Tournaments need a new level added

[cd]

I think the way it is now is fine. But if I had to change something, I'd completely scale intermediate back and only have one level for Circle and Routines.

This would be in favor of beginner events that are more accessible to casual kickers. Beginner-level sick trick, foursquare, and consecutives are good examples.

I mean, if someone has modded lavers, knows the basics, etc then they're a real freestyler and should just go for it. The division between intermediate and open has always been fuzzy anyway. More divisions would just be a hassle for the organizers, judges, and players. I have almost zero chance of winning US Open next month but it would cheapen the sport if there was another sub-division just for players that I was more competitive with. And even victory in my class would be meaningless, like receiving a "participant" medal. I'd rather compete against Penske and lose than lower the bar for myself.

[PoisonTaffy]

Things are -conceptually- fine the way they are, but apparently many people choose not to compete, and since this issue is raised every other year, it's very possible that there's room for improvement.

What about some sort of a scoring system like many competitive sports have. I know very little about this and have no real world experience with it, but I can imagine some benefits. IFPA sanctioned competition can grant you points (different amount per event/position, depending on amount and caliber of competitors). there's motivation to organize and attend smaller events, because winning them has impact on global standing, and at huge competitions you are motivated to participate in any point granting competition, and can get points even if you're not winning any medal. I think footbag net does that?

[xsisbest]

it would cheapen the sport if there was another sub-division just for players that I was more competitive with. And even victory in my class would be meaningless, like receiving a "participant" medal.

Like Intermediate? I didn't feel like winning intermediate made it meaningless per say but I do always tell people that there is a much more difficult group way beyond where I'm at when complimented. I was actually quite proud of myself though as I had never done anything like this. And after seeing the average age group in their teens to mid 20's I felt even better being almost twice their age. I appreciate everyone's comments on this subject though. I can see everyone's points of view and think in the end it would be more of a hassle than anything to add another division. I've commit myself to Open since winning intermediate last year so I'm jumping in regardless of my knowing I'll be crushed. I always wondered why allot of great players showed up though and never entered the comp. I'm beginning to see why but I'm to competitive to not join. Plus it only helps the promoters and the sport for more entries. I will be happy to get my ass handed to me by the likes of Penske and company lol. I can't wait At least there won't be any pressure this time except for my own expectations..

[cd]

Well, no, I think intermediate is all fine and good. I meant additional sub-divisions would dilute things too much and cause competition to lose its meaning.

[Slowsis]

As I've stated in other topics similar to this - I support 1 division and the abolishment of multi-divisions, especially at big tournaments like Worlds, Euros, US Open etc. I don't know of any international or national sporting tournament that has multiple divisions (no doubt they exist in a few sports). The idea of only competing in competitions if you have a chance of winning is poor in my opinion. It's especially poor in footbag where there are so few competitors. Age restricted divisions is perhaps acceptable, but if you look at any sporting competition, the majority of competitors have no realistic chance of beating the best, and many of the least experienced competitors get smashed. That's the nature of sport. If you arbitrarily divide the competitors to create more winners it's meaningless and devalues winning at any level.

Says it all. When I enter against the best I expect to get killed, that is indeed the nature of sport. If I want to win anything, I better train hard and get better.

[Jorden]

With the average jam or tournament being quite small, and averaging 15 or so players,
I don't think having 4 skill levels makes a whole lot of sense.

Adding another skill level below Open level in big events like US Open, Euros or Worlds makes our sport
look that much less legitimate to an outsider.

Jorden

[F[uns]tylin' Eclectic]

Does anyone actually see people competing in Novice? I have never seen it happen in my few years of being involved in the sport.

[sen]

I didn't even know there was a Novice category.

[Muffinman]

]Says it all. When I enter against the best I expect to get killed, that is indeed the nature of sport. If I want to win anything, I better train hard and get better.

To add to that, there's satisfaction in itself from beating other players at your own level and especially above your level. It's not necessarily about winning the event as it is about doing your best, reaping the results of your training, and placing at all. Maybe progressively moving up the ranks at each event you attend. Even placing last gives you a sense of competition and achievement. Well, in theory.

I don't compete, but if I were to, and there were players miles beyond my skill level, I would focus more on the challenge of competing with players around my own level and congratulating myself if I beat any of them. Or even facing the pressure of public performance and achieving, say, a dropless routine in competition. That's huge. I just watched Brianbear's routine from Worlds and it was amazing and dropless. Definitely not top-class material, but a huge accomplishment, especially if it's his first or one of his first dropless routines. At the World Championships.

[Jeremy]

]Says it all. When I enter against the best I expect to get killed, that is indeed the nature of sport. If I want to win anything, I better train hard and get better.

To add to that, there's satisfaction in itself from beating other players at your own level and especially above your level. It's not necessarily about winning the event as it is about doing your best, reaping the results of your training, and placing at all. Maybe progressively moving up the ranks at each event you attend. Even placing last gives you a sense of competition and achievement. Well, in theory.

I don't compete, but if I were to, and there were players miles beyond my skill level, I would focus more on the challenge of competing with players around my own level and congratulating myself if I beat any of them. Or even facing the pressure of public performance and achieving, say, a dropless routine in competition. That's huge. I just watched Brianbear's routine from Worlds and it was amazing and dropless. Definitely not top-class material, but a huge accomplishment, especially if it's his first or one of his first dropless routines. At the World Championships.

Well said, and how much more satisfying to be able to say that you competed in the open division at Worlds, went dropless, and made it to the semi finals, than to say that you competed in intermediate and won.

The other thing worth noting is that I've always found that competing against people who are better than you at any sport/game teaches you far more than competing against people who are worse than you. Perhaps in footbag this is less so, but I feel like I've gained a lot competing with people significantly better than me.

*I just wanted to make it clear that in my previous post I did say "tournaments," and meant that. Having divisions in weekly competitions is quite different. Also I was really talking about high level/"premium" tournaments. I can understand divisions at less formal or serious competitions, and using a variety of methods of trying to even the playing field and encourage very green players to compete. Major events should strive for credibility and professionalism (even though we're obviously, in some sense, amateurs).

[sen]

*I just wanted to make it clear that in my previous post I did say "tournaments," and meant that. Having divisions in weekly competitions is quite different. Also I was really talking about high level/"premium" tournaments. I can understand divisions at less formal or serious competitions, and using a variety of methods of trying to even the playing field and encourage very green players to compete. Major events should strive for credibility and professionalism (even though we're obviously, in some sense, amateurs).

That is a great point. And I agree that at something like Worlds/Euros/USO the focus should be on high level professionalism. And with that distinction I think only having an Open division as the official competition is a great idea. Notice I said Official. Hopefully a lot of Novices would come out to these events to watch and cheer and enjoy sideline shredding, so maybe they could organize an informal, unofficial event or two among themselves.

And at smaller events have a Novice category. And I think a "Hacker's" division of sorts could really grow the sport if promoted properly ahead of time. Say have longest rally competition and advertise it among local hacking circles. Offer either a cash prize or some gadget like an ipod or something. Something to get at least a bit excited about. I would say lavers and bag but that might not get them excited ahead of time. In my opinion the purpose would be to get them to the tournament so they can see some good Freestyle and WANT to learn it. Does that idea make sense?

As someone mentioned I think Vasek got involved from a kicking competition at his school? Didn't he win a discman or something?

[boyle]

The first competition I went to had a consecutive kicks tournament. I won, and there was even a cash prize! I think things like that can really get people interested from the "casual hack" level.

As for the intermediate division at Worlds, I don't really think it should exist. There are some very good points in this thread and I guess there are two key arguments that the footbag community needs to reconcile - one is the professionalism and high level of marquee events - particularly Worlds, Euros and US Open - the second is encouraging more players to get involved and to compete, which can be done by having smaller tournaments and jams with a wider variety of events.

The problem with having so few players is simply that we have difficulty in getting numbers to compete... that you can simply just go to Worlds (at your own expense of course), and you have qualified.

[Jeremy]

Yeah it would be good if there were some kind of national selection criteria. Even if in practice it ended up that anybody who attempted national qualification to compete at worlds was accepted, it would add so much in terms of apparent credibility. Of course it would require countries to have some kind of organisational body to approve people, and not all countries have one. I guess there could be some kind of symbolic IFPA body that would approve wild cards and non-national selection entry, or something like that.

[Kenar]

Speaking of levels -- pretty soon the US Open, for one, is going to have to add divisions for the older folks. I know of a few kickers who have turned 40 and would love to compete in an older age group.

[boyle]

I think this is an area where footbag could expand the categories, age-based divisions. Not many, probably just "veterans" or "masters" - a lot of sporting competitions have masters level at over 35. Juniors could be under 18, and they may be a new incentive for getting kids into competing.

That could really be something for increasing credibility, a "selection process". Rather than just entering as you wish, you must be supported by your national body, or by the IFPA.

[C-Fan]

Not sure if this discussion is limited to only freestyle, but in net there is often a masters division for players over 35 years of age. It's a bit weird though, since some people over 35 are still very competitive...for example, I think Tuan just won Texas States in both the masters and the open divisions. I don't know what net players think about it.

I haven't seen a masters division in freestyle to date. I think coming up with a cutoff age for that division would be tricky. I personally think 35 is a bit young for masters in net, considering the average age of competitors in net, as well as the average age of the top finishers at Worlds in net. On the flip of that, based on the average age of freestylers and top finishers at worlds, you could argue that 35 is too old for freestyle.

Ultimately though, I don't know how much interest there'd even be in a masters division in freestyle, and even if there were, I think bigger dividends could be paid for the sport by figuring out ways to make newbies compete.

[crazydwarf]

I don't compete, but if I were to, and there were players miles beyond my skill level, I would focus more on the challenge of competing with players around my own level and congratulating myself if I beat any of them. Or even facing the pressure of public performance and achieving, say, a dropless routine in competition. That's huge. I just watched Brianbear's routine from Worlds and it was amazing and dropless. Definitely not top-class material, but a huge accomplishment, especially if it's his first or one of his first dropless routines. At the World Championships.

This is how I feel. Training and competing with Brian for worlds we were both going into it with the perspective...

1. ok we can't win but we can get past first round and then do well enough second round that if someone messes up we can do finals
2. we want to do a dropless routine

That first day after brian and I both hit goal 2 we were super pumped. I mean, that was winning for us.
Then in the second round when we ended up 3 and 4 in our respective pools, only loosing to top finals players we were again super pumped.

I feel like having lots of rounds is helpful for getting a sense of accomplishment regardless of what skill you are. For me (at worlds) it's been like this...
4th intermediate in helsinki dropless
semifinals in orlando but last in my semifinal bracket and dropped a bunch
didn't make it out of the first round in oakland and dropped a bunch <-this year I hadn't played much at all
semifinals and top in my semifinal bracket without making it through, 2 dropless routines

Every year except oakland I have been proud of my results as I've done better than before. Helsinki and warsaw this year are my two favorite tournaments because I also hit dropless routines.

So no I don't think we need any extra divisions. Having lots of brackets is nice and to do that we need lots of players. I do think the following could help...

losers brackets so that people who don't make it far still get to practice performing a routine in front of a large group
like Chris mentioned fun beginner events like consecutive kicking, beginner sick 3 and 1, 4 square

[Jeremy]

Loser's bracket is a great idea. That should replace "Intermediate" and other divisions. Very common in national tournaments for other sports too. More work for organisers etc. but creates more participation. You could have a tournament structure where the first round splits people in two groups, the next round splits those in 2 etc. until you get finals of 4-10 competitors (depending on event), and everybody competes in every round. I've been to tournaments in other sports like that.

[Asmus]

Do people really wanna watch intermediate consecutive kicking? Or the same intermediate routine 2-3 times?
Even many semi-good players routines are pretty boring.
Sorry for being a hater but isn't worlds about footbag being a spectator sport? Not about holding beginners' hands.
It is a world championship after all.

[C-Fan]

I kinda like the idea of loser's brackets. This year I finished one spot out of finals in both routines and circle. When people ask how I did, I either use that phrasing (one spot out of finals) or tell them I tied for 5th in one event, and tied for 9th in the other. It'd be nice to do a loser's bracket so there are firmer results ("I finished 8th" versus "I finished between 5th and 9th").

But yeah, it'd be a lot more work for judges and organizers, and at tournies like Worlds its a challenge to get through the main events on time as is.