I was thinking about Chilly Philly, and that got me thinking about Shred 30 and what I dont like about, mainly scoring.
You know, we're always trying to come up with new formulas or point-based systems and arguing endlessly about them, and there has always been that one group which has said "Fuck adds".
Which in TURN, got me thinking about that statement. What if it was really literal?
What if Shred 30 was JUDGED in the same way routines are judged, but using categories like "Links", "Variety", "Uniques", "Flipsidedness", "Overall Difficulty", etc? This would solve alot of the problems of the repetitiveness of peoples shred 30, and people would be freer to use alot more moves which are normally fairly difficult but are not worth many adds, like reverse drifters, ripstein, etc.
Also you would get the ability to judge COMBOS instead of just individual moves. Yes, Blurry Whirl > PS Whirl is nice, but Ps Whirl > Blurry Whirl is MUCH nicer! It would encourage people to really step it up and not do little symp.mirages all the time, or ripwalk > sidewalk rpt, etc.
Any thoughts on such a system?
ps: Oh yeah and I still push for 30 CONTACTS as opposed to SECONDS.
Judging Shred 30?
Judging Shred 30?
Nicholas Laroche
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Nick,
I'm all for it, really. During our little discussion/argument on "what moves are unique", I think it was Jeremy who suggested a subjectively judged shred 30, and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Its an interesting idea. I can think of some problems with the format already, but then, we could probably think of some problems with any format. And I wonder how you'd address these problems:
1. How much would drops hurt your score? (we know how much drops hurt in the conventional style of Shred 30, but it would seem to be a pretty different equation for this)
2. Does a drop count as one of your contacts?
3. How much time is allowed after a drop to pick up the bag and finish your run? Or are you simply done once you've dropped?
4. Do you envision a panel of judges scoring in real-time, or is it still video-reviewed?
I guess what I can't quite understand yet about a subjectively scored Shred 30 is, is it basically a "Big 3" contest times 10? I mean, in Big 3, two tricks and a drop generally counts as nothing at all. If everybody gets the same amount of tricks, and its judged subjectively, basically by whatever the judges prefer or consider to be the most difficult, how should judges compare a run of 30 actual tricks to one of 28 tricks and 2 drops? I'd imagine that 28 tricks and 2 drops can still at least be compared to 30 dropless tricks. A few years back, though, when Big 3 was still pretty new, we experimented with a Big 10 format too, and one thing that was learned was that many good kickers often failed to hit ten consecutive moves at all (given that they were trying to hit 10 really good moves).
Personally, I say, yeah, I'd give it a try. But then, if it were my contest, I'd prefer to run a more traditional Shred 30, because I know what I'm going to get out of that. If you want to change Shred 30, I'll participate, but I'd say you've got to do it at your own contest (or convince somebody else to do it at their contest). I wouldn't want to be the first guy to run that contest (without having tried it before, you don't know if its going to work out well) And I think we need to do some more talking about it before trying it.
Why not try it out in Montreal?
I'm all for it, really. During our little discussion/argument on "what moves are unique", I think it was Jeremy who suggested a subjectively judged shred 30, and I've been thinking about it ever since.
Its an interesting idea. I can think of some problems with the format already, but then, we could probably think of some problems with any format. And I wonder how you'd address these problems:
1. How much would drops hurt your score? (we know how much drops hurt in the conventional style of Shred 30, but it would seem to be a pretty different equation for this)
2. Does a drop count as one of your contacts?
3. How much time is allowed after a drop to pick up the bag and finish your run? Or are you simply done once you've dropped?
4. Do you envision a panel of judges scoring in real-time, or is it still video-reviewed?
I guess what I can't quite understand yet about a subjectively scored Shred 30 is, is it basically a "Big 3" contest times 10? I mean, in Big 3, two tricks and a drop generally counts as nothing at all. If everybody gets the same amount of tricks, and its judged subjectively, basically by whatever the judges prefer or consider to be the most difficult, how should judges compare a run of 30 actual tricks to one of 28 tricks and 2 drops? I'd imagine that 28 tricks and 2 drops can still at least be compared to 30 dropless tricks. A few years back, though, when Big 3 was still pretty new, we experimented with a Big 10 format too, and one thing that was learned was that many good kickers often failed to hit ten consecutive moves at all (given that they were trying to hit 10 really good moves).
Personally, I say, yeah, I'd give it a try. But then, if it were my contest, I'd prefer to run a more traditional Shred 30, because I know what I'm going to get out of that. If you want to change Shred 30, I'll participate, but I'd say you've got to do it at your own contest (or convince somebody else to do it at their contest). I wouldn't want to be the first guy to run that contest (without having tried it before, you don't know if its going to work out well) And I think we need to do some more talking about it before trying it.
Why not try it out in Montreal?
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
I think the first step would be work out what is being judged.
Nick suggested:
Links", "Variety", "Uniques", "Flipsidedness", "Overall Difficulty"
which in my mind is saying that the event is completely a technical event - ie artistic ability isn't being judged at all. I think this is a good move. In my opinion the "spirit" of both shred 30 and sick 3 - is to judge the best technical person in those diciplines - while routines is about judging the overall best footbagger - so artistic comes into play there.
Rather than being so specific as Nick suggested - I think a more broad approach would be best - something like how routines are judged (and most other sports - diving, surfing, ice skating etc).
With a panel of judges each giving one score for technical ability.
Rather than having arbitary rulings about how much points are lost for a drop - I think it's best to leave that up to the judges. If the judges know what they are doing and are transparent I don't think there would be any problems. Perhaps at big events - a panel of 5-7 judges - where the top and bottom score is removed and the rest of the points are totalled together or averaged.
I think a time limit is definitly better than a contact ratio. Especially if the judging is subjective - I don't think they'll look at the two things and say - "Jeremy hit 35 moves and Nick only hit 27 - so we'll give it to Jeremy even though all his 35 moves were shuffling and he didn't duck or spin once) - rather they would say "Jeremy had very little variety but went hard - Nick had way more variety and lots of hard moves but some bails too - and score accordingly.
The big advantage I see with this kind of judging system is that it would be real time and each person would get a score straight after they've finished - so the higher seeded players would know what they need to do to beat. I'd also like to see the same kind of system used for routines and sick 3. I hate the current routine system of giving points and then ranking - thus positions are way too variable. You should get a final score when you finish - and be ranked against other peoples final scores. Not only is this easier to judge and more inline with other sports - especially Olympic sports - but it is also way more spectator friendly. As soon as somebody finishes and the score is flashed up or announced - you know exactly what they've done and where they are ranked compared with other people.
Nick suggested:
Links", "Variety", "Uniques", "Flipsidedness", "Overall Difficulty"
which in my mind is saying that the event is completely a technical event - ie artistic ability isn't being judged at all. I think this is a good move. In my opinion the "spirit" of both shred 30 and sick 3 - is to judge the best technical person in those diciplines - while routines is about judging the overall best footbagger - so artistic comes into play there.
Rather than being so specific as Nick suggested - I think a more broad approach would be best - something like how routines are judged (and most other sports - diving, surfing, ice skating etc).
With a panel of judges each giving one score for technical ability.
Rather than having arbitary rulings about how much points are lost for a drop - I think it's best to leave that up to the judges. If the judges know what they are doing and are transparent I don't think there would be any problems. Perhaps at big events - a panel of 5-7 judges - where the top and bottom score is removed and the rest of the points are totalled together or averaged.
I think a time limit is definitly better than a contact ratio. Especially if the judging is subjective - I don't think they'll look at the two things and say - "Jeremy hit 35 moves and Nick only hit 27 - so we'll give it to Jeremy even though all his 35 moves were shuffling and he didn't duck or spin once) - rather they would say "Jeremy had very little variety but went hard - Nick had way more variety and lots of hard moves but some bails too - and score accordingly.
The big advantage I see with this kind of judging system is that it would be real time and each person would get a score straight after they've finished - so the higher seeded players would know what they need to do to beat. I'd also like to see the same kind of system used for routines and sick 3. I hate the current routine system of giving points and then ranking - thus positions are way too variable. You should get a final score when you finish - and be ranked against other peoples final scores. Not only is this easier to judge and more inline with other sports - especially Olympic sports - but it is also way more spectator friendly. As soon as somebody finishes and the score is flashed up or announced - you know exactly what they've done and where they are ranked compared with other people.
Anyone watched any figure skating lately?
Subjective judging of performance sport doesn't work, isn't going to work, and simply CAN'T work.
We play a sport which is technical enough that an objective scoring system is applicable, if not yet perfect. You want to throw this potential away? Back to the dark ages of judge corruption, personal bias (be it towrads individuals or stylistic movements), and, inevitably, scandal?
Shred 30 is the only objectively scored event in freestyle footbag, and quite possibly the most objectively scored event in all of performance sport. I'd be devestated if that were to change.
Subjective judging of performance sport doesn't work, isn't going to work, and simply CAN'T work.
We play a sport which is technical enough that an objective scoring system is applicable, if not yet perfect. You want to throw this potential away? Back to the dark ages of judge corruption, personal bias (be it towrads individuals or stylistic movements), and, inevitably, scandal?
Shred 30 is the only objectively scored event in freestyle footbag, and quite possibly the most objectively scored event in all of performance sport. I'd be devestated if that were to change.
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Colin,
I don't think anyone is saying (well, at least I'm not saying) that we change all shred 30's everywhere forever. I just think that its okay, probably even good, to try different kinds of competition formats at different events.
Some footbag events are known for their unique events that are unlike ones at other competitions. Take the Ironman and the Service Poaching contests at Funtastics, for example.
Trying out a different style of judging at some event in Montreal or Melbourn does not mean that we have to throw out the objective formula for shred contest that most events will surely continue to use for a while. But if somebody were hosting an event, I think it would be an acceptable alternative event to try.
Most Rippin' Run is another variation, and I think its a very fun event, if nothing else. I'd say that it's a pretty new experiment in the sport that I'm glad somebody decided to try out.
It begins to dawn on me that different types of competition formats will all favor different styles of play. I think its cool that different people can freestyle in different ways, and I think it equally cool if different footbag events had different kinds of competitive formats that might favor the styles of different players. Mix things up on the question of "Who's the Best". Make the answer to that question "How do you mean 'Best'"?
I don't think anyone is saying (well, at least I'm not saying) that we change all shred 30's everywhere forever. I just think that its okay, probably even good, to try different kinds of competition formats at different events.
Some footbag events are known for their unique events that are unlike ones at other competitions. Take the Ironman and the Service Poaching contests at Funtastics, for example.
Trying out a different style of judging at some event in Montreal or Melbourn does not mean that we have to throw out the objective formula for shred contest that most events will surely continue to use for a while. But if somebody were hosting an event, I think it would be an acceptable alternative event to try.
Most Rippin' Run is another variation, and I think its a very fun event, if nothing else. I'd say that it's a pretty new experiment in the sport that I'm glad somebody decided to try out.
It begins to dawn on me that different types of competition formats will all favor different styles of play. I think its cool that different people can freestyle in different ways, and I think it equally cool if different footbag events had different kinds of competitive formats that might favor the styles of different players. Mix things up on the question of "Who's the Best". Make the answer to that question "How do you mean 'Best'"?
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Also there are some big problems with the current system - mainly that it relys on adds and how it defines uniques.
Here are two examples:
Person A hits ripwalk>blur>parkwalk>sidewalk>ripwalk>blur>parkwalk>sidewalk.
Person B hits
ripstein>flurry>smoke>whirr>pdx whirl>ripstein>vortex>eggbeater
Under the current system person A has 8 moves, 8 uniques, 32 adds and scores 64 points.
Person B also has 8 moves, only 7 unique, 31 adds and scores 58.125.
If they kept up the same ratios over the 30 moves or so - person A would win by 20 points.
Looking at those combos - I think it's pretty obvious which is the better player and which player I would score highest if it were subjective juding.
Unfortuantly with the current system - all we're going to see is boring shuffle repeat combos and the like. Personally I will follow these - because if that's the way the system is judged - and what is thought of as the best shred - that's what I'll do. But if things were judged subjectivly - I think I would change the way I did my shred 30s completely.
I mean lets face it - when shreds were first introduced - you were actually meant to be shredding - ie. making it up on the spot. Now everybody works out every move to get the highest score possible from the easiest moves.
Here are two examples:
Person A hits ripwalk>blur>parkwalk>sidewalk>ripwalk>blur>parkwalk>sidewalk.
Person B hits
ripstein>flurry>smoke>whirr>pdx whirl>ripstein>vortex>eggbeater
Under the current system person A has 8 moves, 8 uniques, 32 adds and scores 64 points.
Person B also has 8 moves, only 7 unique, 31 adds and scores 58.125.
If they kept up the same ratios over the 30 moves or so - person A would win by 20 points.
Looking at those combos - I think it's pretty obvious which is the better player and which player I would score highest if it were subjective juding.
Unfortuantly with the current system - all we're going to see is boring shuffle repeat combos and the like. Personally I will follow these - because if that's the way the system is judged - and what is thought of as the best shred - that's what I'll do. But if things were judged subjectivly - I think I would change the way I did my shred 30s completely.
I mean lets face it - when shreds were first introduced - you were actually meant to be shredding - ie. making it up on the spot. Now everybody works out every move to get the highest score possible from the easiest moves.
uhhh thats how its done already. You dont seam to realize what we are talking about though.
Look, Triple ATW and ripwalk are both 4 adds, right? Why would you EVER do triple atw in compeition when you could just do a ripwalk instead? Same amount of points, but much easier.
This kind of limiting factor is applied to almost every move in the game, and now we are stuck with repetitive combos of the same boring ass stuff every single time because of how we judge difficulty.
If it were SUBJECTIVE instead of OBJECTIVE then a judge could say "Yeah, person A hit fury > Quantum spinning pickup, thats a lot harder then person B, who hit blurry whirl > butterfly. PERSON A DESERVES MORE POINTS!!!! ESPECIALLY FOR HITTING A COOL COMBO!!!"
Anyway, thats the gist of it. Objective scoring is the ideal, but we can't do that based on the way we score difficulty. Its just wrong.
Look, Triple ATW and ripwalk are both 4 adds, right? Why would you EVER do triple atw in compeition when you could just do a ripwalk instead? Same amount of points, but much easier.
This kind of limiting factor is applied to almost every move in the game, and now we are stuck with repetitive combos of the same boring ass stuff every single time because of how we judge difficulty.
If it were SUBJECTIVE instead of OBJECTIVE then a judge could say "Yeah, person A hit fury > Quantum spinning pickup, thats a lot harder then person B, who hit blurry whirl > butterfly. PERSON A DESERVES MORE POINTS!!!! ESPECIALLY FOR HITTING A COOL COMBO!!!"
Anyway, thats the gist of it. Objective scoring is the ideal, but we can't do that based on the way we score difficulty. Its just wrong.
Nicholas Laroche
Nick this is a good idea, but i dont think too many people will want to change the system so drastically. As Jeremy was saying, people do easy combos like ripwalk>sidewalk> repeat, and stuff like that. Also Nick said no variety was involved. Both these are true, but i think with a few reforms of the current shred 30 system these can be helped, and these are my thoughts.
1) I think the add categories should play a part in the score.
A) For example, after 20 (Xbody adds), you would no longer receive any points for each additional one. This would help fix the problem of only doing clipper moves to get a higher score, and make players move more to toe moves also.
B) Also, similar rules could be put into effect for (dex adds). For example, after 40 (dex adds) people would only receive half the points for each individual one. This would help stop people from only going shuffle during the shred 30.
C) Similar reforms could be made like deductions if not a single (or any number) of spins, or ducks were executed.
2) Sets and downtime moves should play a part in the shred 30 formula.
A) Reforms could be made similar to the ones above. For example, to stop people from only hitting stepping sets, and pixie sets, after 15 (or any number) of each set, they would only receive half the (dex adds) or (no dex adds).
B) Also similar changes could be made for downtime moves also. For example, after 10 moves (or any number) ending in whirl, the player would only receive half the (dex add)..... same would go for moves ending in drifter, torque, mirage, and any downtime move.
These are my thoughts, and I beleive they could drastically help the shred 30 formula incorporate much more variety, which seems to be the biggest, if not only, problem with it.
Give me your thoughts on my ideas.
Thanks for listening
Marc Sayer
1) I think the add categories should play a part in the score.
A) For example, after 20 (Xbody adds), you would no longer receive any points for each additional one. This would help fix the problem of only doing clipper moves to get a higher score, and make players move more to toe moves also.
B) Also, similar rules could be put into effect for (dex adds). For example, after 40 (dex adds) people would only receive half the points for each individual one. This would help stop people from only going shuffle during the shred 30.
C) Similar reforms could be made like deductions if not a single (or any number) of spins, or ducks were executed.
2) Sets and downtime moves should play a part in the shred 30 formula.
A) Reforms could be made similar to the ones above. For example, to stop people from only hitting stepping sets, and pixie sets, after 15 (or any number) of each set, they would only receive half the (dex adds) or (no dex adds).
B) Also similar changes could be made for downtime moves also. For example, after 10 moves (or any number) ending in whirl, the player would only receive half the (dex add)..... same would go for moves ending in drifter, torque, mirage, and any downtime move.
These are my thoughts, and I beleive they could drastically help the shred 30 formula incorporate much more variety, which seems to be the biggest, if not only, problem with it.
Give me your thoughts on my ideas.
Thanks for listening
Marc Sayer
-
shreddaily
- Flower Child
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003 16:56
A few problems I foresee:
There won't be any striking difference like: person a hit ripstein>flurry person b hit ripwalk>sidewalk
It'll be more like: person a hit barfly>mobius, person b hit blender> tomahawk. Way to subjective of a call.
Personaly I'd be pissed if someone chose b if I was a AND a if I was b.
Secondly. WHO EVER HITS A DROPLESS, UNIQUE SHRED 30. Maybe the winner? MAYBE!! I think this topic will be alot more relivant when 5 people can show up to a comp and bust there shred 30 perfectly every time. I've been to enough comps to know that even the most bad ass shreders suck it up! I would gladly eat my words, but I won't, cause putting together a "boring" shred 30 and performing it on the spot, IS HARD!!!!
A stylee run comp is a good idea however, but again the first senario I mentioned would undoubtedly arise.
AND the post above idea sounds good, but scoring shred 30 is already enough of a pain in the ars, so that method would triple the scoring time, at the least, and it would never get done
There won't be any striking difference like: person a hit ripstein>flurry person b hit ripwalk>sidewalk
It'll be more like: person a hit barfly>mobius, person b hit blender> tomahawk. Way to subjective of a call.
Personaly I'd be pissed if someone chose b if I was a AND a if I was b.
Secondly. WHO EVER HITS A DROPLESS, UNIQUE SHRED 30. Maybe the winner? MAYBE!! I think this topic will be alot more relivant when 5 people can show up to a comp and bust there shred 30 perfectly every time. I've been to enough comps to know that even the most bad ass shreders suck it up! I would gladly eat my words, but I won't, cause putting together a "boring" shred 30 and performing it on the spot, IS HARD!!!!
A stylee run comp is a good idea however, but again the first senario I mentioned would undoubtedly arise.
AND the post above idea sounds good, but scoring shred 30 is already enough of a pain in the ars, so that method would triple the scoring time, at the least, and it would never get done
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
First,
Go Benham! Come on, next year we've got to beat Smoothy! That guy has dominated too many Ironmans. (ach, I was ahead of him this year going into those golf shots, I even had a really lucky net serve, but then... Damn, how does he do it?) Its up to us, man!
Second,
I agree with Shreddaily in almost every regard. We see alot of the same stuff because that is what people actually feel safe going for in competition. There isn't alot of ripstein > flurry because people want to keep the bag in the air for 30 seconds, and even sticking with ripwalk > sidewalk there are still alot of drops in shred 30. Encouraging more variety and more genuine difficulty is all well and good, but we've also got to be reasonable too, and I don't think its unreasonable to expect that people want to actually avoid dropping the bag alot by not trying combos that are just a little too hard to expect to hit consistently with the pressure of the clock ticking.
Lankster, I think your ideas are simply to complex for an event that most people feel should be relatively simple. I think Shreddaily is right about it, it simply sounds like to much trouble. Trouble explaining it to the competitors, and trouble for the people who's job it is to watch the video review and crunch the numbers.
The entirely subjective approach is nice and simple, except for another point that Shreddaily makes: when we change it to subjective judging it won't be a contest of standard shuffle vs. hein combos. Everbody will go for hein combos and then it will always (ALWAYS!) be a tough choice and a controversial one that is likely to upset competitors and confuse spectators. We may all be better off once we get away from people playing for points and instead playing for cheers, but it won't necessarily make the winner more clear cut. It might just make it even harder to tell. And it might just make for a worse show by increasing the drop count. I still say that its an experiment worth trying, but if you want to see this experiment so badly, go ahead and conduct it yourself and then lets talk some more about how we thought it went. I myself am anxious to give it a go. However, I feel that Nate is probably right in predicting that choosing one person's run over another's is one person's opinion of "I think whirr was cooler than ripstein, so the guy who hit whirr wins". I don't see that as a big improvement in judging. What I like about what we've got now is that at least we don't have to debate the winner. The numbers speak for themselves.
The more we talk about it, the more a subjectively judged SHRED 30 sounds simply like an expanded BIG 3. And since we've already got a BIG 3...
Uh, damn, I've written too much, none of it seems to have done any good, I think we're going around in circles.
Go Benham! Come on, next year we've got to beat Smoothy! That guy has dominated too many Ironmans. (ach, I was ahead of him this year going into those golf shots, I even had a really lucky net serve, but then... Damn, how does he do it?) Its up to us, man!
Second,
I agree with Shreddaily in almost every regard. We see alot of the same stuff because that is what people actually feel safe going for in competition. There isn't alot of ripstein > flurry because people want to keep the bag in the air for 30 seconds, and even sticking with ripwalk > sidewalk there are still alot of drops in shred 30. Encouraging more variety and more genuine difficulty is all well and good, but we've also got to be reasonable too, and I don't think its unreasonable to expect that people want to actually avoid dropping the bag alot by not trying combos that are just a little too hard to expect to hit consistently with the pressure of the clock ticking.
Lankster, I think your ideas are simply to complex for an event that most people feel should be relatively simple. I think Shreddaily is right about it, it simply sounds like to much trouble. Trouble explaining it to the competitors, and trouble for the people who's job it is to watch the video review and crunch the numbers.
The entirely subjective approach is nice and simple, except for another point that Shreddaily makes: when we change it to subjective judging it won't be a contest of standard shuffle vs. hein combos. Everbody will go for hein combos and then it will always (ALWAYS!) be a tough choice and a controversial one that is likely to upset competitors and confuse spectators. We may all be better off once we get away from people playing for points and instead playing for cheers, but it won't necessarily make the winner more clear cut. It might just make it even harder to tell. And it might just make for a worse show by increasing the drop count. I still say that its an experiment worth trying, but if you want to see this experiment so badly, go ahead and conduct it yourself and then lets talk some more about how we thought it went. I myself am anxious to give it a go. However, I feel that Nate is probably right in predicting that choosing one person's run over another's is one person's opinion of "I think whirr was cooler than ripstein, so the guy who hit whirr wins". I don't see that as a big improvement in judging. What I like about what we've got now is that at least we don't have to debate the winner. The numbers speak for themselves.
The more we talk about it, the more a subjectively judged SHRED 30 sounds simply like an expanded BIG 3. And since we've already got a BIG 3...
Uh, damn, I've written too much, none of it seems to have done any good, I think we're going around in circles.
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
hell yea! we're takin smoothie down to china townOutsider wrote:First,
Go Benham! Come on, next year we've got to beat Smoothy! That guy has dominated too many Ironmans. (ach, I was ahead of him this year going into those golf shots, I even had a really lucky net serve, but then... Damn, how does he do it?) Its up to us, man!
.
-JB <?
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Brandon V. said
Man, this thread has really lost its focus...
Than you'd better come to Funtastics to root for him. Otherwise, members of the Philly Footworks are taking charge.No offence but I'm rooting for Smoothie. MI and all.
Man, this thread has really lost its focus...
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
.I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it
.I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it
.I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it I like it
- Kevin R.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.
F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)
Know thy enemy.