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

[chafnerjr]

That;s totally right... it's all about the concealment... I can hide in a wide open field if I do my job right.

[athomas]

There are some neat tactics that you can do in woodsball games that you can't do in speedball. Crawling is one, although the 25min crawl on our team would mean the game was typically long over before you got there. The one that I liked in woods ball was the pull back move. Get a group forward quickly at the start of the game and then pull them back as if they are being overwhelmed. Leave one guy forward and hidden. As the other team moves by, pushing down that side of the field, you engage with a squad from the other side of the field. Then, with emphasis now on fighting in a new direction, your forgotten player has lots of easy shots of the other team either side on or from behind. It works quite well on larger teams, not so well in 5 man because it is too easy to keep track of where everyone is.

[drg]

1st mention:

2nd mention:

3rd mention:

The 2nd mention should serve as a context clue that I was referring to the two man form of crawling at bare minimum.

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.

I agree, but working the snake is not the same thing as crawling weeds. One is about timing, the other is about patience. One is done with eyes open on a field with precisely known quantities, the other is done nearly blind.

Gross oversimplification and false dichotomies. Which is which? Depending on the situation either could describe either. I don't know what the blind reference is, in no instance in paintball do you EVER want to be playing blind.

Finally, I'm not referring to "operating from the prone", I am talking about "crawling." With 20 years in paintball...the word (and all of the paintball associated images the term evokes) should be in your vernacular. This is why I asked you to share some of your background in the game...you are either being deliberately obtuse or you don't get the shorthand. I am trying to suss that out.

Again if you are crawling 12 feet and nothing more for 25 minutes, you're not doing something right, and the only reason this could possibly be something exclusive to woodsball is the forgiving nature of woodsball when it comes to poor technique, tactics and skills. This not a lost skill, this is a lack of skill.

There's nothing wrong with saying you enjoy woodsball because it allows you to play looser and take it easy. Heck I know that's why I enjoy woodsball. But saying it has some great skill component unknown to the speedball world/modern players is just BS.

There are some neat tactics that you can do in woodsball games that you can't do in speedball. Crawling is one, although the 25min crawl on our team would mean the game was typically long over before you got there. The one that I liked in woods ball was the pull back move. Get a group forward quickly at the start of the game and then pull them back as if they are being overwhelmed. Leave one guy forward and hidden. As the other team moves by, pushing down that side of the field, you engage with a squad from the other side of the field. Then, with emphasis now on fighting in a new direction, your forgotten player has lots of easy shots of the other team either side on or from behind. It works quite well on larger teams, not so well in 5 man because it is too easy to keep track of where everyone is.

While this tactic can likely be used more often in woodsball, there's no reason it could not be used in speedball in the right situation ... teams lose track of kill counts all the time. The overarching skills of field awareness and sound tactics are not exclusive to woodsball. Any specific tactic cannot be considered a format-related thing, as every field and every situation will present different tactical options.

[maniacmechanic]

This went from a statement about having fun , still after playing for many years ,, to a debate , which i wasted my time reading
IMHO there are skills in ALL forms of balling , some crossover , some don't , there are also different Style's of playing , some crossover , some don't

[athomas]

While this tactic can likely be used more often in woodsball, there's no reason it could not be used in speedball in the right situation ... teams lose track of kill counts all the time. The overarching skills of field awareness and sound tactics are not exclusive to woodsball. Any specific tactic cannot be considered a format-related thing, as every field and every situation will present different tactical options.

True. But most speedball fields are too small for it to be truely effective. It does happen though, but most often it is oversight on the other teams part rather than execution on your teams part. Especially since most speedball is now 5 man or at most 7 man, it is hard to send a "group" of players forward on a field that you can see almost every position from anywhere else on the field. Because of the small size of the field, if you do manage to get forward, you can't pull back. Generally if you can establish a forward presence, you stay there and push it. In woods ball there were larger fields, and more occluded areas. It was harder for the opposing team to know the whereabouts of all your players at the same time. However, a good woodsball team with good communication skills was hard to beat using any tactic like this. They just knew through communication where every player was. Its this communication skill that is the most important tool on the field regardless of whether you are playing woods ball or speed ball.

[athomas]

This went from a statement about having fun , still after playing for many years ,, to a debate , which i wasted my time reading
IMHO there are skills in ALL forms of balling , some crossover , some don't , there are also different Style's of playing , some crossover , some don't

Its the same game different venue. If you took a typical woods field and made it small like a speedball field, it would play very similar. On the other hand, if you made a speedball field the size of a typical woods field, it would slow down and become more like typical woods play.

[vf-xx]

This went from a statement about having fun , still after playing for many years ,, to a debate , which i wasted my time reading
IMHO there are skills in ALL forms of balling , some crossover , some don't , there are also different Style's of playing , some crossover , some don't

Isn't that how most of these conversations end? I think, realisitically it's based on preference which implies an opinion. We each have our own and they're usually different.

[drg]

Its the same game different venue. If you took a typical woods field and made it small like a speedball field, it would play very similar. On the other hand, if you made a speedball field the size of a typical woods field, it would slow down and become more like typical woods play.

Almost this EXACT thing was going to be my next post ... there's a lot more in common about the styles than different and skills from one translate over to the other; one just has to use their brain a bit.

[GoatBoy]

Nope. I am trying to understand what your experience is and how long you have been around the game so I can present any argument I do make in the proper context. 15 man games were never 20 minutes. I never played 15 man...but I played on a team that started in 15 man. Those games were played on very large fields and typically had an hour time limit or more. (did some digging, Lively Series rules were 15 players, 45 minutes on fields of perhaps 4-6 acres.) IIRC, when the NPPL was formed in 1993, 10 man games were 30 minutes.

So the question again is...did you ever play that kind of ball? If you did...then you should know exactly what I am talking about.

Well, there you go. You seem to be perfectly capable of establishing at least a physically possible context without knowing how long I or anyone else has been playing. Just... state facts. At least the math works out. Logic has to stand on its own as much as possible -- NPPL, tournament, or not. I expect that if there are answers to points 2, 3, and 4, they should be just as easy to explain.

The rules bit is probably the most interesting part of this. Where did you dig up a copy of the rules from 1993? I couldn't find them. I could only get as far back as about 98-99 or so, where by that time the games were something like 15-20 minutes.

In any event, you're reminiscing about a game style which doesn't exist today, whether extinct by explicit rules changes, or simply by evolved tactics/players. Other game elements have to be in place to make the crawling tactic work, not the least of which is probably the fact that the other side is employing the same mistaken tactic. I.e. what you remember working in the 90's might have worked because the other side decided to cripple itself in the same manner. After all, if it was popular with you, it might have been popular with other people as well. And I do remember it being a popular tactic.

[txaggie08]

I worked three jobs to pay my way. Only the very best pro-teams in the early 90's had the kind of money to cover all expenses for their guys. We had plenty of sponsors...but unless you were playing on Sunday in the money rounds...you were still coming out behind.

I'm 23 bro, I wasn't old enough to have a job. I was at that age where momma bought it for you or you didn't have the cash.

[tasker89]

I'm 23 bro, I wasn't old enough to have a job.

Yep. I can read...I caught that when you wrote it earlier. I started playing at 15...and I was working to pay for it. I was just pointing out that I wasn't "privileged" either.

Gross oversimplification and false dichotomies.

Well, there you go. You seem to be perfectly capable of establishing at least a physically possible context without knowing how long I or anyone else has been playing. Just... state facts. At least the math works out. Logic has to stand on its own as much as possible -- NPPL, tournament, or not. I expect that if there are answers to points 2, 3, and 4, they should be just as easy to explain.

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

There's nothing wrong with saying you enjoy woodsball because it allows you to play looser and take it easy. Heck I know that's why I enjoy woodsball. But saying it has some great skill component unknown to the speedball world/modern players is just BS.

I didn't write that crawling was a "great" skill component and I didn't write that it was "unknown" to modern players. I wrote that crawling (which in the context of woodsball evokes a whole range of images) effectively seems to be something that has dropped out of the average player's skillset. I was specifically referring to a form of crawling (what I called a two-man game) that was very prevalent in the early tourney/competition scene. Again...since this thread was about woodsball to begin with...taking it out into the speedball context was your doing, not mine. I wasn't addressing crawling in speedball. I watch speedball, I play speedball and I crawl in speedball. The idea is the same in both formats...but the execution is often very different.

Again...I am going to ask...since you still don't seem to get the shorthand: As a player who has been involved in paintball since 1989-90 (by your own reckoning) what does the word "crawling" mean to you? If it means running out of the flag station in a ghillie suit and dropping on your belly, we aren't talking about the same thing. Your writing (and your apparent understanding of my comments) seem to indicate that we are talking about two entirely different forms of "crawling." In the woodsball world that I grew up in, crawling was an aggressive (albeit slow) act. Most natural fields, including those used in the early NPPL days would have areas that lent themselves to crawling. This could be a function of topography (elevation differences, line of sight obstructions, divots, ditches, etc.) or it could be a function of the natural concealment offered by the field's greenery. Typically, the two man game included the crawler and the cover player. the cover player's job was to effectively engage players on the opposing side who might have a shot on the crawler. Some crawls were fast, some were very slow.

Weed crawling was very, very slow...and in order for it to be effective the other team couldn't see the crawler getting into the weeds, or see the crawling player moving the weedtops, or hear the crawling player rustling through the weeds. If they did, they would turn a couple of guns on the weeds and shoot into them. Smart opposing teams and/or players would rake the weeds with fire regardless. They would do this till somebody came out, or until they could bully a judge into paintchecking the crawler, thus revealing the crawler's position. Consequently, a good weed crawler (often blind because his face was full of weeds and 3 inches from the dirt) would "listen" to the opposition for clues on when to move and where to move. You move when people are gunfighting, you move when your cover-guy gives you a loud (though coded) verbal indication that it is OK. You move when your "backman" is engaging the guys who can take you out. Eventually you get to a point where you can do the damage you set out to do. Maybe you dash to a bunker that controls a section of the field. Maybe you cross shoot the middle from the edge of the weeds (knowing full well you are going to get taken out yourself) to knock an opposing player out of a position that will block the last minute rush your team is putting together. Who knows? It was situation specific and fluid.

You want to say that this tandem play is the default setting for most players because it is born of a "stealth"...again I will say you are flat wrong. This was a learned skill, that required a connection between the teammates, and strong field awareness. First, you had to identify a place that was suitable for such a "tactic", second, you had to figure out how you were going to get the job done and third, you had to play it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point is that the effective use of this "tactic" requires skill possessed by the crawler, the backman and the gameplanners. EVERY successful Pro team in the Lively days and early NPPL years had players that could do this. As a result woodsballers, who had an eye on working towards competitive play, would learn this skill. Now the Pros and most of the role models at local fields are playing speedball...which, though it involves crawling...does not involve patient weedcrawling. So the skill isn't being developed is it?

Is this enough context for you? Back to my original question: How do you learn "weedcrawling" on a field that has no weeds on it?

The rules bit is probably the most interesting part of this. Where did you dig up a copy of the rules from 1993? I couldn't find them. I could only get as far back as about 98-99 or so, where by that time the games were something like 15-20 minutes.

I don't need a copy of the rules from 1993 to know time limits. I judged NPPL events in 1993 and I played in NPPL events in 1993. What I find "most interesting" is that I even have to explain to you what "crawling" in woodsball (especially two man crawling in the competitive realm) is. The two of you write as if you'd never even heard of it till it appeared in this thread. Your incredulity at the notion that crawling is/was not only useful, but also a skill, calls into question your historical understanding of the game, the numbers of years which you have been playing and the validity of any judgment you may pass on the efficacy of "crawling."

Which logical fallacy does dodging the question fit under?

[Beemer]

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

:spit_take

[drg]

What are you two, a pair of adjunct junior college philosophy instructors? Am I being graded on my Logic midterm?

You are being called out for making what we perceive to be an incorrect, possibly elitist, statement. This is not about philosophy, it's about basic discussion ... presenting a decent case for your point. Thus far you return time and time again to fallacious and nonsensical arguments, and are starting to dabble in ad hominem attacks.

I didn't write that crawling was a "great" skill component and I didn't write that it was "unknown" to modern players. I wrote that crawling (which in the context of woodsball evokes a whole range of images) effectively seems to be something that has dropped out of the average player's skillset. I was specifically referring to a form of crawling (what I called a two-man game) that was very prevalent in the early tourney/competition scene. Again...since this thread was about woodsball to begin with...taking it out into the speedball context was your doing, not mine. I wasn't addressing crawling in speedball. I watch speedball, I play speedball and I crawl in speedball. The idea is the same in both formats...but the execution is often very different.

I have no idea why you think that what you describe as "crawling" is some lost woodsball art. Crawling of any type is a basic motor skill; terrain awareness and situational analysis are universal skills. None of this is specific to woodsball moreso than speedball, a dichotomy YOU set up by your thread's very title.

Unless you are talking about modern players just not having lot of skill on average. If that's the case, you haven't made any point either because that also has nothing to do with woodsball.

Weed crawling was very, very slow...and in order for it to be effective the other team couldn't see the crawler getting into the weeds, or see the crawling player moving the weedtops, or hear the crawling player rustling through the weeds. If they did, they would turn a couple of guns on the weeds and shoot into them. Smart opposing teams and/or players would rake the weeds with fire regardless. They would do this till somebody came out, or until they could bully a judge into paintchecking the crawler, thus revealing the crawler's position. Consequently, a good weed crawler (often blind because his face was full of weeds and 3 inches from the dirt) would "listen" to the opposition for clues on when to move and where to move. You move when people are gunfighting, you move when your cover-guy gives you a loud (though coded) verbal indication that it is OK. You move when your "backman" is engaging the guys who can take you out. Eventually you get to a point where you can do the damage you set out to do. Maybe you dash to a bunker that controls a section of the field. Maybe you cross shoot the middle from the edge of the weeds (knowing full well you are going to get taken out yourself) to knock an opposing player out of a position that will block the last minute rush your team is putting together. Who knows? It was situation specific and fluid.

All of those things happen on a regular basis at my local fields even in the context of 15-20 minute games; I can't imagine I am in a unique situation here. To be honest, all that is pretty basic stuff.

You want to say that this tandem play is the default setting for most players because it is born of a "stealth"...again I will say you are flat wrong. This was a learned skill, that required a connection between the teammates, and strong field awareness. First, you had to identify a place that was suitable for such a "tactic", second, you had to figure out how you were going to get the job done and third, you had to play it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point is that the effective use of this "tactic" requires skill possessed by the crawler, the backman and the gameplanners. EVERY successful Pro team in the Lively days and early NPPL years had players that could do this. As a result woodsballers, who had an eye on working towards competitive play, would learn this skill. Now the Pros and most of the role models at local fields are playing speedball...which, though it involves crawling...does not involve patient weedcrawling. So the skill isn't being developed is it?

Is this enough context for you? Back to my original question: How do you learn "weedcrawling" on a field that has no weeds on it?

Woodsball and concept fields very often contain weeds or low brush which allows such things to be done. Sure airball and such are popular but there are PLENTY of fields that are partly or fully made up of natural cover. I can't understand why you would try to assert otherwise.

[tasker89]

You are being called out for making what we perceive to be an incorrect, possibly elitist, statement. This is not about philosophy, it's about basic discussion ... presenting a decent case for your point. Thus far you return time and time again to fallacious and nonsensical arguments, and are starting to dabble in ad hominem attacks.

Pot meet kettle.

one just has to use their brain a bit.

Which suggests that I, by disagreeing with you, am not using mine.

All I see by those mentions are a pretty UNskillful style of play, hiding out and sniping at enemies rather than playing actively.

Which suggests that I, by engaging in such a technique, am not a "skilled" player.


These are a few quick examples. I'd ask that you not pretend to be offended by my "ad hominem attack" unless you are, in fact, an adjunct junior college philosophy professor, in which case, I apologize.

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.

What you identify as "basic discussion" is far and away from what you actually engage in. "Basic discussion" is going to include biases, positions supported by informal logic, points made based upon context, experience, and/or expertise, etc. When I am engaged in "basic discussion" I don't reduce my side of the conversation to the pointing out of logical fallacies made by the other party. This isn't formal debate, it isn't a forensics competition, it isn't a courtroom and it isn't a logic competition...it is an internet forum.

...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.

So quit dodging the question boyo...establish that you even have the credentials to make anything other than a theoretical argument, or go throw "fallacy darts" in somebody else's thread.

So what's it gonna be?

[davmitchell77]

what about the player sent to eliminate an opposing general? he will likely have to crawl a fair distance or amount of time, but he isn't unskilled ( you'd better hope he isn't unskilled) or using a pointless tactic.

I'm not hating on newbies, far from it in fact, but it seems like the new players don't have anyone left, at the local level, to learn from. That's important and it's something most fields don't have. Sure, every kid gets a few DVDs and watches the pros play, but what does it really look like, from down in the dirt, to see a guy make a good brush crawl, a good tree walk, a patient ambush?

i agree with that. for example, my bud has a woodsball "team" (and i use that loosely) that gets together once a month to play a few games and work on skills or run drills. my playing days are numbered, due to a neurological disease, however, i CAN and DO show up, with marker and gear, and help these guys (and gal) practice. i ref for them, help them snapshoot, teach lanes of fire, verbal code, just whatever i can to help them improve. THAT is what might be a lost skill in woodsball now- the "mentoring" for lack of a better word.

i play when i can, but i'm (usually respectfully) referred to as the old guy, and running and aggressive play is forever gone for me. but i try to be as close to the line or front as i can, and even mid game, the occasional coaching helps out.

just my 2 cents, dav