Women and Hammers
KRDo...@gmail.com
I'll take the most immediate one. I was just thinking that in my
experience, the hammer is much more prevalent in men's ultimate than
in women's, and I wasn't really sure why. Is this the case for other
people? Anybody know why?
-Donnie
Max
Jesse
textbook whereas men have a tendency to play more...improvisationally
so to speak. So when the game is about high percentage throws,
hammers are out.
Manzell
> I don't want to make any "sexist" generalizations here, but most women
> can't throw them very well...
>
> I know many women that can throw hammers (20-40 yards accurately) but
> most girls I've seen try don't put enough force into them. A lot tend
> to hold the disc above their head and then just flick it; you really
> need more of a baseball throw or tennis serve motion to get more on
> it.
>
> Throw it like you mean it.
Well, I think we all know that women can't throw as far as the men do.
So it's not as much an issue of skill or technique or practice as it
is a matter of mass and strength.
And unlike a forehand or backhand, a hammer without enough juice on it
is essentially worthless.
Manzell
I suspect the women not throwing big hammers is just as prevalent in D-
level League play as it is in high level club play. There are
thousands of guys out there who can throw a big hammer. Heck, I had a
high school teammate who could regularly pull 70+ yds with his hammer,
despite being essentially mediocre at best at every other ultimate-
related skill.
Joe Buck
Rhett
but they don't practice them either. It's almost as if the girlies
are more disciplined in warmup throwing.. I throw 20 forehand and
backhand and slip into hucks or hammers to keep it interesting.. girls
(obv. a generalization) appear to dutifully work out their flicks and
backhands forever.
KRDo...@gmail.com
See, the only thing I could think of was that women aren't as large
and can't cover as much ground in the same time, and since the hammer
often is not the most precise of throws, a man's ability to cover
ground could make up for the mistakes where a woman's size might not
allow her to do the same thing. But to me, the different didn't seem
pronounced enough to warrant it. I know girl's who have hammers, but I
just don't see them thrown in game very often.
There was a lefty chick at High Tide last year who wore pants all the
time who my team affectionately heckled as Pants for the duration of
the weekend, including during an amazing and high spirited game her
team played. Point of this anecdote is that during the Hat Tourney,
she was ripping those lefty hammers all over the place. It really
caught me off guard.
Any ladies wanna chime in?
-Donnie
kelcie
qualified to respond...
here's the thing though- i haven't ever really played women's
ultimate, and i'm not a handler. as a deep, i'm usually catching the
hammers rather than throwing them. so perhaps mine is not the
perspective this discussion really needs.
in any case, i apparently conform to the stereotype, in that i hardly
ever throw hammers when i do have the disc. there's a couple reasons
for this. i have decent range on my hammer, but i can put both my
forehand and backhand further and more accurately. i feel like the
hammer is comparatively low-percentage, so i'd rather not throw it if
i can use the flick or backhand instead. also, when i'm playing open
and being guarded by a 6' guy, a hammer is not such a great idea. so
i guess for me, failure to throw a hammer in a game is more about
making smart throws than anything else. i suppose it's possible that
women's teams rely on them less because women can be smaller targets,
but someone who actually plays on a women's team will have to answer
that one.
-k
Ruthie
I throw them sparingly. But when I do, they better be good! I'm not
particularly a huge fan of hammers in a competitive game (especially
trying to catch them), but every once in a while I get the urge and
whoa...out comes a hammer! And most of the time I've had success. I do
practice my hammers at pick-up and when I'm throwing around. I want to
make sure I can at least throw one if the need arises. So...I say we
women throw our share of hammers...perhaps we're just a little more
discerning about when and where.
Keith
> i have decent range on my hammer, but i can put both my
> forehand and backhand further and more accurately. i feel like the
> hammer is comparatively low-percentage, so i'd rather not throw it if
> i can use the flick or backhand instead. also, when i'm playing open
> and being guarded by a 6' guy, a hammer is not such a great idea.
Do you think it's generally easier for a better thrower (one with
hammers) to get a break throw (flick or backhand) off against the
mark? Easier marks or at least easier compared to the ability of the
thrower in women's ultimate?
jtau...@gmail.com
speaking from playing on a women's college team, i think probably the
idea that women's games being more controlled is probably the main
reason. although, i am also 5 foot 2, so that is definitely another
factor. however, i've thrown my share of hammers and seen quite a few
being thrown (mainly in zone), so it's certainly something women can
do, but is most often unnecessary.
in response to the helping with breaking...i don't think you need to
be able to hammer at all to break. i rarely fake a hammer and i don't
really find breaking flick or backhand to be difficult.
Ma$e
Thaddeu...@gmail.com
> Don't throw hammers to women, the spin confuses them.
Something's wrong with your hammer if it's confusing people.
Baer
play) who throw a good hammer. In fact, I even taught my wife, who
rarely plays and doesn't care too much for Ultimate, to throw a decent
hammer, and she got the hang of it much faster than she did her
forehand. However, I have rarely seen women use hammers in game
situations, but that's mostly because in the co-ed leagues I have
played in, the girls are typically not handlers. In some fun games
where we have done mandatory upside-down throws for the entire point,
I've seen some pretty good hammers from the ladies.
arc...@gmail.com
those replying, you have not met Meg Hofner (13) from Illinois. She
uses her hammer all the time. She probably has a better hammer than
you, no offense and no joke.
Bob Koca
Does anyone have data about completion %ages for open vs women? The
last college
finals really jumps out at me as going against the statement that
women's ultimate is much more controlled.
Bob Koca
Mark Ratkiller
the original poster's *conjecture* that women throw fewer hammers than
men.
I suppose I can speculate on reasons why just as well as anyone else,
but the fact is that no one here knows if that is true.
Speaking of which, why do you think men throw fewer hammers than
women? I would guess that it's because they're more disciplined with
the disc resulting from less women crazies floating in their heads.
And why do women throw fewer hammers than men? Well, they just lack
the arm strength to complete the throws with any accuracy, and because
they're women.
Byron Hicks
"Mark Ratkiller" <mratk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:569b5dfb-bda9-4a81...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sara Jacobi
i feel qualified to answer. if a situation calls for a hammer, and i
have the disc, i will throw one. if a situation calls for a hammer,
and my teammate has the disc, my teammate will throw one to me.
in fact, here is photographic evidence from last weekend. #1, (the
shortest girl on the field) threw this great hammer to me for a
score.
http://www.pbase.com/bobpics/image/93138226
case closed!
zaebo...@yahoo.com
Nothing applies more aptly to a discussion of trends like a single
picture.
cole
girls cant throw hammers. its science.
BMaster
> girls cant throw hammers. its science.
That's true, I saw it on Sports Science last Sunday on FSN.
Sara Jacobi
> Nothing applies more aptly to a discussion of trends like a single
> picture.
Sure, if by "discussion of trends" you mean sweeping generalizations
based on stereotypes that are created and maintained by people who
don't play -- or have very little experience with -- women's ultimate
(men).
cole
ur just mad u have little experience (women) at throwing hammers
danfri...@gmail.com
> Sure, if by "discussion of trends" you mean sweeping generalizations
> based on stereotypes that are created and maintained by people who
> don't play -- or have very little experience with -- women's ultimate
> (men).
The stereotypes aren't created by men, they're created by reality.
That's great if you know a woman who can throw a hammer - nobody said
they can't throw them, just that they are less likely too.
In 8 years of playing coed, I've only played with a few women who
would throw hammers in games, and I'm talking about maybe one or two
hammers a weekend. Played with lots & lots of guys who would though,
and personally I've been known to throw numerous in a single game. I
don't think we need a scientific study on this...it's a readily
apparent generalization.
That being said, I'm not comfortable with *anyone* throwing hammers if
they aren't a regular part of their warmup Saturday morning.
jacob...@gmail.com
1) You don't need to be a woman or have have played women's Ultimate
to testify to this pattern. Kind of like how women (regardless of
whether they play Ultimate) are perfectly qualified to observe that
male Ultimate players are more likely to get into arguments on the
field than women are.
2) It is definitely not due to women's Ultimate being "more
controlled" than men's Ultimate. On the whole, women commit more
turnovers than men. Don't get all mad on me, you know it's true.
3) It may be due to the fact that girls in our society generally do
not grow up playing sports like football and baseball which require an
overhand throwing motion, and it is an awkward motion to learn in late
adolescence or early adulthood (when most learn to play Ultimate),
even for very athletic people.
4) Anecdotes about a couple of women who throw lots of hammers are not
especially relevant.
5) This is a pattern which will not last.
Feetch
Sara,
you can't say case closed by posting one example. thats hardly a
large enough sample to draw on.
also, to the women saying "i'm a woman who plays ultimate so i'm
qualified to speak on this subject" i would have to disagree, thats
just ridiculous. its like saying "i'm a member of the human race so
i'm qualified to speak on the human genome project" (which i am not,
qualified that is). the fact is, to be qualified to speak on this
subject, one needs to be a meticulous spectator of women's AND men's
ultimate and have statistics regarding percentages of hammer throws
per throw attempts over a period of time. your assertion that this is
a stereotype by men about women's ultimate is an interpretation of the
topic. If you'll notice, the first post in this thread refers to a
statistical question regarding the prevalence (or lack thereof) of the
hammer throw in women's ultimate, this is not a stereotype, it is
what's called an observation. now, to take offense to any of the
subsequent ridiculous posts is in fact, silly. You surely must
recognize that the internet as a medium for seriousness is an
impossibility, add to that the nature of this group (ultimate) and you
have to admit the fact that you expected any sort of serious debate or
discussion here is kind of silly. the fact that you accuse this
discussion specifically of being "ridiculous" is hilarious, because
look at the majority of threads on this public forum, would you not
classify them as "ridiculous" as well? To be quite frank (or is using
masculine name/words sexist? implying that a woman cannot be frank?
gasp!), i have to accuse you of being silly.
Now, to tackle this ridiculous topic of women-throwing-hammers: As per
my observations (and i'm not claiming to be qualified to discuss this
subject) the hammer throw is thrown more in mens games than womens
games. for example, if there are 100 pass attempts in a mens game, 15
would be hammers. in a womens game, per 100 pass attempts 5 would be
hammers. (those statistics are 100% accurate and backed up by
Ultivillage COTD's) (that was a lie)
my hypothesis as to why this happens: the hammer throw is more similar
to an overhand baseball or softball throw. At the higher levels of
baseball and softball, it is easier for a woman to make it big (due to
the saturation of the market in baseball for the men) this means that
many more women with overhand throwing experience go on to play
softball in college as compared to men playing baseball beyond little
league. combine this with the fact that most people pick up ultimate
in college, and you have a dearth of overhand throwing women playing
ultimate. QED. well, not quite, but you have to admit that its
plausible and not at all sexist.
second hypothesis:
looking at the post-college nationals UPA magazine you'll notice
statistics from the Finals Games. when looking at these charts you'll
notice the huge difference in turnovers from the mens game (wisc vs
colorado) to the womens game. as mentioned earlier in this thread,
the hammer throw is generally recognized (even if not universally
agreed upon as) a lower percentage throw. thus, it would make sense
to me that since womens teams turn the disc over more as it is, they
would try to limit the hammer throw because of its lower percentage of
completion.
i think those are two legitimate (although one is kind of silly)
hypotheses to explain this independently-observed phenomenon of women
throwing less hammers than men.
KRDo...@gmail.com
Actually, if you go back and read my post, I pretty clearly state in
this is from my personal experience. In fact, I even asked if this was
the case for others, implying that I didn't in fact think that this
would be true for all people.
I've played with and against tons of fantastic women's players,
including some of the best women currently playing, and I have no
doubt about their ability to make a good hammer throw. I'm just saying
that in my experience watching women's ultimate, I haven't seen a ton
of hammers.
-Donnie
bbz...@gmail.com
My ex-girl needs Hammer Anonymous. Hammer-enamored, that girl.
Charlie Katie Mercer
Now, before you attack me for being sexist (I'm female and a women's
studies major to boot), think about it. I don't throw hammers as
frequently in women's because (unfortunately, and particularly at the
college level) my receivers are not as adept at catching them. Now,
this certainly does not apply to ALL women's, but if women are
learning at lower levels of competition (generally a true statement),
and those women don't catch hammers as consistently, they won't be
completed as frequently and subsequently, thrown less. The habit
formation from one's initial experiences can be pretty strong,
although can be overturned.
From personal experience, I am definitely more likely to put up a
hammer when playing mixed club vs. playing women's, but as we've
already established, one person's experience does not a general trend
make.
2) Societal Upbringing (You know it was a matter of time till someone
went there.)
The other thing to consider is general attitude towards hammers/other
behaviors constructed as "risky". I don't believe I've ever been flat
out encouraged to throw a hammer. They have been characterized as
"risky", "low percentage" and generally not worth doing. (And yes, it
usually is just as easy for me to break.) The argument that men are
encouraged to be more of the "risk takers" in our society has roots,
both from observations and scientific studies. (Try this article if
you're curious. Or google something to the effect of "risk taking
gender differences" and tell me what you come up with.)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-3920%28198204%2953%3A2%3C426%3ASDICRB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=SMALL&origin=JSTOR-reducePage
I'm not saying this is an absolute or irrefutable, and I'm not saying
that this is how "things should be", however, I am commenting on the
general state of our society at present. If men are more likely to be
risk takers and hammers are constructed as risky, then men are more
likely to throw hammers.
I'm not trying to turn RSD into a massive gender discussion, but when
you ask a gendered question....
ulticritic
> 1) You don't need to be a woman or have have played women's Ultimate
> to testify to this pattern.
As a closet sexist i've got to chime in here. First i'm somewhat
shocked that people are that blaitintly sexist within the ultimate
community. Which i have no problem with, in fact it pleases me. Just
cant figure why people stand up for the gays so much but not the
women......go figure. Anyway i would assume that if a woman has some
backround in playing softball she can probably throw a decent hammer.
I guess most women ultimate players just dont have that backround.
What do you expect, before they played ulti they were just your
girlfriend.........which reminds me of a joke; "do you know what they
call that fleshy mass that surounds a vagina?? answer at the
bottom....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of like how women (regardless of
> whether they play Ultimate) are perfectly qualified to observe that
> male Ultimate players are more likely to get into arguments on the
> field than women are.
Now to the interesting part of this post......
FINNALY WE ARE SCRATCHING THE SURFACE!!!. Why do men argue in ulti
more than men. Well let me clue ya in.......The rules (specifically
sotg.....ultimates' blanket rule) were made by A WOMAN. Thats why
they are better suited for women. So men, wake up and start playin
with a set of rules that are suited for A MAN!!!!! Cant you people
see this? Can it get any clearer????? Just take a good hard look at
this sport.......guys wearin skirts, spirit circles (and now spirit
scores), coed comp, do-overs when conflicts arise. Is this a sport or
a womens support group????
You guys have the balls to slam women for bein women yet you are blind
to the notion, and extreamly defensive, when getting called out or
getting slammed for acting like women yourself. Sure, recently people
have knocking it(ulti and its rules) as gay.......but thats just slang
for girlie......not sexual-wise but rather gender-wise (see how these
dynamics overlap?)
So have some pride men. Take back your sport and play it like REAL
MEN with REAL RULES.
answer to joke; "A WOMAN"
wanie...@gmail.com
hammers in mens than womens, this is the case.
From my observations (which are completely open to being completely
wrong), guys simply play the game at a greater height than girls,
because we are generally taller. Guys are more likely to throw hucks
that are really high and float down, counting on his reciever to go up
and get it. Guys are more likely to throw high arcing blades. Women
are more likely to throw a flat leading throw for the target to run on
to.
2 reasons.
1. Because guys are taller and generally jump much higher, there is
more vertical space that is a legitimate target for a throw. You can
make a throw to me that is 9 feet off the ground and most guys can
catch it. Not so much with girls.
2. Guys are stronger, making it easier to throw the higher throwers.
How this relates to hammers:
Since hammers are a very high throw that descends to the thrower, it
is much easier to complete to a target with a larger vertical target
area.
Maybe?
Feetch
ulticritic
> Ignroing ulticritic,
why? panties too tight? Let just hope the rest of you arent as
pussified to where you can accept and face the TRUTH!!......and
respond to it.
annam...@gmail.com
going to bother responding, but I can't believe no one has suggested
this yet...
How come there has to be a reason that is related to women's vs. men's
abilities on the field? Isn't it possible that the difference simply
results from the fact that the two are different sports and evolved
differently? Ever since women's ultimate split off from "open"
ultimate, the two sports have had different players, different
leaders, different people influencing their development. Yes, there
is some overlap, yes, the games have the same origins, but the paths
that the two have taken since their initiation have been very
different. Perhaps women throw fewer hammers because the hammer throw
was introduced to their sport later. Perhaps they had fewer people
who were interested in teaching it to other players. Maybe, just as a
result of random chance, fewer people started throwing hammers in
games so it wasn't seen by most players, or considered a useful or
necessary throw. Perhaps more women realized that simply breaking the
mark was higher percentage and a smarter choice.
The point is that it doesn't have to be related at all to the fact
that women are smaller, have less shoulder strength, aren't taught to
throw overhanded throws at a young age, are trained by society to take
fewer risks, etc etc. And I'm not saying that all of those things (to
the extent that they are actually valid generalizations) might play a
factor. But I think it's more likely that the absence of a hammer in
much of women's ultimate is related to random fluctuations in the
influences the sport had.
Women being "bad" at catching hammers is a consequence of the lack of
hammers thrown in women's ultimate, not a cause. So is the fact that
most women don't have good hammers or have poorer throwing mechanisms
for hammers. Just because two things are correlated (e.g. someone
being a women and being bad at throwing hammers), that doesn't mean
the two are even related at all, much less that one causes the
other.
One final comment: as a female handler who has a hammer and has played
primarily women's ultimate for the past 4 years, from what I've seen
I'd say that yes, the statement that the hammer is less prevalent in
women's ultimate is probably true. However, I've seen it increasing,
not as a break throw for a score, or a huge yard gainer to a wing in
the zone (as it's usually seen in open ultimate, at least in my
experience), but as a throw over the cup to uncovered poppers in the
zone. Now you can make all sorts of comments about how women are less
comfortable breaking the cup regularly because they lack confidence in
their abilities to do so, or about how that's a natural evolution
since women can't throw as far as men, or any other of a variety of
wide, sweeping, unsupported generalizations. But I propose to you
that the reason that the hammer is coming into women's ultimate in
that way instead of the way it came into open ultimate is the same
that I suggested previously--that the sports have taken different
paths and have different influences, and that by a series of random
influences (both that it's taught to women as a shorter throw, and
also that a larger number of players realized its effectiveness and
started using it regularly) that's how the hammer has begun to evolve
into women's ultimate. No sweeping sexist generalizations required.
Busty
Claremont #25
P.S. Whoever cited open finals vs. women's finals as proof that women
turn the disc over more than men, you obviously have no knowledge of
statistics. Two games don't make a case.
P.P.S. Whoever made that comment about that girl from Illinois, holy
crap. Best hammer I've ever seen in women's ultimate, and puts to
shame most that I've seen in open ultimate, too.
ulticritic
hammer schmammer......who gives a fuck. At least you argue less.
Isnt that somthing to be proud of?
And didnt this thread change topics? Because.....FUCK, the silence is
deafening
> > respond to it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
raymie_y
> I think its sexist to stereotype men as "risk takers"
Feetch,
There are actually several studies that have found that women are more
risk averse in financial decisions than men. Whether this is the
causal factor or the result; there is empirical evidence in several
peer reviewed studies. Being that I am not a psychologist,
sociologist, psychiatrist (or any other ist for that matter) or a
women's study major, I must stand on the shoulders of giants.
Maybe Charlie Katie Mercer could shed some light upon this because I
think she is more of a SME than I am on the subject.
For what it is worth, these studies were primarily focused upon risk
inherent in investments and gambling so there maybe no direct
correlation to ultimate. Maybe the auto insurance industry has some
better numbers on risk inherent in automobile accidents but it might
have the same correlation to ultimate that financial decisions do.
One such study, google for more.
http://www.afcpe.org/doc/Vol%2071.pdf
Also, I see a lot of men and women being discouraged from throwing
hammers with equal results. Hammers are being practiced less which
correlates into less hammers being thrown in games (or really bad
hammers being thrown) whether it is male or female.
benlw...@gmail.com
male player.
If you believe that, then you have to accept that the field is
effectively when women's teams are playing. It would be like men
playing on a (initial estimate) 90-yard playing field proper. With a
50-yard wide field. And 32 yard endzones.
Were you to play a Men's game on this larger field, the use of the
hammer would diminish considerably. Since the defense can no longer
cover as much of the field, there is less reason to try 'risky' throws
to break through the defense or go over it. Similarly, if you play a
women's game on a shortened field (say, 55-by-30 with 15 yard
endzones...all of the sudden, you start to see more hammers.
[Why do I know this? Because in my coaching experience I have had my
teams work with both kinds of field, with both genders, on numerous
occassions and with varying skill levels.]
I also know that other sports (most notably soccer) acknowledge this
same descrepancy in average speed and change field sizes accordingly.
Heck, if women's basketball was played on 9-foot hoops, it would be
more like men's basketball...which wouldn't make it better, just more
similar. This is because the average male player is taller than the
average female player.
By the way...there are a lot more hammers in men's games. But that
doesn't necessarily mean that many more men throw hammers in
meaningful situations. It might mean that the few men that DO throw
hammers well are encouraged to throw them often (again, due to the
nature of the O v D balance).
About turnovers...I am fairly confident (having looked at the
statistics but not having them in front of me) that women's finals
have higher numbers of turnovers, on average, than men's finals.
However, if you adjust for the size of the field, that difference is
minimized or even non-existent. "Numbers of turnovers per point" may
be higher, but "turnovers per effective yard normalized by average
speed" may be similar.
As is probably obvious, I could have made this same argument using
average throw distance...the combined effect is probably the real
reason we see such different strategy.
benlw...@gmail.com
> If you believe that, then you have to accept that the field is
KRDo...@gmail.com
See, this is just as much what I was looking for as any physical
explanation. I think it's an interesting point and one I had not
considered. I'm glad to have heard someone say it.
For the record, Charlie Katie Mercer has a hammer of her own, I done
see it with my own eyes.
-Donnie
Bob Koca
>
> P.S. Whoever cited open finals vs. women's finals as proof that women
> turn the disc over more than men, you obviously have no knowledge of
> statistics. Two games don't make a case.
>
OMFG.
Here is what I wrote: "Does anyone have data about completion %ages
for open vs women? The
last college finals really jumps out at me as going against the
statement that
women's ultimate is much more controlled."
Obviously I was asking for more data and nowhere said those 2 games
are proof. I know 2 games do not make a case.
I do think it is true though that the women's division has more
turns than open. Since it apparently pissed you off enough to make a
blatant overrepresentation of my original statement and make a
blatantly false statement of my statistics knowledge should one guess
that you disagree?
Bob Koca
Feetch
labeled as risk takers, i'm not an over-sensitive twat
ulticritic
> There are actually several studies that have found that women are more
> risk averse in financial decisions than men. Whether this is the
> causal factor or the result; there is empirical evidence in several
> peer reviewed studies. Being that I am not a psychologist,
> sociologist, psychiatrist (or any other ist for that matter) or a
> women's study major, I must stand on the shoulders of giants.
uhm....i wonder what studies show about womens ability to resolve
conflict better than men.
AND
Isnt this somthing worthy of touting. Isnt that what ultimate is
really about....showing good spirit? Why is nobody (women) proudly
waiving the spirit flag here. You defend your natural atheletic
inferiorities yet you refrain from flourishing your spiritual
superiority?????? Uhm, maybe having spirit isnt all that big of a
deal after all.
AND
does nobody have the balls (or overies) to openly discuss this
topic.......Guys playing by girl rules.
ulticritic
.
> Heck, if women's basketball was played on 9-foot hoops, it would be
> more like men's basketball...which wouldn't make it better
it might......theyd definitely be dunkin, which is one of the more
entertaining aspects of the game.
ulticritic
> labeled as risk takers, i'm not an over-sensitive twat
you sure?........just fuckin wit cha (sarcasm)
Frank Huguenard
>
> About turnovers...I am fairly confident (having looked at the
> statistics but not having them in front of me) that women's finals
> have higher numbers of turnovers, on average, than men's finals.
> However, if you adjust for the size of the field, that difference is
> minimized or even non-existent. "Numbers of turnovers per point" may
> be higher, but "turnovers per effective yard normalized by average
> speed" may be similar.
I love it when so-called champions reference the number of turnovers at
finals and consider the results meaningful.
Ben, play with some real rules, real penalties, real impartial enforcement
and then get back to us on how many turnovers your team commits in the
finals.
ulticritic
>
> OMFG.
>
> Here is what I wrote: "Does anyone have data about completion %ages
> for open vs women? The
> last college finals really jumps out at me as going against the
> statement that
> women's ultimate is much more controlled."
do you mean "spititually" or "athletically"?????
Frank Huguenard
discourage upside down throws.
Not so much because of their inherent risks in and of themselves, but due to
the statistical observation that they frequently lead to turnovers in
subsequent throws.
As a proponent for a high octane, motion offense, receiving an upside down
disc and then having to quickly release it accurately with the desired
flight characteristics is problematic so unless the throw is for a score, I
suggest right side up, not wrong side up.
<KRDo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f82bab1-99ec-4522...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Now, I know there are a lot of directions to go with this title, but
> I'll take the most immediate one. I was just thinking that in my
> experience, the hammer is much more prevalent in men's ultimate than
> in women's, and I wasn't really sure why. Is this the case for other
> people? Anybody know why?
>
> -Donnie
Jed
Good point Ben - and I think there's another aspect that you hadn't
covered - margin for error of the receiver. Hammers tend to be more of
a throw to a single point (oversimplified). A flick or backhand tend
to be catchable for a greater percentage of their flight path
(especially with touch on the throw); there's less room for error with
a hammer.
Guys tend to be faster and jump higher - so they increase the margin
for error on any throw. So if I'm throwing a hammer to an average guy,
I can miss by a greater margin, and still have a better hope of him
making up for my miss than if I was throwing to a comparatively
slower, shorter, and weaker-jumping player (average woman).
So I would say women throw less hammers at leas partially because it's
a lower percentage throw for them. Good call on their part.
benlw...@gmail.com
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Play with some real rules, real penalties, real impartial enforcement
> and then get back to us on how many turnovers your team commits in the
> finals.
Frank, this entire discussion is about a game which you describe as
lacking "real rules, real penalties, and real impartial enforcement".
Everyone here seems to think it is meaningful. So you have, once
again, completely missed the point.
benlw...@gmail.com
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I throw about 2 hammers a year and personally strongly
> discourage upside down throws.
But since you do not play Ultimate successfully, it is hard to see why
anyone would care what your advice about this sport is.
Win a game first. Then spout.
> As a proponent for a high octane, motion offense
Your described offense has never existed in a game of Ultimate. It is
irrelevant to a discussion regarding the play of an existing sport.
b_rainw...@yahoo.com
>
> girls cant throw hammers. its science.
Chris O' Cleary has a better hammer than most dudes out there. Yes
even you and you know who you are.
Feetch
silly, chris is a boys name!
Rob
I have filmed her at the World Junior, college and club nationals
levels. She throws lots of hammers.
Rob
gbos...@gmail.com
> > Now, I know there are a lot of directions to go with this title, but
> > I'll take the most immediate one. I was just thinking that in my
> > experience, the hammer is much more prevalent in men's ultimate than
> > in women's, and I wasn't really sure why. Is this the case for other
> > people? Anybody know why?
>
> > -Donnie
From my personal experience, the more competitive, longer-history
teams in sports tend to set trends for the newer teams. It seems, in
ultimate, that new strategies often develop first with the men's teams
and then are picked up by the women's teams, mostly because there is a
larger pool of athletes and knowledge available to men's ultimate. I
think that hammers, blades, and scoobers are picking up frequency as
smart, rather than desperate, options in high-importance Open games. I
don't doubt that the same thing will happen in women's ultimate, and
is already happening. Throwing these throws takes a decent amount of
precision and trust between players, something that is hard to develop
on women's teams which typically have been formed more recently and
have a greater turnover of players than men's teams.
Another point is that in order for these throws to be respected they
have to be thrown by players who actually know what they are doing and
know that there is no better option. There are far fewer of these
players in college women's ultimate than men's due partially to the
smaller (but growing!) number of girls who come into college already
knowing how to play. The women who do know what they are doing
definitely use the throws. If you want proof, watch Ottawa, Wisconsin,
UCLA, UWashington, and probably other high-level teams that I simply
haven't seen play this year. The women who can, use them frequently;
there are just fewer of these girls in women's than guys in open.
-Georgia Bosscher
#19, Wisconsin
b_rainw...@yahoo.com
Chris started Ozone. Def a woman!
ulticritic
> Check out Anne Mercier of the Ottawa women's team in the Vegas finals.
> I have filmed her at the World Junior, college and club nationals
> levels. She throws lots of hammers.
how is here spirit?
jacob...@gmail.com
sexism rampant in this thread that I wasn't even going to bother
Yeah, right. You were chomping at the bit to respond.
"How come there has to be a reason that [women throwing fewer hammers
than men] is related to women's vs. men's abilities on the field?"
Nobody said there has to be. They've just suggested the possibility
of such reasons. This isn't really so crazy. If one group
demonstrates a skill (although to be fair, I don't think the original
poster referred to throwing hammers as a skill; he may think it is a
sloppy, lazy, low percentage throw) more often than the other, it is
possible that the difference in behavior is due to a difference in
ability between the two groups.
"Isn't it possible that the difference simply results from the fact
that the two are different sports and evolved differently?"
No, this is not possible. The evolution of women's Ultimate is
necessarily linked to women's physical capacities. Also, men's
Ultimate and women's Ultimate are not different sports. They are the
same sport being played by two different groups.
"Ever since women's ultimate split off from "open" ultimate, the two
sports have had different players, different leaders, different people
influencing their development." Yes, there is some overlap, yes, the
games have the same origins, but the paths that the two have taken
since their initiation have been very
different.
How? Give us some examples here. Yeah, you've had different players
and captains, but this fact does little to explain the lack of hammers
in women's Ultimate. Also, you are overlooking the influence which
male coaches have had on women's Ultimate. UCSC, Carleton and Fury
are just of the few teams which have won championships with male
coaches. They all probably would have won without the male coaches,
and I'm not saying a women's team needs a male coach to succeed. I am
saying that men, whom you appear to admit are more hammer-happy, have
played a role in the evolution of women's Ultimate.
"Perhaps women throw fewer hammers because the hammer throw was
introduced to their sport later."
The hammer has been around since at least the mid-80's, which was
before today's college women players were born, and before most club
women players began playing sports. I'd say women's Ultimate has had
time to adjust.
"Perhaps they had fewer people who were interested in teaching it to
other players."
Plenty of women throw hammers when the are tossing for fun or warming
up. They have learned hammers, they just don't throw them in games as
often as men do.
"Maybe, just as a result of random chance, fewer people [women]
started throwing hammers in games so it wasn't seen by most players,
or considered a useful or
necessary throw."
I don't think you understand what the word "random" means. Women have
been playing Ultimate throughout the industrialized world for over two
decades. Assuming the low frequency of hammer throwing in women's
Ultimate was random (and not the result of women Ultimate players
simply using their common sense), if one group of women in one area
randomly started throwing fewer hammers than men, then another group
of women in another area would start randomly throwing more hammers,
while some would throw the same number of hammers. It's not as though
all these women played together every weekend or had some kind of
psychic "no hammer" link.
"Perhaps more women realized that simply breaking the mark was higher
percentage and a smarter choice."
Now you are actually getting to the heart of the matter, and in so
doing, you unintentionally support some of the "sexists" in this
thread with whom you claim to disagree. Choosing to throw fewer
hammers may indeed be "a smarter choice" for women because (at least
at this point in time) women receivers are less able to catch
hammers. Bingo. Having said that, some women have sick hammers, and
I predict that many more women will be throwing sick hammers in the
future.
"The point is that it doesn't have to be related at all to the fact
that women are smaller, have less shoulder strength, aren't taught to
throw overhanded throws at a young age, are trained by society to take
fewer risks, etc etc."
Again, nobody said it had to be. Like you, the others on this thread
are throwing out possible explanations.
"But I think it's more likely that the absence of a hammer in much of
women's ultimate is related to random fluctuations in the influences
the sport had."
See above discussion of randomness.
"Women being "bad" at catching hammers is a consequence of the lack of
hammers thrown in women's ultimate, not a cause."
Actually, it is both a consequence and a cause. Stop thinking in
absolutes.
"So is the fact that most women don't have good hammers or have poorer
throwing mechanisms for hammers."
This is also both a consequence and a cause of women receivers being
less like likely than men to catch a hammer. However, I think we will
soon see a big increase in women's abilities to catch and throw
hammers, just as the basketball skills of women have skyrocketed in
recent years. Lack of practice and lack of encouragement has
prevented lots of good women throwers from reaching their hammer
throwing potential.
"Just because two things are correlated (e.g. someone being a women
and being bad at throwing hammers), that doesn't mean the two are even
related at all, much less that one causes the other."
Yes, correlation is not the same as causation, but most of the people
on this thread are doing more than simply correlating femaleness with
a lack of hammer throwing skill and then proceeding to conclude that
being a woman must therefore necessarily cause a person to be less
able to throw a hammer; they have been offering explanations as to why
this correlation exists. Further, a clean "causal" conclusion is not
required here. Being male will never cause anyone to throw hammers
often (let's remember that the original poster did not state that
women were not as good as men at throwing hammers; only that women
threw fewer hammers), nor will being female ever cause anyone to throw
hammers less often. This lack of direct causation does not render
irrelevant the correlations between: 1) being a woman ----- 2) having
shorter/slower receivers; not growing up playing sports which require
overhand throws ------- 3) throwing fewer hammers in games.
"as a female handler who has a hammer and has played primarily women's
ultimate for the past 4 years, from what I've seen I'd say that yes,
the statement that the hammer is less prevalent in women's ultimate is
probably true."
You should have led with this point. It would have given the rest of
your post a bit more credibility.
"However, I've seen it increasing,"
Good.
"not as a break throw for a score, or a huge yard gainer to a wing in
the zone (as it's usually seen in open ultimate, at least in my
experience), but as a throw over the cup to uncovered poppers in the
zone.
OK.
"Now you can make all sorts of comments about how women are less
comfortable breaking the cup regularly because they lack confidence in
their abilities to do so,"
Thanks. I will.
"or about how that's a natural evolution since women can't throw as
far as men,"
Are you talking about evolution of women's Ultimate, Darwin-type
evolution which has lead to different physical characteristics between
the sexes, or both?
"or any other of a variety of wide, sweeping, unsupported
generalizations."
It is certainly a wide, sweeping generalization to say that women are
shorter and slower than men. But is this generalization really
"unsupported?" Isn't this really just a fact? And doesn't this fact
at least partly explain why we don't see as many hammers in women's
Ultimate as in men's?
"But I propose to you that the reason that the hammer is coming into
women's ultimate in that way instead of the way it came into open
ultimate is the same
that I suggested previously--that the sports have taken different
paths and have different influences, and that by a series of random
influences (both that it's taught to women as a shorter throw, and
also that a larger number of players realized its effectiveness and
started using it regularly) that's how the hammer has begun to evolve
into women's ultimate."
If you want to make statements like this, I strongly discourage you
from accusing anybody else of making "unsupported" statements. Unlike
those on this thread with whom you disagree, you have offered no
factual basis for your conclusion.
"No sweeping sexist generalizations required."
Yay! Good for you. Now go get your cookie from your Women's Studies
professor.
danfri...@gmail.com
> discourage upside down throws.
Who needs a hammer in disc hoops? Seriously, what the fuck?
Mr. Maddog
are a great/terrible throw. I once got benched for throwing a hammer
for a score in sectionals but the TRUE question is do women throw
thummers?? I have never seen that.
p.s.
Any single women ulti players with a great thummer "Will you marry
me?"
annam...@gmail.com
through this thread is in jest (or at least I hope so), and I didn't
think my comments would be taken well in response to that. What I was
trying to do was present an alternative perspective that had yet to be
represented. It would be a fallacy to suggest that there is a single
reason women throw fewer hammers than men, one that explains the
entire phenomenon, and that no other factors have influenced the
situation. However, in order to get a point of view heard in a group
like this, it seems you often have to present your idea as though it's
the only possibility in order to get your voice heard. (Who would
listen to someone saying, "well, maybe in some small way this is a
potential reason for part of the difference?" Timidity has never been
my strong suit.)
In technical terms, open and women's ultimate is the same sport played
by two different groups, as in the same set of rules applies to both
versions. However, I know very few women (in women's ultimate) who
would say that they play ultimate the same way men (in open ultimate)
do, not just from a physical point of view (size and speed), nor from
a technical point of view (ability to execute throws, hand-eye
coordination, other things that are generally improved with practice),
but from a strategic point of view. I've had numerous male coaches
who came from a background of open ultimate, and across the board, the
biggest difficulties they had in coaching all seemed to stem from the
same thing--that they misunderstood the ways in which women's ultimate
is different from open ultimate. And there are plenty of men out
there who are great women's ultimate coaches, but I'd bet that the
best ones don't approach coaching their teams the same way they would
approach coaching an open team. And I'm not just talking about a
difference based on poorer throws or slower speed, I'm talking about a
fundamental difference in philosophy. It might be a small difference,
but it's definitely there.
I also think players of open ultimate are less aware of this
difference than players of women's ultimate are, because fewer women's
ultimate players coach open teams, so most open players have much less
exposure to the way women's ultimate is played than women's players
have to open ultimate.
While many of those who influence the development of women's ultimate
watch, coach and play open ultimate as well, they don't necessarily
transfer all of that knowledge to women's ultimate. The subset of
open ultimate players (or ex-players) who coach women's teams is not
an unbiased random selection of open ultimate players. Thus to me, it
makes sense that the influence that open ultimate has over women's
ultimate is somewhat biased toward particular elements of strategy,
etc. that that biased selection of open ultimate players considers
important. The addition of a greater percentage of women coaches in
women's ultimate than in open ultimate also influences the development
of strategy. I think you will also find the "regional" differences
you mentioned earlier within particular subsets of women's ultimate.
For example, women's teams from less windy climates probably throw
more hammers than teams from windy climates. (You are right in that I
misused the word "random". I was trying to find a word that would
express that what I was suggesting was not based on a physical
difference or a difference in skill, but rather a difference in
strategic influences within the sport.) However, there is some
interplay between all areas of women's ultimate, so I think it is
totally fair to suggest that there are things influencing women's
ultimate on the whole (and that those are different in some ways from
the things influencing open ultimate on the whole).
As to the rampant generalizations, I was referring more to statements
like, "women can't learn the throwing motion correctly" or "women suck
at catching hammers" moreso than the statements regarding physical
size and strength differences. Comments like "women take fewer risks"
or "women are less confident throwers" are difficult to approach
because while they do have some merit (based on societal influences
and the like), these things are becoming less common. It's also worth
noting that women who play sports in the first place are probably more
confident and take more risks than non-athletic women, so analyzing
the degree of influence is difficult because of the reverse effect.
Regardless, it's been my experience that "women suck at catching
hammers" because they haven't practiced catching them. My teammates
are great at catching hammers, and it's probably because at the
beginning of the year we immediately taught everyone how to throw
hammers and made them all practice, not necessarily to develop the
throw but to work on catching. As for women learning the throwing
motion incorrectly, I think that (1) there is a strategic difference
to having short hammers vs. long hammers, and that most women are
taught to throw shorter hammers, which is perfectly legitimate from a
strategic point of view for the reasons I gave earlier (short throws
over the cup in a zone), and (2) frequently, women learn hammers on
their own or are taught by someone else with a "poor throwing motion"
and as a result, never have anyone get on their case about how to
throw them "correctly". Which, as I said before, I think is perfectly
fine, since good execution on the short throw makes the hammer useful
in other ways.
In my entire life I have taken exactly one women's studies class and
that was four years ago. I'm not a militant feminist, I just think
that people frequently are not aware that they are saying something
offensive, or that they are making illogical conclusions. Since it's
generally been agreed upon that breaking the mark is higher percentage
than throwing a hammer, that smart play corresponds to high percentage
play, and also that men throw more hammers than women, I could
conclude that men throw more hammers because they're dumber than
women. That's not a logical conclusion (nor one I agree with, for the
record), but it's in the style that a lot of people have used to draw
conclusions in this thread.
Busty
(This is probably my last post on this topic, since the author got
what he wanted from it and since we'd all rather flame each other than
engage in real intellectual discourse)
ulticritic
> I wasn't chomping at the bit to respond; most of the sexism running
> through this thread is in jest (or at least I hope so),
think again
----------------------------------
Since it's
> generally been agreed upon that breaking the mark is higher percentage
> than throwing a hammer, that smart play corresponds to high percentage
> play, and also that men throw more hammers than women, I could
> conclude that men throw more hammers because they're dumber than
> women.
sing it sista
----------------------------------------------------
That's not a logical conclusion (nor one I agree with, for the
> record), but it's in the style that a lot of people have used to draw
> conclusions in this thread.
thats because they/we are all men and are naturally unspirited
assholes. And why we need more disipline than women and shouldnt be
using the sotg system. Still no comfort in knowing you are
spiritually superior though???
danfri...@gmail.com
> As for women learning the throwing
> motion incorrectly, I think that (1) there is a strategic difference
> to having short hammers vs. long hammers, and that most women are
> taught to throw shorter hammers, which is perfectly legitimate from a
> strategic point of view for the reasons I gave earlier (short throws
> over the cup in a zone)
That is a really interesting point. But then I don't really think of
the "baby hammer" as a hammer for the most part. It's closer to the
scoober or blade in functionality (straight up, straight down, to a
stationary target in the middle of the defense). That's quite a bit
different from a throw that can go sideline to sideline at an angle,
attacking the backside of the defense.
jacob...@gmail.com
not trying to "flame" you.
I've also taken more than one women's studies class myself. I don't
have a problem with feminism. My beef with your post was not that it
was feminist, but rather that you were critical of the "illogical
conclusions" of the other posters without, in my opinion, being very
logical yourself ... even if much of your basic conclusion was right
(namely, that women have the capacity to throw hammers better and more
often than they currently do, and that the perceived boundaries on
their physical capabilities are exaggerated).
As a former coach, I have to add for the record that, while a break
mark backhand or flick is generally higher percentage than a hammer,
there are certain spots on the field which can be hit only by a
hammer. This is because unlike flat throws, hammers can be thrown
directly over defenders and because hammers travel faster. The notion
that a hammer is a dumb throw because there is also a higher
percentage option is false.
jacob...@gmail.com
higher percentage option is false."
Oops. I meant "always," not "also."
Mike Gerics
> are just of the few teams which have won championships with male
> coaches
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---and UNCWilmington.....
Mike Gerics
> "The notion that a hammer is a dumb throw because there is also a
> higher percentage option is false."
---i've always been told....and now always tell folks.....that..........
"a hammer....is a lazy man's backhand"
PIVOT!...get your feet outta the concrete!
BJ
> this is a ridiculous discussion. i am a woman and i play ultimate, so
> i feel qualified to answer. if a situation calls for a hammer, and i
> have the disc, i will throw one. if a situation calls for a hammer,
> and my teammate has the disc, my teammate will throw one to me.
>
> in fact, here is photographic evidence from last weekend. #1, (the
> shortest girl on the field) threw this great hammer to me for a
> score.http://www.pbase.com/bobpics/image/93138226
> case closed!
what case? what are you talking about?
BJ
> On Feb 23, 6:32 pm, Jesse <Jesse.Card...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > my guess is because women's ultimate is often much more controlled and
> > textbook whereas men have a tendency to play more...improvisationally
> > so to speak. So when the game is about high percentage throws,
> > hammers are out.
>
> See, the only thing I could think of was that women aren't as large
> and can't cover as much ground in the same time, and since the hammer
> often is not the most precise of throws, a man's ability to cover
> ground could make up for the mistakes where a woman's size might not
> allow her to do the same thing. But to me, the different didn't seem
> pronounced enough to warrant it. I know girl's who have hammers, but I
> just don't see them thrown in game very often.
>
> There was a lefty chick at High Tide last year who wore pants all the
> time who my team affectionately heckled as Pants for the duration of
> the weekend, including during an amazing and high spirited game her
> team played. Point of this anecdote is that during the Hat Tourney,
> she was ripping those lefty hammers all over the place. It really
> caught me off guard.
>
> Any ladies wanna chime in?
>
> -Donnie
its accuracy may be lacking in many cases, but in fact the hammer's
precision is among the highest of all throws.
shoulder muscles for the win.
Manzell
> Now, I know there are a lot of directions to go with this title, but
> I'll take the most immediate one. I was just thinking that in my
> experience, the hammer is much more prevalent in men's ultimate than
> in women's, and I wasn't really sure why. Is this the case for other
> people? Anybody know why?
>
> -Donnie
Here's an idea... can Illian's SportsLab do a motion analysis of
"proper" hammer mechanics and determine if the characteristics of
men's and women's bodies are more conducive to "good" hammers?
- MRB
Ajax
> Here's an idea... can Illian's SportsLab do a motion analysis of
> "proper" hammer mechanics and determine if the characteristics of
> men's and women's bodies are more conducive to "good" hammers?
>
> - MRB
I'll respond to that. I'm setting aside all notions of hammers being
the right
or wrong throw for the given situation, and rather will discuss what
it takes to throw
a good hammer. Initial rotation speed and arm strength to throw it
forward. However,
the requirements for throwing a good hammer can be lightened by a
higher release
point in relation to the target, i.e. being taller helps. If you take
a look at sports which require similar
techniques to put spin and velocity on a projectile in a downward
motion,
throwing a baseball and the serve in tennis provide similar models for
discussion. I'd argue that men throw more strikeouts than women
do (although softball is not the ideal comparison since women throw
underhanded)
specifically based on the speed of the ball. Tennis is an even better
example.
Once you hit 6' 7", you are able to serve the tennis ball on a uniform
dropping trajectory into the target zone without even jumping, so one
can
see that hitting this break point in height would have increasing
marginal
returns to their play. look at the biggest team in tennis, the recent
pair
of Isner and Karlovic in the Australian open,
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2008-01-13-tall-doubles-team_N.htm
these guys show that if you're already tall, the extra few inches
translate to disproportionate gains
in terms of overall reach and mobility.
I'd also argue this is a function of having larger hands in general
too.
People often glance over this fact, but watching dwight howard throw
down last week highlights the fact that if you have bigger hands you
can
manipulate the projectile better.
weston
Joa'quine (Joaq)
> I actually was trying to engage in "real intellectual discourse" and
> not trying to "flame" you.
>
>
> Yeah, right. You were chomping at the bit to respond.
Great "real intellectual discourse" Jacob.
-Joaquin
faddy
> these guys show that if you're already tall, the extra few inches
> translate to disproportionate gains
> in terms of overall reach and mobility.
>
> I'd also argue this is a function of having larger hands in general
> too.
> People often glance over this fact, but watching dwight howard throw
> down last week highlights the fact that if you have bigger hands you
> can
> manipulate the projectile better.
>
> weston
if your comparison were valid (tennis), the women would be playing
with a lower net (ie: shorter female defenders in ultimate).
the larger hands thing may apply, however...
faddy
or just watch the hammer go for a goal...
danfri...@gmail.com
> I'll respond to that. I'm setting aside all notions of hammers being
> the right
> or wrong throw for the given situation, and rather will discuss what
> it takes to throw
> a good hammer. Initial rotation speed and arm strength to throw it
> forward. However,
> the requirements for throwing a good hammer can be lightened by a
> higher release
> point in relation to the target, i.e. being taller helps. If you take
> a look at sports which require similar
> techniques to put spin and velocity on a projectile in a downward
> motion,
> throwing a baseball and the serve in tennis provide similar models for
> discussion.
This is a really weird argument. A tennis serve is going in a
downward motion, and baseball pitching is going pretty much downward
(from the mound). Tennis serves can use the extra height because they
have to get over a net which is some distance away and strike a target
on the ground behind it. Pitches coming from higher up have the
benefit of added velocity (and the longer arms of the pitcher). But I
don't see how this is an major factor for hammers, which are thrown
upwards towards the target.
It's good to be tall enough to get your hammer over the mark (and a
change of release point & release angle can help when you are not) but
outside of that I'm not convinced that being taller in relation to the
target is of much value, unless your goal is to throw your hammer in a
flat trajectory.
Sara Jacobi
BJ -- it seems not one person on RSD understood what I was going for
with my original post on this thread. I was just trying to be as
snarky and ridiculous in my response as I felt the previous responses
had been, so i tried to follow the usual formula that posts take here
on RSD (I am this, I do this, here is a picture, my opinion is the
end-all-be all (hence the "case closed."))
I understand, however, that an "eye for an eye" is not a good strategy
for making a point, and, it didn't make a point, so I concede that it
would probably have been better to write a real, actual response. So
let me do that now:
First of all, while it *might* have been relevant in the first post of
this entire thread to ask why it seems like women throw fewer hammers
than men in games, and has anyone else noticed this (forgive me if I
am wrong, initial poster, but it seems like you were just asking that
simple question) it was the nature of the first few responses pissed
me off.
From my personal experience, the ultimate-playing males I know seem to
have this strange obsession with continually asking the question, "why
are men better than women?" in so many different ways. Even though
the initial poster wasn't implying that with his question, that's
where this thread immediately went. Question: "Why do men throw more
hammers than women?" Responses "because women don't take chances,
because have smaller arms and hands so they can't throw as far,
because women don't realize that sometimes a hammer is a better
solution in a situation than a backhand break, because the "spin"
confuses them," because they don't want to mess up their baking arm,
because "girlies" are more disciplined in their warmups so they never
get a chance to practice them" ... etc. Now, I know some of your
responses were jokes (or at least I HOPE so) but what does joking
about an issue like this do? It immediately puts women down, and at
least makes ME pretty defensive. (However, I don't want to ignore or
put down the guys who did actually take time to write well-thought out
responses citing actual facts and the like. It was much appreciated.)
And on RSD, after all these male questions, jokes, and answers, few
women -- if any -- ever respond. Why would we? In the midst of all
the jokes and ridicule, who's going to stand up and put themselves on
the line to go against the grain? Who actually wants to take the time
to try to take a stab at explaining such a huge and all-encompassing
issue in a forum when you know your answer will not be taken
seriously, or worse yet, you'll just be attacked sentence by sentence
and the intent of your original answer will be picked apart and
distorted? My initial reaction, and the initial reaction of many
women I know, has ALWAYS been to just ignore these posts because the
time it takes to respond is not worth the small amount of good that
might come of it.
I think the direction of this thread is pretty telling that RSD is not
a place that I would like to spend time reading the responses OR
responding because of the blatant sexism found here. Many of you will
just say, "Then don't read it." Yeah, that's one path to take, but I
don't think it solves anything. It won't change the culture of RSD.
It won't show men that a lot of their assumptions and ideas about
women's ultimate are sexist and often flat out wrong. It won't show
the disheartened women readers who read -- but who never respond to
these threads -- that there are women out there who care greatly for
our sport and are working hard to change the perceptions that are out
there about it.
I'd like to say that the solution is to just encourage more women to
post here, but I don't think that will happen because of the reasons I
have listed previously. I'd prefer to find a place where women can
post freely about our sport, a place where we can actually FIND scores
from games and info about the women's division at tournaments (not
just a short post as an afterthought). If I knew how to start my own
forum, I would. I'm definitely interested in starting a blog or
something that would be dedicated to women's ultimate, or at least
helping with one that is already up and running (if there are any,
please let me know!!)
This part is for the women out there who I know are reading this, and
who won't respond. It's OK. I understand. But if you are like me,
you're pretty tired of hearing our sport bashed, and you're
disappointed at the lack of female support for our own sport. We need
to do more. We need to actually watch the women's finals instead of
watching some tall dudes run fast and jump high in the men's finals.
We need to post our scores, summaries of games, and predictions on
RSD, or find some other forum for that. We need to generate more
interest by BEING more interested.
Thanks for reading, and I hope we can all move on. I welcome any
comments on this issue, but please, hold off on the personal attacks,
sexist jokes, etc. It's uncalled for. Thanks :)
- Sara
robyn
player for many many years...I also happen to be a female who can
throw a hammer almost full field accurately. I have to say that I am
enjoying this discussion immensely. I agree with a lot of the
discussion that it's true, women just don't seem to throw as many
hammers. I also have to agree with the fact that most women who have
good "overhand throwing-like" ability play other sports. For me making
the jump from collegiate softball to ultimate was something that
doesn't happen for most...most women just don't know about ultimate.
Having learned that the "ultimate player stereotype" (i.e. as seen on
Cheap Seats) really is not the norm, one way to legitimize the sport
of womens ultimate would be to start playing it more like open.
I think that first of all, women need to value the disc more...it
seems like turnovers in womens ultimate is not really a big deal. That
needs to change. I think when that mindset changes, you'll see more
hammers. Women have no incentive to learn the hammer because if they
turn it over by making a poor decision with their backhands or
forehands, it's not a big deal. It makes me sick to watch the 2007
College Womens championships...me and my friend have actually turned
it into a drinking game. For every turn over, you drink. You start
feeling it pretty quickly, let me tell you.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. I'm a sucker for throwing
a hammer whenever I can. There are some women who agree with me. But
concentrating on the exceptions to the rule doesn't change the fact
that most women still do not throw them.
Another good point to bring up is the composition of female ultimate
players. Most of us are either new to organized sports, have strong
basketball, soccer, or running-oriented backgrounds. Not many of us
played softball, football, volleyball, tennis, etc. where overhand
motions are required.
So when it comes down to it, in my opinion, you won't see many women
throwing hammers until the mindset of "turnovers are okay" goes away.
Guys, if you want to see more hammers, it's going to take some help
and patience in teaching from you. And maybe some more
encouragement...especially in co-ed...that it's okay for women to
throw hammers and to develop their hammers.
toad
> On Feb 26, 6:02 am, "Mike Gerics" <mger...@ec.rr.com> wrote.:
>
> > > "The notion that a hammer is a dumb throw because there is also a
> > > higher percentage option is false."
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > ---i've always been told....and now always tell folks.....that..........
> > "a hammer....is a lazy man's backhand"
>
> > PIVOT!...get your feet outta the concrete!
>
> or just watch the hammer go for a goal...
word.....no quicker way to get a disc from point a to point b
toad
> On Feb 26, 11:15 am, BJ <ut.bj...@gmail.com> wrote:
first off....i've never seen such long posts (and thread) for such a
meaningless and stupid topic......but since i'm in between jobs....
>
> > On Feb 24, 6:19 pm, Sara Jacobi <jacobi.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > this is a ridiculous discussion.
W O R D !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
. Question: "Why do men throw more
> hammers than women?" Responses "because women don't take chances,
> because have smaller arms and hands so they can't throw as far,
> because women don't realize that sometimes a hammer is a better
> solution in a situation than a backhand break, because the "spin"
> confuses them," because they don't want to mess up their baking arm,
> because "girlies" are more disciplined in their warmups so they never
> get a chance to practice them"
you forgot....because they never developed the mechanics by throwing
overhead type throws as a youth(i believe it was brought up more than
once......and probably the best reason)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... etc. Now, I know some of your
> responses were jokes (or at least I HOPE so) but what does joking
> about an issue like this do?
if delivered right......makes me laugh.......that "bakers arm"
bit......gold
---------------------------------------------------------------
It immediately puts women down, and at
> least makes ME pretty defensive.
well ya got to be able to take a joke once in a while. Every once in
a while joe buck gets me good and sometimes i laugh out loud
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(However, I don't want to ignore or
> put down the guys who did actually take time to write well-thought out
> responses citing actual facts and the like. It was much appreciated.)
i do........because this is such a STUPID topic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And on RSD, after all these male questions, jokes, and answers, few
> women -- if any -- ever respond. Why would we?
to stand up for yourselves. Still noone pointing out your superiour
spirit.......unless thats nothing to be proud of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the midst of all
> the jokes and ridicule, who's going to stand up and put themselves on
> the line to go against the grain?
someone with a spine
----------------------------------------------------
Who actually wants to take the time
> to try to take a stab at explaining such a huge and all-encompassing
> issue in a forum when you know your answer will not be taken
> seriously,
uhhh, you
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> I think the direction of this thread is pretty telling that RSD is not
> a place that I would like to spend time reading the responses OR
> responding because of the blatant sexism found here.
sing it sista
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of you will
> just say, "Then don't read it." Yeah, that's one path to take, but I
> don't think it solves anything. It won't change the culture of RSD.
how can it......its male dominated
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd prefer to find a place where women can
> post freely about our sport, a place where we can actually FIND scores
> from games and info about the women's division at tournaments (not
> just a short post as an afterthought). If I knew how to start my own
> forum, I would. I'm definitely interested in starting a blog or
eh, blogs suck, nobody pays em any mind.....rsd is where its at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> something that would be dedicated to women's ultimate, or at least
> helping with one that is already up and running (if there are any,
> please let me know!!)
whats the problem......you already got the sport. Its always been
played by "girl rules" and a "girl" rule enforcement
process........and weve suceeded that you are spiritually
superior....which is WAY more important that throwing a
hammer.......so c'mon, lighten up. Or get your ass out here everyday
and "stink it up with the rest of us" (sienfeld quote).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This part is for the women out there who I know are reading this, and
> who won't respond. It's OK. I understand. But if you are like me,
> you're pretty tired of hearing our sport bashed, and you're
> disappointed at the lack of female support for our own sport. We need
> to do more. We need to actually watch the women's finals instead of
> watching some tall dudes run fast and jump high in the men's finals.
> We need to post our scores, summaries of games, and predictions on
> RSD, or find some other forum for that. We need to generate more
> interest by BEING more interested.
and maybe BE more interesting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for reading, and I hope we can all move on. I welcome any
> comments on this issue, but please, hold off on the personal attacks,
> sexist jokes, etc. It's uncalled for. Thanks :)
i dont know.......some call for it
toad
> I'm a former collegiate softball player and basketball and volleyball
> player for many many years...I also happen to be a female who can
> throw a hammer almost full field accurately.
thank softball for that
-----------------------------------------------
I have to say that I am
> enjoying this discussion immensely.
i dont know why or how
------------------------------------------------------
> doesn't happen for most...most women just don't know about
ultimate.
true.....most play because the dated a male player. Thats why jock
chicks can easily dominate the sport
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Having learned that the "ultimate player stereotype" (i.e. as seen on
> Cheap Seats) really is not the norm
i dont get this comment. The guys featured in that clip are some of
the best players of all time AND this feature is probably the most
professionally ultimate piece done to date (and its 20 years old).
Explain your analogy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> forehands, it's not a big deal. It makes me sick to watch the 2007
> College Womens championships.
welcome to the club.......makes me sick to watch any ultimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
..me and my friend have actually turned
> it into a drinking game. For every turn over, you drink. You start
> feeling it pretty quickly, let me tell you.
yea.....might as well hook the keg tap up to your mouth
jacob...@gmail.com
for with my original post on this thread. I was just trying to be as
snarky and ridiculous in my response as I felt the previous responses
had been, so i tried to follow the usual formula that posts take here
on RSD (I am this, I do this, here is a picture, my opinion is the
end-all-be all (hence the 'case closed.'))"
me: That's actually pretty funny.
Sara J: "I understand, however, that an 'eye for an eye' is not a good
strategy for making a point, and, it didn't make a point, so I concede
that it would probably have been better to write a real, actual
response."
me: No, we're lame for not getting the joke.
Sara J: "First of all, while it *might* have been relevant in the
first post of this entire thread to ask why it seems like women throw
fewer hammers
than men in games, and has anyone else noticed this (forgive me if I
am wrong, initial poster, but it seems like you were just asking that
simple question) it was the nature of the first few responses pissed
me off."
me: OK, yeah, some of the early posts were dumb and derogatory to
women.
Sara J: "From my personal experience, the ultimate-playing males I
know seem to have this strange obsession with continually asking the
question, "why
are men better than women?" in so many different ways. Even though
the initial poster wasn't implying that with his question, that's
where this thread immediately went. Question: 'Why do men throw more
hammers than women?'"
me: Guys in general are obsessed with women. Guys who play Ultimate
are often obsessed with both women and Ultimate. The fact that we
spend time considering differences between men and women Ultimate
players may be comical, but it shouldn't seem that strange to you. I
believe that the original question of why women throw fewer hammers is
hard to separate from the fact that women are, in general, not as good
as men at throwing hammers. This was a logical progression for the
thread to take, not sexism (although there were some sexist posts on
this thread). Again, for the record, I (and I'm pretty sure some
other guys on this thread) believe that women have the potential to be
much, much better at throwing hammers than they currently are. Asking
whether or why women currently are not at their potential (just as we
can ask whether or why many male players are not) is part of the
development of the game.
Sara J: "Responses 'because women don't take chances, because have
smaller arms and hands so they can't throw as far, because women don't
realize that sometimes a hammer is a better solution in a situation
than a backhand break, because the spin confuses them," because they
don't want to mess up their baking arm, because "girlies" are more
disciplined in their warmups so they never get a chance to practice
them' ... etc."
me: I don't think it's fair for you to mix together the dumb sexist
jokes with the responses which are rooted in objective facts which
probably do have something to do with why women throw fewer hammers.
Go ahead and call the "baking arm" crack dumb, but if you don't think
that having smaller hands makes it tougher to throw a disc, please say
so specifically and back it up with something besides the fact that
hearing this notion upsets you.
Sara J: "Now, I know some of your responses were jokes (or at least I
HOPE so) but what does joking about an issue like this do? It
immediately puts women down, and at least makes ME pretty defensive."
me: The answer to this question depends on the nature of the joke, not
the subject matter of the joke. This applies to joking about most
matters. I agree with you that most of the jokes on this specific
thread were dumb. But, for your sake, I hope that you are not opposed
across the board to making jokes about issues which are important to
you. That's no way to go through life. A joke about an issue or
about a particular group of people does not necessarily immediately
put down the issue or the group. Sometimes a joke can reveal truth or
release tension.
Sara J: "And on RSD, after all these male questions, jokes, and
answers, few women -- if any -- ever respond. Why would we?"
me: Maybe this lack of response is just due to the fact that women are
less likely than men to be rsd dorks. In my experience, female
Ultimate players are pretty comfortable challenging sexism, or even
non sexist opinions with which they disagree.
Sara J: In the midst of all the jokes and ridicule, who's going to
stand up and put themselves on the line to go against the grain?
me: Let's not get carried away here. Posting on rsd does not count as
"standing up." Also, I don't think there is really a "grain" to go
against on rsd, given that disagreement seems to be its only
consistent pattern.
Sara J: "Who actually wants to take the time to try to take a stab at
explaining such a huge and all-encompassing issue in a forum when you
know your answer will not be taken seriously,"
me: Anytime any of us, male or female, on rsd or elsewhere, puts our
opinion out there, we run the risk of not being taken seriously.
Sometimes people engage us thoughtfully, sometimes people laugh at us,
sometimes we elicit both responses. That's life.
Sara J: "or worse yet, you'll just be attacked sentence by sentence
and the intent of your original answer will be picked apart and
distorted?"
me: I'm not sure if you are referring to Toad Leber (Ulticritic) or to
my response to Anna Meb, but in my case, I address interesting posts
sentence by sentence because I have taken time to read the entire
posts to which I respond and don't want to give a blanket response.
Also, while a defensive reader may feel that disagreement is
tantamount to an attack, I did not disagree with everything Anna Meb
wrote, just as I do not disagree with everything you have written.
Sara J: "My initial reaction, and the initial reaction of many women I
know, has ALWAYS been to just ignore these posts because the time it
takes to respond is not worth the small amount of good that might come
of it."
me: Translation: women are less likely than men to be rsd dorks.
Sara J: "I think the direction of this thread is pretty telling that
RSD is not a place that I would like to spend time reading the
responses OR responding because of the blatant sexism found here."
me: Can't blame you for not wanted to read what I write or what these
other boys are writing. But, I still think that while there were a
few dumb sexist jokes on this thread, the "direction of this thread"
in general was not sexist. Sexism is disrespecting women. How is it
disrespecting women to speculate that they throw fewer hammers because
they haven't grown up playing sports requiring overhand motion? Isn't
that really a tacit admission by the men posting here that, but for
sexist patterns in the way girls are raised, women would be better at
throwing hammers? If women were saying the same thing, would you get
so upset?
Sara J: "Many of you will just say, 'Then don't read it.'"
me: Not me. I obviously have a pathological need to have people read
my ramblings. Don't stop reading, Sara.
Sara J: "Yeah, that's one path to take, but I don't think it solves
anything."
me: Right.
Sara J: "It won't change the culture of RSD. It won't show men that a
lot of their assumptions and ideas about women's ultimate are sexist
and often flat out wrong. It won't show the disheartened women
readers who read -- but who never respond to these threads -- that
there are women out there who care greatly for our sport and are
working hard to change the perceptions that are out there about it."
me: You want to change perceptions of women's Ultimate? Spend more
time working on your hammer and less time on rsd.
Sara J: "I'd like to say that the solution is to just encourage more
women to post here, but I don't think that will happen because of the
reasons I have listed previously."
me: Why not just give it a shot anyway and see what happens? What do
you have to lose? There might be a female Toad Leber (Ulticritic) or
Frank H out there just waiting to be encouraged to post on rsd. Then
you'd get to read crazy and/or hilarious things posted by a woman for
a change.
Sara J: I'd prefer to find a place where women can post freely about
our sport."
me: Wow. Sounds like utopia. Dare to dream.
Sara J: "a place where we can actually FIND scores from games and info
about the women's division at tournaments (not just a short post as an
afterthought).
me: When was the last time you were at a tournament with a laptop and
posted women's scores or info from the women's division? Oh, you mean
you've never done that but you're reserving the right to complain
about the fact that others have also failed to do it to your
satisfaction? Now you sound just like a male Ultimate player.
Sara J: "If I knew how to start my own forum, I would."
me: Yeah, I hear you. I can barely figure out how to use email. But
even if you could start your own forum, how would you keep guys from
posting? Let me tell you, unscrupulous men often go online pretending
to be women. Sometimes you may even find yourself sitting in a Motel
6 with a bottle of pink champagne and a video camera waiting to meet
them, and then they bust in and you are all like: "why is this person
a dude, and why is he dressed up like Batman, and oh my God is that
gun loaded, and is the window in the bathroom big enough for me to
jump out of?"
Sara J: "I'm definitely interested in starting a blog or something
that would be dedicated to women's ultimate, or at least helping with
one that is already up and running (if there are any, please let me
know!!)
me: The women who break their butts working for the UPA would probably
be more than happy to have your help. They may have something more
useful for you to do than blog about women's Ultimate, or they may be
willing to work with you on the women's section of the UPA website
(upa.org).
Sara J: "This part is for the women out there who I know are reading
this, and who won't respond. It's OK. I understand."
me: Do you understand that some women out there probably disagree with
you? That their silence may be motivated by things you know nothing
about?
Sara J: "But if you are like me, you're pretty tired of hearing our
sport bashed,"
me: Guys' Ultimate gets bashed, too. Don't let it tire you out, let
it motivate you. I'm pretty sure none of the women on Fury care about
what guys on rsd have to say about women's Ultimate; they're a little
busy working on their hammers so they can win their third championship
in a row.
Sara J: "and you're disappointed at the lack of female support for our
own sport. We need to do more."
me: OK
Sara J: "We need to actually watch the women's finals instead of
watching some tall dudes run fast and jump high in the men's finals."
me: I've played in men's finals and I can't jump high. Therefore, men
playing in the finals can't jump high. Case closed.
Sara J: "We need to post our scores, summaries of games, and
predictions on RSD, or find some other forum for that."
me: What's this "we" stuff? Again, have you ever done this?
Sara J: "We need to generate more interest by BEING more interested."
me: That is exactly what the guy with the gun wearing the Batman suit
in the Motel 6 said to me!
Sara J: "Thanks for reading,"
me: You're welcome.
Sara J: "and I hope we can all move on."
me: That is exactly what the guy with the gun wearing the Batman suit
in the Motel 6 said to me after we broke up! He doesn't write, he
doesn't call ...
Sara J: " I welcome any comments on this issue,"
me: That's really big of you.
Sara J: "but please, hold off on the personal attacks, sexist jokes,
etc. It's uncalled for."
me: I tried. How did I do?
Sara J: "Thanks :)"
me: You're welcome.
kelcie
> players. Most of us are either new to organized sports, have strong
> basketball, soccer, or running-oriented backgrounds. Not many of us
> played softball, football, volleyball, tennis, etc. where overhand
> motions are required.
this is a good point, and i sometimes wonder how helpful the
volleyball is anyway... i was a volleyball player before i started
playing ultimate. in fact, if there hadn't been pick up ultimate
between my dorm and the sand volleyball courts, i never would have
made the switch. the pick up crowd was full of hammer-happy
individuals, so when i did start playing ultimate i was taught to
throw a hammer before a forehand (who needs a forehand in pick up,
right?). i spiked a lot of hammers into the ground, because spiking
was just what my muscle memory said i should do when i made an
overhand motion. i've talked to some other former volleyball players
who had the same problem. we all got over it, but i'm not sure
whether it's easier to retrain from a different overhand motion or
start without bad habits...
beadilexi
playing that gave you the impression that the mindset in women's
ultimate (or with most women ultimate players?) is turnovers are not a
big deal. I haven't played women's in a while b/c I switched to
mixed, but what you're saying hasn't been my experience either playing
or watching women's ultimate. If anything, it seems most women seem
to be more conservative with the disc or encouraged to be more
conservative with the disc to avoid risking a turnover. Perhaps,
that's why we haven't traditionally seen more women throwing hammers
in game situations. I know many people consider it a low percentage
throw over distance. (I don't know if that's statistically true or
not.)
On Feb 27, 11:40 am, robyn <fenni...@uwec.edu> wrote:
robyn
I thought that you brought up a good point too about the fact that a
lot of women play because of their boyfriend. I'd also like to add
that many play because someone else tells them about it...not because
they found out about it and thought it would be cool.
My analogy to Cheap Seats referred to endless voice over comments made
by the hosts...perhaps I should have been more clear about that.
robyn
fact that when women turn the disc, a lot of the time (I'm speaking in
generalities here...) women have the "don't let it get you down, go
get it next time." I can't say that I know if club differs from
college, but in college womens, it definitely seems like turnovers are
viewed as part of the game. I rarely see women captains call "o" and
"d" lines the way they are called in open and co-ed. It seems like
wind is taken more into consideration than offensive and defensive
capabilities.
Perhaps that's just the central region for college...I'd for sure like
to see it differ in other places and for club to college.
faddy
o and d lines should always be situation specific...
such as, in stronger winds, you may be able to play your O as a D.
maybe i'm not sure what you mean.....or you are way behind the times
over there...
Ruthie
last night I threw the sweetest hammer for a score! And over my
defender (a male)! Everyone was somewhat shocked, including myself,
that it actually got past my defender and made it through the hoop
into my teammates hands! Like I said...it was SWEET! Just had to post
this given the nature of this thread...
Ruthie :)
faddy
you really need to try dischoops!!!
pevest...@gmail.com
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I throw about 2 hammers a year and personally strongly
> discourage upside down throws.
>
> Not so much because of their inherent risks in and of themselves, but due to
> the statistical observation that they frequently lead to turnovers in
> subsequent throws.
He's right. Statistics do show that trees rarely make catches and
their completion percentages are dismal.
Charlie Katie Mercer
to throw out there this notion of baseline comparison. What are
things compared to? What is the implicit assumption in a statement
for what the accepted norm is? Why do we assume one thing over
another? I would propose that in many cases, particularly in this
forum, men's ultimate is the benchmark and that women's ultimate is
the comparative. Or in other terms, men are (frequently) considered
the baseline, everything else is understood to be relational to
them.
So why don't we reverse the question, why do men throw more hammers
than women?
faddy
wrote:
>
> So why don't we reverse the question, why do men throw more hammers
> than women?
because they can.
ulticritic
who gives a fuck.........they just do. If this thread hits the
century mark i;m gonna shit
wanie...@gmail.com
"So why don't we reverse the question, why do men throw more hammers
than women? "
Wouldn't really change any of the discussion, actually. Instead of
saying "women have smaller hands," someone might say "men have bigger
hands," but there is no substantive change. And actually, this
question does not call for a baseline comparison, it calls for a
relative comparison of men vs. women. There is no absolute brightline
of normalcy.
A thought, I guess for Sara, since she seems to be the most active
critic of much of what has been said and she might provide the best
response, but really for everyone:
There have been a lot of idiot comments on here, no doubt, but there
have also been a number of attempts to provide well reasoned
explanations for why men throw more hammers. And, these explanations
actually fit very well into Anna/Busty's thinking (if you are still
reading this) regarding women's ultimate evolving differently, but
they provide a reason for the difference in evolution. So, to use my
previous post as an example (regarding men playing a more vertically
oriented game because of the general height difference)
"Isn't it possible that the difference simply
results from the fact that the two are different sports and evolved
differently? "
Yes, the two sports have evolved differently. One difference in the
evolution is that men have moved toward a more vertical game, women
toward a more horizontal orientation.
Now, what would be a useful response from some women is not "I can
throw a great hammer" or "You are all sexist" (which, I don't mind
these responses at all. I am glad to hear about a good hammer and yes,
a lot of people are sexist, these just don't contribute to a well
reasoned conversation). Instead, find the responses that do try to
make a reasonable assessment of the situation (I would hope mine might
be an example of this) and tell us if it is a good assessment or not.
Why this is good?
I could end up coaching women's ultimate some day. Right now, my
understanding of women's ultimate is that it is more horizontally
oriented then vertical for the previously stated reasons. I would
coach differently based on this understanding. If this is true, it
would be good for some knowledgable women to confirm my hypothesis. If
this is false, it would be even better for some knowledgable women to
let me know that I am wrong so I don't end up coaching based on
incorrect assumptions. OR, if it is true but is bad (IE: Women should
play a more vertical game), offer reasoning why it should change.
Hopefully some of these comments are not value laden, such as "guys
are better than girls." Continuing to refer to my post, a vertical
orientation is neither better nore worse than a horizontal, just
different and more effective for different groups. Probably shorter
male players tend to play a more horizontal game, more in cuts and
direct line/flat hucks rather than stuff they are expected to go up
and get, and that is probably best for them, but since the question
was phrased men vs. women, that is the relevant analysis for the
moment.
sempe...@gmail.com
You don't throw passes where people aren't cutting. In my experience,
my teammates don't generally cut to the deep breakside of the field.
Thus, no hammer thrown.
That being said, I'm brushing up my hammer so I can plant it squarely
in some dude's forehead in league next month. Innocent though he may
be, he's going to get punished for this whole thread.
H2AZ
wanie...@gmail.com
analysis and the other because it is just funny. If in fact you do
plant a hammer in some league dude's forehead, please apologize for
all of us and the come tell us about it so we can laught.
Jared Smith
game. I drew a quick gif to illustrate my point. The arc shows a
typical hammer and normal huck and the grey box shows possibly ways to
catch it. (Only the outer portion of the arc are where the disc
occupies anything else is just area below the disc) As you can see a
hammer is made easier to catch by increasing your potential to go
vertical while a huck (assuming its not a blade but a fairly flat
huck) is made easier to catch by going horizontal. I didn't spend
much time on it so don't critique it too much.
wanie...@gmail.com
Hmmm...interesting little thought there. I am not sure how accurate it
is, as I am sure you are too given that you didn't spend a whole lot
of time on it, but it definitely is interesting.
This would actually be a really fascinating thing to do more of.
Graphing/visual displays of throws and the different requirements to
catch them.
There are three components to a throw though, so it would take a more
compelx illustration to display each throw.
1. Horizontal location: Looking down on the field from above, what is
the line the disc takes
2. Vertical location: How high is the disc
3. Time: how long does the disc stay at each point (floating/sharp
throws)
The horizontal and vertical could be accomplished with a view from
above and a color coding to indicate height. (Cool colors (blue) are 1
inch off the ground, warm colors (red) are 40 feet off the ground)
Kind of like a topographical mapping of a throw.
The time would be a little more difficult. You could just use time
stamps along the line (.1 second, .2 second, .3 second), but that
doesn't seem quite right. Any ideas?
Along with the charting of the course, what you did would be useful as
well. Denote the areas on which the throw can be caught by players of
various heights. A throw 2 feet off the ground would be catchable
along the lenght of its course. A hammer would have concentric figures
representing where a player could catch it. A player who can reach 10
feet in the air would have the largest area as the disc descends and
succesively smaller circles would represent where players with smaller
reaches could make the catch.
Hmmmm. A fascinating idea you have created here Jared. Has anyone done
anything like this?
As for the relation to the women and hammers discussion (or, more
importantly, short recievers and hammers), this sort of an
illustration would demonstrate the target area available to a taller
reciever vs. a shorter reciever.
And I think this is post #100