From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk Thu Oct 31 10:47:54 1996 Received: from thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk by clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id JAA05085; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:34:35 GMT Received: by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk id AAA04034; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:29:48 GMT Received: from violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk by thistle.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id AAA04016; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:28:47 GMT Received: from strowger.pass.theplanet.net by violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk with ESMTP id AAA16675; Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:28:23 GMT Received: from strowger.pass.theplanet.net by strowger.pass.theplanet.net via sendmail with bsmtp id <m0vIOP1-000qBeC@strowger.pass.theplanet.net> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 30 Oct 96 00:21:03 +0000 (GMT) (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.4 built 29-jan-96) Received: from prs214mr(really [194.152.70.225]) by strowger.pass.theplanet.net via sendmail with smtp id <m0vIONz-00000LC@strowger.pass.theplanet.net> for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 30 Oct 96 00:19:59 +0000 (GMT) (/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.4 built 29-jan-96) Message-Id: <m0vIONz-00000LC@strowger.pass.theplanet.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is <prs2l4mr@pop.prestel.co.uk> From: "Michael Johnson" <prs2l4mr@pop.prestel.co.uk> To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dave Neilson) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:17:25 +0000 Subject: the general nature of whores Reply-to: mj@glasgow.prestel.co.uk X-Confirm-Reading-To: mj@glasgow.prestel.co.uk X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Status: RO Hi to all, Umm...I just arrived here (the UK) and was trying to get into the culture of things when I saw this message and I thought I'd just ask a general question that pertains to the discussion. I used to play disc in the Midwest and we always used the term "whore" teams to describe a team that was thrown together at the tournament site from players that just traveled to the tournament without numbers enough to make up a squad of their own. In other words, there might be 3 players from team X, one from nowhere, and 5 from team Y and together they would form a team. Or maybe the one player would just go and play with an established team because there weren't enough whores around to make a whole team of them. So this brings me to my question, Is this not the case here? Because I was kinda hoping it was in order to get to play in some tournaments. mj > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:35:49 GMT > To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk > From: D.P.Neilson@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dave Neilson) > Subject: Re: Into the fray... > I am excited and interested in the discussions about geo / non-geo teams > (or telephone teams as we used to call them) and feel compelled to add my > thoughts to the debate. > > While I agree with Aram's observation about geo teams being the best way to > develop and foster team strength through regular practice, I find it > impossible to agree with the effective 'outlawing' of the non-geo team. By > all means encourage geo teams by explaining the clear benefits in terms of > training, but do not try to prevent teams who use Ultimate as the vehicle > which affords them the means to keep in touch with ex-college friends. > > I am acquainted with the USA phenomenon of Ultimate 'whore' teams, but that > is not the situation here in Britain. The non-geo teams are hardly ever > formed specifically to win an event (which I know happens in the states). > The non-geo teams are more closely related to the alumni teams which will > eventually form the basis of a Masters division. > > If, as Aram has stated, the real path to quality is to form geo teams (with > appropriate coaching input) - and I do not doubt this - then the non-geo > teams should soon be pushed down the quality table in the natural course of > things. > > > > Switching the subject to the merge / de-merge debate I (not surprisingly, > perhaps) support Derek's remark about the swallowing up of Regulators by > the shrinking Hombres squad. I think that the 'geo argument' of Aram's is > all too convenient an excuse to explain one of (if not THE) most blatant > examples of 'super-team' formation. I do not wish to sound bitter, but my > impression of the 'merger' was that it put paid to the most exciting new > development in British Ultimate for years. > > While I am not saying that de-merger is the best form of growth, I feel > that it might have been in the sport's best interests (AND in keeping with > the geo idea), if Shotgun had split into two teams several years ago and > recruited new local players. This sort of de-merger seems to have happened > many times in the competitive centres of Ultimate in the USA (am I right, > Aram?). > > > Just some thoughts ... > > Sam Neilson > > Stan (11 year old non-geo team) & > Suntans (10 year old INTERNATIONAL non-geo team) > > > >