The REAL World Champion

[blitz]

Also, I think it's curious that several of you (mostly Eli) have repeatedly said on this thread that Circle somehow demonstrates "performance" or "presentation" skills. My ass it does!

Please show me where I said anything even close to that. I said the Circle is not a purely technical competition, if that's what you mean. You shouldn't put words in my mouth. Never would I equate the types of presentation you will find in Routines with that of the Circle. And there *is* presentation in the Circle, just not by your narrow definition. You are correct that there is no choreography, although there could be, if say, there were teams.

If you want footbag in the olympics, routines might bring you there (in 50 years). If you want a fun event with great atmosphere and player interaction, there is the Circle (not to exclude the other formats). I'm not saying to change the importance of routines, just don't pass off the circle as another side event. I too believe that it will become the main event, and I think that's a very good thing.

I'll remind you all how one person said of last year's Circle Finals, that it felt like the final battle scene from 8 Mile. And this person didn't even play footbag, just a spectator, if I remember correctly. Now I dare anyone to say again that the Circle is not enjoyable for non-players. Given a mini-gladiator-like arena and the crowd packed all around, music jamming, a solid Final Four and Mosher or myself as M.C... You would be hard pressed to equal such a feeling.

Final thought, the last thing I want to do is convince anyone about the Circle, because I think it speaks for itself. If you don't get it, then maybe it's just not for you.

peace,

[webmaster]

Eli, what about my post above implies anything at all negative about Circle?

Please don't go off on a tangent. I covered every area evenly. I never once said there was anything fundamentally bad about Circle. Are you looking for a fight?

Steve

[blitz]

chill, friend. careful how you interpret tone on the internet. I was only addressing you specifically in the first paragraph. the other uses of "you" were in the general sense. also, I didn't mean "your narrow definition" as an insult; just specifying that I think it was a narrow definition you gave for presentation (stalling on the beat and what not). we're cool, steve.

eli

[ianek]

i have so much to say, but it suck to be a french speaker. anyway.

i just want to say we can't compare Routine with Circle. Routines are what they are and they're not the "spark" that get me into footbag. Since i discovered Footbag Freestyle, i've always wonder why there is not a more "extreme sports" kind of competition format. So i've decided to create it. (with Eli).

I respect Routine at lot, but i think Circle is closer to "our generation" than Routine.

Circle is far from being perfect, but we are working on it.

ianek

[mosher]

I am so thrilled this sparked so much debate!

Thanks for your input everyone.

I didn't mean to come across sounding like routines are good for nothing. (Though my cymbal crash jester joke kinda claimed that)
I think that both routines and circle should be our premier events. Showcasing both would demonstrate our versatility and desire to challenge ourselves in different ways.


And don't get me wrong, I've totally been obsessing over my routine song for months! And despite being terrifying, it is fun to get to be showcased on stage in front of all your heroes! It's your chance to show off!

(Yeah yeah, so is circle, you know how it's different though)

I guess all I really want to see is the big names going head to head in the finals! Yowza!

[Skippy!]

I gotta agree with Tom here. I'm not gonna be able to make a big long post, but I have to say, I've watched a couple circle comp videos, and been in two now myself. That final circle, no matter whether it's intermediate or open, that final circle has SOOOOO much buzz and electricity. Everybody can feel it, and although I like how footbag isn't a super uber competitive sport, I also like that competitive feeling in the final circle of pure tension and excitement. Yeah, routines finals are good too, I'm sure. But just that feeling for everybody when the last circle goes up and you KNOW something sick is gonna go down, is what really gets the crowd pumped, regardless of whether or not they know anything about footbag. It's just that animal instinct of competition...and it feels so good!!

I'm kinda gettin sidetracked here though, my point is that yes routines are rewarding for the players, and rewarding for the judges, and rewarding for spectators who know the exact tricks someone is doing. But for the spectator who knows absolutely nothing, I could see them enjoying that on-the-fly competitive-ness of the circle, as opposed to planned out routines. It is called freestyle footbag, after all.

[CIC flurry]

It seems werid to me to try and convince people and get everyone to agree on what "world champion" means. Obviously people have different opinions and prefer certain events over others.

I don't consider that the routine champ is the best freestyler to me, but at the same time I think the routine event has value, though it may take discussion like this to make people see the value and try and make the event better.

I don't know about the points from every event thing to add up to the champ. they used to do this right? Including net and everything and golf maybe? So that menas greatest overall player. Like Jeremy said above, winning an event make you the champ at that event for that year - not overall. Which event is most important? That's up to you. though you may not be able to use that "world champ" label.

[webmaster]

Yeah, this is a moot discussion. You guys are just arguing semantics (and getting some promotion of Circle in at the same time).

The semantics issue is as follows:

Some people say John Smith is the World Champion of singles freestyle routines.

Some people say John Smith is the World Champion of freestyle.

Some people say John Smith is the World Champion of footbag.

It seems to me the only thing you guys are arguing over (really) is whether or not it's "okay" to say someone's the world champion of freestyle w/o qualifying it with the exact name of the event he won. C'mon, guys.

Steve

[C-Fan]

When I took 4th place in Shred at Worlds 05, I was initially very uncomfortable when people in Japan would introduce me by saying I was "4th in the world." I would always try and qualify that by saying there were 2 (3, if you count Sick3) main events at worlds, and that I took 4th in one of those events. But really, Shred30 and routines (and circle, for that matter) are different events, and both have their value and merit.

For years the winner of routines was considered world champ, but that was because it was the only event. Shred30 was introduced in the late 90s, but it took some time for it to come into its own (get more formalized rules and format). Once it did though, you could argue it was just as legit and important an event as routines, even though it lacked the history. It just so happens that in a strange historical accident, from 2000-2005 (the very years when Shred30 became a legit event at worlds), the winner of routines happened to be the same guy who won Shred. Because of this, we could avoid the debate of "what constitutes 'world champion'?" If, in the next few years, Circle becomes an accepted event on the level of routines and shred, then the likelihood of a sweep becomes smaller again.

Footbag isn't alone in arguing over the semantics of what the word "champion" means. Next week the NBA will hand out its MVP award, an event that is almost always controversial. Who is the Most Valuable Player? Is it the best player on the team with the best record? Is it the best player at his respective position? Is it the guy who scores the most? has the highest efficiency rating? What if he plays on a losing team? You see where I'm going with this.

The most convincing argument I ever heard on this subject was I think from Jeremy OWheel. He said something to the effect of: "if you win the gold medal in the 50 yard dash at the Olympics, you wouldn't call yourself 'the world champion of running.' You'd say you are the world champ of the 50 yard dash. In the same manner, if you win routines at worlds, you'd be 'the world champ of footbag routines.'"

[Frank_Sinatra]

Not to be excessively argumentative... which I probably have been...

OK, so the point that Steve, Tom, & Ken are making is that the "problem" of naming a freestyle world champ is not really a problem. So there's no point in expending effort to fix it. Point taken.

I just want to make one heavily qualified suggestion: If, at some point in the future, there is consensus that this issue has become a genuine problem, and a point system could be used to address it, then the pre-existence of an "overall footbag champion" point system with all its current flaws should not be used to discount the idea of a point system being used just for freestyle events. I think that's the only point I was trying to make.

[Colin]

Who the hell is this John Smith, and where can I get some footage?

Did you mean Lon Smith?

[webmaster]

You don't know John Smith? What rock did you crawl out from under?

Steve

[Genzu]

So what determines the title World Champion of Footbag in your eyes?

Do routines still represent the pinacle of footbag mastery or have we begun shifting towards a footbag world based around the circle comp?

Discuss!

Well, though my eyes, the world champion is the person that inspires me the most and can bring those eyes to tears when I watch them play. My views on who is the best and if that even really matters have really changed over my years in this sport. While part sport, footbag is also part art, and I know it's cliche, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Being a judge at worlds its probably one of the toughest jobs there is. Ugh, I think this is a trick question deserving of a trick answer: It's a question that can only be answered in the now, and since I should be sleeping and I don't see anyone kicking then right now I can't answer the question, and I'm just rambling anyway. LOL

I think I have to lean toward what Steve has said, though I would say it like this: Again, I think the question you pose is simply a trick question. The world champion of routines wins routines, and the world champion of the circle competition wins the circle competition. They are both real.

Peace.

[Jeremy]

Who the hell is this John Smith, and where can I get some footage?

Did you mean Lon Smith?

"John Smith" isn't a real person. It was just an example of a name.

[mc]

Steve, I do see exactly what you're saying, and I see that you're right.

If it's a semantic issue that doesn't really specify an absolute champion in everyone's eyes (like, say, if vasek had twisted his ankle right before finals last year at worlds and honza had won, and vasek recovered to his full potential a few weeks later. Would anyone contend that, because of that event, honza was / is a better player than vasek) then *maybe* the event should not be called world championships, nor should it name a world champion at the end. Maybe this grave misunderstanding that Tom and I have reflected is based on the fact that the event is called world footbag championships, and it names a champion, and we tend to regard the winner of routines as that; our champion.

Maybe it should be called the world footbag conference, ESPECIALLY now that we see the event has become regionalized; many world class players who are simply too far away will not be representing themselves or their countries. This year, many of the "real deal" contenders will be there to fight for the title, but if this regionalism for the WFC continues as the sport grows, maybe the title will become obsolete.

not sure, just reacting to some of what steve said.

[/ramble]

[the Executioner]

Completing a 2 minute routine of freestyle tricks, any tricks you want, no limit, to the best of your ability, with ideally no drops, choreographed perfectly to music, still offers the best venue for testing the title of world footbag freestyle champion in my opinion. You have 2 minutes to create anything you want with the footbag. There is no limit. The world champion should be able to perform in front of a huge crowd as well as bust the highest technical shit. 30 sec shred is cool and all, and the circle is dope and may very well pick the best technical shredder, but to be able to bust out 2 minutes perfectly is still the best venue for the world champ in my opionion. Maybe someone can come up with something better but any one who wants to call themselves world freestyle champion should be able to perform as well as do technical shred.
just my opinion

[Colin]

"John Smith" isn't a real person. It was just an example of a name.

Whenever I can't tell, I always assume that someone is deadpanning a joke. Consequently, everything is hilarious.

[mc]

Steve, I do see exactly what you're saying, and I see that you're right.

If it's a semantic issue that doesn't really specify an absolute champion in everyone's eyes (like, say, if vasek had twisted his ankle right before finals last year at worlds and honza had won, and vasek recovered to his full potential a few weeks later. Would anyone contend that, because of that event, honza was / is a better player than vasek) then *maybe* the event should not be called world championships, nor should it name a world champion at the end. Maybe this grave misunderstanding that Tom and I have reflected is based on the fact that the event is called world footbag championships, and it names a champion, and we tend to regard the winner of routines as that; our champion.

Maybe it should be called the world footbag conference, ESPECIALLY now that we see the event has become regionalized; many world class players who are simply too far away will not be representing themselves or their countries. This year, many of the "real deal" contenders will be there to fight for the title, but if this regionalism for the WFC continues as the sport grows, maybe the title will become obsolete.

not sure, just reacting to some of what steve said.

[/ramble]

what, not a single thought in response to that?

[webmaster]

Well, I assume pot-induced randomness generally stands on its own as rhetorical.



But seriously, you've changed the subject entirely to -- "What good are tournaments"?

I don't feel compelled to answer that.

Steve

*For anyone too stupid to know better, I'm just joshing w/my good friend Matt. Joshing means joking, Colin.

[mc]

god, you're frustrating. and condescending as ever. same old steve.

anyway, that little bump I made wasn't directed at steve, I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of it. Thanks for your anti-input, webmaster.

I just think, if we're going to agree that victory at the world championships does not necessarily name our champion, that we shouldn't call it a championships or name a champion at the end.

Anyone with anything to add to the discussion besides condescending joshery?