Intermediates at major competitions

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2008 17:19

It seems to me that there needs to either be much more clear cut off points for intermediates or that part cut out completely. Certainly in any serious sporting tournament there is no second tier of competition, and a title like "world intermediate champion" seems completely meaningless as well.

The results from the US Open are amazing. The top 3 results in sick 1 were;

Montage
Superfly
Dimwalk swirl

How can people who can hit those tricks on demand under competition pressure be considered "intermediate." I know the level of footbag is getting better, but I'm sure there are plenty of people competing in open who would be happy hitting those moves on demand.

I'm aware that there's a massive discrepancy between intermediate sick 1 and sick 3 results (although the winning sick 3 combo was probably open standard).

So what's the point of having an intermediate division? Is it to evenly split up the competition between the top 50% and the bottom 50%, or is it make new competitors more comfortable competing? If it's the latter - what message is this sending? That there's no point competing unless you can win?

What would be the outcome if there were no intermediate division at footbag events (just like other sports)?

jon · Post by **jon** » 30 Jul 2008 17:34

I brought up removing the intermediate bracket after I got back from worlds 04. The response I got from the forum was less than positive and now I really only bring up my views on the subject in person and not online. That said I believe:

There should be no intermediate category. Everyone should compete in the same category and let the chips fall where they may.

The idea of an intermediate champion doesn't make a lot of sense. Are they the best of the worst? Is the intermediate champion better than the last place open competitor? If you place in the top spot in the intermediate category at one tourney does that mean you have to compete open at all future comps regardless of their size? What defines intermediate play and what is sandbagging?

While a case could be made that there should be a lower level of competition the difficulty of defining that level is so difficult I believe it is almost impossible to make it fair.

I can't think of any other sport with the same category of play as footbag. I think the format of only one category would work. I also think that the idea of pro cards given at selected bigger tourneys to establish a pro rank of players would work. This is the system used in bodybuilding. You normally build up by competing at local/regional comps, move up to the state level, nationals, and then try to win your pro card. After that you can compete at pro shows with the big boys. Because footbag lacks the numbers to sustain a system like that well I think doing away with the intermediate category would seem to just be easier.

Realistically I doubt anything will change for a long time to come. I think this is ok too. Most people in the know realize there are problems with defining intermediate play. Most experienced players compete open and don't sandbag. Intermediate comps may not be great but at least they encourage people to get out and compete.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2008 18:07

What if players had no choice as to whether they competed open or intermediate. There could be a minor round of qualifying where players have to do whatever they want for 30 seconds and a panel of judges decides whether they are open or intermediate. You could say that once you've qualified for open at a particular level of event (so large national/international events) you no longer have to do the qualifying step - so most of the open competitors wouldn't have to do it each event.

It does add a little bit extra time, but there's not much pressure for most people - and those that do feel the pressure probably could do with the extra experience.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 30 Jul 2008 18:11

intermediate division helped me compete better. its just some good experence before you have to go into the open division. i think we should keep it just so people can get used to everything. its not like any tounry gives prizes to people who win anyway

dp · Post by dp » 30 Jul 2008 18:22

I think another thing that is skewed is using Sick 1 to determine how good a player is. I know a lot of beginners that just school enormous tricks, so while they can bust out montage no problem, maybe they can't do a torque midstring if their life depended on it?

I'm just saying, just because someone can hit montage doesn't really mean their any good. I know this isn't exactly related, but i hit dimwalk before I hit mirage.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2008 18:23

How can you know that? How different would your game be if there were no intermediate division and you were immediately forced to compete with open levels. That's completely speculative - we couldn't possibly say that having an intermediate division makes a difference to people's playing abilities.

The first event I competed in (NSW champs 2003) my sick 3 was; smear>dimwalk>clipper. The winning sick 3 was alpine legbeater>blurriest>mobius. I didn't go away from that event disheartened because there was such a big difference between myself and first place, or because I didn't win. I left that event completely inspired and started playing a lot more.

Now I'm not saying that I would have behaved differently if there were an intermediate section at that event, I'm saying that we can't know how the world would be different under those conditions. We do know that intermediate events often create controversy because of people sandbagging and we do know that serious sporting events have no intermediate category.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 30 Jul 2008 19:25

I think the various upsides in intermediates still don't justify having it a major events - and we should keep in mind that that's what we're talking about here. Not no intermediate comps, just no intermediate comps at Worlds or Euros

At previous Australian comps we've had intermediate shred 30 with an altered formula to allow tilters to have a chance to give it a go, and intermediate routines which were 1.5 minutes rather than 2.

The upsides to doing intermediates is that it allows players, who otherwise would not feel able to post a score in shred 30 because they were still only tilting, to have a go. With routines the upside is the intermediates don't take up as much stage time - there is a significant difference, particularly for an audience member, watching 2 mins of intermediate vs 1.5 mins - it can feel like a lot more than just 30 sec.

But this is only really valid at smaller events where sandbagging is more manageable. Once you throw sandbagging into the equation, its such a big downside that it undermines the upsides and then some. Also since worlds is supposed to be the highest level of competition it doesn't make sense to have intermediates. It seems like a waste of time and resources.

If you're trekking out to worlds you're already investing yourself in footbag and if you think you'll eventually want to compete I don't think not having an intermidiate comp at worlds would stop you from eventually doing so, especially if you had access to other smaller events to cut your teeth on.

Do people really only go to worlds because they'll be able to compete in intermediate? It seems like a strange thing to do to me. Competeing in intermediate would be secondary to seeing and shredding with the best over the weekend, at most it would a minor added bonus rather than clincher - so to remove it shouldn't really have much of anegative impact on attendance or on participation in the long run.

Some sports have age based steps - football on mini fields till the age of 7 or 8 for example. This makes sense given that it takes time before childrens body development allows them to achieve the base level of skill to perform the sport properly. But this is not why we have intermediates in footbag. We seem to do it because we don't want people to have to swallow their pride in order to first compete.

Maybe the mens tennis model is good comparison/solution, where you have majors in which it's decided in 5 sets as well as other comps where its just 3. In footbag we'd have majors like Worlds, and Euros where there would be no intermediates. Then there would be smaller events where intermediates could be an option for organisers.

There's so much disorganisation in the way comps are organised that there would nned to developments before any organised approach could be applied. Until then it will just be up to organisers as to whether they want to go to the trouble of having intermediates so that the players who would otherwise not compete for whatever reason, will still have ago. Or whether they just cut their losses and hope that these people decide to step up in the future.

Nathan · Post by **Nathan** » 30 Jul 2008 19:55

The only advantage i can see of intermediate competitions is to allow some players more experience at events where there are multiple rounds. obviously some players who could advance through 2-3 rounds of intermediate competition but be cut in the first round of open. i think that removing intermediate would stop a lot of these players from competing all together because of the idea of being cut after one round.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 30 Jul 2008 20:32

But again, is that something that needs to be done at worlds- and isn't it undermined by sandbagging anyway?

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 30 Jul 2008 21:30

Jeremy wrote:we do know that serious sporting events have no intermediate category.

Ok for once you have got to be kidding me. Really? You think every sport out there just some how starts off in a pro level of compeition?

I mean why don't we just start throwing the little league baseballs with the major league? Why not Pop Warner footbag with the NFL?

http://www.usfigureskating.org/About.asp?id=17
Ice Skating with Novice, Intermediate, and more

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Gymnastics-2 ... ediate.htm
Gymnastics a forum asking if one should leave the intermediate class

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Enter- ... &id=296804
How to enter a snowboard competition and the various CATEGORIES WITH INTERMEDIATE

http://www.wilmingtonriverfest.com/inde ... Itemid=126
Hey look an Intermediate Skateboarding competition go figure?

So do you mean like Worlds should not intermediate or what? Because to be honest EVERY sport has some kind of entry level position. I do not know where you get your information but this was all easy to find there. Do you throw babies in the pool against professional swimmers down under?

Really from what I gather from your statement it means either A: a serious event has no intermediate event (which they do) or B: Any "serious" sport doesn't have an intermediate category at all.

By the way I managed to find horse riding competition
http://useventing.com/competitions.php? ... ei&id=1337
(side note its 1337 at the end:)

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jul 2008 23:41

Sorry, I should have clarified a little. Obviously there are lower divisions of competition etc.

However if you go to the Soccer World Cup, or the Olympics or the US Skating Championships, nobody is crowned "Intermediate 100m Gold Medallist"

Let me repeat myself just because perhaps it wasn't clear;

Jeremy wrote:Certainly in any serious sporting tournament there is no second tier of competition, and a title like "world intermediate champion" seems completely meaningless as well.

I just want to be clear, this whole topic is talking about intermediate competition at large serious events - both in and out of footbag. There is no "intermediate gymnastics world champion" - there is no "Intermediate Canadian Snowboard Champion."

Of course there are different levels of competing - just like in all sports - and when you compete at a national or international level - that's the top level - it doesn't get divided into a US Golf Champion and US Golf Intermediate Champion.

edit; Of course if you look hard enough there may be the odd exception. That doesn't make the point I'm making any less relevant if there are exceptions. The point is that it's not normal for there to be people given titles of "World/National Intermediate Champion," and that title does not make sense.

You could easily have a side competition for intermediates at the US Open/Worlds/Euros whatever. Just don't credit it as being the US/Worlds/Euros Intermediate championships - because that's ridiculous. If you compete at worlds, you should compete open. If you don't compete open, you're not competing at the world championships.

edit2: I'm pretty sure the title of this topic makes it clear what it's about.

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 30 Jul 2008 23:56

http://www.usapl.org/
US Amateur Champion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... mpionships
Junoir Nationals is what its called

"In addition to determining the United States champions, the event is used to determine the U.S. teams for the World Figure Skating Championships, World Junior Figure Skating Championships, the Four Continents Championships, and de-facto for the Winter Olympics."

max · Post by **max** » 31 Jul 2008 00:27

I believe that the only clear advantage to having the intermediate (and novice if necessary) bracket is to limit the number of rounds a player has to play.

When there are 64 or so players in an event, the competitors will no doubt have to do 3 rounds: qualifying, semis, finals. If you add on another 20 or so players that also want to compete you'll be looking at 4 rounds which is a nightmare for both scheduling and the players.

Having an open and an intermediate comp allows easier scheduling of the events and is less tiring on the players.

I think the problems came up at a World Championship several years ago where there were 64 or so open competitors. The subject of player seeding allowing only a certain number to compete in open was brought up in order to limit the number of competitors (although in practice everything worked out fine).

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Jul 2008 05:23

acommoncold wrote:http://www.usapl.org/
US Amateur Champion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... mpionships
Junoir Nationals is what its called

"In addition to determining the United States champions, the event is used to determine the U.S. teams for the World Figure Skating Championships, World Junior Figure Skating Championships, the Four Continents Championships, and de-facto for the Winter Olympics."

Both those terms have very clear rules as to who fits into those groups and they are not comparable with "intermediate" footbag championships.

"Amateur" is a term used in lots of sports and it means somebody who doesn't earn a living from their sport. When Aaron Baddeley first won the Australian Golf Open he was classified as an amateur and that meant he only won a few thousands dollars in prize money, instead of over a million that he won the next year competing at the same event. Anybody can be an amateur - Tiger woods could go and compete in amateur events if he wanted, but he'd have to give up competing in events with big prize money.

"Junior" is a term based completely on age. In figure skating, according to the wikipedia article, a Junior is somebody who is between the ages of 13 and 19 (or in a couple of events, 21). - It's an age requirement.

Neither of these examples you've given are comparable with having a "world intermediate champion" or intermediate competitions as part of major national events.

If we were to changed things so that there were clear rules as to what counted as an intermediate and clear advantage in finishing last place in open instead of first place in intermediate (like there is in golf) then you'd have a case. As it is you've either completely misunderstood the entire point being made, or you didn't bother to actually read and research the supposed examples you've given.

Instead of failing to offer anything useful to this topic, perhaps you could try some kind of meaningful contribution.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 31 Jul 2008 06:58

I thought Eric's post was a useful contribution. Other sports do have some level of competition other than "pro" which have national or world championships.

So to the point of how to sort players into an appropriate category. I think the "pro card" idea makes a lot of sense - if someone wins, or maybe just places highly, in intermediates at US open (for instance), then they should go open in their next tournament. I think the judges should also be able to move a player up to the open level if they see them hitting stuff like superfly or montage or long shuffle runs or something. I think the guiding principle shouldn't be "can you do well in open?" but rather "are you too good for intermediates?"

Anyway, this is just a bunch of meaningless talk on Modified. I'm sure there are real world problems with imposing this structure onto tournaments & players in a consistent and fair manner.

EDIT: Just another thought - what if intermediates were held before open, and if someone during the intermediate comp looks out of place, they could be pulled from that and put into the open bracket? Seems like it would be more fair to the other intermediates but less fair to the person getting pulled? I don't know. Thoughts?

dan the man · Post by **dan the man** » 31 Jul 2008 07:40

footbag is a really small sport, so it is very hard to compare it to any other major sport like baseball (how can baseball be popular?) or soccer. if people are really still competing in intermediates, then it should remain.

I kinda see your point though, if we go to worlds, we want to see the best of the best competing, which means opens.

amature has a definition, someone who doesn't make money off what they play. an amature golfer plays for fun, and a professional golfer plays for money. so I think that if intermediate is to remain it needs a definition, so that people that are hitting nemisis will go compete in the opens.

junior has to do with age, but i've seen young footbaggers that are a hell of a lot better than me, and i've seen older footbaggers, that i could school (not really though).

but then again, amature and professional has nothing to do with skill level. you could be an amature, and better than a pro, does that mean that you can be placing 10th in open but say your intermediate so that you can have the title of intermediate number one?

so either get rid of intermediate, don't care about it, or find a way to classify intermediate players. i kinda like your idea Nathan.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 31 Jul 2008 08:02

Interesting topic.

I only skimmed the thread, but I don't think anybody has raised this positive of intermediate comp: it helps the tournament organizer raise more revenue to cover costs. While intermediate fees tend to be lower than Open competitor fees, intermediates cannot win prize money. If having an intermediate division raises revenue from players who otherwise would not compete, and those players are ineligible for prize money, then that can help the tournament organizer cover costs.

I also think that intermediate comps are a good way to build player confidence and give players a taste of what it is like to compete. Playing for 1:30 is a lot easier than 2:00, and its easier to not get psyched out since you know you won't be facing Vasek and have a chance at winning.

I think Jeremy's idea for a 30 second tryout isn't bad, or you could more informally just have the tournament director walk around while people shred and have the authority to determine who can and cannot compete intermediate.

Paulsator · Post by **Paulsator** » 31 Jul 2008 08:50

what we've tried before at competitions (i think even at the footjam) and which worked quite well is have an intermediate competition in which players can face players their level. After 2 (semis, finals) rounds say the best 4 players would advance to the open level. they wouldnt have won anything but had a chance to test out their form before and gain confidence competing (in open too), which they, had intermediate not existed, wouldnt have done ...
that way people can compete intermediate, but ther wont be an intermediate world champion or something like this...

Benjaminzors · Post by **Benjaminzors** » 31 Jul 2008 08:57

C-Fan wrote: I think Jeremy's idea for a 30 second tryout isn't bad, or you could more informally just have the tournament director walk around while people shred and have the authority to determine who can and cannot compete intermediate.

The tryout is a good idea if everyone's goal is to qualify for Open. What about the people who should be in open but purposely bomb the try out to get ranked down, as it were.

Paulsator wrote: what we've tried before at competitions (i think even at the footjam) and which worked quite well is have an intermediate competition in which players can face players their level. After 2 (semis, finals) rounds say the best 4 players would advance to the open level. they wouldnt have won anything but had a chance to test out their form before and gain confidence competing (in open too), which they, had intermediate not existed, wouldnt have done ...
that way people can compete intermediate, but ther wont be an intermediate world champion or something like this...

This seems like a really cool idea, using Intermediates as a means for qualifying for the "pro" or Open division.

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 31 Jul 2008 10:07

I am all for intermediate competitions Jeremy. Its a wonderful thing that allows newer freestylers compete and still be able to do decent.

I do agree that playing with people higher than you is a plus and totally a must in any sport. But that the best part I look forward to is the sideline shred with good players! I learn something new every time out, and they tell me what I'm doing wrong to fix. So like I said I do agree with the whole play with better players aspect of the sport.

However in terms of most of the competitions. Putting me up in Shred30 against even low-tier Open players would not be good. To let you know my Intermediate Shred30 score was 84 (Worlds '07 was 24 or something)I fail to see how getting my rear stomped when I'm not literally there is going to help.

Then for routines, the powerhouse that is Vasek, whats the point? I don't think I'll ever be able to reach that skill level. Not to mention I don't think I'll learn anything by being in the same bracket as Vasek. Well other than don't drop as much and be better? If anything it tells me not to compete to save money :-p

dan the man wrote: I kinda see your point though, if we go to worlds, we want to see the best of the best competing, which means opens.

-Trust me this is apparent to me

I mean how many people actually make it a point sit down to watch the intermediate? From what I have gathered its usually sideline shred, or the fact the open players are warming up beforehand.

Benjaminzors wrote: The tryout is a good idea if everyone's goal is to qualify for Open. What about the people who should be in open but purposely bomb the try out to get ranked down, as it were.

-Then it would be up to the judges to remove them from the competition or something like that?[/quote]