Joined: 22 Dec 2003 Posts: 44 Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: Conference on the Future of Footbag Net at Worlds 07
HI Everybody,
I am pleased to announce that I've been appointed by tournament director Chris Ott to conduct a conference on the Future of our beloved sport at the 2007 IFPA World Footbag Championships. The meeting will be on Tuesday august 14th at 8:30 PM, probably at the Milk House although this is still to be confirmed.
We did have such a conference in Montreal in 2002 and you can see the papers that were presented for that occasion by PT Lovern / John Leys for Chaos, Chris Siebert, Bruce Guettich and myself at the following address: http://www.prokicker.ca/eng/2007_net_conf_2002_ref.htm
This could be a good starting point for your reflexion.
We also had an informal meeting of the Net enthusiasts at the 2005 WFC in Helsinki for those who remember.
We still have to determine the format of this year's meeting but I would like to see things in Written form. You can e-mail your presentations at: yevez@prokicker.ca
BTW if any of you is interested we would need a secretary to take notes about the conference. Let me know.
Some things I'd like to see and discuss:
How to create and maintain a sustainable Footbag net club, including how to make sure to renew the players roster with newbies. If you have a successfull recipe about this we'll certainly be happy to hear about it.
The creation of a group of major net tournaments (4 in America, 4 in Europe for starters) that would abide with minimal requirements (bleachers or seats, DJ or music entertainment, MC, press releases, etc...)
The role of IFPA in developing the sport of Footbag Net, what you like, dislike, what you would like to see.
Please leave topics that are more pertaining to rules to the International Footbag Committee (IFC),
Get to your computers and get your brains going, this forum topic is for you to express your ideas.
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Ellenville, NY, USA
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:36 am Post subject:
This is my first thought right off the top of my head,so please all can certainly bash it. I would like too see a clinic that would define the roles of the various judges, If judging is done by the players in pool play than we need to educate as best we can all players on how to fill the roles of specific judges. ted f
One of the problem with getting more people to play net is the fact that only doubles net seems to appeal to new players... and veterans. The singles popularity among the players community went from the most popular in the 80s to a boring run, dink, run, lob in the back, run, run run fest.... It's not that different than in the 80s, but players nowadays are just not attracted to that style of play. All they want is to spike!!!! isn't it PT?
Now since the style of play is mostly dependant of the dimension of the court (big court= placements, dink, lob ; small court=fast action, set and spike) i'd like to see an inquiry from major clubs or/and from the IFPA, as to " does the sport would benefit from a change of dimension of the singles court".
The actual dimensions are prohibitive to the new players fun level. Even most veteran players would much rather pick their nose than to play it. And if veterans don't play singles, newbies will never be excited about it and will wait for someone to take him/her to a doubles court with who they will suck for a year or two.
Now i personnally like to play singles even though i want to die sometimes on the court, especially when it's hot. I find it an excellent training, very good workout for the basics kicks. I have to admit that the fun factor is not very high and i only know about 3-4 other people max who love to play it.
On the other end, i find the doubles be near perfect in terms of offense/defense balance. It's exciting, every new players wants to play doubles, but the problem is you need to be 4 to play it. In order to grow new club, having 4 comparable level player is almost a luxury. And once you get 4 people with good skill, adding one newbie pretty much kill the fun.
I say that in order to have more people getting into the game, we need a fun and exciting singles game. If the prequisite to have fun is to have a minimum of 2 players with similar skill instead of 4, then it doubles the chances that a club will survive and grow!!!
I'd like to see an international comitee that would discuss and try different options and come up with a demonstration event for next year worlds, that players could register in and try.
Joined: 23 Sep 2003 Posts: 288 Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject:
Using a smaller court for singles only makes sense since we currently play on the doubles badminton court. The easiest way to make the change would be for everyone to add new nails to the line ropes which would be for singles only. This is a global pain in the ass, but I think it's the only way. Moving to 3 kicks on the doubles court would be an easier switch, but I think that would make siding out easier and make for longer matches.
Using a smaller court for singles only makes sense since we currently play on the doubles badminton court. The easiest way to make the change would be for everyone to add new nails to the line ropes which would be for singles only. This is a global pain in the ass, but I think it's the only way.
Well what i did when i did try it, was to mark an existing doubles dimension lines, set it up as usual. From each corner i would measure the specific distance that need to be substracted on the lenght and on the wight, then i would use the existing corner nail and nail it over the two new marking. You end up with sort of a loop at each corner. It does not take too much time to set up and it's pretty quick to put back to doubles dimension.
Quote:
Moving to 3 kicks on the doubles court would be an easier switch, but I think that would make siding out easier and make for longer matches.
I personnally see no improvement to have 3 kicks and keeping the same doubles dimension. It will just make placements, dinks and lob even more effective, plus the attacker will have another option..... real spikes.
Quote:
What are the chances of even setting up a smaller 'singles' court @ Worlds *this* year, just to give some exposure to the idea?
maybe not even play whole games....people could just hop on the court and rally around for a while to see the differences, and see what it's like.
Hey this is quite feasable, i'm thinking we could have sort of a "king of the hill/4 square set up" Like we can use one court, two people start off and play till let's say 3 or 5 points, the winner stay on and a new one gets in. Like in 4square, there could be a line up for who's going to be on the court next. It would be a good opportunity for people to observe before trying it. One thing it's quite different than the current singles game. Most likely, people will get frustrated trying to do what they normally do on a singles court like liners and lobs and a lot of these shots won't work or will be out. It will sure take more than a few minutes to figure out the possibilies but i think observing the winners they'll get an idea of what can work. The dimensions i want to propose is 17'X39' same as the inside lines of a badminton court with 2 kicks.
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 330 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:37 am Post subject:
Topics to be covered should be how to convert happy freestylers to play net NOW!
1) Maybe by providing thriving freestyle clubs with a net set at significantly lower prices (muuuuch less than 120$) so that they may "try it out," returning if not interested, keeping if enjoyed.
2) Maybe a crossover event at the next big footbag tourney, where the net players (who can) compete in a freestyle exhibition while freestylers watch and the freestylers play exhibition doubles matches while net players watch. I think this idea had great promise actually!
3) Find a way to showcase the doubles finals so that most or all freestylers are watching. How can you not want to play it after you've watched it?!
I'll likely write up something more formally on one or more of these issues.
Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 187 Location: Ellenville, NY, USA
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:24 am Post subject:
One thing that I think is very important is that we hold these conference's and think tanks. I wish I had a successful formula to share, how ever I have had a little success by doing alot of strange things too make it hard for me too get better, but make games and drills more fun for the newcommer. I have worn ankle wieghts, which helped me, as well as made it easier for the new person to have fun. I have kicked power and allowed people 2,3,4,5 kicks to my 1 or 2. I have also played games that way. Drills seem too be more important to people who have made a decision to play this game at a particular level. When attempting too get someone hooked it is important to find a way to let the person enjoy themselves and that is only done in net by scoring points(ankle wieghts is one example). Of coarse there shots would never be any good against most pro or seasoned intermediates. SO WHAT! You need to hook them first than show them why they need to drill and than they can get better. This is not something that comes easy to all net players, but it is needed for all net teachers. dots all for ted f
Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 336 Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:
ok,
I think this thread is should be in my singles is grueling thread, but since the discussion happened here. I played on Martin's idea last saturday.
This is the answer! I am dumping my three hits idea for now. This change was fun for me and yes Martin SPIKING is fun. Dinking is not fun.
IF you use the singles sidelines with the doubles endlines we have what we are looking for. See here:
im Metres Inches Ft/In
A 13.40m 528" 44' 0"
B 6.10m 240" 20' 0"
C 0.76m 30" 2' 6"
D 1.98m 78" 6' 6"
E 3.96m 156" 13' 0"
F 0.46m 18" 1' 6"
G 2.59m 102" 8' 6"
So it comes to three feet less in width, what this does is takes away the bad dinks and placement shots. This will work I am real confident. This and killing pool play for singles and we are on to something. While playing on this court I felt like I could get to any average dink and still cover the back. Also the one difference is the length doesn't change, we need it for serving! See you at the conference and I have plenty to bring to the table and this is last on my list but enjoy.
PS-I just set up the doubles court normal then brought in the lines like Martin said. We will use it this week during our German invasion.
Also the one difference is the length doesn't change, we need it for serving!
What do you mean we need it for serving? You can serve with a lenght of 39 feet /11.88M just as easy as 44feet /13.40M But it would probably confuse people with 2 set of length, one for singles and one for doubles. If we had only singles to care about, i would still think that a shorter court would be much more interesting, especially for new players. And even for veteran, the action would be so much faster with spikes or digs as the only way to win a rally... pretty much like doubles.
Eh PT, we should give it a try on saturday the 11th with a few short games. People interested to try it out could join in and give feed backs.
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:13 am Post subject:
Hi Martin, PT, all...
First off, I don't buy that the singles game, as it currently is, is boring for player nor spectators. It is grueling for players though and as the level of play rises players are choosing between singles and doubles, instead of playing both, in order to manage their energy levels and their bodies.
Another aspect of the singles game that I view as a problems is that the game calls for no mistakes over aggressive play.
Every sport calls some balance between avoiding error and going for it - so to speak. A balance between offense and defense. However, of all the sports I've been into the pendulum in footbag net, and singles in particular, has now swing too far to the side of avoiding error. Don't make errors and you win. Go for it and you'll probably be punished harshly.
Bottom line for me - a smaller court may bring the game more into balance in this regard. A little more reward for aggression and high level of execution.
So, I played briefly on this experimental court PT speaks of and I definitely have a good impression so far. I'm glad a few folks are encouraging giving this a go. I'd like to try it more.
Most other net sports I'm familiar with, that have singles and doubles play, also have a smaller court for singles than they do for doubles. It makes perfect sense. I argue that footbag net is the most difficult net sport in the world - more reason for a smaller singles court. Heck, we're playing singles footbag net on a court made for doubles badminton!
The reason to keep the length of the court while only reducing the width is to promote aggressive serving and aggressive shots in general. Hard and accurate means in on serves and spikes.
Dinks? There will still be dinks and placement shots. I for one have as much fun with an effective dink as I do with a spike. Well, almost - if it's a real good one set up with some power shots . The difference I see is that they must be better executed and more impressive in order to be effective and a smaller court. Spikes included.
Seems that a smaller court has potential to raise the level of play for everyone while also minimizing the learning curve - maybe encouraging for new players.
So, I always did and still do have fun playing singles and I hear from many others how much they enjoy the game. Also, singles has always been at least as great a spectator sport as doubles. But, this is the thing... I don't see these changes taking away from the fun of singles for player nor spectator - as if we actually have and audience to worry about .
Reducing the size of the court will not take away the from the fun and very well may add to it and a little sanity to the game. For the health of the sport from a player's perspective.
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 417 Location: San Jose, CA, USA
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:03 am Post subject:
another idea
chris ott and caveney have told me that they have thought about using tennis scoring. Me and Jimmy have played games using tennis and ping pong scoring systems. I feel the tennis or ping pong scoring is great for beginners and intermediates limiting server advantage. good for both singles and doubles.
BTW, I just recently found out that ping pong have changed to 2 serves intead of 5 before switching.
Of couse, Rally Scoring is always up for debate...
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 23 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:01 am Post subject:
Martin Côté (martincote) wrote:
What do you mean we need it for serving? You can serve with a lenght of 39 feet /11.88M just as easy as 44feet /13.40M
I'm sure it's easy for you guys, but it still could be too hard to serve into a narrow and short serving area so that receiver wouldn't be able to "set and kill." I've played and seen number of/too many deadlock situations with over ten side outs in a row.
I've played and seen number of/too many deadlock situations with over ten side outs in a row.
-Jani
Did that occured with a short and narrow court or with normal size?
I wish i had played a lot of games on smaller court to see all advantages and possible flaws. But i did tried it a full afternoon with a few good players and it was not yet a spike fest. And i'm pretty sure in the long run digging would catch up with spiking. But to really find out we need to test it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
But it would probably confuse people with 2 set of length, one for singles and one for doubles. If we had only singles to care about, i would still think that a shorter court would be much more interesting, especially for new players. And even for veteran, the action would be so much faster with spikes or digs as the only way to win a rally... pretty much like doubles.
. The difference I see is that they must be better executed and more impressive in order to be effective and a smaller court. Spikes included.
.
