Height?

tomek1 · Post by **tomek1** » 10 Aug 2008 07:20

Does height effect ur skills? I mean all the vids ive seen everyone looks tall and skinny.. Iam about 5'4 -5'5 and about 135-140lbs. You guys think i can ever become as good as someone whos tall and skinny?

mc · Post by mc » 10 Aug 2008 08:35

neither Dave Clavens nor Jorden Moir are unusually tall or skinny (although they're not unusually short or wide, either), nor do their ankles bend more than the average person's.

Hope that answers your question

Jordan · Post by **Jordan** » 10 Aug 2008 10:53

hieght doesnt matter at all...

just make sure your in shape. and do other excersises besides a "footbag workout"

and dont forget to stretch.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 10 Aug 2008 11:56

Matt Cross wrote:neither Dave Clavens nor Jorden Moir are unusually tall or skinny (although they're not unusually short or wide, either), nor do their ankles bend more than the average person's.

They do have huge muscles in their legs though. I think that's the most important thing. If you've seen vasek's legs in person, it looks like he stole them from a meat locker or something. It's ridiculous.

But yeah. It helps to be in shape.

jon · Post by **jon** » 10 Aug 2008 13:13

I don't think there have been enough high levels players yet to say what the best body type is for footbag. I think a lot of people would disagree and tell me a mulroney / vasek is best but I have to think a longer slender body is probably best. Like almost all sports taller (to a point) is probably better.

Also while Vasek / Jorden's legs are not small I wouldn't call them large either.

At this point I think any reasonable body type could reach the highest level of play and I think the top players bodies speak to this. We have yet to reach the level of sports like basketball and hockey where taller / bigger is now par for the course.

Jorden · Post by **Jorden** » 11 Aug 2008 07:36

This thread is silly.

You'll get out of footbag what you put into it, no matter what your body type.

Whoever trains the hardest and smartest will obtain the best results.

As for slight natural advantages: flexibility, a low center of gravity and a not-too-bulky frame are obvious.

Vasek, Dave and I started out really skinny for the first year, then slowly started gaining muscle mass. This is how your body reacts to effective training. We did not start out with muscular legs.

Dave and I actually have above average ankle flex, due to the rare and forgotten art of ankle stretching.

Stretching and cross-training are not essential in youth but become more important to maintain a high level when you enter your 20s. Most of the top young players reached their level through footbag alone.

Jorden

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 11 Aug 2008 09:31

True, anyone can get good if they work at it, but I'd say that the stereotypical freestyle body is stereotyped for a reason - at the beginning, it's easier to get hooked if you're not spending all your time getting around physical limitations, therefore you see a higher drop out rate from players who have some limiting body types.

But, look at (to be extreme): Nasty Nate (extremely wide trick selection, makes up for shorter thicker legs with precision and terrific coordination) vs. Big Add Chad (uses enormous windows to do unbelievable things).

Me? I've got tiny dex windows (relatively short legs, that are also very thick), am 32 years old, and am only willing to play 2-3 hours per week. But I play pretty well. To Jorden's point, if I played longer, AND SMARTER (that's a key thing) I could break through my current limitations in time.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 11 Aug 2008 14:29

Jorden wrote:This thread is silly.

Yes, but there are much sillier threads than this. This is barely Tiltless on the Silly Scale.

Jon wrote:At this point I think any reasonable body type could reach the highest level of play and I think the top players bodies speak to this. We have yet to reach the level of sports like basketball and hockey where taller / bigger is now par for the course.

I doubt we'll ever get to a point where taller = better in freestyle footbag. It could come to that in Net, where height would seem to offer obvious advantage in getting up above the net or covering your court (though for now Manu and Johnny Leyes clearly defy this line of thought). But there are many sports which are played at super-high levels where extra size either in height or mass can be a disadvantage. In Olympic Weight-Lifting, shorter people have a clear mechanical advantage. Longer limbs = less efficient levers with which to move those heavy weights. Gymnasts mostly tend to be pretty short. I don't know exactly why, but I'd figure that there must be some big disadvantage for a taller person trying to flip and twist in mid-air or keep their balance on a 4-inch beam. Bigger and Taller are clearly favored in many sports, but are not ideal in all sports. I'd like to think that in our little sport taller people are not at too great of an advantage or disadvantage. Different sizes perhaps translate to different strenghts and weaknesses, and our sport is varied enough to leave plent of room for people of different abilities to excel in different ways, to play to their strenghts and simply avoid those weaknesses (if they cannot simply be overcome entirely.)

janis · Post by **janis** » 11 Aug 2008 18:34

I see footbag freestyle as being a bit like gymnastics, taller is definitely not an advantage. That said you still have to train really hard to get anywhere in this sport regardless of physical attributes.

Rieferman wrote:True, anyone can get good if they work at it, but I'd say that the stereotypical freestyle body is stereotyped for a reason - at the beginning, it's easier to get hooked if you're not spending all your time getting around physical limitations, therefore you see a higher drop out rate from players who have some limiting body types.

This is spot on IMO.