Intermediates at major competitions

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 11 Aug 2008 13:30

i think alot of you are pissy little shits about this because you could never win an intermediate competition.

just leave it alone.

janis · Post by **janis** » 11 Aug 2008 18:32

AB wrote:Come December i'll have been playing freestyle footbag for 2 years. The US open was my first real competition, I think competing in intermediate was a very useful tool to show me how a major footbag competition works. I honestly don't think that I was ready to compete in open, yeah I can snap off montage but thats just a result of the way I've learned how to play footbag up until now (I skipped a lot of the toe game, but its getting there).

I can see your apprehension about going open if this is your first comp, but busting montage should automatically put you in open imho. If you didn't feel ready for open that's one thing but there are so many people who are a lot less skilled at footbag who would go into open.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 11 Aug 2008 19:07

janis wrote:
AB wrote:Come December i'll have been playing freestyle footbag for 2 years. The US open was my first real competition, I think competing in intermediate was a very useful tool to show me how a major footbag competition works. I honestly don't think that I was ready to compete in open, yeah I can snap off montage but thats just a result of the way I've learned how to play footbag up until now (I skipped a lot of the toe game, but its getting there).
I can see your apprehension about going open if this is your first comp, but busting montage should automatically put you in open imho. If you didn't feel ready for open that's one thing but there are so many people who are a lot less skilled at footbag who would go into open.

so just because the people who are alot less skilled go into open means he has to compete open? bullshit

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 11 Aug 2008 19:49

LEGOMAN wrote:so just because the people who are alot less skilled go into open means he has to compete open? bullshit

Seems pretty logical to me.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Aug 2008 20:37

I think it's false logic to say that because you got stuff out of competing intermediate therefore it's good to have an intermediate division. We don't know how the world would have turned out if there were no intermediate division and we could never really make that comparison.

It's also missing the point of the argument; which is that the intermediate division is very poorly defined with no guidelines as to who is eligible and at the very least this means that winning intermediate events is meaningless. The intermediate winner of an event is just the best player out of the players that chose not to compete in open. That's not a sporting division and it's not a title that is attractive to win.

The solution doesn't have to be to get rid of intermediate all together (although that's what I'd prefer). We could clearly define who is allowed to compete in intermediate, so that it is a meaningful title to hold (making footbag consistent with all those sports Eric Chang mentioned). We could make intermediate competitions unofficial side events.

There is the separate issue of sandbagging, which would be solved by solving the problems I've mentioned. I can't say I understand the way people feel like they're "not ready" to compete open, but it seems like some people are afraid of getting badly beaten in sport. All I can say is that if that's the case you need to play more sport and take it less seriously. Footbag isn't like boxing. If you compete against Vasek or against Kyle Hewitt you're still going to do the same routine and you're not going to get hurt because Vasek is so much better.

kesalfun · Post by **kesalfun** » 12 Aug 2008 01:10

I don't understand why anyone wants to get rid of intermediate. I mean if you don't like it, or are talking about getting rid of it because your good enough to play in open then you should just ignore it completely, and let those of us who appreciate it have it. If we didn't have intermediate then a lot of footbaggers would be discouraged and might even stop playing. Intermediate is a reward for newer players who are working very hard to be as good as they are. It's definitely encouragement.

Besides the fact, think about girls competing. It's almost worthless to compete in girls division, specially if your actually good (at least on a more local level, like US or state/province wide). If your really good than your probably going to win, and if everyone is good, then theres only a small amount of people your actually competing and there isn't enough people to actually see how you'd honestly place. When I went to the US open if i completed i would have placed 5th in the open. 5th! I've only been playing for 5 months. I've always though that women should compete in both.

besides let footbag be the exception with an intermediate level. Freestyle Footbag isn't like other sports, i'd put it with syncronized swimming, dance, or even rowing, as opposed to basketball or football (i feel net could be considered that kind of sport, and that intermediate might be something that could be argued when competing in net) but freestyle isn't judged just based on pure performance, style and creativity is considered as well. Should only the top ten players play for the sake of entertaining onlookers?! I'm not going to start a sport because i saw it on an olympic level, in fact i started playing footbag because there were so many players that weren't incredible at it.

theres two ways to compete in footbag as well, to win or to have fun.
I think intermediate is more for lower levels AND for people just wanting to play for fun. I just think it's kind of pompous to want to get rid of it because you only think the good should compete.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 12 Aug 2008 02:22

Yeah, I feel intermediate is pretty silly. There should just be one division. I'd never do intermediate, even though at the moment I'm not fit for open, because I want to know where I stand. Noone wants an 'intermediate' ranking.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Aug 2008 03:48

kesalfun wrote: There's two ways to compete in footbag as well, to win or to have fun.
I think intermediate is more for lower levels AND for people just wanting to play for fun. I just think it's kind of pompous to want to get rid of it because you only think the good should compete.

So you can't have fun if you're competing against people who are a lot better than you, but you can have fun if your put in a division which is labelled "people who don't think they're good enough to compete against the best?"

How does who you're competing against have any impact on how much fun you have. Don't you have fun from doing the routine and performing - or is the fun just about beating other people at something, and less people will beat you if you compete in the "I'm not good enough to compete against the best" division?

I don't understand why anyone wants to get rid of intermediate. I mean if you don't like it, or are talking about getting rid of it because your good enough to play in open then you should just ignore it completely, and let those of us who appreciate it have it. If we didn't have intermediate then a lot of footbaggers would be discouraged and might even stop playing. Intermediate is a reward for newer players who are working very hard to be as good as they are. It's definitely encouragement.

Please provide some evidence that a single footbagger would have been discouraged if there had not been an intermediate division at an event. Don't give an opinion or speculation.

Of course I fully realise that what I'm asking is impossible. In any argument, if you want to make progress you have to ignore the things that can never be known, and deal with the facts.

I don't understand why anyone wants to get rid of intermediate.

Jeremy in the post before yours wrote:The solution doesn't have to be to get rid of intermediate all together.

LEGOMAN · Post by **LEGOMAN** » 12 Aug 2008 06:11

Laroche wrote:
LEGOMAN wrote:so just because the people who are alot less skilled go into open means he has to compete open? bullshit
Seems pretty logical to me.

just because their stupidity causes them to compete in a level they know they shouldn't compete in shouldn't make it so other players have to compete in open

Laroche · Post by **Laroche** » 12 Aug 2008 06:21

How is it stupidity to step up and see what it's actually like to compete with the better players?

No, you won't win. No, you're not the best. But who cares? The learning experience you come away with is so much more rewarding then the pat on the back you'll get if you win intermediates. And you DO learn a lot more competing open then in the lower level.

Quick flashback-story: My uncle learned to play chess by my grandfather, who was the Yugoslavian champion at the time. MY grandfather would be relentless when showing my uncle; never gave him a chance, just beat him over and over and over.... eventually though, my uncle could beat my grandfather every time.

Footbag is no different. TO be the best you play against the best. It's fun too.

semiconscious · Post by **semiconscious** » 12 Aug 2008 08:36

I agree that there should be a more clear delineation of the intermediate category, but not that it should be removed altogether. I don't know about other comps, but I was thinking for circle, the competition could be tiered. So the first round, those who got first and second in each circle would move to the upper, 'open' tier, and the 3rd and 4th place would be in the intermediate group. Of course, selecting the players in each circle would affect the comp heavily, but I feel like that's always the case with circle. Would that work? could the same be done with routines? I feel like you could at least avoid sandbagging.
Although I competed intermediate in the one comp I've been to, and won, it was definitely a bitter-sweet feeling. I kinda felt like I was sandbagging, and that anyone good enough to win intermediate should be in open. I would have placed dead-last in open, no doubt, but It's probably better to lose honestly than win and be left with the feeling of being a 'cheater' or something.

Benjaminzors · Post by **Benjaminzors** » 12 Aug 2008 11:15

It'd be nice to hear from someone who is an actual TO (tournament organizer) on this topic. As they're the people who would be able to actually implement any changes to competitive formats right?

In almost every sport there are varying levels of competition. Also: in almost every sport there is some sort of qualification process to play in the "big leagues." With that comes a sense of accomplishment that should be something lower level players (like myself) can shoot for. In other words, IMHO, it should be more of an honor to compete at the highest level, not a choice.

To me it seems like the only way to stop everyone's whining is to re-vamp the entire competitive structure. Instead of letting everyone compete Open and letting those that think they can't do well enough go beat on noobs in Intermediate. Why not make everyone (who is not already a professional) compete "Open" and let the top players in "Open" compete "Professionally."

It's still a two-tier structure, it just eliminates the problems caused by having an "Intermediate by choice" category.

atze · Post by **atze** » 13 Aug 2008 05:44

personal experience as a player:
my first tournament ever was finnish open 1998. damn was i proud to win intermediate freestyle and intermediate net! i got the chance to play three rounds of freestyle and many, many net matches (had never played net before) and i got a kick out of playing in a final. don't know how it would have been if i had dropped out first round in open net and freestyle, but i can definately tell you that i felt GOOD at the award ceremony.

personal experience as an event organizer:
divisions help you reduce number of contestants in each division i.e. saves time, energy, etc. the format we chose at footjam worked really well. the only problem is that you have to finish the intermediate comp. before you can start open.

general view on the subject:
the unclear definition what novice, intermediate and open actually means is clearly an issue. however i don't think its really been a huge problem in the past (at big events). there's usually a handfull players competing intermediate who might also be able to play open (and even survive the first round). but so what? if a player does not feel good enough for open but feels he has a shot at winning intermediate then let him. i know of no player who won intermediate at a major competition who entered the same division again afterwards.

for any player i believe the intermediate divisions are a good change to learn. to gain experience. even and especially at major competitions. even if usually not many people watch the intermediates (which i personally believe is absolutely disrespectfull) you still have the feeling of competing at a world championship (for instance) and that possibly your idols will be watching (maybe even commenting on) what you have prepared.
novice, intermediate open is a stepladder which helps you to relate and evaluate your skill level as a competitor and motivate yourself. i strongly believe that anyone who feels he has a chance of reaching or even winning the intermediate finals will put more effort in his routine that someone who only sees the chance of making the second round in open. therefore i think the divisions are also important to keep the status of the routine format (which in my eyes is crucial for footbag).

as a promoter of footbag sports i can use the title of intermediate world/european/national champion. it sells because usually the press drops the intermediate and all of a sudden you have a true champion to sell.

So YES i am in strong favor of keeping the intermediate division. if someone comes up with a good system how to make a better cut between intermediate and open then i'm all for it. but like i said you will be hard pressed to find a player who played in an intermediate final at a major comp who then played intermediate again. so basically the system regulates itself sufficiently.

CIC flurry · Post by **CIC flurry** » 13 Aug 2008 07:47

Johnny wrote: If competion was only open to serious players instead of people who really don't care about competing then competion in general would be much more serious and not just another chance to kick around a hack with some friends. Open level competitors would he held in higher regard and people would strive that much more to become competitive.

I think this is a good point. It's like even the invite to be a part of the posse that gets to compete open would be a great feeling. You'd be important all tourny long. And I think it's a bigger motivator to train.

I completely see your point Jeremy - and the fact that you're talking about major events. I like where the discussion is filtering out the problem is not having set guidelines on what intermediate is. I think a very profound statement from Jerm was "you're the best of the people who decided not to compete open." 'People who decided not to compete open' isn't a good criteria for a division to be wanting to compete in.

MatS21 · Post by **MatS21** » 15 Aug 2008 12:15

For small comps I don't really know how you could work it out but for big events I really think there should be a pre-selection of who makes the ''pro'' category and the top of ''open'' would compete in pro too. That way it would be really an honor to compete in that level. It would push people to play at a a higher level and anyway I don't think there's a so big difference between a mid or strong ntermediate and starter open player. As the sports gets bigger we could have some sort of rankings such as tennis has to determinate the rankings, favorites, who has to pass throught qualifications and who do not.

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 16 Aug 2008 20:58

Yeah that "pre-selection" in called Qualifications, Semi-Finals and Finals

It also pushed a player to work harder to get into the Semi-Finals and so forth.

-Note I just realized something. You're right WE DON'T show the intermediate competitions at the same times at Worlds as Open Finals and Women's Finals. Its the day before, and its not really advertised as much as the Finals were.

-Also why the hell are some people saying "its better to compete with better players" It makes no sense? How is getting in a pool with Vasek going to suddenly make me dropless or hit harder tricks? I only go to Worlds ONCE A year. The story of the grandfather and uncle makes no sense. If I played WITH Vasek every week I would get faster. But once a year? Nick, did your uncle only play chess one a year? God sometimes you guys make me feel smart.

I am going to leave it at this. We've championed intermediate routines, and if you do not want it. Then stop complaining and A: Do not host Intermediate at your tournament, and B: Please Bid on Worlds and Host it without an Intermediate competition. Less talk more action please.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 04 Sep 2008 21:21

Worlds is so small already. Every single sports event at any high school is huge in comparison. We dont need to eliminate events/reduce attendance.
Doing a qualification round or something to determine an intermediate from open would help. I remember back when Brian Parsons and Dan Klokow took the "honor" or 1,2 in intermediate. Brians did well enough to scrore well in the open division on the objective part of the scoring(old system) even though he had way less time to do tricks.
In summary- intermediate good, sandbagging bad.

spikethespiegel · Post by **spikethespiegel** » 02 Oct 2008 05:12

I debated with myself which category to enter at my first Worlds, but eventually I remembered why we play this game.
We play because we love it, guys. I really hate to see so much animosity in a forum like this, because a lot of new players might decide it's a little too competitive and just put it down.
I ended up entering in Open, because I personally learn better when I get beat by the best. But not everyone is the same, which is why Intermediates is a great event.
I would like to see a Qualification Round at large events. Someone else said 30sec shreds for each person, that would be perfect! One round of 30sec, then the judges place people in the pools of each bracket, Open and Intermediate. I would be down for that, because people would all be where they should be, without anyone feeling like they got sandbagged or whatever.

Eric Chang · Post by **Eric Chang** » 02 Oct 2008 20:34

spikethespiegel wrote: I ended up entering in Open, because I personally learn better when I get beat by the best.

I really try not to post on modified general discussions all that much. But really, please tell me what did you learn from that one time in the year you got beaten? It makes no sense what so ever really. So that means lets say I take up boxing right? Well I'm going to train the whole year and with the intermediate category I'm going to pass it up, and just once fight a top contender. Yeah I'm totally going to learn sooooooo much from it. Now the story goes you learn more when beaten by the best. But the problem is footbag is so much different from other sports. Its up to you to decide how well you do, not top tier players. Heck I learned more when play with the Czech crew, that I ever would do going against them.

Nick made a perfect example of his Uncle and Grandfather playing against each other in chess. I assume this was more that once a year right? I also am to assume that he played against his grandfather HEAD TO HEAD. Rather than sit right next to him playing another game against say someone else, himself or the computer. He literally played WITH him, see that is the kicker. I don't play against David in competition at all (well I'm intermediate so I wouldn't anyways) but if I did, I'd learn nothing from going against him, except what I learned from MY mistakes. I don't know how many times do I have to try to say this.

spikethespiegel wrote: I would like to see a Qualification Round at large events. Someone else said 30sec shreds for each person, that would be perfect! One round of 30sec, then the judges place people in the pools of each bracket, Open and Intermediate. I would be down for that, because people would all be where they should be, without anyone feeling like they got sandbagged or whatever.

I feel like that makes no sense what so ever. Some people maybe a bit off that day, lets say some how an open player does bad. Does that mean we just move him to the intermediate category? What happens if they sandbag in the shred30"qualification" come on guys its not a perfect situation. -Cue Weezer's "Perfect Situation"-

spikethespiegel · Post by **spikethespiegel** » 03 Oct 2008 03:20

Mostly, I don't think about winning and losing because I don't think footbag is about that.

The whole one day a year thing, I don't really see your point. I never get to play with any pro players, so when I go to an event, that's why I do it. The competition just helps me deal with my nerves, a large audience, and the experience of competition itself.

Shredding with people at events is the reason I go, not to compete. So you're completely wrong when you say a person cannot learn anything in one day alone. That's exactly what I do, at every single event.

I thought I did horribly in Open in 07, but a fellow shredder, Zack (can't remember his last name), ended up telling me later that I placed 33, which at least wasn't last. I was surprised by my own accomplishment, and very happy I chose Open.

More importantly, you should focus on the love of the game and improving your skills, instead of worrying about competitions and categories and trying to get attention from people online.