Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too
i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35301] Sun, 23 August 2009 22:52 Go to next message
phil b
Messages: 12
Registered: May 2009
Junior Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml

tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.

"Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35311 is a reply to message #35301] Mon, 24 August 2009 07:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pgw
Messages: 133
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 23, 10:52 pm, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."

The best part of this article is that there is another guy (who
thought of the idea a long time ago) whose website is called
"boobackhands.com"

Tennis? Ambidexterity? "Boo backhands?" Pat Corn has to be involved.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35320 is a reply to message #35301] Mon, 24 August 2009 08:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 1:52 am, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."

ya know, whats really crazy is that you think that frank and mueller
are crazy for their "sport variations", yet you fail to acknowlege the
CRAZYNESS of intentionally playing a sport at an official level
without refs (especially for the reasons ultimate sites)......which is
a pretty unique/crazy variation itself.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35327 is a reply to message #35320] Mon, 24 August 2009 08:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 11:16 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 1:52 am, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> > tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> > "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> > his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
>
> ya know, whats really crazy is that you think that frank and mueller
> are crazy for their "sport variations", yet you fail to acknowlege the
> CRAZYNESS of intentionally playing a sport at an official level
> without refs (especially for the reasons ultimate sites)......which is
> a pretty unique/crazy variation itself.

Wait, are you talking about how tennis is played at an official level
without refs? Not all tennis, but a whole lot of competitive matches
at the high school, college (and lower-level pro?) levels. Crazy.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35350 is a reply to message #35327] Mon, 24 August 2009 13:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AndrewZill
Messages: 163
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 10:53 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:16 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 1:52 am, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> > > tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> > > "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> > > his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
>
> > ya know, whats really crazy is that you think that frank and mueller
> > are crazy for their "sport variations", yet you fail to acknowlege the
> > CRAZYNESS of intentionally playing a sport at an official level
> > without refs (especially for the reasons ultimate sites)......which is
> > a pretty unique/crazy variation itself.
>
> Wait, are you talking about how tennis is played at an official level
> without refs?  Not all tennis, but a whole lot of competitive matches
> at the high school, college (and lower-level pro?) levels.  Crazy.

Have you ever seen one of these matches aired on TV?
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35359 is a reply to message #35350] Mon, 24 August 2009 15:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 2:22 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 24, 10:53 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wait, are you talking about how tennis is played at an official level
> > without refs?  Not all tennis, but a whole lot of competitive matches
> > at the high school, college (and lower-level pro?) levels.  Crazy.
>
> Have you ever seen one of these matches aired on TV?

Nope. I've seen observed ultimate on TV, though.

Are you trying to imply that it's the officials that get those matches
on TV? Do you realize how backward that is?

If you're trying to argue that in some future where ultimate players
have a big money, televised pro tour, that those games would have
active officials, then sure, I agree. If you're trying to argue that
not having those same officials at this instant is holding back the
formation of that tour, I strongly disagree. There's really no reason
to think that.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35361 is a reply to message #35359] Mon, 24 August 2009 16:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 6:10 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nope.  I've seen observed ultimate on TV, though.

pfft, cstv?..... and they were all pretty lame.....barley watchable
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you trying to imply that it's the officials that get those matches
> on TV?

officials are included in the package presentation of EVERY televised
sport......and the more action there is the more intragral and
expected they become. thats just common sense.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------


 >Do you realize how backward that is?

how backwards THAT is????? how backwards is it in making a point
(going out of your way) of NOT having refs?.....especially for the
altruistic reasons that ultimate does. Ultimate IS the bizaro sport
if there ever was one. fyi....bizaro means backwards.
----------------------------------------------------------


>
> If you're trying to argue that in some future where ultimate players
> have a big money, televised pro tour, that those games would have
> active officials, then sure, I agree.

well giddy up bubba, cause the future is now in this day and age.
Shit, in the sports entertainment industry, it was last week. and do
ya really think anybody (investors) are gonna be willing to take a
chance on ultimate before it gets it shit together on its own? refine
the product first......THEN worry about takin it to market. How many
times do i have to say it.....no show, no business.
------------------------------------------------------------ -


 If you're trying to argue that
> not having those same officials at this instant is holding back the
> formation of that tour, I strongly disagree.

most spirit zealots do. yall are crazy like that.
-----------------------------------------------------


 There's really no reason
> to think that.

its kinda like the real estate business there tarr. The vast majority
of home consumers want a product that ready to move into.......not
some fixer upper. Its the same thing with sports entertainment
consumers. We want a product that is well refined, effeciently
mannaged and provides maximum entertainment value. Ultimate, in its
present state just dosent provide ANY of those things. Its presented
in too raw and primitive of a fashion. Aint no new sport gonna "break
thru" with that type of model approach. New fringe sports that are on
the verge of breaking thru do all they can to conform to the standars
of the pack leaders......which are football and basketball. And it
would be a death sentence for those sports presentational and
entertainment wise if they were to adopt the brutal self officiating
(or even present observed) version of rule enforcement and game
management. You just need to wake the fuck up and recognize.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35369 is a reply to message #35350] Mon, 24 August 2009 18:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 4:22 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 10:53 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 11:16 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 24, 1:52 am, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> > > > tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> > > > "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> > > > his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
>
> > > ya know, whats really crazy is that you think that frank and mueller
> > > are crazy for their "sport variations", yet you fail to acknowlege the
> > > CRAZYNESS of intentionally playing a sport at an official level
> > > without refs (especially for the reasons ultimate sites)......which is
> > > a pretty unique/crazy variation itself.
>
> > Wait, are you talking about how tennis is played at an official level
> > without refs?  Not all tennis, but a whole lot of competitive matches
> > at the high school, college (and lower-level pro?) levels.  Crazy.
>
> Have you ever seen one of these matches aired on TV?

I am not an authority on what has or has not ever been on TV. That
said, I would be very surprised if none of these matches have ever
been on TV. If you were making a point, with your question, then
maybe you can do a little research and back up whatever you're saying.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35370 is a reply to message #35369] Mon, 24 August 2009 20:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Fetch
Messages: 28
Registered: October 2008
Junior Member
if you don't like the sport don't play it.

if you want to change ultimate, you won't do anything significant on
here.

i love ultimate because it's fun and i get to run hard.

referees do not change that outcome.

who gives a bleep about TV?
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35378 is a reply to message #35369] Mon, 24 August 2009 21:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AndrewZill
Messages: 163
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 8:51 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 4:22 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 10:53 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 24, 11:16 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 24, 1:52 am, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> > > > > tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> > > > > "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> > > > > his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
>
> > > > ya know, whats really crazy is that you think that frank and mueller
> > > > are crazy for their "sport variations", yet you fail to acknowlege the
> > > > CRAZYNESS of intentionally playing a sport at an official level
> > > > without refs (especially for the reasons ultimate sites)......which is
> > > > a pretty unique/crazy variation itself.
>
> > > Wait, are you talking about how tennis is played at an official level
> > > without refs?  Not all tennis, but a whole lot of competitive matches
> > > at the high school, college (and lower-level pro?) levels.  Crazy.
>
> > Have you ever seen one of these matches aired on TV?
>
> I am not an authority on what has or has not ever been on TV.  That
> said, I would be very surprised if none of these matches have ever
> been on TV.  If you were making a point, with your question, then
> maybe you can do a little research and back up whatever you're saying.

A point has more impact if a person is allowed to discovery it on his
own. I'll let you think about this one a little more.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35379 is a reply to message #35370] Mon, 24 August 2009 21:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AndrewZill
Messages: 163
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
> who gives a bleep about TV?

I would rather have ultimate on TV than be able to say "ultimate
doesn't use officials even at the highest level of play." So in
answer to your above question. Me.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35380 is a reply to message #35379] Mon, 24 August 2009 22:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Ah, Heinousboy. You and your ilk are just like a bunch of fish all
swimming around in a school, all part of the same clan. A kind of
fish clan, if you will.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35383 is a reply to message #35380] Tue, 25 August 2009 01:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ott
Messages: 16
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
Gentlemen,

Focus. Topic: Making fun of Frank.

Go.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35395 is a reply to message #35370] Tue, 25 August 2009 05:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 11:33 pm, Fetch <discoscalien...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> if you don't like the sport don't play it.

i dont
--------------------------------
>
> if you want to change ultimate, you won't do anything significant on
> here.

then dont worry about it
-----------------------------------------
>
> i love ultimate because it's fun and i get to run hard.

dats yo bizzzzzzzzzzz
-----------------------------------------------
>
> referees do not change that outcome.

then why oppose their integration into the sport?
----------------------------------------------
>
> who gives a bleep about TV?

lots of us......obviously not spirit zealots like you though
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35396 is a reply to message #35379] Tue, 25 August 2009 05:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 25, 12:47 am, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:.

> > who gives a bleep about TV?
>
> I would rather have ultimate on TV than be able to say "ultimate
> doesn't use officials even at the highest level of play."  So in
> answer to your above question.  Me.

fucking awsome answer
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35400 is a reply to message #35383] Tue, 25 August 2009 06:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 25, 4:22 am, ott <ericp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Focus.  Topic:  Making fun of Frank.
>
> Go.

pffft, aint no body gettin on that train
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35414 is a reply to message #35383] Tue, 25 August 2009 07:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
3jane
Messages: 5
Registered: August 2009
Junior Member
On Aug 25, 4:22 am, ott <ericp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Focus.  Topic:  Making fun of Frank.
>
> Go.

I miss Frank, he was definitely more interesting than the current crop
of one topic trolls.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35417 is a reply to message #35414] Tue, 25 August 2009 07:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
> I miss Frank, he was definitely more interesting than the current crop
> of one topic trolls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---agreed...i hate these geeks on here only writing their one topic
crap about what they think are one topic trolls.
if we could just get rid of you nerds.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35426 is a reply to message #35417] Tue, 25 August 2009 08:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jacob
Messages: 576
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
"if we could just get rid of you nerds."

I saw a movie where they tried that. The nerds got revenge.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35468 is a reply to message #35414] Tue, 25 August 2009 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
StockOption
Messages: 36
Registered: October 2008
Member
> I miss Frank, he was definitely more interesting than the current crop
> of one topic trolls.

Does anyone know what Franks been up to? The site www.dischoops.com
seems to be fairly recent (within the past year). He working on
growing his sport?
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35470 is a reply to message #35379] Tue, 25 August 2009 13:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 24, 10:47 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > who gives a bleep about TV?
>
> I would rather have ultimate on TV than be able to say "ultimate
> doesn't use officials even at the highest level of play."  So in
> answer to your above question.  Me.

Andy,

We've been on TV, and we have officials.

But let's set that aside for a second. I'll re-state your statement
as I understand it:

"I would rather have ultimate on major network TV, funded by
advertisements rather than the UPA, than be able to say "ultimate
doesn't use exclusively official-initiated calls even at the highest
level of play."

And I would to. If that was the choice, I'd take TV.

What you haven't done, what you haven't even come CLOSE to doing, is
demonstrating that lack of official-initiated calls is what's holding
the sport back. The reason you can't do that is because it's not
true. It doesn't really make sense, when you think about it.

Imagine for a moment that we did have officials, just like most
sports. Do you think ESPN would come knocking? No, of course not.
The sport just doesn't have the base for that. Conversely, imagine
that ESPN came knocking, but asked for full active officiating for the
televised event. Do you think the UPA would say no? Again, of course
not.

This idea that lack of active officials is the big barrier is a total
fantasy. The UPA is correctly focussed on growing the sport as
quickly as possible. If the sport reaches the point where an
advertisement-funded pro tour is possible, active officials will come
into play as a matter of course. It's an effect, not a cause.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35485 is a reply to message #35470] Tue, 25 August 2009 16:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AndrewZill
Messages: 163
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 25, 3:49 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 10:47 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > who gives a bleep about TV?
>
> > I would rather have ultimate on TV than be able to say "ultimate
> > doesn't use officials even at the highest level of play."  So in
> > answer to your above question.  Me.
>
> Andy,
>
> We've been on TV, and we have officials.
>
> But let's set that aside for a second.  I'll re-state your statement
> as I understand it:
>
> "I would rather have ultimate on major network TV, funded by
> advertisements rather than the UPA, than be able to say "ultimate
> doesn't use exclusively official-initiated calls even at the highest
> level of play."
>
> And I would to.  If that was the choice, I'd take TV.
>
> What you haven't done, what you haven't even come CLOSE to doing, is
> demonstrating that lack of official-initiated calls is what's holding
> the sport back.  The reason you can't do that is because it's not
> true.  It doesn't really make sense, when you think about it.
>


> Imagine for a moment that we did have officials, just like most
> sports.  Do you think ESPN would come knocking?  No, of course not.
> The sport just doesn't have the base for that.  Conversely, imagine
> that ESPN came knocking, but asked for full active officiating for the
> televised event.  Do you think the UPA would say no?  Again, of course
> not.
>

Adam

This is a great question. You answer it retorically as "of course
not" but in all honesty, I'm not so sure. Recently I posted about the
state of the WFDF mentioning that Johnathan Potts, president of the
World Flying Disc Federation, considers self-officiation being more
important that being in the olympics.

"Then there's the question of whether the sport even wants to go
Olympic. The game is unique among team sports in being referee-less,
with a strong emphasis on "spirit" and sportsmanship. Potts says going
Olympic could involve compromising those founding values. "Right now
we're against having referees, because it violates the spirit of the
game," he said."

Taken from

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china-and-its-neighbors/0 90721/the-frisbee-diaries

No one seemed to notice.

While Potts does not represent the UPA it does show the extreme that
people who are pro self-officiation would go to exclude it from the
game. I would love to hear the opinions of each board member on the
comment above and your question as you stated it above.

> This idea that lack of active officials is the big barrier is a total
> fantasy.  The UPA is correctly focussed on growing the sport as
> quickly as possible.  If the sport reaches the point where an
> advertisement-funded pro tour is possible, active officials will come
> into play as a matter of course.  It's an effect, not a cause.

Again, you are assuming the UPA is approaching this with an open
mind. As far as I can gather from the UPA, they are specifically
opposed to the use of referees in ultimate regardless of the
situation. In fact, the more "in the spotlight" the event is, the
more important self officiation is because that is how they want to
sell the sport. Again, a direct comment from each member of the board
on this comment would be great since we are both making assumtions
here.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35491 is a reply to message #35470] Tue, 25 August 2009 17:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 25, 4:49 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We've been on TV, and we have officials.

bein on cstv a handfull of times isnt really being "on tv".....and i'm
pretty sure that gig is over so......

and you have observers (at probably less that 1% of all ultimate
played) NOT OFFICIALS!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
>
> And I would to.  If that was the choice, I'd take TV.

what if ther was a better opportunity for it to be "on tv" if it were
to conform to the current modern sports "model"? which there
undoubtedly is, no? with refs being but one aspect of said
presentational modernization?
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
>
> What you haven't done, what you haven't even come CLOSE to doing, is
> demonstrating that lack of official-initiated calls is what's holding
> the sport back.

all that would take is some basic visualization, some commonsense and
a little comparison and contrast........and sinse the upa dosent seem
to have those first two things they would be good to rely on the third
one, no?.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------



 The reason you can't do that is because it's not
> true.  It doesn't really make sense, when you think about it.

how could conforming to the modern sports entertainment delivery model
not make sense........or why would it be at all prudent to not include
the very important facet of game management and rule enforcement. ALL
OTHER SPORTS UTILZE THAT FACET, seems logical for ultimate to do the
same, no? they are sports......they use refs......so why shouldnt
ultimate?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
>
> Imagine for a moment that we did have officials, just like most
> sports.  Do you think ESPN would come knocking?

if it improved the product enough.....maybe. what say we throw
caution in the wind and give it a whirl. I mean its not like ANYBODY
has really even givin a modernized(reffed) version of ultimate a
chance. why not at least lest explore it prior to giving your
speculation any kind of validity
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------


 No, of course not.
> The sport just doesn't have the base for that.

more of a base than lax?......4.9 mil, remember?
---------------------------------------------------



 Conversely, imagine
> that ESPN came knocking, but asked for full active officiating for the
> televised event.

but that aint the way it works.......remember my real eastate
analogy. espn SURE aint lookin for no "fixer upper" sport. and lets
face it, ultimate needs a LOT OF FIXING UP.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------


 Do you think the UPA would say no?  Again, of course
> not.

I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER AREA IN WHICH YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. I'm pretty
sure that the board consists largely of people that arent willing to
make the consessions that its gonna eventually take for ulti to "break
thru". but like heinsboys says......lets hear it from the horses
mouth
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------
>
> This idea that lack of active officials is the big barrier is a total
> fantasy.

then why all the opposition?
------------------------------------------------------



 The UPA is correctly focussed on growing the sport as
> quickly as possible.

but they are totally disreguarding ANY reral and marketable top down
approach. adding a marketable and modernized version of the game is
bound to grow it quicker than doing nuthin, right?
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------



 If the sport reaches the point where an
> advertisement-funded pro tour is possible, active officials will come
> into play as a matter of course.  It's an effect, not a cause.

why wait until then though......especially when and if that point
comes and the product hasent ALREADY been refined it could get passed
by for some other up and comming sport. seems like the prudent thing
to do would be to dedicate a few years to a developmental league so
that when that "window of opportunity" arises the product will be
ready. The strategy you propose would leave the product
unprepared......therefore unmarketable.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35572 is a reply to message #35468] Wed, 26 August 2009 12:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bountiful Garden Foun
Messages: 528
Registered: August 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 25, 1:13 pm, StockOption <starsandsk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I miss Frank, he was definitely more interesting than the current crop
> > of one topic trolls.
>
> Does anyone know what Franks been up to? The sitewww.dischoops.com
> seems to be fairly recent (within the past year). He working on
> growing his sport?

We played Dischoops in Golden Gate Park on Saturday. It was
phenomenal as usual.

It's really amazing, you know. Playing with standards.

We do have new dischoops kits coming out soon. Stay tuned. Hopefully
we'll be able to get the price down a bit.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35577 is a reply to message #35301] Wed, 26 August 2009 12:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bountiful Garden Foun
Messages: 528
Registered: August 2009
Senior Member
On Aug 23, 10:52 pm, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."

By the way, playing with two rackets in tennis has been an idea I've
toyed with for a fairly long time. It makes a lot of sense and I know
that there are some players that play righty/lefty but just switch
hands with the racket so they can his forearms from either side.
Re: i guess tennis has a crazy frank, too [message #35595 is a reply to message #35577] Wed, 26 August 2009 15:43 Go to previous message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Aug 26, 1:30 pm, Bountiful Garden Foundation <fhuguen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 10:52 pm, PBo <philip.a.bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/sports/tennis/24rackets.ht ml
>
> > tennis with two rackets. all forehand, all the time.
>
> > "Mueller...has been pushing the game for the last few years. It seems
> > his main purpose in doing so is merely to find partners to play with."
>
> By the way, playing with two rackets in tennis has been an idea I've
> toyed with for a fairly long time.  It makes a lot of sense and I know
> that there are some players that play righty/lefty but just switch
> hands with the racket so they can his forearms from either side.

This is actually the thing that I kept wondering about as I read the
article, as well. Why do you actually need two rackets to do this?
It helps a bit for reaction volleys at the net, but that's a pretty
rare case. The rest of the time, you can just switch hands and hit
forehands on both sides, if that's your thing. I know of players who
do this as well.
Previous Topic:UV COTD - Zip score up CLOSE
Next Topic:No Wisconsequences :: October 17-18, 2009
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 25 10:36:17 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software