Tournaments need a new level added

[xsisbest]

I know I'm not alone on this as both USO tournaments I've been to, there are a bunch of guys that are very very good.. but then there are those "advanced" players that are in a whole different category all together. I myself have been in intermediate competition for both years and have won both times. That being said, I almost feel obligated to move up to Advanced but know I will be creamed and stand no chance in the slightest. I basically feel like I will make a fool of myself as I'm no where near the talent that is in the advanced bracket. Several other players have also mentioned that they aren't competing as they don't stand a chance, even though they were way better than myself as well.
I really feel there needs to be 4 levels of competition at a tournament. And I think this would allow for more growth to the sport as well. Many people know the intimidation factor when playing and someone comes up to join and quickly recognizes they stepped into a league of play they are no where near capable of playing in and quickly steps out. I myself could care less how crappy someone is as I've been there and only want to promote and encourage others to get involved in footbag. The same goes though at competitions where it's hard to want to go screw up an "elite" circle with my 15-30 second runs while everyone else is going a full 2-3 minutes dropless. I can think of about 10 players that might not be capable of winning the Advanced competition, but if there were a new category below it would all have a very tight race for a winner. Meanwhile there are about 10-15 "elite" players that are fully capable of winning a USO tournament (maybe less I'm being nice )

I'm advocating that there are 4 groups. These 4 groups would be:

Novice
Intermediate
Advanced
Elite (or Pro)

This would allow for a much broader range of footbaggers and I believe increase the contestant list by making them feel they actually have a chance. I want to move up to advanced personally but everytime I watch a Penske,Clavens,Somolino's,Bevier,Landes, etc.. video I think.. wtf am I thinking??????? lol.. Again I feel like I am obligated to move up after doing intermediate for a couple years.. even though i know I'm not ready for the next jump.. It's just unfortunate that the jump from intermediate and advanced is such a huge gap.. You go from intermediate groups that drop probably 10-15 times in a minute and a half routine to dropless in 2 mintues..

Does anyone else feel this way or am I alone on this one? At 39 I know my time line for world domination has passed.. but I would like to at least be competitive in the advanced group.. and with a breakdown like this.. I possibly could.. someday...

[MathieuGM]

I totally know what you mean.
I feel that if the sport was much bigger, that could be an option.
That said, there were some year where their wasn't even like 20 competitor at USO....
So if we divide them in 4 category, i woudl feel it become a kind of a joke? Like, 6 Elite, 5 advanced, 3 intermediate and 4 novice.
That said, yes the jump between intermediate and open is big, and definitly intimidating.
Still, no one will laugh of you, because all the open players pass b y this path at some point . Non of them started being a super crazy pro. They all loose to someone MUCH better then them at some point haha. Well... most of them.
Mat

[xsisbest]

I understand completely. The numbers aren't near what I was expecting to see for a US Championship let alone for a world competition. But I feel it's due to the lack of exposure. I still can't believe it took me till 2008 just to see someone play Freestyle Footbag. I remember back in like 97 I was playing in Idaho and someone was doing Osis and I was blown away. I had no idea what it was called but I remember it to this day. But I never saw anything like that for another 11 years. Sad cause I could of spent my better years improving had I known of freestyle's existence. I just think the sport has evolved so much within even the past 5 years that the gap has widened much further than in the past. In the beginning, Ryan Mulroney was almost one of a kind.. then Vasek.. Now, there are alot of Vasek's and Ryan's. It's awesome to see how the game has been elevated by just a few players over the years. But that leaves allot of distance between those just starting out and those that have 5+ years experience. I'm at 4 right now but most of the top players have 10+. At this rate I'll be almost 50 before I can feel included in that group.. But I'll also be needing a hip replacement lol.

[Fade2black]

What if you allowed intermediates to participate in the open (with the allowance that they cannot move into the finals?)

Would that be a compromise worth looking into ?

[xsisbest]

Intermediate already has their own bracket. It really wouldn't make sense to combine with the Open since you get a chance at a medal by just doing intermediate. Plus if your level of play is intermediate, I doubt you would want to be combined with a bunch of people that make you look novice.. lol.

[Muffinman]

You go from intermediate groups that drop probably 10-15 times in a minute and a half routine to dropless in 2 mintues..

Maybe intermediate routines should be shortened?
I agree that 4 levels is way too much. Maybe, rather than 4 different levels of routines, there could be a number of different events that cater to different levels of play. So instead of beginners doing routines, which is silly if you have trouble linking tiltless, you could do a 30-second shred. For intermediate you could do circle. And for advanced you could do routines. Or something like that. There would still be, like, circle for advanced too, but maybe routines just aren't the right fit for every level? I'm trying to see this from the judges' and organizers' perspectives too -- I think the organization of an event would really suffer with so much STUFF for so many levels. Just thoughts.

[fatbagger]

I feel you on the wanting to move on from int. but not being ready to compete with the next level. I also think adding more levels would spread the competitors too thin. I don't think the thought of getting beaten badly should keep people from competing open. You're not going to start at the top of the podium but in the gutters. I think what we really need is a more defined cut off level that says "No, you cant compete intermediate anymore because......" That way there is less confusion and insecurity about when to move up, you just get to a certain point and then HAVE to jump into the deep end. I don't know what that point should be, maybe winning an intermediate comp? I wonder what is better for the sport, only the best who have a chance at winning compete open even if that means only 10 people compete. Or have everyone who wants to compete just do it and have to deal with 30+ open competitors. This is what I wondering about. Should I compete, adding to the size of the comp? Or just step aside and let the real competitors have at it. I feel if there are more competitors it adds to the legitimacy of the comp in general.

[MathieuGM]

That way there is less confusion and insecurity about when to move up, you just get to a certain point and then HAVE to jump into the deep end. I don't know what that point should be, maybe winning an intermediate comp?

This is already the unofficial rule. Most of the people are expeting those who win on intermediate event to move Open. Especialluy if that personne is making progress.

I agree that 4 levels is way too much. Maybe, rather than 4 different levels of routines, there could be a number of different events that cater to different levels of play. So instead of beginners doing routines, which is silly if you have trouble linking tiltless, you could do a 30-second shred. For intermediate you could do circle. And for advanced you could do routines. Or something like that. There would still be, like, circle for advanced too, but maybe routines just aren't the right fit for every level? I'm trying to see this from the judges' and organizers' perspectives too -- I think the organization of an event would really suffer with so much STUFF for so many levels. Just thoughts.

That's a very intersting idea. In my opinion, routine looks so so except for the top players and for those who really plan them. I have seen so many ''shred 2 minutes on a music'' instead of real routine and stuff like that... Then, asking people that doesn'T have a solid base to plan a routine makes no sens. I know some old dog want to keep it like that becaus they think it prepare the player for their Open routine. but yah.... that doesn'T make sens. you can't ask a baby that is learning to walk to run 10 miles... You can't ask a kid that is learning to swim to to a 200 meters butterfly style race. I think your idea of having some comp. specific for beginner make tons of sens. That said, i would still keep circle and routine for pro. A circle from pro is sooooo exciting . I know that was only an exemple. From my point of view, having circle for beginner is a good solution. Basiclly just adjust that comp for their level. Their isn't 6 turn. Only 4 is enough. And you don't ask to split variety and density, because they don't have enough tricks they really master to really do something different in both phases, unless they try stuff they can't, or barely can hit. So 4 turn, one round. That's it. We do that often at spring jam and it's great. Intermediate enjoy it.

Should I compete, adding to the size of the comp? Or just step aside and let the real competitors have at it. I feel if there are more competitors it adds to the legitimacy of the comp in general.

In my opinion, especially in smaller jam, if you don't really mind competing and don't mind not competing, you could ask the organizer what they would like . When i run an event, i often ask people that are on the fence to compete because i need more competitor to have all my circle full:). Eg : if i have 15 competitor, i canT do 4 circle of 4 people. So i either have to do some twist (BYE, a 3 man circle or other things like that) or i can ask people that are on the fence to full the circle. I really appreciate when they do that. Obviously, if you really want to compete and the number of competitor aren't fitting well, you should compete anyway. It shouldn't be a limit. But otherwise, you could offer a form of help, even if you know you have no chances to win. That make the show better because giving BYE, even to a top player, isn't fair. Like the top player could play bad and do not make it. The probably are thin, but possible. So giving a BYE to a pro is like assuming he will win... Also, not having 3 man circle is more fair, because that give a bigger time to all the competitor to rest between strings, wich can have an impact on the energy level futher on the comp.

Mat

[xsisbest]

I see again the problem all leading back to the amount of players at a competition. My first USO in 2010, there were 3 of us in intermediate competition and maybe 10 in Open. Last year in Boise there were many more.. Like 10 in intermediate and 15 or so in Open. I know the probability of adding a different level is out of the question based on numbers. I don't really think there is a clear cut answer on how to resolve the "gap" either. I Have won 2 intermediate comps so I know it's time to move up. I dropped several times in those 1.5 minute routines and I'm going to die trying to make 2 minutes. But I guess I gotta start somewhere. Just wish my stamina was better... I don't know how the hell the elite players string atomic after atomic with paradox mirage's double downs ripwalk after ripwalk nuclear drifter etc.. for 2 minutes.. If I got all of those in one string I'd be ready to keel over lol.

[rjadamson]

10 second intermediate routines.

[xsisbest]

lol Reilley . I think I would never leave intermediate

[xsisbest]

oops.. double posted somehow

[PoisonTaffy]

I really like Erik's idea that different events lend themselves better to different skill levels. A shot in the dark: In circles and request, perhaps it's possible to have everyone doing the same competition, but group the people according to their requested level. So you'd have 4 groups competing at the same event, where the winner of each group is the winner of their level class, instead of holding separate events for each level. That way you could easily have 4 levels without worrying about event inflation.

However, what about a definition of what it is to be a beginner/intermediate/advanced. People playing below their level is common from what I hear, and when you register for an event it can be difficult to predict the level you'll be in (I think i'm advanced, but what if I show up and everyone kicks my ass badly?).

[Jeremy]

As I've stated in other topics similar to this - I support 1 division and the abolishment of multi-divisions, especially at big tournaments like Worlds, Euros, US Open etc. I don't know of any international or national sporting tournament that has multiple divisions (no doubt they exist in a few sports). The idea of only competing in competitions if you have a chance of winning is poor in my opinion. It's especially poor in footbag where there are so few competitors. Age restricted divisions is perhaps acceptable, but if you look at any sporting competition, the majority of competitors have no realistic chance of beating the best, and many of the least experienced competitors get smashed. That's the nature of sport. If you arbitrarily divide the competitors to create more winners it's meaningless and devalues winning at any level.

[PoisonTaffy]

Figure skating has divisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_competition

I think the division issue is a means to an end of getting more people to compete, and I can see how it can devalue the competition. Perhaps there are other ideas to encourage people to compete?

[xsisbest]

Almost every sport has divisions. It just may not seem so evident. NFL is the pro's, Arena, CFL, and in the past the USFL are basically amateur or farm leagues.. College, HS would be age appropriate.. Soccer, basketball, baseball all have farm leagues.. almost all the top tier sports have different levels of play.. just not consolidated as footbag is. I completely understand what your saying Jeremy. Although I wouldn't call wanting to win a poor reason for competing. I can't think of anyone that competes that goes in and says "I'm gonna lose today".. I think everyone believes they have a shot. Hell I even have visions of grandeur as I daydream about playing in advanced. Maybe everyone drops a few times and I do pixie and mirage and go dropless.. lol j/k..But yeah.. I think if glory was what we were after we would of picked a more popular sport...... Again it all comes back to numbers. I guess my thinking there needs to be an extra in between spot wasn't so well thought out. If we had hundreds of players it wouldn't be a question but when the total contestants is only 20 players it makes it hard to split up. Maybe there be only 3 divisions would be easier.. Novice.. that is the 1-2 year category.. Intermediate - 3-4 years and advanced 5+.
It's going to be hard for this question to be answered by someone that has many years of experience. It's more of a question geared towards players that are not "advanced" or feel some what intimidated from joining based on the level of competition. As I said earlier, I know we've all had people want to join in and play with us but didn't want to look a fool. Would it benefit the growth of the sport to open it up to a more amateur level of play? .. maybe so maybe not..
I'm also the head wrestling coach at the high school here and I think footbag and wrestling are almost identical in that they both take self motivation, hard work, and dedication. Only YOU can determine how good you will be. You have to sacrifice many many hours to improve even just a tiny bit. And there will be many times where you think "is this really worth it?" .. or "Am I even getting better?" Most kids these days are to lazy to want to put in the efforts to improve upon a sport that gets little to no recognition. You have to be extremely competitive and self driven. A reward of some kind is almost expected of youth these days. I think the only way to appeal to them is to offer a prize of some kind unfortunately. And this is where it gets tough in footbag. You'll never get a prize if you are just starting out. Improving and learning something new just isn't enough these days sadly. (I'm not saying all youth either but allot of "American" kids are downright lazy..) I've struggled greatly though trying to motivate kids to come into the mat room over the summer time. If they aren't required to come in, they just don't. I don't think there will be a clear cut way for kids to get interested in footbag cause it's work. Maybe becoming an Olympic sport it would finally get the recognition it deserves.. If archery can be a Olympic sport, how the hell is footbag not?? The world has no clue how athletic a professional footbagger is. I'd have to fight to say he/she is among the top athletes in the world. PERIOD!

[sen]

The first tournament I ever attended they had a kicking competition. Just straight up kicking. I took 2nd place in it. I didn't even own Laver's yet at that point in time. I think it was Brett Campbell who beat me. Everyone there was WAY more talented than me. There was no intermediate and open classes. Everyone just competed together. I don't think they even bothered to score my Shred30 because we all knew what place it scored. But I was able able to beat some of them at the kicking competition.

What I'm getting at is that I agree with having different formats of competition for the different levels. In most tournaments I don't think a noob like I was at that point would have a chance even at kicking, but I had spent the last several years just kicking consecutively because that was what I had known. I was just starting to get into freestyle where as the other guys had spent the last years doing nothing but stalling and dexing so I actually had better kicking control than them.

I think it would benefit tournament turn out to have a hacky sack keep it up competition. Market it to the circles in the park and see if we can get some of them to come out and check it out. Freestyle players wouldn't need to enter it, but could if they wanted to.

Then maybe a Beginners Circle Comp and Intermediate Circles Comp.

Leave Routines to the Open category, and of course since it's fun to watch have Open do circle/request as well.

[Muffinman]

My first tournament also had a kicking consecutives competition.

[sen]

My first tournament also had a kicking consecutives competition.

Did it allow you to feel more involved?

[abstract]

i believe one of vasek's first exposures to footbag was a consecutive kicking contest promotion done by chard cook in CZR.

consecutives is a great gateway comp. freestylers shouldn't be allowed entry though imo. some stylers can't kick, but most can way better than a casual circle kicker. kinda follows same philosophy of "winning intermediate bumps you to open"--if you can compete in intermediate, shouldn't enter novice comp.

i think one thing to bear in mind is that footbag is a sport largely driven by personal goals & challenges, so we should always be looking for ways to challenge ourselves if we want to grow. when deciding to compete, it should be to do better than we did last time, to make personal progress in a documented setting--not necessarily to beat the other players. when the time is right, victory takes care of itself.

look at the nigerian rower at the olympics yesterday; he was 2 minutes behind the other 3 in his heat but that was a huge achievement for him because just by showing up he made huge strides for himself & his country.

so i would say have no fears about competing in Open; go for it & raise the bar for yourself!