How far back would you have to go to be the best?

Post by **Zac Miley** » 20 May 2011 17:03

This question popped in my head earlier today, and I doubt anyone else will care as much as me... but whatever.

If you were to be the best in the world at footbag, how far back in time would that have to be? The 60's? '98?

For me, I would guess the early 90's.

Debate!

edit: 69th topic lolz

g00d33 · Post by **g00d33** » 20 May 2011 17:19

Hmmm do you mean at our current level? And if so, I'd have to say maybe mid 80s or quite possibly earlier for me. Technically, it's hard for me to say, but I'm sure at each time there would always be someone who can essentially keep it up longer than me haha.

This is an interesting topic though lol

sen · Post by **sen** » 20 May 2011 18:22

I'm not sure I understand the question. I see it in two ways.

If it's at my current level, then I'd need to go back to pretty much the birth of freestyle.

The other way I see it is how far back would I have to go in order to be able to train harder and be the best today. In that case I would say 1995.

sidekick · Post by **sidekick** » 20 May 2011 22:30

pre-vasek

I think mulroney and I would be good match up, both at our peaks...

PoisonTaffy · Post by **PoisonTaffy** » 21 May 2011 02:26

I contemplated this a bit myself, and it's a wake up call to see people say 80's and earlier. I suppose people did have amazing bag control early on, even if a small tricks dictionary back in the day, judging from TOTD2 footage.

How about not being the best, but winning routines?

Post by **Zac Miley** » 21 May 2011 09:51

I didn't really have a specific direction for the question to go, but originally it was, at your current shred level, how far back would you have to go to unanimously be the best in a circle with the best of that time? I hope that's more clear.

I think all of the questions that arise out of that are interesting too, though.

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » 21 May 2011 10:11

I don't shred anymore but at my peak (whenever the hell that was) I'm thinking early 90's. Maybe even earlier than that...

At my current level in net I don't think I would beat any version of Kenny or Manu.

This is depressing

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 21 May 2011 10:15

Early 80s?

Jazzkid · Post by **Jazzkid** » 22 May 2011 07:11

I have thought about this alot and I think.....possibly 1800s or maybe even earlier........something tells me that an indian may have chopped off another indians head and then hit alpine food with it.

on a serious note...Milan might just have to go back to aug 2010

CIC flurry · Post by **CIC flurry** » 22 May 2011 12:33

Yeah I've thought about it before too. Usually thinking , hey it would be cool to go back in time and do some tricks people have never seen, and melt their faces with that. 3 dexes bitches!

yo jazzkid look at your post count, i think it's time for a combo.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 22 May 2011 12:41

Yeah, or you could go 10 years into the future and be the best after the sport is dead...

Just kidding.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 23 May 2011 08:46

Really interesting question. I kinda thought about this the last time I visited my folks in Arizona. While I was there, I dug out some old VHS tapes from 97 and 98, and watched them out of nostalgia. I was struck by how short the strings were, and how full of bails they were. I remember clearly thinking: "wow, a strong intermediate from today would totally have been considered elite back then."

Personally, I think it's great that the level of play has improved so much just during the last 15 years.

PoisonTaffy wrote:How about not being the best, but winning routines?

For me, I think I could have won routines in the pre-Vasek era. Like, this routine I did 2 years ago would have had a good shot at winning in 1999 or even 2000 I think:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=320PDj982QQ&fmt=18[/youtube]

Zac Miley wrote: at your current shred level, how far back would you have to go to unanimously be the best in a circle with the best of that time? .

Wow...for that I'd probably have to go to 96 or 97? Probably 96.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 23 May 2011 09:07

Not sure if this is just how they did routines or if this was top notch shred but it should provide some perspective.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l7LuhCGSlM[/youtube]

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 23 May 2011 11:34

If you gave the players of the 90s todays bags, they would be better than you think.

Don't forget, as you go back in time, your bags approach 15 grams and the size of a baseball. And then they start getting smaller and harder as they approach the OG leather hackysacks.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 23 May 2011 13:15

good point. I think that is true in any sport, however. It's difficult to compare players from generation to generation because of the ever-improving technology making things easier.

Regardless, the question is not intended to insult the old-timers, but rather to highlight the improvement that footbag has seen. It's obvious that we wouldn't be where we are right now without them.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 23 May 2011 21:15

That routine seemed a lot riskier than the routines we see today. I can't imagine someone going for a heel stall in routines now.

On topic, even if I could bring current technology back with me to 1988, I don't think I'd be considered the best for long. It would only be a matter of time, maybe six months to a year, before someone caught up with me & then passed me.

The other question was at what age would we have to start playing to be the best. I think about this too. If I had started learning freestyle at 13 instead of 23, and made use of those 10 responsibility-free years to get good at footbag, I still don't think I would have been the best. Of course I would be way better than I am today, if I stuck with it, but I also didn't stick with a lot of hobbies through those years.

Max Power · Post by **Max Power** » 27 Jun 2011 19:36

This is an idea that I've thought about a lot. Mostly with current players that were better then me and then stopped. Its hard to calculate, if they never stopped then they would be better but i always wonder because they were my inspirations.

If I went back in time I think I could win in 97 but That's If I really worked a routine and had very few drops.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 27 Jun 2011 20:26

I can't really think of any worlds routines of the last couple of years that would have won in the Ryan Mulroney days. There are many people technically better today, but you don't see anywhere near that high level choreography much, and that's half the score. The late 90s routines were also pretty good. If I were at my best and uninjured, I think I'd definitely be a circle shred standout in the late 90s, but I doubt I'd be able to choreograph a routine to win until about 1995. Of course I'm basing this on today's judging system, and in the old system I think I'd do even worse. I would smash the difficulty component, but be no better than the people of the time on the other components, and probably worse on presentation and composition.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 29 Jun 2011 11:29

I've thought about this recently... Unfortunately I don't think I ever got THAT good at freestyle. There are still moves and combos that Kenny did back in the day that I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around. That said, maybe early 80's my game would destroy. Beyond that, I'm still pretty much one sided.