The REAL World Champion

[webmaster]

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

You asked for it, you got it.

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.

Is that, or is that not, exactly what I just said above? You're now changing the discussion to -- "why do we have tournaments?"

Steve

[mc]

to answer your question, no. I don't think I saw you say anything about the possible appropriateness of changing the name of what we now call the world championships. thanks for your input.

If you don't feel a need to respond, at least do me a favor and stop responding to tell me that, and poking me in the ribs in the process.

[webmaster]

But Matt, I love poking you in the ribs.

It's fun!!!

And your responses just make me want to do more of it!

Steve

P.S. You're basically being nonsensical. You're asking why we have tournaments if we can't really ever determine who the best player is. Why do you care so much who the best player is? Tournaments aren't only to determine who's the best. And just like any sport, they never really necessarily do the job. It's kind of a silly question, honestly.

[mc]

But Matt, I love poking you in the ribs.

It's fun!!!

And your responses just make me want to do more of it!

Steve

P.S. You're basically being nonsensical. You're asking why we have tournaments if we can't really ever determine who the best player is. Why do you care so much who the best player is? Tournaments aren't only to determine who's the best. And just like any sport, they never really necessarily do the job. It's kind of a silly question, honestly.

do you enjoy putting words in my mouth so much because I never let you put your weiner in there?

you've got it wrong, old friend. I know why we have tournaments, you don't need to explain that to me. I just think an event shouldn't be called the world championships if it doesn't name the championship of the world.

in no way have I suggested that we shouldn't have tournaments. You're absolutely making that up, and what's worse is you're painting me as a silly question-asker and a silly statement-maker because of this made up statement of yours.

I HAVE suggested that the name of one particular tournament is misleading. How can it be called The World Championships if we agree that it doesn't name a champion?

I am not suggesting that we should no longer all get together once a year and play and compete. I can't believe you're so absurd that you would say that I'm trying to do that.

so can we just get that cleared up? you're wrong. what you're suggesting is not at all what I'm saying, and if you were half as intelligent as you paint yourself to be, I'm sure I wouldn't be having such a hard time getting that across to you.

rarrrrrrrrr!!!!

[webmaster]

Oooh, Zing. You really got me there, Matt.

Anyway, you're attempting to chip away at the foundation of our sport in all I can imagine is a sophomoric attempt at rebellion. Whatever!

We have a world championships that is open, and that anyone can attend. At least we're open -- unlike a lot of sports where their world championships is controlled by a cadre of old men holed up in a room somewhere with millions of dollars pouring in from sponsorship deals and a very very tight control on who gets in and who doesn't.

We need to start somewhere. We have an open event called the world championships. You can call whoever you want the world champion (again, semantics) but at least don't attack the institution that's our single best way to continue to build this sport into the future.

Steve

[mc]

Oooh, Zing. You really got me there, Matt.

:*

Anyway, you're attempting to chip away at the foundation of our sport in all I can imagine is a sophomoric attempt at rebellion. Whatever!

you have a weak imagination. I'm just responding to your statements regarding why the original topic at hand is moot, which I agree with. I'm not trying to rebel, and I'm not trying to screw up the foundations of our sport. I don't appreciate you discrediting me based on MORE assumptions (just as you have just finished discrediting me based on words you put in my mouth). I'm just talking here.

We have a world championships that is open, and that anyone can attend. At least we're open -- unlike a lot of sports where their world championships is controlled by a cadre of old men holed up in a room somewhere with millions of dollars pouring in from sponsorship deals and a very very tight control on who gets in and who doesn't.

We need to start somewhere. We have an open event called the world championships. You can call whoever you want the world champion (again, semantics) but at least don't attack the institution that's our single best way to continue to build this sport into the future.

Steve

This part, I can absolutely agree with. If you just talk sense to me (like this) instead of dissing me and convoluting my words, I think you'd find yourself successful at getting your point across.

[webmaster]

So wait, I'm lost. Are we still friends or do we still hate each others' guts?

Steve

[mc]

same as always... a little bit of both.

[atze]

back to topic,

i fully agree with steve. and while shred 30, sick3, sick1 and all that are very nice i would say that the "world champion in footbag freestyle" is and should always be the player that wins routines. if you win sick3, your the "world champion in sick3". routines, for the reasons that steve and peter stated, are at this moment the paramount manifestations of footbag freestyle.
people need to learn and respect that in order to compete on a tournament level you have to be willing to spend some time on preparing yourself for this tournament. in EVERY performing sports the athletes spend just as much time learning the techniques as they spend on preparing their presentation. in footbag for some reason people spend 99% of their time learning the techniques and about 1% of the time for choosing a song 2min before they're due on stage. that's why, with very few exceptions, routines usually suck. but then there's people who make an effort and all of a sudden you see the true beauty of footbag freestyle. a well choreographed, technically challenging routine beats anything. so like jorden said, the problem is not the format but the self centered approach that footbag freestylers usualy take.

personally i can't really judge the circle format because i've only seen 2-3 competitions and a few videos. but what i've seen so far does not convince me. yes, it has potential. but like routines (as jorden stated), it is the players that are not fullfilling this potential in the least. plus it has some drawbacks that i think will be hard to overcome.
in all the circle contests i've seen there was no interaction between the contestants. there was no direct challenging of your oponent. the bag was just tossed from player to player and most of the time the performance of the players had no direct connection to what the previous player performed. so the circle competition does not tell a story. it's hard to relate to it or get excited over it unless of course you are a freestyler yourself. naturally you can create an athmosphere that is similar to a breakdance battle. this might impress an non footbag spectator. but in my eyes footbagers wil be hard put to really do such a setting justice. unless of course they start to focus on other aspects than pure technical skill...

the big drawback i see however is that footbag simply does not lend itself to a format like circle. footbag is too celf centered. it will be hard to truyl connect a circle to the crowd, even if you have an amazing MC. the energy will always be contained in the circle and while the MX muight be able to draw energy into the circle from the crowd, this energy will not come back (right now, all the energy is contained in the individual players and there is absolutely no flow).
an illustration: put a group of 4 mediocre breakdancers in a room full of people and have them battle echother. soon you will have a crowd of spectators watching them and cheering them on. energy will flow both ways, the breakdancers will connect with the audience and with their oponents.
but a group of 4 mediocre freestyler in the same room and have them battle. they might receive a few interesting glances. but no way will you get the same crowd or energy. the footbag players simply will not (and actually cannot because footbag is played head down) connect to the audience. all you can do to make the footbag battle more interesting is install a ring, add some light and a dj/mc, practically force the audience to watch by waving a stick at them "hey this is cool and interesting. WATCH!". but the basis is still a not so interesting footbag battle.

that i think is the major problem of the circle format. we try to make something interesting to a general audience that is truly only interesting to a specific audience (i.e. the players themselves). it's true, the circle format reflect how we freestylers play on a day to day basis. but it is too much to expect that what we do every day is necessarily interesting and fascinating to others.

and off topic: the last paragraph basically sums up my opinion of 30sec shred, sick3 and sick1. those events should be held behind closed doors for the sole appreciation of a footbag crowd.

[ianek]

i would say that the "world champion in footbag freestyle" is and should always be the player that wins routines. if you win sick3, your the "world champion in sick3".

the one that wins routines at IFPA's worlds footbag championchip is IFPA's worlds footbag freestyle champion. If someone decided to have is own association, have XYZ's worlds footbag championchip and have Circle as main event. He would also call the winner "World footbag freestyle champion".

people need to learn and respect that in order to compete on a tournament level you have to be willing to spend some time on preparing yourself for this tournament.

We created Circle based on that, we took what people are practicing anyway at home and make it as a competition format.

in EVERY performing sports the athletes spend just as much time learning the techniques as they spend on preparing their presentation.

i and i'm sure others, don't first consider footbag freestyle as a performing sport. I have the xtreme sports mentality(skateboarding, BMX etc.), and it's with such minding that i practice footbag freestyle.

in footbag for some reason people spend 99% of their time learning the techniques and about 1% of the time for choosing a song 2min before they're due on stage.

maybe it's because they have the xtreme sports mentality i was talking about.

we try to make something interesting to a general audience that is truly only interesting to a specific audience (i.e. the players themselves). it's true, the circle format reflect how we freestylers play on a day to day basis. but it is too much to expect that what we do every day is necessarily interesting and fascinating to others.

We created Circle because at small jam/tournament we use to see:
30% people competing in routine
60% in shred 30

We wanted more people to compete and give them more reason to keep practicing at home. It's really hard to bring people into footbag and it's not everyone that relate themself with routines. i was one of them. So we created Circle to give an alternative to routines. Our goal was not to take the place of routine, but officially bring another mentality into our sport, which might bring more people to compete.

Circle, 30sec shred, sick3 and sick1. those events should be held behind closed doors for the sole appreciation of a footbag crowd.

i totally agree. I don't play footbag freestyle for others, i do it for myself.

[ianek]

We should stop trying to figure out what's best. Some people like routines and others llike Circle. Our community is small enough, let's all work together to keep our sport into the right direction. Every aspect of our sport needs improvment, so let's keep trying to figure out what would make our sport better.

[dyalander]

I don't understand the complaint from a few posts ago which suggested we change the name from championships to something else. As far as I know a championship is defined as a contest to decide the champion in a sport - and the champion is defined as either a) in general terms, someone who beats all rivals, or b) someone who wins a championship event. Now to demand that a person actually beat all rivals to be called a champion is ridiculous in sporting terms because anytime someone doesn't compete you could say it means that th contest hasn't been a championship. Instead by hosting a championship a person must compete to be considered a rival - so if vasek injured himself and didn't compete, he did not rival the eventual winner for the championship, and semantically this does not mean that that winner is not a champion. All this means is that being the champion is not the same as being the best. If you took it that way that was your mistake, not the mistake of whoever called them the world championships.
I don't understand why there's debate on this. Look at how most other mainstream multi discipline sports manage the naming of their champions. There is no reason for footbag to do it any other way. There is no reason to consider the winner of any single discipline a broader "world champion" beyond that discipline.

[mc]

dyalan, I see what you're saying. I guess it's my mistake for thinking that "champion" is synonymous with "best", but I guess if it just means "winner of an event called championships", then the current situation is fine.

[professor]

No single event should determine World Footbag Champion. Period.

What should happen is an overall points system. We assign different events different point values based on attributes required to compete in the event such as: stamina, preparedness, technical merit, artistic merit, etc.

So, I think routines and circle would be worth around the same point value, Rippin' Run and Shred 30 a little less, and Sick 3 and 1 even less.

So, say just for argument's sake, these were the points possible for each event:

Routines:
1st: 10 points
2nd: 8 points
3rd: 6 points

Circle Comp:
1st: 10 points
2nd: 8 points
3rd: 6 points

Shred 30:
1st: 8 points
2nd: 6 points
3rd: 4 points

Rippin Run:
1st: 6 points
2nd: 4 points
3rd: 2 points

Sick 3:
1st: 3 points
2nd: 2 points
3rd: 1 point

Sick 1:
1st: 2 points
2nd: 1.5 point
3rd: 1 point

Say John Smith gets 1st in Routines, 2nd in Circle, 3rd in Shred 30, 2nd in Rippin' Run, 1st in Sick 1, and doesn't compete in Sick 3. He would receive:

Routines: 10
Circle: 8
Shred 30: 4
Rippin Run: 4
Sick 3: 0
Sick 1: 2

TOTAL: 28 points

If John has the highest overall point value, he wins the overall Footbag Championship and is considered World Champion.

We'll never create a system for determining who's "best" at footbag, but we can determine who wins the title of Champion for a given year and I think this is the most fair way.

The point values chosen for the events were to make the calculations easy, but in reality the numbers could be much higher and based on a more complex rating system. Also, points could be given to people who achieve less than 3rd place in an event.

[grek]

So if we go by that pointing system, then we should consider Honza as the World champion right??

I think that this system is totally nonsense...

and believe it or not, Vasek is the best...

peace

[sanuke okumatzu]

So if we go by that pointing system, then we should consider Honza as the World champion right??

I think that this system is totally nonsense...

and believe it or not, Vasek is the best...

peace

That post... made no sense...

[ObArA'BaRs]

This fucking thread is so fucking funny (seriously, it is)
My favorite quote so far has been

"do you enjoy putting words in my mouth so much because I never let you put your weiner in there?"


Definetly going in the hall of fame/shame

[professor]

So if we go by that pointing system, then we should consider Honza as the World champion right??

I think that this system is totally nonsense...

and believe it or not, Vasek is the best...

peace

We'll never create a system for determining who's "best" at footbag, but we can determine who wins the title of Champion for a given year and I think this is the most fair way.

If Honza has the most points then yes.

And World Champion doesn't mean best. It should, but it doesn't always.

[shreddaily]

I think a lot of people have a problem with routines because they aren't as fun as circle. And they are hard.

Did you ever consider that the hardest, most unfun, oldest event might actually be the one that should determine the champ??? Sounds pretty obvious to me.

Routines are the best way to crown a champion(note I didn't say whos the best in the world). The crowned chapion should always be the routine winner no matter how much you hate prepairing and excecuting your lame routines.

[grek]

I think a lot of people have a problem with routines because they aren't as fun as circle. And they are hard.

Did you ever consider that the hardest, most unfun, oldest event might actually be the one that should determine the champ??? Sounds pretty obvious to me.

Routines are the best way to crown a champion(note I didn't say whos the best in the world). The crowned chapion should always be the routine winner no matter how much you hate prepairing and excecuting your lame routines.

agreed.