Turbo Skills Refined
Squish / Chet
I've decided to sympathize by continuing my own haphazard journey
toward radical-idea vindication. I brought my ideas awhile back to
RSD, with which I received feedback integral to their revision and
evolution. The threads came out trollesque because intrinsically my
theories are hostile to the structure of standard ultimate. Since I
can't prove these debates are invaluable to me, please only consider
responding to the following if you find some sort of purpose in such a
debate.
Nutshell Theory > Mastering all throw types allows versatility to
relay the disc instantly from any position, trivializing defense.
Absorbed Points > Haste hinders accuracy; speed spawns riskiness;
calculating quickly creates turnovers, hindering offense.
New Formulation > Energy put into a skill-set optimized for a stall
count of X is just as well-spent as into >X, for game >X.
Call a variable stall count "XS" (X-Stall, X-Speed, etc). At XS = 10,
your opposition sounds crippling sans a better base to debate with
you, which as a lowly pickup player, I'm still developing. @ 2 or 3,
turbo play crystalizes, and since I learn a lot by defending
creatively, I challenge you to re-defend your skill system and way of
playing in light of this new template. Why is XS2 play not perfectly
beneficial given it fits into XS10?
Please don't snowball specifics.
alansmith175
On a serious note, is this Squeege? My favorite RSD poster
EVER?!?!?!?!?
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
alansmith175
entirely.
Squish / Chet
Ya, it just took the first four letters of my email on rsdnospam. I
didn't create an account cuz it sounded too close to rsdnoTROLL. I
got a troll award, remember, it's going to take me awhile to work it
off =(
alansmith175
geniuses, let's talk.
"Nutshell Theory > Mastering all throw types allows
versatility to
relay the disc instantly from any position, trivializing
defense."
Trivializing is a little strong. If there was a thrower who
could completely destroy any defense, his team would likely
never lose, since they would only have to get one break.
Also, people have different ceilings on their performance,
so "mastery" may vary widely. I will agree that being a
better thrower makes offense easier, but I think that's
really obvious.
"Absorbed Points > Haste hinders accuracy; speed spawns
riskiness;
calculating quickly creates turnovers, hindering offense."
Both true and untrue. The throws you are/were advocating are
too fast for pretty much anyone. However, I doubt you will
meet any team who says "yes we like to move the disc very
slowly." Some teams move faster then others at every level.
You wanted to move faster than any reasonably knowledgeable
player would advocate.
All of the rest of your post is incomprehensible. "Please
don't snowball specifics" will now be my primary way to end
arguments.
Slade
would say that while many throws can be executed in <2
seconds, it is not always to your advantage to build an
offense around moving the disc that quickly. Some cuts take
>2 seconds to develop, and/or the thrower is better suited
to take additional time to assess if the person is open.
I don't know what you mean by "your offense sounds crippling
without a better base to debate with you." Are you just
trying to say "Defense can be really hard sometimes" while
obfuscating your proposition vis-a-vis inflationary
expository prose?
Please don't snowball specifics.
Squish / Chet
becoming very good at nutshelling as it's an essential survival skill
to avoid being crucified! So what I'll do for this discussion is very
carefully address your points--and any that come up--while trying to
be as informative and crystal clear as possible. So, (lucky for RSD),
I'm not going to be able to post a book a week=(. I do have massive
revisions and a better ability to communicate, so I won't throw out
the exact same s***. I'm out the door, though, I'll come back later
to answer your points and clarify what I'm saying (and think about
your objections; they always help me revise, especially your immediate
general ones, since I've received little feedback about my new
formulation)...
Squish / Chet
atheist and you're a Christian, and I'm pseudotrolling your board. I
say, "why did God allow false rapture predictions?" and you quote a
particular Bible passage that makes a good point, and I *agree*, and
then you claim, "Well, the bible is full of points like that, also,
Harold Camping says..." And won't argue generals that I can actually
argue with, e.g.: "God gave all the gift of free will, neccessitating
allowing mistakes." Also, I ask, why do you trust that entire set of
arguments over the messages of the Quar'an? And you quote a passage
where Jesus says other religions are false.
I often ask, "why is the peach so inferior?" and people say, "there's
a restricted wrist, it's hard to throw around a defender". And I
*agree*, and counter with, "how is that inferior to being able to
throw unguarded, to an unguarded receiver, through an undefendable
path (over the heads of the team) in any scenario you catch the disc
but will have someone on you if you take the time to switch grips?",
and they jump on a non sequitur such as, "well, you can't put full
contact on the peach" (!@#); which even if true, and even if relevant,
would still only make a small dent next to throwing and catching
unguarded through an undefendable path. Then, they even repeat the
restricted wrist comment which I already agreed was valid, then
"snowball" more specifics that have nothing to do with the balance
between the entire infinite slew of downsides and the entire infinite
slew of benefits. These are verbatim examples from my last debate
here... We finally got at the general arguments, but it took
literally a novel of collective argument to establish them, and I'm
hoping this can be more productive and direct, this time. (I'm at
fault, here, too, don't take this is as plain blame.)
Squish / Chet
me specify the most key general criticism that stuck with me that I
had no answer to; this should avoid a ton of rehashing. People
informed me here hat at higher-level play, there are virtually no
turnovers. I was asked, "how is any of this going to prevent
turnovers, as they're already virtually nonexistent, and your moves
are much more prone to failure?"
This is an example of something I learned that forced me to reevaluate
my ideas. Hence, it lead to my epiphany/revision that a stall count
would have to be significantly lowered for my ideas to fly. It seems
a trivial change, a single number, but actually forces a whole
different set of strategies, e.g. "turbo" moves such as throwing the
disc the moment you have it, needing a much more versatile slew of
grips (e.g. above-chest grips). There was a decent amount of
agreement here, hence the argument largely ended with, "we're not
rehauling the sport, but do what you want on your own and we'll admit
a 2-XS team can beat a 10-XS team if you prove it".
What I'm coming back with is this: wouldn't practicing a skill set
optimized for a lower stall count (e.g. a more challenging one) be a
perfectly good use of time, and a perfectly good skill set to develop,
given it expands your early-count options? And, being forced to think
and act and move quicker should also help your over all focus and
stamina. I.e, you left me with: "2-XS moves would be useless at 10-
XS, so practicing 2-XS would *hurt* your game". You're claiming that
entire throw styles that would be crucial at 2-XS should be discarded
entirely for 10-XS, and not even practiced.
It's a more creative angle that forces you to take your subjectivity
into account, as much of your argument is instinctive self-defense,
and all you see is something that wouldn't work in the hundred
scenarios you're used to. Ultimate is young, and and you can't assume
the sport's strategies have evolved perfectly. This is what you
haven't been able to answer. I can't possibly run through a slew of
endless advantages from experience, because there are no "turbo" teams
(yet). I can just argue the basics: the benefit of throwing to your
target completely unguarded with no defense.
Squish / Chet
"trivialized". I've mostly just argued the moves have value.
Throwing immediately form a caught position increases throwing skill
over all, and allows saving time when split seconds matter. A 1/4
second grip switch can loose 5 or 10 feet. RSD posters usually argue
that time is so trivial that there's no point to even practicing
throwing from the grip you catch with. A point for sure in 10-XS (10
stall count) ultimate, but not one strong enough to make the entire
skill set useless.
The moves themselves are not as hard as you think. You're overlapping
your catch and throw, allowing the disc's movement to do some of the
work for you, like bouncing a basketball, returning a tennis ball, or
redirecting a soccer ball's path. The scary thing is the chess/pool
calculating it takes to think multiple steps ahead--a whole different
area of your brain than the physical throw--but you can get this done
at the same time. Hence you get much better practice/exercise in the
*same* amount of practice time. Playing harder might even push
ceilings that couldn't have been improved otherwise.
ckerr4
> Please don't snowball specifics.
I don't have the specifics here in front of me, but last
year I went through the 2010 college championship game
between CUT and Florida frame-by-frame and calculated that
CUT held, on average, the disc for less than 2-seconds a
throw, with Florida averaging a little over 2-seconds.
Almost certainly if Florida had less of a huck offense, they
too would have had an average possession time under
2-seconds.
That's already pretty turbo.
Charles
Baer
an insecure/incomprehensible/uninformed troll, and he made
RSD very fun for a while a couple years back. Welcome!
However, sequels usually aren't nearly as good. I don't even
know what this thread is about.
Bulb
> RSD posters usually argue that time is so trivial that
> there's no point to even practicing throwing from the grip
> you catch with.
What about practicing catching with the grip you throw with?
Squish / Chet
A) The ultimate idea is to have the disc for 0 seconds.
B) Yes, you're right, that sounds "turbo", by definition.
C) 2-XS pickup would train that higher level of focus.
Kevin--
Same diff; choosing one catch/throw for one fluid play.
Imagine playing tennis with a disc, even pickup level.
Bulb
> Kevin--
> Same diff; choosing one catch/throw for one fluid play.
Maybe they are the same in theory (which I suppose is the
point of this thread) but in practice they are very
different. Allow me to be more specific with my question:
Which approach do you think would be more
practical/reasonable for elite teams to implement:
practicing throws from various grips (the ones that they
catch with) or practicing catches with various grips (the
ones that they throw with)? Or a combination of both? Or
to each (player) his own?
Squish / Chet
My father made this comment after we saw "Thor" last night about all
the superhero movies. I responded that's like saying the pilot of a
10-year TV series isn't as good as the watered down episodes.
[[Insert pun/phonetic humor involving "hammer", "thor", "thrower",
"thumber", and the isomorphism between me and reckless arrogant thrill
seekers.]]
Squish / Chet
base hurls you a ball. You have to hit it to 3rd, but in one swing,
rather than stopping its momentum with a catch. Now imagine they
threw you a disc. You can recycle the momentum and rotation as part
of your throw so that the full move resembles a swing. If it's below
your chest rotating clockwise, you can f/h the disc using the rotation
as the backward movement of your throw. If it's above the chest
counter-clockwise, you can peach/helicopter the disc, beginning your
throw just before the disc gets to you. This whole "disc swing"
motion is fluid, unbroken.
Now imagine utilizing this technique dynamically, during ultimate,
calculating where/whether to throw before you're in possession, what I
call turbo play. This takes elite focus, stamina, skill, intensity,
etc, practically creating a new game. Yet, the skill-set is entirely
usable under standard rules (10-XS count), though it's optimized for
low-XS, or 0-XS. Even just *practicing* it intensely increases all
those skills. RSD's opinion is that the entire skill set is just
about entirely useless, and will hurt your game since you could be
practicing other skills. For instance, above-the-chest throws are
essential to turbo, but are less practical with someone guarding you.
That upset of the whole fore/back-hand monarchy is what makes me a
"troll". =P
Squish / Chet
rather than me spamming the board with verbatim season 1 rants. A lot
of the debate helped evolve my webpage http://TurboFrisbee.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/88837090d4c96ec3#
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/172a87b9724ae1bf/86f67a3a90189fb9
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_thread/thread/8126a971e2722520/fef07c31587b2f98
Corley
usual. But in this thread and the previous ones most of the
discussion has concentrated on decisions made by the
thrower, whether his life is easier or more difficult
throwing instant throws (which I basically understand as bad
throws, redeemed by the fact that you can throw them
immediately after catching without switching your grip).
There seem to be compelling cases on each side.
What no one's talking about (thus far) is what an
extraordinary paradigm shift this would be for the downfield
cutters. (I'm trying to use neutral language here. Paradigm
shift could just as easily read 'headache' or 'opportunity).
Cutting is basically a love affair with open space: long,
delicate flirtations interrupted periodically by furious
penetration. But it all depends on knowing where the space
is and where the space is going to be--knowing when the disc
will stay in one spot for a while and you need to make space
for someone else, knowing when it's about to swing so you
can set up the deep.
Most teams have a rhythm for this. And I think asdf may be
correct that better teams move the disc faster. This is sort
of true in all sports: the faster you move the object of
play the more successful you are. But I'm not sure the
marginal second, or the marginal nanosecond, of time saved
is actually beneficial. If a team has an average possession
time of 2.xx seconds I don't necessarily think going to 1.xx
seconds will be a big advantage: all this means is that your
cutters have, on average, one second less to make something
happen each time the disc moves, that they have to reset
themselves for a constantly and unpredictably changing point
of attack.
Now of course the counterargument is that their defenders
also have to constantly readjust themselves to a constantly
and unpredictably changing point of attack, and that nothing
makes defense more infuriatingly futile than a constantly
moving disc. But I'm not sure the defenders would be any
less confused than the cutters. And cutting takes time. It
takes time to put someone on his heels, time to plant and
go, time to get to top speed and time--if you don't receive
the disc--to clear and cycle back to somewhere you're ready
to do it again. An instant throw means that when you see the
swing go up you can't start your cut. You have to wonder
'what if he throws a peach back to qbert?' Which isn't going
to encourage authoritative cutting.
Asdf, I'd expect you're arguing that UITs will make
conventional ideas about 'cutting' and 'handling' obsolete.
Instead we'd have a cloud of gentlemen merrily playing tips
up and down the field, unstoppable by any normal defense.
And maybe it's possible to play like that. But this isn't
something you can pull out at 11-11 in the game to go at
sectionals, and it isn't even something that you could show
up and teach your mixed team starting in May. You'd have to
get fifteen or twenty extremely committed lunatics together
and work on this for a couple of years, ideally somewhere in
the south because, let's face it, your basic strategy is to
make bad but fast throws and that means throws that need
lots of practice in the wind.
It's possible you'd take the world of ultimate by storm.
Certainly a lot of people would be puzzled by what you were
doing. I played a team twice at regionals two years ago
whose cutters simply didn't clear when they were covered.
They kept their cut going until they were on the force side
level with the handlers. As defenders we were flummoxed.
That wasn't at all proper; you were supposed to clear when
you were covered. We'd hit the brakes ten feet from the
handler and watch them glide into (what we thought was the)
irrelevant force side space and catch a pass for no yards.
They beat us twice that weekend.
In a queer way I'd even find myself rooting for you. I like
technical ultimate and I dislike huck-to-huge-guy. But I'm
simply not sure that what you're talking about would work,
not because the throws are impossible. Because the downfield
movement is absolutely unpredictable; because your cutters
(or whatever you call them) would have no idea where to go
or when to go there. What am I saying? Ultimate (ultimately)
is a social sport. It's possible that individual players
could hit targets faster by throwing unconventional throws
that kept the disc's momentum more intact. But there's six
other people on the field who have to be able to predict
within a reasonable approximation what the hell will happen
next, and the thought of being one of those people when my
handlers were throwing bleaches and kickthumbers to each
other every .25s gives me the howling fantods.
Corley
bslade.
mixnuts
for a throw, you have to confirm their location AND the
speed at which they're moving, as well as the location and
speed of the defender(s). Then, you have to make sure: 1)
the receiver is looking at you and can get their hands up in
time, 2) there's nobody directly between you and the
receiver, and 3) the receiver is in bounds. Finally, given
all of these factors, you have to choose the right throw.
All of this has to happen before you grip the disc and
actually execute the throw. That's ignoring other factors
like wind, or a force on the thrower.
I guess what I'm saying is - compressing this timeframe too
much will lead to an error rate that is unacceptable in high
level ultimate. Not that anyone goes through the checklist
linearly before making a throw, but your brain has to
process those things, even if somewhat unconsciously, and
that takes time.
I'd love to see a team prove me wrong, though, that'd be fun
to watch.
Squish / Chet
be compelling cases on each side" on our field's gazebo, and point to
it whenever I get yelled at. And your "love affair" prose has
inspired me to write Romance novels via applying ultimate philosophies
isomorphically.
Theory... My strategy is to attack theory and field-proof as one;
video highlights of small plays may get people interested if I can
draw a bigger picture. (I doubt I can get my pickup group to "go
turbo" and head for nationals...) I do work on that end. I only
throw 2 or 3 ITs a game out of fear of death, but I get great practice
by focusing hard to find and nail those few.
Possession... In pure form, you *don't* catch the disc. So it's more
like 2.xx seconds to 0.02 seconds. Imagine trying to perform a
greatest by catching, switching grips, and re-throwing, all in the air
before hitting the ground. That's where your howling fantods stem
from, and that's not what I'm talking about. Or, catching a ping pong
ball and re-throwing, trying to match the speed of whacking it; or
jumping a hurdle with a mop, taking a moment to wipe the hurdle a few
times when you're above it, vs. lightly grazing it with a feather
duster once.
Gain... The value of saving 1/4 second is exchanged for being able to
throw openly, unguarded, to an unguarded target, often on an
unblockable disc path (above heads). If you are cutting toward a disc
to get open, then when you get it, you often have a split second
before someone catches up to you. That's where that .02 possession
time comes in handy.
Cutting... here's my new take. Your issues--team communication,
surprising defenders, open space love affairs, anticipation,
complexity of plays--stem from the evolution of a sport from its core
foundation: playing at 10-XS with non-IT/non-fluid skills. If you go
back and alter those, alllll those particulars RSD and I bicker about
become fall short, because 10-XS non-IT ultimate has been around for
50+ years. I believe can create a similar base via theory and key on-
field moves, but I don't have much technical knowledge, so I come here
to learn and build via defending critique.
Awareness, communication, planning, thinking, etc etc etc etc--work
together as a very complex whole. To pit 10-XS non-fluid ultimate
against all other versions takes delicate, precise thinking and theory
development. There *are* science/math principles that re-deduce 50
years via simple principles. My first attempt is the single variable
of a stall count. E.g.: How would <10-XS fluid/IT ultimate (turbo)
compare to standard? So I offer this against your points: In a game
with players thinking many steps ahead (ie chess/pool)--cutting to
relay the disc near-instantly down field--generate worthy strategies,
even outside new rules ideal for them?
I might agree with that techniques optimized for the first few moments
of possession are not valuable, if one's options were spread out
evenly over the full stall time. But, it just so happens that split
second is the difference between throwing with or without a dynamic
obstacle a disc away forcing your worst option, tolling (trolling?)
your mental and physical energy. Those halves--unguarded vs guarded--
segregate that .02 time from the 9.98 following it. I believe that
makes above-chest throws very important, yet we only use 1/2 of our
throw area--the part lower to the ground, away from the sky where the
disc goes. (!?)
Practicing and learning this stuff is easier than you think. Again,
as a general axiom, I offer this: Turbo takes more energy and stamina,
so so you can practice more in a smaller span of time. It's
exhausting, but will enhance your play and fitness, and your early-
stall options if you want to use them.
Squish / Chet
"bouncing" in sequence, there's no need to brace for a careful catch.
2) This can often be eliminated by throwing above everyone's head,
undefendably. 2-XS/fluid play forces practicing above-chest throws,
much easier to throw above everybody, especially combined with
jumping. 3) Throwing out of bounds could be a strategy. A greatest
is just a jump/air-IT. 4) Choosing a throw is only difficult if the
disc approaches the border between two throw positions. If you've
worked on all your throws, you cover all areas around your body, so
that it's absolutely automatic and unconscious to use a f/h if it
comes to your lower right.
5) Not time per se; focus/energy. As you can sprint for short bursts
but not miles, you can use up more energy to focus intensely (ie 5 sec
thinking vs 0.5 sec) It's cross country vs. track, except mentally as
well as physically. (Like running with a rubix cube.) 6) The precise
benefit of all this to official "high-level" ultimate is very sketchy,
but at the least, since it's already a "high-level" skill set, it
would be incredible to watch super-skilled players use it in an
optimized rule set. Near-0 hold times would allow football-like
strategies you could build via signals on a 10-stall count.
Squish / Chet
raise, since you'd already know what you need to do. It would take a
balance between pre-practiced plays, and a good hand signal system.
And you could *still* do all that within standard ultimate rules. If
you use a full 10 stall to plan a play, now you've completely utilized
the benefits of 10-XS ultimate. THAT would then make turbo 100%
useful within in standard rules.
Reggie Fanelli
> relay the disc instantly from any position, trivializing defense.
---great offense is more important than great defense.
...been saying that for ever.
most important ultimate skill.....being able to throw anywhere on the
field well.
yep.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Absorbed Points > Haste hinders accuracy; speed spawns riskiness;
> calculating quickly creates turnovers, hindering offense.
---be patient.
...been saying that for years.
WUFF Camp!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> New Formulation > Energy put into a skill-set optimized for a stall
> count of X is just as well-spent as into >X, for game >X.
---ignore the stall....throw well....hit the receiver who's open like
you're doing a drill at practice.
yep....
get rid of all those weird phrases and use some simple talk.....it'd
make you a better coach, probably....unless you're just pointing out
th eobvious.
Reggie Fanelli
> calculating quickly creates turnovers, hindering offense.
---haste hinders accuracy, spawns riskiness and being too quick
creates turnovers....but you say that ideally, a thrower will have the
disc for 0 seconds?
paradox, right?
Reggie Fanelli
ping pong ball?
why would you want to catch and throw like you're redirectling a
baseball with a bat?
Slade
1. Do you believe that ITs (instant throws?) are less or
more accurate than a typical ultimate throw?
2. Do you believe that it is easier or harder for a receiver
to predict where his teammate will throw an IT?
3. Do you believe that it is easier or harder for a defender
to predict where his opponent will throw an IT?
Squish / Chet
"What are you doing?"
"I'm taking over your count, you stopped at 10."
"Because that's a turnover. It's our disc."
"No, That's a myth. I read on RSD you can ignore it."
[I'm just silly-nitpicking your wording, I get your point.]
By 'absorbed' I meant downsides or counter-points that I agree with
are there. All moves and strategies have their ups and downs. E.g.,
I could say "You can only throw a forehand on one side of your body"
as one argument of the value of a peach/helicopter. That indvidiual
point doesn't nullify a forehand's value, though. Hence, your base
objection--the benfit(s) of taking more time--does not nullify
advantages of the opposite.
NEW TAKE. (A specific, horrah.)... You're about to catch a very high
disc, and a marker will be on you in 1/2 second. You will have a huge
handicap, because your cutters can't run out of bounds if you're
forced to your right, and throwing backward will be counterproductive,
plus, your team is generally running forward anyway, and some will
have to turn back and head the wrong way for a dump. Being 'patient'
will put you in a very poor position, even more than the usual
downside of having someone right in front of you forcing you to throw
to your worst option (throwing guarded).
If you perform an in-bounds greatest with a peach/helicopter (forehand
thumber)--as if the disc had flow just out of bounds where you'd be
forced to do this--*anybody* on the field can cut to *anywhere* else
no matter *who* is around, even if they run straight *toward* an
opponent (if they're taller and/or a better jumper and/or better at
reading the disc), because you can throw it over everyone's heads. In
fact, they can just stand in place and not cut at all! This is
especially so if you and your cutter (or "stander") are taller than
the one or two people between both of you. Even if your the shortest
player on the field, it's still possible to do this if you carefully
angle the disc upward so it comes down in an arc exactly where your
cutter/stander will be.
Further, if anyone can sprint forward so that there's nobody inbetween
them and the endzone, the disc can be relayed as far as your reciever
can throw the disc, without any special calculation or need for
accuracy, as long as it's anywhere generally in front of the runner.
Your reciever can practically pull the disc straight into the endzone,
all achieved starting with your poor positioning. If you were closer,
you could have even hurled it there yourself. THAT'S the advantage of
a high 'air-IT' (greatest).
The play is 100% 'accurate' if you do it correctly. You can call any
tough skill in any sport--like dunking--innacurate, for being a hard
skill. If that were true, then you should only play with your best
throw (e.g. backhand, forehand, etc.) and no other. Your objections
are rhetorical. The basic fact that downsides exist has nothing to do
with the balance of benefits vs. downsides. You just can't state
"patience aways pays" without finding a way to back it up.
I can definitely work on clarity with my terminology. However, I
can't toss it out any more than you can flush terms like "swing" or
"handler". E.g., I can't just say "turbo" because people are forced
to ask "well what the hell does that actually mean?" I can't say
"game with a low stall count utilizing instant above-chest throws in
fluid movements" every single time I want to say "2-XS non-IT". It's
perfectly comprehensible basic terminology. XS means "stall count",
IT means "instant throw", they're just acronyms.
Squish / Chet
A) In standard ultimate, to gain benefits of throwing without being
marked.
B) In ultimate with 0 stall count, to do anything at all, and get
exercise.
C) In practice, to increase focus, stamina, and accuracy, through
intensity.
Slade
call any tough skill in any sport--like dunking--innacurate,
for being a hard skill."
Dunking is a pretty high-percentage shot- Certainly higher
than a jump shot.
Is free-throw shooting 100% accurate if you do it
correctly?
Squish / Chet
> more accurate than a typical ultimate throw?
It depends what you practice. My IT-peach (forehand thumber /
helicopter) is better than my still/typical peach, because 99% of the
peaches I've ever thrown have been instants. The inward momentum is
doing a lot of the initial work, so I don't practice the motions
needed to accelerate it from scratch.
> 2. Do you believe that it is easier or harder for a receiver
> to predict where his teammate will throw an IT?
Perhaps around the same. The cutter knows where the disc will be
thrown from, and which grip the thrower will use, as it has to be
launched right when the thrower catches it. Knowing that, the cutter
can just cut normally as they would if the thrower already had the
disc and was being forced by a marker to throw from that side/grip.
(In sequence, though, it becomes very tricky, like bonking pool
balls.)
> 3. Do you believe that it is easier or harder for a defender
> to predict where his opponent will throw an IT?
It's near-impossible for an older or experienced team who's never
defended that way or even heard of it. They'd learn over time,
diminishing the "surprise" advantage turbo play, but they'd have to
defend against turbo regularly to keep up.
Bobus
sweet!
Squish / Chet
Sorry. I don't know much about basketball. What I mean is that
whatever moves/sport you're talking about, there's a complex trade off
between difficulty and benefits. I say over and over, "an IT has the
benefit of throwing unguarded, on a difficult path to intercept", to
counter valid low percentage objections. If someone thinks that's
just plain trivial to sacrifice in general (my fleshed out air-IT
example the epitome of this benefit), there's not much more I can say;
I don't have precise percentages to quote, because they don't exist.
How about the benefit of complex plays and strategies that arise with
multiple ITs? Isn't that something massive that counters lower
percentages?
All this is irrelevant anyway (in general theory). It's only brought
up so much because people have been throwing still throws their entire
lives. If you'd practiced ITs your whole life, you might think
'typical' throws are innaccurate. Hence age is a huge factor in
learning the skills; younger/inexperienced players would pick it up
much, much faster. Yet one more factor to take into account into the
balance: the age of the team/players/sport.
Squish / Chet
That's a great idea, it's something I've been procrastinating though
because I don't want to do it half-ass. I'll step the task up to my
front burner, though.
Squish / Chet
lot is the "thumber forehand" (peach or helicopter) if anyone's
confused. It's as important for above chest as b/h and f/h are for
below chest. Utilizing all throws, you can throw from almost anywhere
around your body you catch the disc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_throws
paul
Want to know how people slow that down all the time? One
word, travel, even if it isn't true. Squirrely handler
throws are useful, sure, but I don't think they are worth
the time investment. I think most people are better off
hitting the weights or the track.
I'll be honest, didn't really read everything you said. I
got the ramble bits and I got bored, as this offense sounds
like a CFH theory as well.
I also think that calling anything "turbo" sounds like an
abs workout with Billy Blanks or something else that sucks
from the eighties. Fail based on naming alone.
Joshua Hartzog
remain a huge part of the game regardless of how good the
throws are because one person can't win the game on their
own.
Slade
arise with
multiple ITs? Isn't that something massive that counters
lower
percentages?"
It depends.
Probability of scoring on a given possession = (Completion %
of Pass 1)*(Average yds gained with Pass 1) + (Comp % of
Pass 2)*Average yds gained with pass 2) + ... to N.
A 75% huck that gains an average of 50 yards if completed
would be a 'better' strategy than throwing a series of 95%
passes that gained 3-5 yards.
For your strategy to improve existing offense, it has to
either increase average yards per completion without
substantially affecting completion percentage, or increase
completion percentage without substantially affecting yards
per completion.
Reggie Fanelli
---throwing without a marker has benefits, sure.
but throwing like you're redirecting a pingpong ball or like you're
hitting a baseball with a bat....are NOT benefits.
yes, i love a quick give and go 'pop out'......but those sort of
passes needn't be performed like hitting a baseball.....and needn't be
performed without a marker
Reggie Fanelli
> A) In standard ultimate, to gain benefits of throwing without being
> marked.
> B) In ultimate with 0 stall count, to do anything at all, and get
> exercise.
> C) In practice, to increase focus, stamina, and accuracy, through
> intensity.
--hey...i saw on sportscenter this morning that Lebron and Dirk are
going to begin ONLY heading inbounds passes towards the rim with their
heads in order to speed up their shot delivery.
the shots may, or may not be as accurate as actually catching the
ball....but they figure that maybe they can get their 'tries' off
faster by just deflecting the ball off their heads.
Reggie Fanelli
> Is free-throw shooting 100% accurate if you do it
> correctly?
---in order to get free throws off quicker with a defender getting to
them, the shooter will now use their knee to deflect the ref's pass to
the shooter directly towards the rim.
Reggie Fanelli
> > Dunking is a pretty high-percentage shot- Certainly higher than a jump shot.
>
> Sorry. I don't know much about basketball.
---you're a goddamned idiot if you couldn't just reply.....'sure,
but....'
"i don't know much about basketball"
moronic.
Slade
'typical' throws are innaccurate."
It may be a function of form more than practice. Would turbo
golfers consider typical golfers to be inaccurate because
they take more time on their shots?
Squish / Chet
every single possible way, and not only that, but rudely. Why don't
you argue the logical point of being rude, at least that might be
productive...
I give three answers to one of your questions--questions I've already
answered ten times anyway--to be polite, so you don't have to go back
through the read the whole thread... you respond by nitpicking the one
reason you don't like--opposed to agreeing "ah, yes, I see *two* of
your points now--by stating the absolutely obvious, which wouldn't
make a point even if they were new, or if I didn't already agree with
you, because a benefit and a downside just cancel each other out,
saying nothing about the balance between them. You back up your claim
with another particular negative, which again, might make a great
point if I didn't already admit that scenarios like this and start the
thread specifically to avoid this form of go-nowhere argument.
If you have nothing better to than claim I'm an idiot for apologizing
that I made a bad point, and use my slip to make *even more* arguments
I can't possibly respond to--pracitcally admitting defeat by default--
you're about 30 steps ahead of me in the "idiot" department, if you'll
forgive me for name-calling for a moment, which I'm mainly just doing
for irony. =P
Squish / Chet
1. You can't place my argument in an epitome situation where it
fails. I can counter with this: if golf were played by someone
tossing the golfer a disc, who had to IT it immediately, then still
throws would be innacurate, yes.
2. Outside ITs (i.e. utilizing only still throws), fast golf can even
out with slower throws if you take into consideration that we have the
ability to throw massive *mental* energy into brief bursts, akin to
the physical energy of sprinting 1/4 mile. E.g... say you're running
for your life in a forest, being chased by [humorous bunch of animals
I don't have the *mental* energy to come up with right now, as I
haven't had any coffee today]. You're fight-or-flight instinct floods
your brain with adrenaline / dopamine / testosterone (or whatever),
which aids your mental energy to dart around trees, mentally map on
the fly, and scan for safety. That's mental navigation, not just
physical, the kind that would let you "squirrel" around a field.
Likewise, if you're carrying a weapon at the same time--you might be
turning around occasionally, putting insane focus into every shot, as
your life depends on distancing yourself from the [fleet of electronic
mutant parakeets on crack.. ugh, I feel tired]... Now just translate:
Gun = disc / Forest = field. So in golf, one might use up 10 seconds
of energy in 2 seconds to throw. In ultimate, a 10 second stall might
be compressed into 2 seconds, leaving one just as exhausted either
way, balancing out (on this point).
A all-IT/turbo goal could be made as fast as the fastest runner can
sprint the length of the field; the squirrel-darting could break
through the defenders. (If players are spread out through the field,
a disc could theoretically be relayed in *faster than it could be
pulled*, as each IT would re-launch the disc.) More mundanely, if it
took 15 seconds even, this would deplete 2 or 3 minutes of usualy
energy. During a longer game, an indefinite string of near-10 stall
counts could be utilized to rest the team and build energy for that
squirrel-darting.
This "energy exchange axiom" (lol) would cancel out many of your
objects when generalized: "there have to be major downsides of
something that sounds too good to be true". This balance gets back to
main point of starting the thread. I'm arguing equal usefulness, not
superiority.
paul
discourse.
I gotta be honest here though, I went back and read what you
are saying, and no, people don't hate your idea because it
destroys the foundations of traditional ultimate. People
mildly dislike your idea because it frankly, sucks. It
reads a lot like my view of the game as a 16-year old
handler.
The bottom line is, generating an open man cutting to an
open space is the mother of all necessity, not generating a
quicker throw. You can have the quickest, most accurate gun
in the country, and it wouldn't matter if there was no
positive yardage man to throw to in the offense. On the
other hand, if you have the most feeble throwers that suck
at accuracy, if you can get wide open upfield, it doesn't
matter. Also, just because you can make the most of really
covered, slow moving cutters with your theoretically better
throws, doesn't mean much.
You are right in that the game is young. Thus, generating
space to throw TO, may still be in it's infancy. New ways
of getting open and making good spaces has not been fully
explored.
Squish / Chet
1. could you elaborate on you dominator/travel comment?
2. Outside of running miles (e.g. if using the track for short
sprints), why would this have any benefit whatsoever to doing the same
thing, except on a field, getting a better workout and develop skills,
since you'd be focusing on ultimate at the same time? Likewise, I
suppose you could weightlift on the fly if you really wanted... carry
a dumbell in your unused hand (lol).
3. What's CFH stand for?
4. Name me a movie trailer or marketing campaign in which the ULTIMATE
[whatever] didn't sound cheesy (hrm...). Actually I agree with you.
Thing is, it's good marketing for one reason: it's memorable, just
like horribly lame jingles. (I'm working on other options.)
Baer
motion offense will wreck traditional Ultimate" or some such
nonsense. You're not more annoying than Frank, it's just a
different style of annoying.
Squish / Chet
football-like, pool-like, chess-like plays--people thinking several
cuts ahead--you could work on strategy more, another benefit. (For an
example where turbo could avoid cutting altogether, see the 3
paragraphs starting with "NEW TAKE" in above post: May 24, 1:30 pm.)
Squish / Chet
I just don't understand making points by saying the opposite of what
I'm saying, or re-stating things I've agreed with... I've explained
fast cutting, elite communication, complex plays utilizing cutting
near-undefendable, and most importantly, plays that *require no
cutting*. The last especially; if I argue plays that get the disc to
anywhere at all without *needing* to cut--in addition to fast and open
cutting--then re-stating something horridly obvious like "an open man
is important" basically admits defeat. If you want to argue against a
scenario or the generals, fine, but re-stating points that have
nothing to do with anything is an argument technique that after 4
threads I'm getting very, very tired of...
Squish / Chet
1. Certain moves that don't even require cutting just plain eliminate
the need for cutting.
2. Complex football/pool/chess plays blast away defense, because the
team communicates in ways the defense is not. The team with a
superior plan can win.
3. Focusing on fast thinking allows cutters to get very, very open in
ways very, very hard for a defending team to counter.
4. If a team doesn't have any experience defending a turbo team--and
the turbo team has much experience playing a non-turbo team--this
multiplies usefulness a trillion fold.
5. Working on sprinting allows the cutters to be physically *faster*
than the defense, in addition to mentally.
6. You can utilize massive energy in small bursts to cut and throw
exactly as accurately as normal.
7. Strategies for food consumption that affect energy are a massive
benefit. The right protein bar, energy drink, shot of sugar, or
espresso can triple all these benefits.
8. The time thinking and calculating you're so passionate about can be
utilized perfectly well by taking multiple 9-s stalls to think and
calculate plays. That's not poor time use at all if it balances out
with turbo plays.
9. The game can work very well if it utilizes people of special brain
types... people great at chess, pool, go, etc. This a whole
intelligence advantage that can't be utilized in standard. In fact,
one super-smart player can augment the whole team's strategies.
Mentally faster + physically faster + better communication +
hyperfocusing ability + superior strategies + turbo food + plays that
don't require cutting + nerd math + thorough utilization of
calculation time = NONTRIVIAL skills to get open. You say "A game
with cutters that can't get open is a bad team". I say, "I agree!"
You say "I win!" (!@#...)
Squish / Chet
this type of math and I'll keep it in mind when developing, but it's
not something I can begin to argue with as I don't have any turbo
stats to quote... thanks, though..
paul
people do things like this, like 3-handler catch-throw
weaves down the field. All you do is call travel, and the
offense stops. It's that easy to shut down. If you are
throwing .02 sec after catching, you appear to be still
running. That is a travel call regardless if it's true or
not.
2. Outside of running miles (e.g. if using the track for
short
sprints), why would this have any benefit whatsoever to
doing the same
thing, except on a field, getting a better workout and
develop skills,
since you'd be focusing on ultimate at the same time?
Likewise, I
suppose you could weightlift on the fly if you really
wanted... carry
a dumbell in your unused hand (lol).
This really shows how much you don't understand sports in
general right here. It is common knowledge in all field
sports communities that weights/plyos and intervals aid
quickness, speed, and vertical leap in a more efficient
manner than just playing due to the precise control of
muscle/cardio workload and tempo. There are large benefits
you will never get without these workouts.
3. What's CFH stand for?
Crazy Frank Hugenard. He had a similar idea to this once
but better articulated. Google motion offense frisbee.
4. Name me a movie trailer or marketing campaign in which
the ULTIMATE
[whatever] didn't sound cheesy (hrm...). Actually I agree
with you.
Thing is, it's good marketing for one reason: it's
memorable, just
like horribly lame jingles. (I'm working on other options.)
No man, trust me, this idea really sucks. I am very
confident in this. It's not revolutionary, it doesn't
threaten the status quo, it just sucks. Part of what makes
it suck is the TLDR crap you post. If you are writing 9
things that summarize an offensive philosophy in a nutshell,
you really suck at communicating.
Squish / Chet
beyond bad sportsmanship. My cousin once complained, "Video games
suck now, you just download the cheat codes and beat it and you're
done."
Practice... that's all fine, all I'm saying is that playing turbo at
the least can be *one* of those ways to increase other skills. You're
just making my point. If you can't agree that doing everything you're
already doing with twice the intensity doesn't enhance all those
skills, all your arguments sound delusional.
>> summarize an offensive philosophy in a nutshell, you really suck at communicating.
I'm just responding to your own absurd summary, "cutters can't get
open in your game". (yes they can / no they can't / yes they
can....). I've covered these points via *novels*, adding new ones
that are self-explanatory. I've made the new point that food can be
utilized.. do you really want me to write a book on the specifics of
food consumption aiding energy and focus? Next time an agnostic gives
me a lecture and an end-summary, I'm going to respond, "You're wrong.
To boot, you really suck at communicating." (!@#)
>> ...you don't understand sports in general..
I never said I did. I come here to learn.
>> It is common knowledge
My whole 'thing' is to refute common knowledge.
Let's review:
1. My game won't work.
2. Cheating will defeat turbo.
3. I communicate poorly.
4. I don't understand things.
5. It's common knowledge I'm wrong.
6. Other people articulate better.
7. I need to trust you.
8. I post crap.
9. Fallacious = summaries of 9
Reggie Fanelli
> every single possible way, and not only that, but rudely. Why don't
> you argue the logical point of being rude, at least that might be
> productive...
---if you're trying to say that i'm right and you're a
dumbass....agreed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I give three answers to one of your questions--questions I've already
> answered ten times anyway--to be polite, so you don't have to go back
> through the read the whole thread... you respond by nitpicking the one
> reason you don't like--opposed to agreeing "ah, yes, I see *two* of
> your points now--by stating the absolutely obvious, which wouldn't
> make a point even if they were new, or if I didn't already agree with
> you, because a benefit and a downside just cancel each other out,
> saying nothing about the balance between them. You back up your claim
> with another particular negative, which again, might make a great
> point if I didn't already admit that scenarios like this and start the
> thread specifically to avoid this form of go-nowhere argument.
---i'd rather be right and blunt and to the point...then to have to
wade thru some dumbassed talk like you write.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If you have nothing better to than claim I'm an idiot for apologizing
> that I made a bad point, and use my slip to make *even more* arguments
> I can't possibly respond to--pracitcally admitting defeat by default--
> you're about 30 steps ahead of me in the "idiot" department, if you'll
> forgive me for name-calling for a moment, which I'm mainly just doing
> for irony. =P
---writing a whole lot and saying nothing doesn't make you a genius.
whatever you're writing about...is dumber than dirt.
deflect a pass like a baseball from first to third.
GENIUS!
....guess again!
Reggie Fanelli
> Ok, fine, gerics hurt your feelings by destroying the
> discourse.
>
> I gotta be honest here though, I went back and read what you
> are saying, and no, people don't hate your idea because it
> destroys the foundations of traditional ultimate. People
> mildly dislike your idea because it frankly, sucks.
---HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
he said your shit sucked!!!!!
yes, he sounds very smart because he used some nice words....
but ya know what he said?
he said that your shit sucks and that your ideas are dumber than hell.
nice.
hey.....imagine trying to teach your stupid shit to some college
teams.....
not gonna happen.
i've taught a bunch of college teams and what i teach is simple AND
makes sense AND can help a team win a National Championship...because
i know it works.
you can name call me "idiotic" all you want.....but what i teach works
and is easy to explain, teach and learn....and your shit sucks!!!!
nip pick THAT bitch!
Reggie Fanelli
---yeah...he said your shit sucks.
Reggie Fanelli
> motion offense will wreck traditional Ultimate" or some such
> nonsense. You're not more annoying than Frank, it's just a
> different style of annoying
--wow...wordier and geekier.
wordier and geekier than even all these wordie geeks on rsd.
nice work!
Reggie Fanelli
> Turbo cutting nutshell:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--give me your nutshell in 8 words or less and let's see how it works.
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---isn't there some STOOPID game where some dorks stand around in a
circle and throw horrible passes to one another....
they leap/hop up in the air and must catch....and throw the disc to
their buddies before landing with the frisbee.....????
you could take some good ultimate players....and make them look like
super doofuses(doofusi?) by forcing them to play this game....
and....that's what you think ultimate should be like?
damn......
GENIUS!!!
Reggie Fanelli
> confident in this. It's not revolutionary, it doesn't
> threaten the status quo, it just sucks. Part of what makes
> it suck is the TLDR crap you post. If you are writing 9
> things that summarize an offensive philosophy in a nutshell,
> you really suck at communicating.
--why so rude?
kidding, of course.
rude is great when well deserved.
9 point summary....
try 9 WORDS!
Slade
I appreciate you taking the time to reason with the posters
and address their points. Your willingness to engage and
share ideas speaks well of your ability to refine and change
your strategic principles so that it can become successful
on the ultimate field.
My questions to this point have been to get at your
underlying premises. Here is a summary of my concerns.
1. I think ITs HAVE to be less accurate than normal throws
by any conventional measure (e.g. aiming at any kind of
target). I don't think you should waste your energy
defending this...
2. If you are throwing very quickly after you catch, one of
two things HAS to be taking place.
A) Your throwing options are very limited, which means that
the defense has a good opportunity of reading where the disc
will be going and move to cut it off.
B) You have many throwing options, but your teammates have
no idea where the heck you will be throwing it, and
therefore will be reacting much the same way as a defender
might ("Good heavens, the disc is going there?? I'll change
my course and try to get their first!")
3. Overhead throws may catch defenders off guard but will
not make them stupid, and they will adjust quickly. Basic
strategies like 'stay between your opponent and the thrower'
will still apply.
4-9. Miscommunication is very likely. Not just on RSD, but
amongst your players on the field.
CBrowning
I doubt has ever played a competitive game of ultimate in
his life, correct? In one of his old threads he cites a
league player as if playing in a league makes you some kind
of an expert. At least Frank has played travelling ultimate
and has some frame of reference for his ideas (bizarre as
they may be). You might as seek out your local youth group
pick-up game and sit down and try and talk ultimate with
them.
paul
why hitting the track is useful. Done now.
Mike L
While in pickup play rapid movement of the disc almost
inevitably will destroy the relatively disorganized defenses
that you see, at higher levels of play defenses are quite
savvy and will have multiple methods to force turnovers off
your quick throws, or slow you down, or both. This can be
accomplished through good communication and help defense in
a man-to-man scheme, or by throwing zone or junk defenses
that create the illusion of a quick open throw, but with a
poacher nearby to defend.
Squish / Chet
can create from scratch. The weakness of your experience is that you
have less credibility for being objective There's a notable writer
who would put an entire drafted book on the shelf for one year, and
then come back to it to see it more objectively. I'm looking
objectively at what the standard community has come up with, but
you've been writing and reading your book and no other literature
your whole lives. I am intimate with the construction and evolution
of structured plays, I don't have to know your precise ones. You're
alluding to 50 years of experience in order to shut down a proposal
for skills astronomically undeveloped. It's absurd to claim, "with 50
years of evolution, turbo would not generate strategies that would
beat ours". You can't argue "our experience doesn't make us
subjective".
The debate takes *creative* thought. You have to imagine how you
would *adapt* your current strategies to a whole new offensive
strategy. Saying, "Our standard zone and junk defenses are already
equipped to handle strategies out of the ballpark of for what they
were developed; they're THAT good" is just silly. You continue to
gravitate back toward your particulars and only argue with things that
offend your strategies. My response, rhetorically, is "Why wouldn't
the game I propose naturally develop new, impressive offenses to beat
those defenses?" You can't say, "Trust us, they wouldn't!" any more
than I can state, "Trust me; I'm good at radically blowing away
established notions, no matter what my level knowledge of what's
involved" as an argument. (I do claim this, but stating the opinion
doesn't back it.)
RSD>> "miscommunication is likely",
Me>> "After some creative thought, I've come up with a defense, as
this is a great criticism. What about precise, pre-planned plays,
achieved via a fusion of dynamic off-field thought--countering your
criticism about not taking time to think, in addition--and real-time
play refinement via play set-up using a series of 9-second hold times,
utilizing an evolved hand signal system?"
RSD>> "miscommunication is likely".
Me>> wtf!@#?
RSD>> "throwing is innacurate"
Me>> "Alright, how about the idea of compressing the mental energy
that you would utilize over 2 seconds into a 1/2 second burst,
depleting yourself of the same energy 4 times as fast? You could even
use vitamin and calorie consumption as a strategy, fueling and timing
that burst of energy?"
RSD>> "throwing is innacurate"
Me>> ???
If I draw out a lengthy scenario in which I claim cutting is
completely unnecessary, you have to tear apart the argument/scenario,
not just re-state what is absolutely obvious in addition to being
something I've agreed with since the dawn of time 70 threads and 5
theory re-formulations ago. To even bring it up is just forfeiting
your entire ability to debate at all. We could be talking about
bagels and cream cheese, and any logician would still be shaking their
heads that you're not actually arguing anything.
I've drawn out scenarios for 3+ paragraphs that you simply respond,
"No, that wouldn't work." If you don't have *time* to defend your
points, that's absolutely fine, but you can't use that as a reason
you're correct. You allude to that I must trust your experience,
hence you can respond to elaborate scenarios with, "That wouldn't
work, trust me, I've read your argument." I'm not asking your obvious
basic opinion, I'm asking for you to creatively defending your
strategies so I can learn more and we can have a productive debate.
You claim "a game optimized for a 1/4-second stall count would have no
benefit to 10-XS ultimate", but this sounds intrinsically silly.
A no-cutting-necessary scenario--where you could just stand in place
and throw to each other--would torpedo anything you could possibly
criticize about cutting and communication, and it's only one
particular scenario I've come up with. It's downside--that it would
be very very very difficult--is not worth pointing out. As just one
point, I offer, "well, you can double your practice time learning this
as you basically wouldn't have to work on cutting at all", and "this
would surprise a team not used to defending against it". Hence, you
must argue, "the benefit of a team that requires no cutting and
entirely eliminates the defense does not balance out with the
difficulty of learning this strategy, even with triple the practice
time, as you'd have to work on little else". That's fine, but you
can't just repeat this verbatim, nor state random things I agree with.
You argue: "The ability to relay a disc without stopping or switching
grips, and to know exactly where everyone will be--and/or to
eliminating cutting entirely (depending on which skill set to work
on)--would not compete with the defensive strategies that standard
ultimate players would develop to defend against those types of
techniques." It's a perfectly debatable argument and there are many
ways to do it--you could attack my loft "undefendable" scenario, for
instance--but you can't.. just.. re-state your opinions, tell me I
should trust you're right, and bring up the epitome, obvious, admitted
downsides...
I do greatly appreciate your time and help, and it's integral to my re-
formulation on-field, online, and in theory. If you believe that
evolution would not compete against 10-XS, non-fluid (standard)
ultimate, why not just say, "Ah, a version of ultimate based in high-
level speed and focus sounds like a great endeavor. I'd like to how
elite players would master those skills and pit against one another.
Integrating the mental challenge of football, pool, and chess, into
ultimate, is also a fascinating endeavor."
My entire founding point of starting this thread is "What's so great
about 10 seconds? What's wrong with a version of ultimate with 2
seconds? Or no stall at all?" You're worst argument is that 10
seconds is exclusive to a productive, competitive disc-based sport. I
ask, "Why should the most elite players in the nation / on earth use
their time maxing out a 10-XS game, when they could be developing
skills for a 2-XS or 0-XS game? With more complex strategies, a more
interesting game to watch may emerge, or certainly equally valuable to
non-fluid 10-XS."
My argument of the value of 2-XS in 10-XS is *sketchy*, yes, but I've
improved the comparison along the course of this thread by developing
ways 2-XS could utilize the extra 8 seconds. The basic intrinsic
objection it, "10-XS would optimize for that time, and a 2-XS team
would not be using that extra time". Hence, you helped me come up
with, "A 2-XS-optimized team could utilize multiple 9-XS possession
times to form plays ahead of time that utilize that extra time." And
that's *only* in the debate of comparing the two sports. That 2-XS-
optimal skill set would dominate--or at the absolute least be integral
to--a game with 2-XS rules is impossibly unarguable. And in 0-XS,
your general rule set would just be plain illegal. And you still
can't defend opposing the value of the exact same sport except sans a
stall count.
Once more.
Reality > Ultimate evolved purely with a stall count of 10.
Ponder > How would it have evolved with a count of 0 or 2?
(Keep in mind that elite players that use a fraction of a 10 stall
count now would have evolved to use a fraction of a 2 stall count,
hence you can't quote the elite games as an argument against the
entire general idea.)
You're like the veteran Star Trek fans who object to its new re-
formulation because everything that's being re-formulated violates
continuity of the established franchise...(I admit that analogy
doesn't belong on RSD)..lol..
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---this is a discussion group......who are you discussing this with?
you've got a novel and a half....not part of a discussion posted here!
9 words or less....here i go.....
zone Offense regardless, instant passes always.
6 words.
is that what you want ultimate to become?
zone offense regardless....immediate instant passes always?
does that sum up your horrible writings?
Squish / Chet
development. People at all skill levels have argued baseball and
football strategies and statistics for half their lives; at parties,
in books, online, on radio, in the professional world.... That
discussion often involves generals, and often particulars; clearly, a
sport re-formulation produces both types of discussion. You can
definitely say, "I don't have time to theorize about no-stall-count
ultimate", but you can't state "No-stall-count ultimate would be
stupid, and trust me, I could explain why if I had the time."
(Note if you played without stall counts you'd have more time to
debate..grin))
Squish / Chet
stall counts R STOOPID
3 words and the letter R.
Reggie Fanelli
>
> stall counts R STOOPID
---whoa....hold up.
allllllll the words you've been typing....are you expressing the
opinion that there shouldn't be stall counts in the sport of ultimate?
that's all you want....to abolish the stall count?
why do you want to abolish the stall count?
any COOL NORMAL person...would prefer that the sport abolish the
ground tap....because THAT makes sense...to get rid of something so
useless and senseless....
but you want to abolish the stall count.
you want a thrower to have unlimited time to throw...BUT you want
instant passes like redirecting a baseball from first to third....
why abolish the ground tap, if you want instant deflections?
Reggie Fanelli
>
> stall counts R STOOPID
>
> 3 words and the letter R.
---let me applaud you for posting something that is READABLE!!!!!
Squish / Chet
Squish / Chet
structure.
Reggie Fanelli
--oh....well....then that is absolutely stupid.
man...why in the hell would you believe that a thrower should NOT be
allowed to hold the disc?
you've seen soccer before right?
have you played?
have you been on a team?
have you been on a team where a coach, at practice, or in a game,
required that you play/scrimmage ONE TOUCH.
it's a great way to practice...but when game time comes along....it's
not at all possible to compete in an entire game playing only one
touch.....because eventually, you'll have to trap the ball, or
dribble, or fake one way and go the other....
one touch is great...when you can do it....but other times...it's not
feasible.
not all basketball shots are ally oop dunks.
sometimes, someone has to dribble the ball up court.
basketball players are allowed 10 sec to cross the midcourt stripe....
basketball players are allowed 5 seconds of holding the ball or
dribbling while closely guarded(6feet).......why in the world would
you think giving an ultimate thrower ZERO seconds to throw a pass is a
good idea?
zero hold time....is a dumb idea.
sorry.
why do you think ZERO seconds to hold the disc is a good idea?
what do you see coming of that?
Reggie Fanelli
> structure.
---worst thing to discuss....is argument structure....unless someones
posting method simply makes it impossible to figure out what the hell
they are refering to with all their words.
and....all those words...shit....who cares about all of 'em.
this is a discussion group.....not an essay club or book club.
damn.
Reggie Fanelli
> In light of Harold Camping's failure to predit the end of the world,
> I've decided to sympathize by continuing my own haphazard journey
> toward radical-idea vindication. I brought my ideas awhile back to
> RSD, with which I received feedback integral to their revision and
> evolution. The threads came out trollesque because intrinsically my
> theories are hostile to the structure of standard ultimate. Since I
> can't prove these debates are invaluable to me, please only consider
> responding to the following if you find some sort of purpose in such a
> debate.
>
> Nutshell Theory > Mastering all throw types allows versatility to
> relay the disc instantly from any position, trivializing defense.
> Absorbed Points > Haste hinders accuracy; speed spawns riskiness;
> calculating quickly creates turnovers, hindering offense.
> New Formulation > Energy put into a skill-set optimized for a stall
> count of X is just as well-spent as into >X, for game >X.
>
> Call a variable stall count "XS" (X-Stall, X-Speed, etc). At XS = 10,
> your opposition sounds crippling sans a better base to debate with
> you, which as a lowly pickup player, I'm still developing. @ 2 or 3,
> turbo play crystalizes, and since I learn a lot by defending
> creatively, I challenge you to re-defend your skill system and way of
> playing in light of this new template. Why is XS2 play not perfectly
> beneficial given it fits into XS10?
>
> Please don't snowball specifics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--so....all this gobble-dee-gook from your first post COULD HAVE just
read.....
to replace first paragraph....
"i've been thinking"
to replace the rest....
"abolish the stall count altogether"
Squish / Chet
Alright...
Basketball... I have mathematician friend on the super-elite (Harvard+
+) level you guys like. He designed a basketball game utilizing
utilizing 4 balls/hoops, but what was he going to do, reform the NBA?
In other situations, people might have played it. You're
**instinctive**, predictable reaction is: "Blah, they'd all run into
each other!", in the exact way someone would have said if they
described the game of basketball we play now. Turbo is no different.
Anything *physically possible* creates something intrinsically worth
the time, if all the play involved progresses towards doing better and
better *within those rules*.
Squish / Chet
Metallica>> Sans death and sand, life would be bland!
Jesus>> Be nice. My dad rocks. I'm the bomb y'all.
Camping>> Sucks to be you, on May 22, peace out.
Clinton>> I do not have sexual relations with cliches.
Buddhism>> Eat what the *** you want, just meditate.
Reggie>> Stacking sans stalling is stoopid, yep-yep..
They're all perfectly good nutshells. I just disagree =(