Revolver 'Bashing'

[Huguenard]

Several weeks ago, I posted something titled along the lines of 'the long,
slow death of ultimate' and used my observations of both 27 years experience
in Ultimate and my recent observations of Revolver and the NorCal
sectionals.

As usual, it would seem that the entire point of my post was completely
lost. A friend reiterated to me the other day what he had heard (he hadn't
read) what my post was about and his version did sound absurd and that I
didn't know what I was talking about.

What I said was is that in 1987, Revolver would have been hard pressed to
make it out of NorCal sectionals. Of course this is highly hypothetical but
I backed up this statement with saying that the top 4 teams then (Davis
Dogs, East Bay/Berkeley, Tsunami and KAOS) would have likely all beaten
Revolver and that teams 5-8 weren't exactly chopped liver either. This is
true.

I made the statement that the number of quality men's open players in the
bay area has diminished by ~70-80% since then. This is also true.

My observation, in watching Revolver play against an Oaks team, a team that
on paper they should have crushed, was that Revolver was not particularly
dominant and from what I saw, didn't deserve to be classified as a national
caliber team. Opinion, yes, but I was not at all impressed by this team.

I also pointed out the fact that teams that do win and advance in whatever
form, do like the framework for Ultimate just fine. It's not like players
from Sockeye or Furious are going to go to nationals and then complain about
how bad the rules for Ultimate sucks. There have been people advocating
change in Ultimate since it's inception but their voices have all been
drowned out by the majority. Democrazy at it's utter worst (the U.S. isn't
a democracy, it's a representive republic).

My friend mentioned that my rhetoric was so laughably absurd it made me
sound like I didn't know what I was talking about or just being a jackass
(or both).

My post was not intended to isolate Revolver and pick on them. It could
have been just about any team and you can label me whatever you want but I
don't think Justice was very well coached and from what I've seen of
Sockeye, DoG et. al., these teams are fairly limited skillsets and are
simply not very good. a) I don't know what I'm talking about b) I'm just
being an annoying jackass or c) I do know what I'm talking about and I am
doing what I can to right the ship, at the risk of losing whatever
credibility that I have left.

What seems to be lost on everyone is how incredibly sad I find the whole
situation. It's not like I'm gloating or happy that Ultimate has become
what it is. However, I do feel that it is important to provide the
community with some counter ballast and historical perspective.

Just because what I am postulating seems completely incredible to you
doesn't mean that it's not true. Just very hard to believe. Ultimate, the
culture/sport/religion, is hopelessly stuck in a rut and has been for many,
many years.

If you're in the bay area and interested in Dischoops this winter, please
email me. We've got a scene brewing.

[thefan]

why can't we get someone with some real credibility to weigh in on
this? the name Dobyns comes to mind, but certainly there are some
people out there, who played on or against some of the premier teams of
the era of which Frank speaks, and who have played on or against or at
least witnessed some of the premier teams of this era.

wasn't there a kat on DoG until recently that played on some of the
NYNY teams that won 47 national championships in a row? what about
him.

PaulW, get on here and do your name dropping thing.

jimmy

[mapler...@gmail.com]

NYNY would beat Revolver handily.

A friend of Dobyns

[thefan]

sure, fine. how about sockeye or furious.

[disc]

i agree....

100%

[Parinella]

In My Day, Ballplayers Were For Shit

By Herman Jacobs
August 2, 2000 | Issue 36·26

In My Day, Ballplayers Were For Shit

It seems everywhere I go these days, some young fella's
jibber-jabbering about how great some ballplayer of today is. It's
always Mark McGwire this or Sammy Sosa that. Well, of course they're
the best. These modern big leaguers, with their blinding speed, cannon
arms, and towering home runs-they've got it all. Back in my day,
ballplayers were for shit!

I'll never forget my first big-league ballgame. It was 1931, at the old
Polo Grounds in New York. Giants versus the Reds. Dad by my side and
Crackerjacks in hand, I took my seat in the grandstand on a glorious
Saturday afternoon. That's when I first laid eyes on him. Out there
patrolling the grass in center field for the home-team Giants was Ducky
"Lead Legs" Cronin. Worst ballplayer you ever saw. Christ, did he suck.

The very first batter up to the plate hits a lazy fly ball right to
Ducky. He settles under it, and it bounces right off the heel of his
glove. The boos cascaded down from the bleachers like rain! Two at-bats
later, Reds second baseman Charlie Frisch-not a very good player in
his own right-hits a ball to shallow center field. The moment he
hears the crack of the bat, Ducky's on his horse. He charges in on the
ball as hard as he can, but he can't get to it. Too slow.

That's the thing about the old ballplayers: They were very slow! Today,
it's like a track meet out there. Players are flying around the bases
like gazelles. But in my day, the players lumbered around in their
heavy woolen uniforms like President Taft after a big meal. The slowest
of them all was Harry "Three-Toed" Vaughan, a first baseman with the
Washington Senators. Legend had it, he could turn off a lightswitch in
his bedroom and be in bed 35 seconds later. A guy like that wouldn't
stand a chance in today's game.

It's sad. Nobody has a sense of history anymore. The modern fan could
tell you Barry Bonds' on-base percentage with two outs and runners in
scoring position during night games on the road, but he's never even
heard of the old St. Louis Browns shortstop Walter "Shitty Batter"
Dugan. They called him that because he was a real shitty batter. He'd
swing at anything, Dugan would. I swear, I once saw him swing at a
throw the pitcher made to first base. But he wasn't the only
undisciplined hitter of his era: There was Rocky Evers, Herman Doerr,
and Alvin Crow. Guys like that just didn't take the art of hitting as
seriously as they do today. They wouldn't have lasted two seconds in
the batter's box against a Pedro Martinez. Shit, he'd mow them down. In
fact, I would put money down on a bet that Martinez wouldn't even have
to break a sweat to do it.

These are tough sons of bitches, these ballplayers of today. Cal Ripken
plays in more than 2,000 consecutive games. You think any of the old
Brooklyn Dodgers could have done that? No way! Fred "Big Pussy"
Delahanty used to scratch himself from the lineup if he had a blister
on his pinky. One time, an hour before a crucial late-season
doubleheader against the Pirates, he checked himself into a hospital
with gastroenteritis because he burped. Talk about gutless.

And they were rude! Go to a game nowadays, and it's all "Yes, ma'am,"
"No, ma'am," and "I'm just trying to do what I can to help the team."
Today's players are constantly making charity appearances, and they'll
sign autographs until their hands fall off. But try getting an
autograph off a guy like Frankie Medwick, the bad Chicago Cubs pitcher
from the '40s. He'd have torn you a new asshole! And if you were black,
well, let's not even think about that.

I was at the barbershop Monday, getting my usual weekly shave and a
haircut, when I hear this young whippersnapper in the chair next to me
jawing on about that newfangled Mets catcher Mike Piazza. "Did you see
that shot Piazza had last night against the Marlins?" he asks Gus, one
of the barbers. "It bounced off the Shea scoreboard, 522 feet from the
plate. And he broke his bat on the play! Do you have any idea how
strong you have to be to get a 522-foot broken-bat homer? I'm telling
you, that guy's the greatest hitting catcher in major-league history."

I swear, it took every ounce of strength I had to keep me from standing
up, walking over to that kid, and totally agreeing with him. Of course
Piazza's the best! The old catchers blew! And so did the pitchers! And
rightfielders, too! They all stunk! Buncha slow, fat, selfish, mean
whiteys. I tell ya, they didn't used to make 'em like they do now.

[David.c...@gmail.com]

in the snow with no shoes on uphill both ways, huh?

youre asking a question thats easy to say yes to and really hard to say
no. No offense to NYNY but this is an old argument in any sport. The
only reason anyone thinks that play was better when the sport was
newer, less organized, smaller, and more regional is a few people whose
story starts out, "Back in my day..." Usually what happens is that the
field gets better and the records/reputations of the standouts look
great in comparison. ex. Ty Cobb's batting averages, Pele and
Maradona's professional careers,

[David.c...@gmail.com]

in the snow with no shoes on uphill both ways, huh?

youre asking a question thats easy to say yes to and really hard to say
no. No offense to NYNY but this is an old argument in any sport. The
only reason anyone thinks that play was better when the sport was
newer, less organized, smaller, and more regional is a few people whose
story starts out, "Back in my day..." Usually what happens is that the
field gets better and the records/reputations of the standouts look
great in comparison. ex. Ty Cobb's batting averages, Pele and
Maradona's professional careers,

[Seraph]

GRANDPA BACKHANDS INSTEAD OF FOREHANDS FTW!!!.

[mapler...@gmail.com]

> sure, fine. how about sockeye or furious.

you'll have to ask Billy Rodriguez or Jon Gewirtz about them.

MJ

[Xano...@gmail.com]

I don't know if I can weigh in on this argument having never seen
revolver, or any of the younger teams play, not to mention being bias
as a younger player myself.

Instead I have a question. Your original post notes that your
impression of Sockeye, Dog, etc. was that they "are very limited
skillsets." Could you expand on what you mean by this? Is your concern
that teams rely exclusively on a deep game, or a certain offense type,
or is it the specialization of players where deeps can't throw,
handlers can't jump and all a popper does is run? (or is there
something else I'm missing entirely?)

[josh]

Xano...@gmail.com wrote:
> (or is there
> something else I'm missing entirely?)

Yes, Frank is a troll.

[pgw]

The problem with Google's post rating system is that to tell the world
how shitty Frank's post is, you have to give it a star.

[Justin]

Dude, you just made my top 10 RSD posts of all time.

[Justin]

Huguenard (nospam) wrote:
>
> As usual, it would seem that the entire point of my post was completely
> lost. A friend reiterated to me the other day what he had heard (he hadn't
> read) what my post was about and his version did sound absurd and that I
> didn't know what I was talking about.

So is it RSD's fault that the point of your posts never comes across?
If so, what is the point of posting that your point never comes across?
or were you trying to make some other point and instead the point about
your points not coming across came across instead of the point you
wanted to come across? I'm hopelessly confused and will stay up all
night pondering this philosophical dilemna. What should I do master?
And if you answer how will I know that your answer was the one you
intended to make?

[neurodancer]

mapler...@gmail.com wrote:
> NYNY would beat Revolver handily.
>
> A friend of Dobyns
>
>

Never seen Revolver but the players (and coaches) are better now.
ND
An ex-teammate and opponent of many NYNYers.

[Mark Ratkiller]

Revolver is very legit. Any team that misses semis by 2 points its
first year at nationals is pretty fucking good if you ask me.

[florida...@yahoo.com]

HIS POINT IS CLEAR HE JUST WON'T ADMIT HE'S PROMOTING THAT OTHER
"SPORT" WHICH MOST OF US WILL NOT GIVE CREEDANCE TO.......... VERSES
TRUELY HAVING AN OPINION AS A DEDICATED ULTIMATE PLAYER.

BTW ........ YOU ARE A SPAMMER Huguenard........

[Kohn]

<Want to move away from the typical Frank comments and subsequent
bashing>

So, is the quality of ultimate better than it was 20 years ago? From
my involvement with college ultimate the last 8-9 years, I've seen an
overall increase in athleticism. Also, more freshman are coming in
with some disc skills.

So, which is better, the NYNY generation(80's) or the Sockeye
generation (00's)
1) Athleticism
2) Disc Skills
3) Offense
4) Defense

[Sleudo]

Ok, I'll bite.

1) Athleticism. Who was the big athlete on NYNY? Cribber? How tall was
he? How fast? I think of the top big receivers on the semifinalist
teams at Sarasota this year: Nord, Chase, CK, MC, Beau, Jolian, Martin,
Lugsdin, Grant, Seraglia, AJ, Dylan, Kid. Clearly there is some serious
athleticism at the top of the game these days. I haven't seen anyone as
fast as Beau or anyone who can completely own a guy like Nord
can...ever. I am speculating (I am afraid I don't have the same kind of
data for the NYNY generation) that Cribber was so respected because he
was the only dominant big man inthe game at the time. Now all of the
top teams have at least 2-3. Imagine a perfect huck to Cribber (or
anyone for that matter) with Beau only a step off. I find it hard to
picture Beau not running past him easily, or Seraglia not being able to
make a play. A floater between Cribber and Chase or MG?

Advantage: Today

2) Disc skills. Who were the best throwers/decision makers back then?
Dobyns, Billy Rodriguez come to mind, who else? Today, from the semis
teams, I would put in: Shank, Cram, MG (both lists), Parker, Rouisse
(if you watched the sockeye/bravo semi, fuckin' A, those guys can
throw), Chains seemed receiver heavy. Looks like a lot of guys from
Sockeye were left off, but I think their strength is that the have a
lot of guys with good hucks, but only Cram with mind-blowing ones.
Wiggins was definitely airing it out in the final, and most of his deep
shots were completed, but when I think of the guys who can bomb both
forehands and backhands full field in a still sarasota breeze, I leave
Wiggins out. I also leave out guys like Chicken, Jolian, Dylan, and Jay
Hammond. They have good skills, but they are all still a cut below
Cram, Parker and Shank. I would speculate that the best throwers in the
game in the 80s had Wiggins/Chicken like throws. I have heard that a
typical offense scored in 8-10 passes back then. Now, if you don't stop
the pull play with some sort of transition, every top team scores in 4
passes.

Advantage:Today

3 & 4) Offense/Defense: This one is tough. I think the cutting of today
is much, much tougher to stop because of the increased athleticism.
However, teams today seem far less disciplined, because there are far
more turnovers/game at the top level than there once were. I think the
5 turnover DoG/Furious semi of a few years ago was the last "vintage"
game we saw. I am hard pressed to recall a game with less than 10
turnovers at all this year. Many of the top teams seem to be loading
their D-lines up with their top players in search of breaks. Chase, MG,
Nord, Beau, Dylan all played a lot of defense in the big games. I do
believe that offenses are less disciplined than they were in the 80s,
but I also think that today's D-lines create many more turnovers and
ultimately, breaks than did D-lines in the 80s.

Offense: Advantage Vintage
Defense: Advantage Today

Follow up question: Is there anyone in the game today that is so good,
so mentally tough that he can just decide to win and have it be so?
That's what I understood Dobyns brought to the table. His teams won
because he chose to. Today, it seems like every team has so many ways
of dealing with other teams top ballers that no one really dominates
like that anymore...a year ago, in the wind, I thought that Shank was
the best player on the field. This year, I saw many guys have good
games, but no one that I thought dominated...

Can anyone from the 80s confirm/deny any of this? Am I way off? Or do
people agree with me?

My $.02
-Sleudo

[neurodancer]

Great post. Right on the mark.
ND

[Joe O'Brien]

Amen, Florida. Frank is right, bashing revolver is not the point of his
post. Promoting Dischoops (which, incidentally, is the worst
bastardization of a game I have ever had the misfortune of playing) and
his undying need for attention (negative or not) are his only reasons -
IGNORING HIM IS THE BEST WEAPON!

For this reason, this will be my first, last, and only post regarding
this tool.

[Chris Van Holmes]

Do the historical teams get their youth and conditioning back? or do
they have to use their walkers? Do they get to practice new strategies
and tactics, or are they stuck with short fill and deep fill?

It is a rare team that has the toughness and preparation of NYNY. And
those count for a lot of victories. Plop them down in today's ultimate
world and they would have no problem making you feel small.

CVH

Kohn> <Want to move away from the typical Frank comments and
Kohn> subsequent
bashing>

Kohn> So, is the quality of ultimate better than it was 20 years
Kohn> ago? From my involvement with college ultimate the last 8-9
Kohn> years, I've seen an overall increase in athleticism. Also,
Kohn> more freshman are coming in with some disc skills.

Kohn> So, which is better, the NYNY generation(80's) or the Sockeye
Kohn> generation (00's) 1) Athleticism 2) Disc Skills 3) Offense 4)
Kohn> Defense

[Wes]

Is there any video footage available of teams like NYNY? As a young
player I would be interested in watching them. I just find it hard to
imagine that a sport can grow like ultimate has and have the quality of
play and the ahtleticism go down.

[jarm...@yahoo.com]

I always get a kick out of these comparisons! Whether it basketball,
football or ultimate what is the point? Having played in the 80's(not
on the good teams), I have a couple of observations:

First, the world has become much smaller since back in the day. With
the internet, and more coverage it is easier today for players to know
other players out of their region by name and skill level. Back then
we had a newspaper style newsletter and that was about it. No e-mail
or RSD to talk smack or plead a case for a good player.

Second, I think teams have the same intensity as they do now. I played
against Windy City during their hey day, and I don't think I have ever
played against a more intense competitive team in any sport since.

Third, disc skills! I have often marveled going to tournaments in the
last few years how many high level elite teams have quite a few players
with not so good disc skills. They are on the team to perform one or
two functions and that is it. Back in the day, the teams were full of
people with disc skills out of necessity. We didnt have 25 guys on a
team to fill specific roles. I believe the teams top to bottom had
better disc skills. Much like people complain about pro basketball
player and their ball handling, dribbling, and lay-up skills.
Specialization has possibly diminished the need for the bottom half of
a team to have those skills.

Someone mentioned two or three players from that era that they
considered good. I seem to remember many more that were good and could
compete at the elite level today. As far as throwing, I am sure MJ,
Jim P, or many others could list plenty of great throwers from that
era. I know windy city and tunas had a few that could throw(don't
remember huck being used back then)

Also, we didnt layout, we got ho!

[Bill Layden]

Interesting topic and a decent attempt at a thoughtful response.
As a matter of fact, The Count (Alex), Jim Parinella, and I were watching
the finals in Sarasota this year discussing this very topic.

At the time, we were mostly going with the "Kids these days ... bah!"
approach, but I think that was mostly a product of our collective funk at
not having performed better ourselves this year (and our hangovers).

Whoever "Sleudo" is, he has admitted that he doesn't know that much about
the "NYNY Generation" (and I would add, "Vintage DoG"). On the other hand,
there are a few of us that played back then on "top" teams and are still
competing at Nationals level (although in the case of Worm and me, we just
jumped into Masters this year). I have talked to a few of the Crusty Still
Competing Ones. With a little time to consider, these are my immediate
thoughts:

Sleudo wrote:
> Ok, I'll bite.
>
> 1) Athleticism. Who was the big athlete on NYNY? Cribber? How tall was
> he? How fast? I think of the top big receivers on the semifinalist
> teams at Sarasota this year: Nord, Chase, CK, MC, Beau, Jolian, Martin,
> Lugsdin, Grant, Seraglia, AJ, Dylan, Kid. Clearly there is some serious
> athleticism at the top of the game these days. I haven't seen anyone as
> fast as Beau or anyone who can completely own a guy like Nord
> can...ever. I am speculating (I am afraid I don't have the same kind of
> data for the NYNY generation) that Cribber was so respected because he
> was the only dominant big man inthe game at the time. Now all of the
> top teams have at least 2-3. Imagine a perfect huck to Cribber (or
> anyone for that matter) with Beau only a step off. I find it hard to
> picture Beau not running past him easily, or Seraglia not being able to
> make a play. A floater between Cribber and Chase or MG?
>
> Advantage: Today

This, I think is true. The across-the-board level of athleticism on the
top teams is better. Also, the lower half of nationals teams are generally
more athletic than their earlier counterparts. Generally, the speed
increase is immediately noticeable. On the other hand, pure speed is
over-rated. Otherwise, how is it that I can still manage to get open
against decent defenders on these top teams of today - and I am past my
41st birthday? Field sense and proper application of speed are at least as
important.

Also, Cribber wasn't the only dominant Big Man, just the best on the best
team. And don't go betting your life's savings on today's Beau against the
vintage Cribber. Wouldn't be prudent.

>
> 2) Disc skills. Who were the best throwers/decision makers back then?
> Dobyns, Billy Rodriguez come to mind, who else? Today, from the semis
> teams, I would put in: Shank, Cram, MG (both lists), Parker, Rouisse
> (if you watched the sockeye/bravo semi, fuckin' A, those guys can
> throw), Chains seemed receiver heavy. Looks like a lot of guys from
> Sockeye were left off, but I think their strength is that the have a
> lot of guys with good hucks, but only Cram with mind-blowing ones.
> Wiggins was definitely airing it out in the final, and most of his deep
> shots were completed, but when I think of the guys who can bomb both
> forehands and backhands full field in a still sarasota breeze, I leave
> Wiggins out. I also leave out guys like Chicken, Jolian, Dylan, and Jay
> Hammond. They have good skills, but they are all still a cut below
> Cram, Parker and Shank. I would speculate that the best throwers in the
> game in the 80s had Wiggins/Chicken like throws. I have heard that a
> typical offense scored in 8-10 passes back then. Now, if you don't stop
> the pull play with some sort of transition, every top team scores in 4
> passes.
>
> Advantage:Today

There are more players today with better throws. There are also more
players today that over-reach with their attempts. Their choices are
poorer, or at least, much more risky. As was stated below, the basic level
of execution has gone down on offense. No one seems to recall that DoG, in
1995 in Birmingham won the finals against a good (and aggressive/borderline
cheating) Sockeye team. Final score 21-13 (I believe). Total DoG turn
overs? Three if I recall correctly. In less than ideal conditions (cool,
damp, muddy fields). I watched it (bitterly) that day and still can't
believe the level of precision.

>
> 3 & 4) Offense/Defense: This one is tough. I think the cutting of today
> is much, much tougher to stop because of the increased athleticism.
> However, teams today seem far less disciplined, because there are far
> more turnovers/game at the top level than there once were. I think the
> 5 turnover DoG/Furious semi of a few years ago was the last "vintage"
> game we saw. I am hard pressed to recall a game with less than 10
> turnovers at all this year. Many of the top teams seem to be loading
> their D-lines up with their top players in search of breaks. Chase, MG,
> Nord, Beau, Dylan all played a lot of defense in the big games. I do
> believe that offenses are less disciplined than they were in the 80s,
> but I also think that today's D-lines create many more turnovers and
> ultimately, breaks than did D-lines in the 80s.
>
> Offense: Advantage Vintage
> Defense: Advantage Today

See offense/execution note above.
Defense ... tough to measure. Teams today benefit from the developments of
yester-year (ie. Clam, Transition, modified zones, etc.). The speed
advantage would favor today's teams in man-to-man conditions. Under zone
conditions, you would have to convince me that there are more cohesive
units today the first-team NYNY zone or the 1994/1995 DoG zones. They
worked like clockwork. And keep in mind, I HATED these teams (having the
dubious distinction of having lost in the National Finals to the last great
NYNY team and the first great DoG team). How painful.

>
> Follow up question: Is there anyone in the game today that is so good,
> so mentally tough that he can just decide to win and have it be so?
> That's what I understood Dobyns brought to the table. His teams won
> because he chose to. Today, it seems like every team has so many ways
> of dealing with other teams top ballers that no one really dominates
> like that anymore...a year ago, in the wind, I thought that Shank was
> the best player on the field. This year, I saw many guys have good
> games, but no one that I thought dominated...

Off the cuff answer ... No. The great teams from the earlier generation
didn't lose when it counted. How many straight wins did NYNY have at
Nationals? 40? How many recent champions have gotten through Nationals
undefeated? I realize that the expansion to 16 teams and the
reorganization of the schedule has made it more difficult now, but ...

>
> Can anyone from the 80s confirm/deny any of this? Am I way off? Or do
> people agree with me?
>
> My $.02
> -Sleudo

Here is my summary. The top teams today could stand toe-to-toe with the
greats from before. I might give a slight edge to today's teams over
multiple games, but in a winner-take-all showdown ... I lean old (literally).

But, here is the main difference. Although there are fewer National
contending teams now-a-days (see Frank's first post in this thread), the
lower level top teams, say bottom half of Nationals are actually better
than the their earlier counterparts.

That's my $0.25 (but it won't buy you what it used to).

-Billy Layden

> Kohn wrote:
>

[Stubbs]

Just to throw this into the mix . . . . Keeping all of these opinions
and trends in mind, where is ultimate going in the next generation. Are
we going to see more of crazily athletic teams like Sockeye? More
fundamental, all around teams like DoG(not to say Sockeye isn't
fundamental)? Or are we going to see something somewhere in between?

-Stubbs

[Brent Russell]

Yes, Ultimate is getting better and Yes top teams from the past could still
compete.
I played late 80's through early 2000's and I agree with Billy and CVH that
the top teams of the past would still be competitive. You have to put Windy
City in the mix with NYNY and Dog too. The best Windy City teams would
certainly hold their own in the National finals of recent years. Besides the
throwing skills they bring the toughness and intimidation that would work
today just as well as it did then. I disagree with Jarmee21 regarding depth.
There is way more depth in terms of throwing skills now compared to the late
80's. I watched the finals of Nationals this year and noticed more people up
and down the roster that could break the mark and throw deep.
Brent

"Chris Van Holmes" <c...@binkley.cqs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:wgodr74...@binkley.cqs.washington.edu...

[winter...@hotmail.com]

What was it, 2000? When NYNY put their only reunion team together?
Bunches of them had not played ulty in years, almost all of them were
masters. And they kicked almost everyone's butts on their way to the
finals (Go Coup D'Etat!) against lots of good younger teams.

Let 'em play in their prime vs. the best teams of today, many former
champions could easily hold their own. As about the only guy out there
to play with lots of different NYNY, Condor, Sockeye and Furious champs
(watch out for those jerky DoG guys - I don't play with any of them but
Billy) at various tourneys, I think I can say that with plenty of
authority.

Corey

On Nov 16, 5:18 pm, "Brent Russell" <m...@brent23.com> wrote:
> Yes, Ultimate is getting better and Yes top teams from the past could still
> compete.
> I played late 80's through early 2000's and I agree with Billy and CVH that
> the top teams of the past would still be competitive. You have to put Windy
> City in the mix with NYNY and Dog too. The best Windy City teams would
> certainly hold their own in the National finals of recent years. Besides the
> throwing skills they bring the toughness and intimidation that would work
> today just as well as it did then. I disagree with Jarmee21 regarding depth.
> There is way more depth in terms of throwing skills now compared to the late
> 80's. I watched the finals of Nationals this year and noticed more people up
> and down the roster that could break the mark and throw deep.
> Brent
>

> "Chris Van Holmes" <c...@binkley.cqs.washington.edu> wrote in messagenews:wgodr74...@binkley.cqs.washington.edu...

>
>
>
>
>
> > Do the historical teams get their youth and conditioning back? or do
> > they have to use their walkers? Do they get to practice new strategies
> > and tactics, or are they stuck with short fill and deep fill?
>
> > It is a rare team that has the toughness and preparation of NYNY. And
> > those count for a lot of victories. Plop them down in today's ultimate
> > world and they would have no problem making you feel small.
>
> > CVH
>
> > Kohn> <Want to move away from the typical Frank comments and
> > Kohn> subsequent
> > bashing>
>
> > Kohn> So, is the quality of ultimate better than it was 20 years
> > Kohn> ago? From my involvement with college ultimate the last 8-9
> > Kohn> years, I've seen an overall increase in athleticism. Also,
> > Kohn> more freshman are coming in with some disc skills.
>
> > Kohn> So, which is better, the NYNY generation(80's) or the Sockeye
> > Kohn> generation (00's) 1) Athleticism 2) Disc Skills 3) Offense 4)

> > Kohn> Defense- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Brent Russell]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that nonsense about Cribber being run down by
todays big men. Cribber in his prime is still the best big man.

<winter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163730266.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[Jim Mallon]

Quick $.02: The top teams today blow me away. The top teams of
yesterday blow me away. Me: Condors '84-'95. Best points made are
these: NYNY, Windy, Circus, Double, Boston (Rudies/Titanic/1st
Time/DoG...), Condors, Tunas all would compete and succeed in today's
game but, as Billy sez, the field seems deeper these days.

I like Brent's comment on Windy, those dudes were in-your-face good...
more in your face than NYNY probably (certainly nuttier, in a
dangerous, crazy-eyed kinda way anyway), and they definitely would've
shivered a lotta today's teams' timbers. Comin' off for a sub and
seeing Deano and the rest of those freaks sittin' there laughing and
smoking cigarettes could be just a smidge intimidating. Did MO'D ever
stop talking shit? [Has he yet? ;-) ] And NYNY? Well, having Dobyns
shouting at you "DON'T FUCKING TOUCH ME!" after you just blanketed him
with what you thought was the best D of your life for a minute or two
could set you back on your heels a bit. Those guys were awesome!

But, I do remember thinking at Nationals this year: "Holy fucking shit,
look at all the freaking 6'2" studs on these teams." What the hell?!?!
We were lucky to have 3 guys that tall. After Schmekel retired we were
pretty much fucked for the next 10 years. And in later days, poor
fucking Keough was the only guy we had to cover the tallies, unless Ted
managed to drag himself out for a tourney of two or Buzzie happened to
move back to town for the fall (which happened more than once, thank
God). Can you imagine going through your entire Ulti careeer shredding
on people all through the bullshit tourneys and then getting Nationals
and your only job -- every time -- is to deal with
Cribber/Moons/Jeremy/Big Dave/or whoever? Sucked for Johnnie, but I'll
still say, "Thanks Keough", that was why I always bought you beers.
Disc skills: Cliff Marhoffer (the King of Zing), Doug the Bum, Bob
Austin, TK, Bart, JK, Aengus. All those guys had the game fit in the
mix today.

Defense: Keay Nakae. 'Nuff said.

[rickst]

is it so far to say that all sports have progressed?
watch espn classic.
The '81 NBA was not as quick or powerful as today, watch the old timers
dribble-- their crossovers are... non-existent. I heard today that
centers used to be able to get over 50 rebounds a game because the
players simply couldn't shoot.
'ol school Collegiate football--- again, not as quick or powerful.
espn classic is humorous at times. I feel that other than boxing, most
sports have risen to amazing new levels.
Take the stats of the middle infielders from an older era, and compare
them with that of jeter, tejada, rollins (of the phillies), rafeal
furcal, micheal young and so on.
Can't old folks admit that sports have progressed?

maybe not---

I can't see why ultimate would be an exception.

In collegiate terms...
could those rice teams of the early-mid 90's (a few natl titles) take
any of the perennial favorites of today like colorado, wisonsin, so
on...

I know the thread started as a discussion geared towards club but,
This is a genuine question. I'm wondering what the older fellas have
to say about how far collegiate ulti has come.

[Kyle_W...@brown.edu]

I can't believe people are really talking about this seriously (but
I'll join in):

A. How can you compare across years? Especially when we have no stats
to do anything?

B. If you are going to actually do it, how can anyone think that the
top Ultimate in 80's or 90's could even compare to the top Ultimate
now. The fact is that there are more people playing, players are
starting at younger ages, more is known about proper training, and
there have been huge advances in strategy. These are the stats we know
and they all point toward current Ultimate.

I am sure that if many of the top Windy City, Tunas, NYNY, DoG guys
were taken and transplanted into today's game at their primes they
would adjust and still be among the top players. But team vs. team
current would dominate vintage given one game and no time for vintage
to adjust to the current state of the game. And as long as the sport
continues to grow at the rate it is growing I'm sure the top teams in
2016 would best the top teams of 2006.

C. I've watched video of some of this stuff (there are a lot of
archives at the UPA) and it is clear that there are more fundamentals
lacking in teams from those vintage years than there are now. There
are, however, some great athletes and throwers who could step into
today's game.

D. There is a lot of talk about how throwers are worse now than they
used to be. It's hard to say, I'm sure (Although I would be impressed
to see Shank, Cram, Regetz, and Parker bested). But, if true it could
be the result of a number of things: different disc being used, fewer
throwers competing in multiple disc disciplines, or a move to strategy
that favors athleticism, creating space over disc skills.

-Kyle
(not speaking on behalf of the UPA board or staff)

[Wes]

If it is true that the level of competition in ultimate has gone down,
or at least the quality of play has declined, what could be pointed to
as the cause? It was pointed out before that one who watched espn
classic could note the difference in play of other major sports, why
not the same in ultimate?

[David.c...@gmail.com]

Exactly. Asking a 40ish male athlete how awesome he was 15+ years ago
is a dangerous question though. You can only expect one response.
Although I would bet that the standouts from those teams would be able
to hang however.

[neurodancer]

David.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> Exactly. Asking a 40ish male athlete how awesome he was 15+ years ago
> is a dangerous question though. You can only expect one response.
> Although I would bet that the standouts from those teams would be able
> to hang however.
>

About as dangerous as asking a 20ish athlete how good he is now.
ND

[ji...@nwlink.com]

Kohn wrote:

> So, is the quality of ultimate better than it was 20 years ago?
>

> So, which is better, the NYNY generation(80's) or the Sockeye
> generation (00's)
> 1) Athleticism
> 2) Disc Skills
> 3) Offense
> 4) Defense

Like some others who have posted, I started playing college level in
the 70s, competed at a nationals level on both coasts in the 80s and
90s and still have enough contact with the game to have
cross-generational knowledge (thanks to masters play and watching the
youngsters up close).

I'd say that on all four levels, the game has improved. I doubt the
best current athletes are better but there are more of them. Throwing
skills, generally same is true, although there are some throws that are
now more common (the flipper/scoober most notably) that were rare back
in the day. Coaches, HS and Jr HS play, and a ten-fold increase in
colleges (many of which have "B" teams) all contribute to this. O and
D both have seen the spread of a variety of strategies, some of which
are newer (the german/spread O). Coaching has become a commonplace at
almost all levels of the game. A 22 YO can now have the same relative
experience of a 30 YO from 1980.

But to ask whether the game has advanced is not the same question as
whether the players or teams are better. Teams excel because of
chemistry, execution and rising to the challenge, because of
preparation, training and desire. And all of these things have to be
measured relative to their peers at the same point in time. Much the
same can be said of individuals. Training, focus at practice, extra
time on personal skill development, willingness to sacrifice self for
team, knowing your role and knowing your limits. And leadership,
knowing when to call timeout, making match-up and tactical adjustments
on the fly/at half-time, who to sub, when to pull a star who's having a
bad game.

Billy said it well. I mean, if he can still get open at age 41, then
just how good can the D be? Right? Er, no slight intended old chap...

Add it all up and the result is the same. The winning team is still in
good shape and plays within itself/makes the fewest errors. It relies
on mastery of the basics and exercising good judgment at the moment of
truth. Throwing through the mark is still throwing through the mark.
Getting open one on one is the same. When the score is tied at 13 game
to 15 and the pressure is still on, throw all of your list of alleged
advancements out the window.

The best teams of the 80s would be completely competitive today. Then,
as now, the best Os only lost when they beat themselves, the best D was
an adrenilene-charged mano-a-mano battle, and the pyschological warfare
was unending. I'd love to have seen the old Windy City or NYNYNY slap
a zone on in the wind at Nattys this year. I'd love to see an ultimate
team that trained harder then the early 80s Rude Boys who could put 5
guys well over 6 feett (including moons and stick at what 6-5, and fid
and finley) and who could run with them. Or better throwers then
Circus. Or NY's depth. Matchups matter, too.

There is some comment that the #8 team now is as good as a semis team
20 years ago. Maybe, except for one thing. The semis team was more of
a winner. It knew how to win and it did win. What sets the current
1/4 team apart from the semi team is the intangible skill set. And no
magic formula for improving that has been or will be invented.

The fundamentals of competition have never changed nor will they ever.
If new gen players want to think they're better, let 'em. They can
only jump higher cuz they're starting on our backs. If the old guys
want to think they'd win today, let em. They probably haven't seen how
sad those old videos look.

Yes, ultimate is evolving. But no, the game is not played better and
no, the players are not better. More skilled and athletic players and
more complex tactical options are not a measure that matters. It's the
nature of sport. Sport is about preparing for the moment of truth and
living it. Keggers are about threads like this. Dang I am thirsty.

JimmyO