NY vs Boston: Best Ever?
Garbu
Best Ever" is the fact that the game has changed pretty drastically over the
last decade.
Boston's revolution of junk/mix-it-up/team defense has swept the nation.
offenses must now adjust to defenses. (how would NY's offense handle these
defensive schemes if playing today?)
back when NY was peaking no one could stop their 4 person play. (the fact that
Boston allowed NY to run their play for so many years is unimaginable now.) so
it is not at all a leap to see that the defensive revolution of today is a
reaction to those great NY teams. (NY forced Boston to create innovative ways
to stop them.)
the game is of course still changing, now in reaction to this defensive
revolution. offenses are spreading out in different formations, making it more
difficult to play junk d. (teams that once scoffed at the idea of having a
dump now have two dumps.)
so i think an important (yet overlooked) criterion for judging a team is: how
great of an impact they've had in changing the way the game is played (e.g.
lawrence taylor at linebacker).
of course this is tough to quantitate.
gary
Jim Parinella
>Boston's revolution of junk/mix-it-up/team defense has swept the nation.
>offenses must now adjust to defenses. (how would NY's offense handle these
>defensive schemes if playing today?)
The tail end of the NYNY dynasty overlapped with the early years of the Clam
(which of course has been altered, developed, and expanded into a gazillion
variations now).
When the full-field Clam was created from necessity in Philly '93, NY was
one of the teams present. Others like Graffiti, Philly, and BalWash were
lower-level Nationals teams, and they had lots of difficulty with this D.
"Everyone's open but there's no one to throw to!" was heard, for instance.
NY had some trouble too, but actually called time out and went through the
steps they thought they needed to break it, and they had a lot less trouble
after that. They were the only team disciplined enough to tediously work it
downfield. We still won, but I don't remember whether we stuck in the Clam
or not.
My point is that they did make some alteration when confronted with a new
defense. The Clam wasn't used against that team again much (we wanted to
hide it from them) and so it's uncertain how they would have done as the
Clam got more sophisticated.
>back when NY was peaking no one could stop their 4 person play. (the fact
that
>Boston allowed NY to run their play for so many years is unimaginable now.)
so
>it is not at all a leap to see that the defensive revolution of today is a
>reaction to those great NY teams. (NY forced Boston to create innovative
ways
>to stop them.)
Hold on there, Bucko. I gots something to say.
The 4 person play. I've heard that NYNY is responsible for the called pull
play becoming popular. I am not saying they invented it, merely they were
the first top team to run this offense, and it trickled down (if this is
true). I would claim that this is a significant contribution to how
offenses play the game today. And this had an effect on how defenses
developed. But I don't think that it really qualifies them as the father of
"the defensive revolution of today." Maybe an uncle on the mother's side,
but not the father.
NY did force Boston to create innovative ways to stop them, but a) everyone
else (especially the contenders) had to try to stop them as well, and b) the
universe of possible defenses was available, and it's not a trivial task to
select and develop one of them that can work. Take a look at all the failed
side-stack and L stack offenses, for instance. There is no new stack that
has become mainstream because of its overwhelming success. Boston teams
(first Earth Atomizer, then DoG's immediate ancestors, then DoG) put the
phrase "junk defense" into everyone's vocabulary and their playbook. Maybe
it sucks now, maybe the best improvements came from other places, but teams
copied Boston's Clam and that is how it became widespread. It's Henry Ford
and the automobile, on a much, much smaller scale.
>difficult to play junk d. (teams that once scoffed at the idea of having a
>dump now have two dumps.)
While I'm at it, I like to think that Boston has contributed here, too. The
original rules said a player could throw it in any direction, so I'm sure
dump passes have been around for a long time. Boston used it more
systematically as a way to keep possession of the frisbee, and the handlers
were as likely as the deeps to throw dumps. It wasn't used primarily to get
one or two Quarterbacks to throw a higher percentage of the passes (although
that effect did happen), as I've heard previous dump offenses were used.
>gary
So, for your criterion, NYNY gets points for the 4 man, DoG gets credit for
Clam and partial credit for the dump.
Jim
Tom Coffin
> The 4 person play. I've heard that NYNY is responsible for the called pull
> play becoming popular. I am not saying they invented it, merely they were
> the first top team to run this offense, and it trickled down (if this is
> true). I would claim that this is a significant contribution to how
> offenses play the game today. And this had an effect on how defenses
> developed. But I don't think that it really qualifies them as the father of
> "the defensive revolution of today." Maybe an uncle on the mother's side,
> but not the father.
Didn't Circus run set plays long before NYNY?
Danny Weiss brought that strategy tidbit to NY.
And even that may have previously come from Cornell
corrections from the gallery?
_______
U:(=I:)
IRONMAN
Jim Parinella
Jim Parinella wrote in message <80skbj$7...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>
>When the full-field Clam was created from necessity in Philly '93, NY was
I have been reminded by the venerable Paul Sackley that the Mighty Popes
played some full-field man-zone hybrid in 1986 and called it the clam. Its
whereabouts from '86-'90 are unknown, but when it resurfaced, the only
information available about it was that it was a D that covered the first
two players in the stack and the rest did a box, with the possibility of
switching. There was no knowledge of its history until 1996 or so.
So, make that "re-created".
paul sackley
Jim Parinella <pari...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:80t0em$p...@news-central.tiac.net...
from 1986 it was used by the popes, then bete noir, then mighty tired. at
some point along the line, either eli levine or barney or griff or bart
macnamee or jordan haskell or someone brought it into the 'mainstream',
keeping the name intact along with the essentials of how it was played.
granted, it was refined greatly when earth/big brother got hold of it.
peace
red
Kenneth44
>the Mighty Popes
>played some full-field man-zone hybrid in 1986 and called it the clam.
>So, make that "re-created".
>
does this mean you lose the points you've already claimed? are there penalty
points assessed? can we call a self-aggrandizement foul? or a false claim of
cleverness foul?
and does this mean that after all these years all you can really claim is
partial credit for the dump? the great dog dynasty coincidentally finds the
laziest player in ultimate on its roster, and subsequently lays claim to an
ultimate innovation when for the life of them they can't convince him to get
his disc hogging ass downfield.
if it weren't so sad, it might actually be a source of amusement.
Tom Coffin
Yeah Sackman! way to re-write history to make
that poor excuse of a D you all played back then
into a revolutionary new defensive concept!
_______________________________________
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, paul sackley wrote:
>
> from 1986 it was used by the popes, then bete noir, then mighty tired. at
> some point along the line, either eli levine or barney or griff or bart
> macnamee or jordan haskell or someone brought it into the 'mainstream',
> keeping the name intact along with the essentials of how it was played.
> granted, it was refined greatly when earth/big brother got hold of it.
>
>
Garbu
<<Hold on there, Bucko. I gots something to say.
<<The 4 person play. I've heard that NYNY is responsible for the called pull
play becoming popular. I am not saying they invented it, merely they were
the first top team to run this offense, and it trickled down (if this is
true). I would claim that this is a significant contribution to how
offenses play the game today. And this had an effect on how defenses
developed. But I don't think that it really qualifies them as the father of
"the defensive revolution of today." Maybe an uncle on the mother's side,
but not the father.>>
i was not giving NY credit for inventing the 4 person play. i was giving
credit to their talent level for making that play almost unstoppable.
that criterion for greatness was: great players.
gary
count
kenn...@aol.com (Kenneth44) wrote:
> and does this mean that after all these years all you can really
> claim is
> partial credit for the dump? the great dog dynasty coincidentally
> finds the
> laziest player in ultimate on its roster, and subsequently lays
> claim to an
> ultimate innovation when for the life of them they can't convince
> him to get
> his disc hogging ass downfield.
So I was running down our roster trying to figure out who he was
talking about when I realized, hey, he's probably talking about me!
You see, what Kenny doesn't know is that by hanging out behind the
disk, I'm actually saving my wind so that I can be fresh playing D when
we turn it over. Oh wait, we barely played D at Nationals. In fact, I
wouldn't be surprised if it was most efficient offense ever displayed
at such a high-level tournament. Let's go through some of the numbers.
The following stats are for the offense only (when DoG was receiving).
BoG 8 1
1
The first column is DoG scores, the second is BoG scores. This means
that we scored 8 times off the pull, BoG scored once off the first
turnover, and we scored once after getting the disc back.
Theoretically, this could be something like this.
Team X 5 0
0 0
0 0
1
which would mean that we scored five off the pull, and then 1 more
after 3 turnovers by each time. Now, let's continue.
BoG 8 1
1
No goals given up against Bootyquake.
WSL 6 2
4
Jam 9 1
3 1
Ring 3 goals given up
Hounds 7 0
1 0
1
Furious 8 3
4
Condors 11 1
1
The long and short of it is that the DoG offense gave up only 12 points
over 8 games, for an average of 1.5 goals per game. Of roughly 36
turnovers, we were only scored on 12 times, or 33%. Our scoring
percentage on the first possession off the pull was roughly 63 of 94,
or 67%. Overall, we scored roughly 77 of 94, or 82%. Only once were
we scored on after we got the disc back, in the Jam game. How's that
for an offensively dominating performance?
Alex
BTW, good thing my disc hogging ass was around the disc in the Furious
Game. How else would I have thrown six goals against the Angry Chimps,
five of them hucks? I'm clearly unable to get open upfield, or so my
detractors would say so I guess that goal I caught against Nationals
finalist Santa Barbara where I roached my defender was someone else
wearing the number 1. Or maybe it was a dump because the thrower was
in the endzone when he threw it and didn't know that he had scored
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Troy Frever
count> The long and short of it is that the DoG offense gave up only
count> 12 points over 8 games, for an average of 1.5 goals per game.
count> Of roughly 36 turnovers, we were only scored on 12 times, or
count> 33%. Our scoring percentage on the first possession off the
count> pull was roughly 63 of 94, or 67%. Overall, we scored
count> roughly 77 of 94, or 82%. Only once were we scored on after
count> we got the disc back, in the Jam game. How's that for an
count> offensively dominating performance?
count> Alex
Alex,
Impressive numbers indeed (although in two games, NY and Furious, the
O only scored on ~50% of its first posessions.)
The more interesting question is, to what do you attribute this
performance? Exceptional throwing skills? Superior athleticism? The
dump? Better pass selection? Taking stats? If you had to choose one
or two key elements to your offensive squad's success, what would they
be?
Troy
Jason Alexander
besides of course your multiple crowd-thrilling totally flat layout D's
:-)? Or is 33% a relatively average figure at that level for defenses to
score once they force the turn?
Jason
Kenneth44
statistical spew that probably had parinella changing his shorts, then asked...
>How's that
>for an offensively dominating performance?
can't say. didn't see any of it, and unlike your three ring binder toting
teammate i fall firmly into the category of those that don't put a lot of faith
in statistics. but i can say that your postscript was as impressive a display
of self-promotion as i've seen in a long time.
-kd
btw, are those dog guys the biggest bunch of humorless, statistic spewing bores
ever, or is it just that the more amusing guys on the team don't post?
count
That's what I get for hanging out with Jimmy P., more stats than I can
shake a stick at.
When my playing ability and attitude is attacked in a public forum, I
take it personally. I can guarantee you I was in better shape than
half the people at nationals, worked out harder during the season, ran
more sprints, and did whatever was required to be in top physical
condition at Nationals. Just because the role I play on the field may
not be as glamorous as the "run as fast as I can so the defender who's
humping my ass doesn't get a layout biff on me" cut, doesn't mean that
it doesn't require its own physical and mental demands. If I'm so lazy,
why do I get the disc? Or maybe you're trying to insult in a backhand
way the other teams who still can't shut this lazy ass cutter down.
Strange, I seem to see more and more teams and offensive sets using the
dump these days, sometimes multiple dumps. It's good to know that
Ultimate is trying to create a more diverse environment, catering to
athletes and fat-asses alike these days.
Alex
Jim Parinella
Kenny "I used to berate those who communicated on the Internet" Dobyns
writes:
>jim parinella grudgingly gives credit where it's due...
>
>>the Mighty Popes
>>played some full-field man-zone hybrid in 1986 and called it the clam.
>
>>So, make that "re-created".
>>
>
>does this mean you lose the points you've already claimed? are there
penalty
>points assessed? can we call a self-aggrandizement foul? or a false claim
of
>cleverness foul?
I do not contest the self-aggrandizement foul. I felt cornered and alone.
I just want someone to hold me.
Anyone know of a good Web site for this?
I haven't claimed in the last 3 years that we invented the clam. In the
World Ultimate Magazine's inaugural and next-to-last issue, I included this:
----
The History
Timeline:
1986: Boston's Mighty Popes introduce a variant of a 3-3-1 zone called the
Clam.
1990: Earth Atomizer begins playing a one-pass man to man defense called
the Clam.
1990-1991--Earth uses its secret defense in its struggle up the ladder,
adding a highly effective end zone variant of it, causing Titanic and NYNY
to rework their end zone offenses.
1993--The "Philly 8" by necessity invent the "Clam for the full point".
1994--The Clam becomes less of a gimmick and more of a basic philosophy with
DoG as Boston wins its first national title in a decade. Confused
announcers think everything is The Clam.
1995-1996--Thanks in part to the widespread popularity of the Internet, the
Clam goes global.
----
I had forgotten the Popes' Clam was also a full-field D. Sack says they
pushed it as a zone variant, partly to convince others to go along with it,
as they played a lot of zone. Ours was pushed as a man variant.
I said "created" because we started the tournament not knowing of any Clam
except a one-pass Clam. By the end of the tournament, our 8 players knew
their positions inside and out.
Anyway, my actual claim was that the reason that almost everyone today does
something like this is because people knew Boston played it and was doing
well with it and so they tried to copy it. Strategies become popular when a
well-known team has a lot of success with it. When someone shows that a
particular thing works, others jump in. Henry Ford didn't invent the
automobile or mass production, but he is credited with the automobile
becoming an integral part of American society.
Similarly, I said the never-beaten NYNY dynasty deserves credit for the 4
person play becoming widespread. They may have learned it from someone
else, but the rest of us started using it because NYNY was achieving success
with it.
>and does this mean that after all these years all you can really claim is
>partial credit for the dump? the great dog dynasty coincidentally finds the
>laziest player in ultimate on its roster, and subsequently lays claim to an
>ultimate innovation when for the life of them they can't convince him to
get
>his disc hogging ass downfield.
My royal friend has already addressed the laziness issue, so I shan't.
However, again some oversimplification has happened.
Some top teams used a dump. I don't think it ever disappeared from the
ultimate scene. However, its only uses were to get the disc from a
non-thrower to a thrower (and is still used this way) and occasionally as a
last-ditch cut (but was probably viewed as a worse option than "just huck
it", and in fact is still viewed that way by some teams).
We used it differently, were even mocked for it by top teams ("hey, look,
they're going the wrong way"), and now that use is common. Those
differences, again, were a) it was a systematic part of the offense, with a
player often stationed behind the disc, and b) it didn't necessarily take
the disc out of the hands of someone who couldn't throw and put it into the
hands of someone whose job it was to throw. In the mid to late 80s, it was
considered a sign of weakness to dump it. It was almost an insult, in fact,
to make a cut that said, "Hey, here, I'm open for an easy pass, don't try a
low percentage pass downfield."
But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I'll get a tape of one of those championship
games from a dozen years ago and fast-forward through the egregious fouls,
pick calls, and arguments, and see what I can find.
Jim
Jonathan Shepard
Jim Parinella wrote:
>In the World Ultimate Magazine's inaugural and next-to-last issue,
You mean to say there were two issues??? I only got one. mmmmmmmm
Kenneth44
>In the
>World Ultimate Magazine's inaugural and next-to-last issue, I included this:
<more spew deleted>
it goes from bad to worse. now he's quoting himself. i guess he didn't want to
be outdone by the "no ac"count de frondeville, who continued his largely
unsuccessful but tireless self-promotion campaign with...
<I can guarantee you I was in better shape than
half the people at nationals, worked out harder during the season, ran
more sprints, and did whatever was required to be in top physical
condition at Nationals.>
ok. now i'm begging, i'm pleading, someone with a heart in that little cow town
you call a city please put an end to this. if parinella's not boring us with
stats he's claiming innovations. if alex isn't tooting his own horn he's
smoking his own pole (this guy takes that dog thing to heart). but some silent
soul up there who knows better should stop these guys before they lose what
miniscule shreds of respect they have left. but just in case you can't muster
the gumption for the task, i'll do what i can.
6 time champions don't...
shamelessly self-promote.
detail their accomplishments in such agonizingly boring detail that they make
glory sound puny.
count and then publicize the # of goals they threw in a particular game (this
one really was the topper).
quote themselves (oops-spoke too soon-this was the winner).
compare themselves to paragons of industry and icons of american culture.
and finally...
speak when they should be silent.
just trying to help.
-kd
btw alex, sorry you took it so pesonally. i was talking about steve.
count
kenn...@aol.com (Kenneth44) wrote:
> 6 time champions don't...
> shamelessly self-promote.
> detail their accomplishments in such agonizingly boring detail
> that they make
> glory sound puny.
> count and then publicize the # of goals they threw in a particular
> game (this
> one really was the topper).
Didn't bother to count until I felt a need to defend myself.
> quote themselves (oops-spoke too soon-this was the winner).
> compare themselves to paragons of industry and icons of american
> culture.
> and finally...
> speak when they should be silent.
> just trying to help.
> -kd
> btw alex, sorry you took it so pesonally. i was talking about
> steve.
So what do 6-time champions do in ultimate? Oops, I guess there's no
example to follow.
Brian P. Canniff
Brian P. Canniff
count <countN...@basit.com.invalid> wrote in message > > > >btw alex,
sorry you took it so pesonally. i was talking about
> > steve.
How 'bout that. I was SURE you meant Alex
Phil Rowe
Didn't NYNY win some? ..and then recently the Llama.
That might be about 6...
is it?
Craig Murray
87 then 5 straight from 89,90,91,92,93 (unless he missed one of those)
and now 1 with Llama, so that would be 7...
Maybe not 6 straight, but he never said that, now did he?
Phil Rowe <des...@digitaurus.com> wrote in message
news:383598...@digitaurus.com...
Kenneth44
>So what do 6-time champions do in ultimate? Oops, I guess there's no
>example to follow.
no one said anything about consecutive, alex. and at this point i'm on number 7
anyway.
when are you going to accept that you're out of your league and let it die?
btw, i guess it makes sense that both you and brian found your way into the
trap, since you both wear the same size. you're probably swapping outfits even
as we speak. cozy fellas.
-kd
Kenneth44
reading, as craig murray was kind enough to point out:
>Maybe not 6 straight, but he never said that, now did he?
>
of course, he beat me to the punch with:
>and now 1 with Llama, so that would be 7...
so brian, you're absolutely right. but i used to know something about 6 time
champions, and i was just trying to share that with my good friends jim and
alex.
with all the time you spend looking foolish, how do you run all those great
tournaments? i know, you skipped reading comprehension classes to double up on
time management ones. maybe not such a bad choice after all. can't wait for
rtsxxx.
Jonathan Shepard
hosting college nats in NC for 2000??? I know you've got a few cozy fellas of your
own KD.
Too busy with the pride war???
F*%k... I know you can probably sky me. But can y'all down there put up a better
tourny? Come on baby cakes, put your energy where your mouth is and get a bid in.
Hell, once you do, I'll do whatever I can to help. That goes for you too, JP DoGGy
dog.
ever lovin', ever fearful,
puddin' pie
Brian P. Canniff
I certainly didn't expect *you* to fall so easily for this one or with such
gusto.
Of course you hadn't SAID 6 in a row, but anyone who has read anything
you've written has enjoyed your squirm each year as Boston inevitably piled
them on in a row to drive you back to your status as a worthy also-ran.
So you slide over to coed, just in time to rack up 7. What's next: masters?
womens masters? coed masters? Can't wait for the encore.
You've got 1 in a row going now. Only 6 more to go to knock off DoG.
Or, if you're counting the other way, you're stilly Billy's little brother
at 7 v. 11. Or, if you're counting individual wins in a row, he's really
kicking your ass at 11 to 5.
Take that, you and your small-minded crew of literalist sycophants!
Brian
fla...@my-deja.com
> When the full-field Clam was created from necessity in Philly '93, NY > was one of the teams present. Others like Graffiti, Philly, and > BalWash were lower-level Nationals teams, and they had lots of > difficulty with this D. "Everyone's open but there's no one to throw > to!" was heard, for instance. NY had some trouble too, but actually > called time out and went through the steps they thought they needed to > break it, and they had a lot less trouble after that. They were the > only team disciplined enough to tediously work it downfield. We still > won, but I don't remember whether we stuck in the Clam or not.
Well, Jim, I'll help you're flawed memory a bit. Actually, you were
down 14-10 to NY in the semi's, when I believe a certain NYers brain
froze, causing him to start hurling ill-advised hammers/blades/other
assorted swill into the teeth of the defense. 6 points later you win
16-14.
Then, in the finals you played Philly, the team that would eventually
become Rage. Game tied at 16, next point wins. This was due, to my
recollection, to 2 factors: a) you only had 8 players, and some were
certainly fairly tired by then even with playing the junk d and b) we
adjusted to this d you were playing in between pool play and the finals.
We began working the disc up 5 yards a pop as this was what you were
giving us. You pulled the disc to us, we worked it to midfield or so,
and one of our players goes against the game plan, hucks it to moons
covering deep, who turns and hucks it back to you (i think) for the game
winner. 1-pass and done.
Just want to clarify that NY wasn't the only team to adjust to that d
that tourney. Not to take anything away from the fact that you won a
pretty competitive tourney with only 8 guys.
flash
too fatty
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jordan Haskell
fish
skeeter
dave
floss
dice
anything?
I tend towards skeeter myself.