins of the rules really influences my
thought process. The rules and the way the game is currently played
can be judged on its own merits.
No, I didn't sign up for (as you put it) "[a game] designed to be fair
irrespective of age, race, gender, build (fat or thin, tall or short),
athleticism, intelligence and handicaps". I started playing ultimate
because I played three sports in high school, I missed competitive
sports, and a bunch of my friends were on the team. Sure, SOTG is a
funny name for an idea, but I played tennis and was already
comfortable with the idea of playing fair and respecting calls made by
opponents.
> I guess that it also depends on what
> it is exactly that I set out to prove and whether or not you're willing to
> accept some of my logic.
Fundamentally, you never proved that ultimate was intended to be all
of the things a "new game" is. You intermix "frisbee" (as the name of
a game) with ultimate, but that's a bit of a smokescreen as they don't
refer to the same thing, any more than volleyball and soccer do
(basically the same ball).
And you draw all sorts of unreasonable conclusions. Let's look at one
section of your piece:
Frank>"We've known for years that one of the beliefs woven into the
fabric of the game is the belief that penalties exist in sports
exclusively to prevent cheating (this is in the preface)."
Simply untrue. The current rules in no way imply that violations or
fouls exist to prevent cheating. If anything, I would argue that they
largely exist for nearly the opposite reason - to avoid unfair
situations produced by unintentional infractions. Obviously there is
an element of both, but reading the rules I really can't figure out
where you get the idea that violations/fouls only exist for cheating.
Frank>"But now we know without any reasonable doubt that another
cornerstone in the Ultimate Frisbee beliefs is that ultra-
competitiveness stems from games with firm, consistent and rational
boundaries. This is a proven fact."
You haven't even demonstrated that this is a fundamental belief of
"new games", much less proving that ultimate was intended to be a "new
game". Even if you had, you haven't proven that this idea formed a
guiding principle of the original rules, much less the (very specific)
current rules. In sum, you are miles away from being able to state
this as fact.
Frank> "Furthermore, again without any reasonable doubt, it is obvious
after reviewing all of this research that Ultimate Frisbee was created
under the belief that learning would happen best in a friendly and
fair environment."
There's some element of truth to this, although I didn't need the
article to know it - I can just look at the etiquette section of the
rules. It's hardly damning information, though.
Frank> "And of course the grand daddy of them all, it has been written
clearly in the rules for over a quarter of a century, is that Ultimate
Frisbee is a non-contact sport."
That's the grand daddy? Really? I already schooled you on this one,
Frank. There are multiple definitions of what a non-contact sport
is. By one definition, both ultimate and basketball are non-contact
sports. The FIBA rules still mention the word non-contact. Get over
it.
And finally, this is apropos of nothing, but what would be an
interesting essay on the cultural zeitgeist when ultimate formed would
be a much tighter and more enjoyable read if you avoided throwing in
lots of unrelated negative crap. The cheap seats piece could be done
about dischoops or cricket or hurling, or basically anything outside
the mainstream, and virtually the exact same jokes would work.
Claiming Stork is fouling that guy - I mean, there's extremely litle
contact on that play, he's clearly contorting his body to avoid
contact. I saw drastically more significant contact go uncalled in
the Nuggets game last night. These sorts of comments are nothing but
cheap shots at retired players. They don't advance your argument, in
stead, they just make you look petty.
Frank Huguenard
Take the report out of context and it's got some good info. In the context
of everything that I"ve posted here for four years, it is the cornerstone.
I don't know you. Don't know who you are. I've never seen you play.
You are a mediocre player.
I can say this because of my knowledge of the game and how it is currently
being played.
The fact is that 'whole new games' stuff created a game that has not brought
out the best in anybody.
"Baer" <colli...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59b684f9-7ed0-4719...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Frank deserves some credit for doing the research and putting together
> this article, even if we don't agree with his conclusions. I too
> learned something I never knew about New Games and read some other
> interesting points, even though I too disagree with the final overall
> assessment.
>
> Even IF Ultimate was created just for the purposes of having fun and
> not being too competitive (it was created by a bunch of high school
> kids in a parking lot, after all), that doesn't mean that it can't
> become a more legitimate competitive sport. Even innocent diversions
> like Scrabble and cup stacking have become competitive affairs with
> major events and payouts. The difference is, as we have often heard on
> this board, is that Ultimate has not taken the leap of going to the
> next level of legitimacy.
>
> Whether this is due to poor administrative management, the nature of
> sports, or the info Frank presented, it's an argument that we debate
> here every day!
>
>
>
Frank Huguenard
> On Jan 31, 12:34 pm, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Even IF Ultimate was created just for the purposes of having fun and
>> not being too competitive (it was created by a bunch of high school
>> kids in a parking lot, after all), that doesn't mean that it can't
>> become a more legitimate competitive sport.
>
Are you pouring or drinking the Kool-Aid here Adam?
Look at the facts, Ultimate Frisbee may have been created at Columbia High
School but it was shang hai'ed by the New Games influence. This can not be
denied.
>> become a more legitimate competitive sport. Even innocent
>> diversions like Scrabble and cup stacking have become competitive
>> affairs with major events and payouts. The difference is, as we have
>> often heard on this board, is that Ultimate has not taken the leap of
>> going to the next level of legitimacy.
>
> Hasn't it, though?
No Adam. It has not.
>It really depends what "the next level of
> legitimacy" is to you. If "the next level of legitimacy" means semi-
> regular coverage on ESPN2 or somesuch, then no, we haven't reached
> that level.
> As fas as organization, we have clearly defined tournament formats and
> competitive structures, and strict roster rules (not referring to the
> new roster limits - just the roster management in general). As far as
> presentation, we now have lined fields, uniform requirements, and
> extensive video and photographic coverage at the championship level.
Are you just trying to prove you're an idiot or does it come naturally?
All those things have nothing to do with a game that was designed for
survival of the weakest.
While you're 'schooling' me, can you please explain to me why double teaming
is illegal?
> As far as competition goes, aside from all the strategic evolution, we
> have better and better athletes playing the game. The highest club
> level is loaded with players who could have or did participate in
> varsity athletics at the college level. As far as recognition goes,
> we are steadily making progress, primarily through the growth of
> leagues and the growth of youth ultimate.
>
> I see all of these things as examples of moving to "the next level of
> legitimacy". Your mileage may vary.
Frank Huguenard
on TV.
And the reason I can't stand to watch it is only this reason. Their
skills/offenses are lame.
Have another glass though.
"the long con" <tyronethi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a09c5a31-1818-435a...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 5:55 pm, Baer <collin.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:55 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hasn't it, though? It really depends what "the next level of
> > legitimacy" is to you. If "the next level of legitimacy" means semi-
> > regular coverage on ESPN2 or somesuch, then no, we haven't reached
> > that level.
>
> > As fas as organization, we have clearly defined tournament formats and
> > competitive structures, and strict roster rules (not referring to the
> > new roster limits - just the roster management in general). As far as
> > presentation, we now have lined fields, uniform requirements, and
> > extensive video and photographic coverage at the championship level.
> > As far as competition goes, aside from all the strategic evolution, we
> > have better and better athletes playing the game. The highest club
> > level is loaded with players who could have or did participate in
> > varsity athletics at the college level. As far as recognition goes,
> > we are steadily making progress, primarily through the growth of
> > leagues and the growth of youth ultimate.
>
> > I see all of these things as examples of moving to "the next level of
> > legitimacy". Your mileage may vary.
>
> Good points, Adam, and all true. What I mean is the next, next level,
> as in wide media coverage, professional games, etc (like the
> aforementioned Scrabble and cup stacking).
>
> There have surely been a lot of advancements, just not as much (or as
> quickly) as some of us dreamers would like. We'll keep working at it
> though...- Hide quoted text -
>
I must admit I would like to be able to watch Ultimate on TV in my old
age (which would be about tomorrow).
wanie...@gmail.com
> > Double teaming
> > Picks
> > Out of Bounds
> > Momentum
> > Boxing out
> > Large endzones
> > Excessive penalties for fouling and traveling
>
> I'm not even going to bother engaging you on these. You obviously are not a
See Frank, things like this really don't help you. My ability as a
player is completely and entirely disconnected from my analysis of
those rules, an analysis that you A. don't understand B. have no
reasonable reply to or C. ???????? I have no idea.
Oh well.
Frank Huguenard
>
> Is Ultimate a New Game?
> No, at least not anymore.
Not a single thing in the basic framework of the game has changed. I'm
talking about the basic rules. They've only been clarified. If Ultimate
was a new game, it still is.
> Not that I'm an authority on the
> subject, but it seems to me that we're not in Kansas any more. Once
> you're playing to a score and there's a winner and a loser, you've
> crossed the line from cooperation to competition.
You really need to dig deeper on the subject. Stuart Brand was all for
competition. He invented a game called Slaughter that was designed to help
overly aggressive players work out their angst in a controlled, competitive
way. It was in 1973 when Pat Farrington (female) joined the movement that
the focus turned decidedly towards non-competitiveness.
> And it's not like
> Ultimate is only kinda-sorta competitive either. Any competitive
> activity (sport or no) is equally competitive: it's only a matter of
> figuring out what the focus of that competition is.
That's exactly correct. In fact frighteningly correct if you understand
what you're suggesting and it's basically what I've said about training
wheels. Competition is inate. It is in our genes.
Ultimate is unnatural in this respect.
>
> "Focus of Competition?"
> In the NBA for example, the focus isn't whether or not you can
> score a basket. Any scrub in the NBA can score a basket. What makes
> a player great is his personal consistency (shot percentage in varying
> situations) and his ability to increase team outcomes by playing good
> defense, avoiding turnovers, and improving the consistency of his
> teammates.
> Much to your chagrin, beyond a basic degree of competence,
> technical facility with a disc is not the focus of competition in
> Ultimate.
Training wheels. This is a direct result of learning to play within
whatever system has been provided; in this case an artificial one.
Furthermore, most of what I consider fundamental skills have NOTHING to do
with a disc.
> While you're right that scoring isn't very difficult as compared
> to, e.g., soccer, it doesn't follow that it's also easy to SCORE MORE
> THAN THE OTHER TEAM. If you want to do that, you have to play tough
> defense and score consistently on offense. Offense is about taking
> calculated risks to keep the defense honest, valuing the disc and,
> just like in the NBA, shooting a high percentage. IIRC, when the
> Hodags won college nationals, they turned the disc over 5 times.
HORSESHIT.
That is insane.
You make offensive fouls a turnover and traveling a turnover and then you
quote me some statistics. Statistics on a New Game is a ridiculous
argument.
> If
> avoiding turnovers were so easy that even weak players could do it,
> their opponents would've had 5 turns too and wouldn't have gotten
> blown out.
Apples and oranges. You can't do any kind of fair measuring or comparisons
until you create a set of rules that is designed to do so. Ultimate was
never designed for this.
> Is Ultimate technically difficult? If so, is it difficult enough?
> Though competition-cooperation might be an either/or situation,
> difficulty is a continuum. Using your example, allowing double teams
> at a closer distance would make the job of the thrower more
> difficult. That's true, but it's also arbitrary. Say we allow double-
> teams within a foot. Aren't we still coddling throwers by prohibiting
> defenders from blocking vision? Okay, let's allow that too. How
> about contact? Isn't it easier to get a throw off if you're not about
> to be hit? Or, going the other way, wouldn't the game be easier if NO
> defenders were allowed within 10 feet? If we're looking to be anti-
> competitive, why wouldn't we do that? Heck, why would we allow
> opponents to play defense at all? What's so special about double
> teaming among the universe of challenges that we might impose upon a
> thrower or the defense?
> Speaking of defense, there's another side of the coin. The easier
> it is for throwers, the harder it is for defenders. Since teams have
> to do both, any increase in difficulty for O is matched by a decrease
> on D. It's zero-sum (Callahans aside). Defending an elite team is
> really hard, precisely BECAUSE throwers have space, cutters can't be
> fouled, end zones are large, etc. Why would we want to make the game
> easier for the defense? Wouldn't that just reward weak defenders?
>
> Do weak players and teams succeed at Ultimate?
> It sure doesn't seem like it. Once we allow that "strength" and
> "weakness" are measured according to the actual focus of competition
> and not according to some technical standard that you'd prefer, it
> becomes pretty clear that there are some people who are better at
> Ultimate than others. Teams full of better people defeat teams full
> of weaker people routinely and reliably. If the rules helped weaker
> players compete, why are the same teams winning every year? If the
> rules aren't doing a good job of allowing weak players to compete, why
> does it matter if they might have been intended to do so?
>
> But how can Ultimate evolve if we don't change the rules?
> Certainly changing rules would change the sport, but it's not
> explicitly necessary. The Fosbury Flop, the West Coast Offense and
> the cut fastball were all innovations that took place without any rule
> changes prompting them. The cool part about a sport isn't changing
> the rules to make it a new sport, but innovating within the rules and
> exploring what's possible within the boundaries that exist. I'm not
> opposed to rule tweaks here and there and I'm not opposed to forking
> off and creating a new sport either, but there's something to be said
> for continuity of comparison. You can tell that the NBA has lost
> touch with the game of earlier generations when NBA announcers have to
> constantly announce stats as "in the shot-clock era." Modern NBA is a
> few decades old, modern baseball is about a century. If some critics
> had their way, modern Ultimate would never be any older than the most
> recent thought they've had on what would showcase their particular
> skills or please their hypothetical fan.
>
> But shouldn't we change the focus of the game?
> Changing the rules would of course change what I've taken to
> calling the "focus of competition," but why is your proposed focus any
> better than the other? What makes stopping in three steps or throwing
> out of a double-team superior to skills like getting a huck off at the
> appropriate moment or laying out for a D? DiscHoops might be fun and
> it might test for the skills you care about, but isn't that a
> subjective comparison? On what do you base your claim that your focus
> of competition is objectively superior? Which is more "competitive?"
> Women's Lacrosse or Men's? Football or soccer? The reason I'm pretty
> sure that DH is no more competitive than Ultimate is that
> "competitive" isn't a scale upon which a set of rules can really be
> objectively judged.
> Nowhere do I see this issue brought to light better than in your
> point (e). You specify that players use fundamentally "unsound"
> techniques. How on earth would one measure the "soundness" of a
> technique by an objective standard? How did we know that the West
> Coast Offense and the Flop were sound? Because their practitioners
> used them to dominate their sports. A technique is sound if it
> contributes to victory. You remain upset that a team as bad as
> Sockeye could win Natties, but that's backwards. Bad can't exist
> without good, so if Sockeye isn't good, what is? Probably none of the
> teams they beat. Some hypothetical team that you'd captain, running
> your hypothetical offense in a game with your hypothetical rule
> modifications added? Of what real value is that comparison?
> If you can make some argument for why Ultimate would be more fun
> to play or watch with double-teaming, I guess I'd be all ears and
> wouldn't put it beyond consideration. Of all the skills I'd
> personally be interested in seeing or perfecting, I'm not sure that
> the ability to squeeze throws through a tighter cup tops the list.
> Honestly, more zone and zone-like sets would probably make the game
> less watchable, not more... As for pivoting and boundaries: I
> actually like the soccer-style boundary rules since they work so well
> on unlined fields and since the "pivot foot = position" setup is so
> parsimonious. We might have to agree to disagree there. Anyway, I'm
> afraid I'd have to consider rules changes independently of whether or
> not they'd make the sport more "competitive."
>
> Stylistic concerns
> I really care more for substance than style (except in severe
> cases such as sentences penned by Mr. Critic with spelling and grammar
> so atrocious that substance can't even be discerned). I'm clearly not
> a style expert either. That said, if you intend to widely publicize
> your article in hopes of winning converts, it wouldn't hurt to improve
> the presentation a bit.
> Your article is full of superlatives ("inescapable," "undeniable,"
> "beyond a reasonable doubt," etc) and they hurt your credibility. It
> just sounds like you're trying to hard when you should instead be
> confident that your arguments can carry their own weight.
> A quick once-over for spelling and missing words ("If you are AN
> athlete...") might help.
> "Begs the question" doesn't mean what you think it does. "Begging
> the question" is the name of a logical fallacy where the conclusion is
> assumed as a premise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question.
> I'm no enthusiast, but my understanding is that Harleys, while
> cool-looking and quite romanticized, aren't exactly the pinnacle of
> motorcycles when it comes to design, performance, quality, or
> reliability. On the other hand, if you and Ulticritic want to go out
> and celebrate your minority status by getting "1%" tattoos, I think
> that would just be awesome.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_club#One_Percenters
>
> Anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm afraid that you failed to convince me
> that Ultimate is any more or less a delusion than the rest of life,
> but you didn't fail to be interesting. It's refreshing to find
> snippets of cogent thought that aren't surrounded by reams of Kool-Aid
> offers and penis jokes from Mr. Critic.
>
> ~p
Frank Huguenard
> On Feb 1, 11:39 am, Jed <jedhen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The connection between SOTG and the "New Games" philosophy is hard to
>> deny; and it's not a great leap to think that the determination to
>> stick to the "player-controlled" aspect of the game (to the point
>> where it's now been written into the game's definition) is also tied
>> to these foundations.
>
> Sure, it's not a big leap. The question is whether this leads to
> irrational structures in the rules today. I don't think it does - I
> think the current set of rules, having gone through many revisions by
> clear-thinking rational people, are intended to serve the players well
> and allow the game to be played the way most of us want it to be
> played.
Adam, you just don't cease demonstrating just how mediocre of a player you
are.
Anyone who thinks that the rules for Ultimate were well thought out doesn't
know how to play very well.
> Your examples demonstrate this exact point - that these cases have
> been considered and reconsidered in recent times - probably by people
> who had never heard of "new games". There's a search for clarity and
> easy applicability in the evolution of the rules, for sure, but no
> more so than in any refereed sport.
The Rules have simply not evovled a single bit since I played in Hort. Park
in 1979. It is fundamentally the same game (with nicer clothes)
>> The game and the rules have definitely come a long way. Yet there are
>> examples throughout the rules where they have been written with a
>> preference to limit arguments, rather than to provide an outcome that
>> is "right", in the traditional sports way of thinking.
>
> While I don't think we can agree on what the traditional sports
> "right" is, I agree there are situations where the rules make things
> simple in an effort to limit arguments. But frankly, this is the same
> as rules in every sport, to some degree or another. The only
> difference is that in most sports, the simplifications exist to make
> calls east and clear-cut. (Not that this always works - note the gray
> areas surrounding holding calls in football or traveling calls in
> basketball, among many examples I could pick from.)
You're missing the point here. Jed was making a very good case that the
rule were written to mitigate arguments (which is true). You're turning
that around and saying that the end result of those intentions were fine
rules.
>> For example:
>>
>> 1) The continuation rule: In my mind, the "Right" thing would be for
>> play to stop the second a call is made - as though a whistle had been
>> blown. But with player controlled (i.e. non-impartial) arbitration,
>> that would lead to too many arguments - too much riding on whether a
>> throw came before or after a call. So we have the continuation rule as
>> it exists; outcomes don't really make sense, but at least there isn't
>> much room for argument.
>
> I don't see this as the "right" outcome. Neither does basketball,
> which allows a player to complete a shot after the whistle if he was
> in the act of shooting. Neither does football, which does not whistle
> plays dead when the penalty occurs, and allows a team to decline a
> penalty by the opposing team if the result of the play is more
> advantageous than the infraction. Continuation exists in many sports,
> and for good reason - it avoids penalizing one team for the infraction
> of the other team.
Have another glass Adam.
> The UPA continuation rule was tweaked in the most recent edition. You
> may not like the rule, but I think it's hard to argue that the SRT was
> considering any sort of new game philosophy when they implemented the
> changes. I see the goal of the new rule as trying to prevent picks
> and fouls from slowing the play down unnecessarily, by reducing the
> frequency of "do-overs".
Adam, NOBODY has ever heard of New Games.
The New Games influence created a religion called Ultimate Frisbee that now
has a life of its own and it's very own Pastors. Pastor Adam, that's got a
nice ring to it. Or better yet, Pastor Jones, pass me the pitcher of the
Grape.
> That said, the WFDF rules don't have a continuation rule. So this has
> been tried, too. Some people like it more and others like it less,
> but I don't think whether continuation prevents arguments is the crux
> of the discussion. It's more of a question of which rule speeds or
> slows the game down more, and which rule drives down the incentive to
> foul more effectively.
Are you seriously suggesting that the continuation rule is a rule change?
It was a band aid.
>> 2) Marker Fouls: The rule has been slightly modified,
>
> Actually, it was modified twice in the last 7 years - once in the 10th
> and again in the 11th. Also, the marker violations were reorganized
> in the 11th. Again, the rules are evolving and being refined.
You really are an idiot.
>> but basically,
>> contact is always the marker's fault.
>
> That's an oversimplification. In the current rules, if the marker's
> extended arms or legs are moving, then contact is a foul on the
> marker. But the marker's torso has positional rights even if moving.
> And if the marker is stationary and legally positioned, contact is a
> foul on the thrower.
>
> This is a change from the 10th edition, where the marker's extended
> arms and legs never had any positional rights, even if they were
> stationary.
>
>> contact is always the marker's fault. Shouldn't it be the fault of
>> whoever initiated the contact?
>
> Basically, that was the 9th edition rules. The thrower/marker foul
> rules went way over toward favoring the thrower in the 10th, and have
> swung a little bit back to the marker in the 11th. Although the
> thrower now has unlimited "disc space" calls at his or her disposal,
> which is a really nice tool to keep the marker from setting up
> illegally.
>
>> That would seem "right" to me, but it
>> sure would lead to a lot of arguments (without impartial arbitration,
>> that is).
>
> Well it certainly led to disagreements on the legitimacy of calls, in
> my experience with the 9th edition. That said, I haven't seen any
> rule that completely eliminates this problem, although it's possible
> that liberal use of the "disc space" call, once people catch on to it,
> will help a lot.
>
> And to reiterate my earlier point - I don't see the lack of impartial
> arbitration as the key issue here. Refs need clear rules just as much
> as player-officials need clear rules.
Frank Huguenard
>I don't think modern ultimate is related to New Games, which it might
> or might not have been at its creation (wasn't there, don't really
> care).
snip.
It's not up to debate.
Frank Huguenard
> New games was a bunch of pussys that tried to create games where
> everybody wins. While frisbee may have been played by said girley men,
> the new games movement is long dead and Ultimate has lived on and is
> thriving. It is after all one of the fastest growing sports in the
> world.
The New Games impact on the basic framework (which is still played) is
undeniable.
> I can see franks point in saying,
> "d) That by making Ultimate Frisbee 'fun' for all, the
> game would be made to be easier for weaker players (no penalties,
> double teaming illegal, huge endzones, no hard cap on traveling, no
> roster limits, no penalties for Out of Bounds)."
> I have also heard him complain that ultimate is boring to watch
> and that strategies are not evolving. How fun would the game be to
> watch if the endzone was 5 or 10 yards deep making scoring that much
> harder?
That 'much' harder? Scoring isn't hard at all right now if you ran a decent
offense.
> How are offenses supposed to evolve if every time the disc is
> picked up the thrower is surrounded and mugged by 2 or more people
> making passes nearly impossible to get off much less complete?
You'll not get a lot of support on this argument from any 'elite' player
worth his salt. Go ahead, double team me, I dare you.
> These
> rules allow for easier opportunities to score. If scoring is easier
> people will score more. More scoring = a game that is more fun to
> watch. The NHL in response to low attendance and television veiwership
> recently changed multiple rules to increase scoring. ( moved back
> bluelines, eliminated Icing calls etc.) It was too hard to score and
> it hurt the game.
Bottom line is that disc skills have not evolved.
> Ultimate came from a bunch of barefoot hippies. I have known that
> since i started it. Thier attitudes live on in some aspects of the
> sport today. This dosent mean that ultimate cant be competitive. Watch
> any game that means something to either of the teams playing and that
> fact will be glaringly obvious. Just because we try to trust our
> fellow human beings simply isnt indicative that our game is only
> played by pussys and faggots.
But that IS the kool-aid.
Don't confuse the 'New Games' rules with self refereeing. You can have your
cake and eat it too.
You can have a natural and rational set of rules AND have self refereeing.
Frank Huguenard
>The idealistic concepts of spirit and self officiating in ultimate are
>obviously (New Games based or not) appealing to a large group of
>people and will always be attractive to a certain population.
By lumping in spirit and self officiating with LCD set of rules, you're
drinking the kool-aid.
THAT is the dogma.
That is what you've been led to believe. This is the kool-aid.
Why can't you have spirit, self officiating AND a rational set of rules?
> It is
>what makes ultimate unique...and naive. Call me a cynic or a realist
>but I just don't trust peoples (or my own for that matter) ability to
>be impartial or honest all the time.
Impartiallity aside, it is impossible to play defense and be a good referee
simultaneously.
> And that does not make me a bad
>person. Just don't be so condemning of those with other ideas of how
>this cool game could be different and perhaps more popular. Or as
>ulticritic would say "less gay".
Adam Tarr
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Point C) I did not intermix Frisbee with anything. Everything in itallics
> in the piece was quoted from another source.
What I mean is that the game "frisbee" referred to there is not
ultimate, and was not meant to be understood to be ultimate. It was a
different game altogether, only linked by the fact that it uses a
flying disc. You didn't splice sources together there, but it's a bit
misleading since a reader could incorrectly assume that blurb was
referring to ultimate. It wasn't. No big deal, though.
> Point D) The current rules in no way imply that violations or fouls exist
> to prevent cheating. Adam, please you're embarrassing yourself. Read the
> preface again. It is quite clear on this.
Your interpretation of the preface is bizarre. The preface states
that there are not harsh infractions because it is assumed that
players will not intentionally cheat. From that statement, you infer
that the creators of the rules believed that, "penalties exist in
sports exclusively to prevent cheating". Yet, there are penalties for
infractions all over the place in the rules. Clearly, they exist for
some other reason.
> Point E) Schooled Me? You ain't schooled me on anything bitch.
I meant this in the literal, non-pejorative sense. I schooled you on
the meaning of "non-contact sport". You were talking about how it's
absurd to call ultimate a non-contact sport. I showed you that there
is a common, accepted definition of "non-contact sport" which applies
to sports like basketball or ultimate. I even noted that the phrase
"non-contact" was in the FIBA rules. That's how "schooling" someone
works, on usenet, anyway. You don't need to take it as an insult.
Did you forget this thread happened?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/msg/2d0ee887e161e341
In a later thread you abandoned your criticism of ultimate a non-
contact sport, acknowledging it as an irrelevant semantic debate, and
in stead focussed on other criticisms. But now you seem to have set
aside that admission and returned to this old trope of yours. I don't
see why.
-Adam
Frank Huguenard
If your abilities have no bearing on your ability to analyze the rules, then
you are qualified in also being on the rules committee for Curling?
Is it so hard for you to understand that my knowledge of the game completely
obsoletes the current rules of the game.
Why would I expect you to agree with anything that I have to say. You don't
have the knowledge of the game that I do. Nobody does.
I don't know you, have never met you, never seen you play so you can't take
it personally but you're not a very good player. What does that tell you?
<wanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a56ffd8c-72d3-4d3c...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
ulticritic
>
> You really need to dig deeper on the subject. Stuart Brand was all for
> competition. He invented a game called Slaughter that was designed to help
> overly aggressive players work out their angst in a controlled, competitive
> way. It was in 1973 when Pat Farrington (female) joined the movement that
> the focus turned decidedly towards non-competitiveness.
>
wow......i just thought of somthing. When i first read the report i
had no idea of the gender of pat farrington (thinking she was a he).
Now i'm not sexist....maybe gayist but not sexist, and thats not
really even in a sexual content kinda way, but more in a sissyish,
soft, girlish kinda.........wait a minute, maybe i am sexist and not
really gayist (wow, sorry all you gays out there). Maybe this self
arbitration process is just better suited for women. Is this notion
really that far fetched.......especially in light of the influence pat
farrington had over new games itself way back. Uhmmmmmmmmm.
weird thing....i just watched that new version of "the longest
yard" (not a bad movie, kinda funny)......anyway, one of the pranks
the inmates played on the guards was to switch one of the guards
steroids with female hormone pills. He became very sisyish and it was
comical throught the rest of the movie. My immediate thought was how
some of the sissyish stuff he was "acting out" and some of his lines
reminded me of some of the stuff ive seen ultimate players say and do
(regarding fair play, honesty and spirit). Soooooooooooooooooo, not
to be sexist but, has anyone else noticed how much better women are
ate managing the self officiation thing......arent past nationals
finals testimoney to this.
Frank Huguenard
> On Feb 5, 11:34 am, "Frank Huguenard"
> <fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Point C) I did not intermix Frisbee with anything. Everything in
>> itallics
>> in the piece was quoted from another source.
>
> What I mean is that the game "frisbee" referred to there is not
> ultimate, and was not meant to be understood to be ultimate. It was a
> different game altogether, only linked by the fact that it uses a
> flying disc. You didn't splice sources together there, but it's a bit
> misleading since a reader could incorrectly assume that blurb was
> referring to ultimate. It wasn't. No big deal, though.
Yes but their description of New Frisbee resonated extremely accurately with
what UItimate was for a long, long time (and still is in many respects).
Emphasis was placed on doing things 'the hard way' and no emphasis was
placed on doing things vanilla. This is very true about ultimate for a long
time.
>> Point D) The current rules in no way imply that violations or fouls
>> exist
>> to prevent cheating. Adam, please you're embarrassing yourself. Read
>> the
>> preface again. It is quite clear on this.
>
> Your interpretation of the preface is bizarre.
No, it is not.
> the preface states
> that there are not harsh infractions because it is assumed that
> players will not intentionally cheat.
Exactly.
It has said this since 1979.
It is very clear.
turning it slightly around it says, "since players will not intentionally
cheat there will not be any penalties". (no interpretation here, just
switching the order of the clause).
They clearly coupled as the exclusive reason for penalties, cheating and no
other purpose.
This is undeniable.
> From that statement, you infer
> that the creators of the rules believed that, "penalties exist in
> sports exclusively to prevent cheating".
I'm not sure I've ever said that in exactly that way. I would say that the
creators were naive if they believed the only reason for penalties in sports
was cheating.
> Yet, there are penalties for
> infractions all over the place in the rules. Clearly, they exist for
> some other reason.
Oh please Adam. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>> Point E) Schooled Me? You ain't schooled me on anything bitch.
>
> I meant this in the literal, non-pejorative sense. I schooled you on
> the meaning of "non-contact sport". You were talking about how it's
> absurd to call ultimate a non-contact sport. I showed you that there
> is a common, accepted definition of "non-contact sport" which applies
> to sports like basketball or ultimate. I even noted that the phrase
> "non-contact" was in the FIBA rules. That's how "schooling" someone
> works, on usenet, anyway. You don't need to take it as an insult.
It wasn't taken as an insult. You haven't schooled me on anything.
Ultimate is not a non-contact sport but you go ahead and believe whatever
you want.
> In a later thread you abandoned your criticism of ultimate a non-
> contact sport, acknowledging it as an irrelevant semantic debate, and
> in stead focussed on other criticisms. But now you seem to have set
> aside that admission and returned to this old trope of yours. I don't
> see why.
I meant that debating over the definition of what is and isn't non-contact
is a semantical debate because anyone can support either side of the debate
with research on the internet.
It's a very important distinction. By taking that clause out of the
description of the game, you can have a clear, natural and rational way for
dealing with excessive contact.
Right now the UPA has it's head in the sand by being in denial that the game
is not non-contact.
>
> -Adam
Frank Huguenard
the equation, The New Games Foundation may have evolved completely
differently had Pat Farrington not joined and who knows, maybe they still
would be around.
And certainly, you could argue that a 'Pat Farrington' type would want
double teaming to be illegal given 2-3 6', 190 pound jocks as markers. How
about 'a reasonable number of steps to come to a stop"? That's pretty
sissyish. How about not being able to hit the disc while it's in the
thrower's hands? That's totally sissyish. Picks Illegal? Momentum out of
bounds?
It is food for thought when you consider what Ultimate Frisbee may have been
without Pat Farrington.
"ulticritic" <t...@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
news:32f2e174-a084-4a11...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Rhett
Ulticritic circle-jerk of a thread?
Go harass field hockey, that's a ridiculous sport.. or ping pong (is
it a real sport? I dunno! Go argue about it somewhere) or dischoo-
ohhhhh... awkward...sry Frank...
swill...@yahoo.com
Damn you, Pat Farrington!!!! ::shaking fist::
Whoever said white trash was stupid was clearly gay...
And Frank, you are the greatest...
Where's that shoesaa dude?
Adam Tarr
> "Adam Tarr" wrote:
> > the preface states
> > that there are not harsh infractions because it is assumed that
> > players will not intentionally cheat.
>
> Exactly.
>
> It has said this since 1979.
>
> It is very clear.
>
> turning it slightly around it says, "since players will not intentionally
> cheat there will not be any penalties". (no interpretation here, just
> switching the order of the clause).
I have no problem with switching the order, of course. I have a big
problem with you replacing the words "harsh infractions" with
"penalties".
It's analogous to the difference between compensatory damages and
punitive damages. The rules have plenty of compensatory damages, but
no punitive damages.
> > From that statement, you infer
> > that the creators of the rules believed that, "penalties exist in
> > sports exclusively to prevent cheating".
>
> I'm not sure I've ever said that in exactly that way.
It's a direct quote from the "Dogma" section of your New Games
article.
> > I schooled you on
> > the meaning of "non-contact sport". You were talking about how it's
> > absurd to call ultimate a non-contact sport. I showed you that there
> > is a common, accepted definition of "non-contact sport" which applies
> > to sports like basketball or ultimate. I even noted that the phrase
> > "non-contact" was in the FIBA rules. That's how "schooling" someone
> > works, on usenet, anyway. You don't need to take it as an insult.
>
> It wasn't taken as an insult. You haven't schooled me on anything.
> Ultimate is not a non-contact sport but you go ahead and believe whatever
> you want.
It is a non-contact sport by a known and accepted definition. You
don't have to like this definition, but it is in common usage. You
were unaware of the existence of this definition, and I schooled you.
> I meant that debating over the definition of what is and isn't non-contact
> is a semantical debate because anyone can support either side of the debate
> with research on the internet.
Sure. There are multiple definitions. Using one or the other does
not imply any hidden motivation. Do you think that FIBA is trying to
avoid dealing with the existence of contact fouls in basketball when
they label basketball as non-contact?
Frank Huguenard
Please don't lump me in with critic. He's on his own trip. Todd and I have
very little in common.
I'm not commenting on Field Hockey because I"m not an expert in Field
Hockey. Ping Pong, I could probably beat you left handed and yes, it is a
real sport.
Ultimate Frisbee; I'm an expert on so why not share what I know about the
game?
"Rhett" <rhe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0750de4d-05f4-4c7c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
twf...@comcast.net
> obsoletes the current rules of the game.
>
> Why would I expect you to agree with anything that I have to say. You don't
> have the knowledge of the game that I do. Nobody does.
>
> I don't know you, have never met you, never seen you play so you can't take
> it personally but you're not a very good player. What does that tell you?
Frank, that tells me you aren't as smart as you think you are
Pete
intentional grounding when out of the pocket, by calling unabated to
the quarterback to keep a guy from getting tatooed because the tackle
gave up, by calling excessive amounts of pass interference so that
wide receivers don't have to be strong to get the ball, by allowing
the coach to call timeouts to bail out his ignorant of the clock
quarterback, by stopping you from hitting the punter or kicker because
they are too weak to kick the ball without concern, and by disallowing
a tackle from grabbing you and hauling you to the ground because you
weren't strong enough to shrug off his efforts.
I believe that basketball is protecting weaker players by disallowing
you from hitting a guys arm when he goes to the hoop because he
couldn't just dunk over you, by allowing you to call timeout on the
baseline because you couldn't get the ball in in during your allowed
five seconds, by not allowing an offensive player to stay in the lane
for three seconds because the defense shouldn't have to deal with it,
and by calling alternate possession because a held ball shouldn't
necessarily go to the defense.
I believe that baseball is protecting weaker players by allowing you
to step out of the batter's box when you aren't comfortable, by
allowing you to foul off as many pitches as you would like, by
allowing you to intentional walk batters you don't want to face, and
by allowing you unlimited subs on the same possession to force a
matchup that doesn't cost you anything.
I believe that hockey is protecting weaker players by making it
illegal to take more than three strides before you check somebody, by
making it illegal to beat a goalie by batting the puck down above the
crossbar into the goal, by having the ref step in when one person in a
fight hits the ground, by stopping goalies from handling the puck in
the corners so better handling goalies don't have an advantage over
less skilled ones, and by making it illegal to use your stick to slow
somebody.
That's what I got for now. More to come.
Madtown!
Barrett
So far I've always been able to ignore the thoughts that this has all
been a protracted piece of performance art ( Idris? yungai? Frankus?
Rick Connor?), but with recent installments, I'm having a harder time
dismissing the notion.
While the artistic merit is debatable, the sheer devotion has been
admirable: the multiple identities at first, to drum up mystery; the
grainy video from an enemy and/or co-conspirator; the weaving in of
various tales of personal drama, tales of love lost, of IP traces, of
Machiavellian pizzeria dealings, of unnaturally large tomatoes; and now,
the inevitable ascent to megalomania.
It's exciting, but where to next?