Coed week, part I, the World Games
I'd like to spend some time discussing coed ultimate. I got the idea from some comments that Jim and Luke made over here, and I thought it merited its own post. Now, despite what it may seem, I actually have no general objections to coed. I have played Boston Corporate and/or Summer League in one form or another since 1989, starting with 6-1, then 5-2 and most recently migrating to 4-3. It's great for what it is, a way for friends to get together and hang out (for many, most importantly with members of the opposite sex). However, for coed to be anywhere near the same level of billing as Open or Womens is ludicrous, and the fact that the World Games are Coed is putting our worst foot forward. Granted, I don't really feel the World Games will popularize the sport considering how effective it has been at making korfball a household name, but why not showcase the sport at its best? And right now that means Open.
Coed has been great at expanding the game. For those areas that do not have enough women to be able to support women-only teams, at least this gives them an opportunity to play. But coed is a pale substitute for open. As Jim said, "I would have preferred either men's or women's play to coed, but that was someone else's decision. Given that FloJo never played, there is just such a difference in speed that it makes for an awkward game. You can say that it adds strategy, but is it an improvement to add the strategy "must not throw long to a woman with a man within 15 yards of her"? (Of course, there are slow guys, fast women, etc., but this is the general rule.)"
I'm assuming they were held to a maximum number of players when deciding how to handle the World Games and that the decision was made to be inclusive and thus coed. I just have problems with Coed representing the sport. Men and women do not belong on the same playing field at the highest level of ultimate. They don't in any other sport, and they don't in ours. What guys out there have had to completely adjust their throws when throwing to the women on their team to make it catchable? Yes, I know you have to do it even in unisex games based on your receiver, but c'mon, you know what I'm talking about. And ascribing this to tactics or strategy just doesn't cut it.
When you have a high school team (Amherst High in Western Mass.) competing and sometimes beating the defending Women's National Champions in a scrimmage (Lady Godiva) you know the women's game has not arrived yet. It hasn't in any other sport, and it hasn't here. Hey, I'm the first to hope that the exploding presence of women in sports will continue (thanks to Title IX). And comparing the top women's athletes today to those of even 10 years ago isn't even close. But they aren't there yet.
Hell, like Luke says, alternate men and women every time. But don't elevate an unnatural mix to this level. We're playing Ultimate, not Stratego (tm).
Next: Coed Nationals
Coed has been great at expanding the game. For those areas that do not have enough women to be able to support women-only teams, at least this gives them an opportunity to play. But coed is a pale substitute for open. As Jim said, "I would have preferred either men's or women's play to coed, but that was someone else's decision. Given that FloJo never played, there is just such a difference in speed that it makes for an awkward game. You can say that it adds strategy, but is it an improvement to add the strategy "must not throw long to a woman with a man within 15 yards of her"? (Of course, there are slow guys, fast women, etc., but this is the general rule.)"
I'm assuming they were held to a maximum number of players when deciding how to handle the World Games and that the decision was made to be inclusive and thus coed. I just have problems with Coed representing the sport. Men and women do not belong on the same playing field at the highest level of ultimate. They don't in any other sport, and they don't in ours. What guys out there have had to completely adjust their throws when throwing to the women on their team to make it catchable? Yes, I know you have to do it even in unisex games based on your receiver, but c'mon, you know what I'm talking about. And ascribing this to tactics or strategy just doesn't cut it.
When you have a high school team (Amherst High in Western Mass.) competing and sometimes beating the defending Women's National Champions in a scrimmage (Lady Godiva) you know the women's game has not arrived yet. It hasn't in any other sport, and it hasn't here. Hey, I'm the first to hope that the exploding presence of women in sports will continue (thanks to Title IX). And comparing the top women's athletes today to those of even 10 years ago isn't even close. But they aren't there yet.
Hell, like Luke says, alternate men and women every time. But don't elevate an unnatural mix to this level. We're playing Ultimate, not Stratego (tm).
Next: Coed Nationals
posted by Alex de Frondeville at 5:46 PM
12 Comments:
I was also partially posting a trial balloon to try and get some discussion, but when I first read about the World Games being coed, I was pretty irritated. And I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, and that I do not know what their reasons were, maybe they are trying to promote something of which I am unaware. As for your tennis comparison, mixed doubles is similar to coed in that there is a lot more strategy in how to play your shots against men and women differently. And when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs, it pitted a 55-year old ex champion who was world champion tennis in 1939 at the age of 16 against Billie Jean King still close to her prime at a relatively young 29. And he did beat Margaret Court just before the King match. I have to admit, it would be fascinating to see a Federer-Serena match to really see how far women have advanced.
The point I'm trying to make is that at the very pinnacle of the sport (which the World Games does NOT represent, but it is still the only place where ultimate is seen alongside other sports), we are not showcasing the sport at its best.
As for supporting both sexes on the field simultaneously, yes, it sort of does. But at that elite level, can you imagine any of the women successfully covering the men? Again, it becomes a far more tactical game of how to deploy your forces and minimize your vulnerabilites except now your vulnerabilites are a little more stark. And I'm sure there are wags out there who will argue that I am one of those vulnerabilities on defense... It would be interesting to hear about the experience of the US team at the last world games, who basically lost 2 of their women early in the tournament and had to play iron 3's for the rest of the tourney with their women, and still made the finals and were in position to compete and win.
Athleticism is not just speed and jumping ability, or just how far you can throw a frisbee. It's also how well you can adjust to a frisbee in flight, it's how fluid your throwing motion is (and sadly, despite vast improvements over the years, there is still a difference in how most men throw versus how most women throw; to borrow a phrase, women still throw like girls), how well you catch, and hundreds more little things.
As for "best", there are objective ways to look at the level of quality. The higher the level of the play, you'll have
1. Less ability for one player to dominate a game.
2. Fewer unforced errors.
3. Fewer blowouts.
(Shoot, gotta go to a meeting.)
"Coed is for women tired of being on teams that turn it over all the time and for guys tired of being the slowest one on the field or just plain tired."
Chuckle. Wink. Wink. They say a sense of humor can't hide what you really feel. It just leaves a hole to wiggle out of in person.
Dix, you know what they say about assumptions......
-G
Dix...if this thread is truly about all the things you list, then let's have the content to reflect that. I am totally uninterested in your presumping to tell me why I make the choices that I do ("Coed is for....", "the appeal of coed..."), and it contributes nothing to your "deep concern" about what this thread is really about (first message: disrespects mixed, second mesage: disrespects me as I need explanation as to what this thread is about). I sense a switch in tone from your two messages. The first is basically a troll (full of little in jokes, bad analogies, etc) that contributes nothing to what you espouse in your second message. The only thing that doesn't serve to unnecessarily get a rise out of folks is "if I want to check out the best possible disc....", and in the end, who gives a fuck what you prefer...especially if it is informed by the gross generalizations of what proceeds it.
The pathetic thing about this whole thread is that it is totally out of our control. It is right up there with "Would the 98 Bulls beat the 86 Celtics", or "Was Van Halen better with David or Sammy". Someone made a decision somewhere. We can either have our little bitches, or try to make the best of it.
I spoke to Jim at length about the process of selecting Team USA (I served as co-chair), and we discussed the inclusion of Mixed players (or in the case of 05...the exclusion) on the World Games team. I think some folks on the committee expected me, as the NXD, to have an agenda about getting Mixed players on Team USA. I believe that if we want to respect the players that choose Mixed (wrong forum here...considering your sentiments)....then they should have to earn a spot on Team USA...no pre-assigned slots for Mixed players just because it is a Mixed event.
So I spend my time working on the aspects of the sport that I can have a little bit of influence over. Don't tell me why I make the choices that I do. You know nothing about me or why I have come to the place that I have.
If we want to have a conversation about showcasing..great...just don't waste my time with that other crap.
-G
I definitely agree with you that if it is going to be coed, then go with the best players. And for the most part right now, the best players are playing open and womens. Coed is still an alternate vehicle for people to get to the show that are choosing not to make the commitment that open and women's requires. Note that I'm not saying they aren't necessarily good enough, although I feel that is probably true except for a select few. I definitely know people that are choosing to play coed because it requires far less time commitment.
If we are truly going to respect Al's original subject, which is...as Dix pointed out to me....showcasing the sport, then I think we need to develop a framework for discussion (Discussion seems to be Al's original motivation).
Some things come to mind:
1) We need to disconnect the Mixed Division and Summer coed leagues from the World Games experience. The reasons why people choose to play in the Mixed Div ( and I only disagree with Al's assumptions ("Coed is still an alternative....") because I don't think I have a full grasp of the majority of Mixed player's motivations...but more on that in a minute) are irrelevant to the tenor and quality of the World Games experience and its use as a showcase event.
2) Lose the arrogance of presumption that our experiences (where we have played, what div, etc) and desires (what we want the sport to be, what Ultimate we like to watch) inform us as to what is best for the sport as a whole, or what others find enjoyable about the sport.
3) Remove the disingenuous "its ok for world games to be a mens event or womens event...just not mixed" crap. Let's cut to the chase and acknowledge that the underlying message here is that folks want it to be men's Ultimate. There is no question in my mind that if 01 was a womens team that Al would have blogged about why it should be men's in 05.
4) Remove the temptation for this to be a "Mixed sucks" thread. It is boorish and unproductive.
5) Recognize that the showcase discussion is largely a marketing discussion. There are very clear cut means of gathering data about such issues. As above, our opinions matter very little.
I have just a couple of quick comments about athleticism:
-The player I most enjoyed watching was Teens. To me, her grace, talent, and joy in movement was wonderful. While watching her, I never wished that she could run as fast a man or throw as far as.....Al.
-The most enjoyable soccer experience I have viewed was the 99 Womens World Cup tournament (specifically the USA-Brazil game, and the final). Again passion, desire, and hard work just jumped out of the screen. None of the dramatic dives and bitching of the men's game (what was it you guys said? 80 fouls in one game. Did anyone else find the men's final this year to be devoid of drama and passion?).
-Many times a spoting event has a dramatic undercurrent that is more compelling than just how "elite" the participants are. Some examples of Ultimate that come mind: 03 NE college regionals (Isaiah R breaks his leg in the final, UMASS goes on to lose 3 in a row and miss Nationals), watching Amherst High school work with discipline, focus, and, again, passion, to dismantle local college teams and win the tournament.
These are not examples of the most athletic events, but their stories and drama are compelling. I think we need to be careful in assuming what it is that draws people in.
It is my understanding that the IOC had problems with the number of pick calls and the uniforms in World Games 01, but that they found no referees and mixed gender play to be interesting.
-G
so here is a framework.
1) what, is the role of world games.
I think it should be to showcase what is best about the sport of ultimate. why: i can think of no other reason.
2) should it be open, women's, coed, or other.
i think that the best example of the sport is open. but in the interest of equity, until they allow m/f divisions, i think it is appropriate to alternate m/f by year. coin toss to determine first year.
3) what is the best soccer game you ever saw.
usa - portugal?
as to 'this thread is out of control' etc...
4) is the no - ref thing the best thing for world games.
if the criticisms of the ioc are that calls and uniforms slow the game, then i think we need refs and unifomrs.
in my opinion, i think that 'interesting' as used by the IOC observers is not a high compliment. I seldom use 'interesting' to describe things I see as good.
Yes, it is fun/useful to have dramatic undercurrents for an event. However, for many of these events, there would be no interest without them. Which is why you will see them create marketing jingles that attempt to create drama where none might otherwise exist (not speaking ultimate, obviously). However, when the drama isn't there, you want to maximize the basic appeal of the product.
Continuing on athleticism, on an individual level, for the male player looking to maximize his athletic achievement, he is going to play open. I have no idea what women would choose but I assume they would choose women's. Coed has a different set of incentives regarding athletic achievement which are not so clear to me. There are too many other factors that are causing people to migrate to coed, some of which I discuss in my next post.
Finally, one of the main reasons that my wife (who does not play ultimate, and is an ardent feminist) dislikes coed, especially at a nationals level, is that she feels the women are tokens.
Al is making it hard with the other Mixed Nationals thread....
First, in response to Luke, "interesting" was my word. I don't recall the specific language of the articles I read. My interpretaion was that both concerns (refs and mixed) were not liabilities.
I agree with Al's wife about Mixed at Nationals disintegrating into 4 on 4 at points, but, again, in terms of the World Games, this is irrelevant.
I think we might need to step back a couple of steps and address other problems with showcasing Ultimate at the World Games before we jump into the assumption that mixed gender is THE problem. It has been interesting to attend the Board meetings and see the Board wrestle with the issue of branding both the sport and the UPA. I think some argue that the name of the sport, Ultimate, provides an impediment.
Second, Al starts to address the idea of interest. Have any of you watched (perhaps on NESN) sports like rugby, or that sport with the weird shaped paddles? It could be that those guys run a 4.0 40-yard dash and have a 36" vertical, but the pure athleticism of these sports does not draw me in as I have no context by which to understand the stories. So who are we actually marketing to? At the World Games, it might just be the IOC. I have no idea.
Perhaps it doesn't matter if we send the 7 best men, or the 7 best women, or the 7 best of both. Maybe the few folks who check out the sport in Germany will not have a context to judge whether what they are seeing is THE BEST (whatever that is). If so, maybe the real purpose of the event is insular. To reward our best men and women with this opportunity. If had begun as an alternating event, as Luke suggests, and had been male only in 01, Teens would not have gone...which I think would have been a loss.
-G
Actually, if we were limited to the numbers that they said, then I would expect that mixed was chosen as the least of many evils, and that the rest of the discussion is just trying to rationalize that selection. If they had provided a larger allotment of players (again, I don't understand what the restrictions were, # players, # countries, etc.), so that more than 1 division could be represented, then I wonder/hope they would have selected mens and womens.
Alex
Jon Wertheim, SI's senior tennis writer, occasionally gets asked in his online mailbag how the top women tennis players would far against men. I can't find it to quote right now, but his response typically goes something like: "the top women wouldn't stand a chance against any man in the top 150, but that doesn't take anything away from their game". It's a good thought, and could be well applied to Women's vs. Men's Ultimate, but it doesn't necessarily apply to Mixed.
Trying to follow along with this thread here and also "Mixed up about Coed." [This, from the (T-)man who once almost completely avoided playing Mixed for an entire year, until the December weather was too bad to golf so he joined his wife at a mostly-hack winter tournament? Sure, he won the tournament, playing almost exclusively point for a team that played exclusively 1-3-3 on the way to victory, but still…]
I feel myself being sucked in to comment here, since I’ve played Open and Mixed at Nationals. Many people establish the boundaries of “elite” ultimate as Nationals play, which I think is reasonable, but not entirely correct. Full disclosure: I’ve never contended in Open - once missing quarters by only one point – and I have contended in Mixed – choking in Semi’s. Read into that as you will.
This whole discussion started with the question of whether the World Games team should be Coed. I don’t care. Too many things to care about and I can’t get worked up over that one. The reason is simple: I don’t know what importance to ascribe to Ultimate’s participation at the Games. That said, if the goal is simply to showcase the highest-level Ultimate, then it should be Open.
The rationale for that is also pretty simple in my mind. First, the skill level is at least as high in Open as any other division. Second, the pure athleticism is greater from top to bottom. Those two things are enough. This shouldn’t minimize women’s athleticism. [See the quote from Jon Wertheim that I just posted above.]
Note also that this doesn’t require any analysis of whether the sport’s best players play Open or Women’s over Mixed. As reflected in the World Games team roster, most of the absolute top individual players do play Open and Women’s. Though I think Mixed has come a long way, Open and Women are where the most respected competition still is. However, it would be too strong to suggest that there aren’t elite players in Mixed. Many of the people on Mixed teams at Nationals last year would have been capable of contributing to Open and Women’s teams. The problem is that there are also a lot of players in Mixed who would never make the roster on an elite Open or Women’s team, and that mix of talents engenders the general disrespect of some of the folks in those divisions.
The question seems to be what level of respect that Mixed deserves. Teams comprising elite open and women players can often beat Mixed teams at summer events. Further, observers in the NE (like our blogging buddies Jim & Al) have been faced for years with Mixed ultimate that proved mediocre on the grand stage. [Only once before last year had a NE Mixed team cracked the quarters, where they were an also-ran.]
Mixed has come a long way and continues to grow in quality. Playing Mixed isn’t any longer a free road to Nationals for any team with a little bit of talent. Of course, it’s not deep top to bottom yet, but it’s not like the number 16 women’s team at Nationals stands a chance at beating the number 2 team, either.
Note: this is cross-posted on my own blog, where I'm going to try to continue a few thoughts on Coed ultimate as well rather than be so cheeky as to fill up Al and Jim's blogs with my musings.
Post a Comment
<< Home