You know what I love about good old fashioned Woodsball....

[drg]

I started this thread to mention that I had a good time playing some old fashioned woodsball. I mentioned that there is an artistry to the truly effective use of what were once skills commonly developed. I mentioned that the modern game doesn't seem to be passing those skills down. You entered the thread to puke all over that sentiment...and that is what it was...sentiment. I've made my point and I have supported it with a contextual explanation...an explanation that would be completely unneeded if the two of us were coming from the same place. You should have automatically known what I was talking about...if you do, in fact, have 20-21 years of playing under your belt.

You have failed to talk about anything special or even skillful, let alone proven that such skills are desirable ... all of which would need to precede the assertion that the skills are lamentably not part of the modern skillset.

Your assertion is rendered moot -- and frankly, laughable -- by said failures. You aren't talking about special skills. You aren't special. You aren't the holder of some wonderful lost knowledge. There are tons of players who played in the 90s and earlier that are still playing today and their knowledge is still employed on the field every weekend.

you should know that it isn't a logical fallacy to allow for expertise and/or authority in an argument. The appeal only becomes a fallacy if it fails to meet certain criteria.

Not formally true. A person's status as an expert or dunce has no inherent effect on the truthfulness or validity of his statements; only the content of the statements determines that.

Regardless, even by informal argument, you have failed to establish yourself as an expert on the topic, any more than I or anyone else has ... if we see these so-called skills being employed on fields today, you have no expert status or credibility with us.

[Shane-O-Mac]

Dang, DRG.

You are seem to be just trying to stir the pot. What he said is true is many regards. Put a typical speedballer (3-4 years experience) on a nice wooded field with elevation changes, valleys, brush thick and light, and hes lost. I see it every January when the field has a big game. The typical speedballers run to the open areas of the field and wait for fire fights. A few venture in the woods, but have no clue on how to play the hills and valleys to get where the need/want to go. They also have no clue on how to communicate in the woods, and usually give away their positions quickly, usually with them getting shot out by the patient player. While it isnt really a lost art, it isnt often taught or learned, unless they are mil-sim type players.


Drg, dude do not just start insulting someone for their views, calling what someone else does on a paintball field "Unskilled" is wrong and makes YOU the elitist. Just because YOUR opinion of it is that its "Unskilled" does not make it so. Your no more of an "expert" than anyone else around here.

In the end, its all about having fun and playing paintball the way that YOU like to play it. Play with honor and just have fun......that should be pretty easy right?

Everyone relax and chill, this argument should not be happening, or have the insults inserted into it. AO is NOT supposed to be about insulting each other...................

[maniacmechanic]

Well said Shane

[drg]

While it isnt really a lost art, it isnt often taught or learned, unless they are mil-sim type players.

So in other words, it IS part of the modern player's skillset? Which is it, it's either lost or it isn't. Just because one person may face a lower caliber of player at their local field or event, it doesn't mean that others may not face a higher class of player at theirs.

Sure you might get speedballers playing that way if they rarely play the woods, but there are plenty of players who play both styles who can adapt what they learn in one in another. Tree-walking is directly analogous to walking bunkers. Overwatch is a standard team skill. Crawling is simply a method of movement that can apply to any number of situations, the analysis of which is a skill common to ALL types of paintball. Listening to a field for positions and situations is no less practiced in speedball than woodsball.

Then there's the fact that there still remain a huge number of woods and scenario ballers who learn these things just like they always have. The skills are very much present in modern paintball, either way.

It's just a gigantic farce to say that players today don't know how to play in the woods. That's ludicrous. Woodsball is alive and well. Old school players are still out there playing and sharing their knowledge. All this thread was from the start was a gross overgeneralization by a player, who seems to have been waiting for the chance to regale us with his apparently storied playing history.

Drg, dude do not just start insulting someone for their views, calling what someone else does on a paintball field "Unskilled" is wrong and makes YOU the elitist. Just because YOUR opinion of it is that its "Unskilled" does not make it so. Your no more of an "expert" than anyone else around here.

1. I have not insulted anyone, but can't say the same for other participants in the thread.

2. I didn't say what he does on the field is unskilled, I said what he described was unskilled. It is his point to make and I even allowed room for clarification on his part (which he chose not to do in favor of more ad hominem).

Notice that the fact that some of what he described could be construed as unskilled is not even the point. Whether or not you consider any of the skills described legitimate, they are all present in the modern game. Nothing has been lost.

[Beemer]

^^^^^^ I see it differently and of course its my opinion. You can quit trolling now.

[tasker89]

Beemer...

All relevant points have been made...and as far as I am concerned you can lock this thread up. It is quite clear that both drg and myself have serious cases of "get the last wordinitis".

I yield. I've been bested. My mother will be very disappointed to learn that I am not "special."

[Beemer]

Well I think you are special. :spit_take

[GoatBoy]

Well, I'd better get one in then before "appeal to mod" winds up closing this thread down.

drg is pretty much right. Much of this is pretty much an example of how bad the bad old days of paintball really were, when we coveted things like spiral ported barrels, Venturi bolts, and "closed bolt accuracy". For example:

...and you are still dodging my question. Since you are such an expert on logical fallacies and nonsensical arguments...you should know that it isn't a logical fallacy to allow for expertise and/or authority in an argument. The appeal only becomes a fallacy if it fails to meet certain criteria. Is a doctor's opinion a fallacious argument from authority? What about an expert witness in a courtroom? If you walked up to Bob Long and said..."Hey Bob, back when you were playing in 10 and 15 man woodsball tournaments, did you work on crawling as if it were a technique that could be developed, or did you just treat it as a simple motor skill?", I have a good idea what his answer would be. The same would go for any number of old school "experts." The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators...and the list would go on.

If Bob Long, The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators have something to say on the subject, then let them say it. You putting words in their mouths is, at the very least, irrelevant. Your expertise is hardly established, and much less established via dropping names of people and then stuffing your words in their mouths. Until then, you'll just have to suffer the ignominy of having to make sense like the rest of us little people.

The topic appears to be a simple numeric problem. As you have indicated, here are the parameters for your hypothetical game:

• 10 vs. 10
• 45 minutes
• At least one man on one team goes "crawling" for 25 minutes, and by definition, is not engaged in normal paintball activities.
• "Tournament level players"

The premise is that one man is removed from the team for the potential future payoff of some "critical" elimination at the "final" push.

The question I have tried to raise is: What exactly happens between the start of the game and the "final" push?

Let's assume your opposing team stays together and all actively plays.

First Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10
Second Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)
Third Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)
Fourth Push Headcount: 9 vs. 10 (assuming nobody got dropped)

etc. etc.

What is the likely outcome of any engagement where 9 players are put against 10 players? Paintball is like any other sport -- you want to create and exploit mismatches and weaknesses, and at least one of your players is going to be facing a 2-on-1 if the rest are matched man-for-man, because you went hiding in the weeds. Given that these are "tournament level players", the outcome should be pretty obvious for that 2-on-1. You're more likely to leave that engagement with a headcount of 8 vs. 10 than retain anything.

Repeat that exercise for all engagements prior to the 25 minute mark.

It seems to me that over each successive engagement, you stand a greater chance of losing more players, to the point where the one reserve guy in the bushes won't make a difference. Especially in a long format game. With "tournament level players".

[tasker89]

Well...I wouldn't want to be accused of flouncing.

I'm not holding myself out as an expert. I was pointing out that the appeal to authority is not automatically a fallacy of logic. For the purposes of this discussion I can't meet the criteria...because a) I don't have the credibility of an expert and b) my biases are in plain view. Further, I didn't put words in the mouths of anyone...I'm just confident I know what they would say. I listed the names and teams that I did, because back in the day, those teams were known for the heavy use of crawling. Here are some things that others have to say about "crawling."

But I suppose Amodea doesn't know what he is talking about.

There used to be an ESPN video floating around from the '94 World Cup which captured a little bit of the Ironmen crawling on the All Americans. You even get to see Marty Bush playing behind Keith Clayton and Doogie as they crawl on the near tapes. Clayton (using a patch of palms) eventually slides up and is able to bump to a midfield bunker. By doing so, he delays the AAs push just long enough to keep his team from getting maxed. Of course, by 1994 the leagues were already pushing towards concept fields so most of what they do is LOS crawling.

This PGI writer makes a couple of good points (points which validate both my POV and drg's POV).

http://www.p8ntballer.com/classroomcontents/crawl.shtml

* 10 vs. 10 * 45 minutes * At least one man on one team goes "crawling" for 25 minutes, and by definition, is not engaged in normal paintball activities. * "Tournament level players"

30 minute games. 45 minutes puts you back in the 15 man era. NPPL games quickly dropped to 20 minutes. The 25 minute figure was an arbitrary and extreme example...but certainly within reason for the era...provided the field was conducive.

The premise is that one man is removed from the team for the potential future payoff of some "critical" elimination at the "final" push. The question I have tried to raise is: What exactly happens between the start of the game and the "final" push?

You stuck with the game plan you devised prior to taking the field. If the crawl wasn't an ad-lib, then you've planned for being down one gun at the start. Some fields didn't have 10 good spots to work from...so you might see players floating back and forth from tapeline to tapeline, probing for a place to push. Recall that the crawler isn't a "reserve" player. They aren't "taking it easy." It is an aggressive action to create and/or exploit a weakness.

By asking the above questions, you have already answered mine.

[Beemer]

Well, I'd better get one in then before "appeal to mod" winds up closing this thread down.

If Bob Long, The Lords half of Aftershock, the Baltimore Rats contingent of the All Americans, the ENTIRE roster of the Florida Terminators have something to say on the subject, then let them say it. You putting words in their mouths is, at the very least, irrelevant. Your expertise is hardly established, and much less established via dropping names of people and then stuffing your words in their mouths. Until then, you'll just have to suffer the ignominy of having to make sense like the rest of us little people.

Oh look the other Troll showed up again. Good thing you got that one in, even though you got the hint.

Your expertise is far from established also.

Did you take the sped reding course to improve your compression. He never put words in anybody's mouth. Simply said he had a good idea of what the answer would be.

So you admit you are one of the little ones.

Much of this is pretty much an example of how bad the bad old days of paintball really were, when we coveted things like spiral ported barrels, Venturi bolts, and "closed bolt accuracy". For example

Were you really there to know if it was bad? Speak for yourself not all of us coveted those things just because you did.

[Shane-O-Mac]

All I see by those mentions are a pretty UNskillful style of play, hiding out and sniping at enemies rather than playing actively. Perhaps that's not your intent, but that's what you said. Even the mention of the cover-man leads down this path -- how loud the coverman is is irrelevant to experienced players.

Dude...seriously?

You typed that, re-read it and see how your insulting many many people. If another person style of paintball is to crawl and snipe, how is that "unskilled" Why do you feel your justified in criticizing anyone elses style of play? Your no better than anyone else, while you may play better than another person, that does NOT give you the right to say that the way they play is "unskilled". If they do crawl up and shoot a key person, or maybe just 2 peons, he has a skill at doing so. You seem to be as narrow minded as you accuse tasker of being, pot calling the kettle black ring a bell?

Quit taking everything as verbatim and see the big picture of what he was trying to say, instead of nit picking for your own entertainment.

[Pale Rider]

definately agreed. woodball is the original and in my opinion, the best way to play paintball

I agree, A game with 10-20 good friends, A flag in the woods, no refs, is just plain fun.
nobody wipes, nobody complains, just a good old time with your friends.

[GoatBoy]

Oh look the other Troll showed up again. Good thing you got that one in, even though you got the hint.

Your expertise is far from established also.

Did you take the sped reding course to improve your compression. He never put words in anybody's mouth. Simply said he had a good idea of what the answer would be.

So you admit you are one of the little ones.

Yes, I admit to not trying to lean on some sort of rank or status in order to prove a point. I try to make what I say make sense on its own. I rarely make reference to how many years I've been playing, etc. It's irrelevant in the face of a properly constructed argument. I know it's difficult for you to understand. That's probably why you have yet to actually make an actual contribution to this thread. If we went and deleted all your posts from here, it would still read basically the same. Except for my response to you now, which I probably shouldn't have even done.

I'm not holding myself out as an expert. I was pointing out that the appeal to authority is not automatically a fallacy of logic. For the purposes of this discussion I can't meet the criteria...because a) I don't have the credibility of an expert and b) my biases are in plain view. Further, I didn't put words in the mouths of anyone...I'm just confident I know what they would say.

Again, if they have something to say, let them say it. (Or link it.) Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning them, be it overtly stuffing words in their mouths or being "confident" you "know what they would say." Or am I sounding too much like an adjunct professor again?

http://www.p8ntballer.com/classroomcontents/crawl.shtml

This is a reasonable article, and I have no problem with it. In fact, I want to highlight two lines:

"The crawl is something that works against your basic instincts when playing. The crawl is a contradiction." (1)

"7) Be patient. Remember you have taken yourself out of the game while you have been crawling around; it had better be worth it!" (2)

30 minute games. 45 minutes puts you back in the 15 man era. NPPL games quickly dropped to 20 minutes. The 25 minute figure was an arbitrary and extreme example...but certainly within reason for the era...provided the field was conducive.

Fine, 30 minute time limit. I'm trying to go by your numbers.

You stuck with the game plan you devised prior to taking the field. If the crawl wasn't an ad-lib, then you've planned for being down one gun at the start. Some fields didn't have 10 good spots to work from...so you might see players floating back and forth from tapeline to tapeline, probing for a place to push. Recall that the crawler isn't a "reserve" player. They aren't "taking it easy." It is an aggressive action to create and/or exploit a weakness.

By asking the above questions, you have already answered mine.

A crawler is someone who has taken his gun out of the game, on purpose, thus leaving your team down one gun from the start. You can label this as an "aggressive" action, but where does that leave your team?

When any sports team is down a player, which is what has happened here by definition, do they play more defensive or more offensive until that player is brought back to the action?

The basic question still remains, what yields better results overall for the team: leaving that gun in play, or taking it out?

The same question can be applied to this "probing for weaknesses" bit. Is it more beneficial to probe for weaknesses via a slow, inert crawl, or via an upright, actively engaged player?

This basic question is COMPLETELY unanswered by the article you linked.

Here's what you can pull from the article:

• Crawling can be a thrill. Fine, I can see how it can be.
• Crawling can possibly lead to something critical to the benefit of your team. Sure, I can admit to that.

What you CAN'T pull from the article is:

• Losing a player for the majority of a game is in exchange for a good crawler, in general, is worth it. In fact, it's a "critical" skill.

In fact, let me "sped [sic]" read it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.

He begs the question with quote (2). It had better be worth it! He never says that it actually IS worth it, particularly in any kind of general sense. Even if the critical elimination or spot is gained, that doesn't mean the game is won. i.e. "Sure, you got that one guy out, but the rest of your team lost so many players in the meantime that it didn't make a difference. But boy, it sure was a rush."

Is it worth it? The maneuver is a contradiction to the "prima facie" elements of paintball, as indicated by quote (1). I interpret that as meaning it means it flies in the face of all of the other things that tend to yield a better probability of a team win at face value. It's a game of percentages, just like any other sport, and it would seem that the general likelihood of a win resulting from leaving a player/gun in the game is higher than taking him out for an inordinate amount of time.

Is this not an acceptable line of reasoning?

[Shane-O-Mac]

Goat....

Maybe you can accept that it is his OPINION, and your opinion is different? Why does everyone HAVE to disprove what someone else thinks? No one on this board is the end all be all fountain of paintball facts. If tasker feels that it is a lost skill, maybe it is at his field or local area. While in your area/field it isnt? I can say the same as him for my home field, not that it is completely lost per se, but it is not used in woods play much at all anymore.


Your argument about live gun vs crawler is irrelevant, there is no basis to make it true. What works for one team may or may not work for another. For example, at one time there were many pro teams that were very aggressive and others that were very defensive, yes they changed up at times, but their basic play was either of those and sometimes a mix. So in this instance of 10 man woodsball tourneys, on fields 2-3 times larger, completely different field terrain, bunkers/hiding places, it is a viable tactic. Your thought of having lost a live gun is your opinion, not a fact.

*edit. How long you have been playing is relevant to the discussion, as it provides a broader spectrum of experience to draw your opinion from. You may have started playing long after these tactics were commonplace..........................

[tasker89]

Maybe you can accept that it is his OPINION, and your opinion is different? Why does everyone HAVE to disprove what someone else thinks? No one on this board is the end all be all fountain of paintball facts.

True enough. Further...an artistic interpretation of past skills in paintball goes along with what was previously a more artful...and less technically precise form of the game. This goes back to my rather clumsy attempt to draw an analogy between analog and digital recordings.

I'm just defending the wistful days of my elysian youth.