Sunday, February 07, 2010

Hall of Fame discussion

Open board to discuss the Hall of Fame. Toad, you are welcome to add new thoughts, but you have made your point known, and so will be deleted if you don't cooperate.

To the rest of you, one topic as originally framed by Jacob on rsd is of particular note. I'll repost it from the previous post:
1) Should the leader of the best team of all time be excluded (even
temporarily) from the hall of fame if he demonstrated poor enough
sotg?
2) If the answer to question # 1 is "yes," then was Kenny Dobyns' sotg
poor enough to warrant exclusion? "


Other topics are also welcome.

127 comments:

Phil said...

Deciding to withhold your vote for a year or two, to make a point about someone's behavior, is OK with me. If "temporarily" excluded means someone gets into the Hall a year or two or three after they became eligible, I don't really see a problem.

But putting aside the issue of timing, entry into the Hall of Fame isn't, or shouldn't be, some sort of referendum on peoples' character off the field. If someone pretty much played by the rules, and they were among the best players of their time, as I believe Dobyns was.

I only recall playing against Ken Dobyns once, so I am perhaps not qualified to address his SOTG. My _impression_, however, is that although he was certainly a jerk a lot of the time, he wasn't a cheaters, and his on-field behavior was sometimes poor but rarely or never disgusting. If I had a HoF vote, I would have voted for him on the first ballot.

Phil said...

Oops, that was some poor editing. Should have been "If someone pretty much played by the rules, and they were among the best players of their time, as I believe Dobyns was, then they should be in the Hall."

Robert said...

It's an interesting question given the place sotg is supposed to have within the game. For example, someone like Ty Cobb was the top vote-getter in the inaugural Baseball HoF voting, despite being widely known to be a major sh*t. But I don't believe sotg is called out quite as centrally in the rules of baseball.

My sense is that the leader of the best-ever team should get in provided people believe the games won to make them the best-ever team were fairly won -- that is, without cheating so egregious so as to call the wins into question. But as part of the deal, I would include the sotg problems as part of the description of the person -- in the record, so to speak, so people understand they were an integral part of the way that person played.

I don't feel like I have a lot of say in this, not having been able to play at that level. But insofar as you're asking for opinions: I don't agree with KD's view of sotg, and didn't like the way they played back in the day (saw plenty of it), but think he and his story should be in the HoF, warts and all.

Robert said...

Ugh. Just went back and looked at the comments on the original post (had read it, but not the later comments) and see that the Cobb thing was already driven into the ground. Sorry about that.

Dan said...

I've never seen Ken Dobyns play in real life. I've seen videos and heard accounts and it seems obvious that the guy was a total beast. Great player, great teammate, great leader. Unorthodox? Probably. Polarizing? Definitely. Unspirited? I honestly don't know.

Was he an actual cheater, or was he just an asshole on the field? There's a difference. If he blatantly cheated all the time and was horrible to play against because of this, then he shouldn't be let in. But if he was just a fiery competitor who rubbed people the wrong way then its obvious that he should be in the Hall and people should get over the fact that he beat them all the time.

That's the question right?

Match said...

I hope one day this situation will go down the way most emotional squabbles do, it will simply be forgotten and the data will speak for itself.

My parents were divorced when I was 2 and after 20+ years are now able to be in the same room. There was a lot of hate and anger for a long time but my grandfather's death and my brother's wedding have sort of mended things.

Hopefully Dobyns will go down the same way. In 5, 10, 20 years etc.. the number of people that can even remember any SOTG violations Kenny may or may not have committed will be minimal at best but his and NYNY's streak of 6 championships will always be remembered.

As cliche as it sounds, time does heal all wounds, and sooner or later KD will get his rightful nod into the Hall and all of this will be forgotten.

Henry Thorne said...

In answer to 1) Should the leader of the best team of all time be excluded (even temporarily) from the hall of fame if he demonstrated poor enough sotg?

One way to look at it is that SotG is one of the skills of Ultimate like throwing, receiving, and defending. You could then assess skill in each area and add them up to "score" HoF candidates. Then if someone is tops in 3 skills but low enough in the 4th they could fail to make the cut and that 4th category could be SotG. So "yes", this could happen quite legitimately.

On 2) If the answer to question # 1 is "yes," then was Kenny Dobyns' sotg poor enough to warrant exclusion? "

The HoF voters had a great deal of information about Kenny's sportsmanship from many sources. They had the peer reviews where some 60 peers had to say whether Kenny's SotG should negatively effect his candidacy for the Hall. And there was the Call to the Community where some 100 people sent in their thoughts. There was also Kenny's blog where he's pretty frank about his sportsmanship.

I was one of the voters. My skill categories were: athleticism, throwing, receiving, "D", and character on which Kenny scored 18,18,19,and 20 (all out of 20). Character was broken into two: leadership, and sportsmanship. Kenny got 9 and 1 (each out of 10). That gave him a total of 85 which was enough that he didn't make my top three this year.
Henry

Corey said...

Wow Henry. You voted Kenny the worst possible score on sportsmanship? Man, I know I only saw Kenny play from '90 on, and only played seriously with/against him from '93 on, but he was hardly the worst sportsman out there. That's pretty much ridiculous. What was the one bitter pill of a game you just can’t let go of?

Henry Thorne said...

I never played against Kenny Corey. The evidence from the three sources I described was overwheliming.

dj said...

Not including Kenny in the HoF is a joke, and it makes the HoF look like a joke. And it just makes our sport continue to seem like a joke.

People have to stop talking about how SOTG is some central tenet handed down by our forefathers that is the heart of Ultimate. It's just called sportsmanship and it's no different then playing pickup basketball and you have to make your own calls. To hold it up as something higher and mightier is one of the most pretentious pieces of horseshit that has always made me gag.

I never played with or against Kenny but I know alot of people who have and all I've heard is that he played hard, he played intense and yes he did not play nice. That might have made him a dick on the field but I've met alot of those playing this sport. What I have never heard is that he cheated. Overwhelmingly I have heard that he was one of the greatest players ever. And not even the HoF voters are disputing that.

Kenny doesn't make somebody's top 3? Pat King and Kenny should have been voting in together. Who are the other 2 guys that were voted in this year? How many "contributors" have been voted in? It's a joke, I have no respect for any of it at this point.

/Drew

AJ said...

Are you claiming that NYNY is the best team of all time?


...skeptical of all "x was the best of all time" claims...particularly from old-timers talking about the even older-timers,

aj

parinella said...

AJ,
That was a quote from the rsd post. Of course I have a different opinion, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I'd like to take some of the comments and redirect them. Let's assume that a player was the leader of the team, was a dick on the field but not a cheater, and that more than one of the key players on the team were indeed cheaters, big enough to affect the integrity of the games they played. Should the player be held accountable for this?

AJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ said...

Jim:

In principle, if a team or individual is systematically undercutting the integrity of the game through cheating, then, I don't think they belong in the hall of fame.

I'm not really sure what would constitute that though..and I'm even less sure how you would determine that a team was intentionally and systematically trying to undercut the integrity of the game. I've played in some real blood baths, but I'm not sure that I've ever felt like the other team was really making a systematic effort to cheat us.

With the scenario you set up, (the dick who doesn't cheat, but is the leader of a team of cheaters), I don't think that should warrant a ban from the Hall, but it seems completely reasonable that it should count against him. If part of what makes this player "hall of fame worthy" is that he's won championships and the cheating of his teammates affected the integrity of the games that led to those championships (I'm not saying this was the case with NYNY, never saw them play)...then, yeah, it has to count against him.

aj

corey: did you own a white pen (maybe a paint pen) sometime around 2000/2001?

ulticritic said...

question for henry.....how will ken EVER get into the hall with a score of 85? I mean, every player that even gets to the "slate of eight" will HAVE TO have similar superior skills. i mean, its not like ken can do anything at this point to "improve" his sportsmanship iyo, so.........should we assume that YOU will simply never vote him in......based on the math alone?

Henry Thorne said...

Toad,
What do you think of sportsmanship? Do you think it's a valuable skill? Worth working on like a good forehand? Can you give me some examples of it where it impresses you?
Henry

ulticritic said...

What do I think of sportsmanship........it has its place. and that "place" is the same "place" its put in all other sports (which is largely secondary to action, competition and execution). I will tell you this, it should NEVER be regulated and enforced by competing partial opponents (THATS PURE INSANITY). as for it being a skill, rather than give you the simple and obvious FUCK NO! answer, i will answer your question with a question. Is sportsmanship capable of being statistically measured and/or quantified????.....or is it simply a concept thats based on subjective opinion and pufferey? I dont think its anything worth "working on"......we're basically talking about human nature here.....and those "skills" are the responsibility of ones parents to hone in on......NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A SPORT. Sports are set up such that poor sportsmanship is impartially regulated and penalized ON THE FIELD OF PLAY. And, no, good sportsmanship does not "impress" me. Of course i, like most sports related people, am not in it to be "impressed". I'm in it to be "entertained". and personally, i'm always upa fopr a good bench clearing brawl.....and would take a match up where the opponents had a genuine dislike for each other. I mean, who would you rather see grouped together on sunday at the masters.....tiget and phil.....or phil and fred couples?

lets use the henry double touch hand ball incedent though as an example. I was more "impressed" that he had the skill to get away with that play than i was unimpressed that he attempted/resorted it. Come to think of it, TAKING SUCH A RISKY RISK is what i find "impressive".....Even though i would have been routing for the ref to catch him. what i find to be the MOST unimpressive about that whole incedent was that the weak ruleset and ineffecient amount of refs tha ATUALLY ENABLED the incident in the first place. henry was just a victim of human nature and a flawed system in this case. deep down he himself may have secretly wanted to be caught......and was simply doing his part to expose the weak soccer ref system for what it is.

So, if i wanted to impress myself by people being ultra pious then i would constantly watch the religion channel.....and follow all the rightious sages throughout history. but i dont. this is where PEOPLE LIKE YOU seem to feel the need to conflate sports and religion.

now......ive answered the questions from BOTH your posts.....so how about showing some proper blog ediquitte and answering all of mine.

Henry Thorne said...

You're missing some good stuff Toad, seeing people treating each other honorably in the heat of battle is pretty inspiring.

On Kenny, yes, there's certainly a chance that he'd get my vote, he only missed by a point this year.

ulticritic said...

when i watch sports i focus on how people "treat" the competition.....and i appreciate it when they battle tooth and nail, aside from how they treat each other. In fact, if it gets a little chippy, so be it, it usually just heats up the overall competition. The refs are there if shit gets too outa control. Watch a nba tnt ad for a featured game and you will see clips of players bowing up, dunking aggressively and the like. THAT is what people want to see when the watch sports. Now if a guy plays all boyscoutish like tim duncan for instance, the entertainment value is somewhat deminished.....and it usually shows in the ratings. so just understand there henry, YOU are the odd ball when it comes to a sports entertainment target market.

as for your little point system i'd be interested in how you scored everybody else in that 8 slate. how about upin them numbers?

Phil said...

I think Henry's points scale is reasonable, although I'm not really sure of the calibration. If "20" means in the 95th-100th percentile, and 19 means in the 90-95th percentile, and so on, then 18 is definitely low for some of these (even if we're talking about players who are Regionals-level or higher, much less all Ultimate players). But as long as Henry evaluated the other contenders the same way, it doesn't matter...and who says he has to use a percentile scale anyway?

So, I like the idea of scoring those attributes, and (absent anything to compare to) those all seem reasonable....except for that extremely low sportsmanship score. My general impression is: kind of a dick, but not a cheater, and not a head case who made it impossible to play a game with good sotg. This isn't Mike G we're talking about.

Although, really, how well do I know Dobyns' sportsmanship? I saw him play at Nationals a couple of times (around 1988 or so, 1991 or 1992, and 1994) and at Worlds (when he was past his prime) in 1999...maybe a handful of other times. Other than that, most of what I know is from rec.sport.disc and from what other people have told me. Henry (and other HoF voters who didn't vote Dobyns into the Hall) apparently had lots more to go on, and really didn't like what they heard. That's gotta mean something.

On the other hand, Jim knows Dobyns' sportsmanship quite well and things he should have easily qualified for the Hall.

Unless I hear some real horror stories, I'm sticking with my impression, which is that KD should be in the Hall of Fame, and that it's not close. But maybe those horror stories are out there.

parinella said...

Henry and I did discuss the scaling issue prior to his voting, though I didn't offer any input on where anyone should rank. My thought was that the comparison group (where the worst is a 1) has to be something like "Nationals-level players" instead of "all players", or else everyone is going to score 18-20 in the skill attributes while the character/leadership/teamwork attributes would be all over the place.

Henry Thorne said...

Hi Phil,
KD's blog post quoted below was typical of the stuff we were hearing but, worse than this, it was happening at high levels of play effecting championships won and lost.

From: http://kenneth44.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

Some place at some time somewhere: I’m covering Phil “Guido” Adams in the end zone when he breaks to the corner and the pass is thrown. I’m in perfect position for the layout block, but somehow, while we’re both diving, he reaches around me (Yes, I’ve heard the rumors about Guido, too.) to make an astonishing grab. I land on his arm in such a way as to obscure the outcome of the play from everyone but me, and then rip the disc from his hand. He rightly calls strip, and I contest the call. Now that’s spirit.

Anonymous said...

yes, but jim, isnt it likely, with most everybody who gets to the point of even being voted on gettin 18 to 20 on their skills, that with a 1(out of ten) in sportsmansip its likey that henry would NEVER be able to vote ken in? I mean, who else that ken would be competeing against, aside from probably jon g, would he be able to surpass (as per henrys point system)? seems like he would have to tweek the other peoples scores negitively just so ken could get the nod. of course if ken made some kind of public apology(maybe on his blog??) for his past ways that guys like henry might throw him some extra points in that sportsmanship catagory. What do ya think henry.....is that what its gonna take?

seems to me like henry and others are simply punishing ken, in the only way they really can, for being the way he was.....which was simply a very fierce and intense competitor.....that would probably be viewed as very acceptable (and maybe even coveted) in other sports. And, I guess they (henry etal) couldnt compete with or control him as a player so they are taking this opportunity now to discredit him. how 4th grade-ish.

Anonymous said...

so henry, if this is the case, how does a guy like you with such high "spirity" standards EVER see fit to vote in KD? after all you yourself said "there is certianly a chance he'd get my vote". please clarify these overt inconsistancies. IS IT the case that you and your spirity pals are simply taking this opportunity to "punish" him?

parinella said...

Toad, the point of the scaling is that not everyone would be an 18 or 19. kd got 75 out of 80 on Henry's scale for the skill categories (and 85/100 total). If he almost made it on Henry's vote, then the others were not much higher than 85. This sounds like there were distinctions then between players in "skills".

Henry can defend himself on your charges of being a spirit zealot, but after Mooney coined the phrase "uglimate" after Windy City's 1986 championship, Henry defended Windy City, the team kept his team from making Nationals for several years.

parinella said...

And maybe next year's class will top out at 83, or he'd bump up kd's spirit score to a 3 after reconsideration, or he'd tweak the scaling so that kd's perceived skills are further ahead of his competition.

jacob said...

What about just voting players into the hall of fame based on their on-field accomplishments, but adding a special "spirit star" to those who were really good sports?

This way, we can distinguish between guys like Moons and Dobyns without making a mockery out of the hall of fame by excluding players like Dobyns.

Mr. Parinella, I hope you were not offended by my calling NYNY the best team of all time. I am well aware of the existence of another team which was arguably as good.

Henry Thorne said...

Jacob,
The reason not to separate sportsmanship from the other skill areas is that in Ultimate, sportsmanship has been baked into the game and written into the rules. It's part of the game not just an add on.

And it is that way because many many people over the last 40 years have discovered something they really like about having sportsmanship be integral to the game. It creates the opportunity for justice and relationships to occur that people have really enjoyed. So much so that the 7,000 people surveyed a couple of years ago associated SotG with Ultimate more than any other single thing. I'm not preaching this, I'm just listening to the hive and telling you what I hear.

When I created ranking categories and weights, I once again surveyed a lot of current players including captains of top tier teams. The average weighting had sportsmanship up over 20% and I got a fair amount of grief that I underweighted it.

So no, this isn't just me being a spirit zealot and punishing KD, this is an aggregate that I deemed a fairly accurate snap shot of how people viewed this issue today, although truthfully, biased in Kenny's favor. The guy was amazing and I'd love to see him get honored.

Henry

PS Phil, wondering where you are on the 1/10.

parinella said...

You mean Godiva?

No, it's cool, that NYNY was a good little outfit. As long as when you back it up you do so without resorting to name-calling.

Even "spirit zealots" would think that a spirit star would make a mockery of things.

I think what is being discussed here when we talk about "spirit" is actually part of "on-field accomplishments." Dickishness is relevant if it affects the game, and only to that extent, imo.

Anonymous said...

A good question to ask is:
How did that team managed to be a super team having supposedly a leader and player with questionable sotg?
What can we learn about that? How come we repudiate some conduct and want to punish it if we permitted somehow this team to escalate to that position? Or maybe it’s valid to say the sogt creates a place for elastic rules to stretch or contract depending on the honesty and state of emotion of a person in a given time. How can we control this? We might go back to idealism of the sport which is valid. True believers believe that sogt is possible on competitive level in which in many cases don’t happen. Is it valid to separate the sogt and performance? Is it time to redefined sotg? Its interesting that people who argue that sogt should be an integral part along with performance are separating performance condemning sotg on a person with excellent performance, but still the system in which they are part let that team rise to the top.

ulticritic said...

henry: "the guy was amazing, i'd love to see him get honored"

me: then why didnt you just simply vote him in?

also henry, understand this, when that day comes that he gets honored ALL of him and his game will be getting honored. It aint like you can just take the skills and leadership without the pisspoor sportsmanship. you do know that its a package deal, dont you? And in light of the heavey weight you put on how intragral spirit is to the game, i just dont see hou you, in good consious, could EVER vote him in?

parinella said...

Ok, Toad, you're shut off. It's not a black or white world, and unless you can acknowledge that choices involve tradeoffs, please refrain from commenting.

jacob said...

"The reason not to separate sportsmanship from the other skill areas is that"

I'm not sure what you mean by "separate," as you yourself have created a sportsmanship ranking category that is separate from other skill areas. Do you mean "less important than _____", rather than "separate from"?

"in Ultimate, sportsmanship has been baked into the game and written into the rules."

First, the rules of ultimate are subject to change and have been changed, as is the case with all sports to some degree.

Second, there is no original written rule of ultimate requiring good sportsmanship for hall of fame admittance. This is a new rule written by you and a few others based on your interpretations of the rules of ultimate. As such, this decision was not dissimilar to a modern clergyman claiming his spin on the bible is somehow rooted in the original word of god simply because the bible contains language relating to the same subject on which that clergyman seeks to pass new religious law.

"It's part of the game not just an add on."

I don't think giving "extra spirit credit" to deserving members of the hall of fame is an "add on" any more than the giving of the Farricker or Pufahl awards are add-ons.

"And it is that way because many many people over the last 40 years have discovered something they really like about having sportsmanship be integral to the game."

Henry, I'm sure you mean well here, but when you write like this you really come off as condescending. This is language you may want to reserve for those unfamiliar with ultimate.

"It creates the opportunity for justice and relationships to occur that people have really enjoyed."

Well, gee whiz. Tell me more about people making friends with their fellow ultimate players, Henry. I had no idea that happened! And I'm sure it doesn't happen in other sports with small player bases where 95% of the players some from similar cultural backgrounds. Has it ever occurred to you that there are other factors besides sotg that lead to all this fun and friendship?

"So much so that the 7,000 people surveyed a couple of years ago associated SotG with Ultimate more than any other single thing."

Henry, Henry, Henry. The people who respond to upa surveys are going to be an sotg-biased sample. I now this because of my vast scientific knowledge.

"I'm not preaching this, I'm just listening to the hive and telling you what I hear."

No, you're preaching.

"When I created ranking categories and weights, I once again surveyed a lot of current players including captains of top tier teams. The average weighting had sportsmanship up over 20% and I got a fair amount of grief that I underweighted it."

Next time, maybe just let respondents create categories. Otherwise, break sportsmanship up into sub-categories, with cheating getting its own section.

"So no, this isn't just me being a spirit zealot and punishing KD, this is an aggregate that I deemed a fairly accurate snap shot of how people viewed this issue today,"

Fantastic. Say, I've been looking to invest in Bridge property connecting lower Manhattan to Brooklyn and have lots of liquid cash. Can you help?

"although truthfully, biased in Kenny's favor. The guy was amazing and I'd love to see him get honored."

Then take some damn leadership reins and admit him. You upa folks have had no problem in the past making decisions that were borderline as to reflecting membership wishes when the swing was in the other direction, so don't give us this "it's out of our hands" baloney.

jacob said...

"No, it's cool, that NYNY was a good little outfit. As long as when you back it up you do so without resorting to name-calling."

Are you referring to NYNY engaging in name-calling?

"Even 'spirit zealots' would think that a spirit star would make a mockery of things."

Like giving a kid in second grade a smiley-face on their test paper? I see your point, but I'm not sure how spirit (unrelated to cheating) can be a major consideration without there being some level of mockery involved in the hall of fame selection process. It's more subjective to measure than playing ability and "rewarding" it (when it really should be its own reward) invariably amounts to something of a pat on the head for good behavior.

"I think what is being discussed here when we talk about 'spirit' is actually part of 'on-field accomplishments.'"

As in "being a jerk on the field will necessarily detract from one's on-field accomplishments", or as in: "if you know how to be a particular kind of jerk, you may be able to accomplish more on the ultimate field", or both?

"Dickishness is relevant if it affects the game, and only to that extent, imo."

OK, so what about if a player is not a cheater but intimidates opponents by being mean and aggressive, which in turn effects the game? This is relevant by your standards, but how if at all is it relevant specifically to hall of fame admission?

Rob Brazile said...

Perhaps the debate about what role a spirit score should have on inclusion in the HoF would be simplified by acknowledging a difference between good spirit/sportsmanship and not cheating.

Good spirit/sportsmanship is helping your opponent to his feet after a good bid. It's telling a teammate that a call he has made is wrong even if it will cost you the point. It's shaking hands with every member of the other team after the game even if they just cost you a trip to Nationals. To not do these things would be less spirited/sporting than to do them. But to not do these things would not be cheating. You might not think much of this player, but you couldn't call him or her a cheater.

Deliberately ripping the disk out of someone's hand and then contesting the strip is cheating.

Tim Duncan may merit special acknowledgment for being a good sport but no one should get an award because they "didn't cheat."

I can't speak as to whether or not KD was a good sport. But he has admitted to being a cheat. Can you be a good sport and a cheat? Sure, maybe KD helped the guy to his feet after ripping the disk out of his hands.

We say KD is great because he lead NYNY to 6 championships. How many other times did he cheat to win? How many of their wins would have been losses if he had not cheated? I wouldn't know, I wasn't around, but if Henry thinks this is a high percentage then it seems like a reasonable basis for an argument against his inclusion in the HoF.

(BTW my word verification was "angst." How appropriate.)

ulticritic said...

alright jim, just one more quick reply to rob then i will shut up.....as jacob seems to be saying everthin i think.....only much better than i could.

Rob....i have a particular video of the 1986 easterns finals featuring titanic(boston) vs spot(ny) and there is a particular goal in which a particular HOFer went up for a hanging disc in the endzone against a guy that was at least a head shorter than him(hint, hint). anyways, they incedentally colided, tall dude caught the disc, short dude fell to the ground, tall dude straddled him and glared down at his with a look of disdain for a moment or two then simply walked off WITHOUT offering his opponent a hand up.

I also played in a game against this guy (boulder 4th quarters in mabe 88') in which he tried to "make up" some rule where a rolling disc that was d'ed up by one of my team mates should go back to the spot in which it was initially d'ed (fyi, the disc was d'ed at about mid field and rolled all the way into his own endzone).

SO, i've offered scenerios in which this one HOFer BOTH didnt help an opponent up AND overtly tried to make up a rule(aka CHEATING). SO.........what is your response to that?

does the phrase "let he who has NOT sinned cast the first REJECTION vote against ken". speaking of which....is there any place where these "votes" can be viewed.....or is this one of them secret ballots????

and tim duncan SHOULD recieve special acknopwledgement. acknowledgement for provideing the WORST ratings ever for an nba series finals.

so the question is, should kens peers be able to punish him like this as a way to make up for all the punishment "on the field" he gave to them back when they played the game.

The other thing i dont get is how, during his reign, NO ONE (and specifically his peers ((HT etal)) that are now in control of his hof status)was willing to step up and denounce his behavior THEN. on the contrary, they just sat back and allowed his immage to be flourished, glorified and honored by the upa themselves(bad sportsmanship and all). This i dont get. could someone please explain this vast inconsistancy? preferably henry......or jim

Henry Thorne said...

Toad,
KD was widely reviled for his misconduct while simultaneously admired for his ability and tenacity. More of the former as he was coming up through Kaboom and more of the latter toward the end. This is nothing new.

Jacob,
Sorry I got you so mad. It'd get a little boring if I went through each of your jabs and responded back so I'll let it lie unless you've got something you consider critically important.

Henry
Full divestiture: UPA board member and HoF liason. Not speaking the opinion of either the board or the HoF committee, however, just my own.

AJ said...

Henry:

I guess I'm a little bit confused.

Are you saying that based on your discussions with "the hive" you found that KD was "un-spirited" (kind of a dick on the field, but not systematically effecting the integrity of the games), or that KD was "cheating" (changing the outcomes of series games through systematic violation of the rules)?

If what you found was the first, docking him 9 points on your rating scale, and as a result not voting him into the Hall of Fame seems to extreme. I don't see how being a dick should have any bearing on acceptance into the hall.

If what you found was the second, I'm not sure how you can ever consistently vote him into the Hall. Maybe you could say something about cheating being so rampant during that time period that if you don't allow cheaters in you won't allow anyone in from the time period (something like steroid era players in baseball)?

AJ

Henry Thorne said...

Hi AJ,

AJ asked: "Are you saying that based on your discussions with "the hive" you found that KD was "un-spirited" (kind of a dick on the field, but not systematically effecting the integrity of the games), or that KD was "cheating" (changing the outcomes of series games through systematic violation of the rules)?"

The second.

and "If what you found was the second, I'm not sure how you can ever consistently vote him into the Hall. "

I think you mean "conscientiously". And yes, this is why it's tricky and why the weights to the categories matter so much. My weighting of 10% for sportsmanship is low enough that even with the 9 points lost from his 1 out of 10 score, KD could conceivably get in because he was so incredibly outstanding in the other areas. My informal pole averaged a lot more than 10% weight for sportsmanship. If it was 20% instead, (depending on the calibration that Phil and Jim were talking about earlier), the 18 points lost would effectively prevent KD from ever having a shot. What do you think the weights should be (or would you prefer some other system)?

Henry
(UPA board member but speaking as an individual)

ulticritic said...

i dont think it would be boring in the least for you to reply to at least SOME of jacobs critisims......and the fact that you dont COULD make some believe that you simply dont have much of a defense to his very valid charges.

also, i dont get why you upa people always have to throw out that generic disclaimer. what, do all you upa types have dual personalities or somthing?

ulticritic said...

henry.....you say kd was both admired an reviled back in the day, right? the odd thing to me was that the upa NEVER, either formally or informally, reviled him then for ANY of that stuff. On the cotrary, the upa flourished his image and projected NOTHING BUT admiration for his contributions in doing so. Yet now, at first opportunity, 20 FREAKING YEARS LATER, you and your upa spirit pals feel that you need to put ken in his place, repremand him, serve your justice, make a statement, deduct points or however you seem to want to justify and/or quantify it????? just seems like such a weak move. Now if you guys would have done a newsletter write up, letter to the editor or even thrown out the occasional disclaimer ("the upa dosent approve of kds poor level of sportsmanship") then i might have your back a little here, but for it to all go down like this makes you kd/hof snubbers come accross as lil you know whats.

jacob said...

Henry, I would like to begin by apologizing for the tone of my last response to you. It was uncalled for in light of your tone being courteous, and out line in light of the fact that you volunteer time for ultimate and I am just some guy taking pot shots from his keyboard. I am sorry.

Having said that, not everything I wrote was a jab, and your refusal to respond is both disappointing and telling.

I watched K Dobyns play during his prime and while he may have been mean, it is quite a stretch to say that he was much of a cheater, the above-cited anecdote regarding his contest of a single legit strip call notwithstanding. Far more important than the impressions of a guy who was a starstruck adolescent at the time, I knew/know plenty of players on top teams who played against NYNY during their heyday, and I never once heard any of them accuse Dobyns of being a cheater- and he was often a subject of discussion.

J Parinella asked an interesting question regarding the extent of Dobyn's culpability for some of his teammates'cheating, but as that was apparently not at issue in deciding whether to admit Dobyns to the hall of fame, this discussion is largely academic.

I disagree with your apparent position that the great social aspects of ultimate need to be codified and that this codification has somehow preserved the bonds between players which we both value.

Ultimate players get along and enjoy a lot of mutual respect not because there is some vague language in the rules regarding not being a jerk. We get along because about 90% of us are relatively secular, non-violent,soft,college-educated,liberal white people from middle class backgrounds who like to drink beer and throw frisbees around. (I am not stating this as a criticism, as I and many of my friends fit this description.) As a group, we are hardly an interesting pitri dish for any "new" system of conflict resolution.

I never cared for Dobyns as a person, but I always respected the fact that:
1) With him, what you saw was what you got.
2) While he took his performance and winning seriously, he never took ultimate as being anything more serious than what it actually is.

In contrast to K Dobyns, those who have thus far excluded him from the hall of fame do not seem to be completely forthcoming, either with the players or with themselves. You write about player feedback, scoring systems and adding up numbers as though this were anything close to an objective process, or even a subjective process based on a representative vote. You are hiding behind a smokescreen that everyone sees through but you.

As to taking the game too seriously; there never would be a hall of fame if all ex players were as unmotivated as I with regard to giving back to the game. Without the efforts of people like you, this whole discussion would not even be occurring because there would be no hall of fame. It is a good thing that you take ultimate seriously. However, you can love and respect this game without deluding yourself into thinking the rules of the game make its players into better people and without denying just recognition to stars of the game who were never concerned with winning a popularity contest.

Dobyns is one of the very few ultimate players I have ever met who I would go down a dark alley with. This is not 100% complement.
I have a toddler son, and even assuming I could do so, I will not raise him to be the type of guy people are willing to go down a dark alley with.

Having said that, I have a feeling that the upa will tend to make a habit of excluding from the hall of fame guys with whom people would go down a dark alley. This exclusion will not be a re-enforcement of the positive feelings ultimate players have for one another, but rather proof of cultural myopia on the part of the powers-that-be.

Anonymous said...

An ultimate player you'd go down a dark ally with? Vote him in already.

My impression is he'd like to be in, but doesn't really care that much. He knows what he did. Don't know the man, but have read a lot of his posts and know a bunch of his old cronies and he strikes me as the sort of person who's not particularly concerned with external validation.

At any rate, i'd bet a fair amount of money that this mistake will be rectified this year.

Dan Murphy (a former mediocre ultimate player who made a lot of bad calls but nobody really noticed because he was mediocre).

Henry Thorne said...

Jacob (Goldstein?),
Powerful mix of appreciation and outrage.

On the appreciation for the work I do...
Thanks. I love this game. But It's also a privilege, a privilege to be given the authority to make decisions like this one. And I've been given that authority by voters who hope I'll represent their views. I realize that in this case I may not be succeeding at that and in your case I'm definitely not. I'll keep workin' on it.

On to the criticisms, 4, a manageable number, thanks...

1. Top players you talked to didn't accuse Dobyn's of being a cheater.
But there are many other top players who do, and they were quite clear about it. In general, I think you have to take their stories with a grain of salt because you don't know Kenny's side of it. That's why Kenny's own admission with the "Guido" story is so damning, it's actually his side of the story and he goes on to admit there were other examples and he wished he could go back and fix them. But he can't. He made the choice to do that stuff and those choices have consequences. In this case the respect he failed to give his opponents, his team mates, and the sport has resulted in a large number of people stepping forward saying hey, he crossed the line, granted he did a lot for the sport by being amazing, but he also ruined it for a lot of people and overall did more damage than good and shouldn't be exalted in the HoF. To be complete here, there were a lot of people who said what you heard, that he didn't cross the line, that he must be in. In the data I got the split was roughly even, and there was a lot of it, the 60 person peer review group, then the 58 responses on KD from the Call to the Community.

2. SotG isn't the reason UItimate players form bonds, socio-economic and other similarities are.
I can't think of any way to prove this to you. I've seen great strength in Ultimate communities and between players of significantly differing backgrounds and ages. Some of it is the pure fun of the game. Some of it is the feeling we've got something big here and we're in it together. But a part of it is that we get to know each other awfully well because we deal directly with each other in the heat of battle.

3. Dobyn's was forthcoming, you (Henry) are not.
Jacob. I've laid out everything I've thought about this in a public forum and put my whole name on it. ???

4. Failing to credit KD's "wing man" strength shows my cultural myopia.
My "character" category had 10 points for leadership and 10 points for sportsmanship.
KD got 9 of 10 for leadership mainly because of his tenacity as a warrior which was one of the great strengths of KD cited by many folks. The point taken off was because a couple folks who played with him said he was so self focused he often didn't get the best out of his team mates.

Henry

Anonymous said...

but shouldnt a choice like cheating at a sport have IMEDIATE consequences......and be dished out by impartial onlookers then and there???? this is what i dont get about the upa. all those years of glorifyiong kens image and not one peep outa ya about his cheating ways then. and now twenty years later your gonna go all "hall monitor" on him. and it isnt like his cheating got him and his team a birth into a worlds semis at the expense of an up and coming japanese team.

also i dont know how you could have gave ken so many points towards character in the leadreship dept. when common sense would tell ya that he HAD TO HAVE lead in an unsportsmanlike manner....teching unsportsmanlike tactics and the like, no? and you plan on voting this guy through next go around? how WILL you live with yourself?

way to try and politrick your way outa this little mess though there henry.

jacob said...

"Jacob (Goldstein?),"

Sider, not Goldstein.

"Powerful mix of appreciation and outrage."

My wife calls it "the punch and hug." (I do not hit her, I promise; this is just what she calls it.) Anyway, I'm not outraged, just disappointed.

"It's ... a privilege, a privilege to be given the authority to make decisions like this one. And I've been given that authority by voters who hope I'll represent their views."

OK.

"I realize that in this case I may not be succeeding at that"

Yeah, well, you can't please everyone.

"in your case I'm definitely not."

That's just representative democracy in action, although I am certainly not alone in my feelings here.

"I'll keep workin' on it."

I'm not even a upa member, Henry. Please don't do any work on my account.

"there are many other top players who do [accuse Dobyn's of being a cheater]"

OK, I never played against him in his prime, so these people likely know something I don't.

"Kenny's own admission with the 'Guido' story is so damning ... and he goes on to admit there were other examples ... He made the choice to do that stuff and those choices have consequences."

As do your choices, good sir.

"he did a lot for the sport by being amazing, but he also ruined it for a lot of people"

He "ruined" ultimate for "a lot of people?" Was ultimate really that fragile, or were these people that fragile? This sounds like an exaggeration.

"and overall did more damage than good."

This is a shocking assertion, Henry. You have articulated how you measured the damage, but how exactly have you measured the good?

"To be complete here, there were a lot of people who said what you heard, that he didn't cross the line, that he must be in. In the data I got the split was roughly even"

Would you agree that the "pro-KD in the hall of fame" people may be less likely to respond to upa feelers? If so, does this dynamic put any onus on you to look more closely at your data?

"I've seen great strength in Ultimate communities and between players of significantly differing backgrounds and ages"

So have I, but this does not discredit my position that a big part of what bonds ultimate players is that most of us have a lot in common independent of ultimate.

"a part of it is that we get to know each other awfully well because we deal directly with each other in the heat of battle."

Are you saying that we like each other more than opponents in other sports do because we prove to one another that we are not cheaters?

"[You say that] Dobyns was forthcoming [but I am] not. Jacob. I've laid out everything I've thought about this in a public forum and put my whole name on it."

Yes, but I'm still not convinced that you are being honest with yourself when you imply that you entered this process with a totally open mind.

"[You say that] Failing to credit KD's 'wing man' strength shows my cultural myopia ... KD got 9 of 10 for leadership mainly because of his tenacity as a warrior which was one of the great strengths of KD cited by many folks."

I did not explain this position very well. I think that ultimate is a sub-culture wherein displaying the type of aggression that intimidates opponents tends to get conflated with being a bad person. The two often do go together, but they are not exactly the same.

I doubt that many intimidating players will score highly on the sportsmanship section, so the deck is stacked. (See Jim Ingebretson of Flying Circus and L.A. Iguana.) This is why this issue is bigger than just Dobyns. None of us have to like the fact that some player intimidated us in the past, but we don't necessarily have a lesson to teach those guys/gals either.

Henry Thorne said...

HT: "and overall did more damage than good."

JS: This is a shocking assertion, Henry. You have articulated how you measured the damage, but how exactly have you measured the good?

Yeah, you're probably right. He was amazing for Ultimate in a lot of ways, he must have done more overall good than damage, I'll take this back.

HT: "To be complete here, there were a lot of people who said what you heard, that he didn't cross the line, that he must be in. In the data I got the split was roughly even"

JS: Would you agree that the "pro-KD in the hall of fame" people may be less likely to respond to upa feelers? If so, does this dynamic put any onus on you to look more closely at your data?

I don't think so, many many people did rave about Kenny and the "Call" was sent out to the largest known list of e-mail addresses of Ultimate alumni, over a thousand names, most not UPA members so this data was coming in from everybody who cared, we were overwhelmed with the volume of it.

HT: "[You say that] Failing to credit KD's 'wing man' strength shows my cultural myopia ... KD got 9 of 10 for leadership mainly because of his tenacity as a warrior which was one of the great strengths of KD cited by many folks."

JS: I did not explain this position very well. I think that ultimate is a sub-culture wherein displaying the type of aggression that intimidates opponents tends to get conflated with being a bad person. The two often do go together, but they are not exactly the same.

I doubt that many intimidating players will score highly on the sportsmanship section, so the deck is stacked. (See Jim Ingebretson of Flying Circus and L.A. Iguana.) This is why this issue is bigger than just Dobyns. None of us have to like the fact that some player intimidated us in the past, but we don't necessarily have a lesson to teach those guys/gals either.

Yeah, our HoF refinement committee was really worried about this. Stork, the author of the SotG clause in the rules thought that intimidation was an important part of sports, he described that Guts wouldn't exist without it. So exactly where the line is crossed is very complex to dissect and I can't say we figured it out, but I do know many people Kenny played with and against thought he did cross that line and pretty egregiously.

Dexter said...

can anyone confirm whether KD used steroids?

Corey said...

Jacob -- I heart you so much. You are the real #12.

AJ -- I think there was a crack somewhere way at the top on the Condors being cheaters? Something about whitewashing '00 and '01? Observers went our way more than 50% of the time in our 2 UPA finals, so I'm sure what you meant to say was "it was great that you guys could overcome other people trying to cheat and you still won fair and square."

Henry -- I got that email about KD and I certainly responded to the UPA (I said put in Pat and KD together). And like I said, I missed the '80s and early '90s KD. But all I ever saw him do from '93 on was run the local league, volunteer for the UPA, play with teams "below" his stature to help grow the game (my team in '96), and give the fledgling co-ed division legitimacy playing in that series in only its 2nd season, without if I can recall, anyone claiming the Llama won because KD was cheating. If someone can atone for past sins, I think KD paid more dues than most and should have gone in on his first ballot.

Anonymous said...

There is no way anyone could claim Kenny cheated in the '99 coed finals as he only played 4-5 points and left the game with a knee injury. He did proceed to drink beer on the sidelines and encourage his teammates to play with heart and quit sucking.

All in all, Corey is correct. KD has made amends through his actions and should be in the Hall.

Al Paca #99

parinella said...

Ok, here's another redirect: If a player is docked for spirit for while he was at his peak, how much can he make amends? Several guys who had attitude problems later did a lot to give back. Too little too late? Should it matter if you apologize after a game for making a horrible call?

Corey said...

I would like to clarify that I don’t think KD did any of the things I mentioned above in order to make amends for his perceived “sins” against spirit. He did them because those things needed to be done and he was the best person to do them. Say what you want about Kenny, and yes he’s arrogant (not an attractive trait, doesn’t help people’s notions of KD), but I’d be arrogant too if I was that smart and hard working and dedicated to everything I do. Me? I live by the 90/10 rule, which is 90% of the time just showing up is enough and success comes from recognizing the 10% of the time when you need to give extra effort. But Kenny and the few like him give 100% to everything they do 100% of the time. It’s an impossible pace for most people to live at, but that’s why he argued every call ferociously, laid out every time like they were cutting his legs off tomorrow, and never once said “this point doesn’t matter, let’s just let them have this goal.” It’s not a lifestyle that always makes friends or wins fans or gets you spirit points. But it’s honest and despite what others say, I can’t fathom a world where Kenny deserved a 1 out of 10 in sportsmanship.

Anonymous said...

seems like what it all boils down to is that guys like henry and jim (even though jim "implies" he may have givin ken the nod had he a hof vote) still hold some kind of personal grudge against him.

parinella said...

To borrow a phrase, Toad...
BZZZT! WRONG!

Henry Thorne said...

Jim,
I have a really hard time accepting the notion that being a really good sport later makes up for being a really bad sport before. It was at their peek that they set the tone, dominated, affected lots and lots of other people, and the direction of the sport, what they did later is unlikely to have had anywhere near the same impact.

With that said there is a model for this in society. People are given community service as a means of correcting a wrong. I'm not sure how applicable that model is to a Hall of Fame selection though because the Hall is awarding the person for their peek achievement(s) which puts the main spotlight on what they did at that peak.

I'm not sure how much of an answer that is. This is something that should get a lot more debate. I'm just opening with that reaction. The voters have a whole lot of information about the candidates and I'm sure many things are in their minds as they cast their votes. There hasn't been any formalization of how much weight should go to what. My spreadsheet is probably the first attempt to work through something structured and I did that because the KD issue was so difficult and I felt I owed Kenny something more organized than a rambling paragraph in my notes somewhere trying to explain my vote. I hope KD himself will comment at some point. I think we should know and incorporate his reactions and thoughts about this. He's a brilliant guy, we're all on the same team in this sport. He should get the same benefit to argue the call here that he got on the field then.

Henry

Dexter said...

i don't think it makes sense to give HOF candidates a 'do over'. some people just have more character than others ... they demonstrate it in lots of little choices and interactions. think about it: is there anyone who plays ultimate who does not know how to 'dial it down' when they're playing summmer league or co-ed with high schoolers or whatever. you don't make calls. you don't cheat. you don't hack. you don't intimidate. etc etc. you make those little choices in your head for multiple little interactions on the field. so now, switch to considering elite competition. you have the same choices: do i hack, do i try to intimidate etc etc ... and some people CHOOSE to do those things and other people CHOOSE not to. they may lose points and championships because they do, but their character shows up and they don't let themselves slip down that slope. so the big question is: which kind of people do we want in our HOF as examples of the best in our sport? i think the choices (and resulting actions) of what players do during the heat of battle, during the big games, during their peak years are what most define a player ... and are the key factors into a decision weighing their candidacy versus other top players. you just can't 'take it back' years later what you did when you had your time on the big stage.

Corey said...

Ugh, again, I could not disagree more. The last thing I'd want to read is Kenny reaching out on the comments page of one of his arch rivals, trying to justify to his long-time critics why he belongs in the Hall.

What KD has done speaks for itself. Some say that is precisely what should keep him out. Others would say that’s why he belongs. But there’s nothing more pathetic than hearing Pete Rose bitch and moan about why he should be in the Hall, and aside from what Ken has written on his own blog, I highly doubt he’ll be on here arguing with people about the same old crap he’s been hearing for 30 years.

jacob said...

"you don't make calls. you don't cheat. you don't hack. you don't intimidate."

Dexter, can you please explain why you include intimidating opponents along with cheating, hacking, and making (presumably bad) calls?

By the way, I don't think too many players currently in the hall of fame "dialed down" their attitude in big games.

Dexter said...

Jacob: i think it's obvious that cheating, hacking, intimidating, and making bad calls are all poor sportsmanship ... and all display a lack of respect for opponents


and 'dialing down' is not about dialing down attitude. dialing down is about not cheating, not hacking, not intimidating, not making bad calls. those are ACTIONS that are dialed down, not attitude.

Anonymous said...

i think everybody is missing one very important point......which is, we are talking about a hall of FAME here. get it?!?!?!, F A M E. its not a hall of integrity, or even a hall of highly intense, but very spirited, play. Its a hall of "FAME". I dare ANYBODY to name ONE PLAYER in which the upa used more of his or her image of in order to create a certian amount of fame (or bring attention to in a positive light). Now all one really has to do is go back to all the old upa mags and count up how many times the upa (which is the same org thats IN CONTROL OF this so called hof) used kens image as a way to feature and highlight the sport at the higest possible level. And surley the self-rightious upa would NEVER glorify someone that was THAT bad, right? Wouldnt that be somewhat hypocritical of them if they did (since they are so spirit centric)? It HAS TO BE the most used image by the upa BY FAR, no? And i never remember one of those photos that had a caption (actually the upa JUST discovered captions, i think......but you know what i'm saying) that showed ken in a negitive light. shit, i remember when the mag was 11" x 17" black and white news print and there was an image of ken the enveloped THE WHOLE FRONT COVER. Another photo of him i remember was a colision in which half of one of his ears got ripped off(fcu). Hows that for a show of "spirit"? And oddly enough theres a photo of pat king, WHO DID GET THE HOF NOD, aggressivly spiking a disc on a defensless opponent(even if he was play acting). So theres really NO argument that ANYONE can come up with that wouldnt prove ken to be THE most famous ultimate player of ALL TIMES......and since the upa never took it upon themselves to critisize him or even point out his "unspiritedness" (on the contrary, they flourished his image EVERY CHANCE THE GOT) I would think it quite unfair for "some people" to take this opportunity, 20 some oddd years latter, to make attempts to punish him or put him in his place......ESPECIALLY WHEN THE THINGS HE IS BEING CHARGED WITH HAS NUTIN TO DO WITH FAME (as per their own ethos).

Seems to me like the damage is done and it might even be a little doubtful that ken would even accept the honor at this point (especially in light of the "spirit zealot" attitude that henry is revealing). so the ONLY appropriate thing to do now is change the name of the hall.....from one thats "of fame" to whatever spirity standard henry and his pals are using. How about the Hall of Spirit??????? that seems fitting.

also henry, KNOW THIS......not all of us are on the "same team" as you suggest. YOU are obviously on the ultimate, "nerdy spirit" team where as ken and his supporters are on the ultimate, "real sport" team. Dont think we all look at this sport the same AT ALL......ESPECIALLY as a upa administrator that is SUPPOSED TO represent ALL ITS MEMBERS equally. You aint foolin no one henry.......no one but yourself, that is!

Dexter said...

whoever left that last clueless comment ought to go self-educate a bit before ranting. go check out the UPA website and see if the HOF description talks about fame at all. like every other sport's hall of fame, the goal is to recognized and honor great players who also have some integrity, so they're deemed worthy for other people to look up to. no other sport labels their institution a hall of integrity -- they just use the common term of hall of fame, but that doesn't mean that the UPA or any other sport counts media images in evaluating who they want to honor. that's just dumb.

ulticritic said...

dexter, i will go check the upa web site. and when i do i'm sure i'll find lots of "spirity propaganda". so my question is, why would the same organization that propagating the "spirity" stuff, and using "spirity" standards, also exessively use KD's image to promote their sport.

as per "every other sports hof", hasnt exhibit A, ty cobb, already been overused as an example/analogy of how sports SHOULD AND DO honor their "famous" (spirity shit aside).

as per "counting media images"......when those said "images" are CONTROLED by the upa organization themselves and used in a way to positively promote the sport then i'd say its a pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty damn good show of approval. I mean, wouldnt the upa take every opporunity availiable to them to down play kens fame if they thought it was hurting the sport....or putting forth the wrong "image".

you gotta come with better shit that this dexter.

Dexter said...

so is 'ulticritic' the same as 'Toad' and also sometimes 'anonymous' ??

if that's right, then it looks like you've already got a reputation for being some sort of blog troll or something

and it's probably not worth any sort of point by point puncturing of your flawed logic

parinella said...

Toad/ulticritic/anonymous/guy who usually misspells a lot of things,
This is the first time in your life that you ever accused the UPA of promoting anything. Ken's picture would have been in the newsletter because things happened around him, not because the UPA was glorifying him or attempting to bask in his glory. No hypocrisy on this issue. Next.

parinella said...

jacob, from about 20 comments ago, sorry, I didn't see that comment.

Me: "No, it's cool, that NYNY was a good little outfit. As long as when you back it up you do so without resorting to name-calling."

You: Are you referring to NYNY engaging in name-calling?

Me: No, I'm referring to anonymous who resorts to ad hominem attacks.
---
Me: "Even 'spirit zealots' would think that a spirit star would make a mockery of things."

You: Like giving a kid in second grade a smiley-face on their test paper? I see your point, but I'm not sure how spirit (unrelated to cheating) can be a major consideration without there being some level of mockery involved in the hall of fame selection process. It's more subjective to measure than playing ability and "rewarding" it (when it really should be its own reward) invariably amounts to something of a pat on the head for good behavior.
Me: "spirit" or sportsmanship or integrity or whatever you want to call it is part of the person's package. Yes, it is more subjective, and it should be less important than how good of a defender the player was. And in most cases, I'd think you could ignore it. To get a pat on the head (or a slap on the wrist), I think you'd have to go way beyond "good behavior" (or "bad") so that when they talked about your playing career, the discussion would be incomplete if it wasn't mentioned.
---

Me: "I think what is being discussed here when we talk about 'spirit' is actually part of 'on-field accomplishments.'"

You: As in "being a jerk on the field will necessarily detract from one's on-field accomplishments", or as in: "if you know how to be a particular kind of jerk, you may be able to accomplish more on the ultimate field", or both?

Me: About 90% of the latter. The first will show up more subtly in that you'll subconsciously form a more negative opinion of the player's ability because he was a jerk.
--
Me: "Dickishness is relevant if it affects the game, and only to that extent, imo."

You: OK, so what about if a player is not a cheater but intimidates opponents by being mean and aggressive, which in turn effects the game? This is relevant by your standards, but how if at all is it relevant specifically to hall of fame admission?

Me: That's a good question. I don't think much of players who feel a need to get in opponents' faces because that means they think they aren't good enough to get it done with their skills. I understand others don't feel the same way, and there is definitely something to be said for being able to rise above an opponent's intimidation tactics. How this is relevant to hall admission is through some sort of weighted average of everyone involved in the voting process, including the peer reviewers.

parinella said...

Corey, good point, kd should not comment here. My bringing him up is as much about the process as it is about Ken. I think Henry cast an incorrect vote, but he can justify it, so it's just a difference of opinion. The big issue is that spirit/sportsmanship/integrity are ingrained in the culture, and there needs to be a public discussion on how relevant it is to HOF election. This discussion wasn't happening anywhere else, so I brought it up, twice, and thank you all for discussing.

Henry Thorne said...

So Jim, if my vote was incorrect then my logic has to be flawed. It could be flawed in each of these areas:
1. 10% for sportsmanship is to high
2. KD getting 1/10 for sportsmanship is too low
3. KD didn't get enough credit for the other skill areas
4. There are skill areas or perhaps intangibles that aren't on my list.

Which do you think it is? Or did I miss #5??

On KD commenting. I still think it's right that he should get the chance to "contest" my "call" should he choose to. I might learn something. He might learn something.

Henry

ulticritic said...

yes, you missed #5.....ALL OF THE ABOVE.

parinella said...

Henry, your logic doesn't have to be flawed. If your favorite movie was different from my favorite movie, that doesn't mean that you're wrong, you just have different weights to each aspect. (then again, if you prefer "The Jerk 2" to "The Jerk" or "Dumber and Dumberer" to "Dumb and Dumber", then you ARE wrong).

I think it could be some combination of #1 and #3 (they are actually related, as is #2). It's impossible to answer without knowing what an 11 out of 20 on the other skills would correlate to. It should be that two players who are otherwise identical, but one of them scoring 11/20 on throwing and 8/10 on spirit, the other scoring 18/20 on throwing and 1/10 on spirit, would be equally good Hall candidates. (And this also raises questions like "if someone is 20/20, the absolute best ever at that skill, should he get bonus points?" and "throwing is more important for a handler, shouldn't it be more important for handlers?"

jacob said...

I suggest that the upa do away with the present scoring system and simply ask hall of fame committee members to vote "yes" or "no" on given candidates.

Quantification has its place in sports; like total football yardage, batting average, timing of running events, etc. However, we kid ourselves into believing we can truly measure the more intangible details of special individual accomplishments sometimes when we score them numerically.

The present upa hof scoring system creates a bit of an illusion of objectivity. I think it's OK to be upfront about there being a certain degree of subjectivity in this process.

Corey said...

henry, here's something i have not seen mentioned. according to most, pat was just as much a leader -- both in skills and in the huddle -- as Kenny. why is he in then? does he have more sportmanship b/c he played a dick cheney-like behind the scenes roll? why wasn't he deemed responsible for the actions of the others on his team, but kenny was?

from all i've heard, were they not pretty much two peas in a pod? this is what i don't understand about all this. if kenny is not fit for the HoF, why is Pat?

jacob said...

Corey, it's like Jim Henson winning an Emmy instead of Kermit the Frog.

Anonymous said...

PK vs KD. What must the HOF voters have been thinking about when comparing those two? Skills ? Leadership ? Degree of assholeness ? Recommendations from other already elected members of the HOF ? Blog posts from someone who calls themselve Stool ? What did they use and how ? Henry, it's a black box to us.

ulticritic said...

jacob, it seems what henry did was to create a scoring system to try and justify his decision and basically fabricated caticgories and scores to back it up. actually it donset seem that way.....IT IS THAT WAY......obviously. what i dont get the most about this whole thing is that herny has pretty much said that he plans on voting kd in on the next go around.

Kyle Weisbrod said...

I think there are very few who believe that KD shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I started playing towards the end of his run with NYNY but he was an idol for me and all of my HS teammates. We watched the 1991 WFDF Club Worlds video (in Toronto) over and over as we learned. I'd think that video deserves some small amount of credit for how good Paideia ended up being and for all of the players that came out of that program. And the play that we watched over and over was the one where KD went up and over two clearly taller defenders to rip down a goal. He celebrated while the two defenders collapsed on the ground.

The question is whether he deserves the honor of being voted in on his first year of eligibility. Enough HoF voters (based on information from KD's contemporaries) think not. Fine. I didn't compete against him so can't judge how awful his spirit is. I think it's fair to hold him out for a year or two to make the point that his actions/behavior crossed the line - basically to censure him. But there is simply no way his spirit was so bad (unless he literally cheated to win most of the championships) that the best player on the best team of his generation should not be in the Hall. To not have him there makes a mockery of the Hall of Fame. I think he should make it in on next year's ballot.

ulticritic said...

jim, ive ALWAYS accused the upa of promoting(propagating) MANY things......from exessive spirity shit to NOT treating ultimate like a real sport. Point is, they cant have it both ways. They(you....sz's....upa.....youre all the same to me), on the one hand, glorify HIM (that wasnt a FULL FRONT PAGE PHOTO of what was happening "around him"......it was a FULL FRONT PAGE PHOTO of HIM....with artms raised in all his unspirited glory) yet on the other hand loath him. dont kid yourself on this issue, there is DEFINITE HYPOCRASY. and again......just count up the photos in old upa mags. I'd say that MJ HAD to be the most photographed b-ball player of all time.....so isnt just logical to think that FAME comes, hand in hand, along with that type of extreem "exposure". And to me the deal sealer is that the upa HAD TO approve of those photos being used in that way.....to glorify both the sport and the featured player (which in this case was ken......not pat......but ken).

ulticritic said...

but kyle.....why hold honoring him in the hof back a couple years unless simmilar attention/exposuer of him wasnt also "held back". there was no talk or recorded writings of "censureing" him back in the day while he was on his supposed unspirited rampage......so why punish him now, 20 years later.

What kind of a message is the upa trying to send? that they are too scared to address, confront and tackel the issue while its in "bud" stage for the sake of sotg and that aspect of the sport? I was around back then and the style of play just kinda reflected the spirit of that time. the eighties were agro. Ken wasnt accused of inventing uglimate....and the guy that coined that phrase wasnt the best model for spirit himself(examples listed previously). To me its just an obvious last dich effort to flourish that spirit zealot self rightious, wholeyer than thow trip you fools are on. AND NUTHIN ELSE. yall are sad.

it also kills me how you upa loyalists come here and start your argument actually supporting kens hall intuction but then ya end it with the notion that "maybe he should be punished by getting passed over". Make up your mind whos side youre on. also, didnt henry CLEARLY say he wanst denying ken a vote as a way of "punishing" him. I guess its just too bad that, LIKE SOOOOOO MANY OTHER THINGS WITH THIS SPORT, the "very few that believe" this that or the other are the ones that have the final say.

Henry Thorne said...

Jacob,
There is no UPA scoring system. I am the UPA rep to the Hall of Fame and I created the scoring system I described and used it for my vote, the only vote that used it. I am sharing it here to get feedback.

Corey, on Pat...
KD had nine times as many negatives as Pat in the peer review. More than half (55%) of KD's peers checked the "his spirit should significantly detract from his qualifications" box. Next worst was 20%.

Kyle,
I watched Kenny make that leap, it was amazing. I'd just won with the Seven Sages in the Masters division. But answering your question, did he cheat to win championships? There are players who have told me he did. Finals of Nationals. They could be wrong, but I'm just telling you, it isn't that we're making this up, there is a real problem here, either those players who claim that will feel that we've completely dropped sportsmanship as an important criteria or we'll have the Toad's yelling and screaming. I've sided with the former thus far because they've provided rational and credible information supporting their view.

The jury is still out though. That both you and Jim here are saying my vote was wrong is pretty powerful though. I'm sharing more of the data here to get your reaction.
Henry

Kyle Weisbrod said...

Henry,

KD was the best player and leader on a team that won 5 consecutive championships and 6 overall championships.

If he's not in the Hall of Fame there are only two choices:

1. The Hall of Fame is not legitimate
2. KD's championships are not legitimate (basically he/they cheated to win them)

Those keeping KD out need to be upfront about why they aren't giving him a vote. It sounds like you based your vote on what other people said happened. I want to know all of the information you know. In what games did KD cheat? How? Did the cheating impact the outcome of the game (e.g. if he contested one obvious foul in a game that his team won 19-11 that's certainly less egregious than intentionally fouling 5 times and contesting each foul in a 19-18 win).

I get that KD wasn't super popular due to his attitude. But I'd hate for a great (the greatest?) player to not get in the Hall because one well-respected player makes a claim that he cheated to win one game. I'd just need a lot more information than that to vote against him.

Toad: you are truly a dumbass. You make the "UPA" out to be some kind of unchanging monolith. The organization is not run by the same people now as it was 20 years ago. Moreover most or all of HOF voters aren't people that made any decisions about what to promote back in 1990 or which pictures to use in the magazine. That you can not see this further calls your judgment on everything in to question.

Henry Thorne said...

Like a public trial Kyle?

Zero chance of success.
We wouldn't have any takers. I'm worried KD may withdraw his application over this blog discussion alone. Put yourself in his shoes. F us right?

Instead there was an extremely arduous private discussion about 100 messages long amongst a group of Hall of Famers and workers who did a ton of work to get as much data, and fair data, as possible to allow everyone to reach as informed of a decision as possible. And the decision most voters reached was one they knew would be extremely unpopular. Even with the very reasonable majority. I for one went into the process this year assuming KD was a shoe in. It was brutal to reach the opposite conclusion.

Henry

ulticritic said...

but kyle....the upa IS an unchanging monolith. It may not be being run by the same people but it sure is being run by the same "type" of people. Spitit zealots (like yourself), plain and simple. I'd also say that ALL the hof voters were probably persuasive enough/had enough clout to where they could voice the same opinions back then that they are now (via hof votes and private blogs and such) concerning their displeasure in how ken may have carried himself. They obviously saw ken being glorified in upa mag after upa mag. Surly they MUST nave thought he was a bad representative of what the sport was "supposed to be about", yet none of em spoke up. and with the org being a "players" association, surly they had every opportunity to do so. I mean, what does that say about someone that hasnt got the balls to confron ken face to face and express that sentiment then and there but rather do it 20 years later in this fashion. tells me theyre a puss.

ulticritic said...

Is there any way we can find out who all the hof voters are and how they casted their votes? Of course, just knowing who they are (where they are from, what teams they played on) may explain this obvious bias that some people obviously have against ken. Now if these are primarily upa related people (past and present) then we know right off the bat that there is a built in spirit zealot bias/influance.

Kyle Weisbrod said...

Henry: I can't imagine that KD is thin skinned enough to care about what is discussed on this blog. But let's be clear, considering his accomplishments, the HoF committee has already called his character into question by not voting him into the Hall. Presenting the actual incidents/behavior that led to this judgment call only helps to make the committee's decision understandable by those of us who didn't witness these incidents/behavior.

Toad: Really? If Mark McGwire doesn't ever make the baseball hall of fame is the MLB hypocrites for promoting him?

Henry Thorne said...

Kyle,
If we present the actual incidents then shouldn't KD be given the chance to "contest" their "calls?" I think so, which gets you to the public trial.

And would the people make those "calls" on him if they were to be publicized with their names attached? No. Why should they take the public hit? They were allowed to have their names withheld from the voters. The Call to the Community went out, responses came in, the responses had to include where you played, at what level, and what overlap did you have with the nominee. An administrator checked that information, removed it if it didn't match up, then removed the name if requested. It was still possible in some cases to guess who was making the comment and that made players very nervous that the information might get passed around and they'd lose life long friendships over it. If instead, they were not only not allowed to be anonymous to the voters but they were also going to be publicized with their names attached, then we would be forcing them to essentially be whistle blowers and the number of people willing to step forward and give data would drop a lot. Why should they be the ones to take the hit, they care more about their friendships than whether KD gets into the Hall.
Henry

ulticritic said...

kyle.....if mlb previously knew about MM's steriod use in the same way the upa/hof voters knew about kens bad sportsmanship (which i'm pretty sure they did) then YES, mlb would be hypocrates......WHICH THEY ARE (as most critics say mlb DID know.......there were just too many benjamins rolling in to confront it). so thanks for providing such a crystal clear analogy. but just to be clear, i dont think MM should EVER get into the hall for the kind of cheating he did (nor any other known users). also, youde be better off comping ken to someone like ty cob, who was a known "hard core"(maybe even a little dirty) player as i dont think its even possible to cheat in ultimate on the same level as MM did in baseball.....nor would it produce the same results(stats and money).

Also, ken started his own thread about this whole shabockle so i'm not sure if you have a proper read on where ken sits or how thin his skin is. I personally think that he's got enough peole sticking up for him where he dosent even really HAVE TO chime in.

Also, henry is obviously digging himself deper and deeper with every word he types. Love to see what would happen if those guys were to cross paths somwhere. prefeably in a dark ally.

ulticritic said...

Henry......you are such a fuckin sapp. how did i ever think you even had a little coolness to ya?

first off, ken can come and contest yalls bullshit ANYTIME HE WANTS......aint no one stoppin him (In fact, HE ALREADY DID.....just check his blog). Dosent seem he really has to though as he has plenty of supporters to do it for him. and whos to say ken hasent already chimed in as an "anonymous".

second, if people are gonna put there pussyness in front of doing what they feel is right for the sport then they have no bussiness being hof voters. and how is sticking up for sotg taking a public hit?

then you say "an administrator" oversaw the process.......well, WHAT ADMINISTRATOR WAS THAT........A ZEALOUS AND SPIRITED ONE I'D BET!!!!! i also dont get this "losing friendship" angle you are playing here. Why would anyone that though ken was a cheater and a dick be concerned that he be their friend? that makes no sense.......unless of course that person was a complete and total pussy.

HERES ONE QUESTION FOR YA HENRY.....did you, while ken was in his "1 out of 10 rating unsportsman stage", EVER make ANY attempts to voice your opinions on the matter. I mean were you really that ok with how he was treating this sport/sotg that you couldnt even muster up ANY KIND OF loyalty or support for sotg and how the sport was SUPPOSED TO BE BEING PLAYED and publicly critisize him for it THEN??????? i didnt think so. So can ya see why you and your spirit pals are being charged with making such a puss move by doing it now?

Henry Thorne said...

The game has really deteriorated here.

If I contest all of your incorrect calls Toad, then I end up in an endless call fest. If I don't contest them, then some people might actually believe some of the crap you're throwing.

So I'm gonna leave the field, this game isn't worth playing. And that's really a shame IMO because some great discussion has happened here and Phil on the new thread has just really nailed it and I really wanted to engage.

If anyone's interested in continuing to share their views and thoughts on this, I'm all ears, you voted me in, I will listen. henry dot thorne at upa dot org.

And please realize, anything I've said here is strictly my point of view, it does not represent the view of the UPA or the other Hall of Fame voters. I will remain a UPA board member for nearly two years and this year I am the Hall of Fame rep and most likely will be next year as well, then I'm term limited out.
Henry

Dexter said...

ulti-idiot, your troll work is done here -- you've taken a pretty interesting discussion down to the lowest lowest common denominator. unfortunately it's inherent in a structure like this blog forum that you are not prevented from having this kind of negative/downward impact. down/destroy is easy while up/build is really hard. Seems to me that people like Henry have and continue to volunteer a ton of time & effort to the sport, and most recently with this well intentioned attempt to share an insider's perspective with whoever out there in the ultimate community is curious about the HOF workings. I don't know what it is that motivates trolls (insecurity, lack of anyone listening to them in the real world, a mini organ that makes them angry at all normal, regular people ... who knows), but it's too bad Henry feels like he has to pack up and leave.

ulticritic said...

so henry is waddlin home with his tail beween his legs to go lick his wounds. too bad some of his spirit pal fellow hof voters didnt come along and have his back.....oh well, i guess they arent all that worried about keeping henry as a friend. also, very typical of ANY upa administrator.....bailin out when the questions start getting tough. shit henry, outa respect for ken and his supporters, at least answer that one last question i asked ya about confronting ken personally or even puplically via the upa mag about his piss poor level of sportsmanship and its detrimental effects it had on sotg and the sport. (am i out of line for assuming a 1 out of 10 rating would be classified as "piss poor"?)

ulticritic said...

dexter......i'm the one that brought new life back to this thread so i'll fuckin kill it to if i want (or if jim lets me......which, surprisingly he is). but i cant argue with you.....the brutal truth is often the lowest common denominator. The truth about henry and his spirt pals demonds are ugly....no doubt about it......BUT THEY MUST BE EXPOSED!!!!! whats that saying about "the truth" again????? so dont blame henry bein yellow on me......seems he just dont want to be "set free". just like he dont want the sport of ultimate itself to be set free. uhmmmmmmmm?

parinella said...

For anyone too lazy to go to the upa HoF page (www.upa.org/hof), the eligible voters for this past election were the 23 members of the HoF plus three non-HoF members of the Vetting Subcommittee. The HoF selection process is run almost autonomously from "the UPA". Henry is the only link between "the UPA" and the HoF with respect to who goes into the Hall, acting as the Board liaison. He has 1/26 of the vote (though I'm not sure all the voters actually voted).

John Conway said...

I was alerted to this discussion by one of the 'young guys' that joined us ( Windy City) near the end of our time. He asked how I might comment.

I happen to be a peer voter and put KD at or near the top of my list. I have had many issues with the HOF and some of these types of things that I have moved way on.

I played against KD a lot of times, 10-15x, maybe more. Awesome player; awesome intensity; bad ass. He got beat on by everyone and dominated. NY ran off a bunch of titles. I always found KD to be a cool dude, fair player. I never saw him be anything but against us. You had to be fully strapped to play him and his intensity was full. I'm a city guy, his tome was normal for my hood.

Interesting that we have no stats, video, etc to substantiate anything- so folks are remembered in bizarre ways. We do not recall those that played both ways, came up w/ D's, handled more touches than most, or played more points because they were in the best shape in the game but, we remember the specifics of who called whom a whatever? My team and teammates were, and continue to be, marginalized b/c of this kind of stuff.

KD is a first ballot, no questions, HOF'R. There are about 10-20 from my years in the nat'l / open( '82-93) game that are no question HOF'rs. The lack of recognition for the greatest players of that era( all I can speak to) diminishes the stature of those in. Is it so hard to recognize those that ran the show???

ulticritic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Toast said...

No!

ulticritic said...

WHY?!?!?

parinella said...

Because I can, and it's not too late for this to stay productive

ulticritic said...

that "why" was for toast. as for your thread.....seems its run its course.....nuthin much more to say, no?

Knappy said...

"insecurity, lack of anyone listening to them in the real world, a mini organ that makes them angry at all normal, regular people"

In this case, all of the above apply. Toad, you ruin every thread you touch with your uninformed, banal babble.

If only we could figure out who the HOF voters were! It would take a regular Bill Gates to solve that conundrum:
http://tinyurl.com/yaaz9bq

Knappy said...

I'll add: I agree that there is no compelling evidence stated here by Henry to keep a player of KD's caliber out of the HOF. It's a shame that peers can make anonymous/private statements about a longtime opponent & that player has no chance to refute or confirm them. If a player feels strongly that another cheated in such a way that they should be kept out of the hall, then they ought to have the courage of those convictions & let those comments be passed along to other informed parties (in this case, if not KD himself, his team mates or sponsors for the HOF). I think Kyle is right when he states: "Those keeping KD out need to be upfront about why they aren't giving him a vote. It sounds like you based your vote on what other people said happened. I want to know all of the information you know." Henry, thanks for the insight you provided here. It is valued & appreciated. I have no personal insight into KD's worthiness of being inducted into the HOF, but I do feel that this thread has proved to me that the process needs review.

Anonymous said...

KD not getting into HOF on 1st vote is a joke. I've known KD since 1987 or so when he coach against us. I was then drafted in part to try to cover him and the likes of Pat King. KD was the most dominant player on the most fearsome team of the time.

Although NYNY was intense and some players commonly crossed the line, KD was not the main cuplprit. He wasn't even in the top 5 on NYNY who anyone would say violated SOTG with abandon. Maybe not top 10. I saw some pretty crazy things, some things that crossed the line, and often ran right along it, but if you have a HOF vote and you didn't vote for KD, you didn't play against him enough to have a clue about his dominance and respect for teh game. Sorry, you just don't get it.

I hated playing against him. Pure hate. But as a player, there were few like him. Ask his contemporaries. Ask those who played against him in semis and finals. Ask those who tried to cover him. Ask those who he covered. He was the most feared player of the time bc he was the most dominant player of the time.

The top players of today don't come close to having the pure dominance of KD.

I played against NYNY in big games for enough years to know that as a team they were horrible to play against; the stall was 6 seconds, they fouled on the mark on purpose, they contested calls, they garbbed shirts, they tried to intimadate the opponents best players, etc etc etc. They crossed the line just about every game. Playing NYNY was like going to getting in a street fight.

But KD was so good for so long that a HOF without KD is a HOF that lacks respect for the game.

I am, Dick

(and F-U Wicks, this is your fault)

ulticritic said...

knappy, how could i have ruined this thread when i'm the one thwet brought it back to life (by antaganizing henry......and generating further debate). Me think you think i ruin threads because i simply pull back all the layers of bullshit and expose the core truth of the matter (as they say "the truth hurts".......or in your case, it ruins)

and although i totally agree with anonymous, i find it rather strange that he is promoting the critics be more transparant, yet doing it under an anonymouns name.

parinella said...

Toad, you kill it when you go over the line and make baseless accusations. You were well-behaved for the first half of this thread.
And the last "anonymous" is a Boston guy and he signed his name.

ulticritic said...

well let me say that me "going over the line" is what brought your thread back to life......so doing such MUST have its benefits too, no? But i would like for you to explain to evereybody HOW and WHERE i "went over the line" (BE SPECIFIC NOW.....other wise YOU are the one making a baseless accusation). And what line are you talking about? surley we ALL have owr own "line", right? Obviously i crossed YOUR line(that dosent seem hard)....but did i cross jacobs line, windy cities line or ananymouses line? lets see if THEY agree with you. If they dont chime in in support of this accusation then its obvious i didnt cross THEIR lines. And please reference any AND ALL of my "baseless accusations". Since this whole thing is essentially about spirit surley my contention of an overt overemphisis on spirit isnt basless. Maybe you are refering to ken TREMENDOUS EXPOSURE in upa mags. the wierd thing to me is that there was relitively the same stuff happening "around ken" that was happening "around YOU", yet you didnt get a fraction of the publicity/FAME (photos or ink) that ken got......moons either. and both yall are probably classified as upa spirit types to most. As for my behavior, maybe i do get a little colorful in expressing myself......bfd. surley weve ALL encountered MUCH MORE enthusiasm and excitablitity and any ole average ult-debate, so whats the big gripe. also, me being insecure is a pretty baseless accusation in itself......so are you gonna repremand knappy for doing the same (while behaving pretty immaturely himself as well) ESPECIALLY WHEN EVERYONE THAT HAS APPEARED ON THIS THREAD (except henry) is in aggrement with me on kens unjustified treatment. as for dick NOT being anonymous.....simply put down a last name as i dont know which "dick" it was, do you?

ulticritic said...

prior to responding to jims "basless accusation" i had a thought.....but didnt want it to get conflated with my reply to jim.

that thought is.......does anyone find it piculuar that much of henrys argument was that he was representing "the sport" or "the culture of the sport" in his snubbing of ken, YET NOT ONE PERSON has chimed in here in support of henrys decision. In fact, even the spirity types (you know who you are) are chiming in IN DEFENSE OF ken. This tells me, plain and simple, that 1, we have the wrong people in charge of voting in the hofers AND/OR 2, that those people that have been granted the privilidge to represent ALL OF US are failing miserably at doing so......or its both.

And whats really funny is that henry elluded to ken bailing on the hall due to this one thread......as opposed to his(henrys) own actions. what a laugh....and what world is that dude living in?

ulticritic said...

jim, you say its not too late for this thread to be "productive". so what exactly were you hoping or anticipating that this discussion would actually "produce"(that it already hasent)?

ulticritic said...

just to put things in perspective.....

those that chimed in that believe ken SHOULD BE in the hall.....
phil
robert
dan
corey
dj
jim
toad
jacob
dan
anonymous
al
kyle
john
knappy
dick

those that chimed in and felt kd SHOUD NOT be in the hall
henry
dexter

now could/SHOULD this little samlpe group count as a staw poll......or any other kind of "poll"? when the evidence is THIS overwheling in relation to such an injustice arent "rants" and "crossing the line" appropriate?

parinella said...

Productive: give and take, multiple voices offering varied perspectives, bringing up new points. All drowned out by a shouter. Yes, you added life, but not after a while. You spend 20 hours complaining, and not one hour researching. Do you even know who the voters are? you have been told that "the UPA" is not a single constant entity and that the hof selection is 95% independent of the UPA, yet it never sinks in and you continue to claim that the UPA is out to get Ken because the UPA couldn't best his team 20 years ago, even though they have elected two of his teammates as Players and one as a Contributor. You claim that "Boston guys" are behind this, but only one is a voter (if by that term you mean "guys who lost to nyny while playing with Boston"; Herrick, Fields, Cohn, Lust and Dunlap also played in Boston but didn't play for Titanic). You are a boor who insults and then claims victory when your opponents no longer feel like slinging mud. Several have chimed in to say that blatant consistent cheaters should not be in the Hall, but you write them off as "spirit zealots", because who else would think that way?
and btw Mr. Lifetime Member, why don't you go back to the newsletter between 1994 and 2009 and see how many pictures of me there are before you make yet another baseless accusation.

ulticritic said...

c'mon jim.....dont make this out to be more intricate than it is. Its a basic sacred vs secular proposition, isnt it? and when you say i "drownd it all out".....you are simply giveing me too much creedance. That, or you are simply being overly exagerating for effect. I mean, its not like my posts are preventing others from chiming in......unless, of course, they simply want to avoid the brutal honest truth.....which i ALWAY bring. THEN AGAIN I'M IN THE SAME CAMP AS MOST OF EM THUS FAR, SO......As for the reaserch, THERES NOTHING TO RESEARCH.....other than who voted, which i quickly looked up after you directed me where to go. How you can say that the upa HAS NOT BEEN a consistantly spirit centric entity is beyond my comprehension though......AND i'd be willing to bet the lot of the voters were at one time upa administrators to one extent or another. And i dont think i remember charging that anyone is disgruntal because the beat them down so effotlessly (besides you anyways), i think they are just uppity pricks like henry that are using THIS opportunity to tell him(although not in words) now what they didnt have the balls to tell him back then. as for the boston contigency.....are you at all aware of how that one bostonite voted? I'M A BOOR?????? YOU are one of the stalest, most white bread mfs ive ever run accross in this sport. and, again, dont blame me for henry "takin his ball and going home". I'm sure if he had his pals backing him hed still be hanging around. Me, on the other hand, i fight my own battles and being outnumbered dosent phase me in the least. So at least i aint no puss. And from what i can remember, even the spirit zealots that chimed in (inclusing yourself) that said blatent cheaters shouldnt be in the hall DIDNT charge ken with BEING a blatent cheater......or were asking for evidence that ken WAS a blatent cheater......cause you know, WHO THE FUCK ISNT? Is steve dugan a blatent cheater???? acording to him he is. IMO, any blatent cheating that happens in this sport should fall directly on the idoot administrators that ENABLED it by producing such and idiotic arbitration system which lets people like steve dugan CHEAT THEIR WAY INTO A WORLDS FINALS. I seriously doubt ken ever pulled out anythin THAT drastic in his day......SO LOOK OUT STEVE DUGAN, and DO expect to pay for that inequity when you time comes up (IF it comes up). as for the photos btween 94 and 00 when boston took over by default, it seems youve already counted them up......so you tell me?

Douglas T Lilley said...

Boy this thread has deteriorated somewhat. I played with him for two seasons and against him probably 6 or 7 times and I never saw him cheat. He may have pushed it pretty close at times but I literally never saw (that I recall) him intentionally violate the rules. I think he should be in.

ulticritic said...

and we can add yet another name to the SHOULD BE IN list. seriously jim, varied perspectives and new points????? either ya think he should be in or ya dont......its really THAT simple. whats NOT "simple"(to understand) is how ken has such overwhelming support here yet not so much with the hof voters. Oh shit, i think i just offered a "new perspective". brownie points for me, eh?

parinella said...

Several of the IN on your list said that if player X is a cheater, he shouldn't be in. Only some said they knew him from playing against him.
Boor is not bore. A boor is a person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement; a douchebag.

ulticritic said...

that whole big long post of rebutals that THIS is what you choose to focus on......you ARE a bore.....and kinda a wus too.

spin it anyway you want jim, it obvious to any thinking person that the vast majority of posts here(including yours, no?) have concluded that ken should be in.

jacob said...

Getting back to this whole thing being bigger than Dobyns:

The questions we have arrived at boil down to:

Assuming first that a player played well enough to earn induction into the hall of fame and second that their conduct makes their being inducted debatable, (1) What criteria does the committee use to resolve this dilemma?; (2) Is this criteria proper?; and (3) To what extent should the committee make public the details of its implementation of this criteria?

As to (1); Henry seems to have laid out here what criteria the upa used in choosing not to induct Dobyns. The testimony of Dobyns' former teammates/opponents regarding his alleged cheating appears to have been the critical reason for not inducting him. It is fair to assume that no amount of high play would counter this damning evidence, so there was no real need to invent or use a "balancing test." However, the "point of no return" regarding the extent of alleged cheating which would bar induction is not clear.

As to (2); I believe, as most ultimate players probably do, that in principal, it is proper to bar from the hall of fame great players who cheated a lot. (John Gerwertz of NYNY will likely be kept out of the hall of fame on this basis, despite playing in 10 upa open nationals finals and winning 6 ... or was it 11 and 7?)

However, when making the decision to refuse induction to great players, the committee must rely on more than just a general guiding principal- there should be some specific guidelines involved. In this particular decision, I can't shake the feeling that cheating; really a subset of bad sotg, was simply conflated with general lack of sotg. Some of the complaints about Dobyns related to cheating, but some simply related to his not being nice. The "not being nice" complaints probably ended up counting towards whatever vague "cheating scale" the committee was using.

As to (3); I believe that the committee should be as public as possible regarding the details of its induction decisions. The hall of fame committee is relatively new and will naturally go through some growing pains. Democratic feedback (ex: induct more than 3 or 4 players per year) may help the committee grow more effective. Good feedback will be facilitated by sharing of information.

ulticritic said...

i thought henry mad it crystaly clear that "the process" HAD TO remain secret so that people could be brutally hionest while, at the same time, not have to be fearful of losing friends. Yea, i know.....what a crock a shit, right?

Anonymous said...

It seems like people are GUESSING about whatever system is used for the HOF voting and that seems unnecessary.
It encourages cretins like Toad (use a dictionary) to purposefully spin things to annoy other people ...
and even when we get well intentioned analytic comments, they're based on limited and incomplete information.
It's not a mystery WHO the voters are (that's listed on the UPA website and they all look like major winners and pillars of the community),
but where can we find something on the UPA website that tells HOW the voting is done ...
not anything confidential like which individuals voted for who or their reasoning, but just HOW the people running this thing do what they do.
I can also see on the UPA website that there is some mention of spirit and leadership blah blah as part of the decision, but there's no detail.
C'mon, Henry, Jim (and it looks like John Conway is a voter too).
Don't reply because Turd is trying to goad a response (he's too almighty a blogger and it's foolish to challenge him when he's wielding his big keyboard weapon of righteousness) ...
but you or someone from the UPA or something could clarify a little about the bigger picture of how things work.
Turd seems to be proposing that the voting is based on grudges and where you played ?? Shithead.
But what about those women voters -- not sure how they'd have any grudges against KD ... hell, what DO they use to make their voting decisions.
Oh, forget it, I've changed my mind -- please don't post back. That would just be educational and nowhere near as fun as conspiracy theories and blog sport for droolers.

parinella said...

In no sport are there detailed rules governing how people are supposed to vote. In all cases, it's basically the collective opinion of the voters on what makes a Hall of Famer. The UPA provides guidance on that question, but it's just guidance. http://upa.org/hof/what_makes This list is based on the Keltner List, an attempt by Bill James to help people be more rigorous in their analysis of baseball candidates.
----
Baseball:
Here is what the baseball HoF site says:
Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
----
Football:
http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/SelectionProcessFAQ.aspx
I can't seem to find anything there that suggests what criteria they use, other than scrutiny of the playing records.
---

jacob said...

"In no sport are there detailed rules governing how people are supposed to vote."

Mr. Parinella, surely you see the irony of using this fact as a basis for not laying out hall of fame induction guidelines for the sport of ultimate.

ulticritic said...

hey anonymous....."purposly spinning things to annoy other people"?????? how about henry etal purposely spinning things to annoy ken and his supporters (the NON spirit zealots)? anrent henry and his pals the ones being the techno weenies here. and if youre gonna talk that much shit about me at least own it. dont hide behind "ananomous".

parinella said...

There _are_ guidelines, which I pointed to. Ultimate has already provided more official guidance than the others, a lot more in some cases.
My point was that no matter how much you quantify it, it is still a matter of judgment. How good was his defense? How important was it to have his defense and offensive combination compared to another? Does it matter that his defense was at that level for only a short time? Etc.

jacob said...

OK

parinella said...

jacob,
Thanks for bringing us back to the topic. Good effort at framing the questions.

On #1, Henry is the only one to apply a numerical scale (and he is interested in constructive feedback on the scale), but the others more subjectively used the feedback. Henry said that even with the 1/10, it was close, so maybe a 3/10 would have been enough for him to vote for Kenny, and perhaps one or two votes would have been enough to get him elected. This makes it very close to the limit of whether to even bother assigning a number and instead, as you say, just make it a threshold and be done with it. I don't think treated this lightly and said so-and-so didn't meet the "spirit threshold", but tried to weigh it.

Or perhaps it can be used to refine the scale. Imagine a player who would be a 3/10, say he made questionable foul calls and was a bit overaggressive on the mark and fouled a lot, though you never got the impression that any particular call was an intentional violation. Should this matter at all? If so, how much better would he have to be than an 8/10 in order to be the better HoF candidate? (I'm using 3 and 8 instead of 1 and 10 because extreme cases seem to change the calculus a little, as there is something extra to being the "best ever" (or "worst ever").)

Anonymous said...

Wow, folks are interested in this topic!
I know a little of Henry, enough to state the following; if KD was from pittsburgh he would be in the HOF! I hope henry works on the attitudes of some of those pitt kids and doesn't just look the other way.

Yaacov said...

Henry, I don't know much about KD, but I think that trying to give highly subjective numerical ratings and then add them up to figure out who the top players of all time are is a bit like trying to justify why you love your partner based on numerical ratings of their physical features, personality, finances and musical tastes, plus an extra 20% for sense of humour. It just doesn't capture what's really important.

I think you'd get more mileage by writing out why you feel that your 1st-5th place choices deserved to have that ranking. There would still be debate, but you wouldn't have to justify a highly arbitrary(both rating and weighting) method of mathematical summary to support your decision.

I'm not saying you'd end up with a different decision, just that you wouldn't have to worry that the method by which you made the decision had become more important to the outcome than the evidence.

john said...

Bill Simmons is an ESPN writer who has a convention he refers to as the VP of Common Sense. This VP is someone that reviews organizational decisions as a guard against over-analysis that leads to some obviously incorrect conclusions. If there was a VP of Common Sense at the UPA that person would undoubtedly object to any decision/system that denied KD from being a first ballot HoF’er.

The facts are simple and incontrovertible: NYNY was the first dynasty of our little sport; KD was the cornerstone of said dynasty. As such, KD is the definitive positive control for any scoring function or algorithm that is used to determine HoF worthiness. If KD doesn’t come up as a sure-fire first ballot HoF inductee, the system is inherently flawed. It’s just common sense.

Alex Pozzy said...

I think it's ridiculous that Kenny isn't in, and definitely makes it hard to take the HOF seriously.

dave said...

I have a personal beef with the hall of fame's of other major sports. I tend to believe that they have devolved into "halls of pretty good". For example, people are really debating whether Fred McGriff should be in the hall?

Thus I tend to believe, probably to a fault, that HOF votes should be unanimous or you don't get in. Make it something really special.

Using this criteria, and basing my judgment on having competed with Ken (my first flushing summer league captain) and against him and teams he coached, I cannot believe this was not a slam dunk. He was the most hyper-competitive person I have ever played with/against, and he raised the game to a level I don't believe it had seen before. I guess sometimes trailblazers are not respected for the change they brought.

On the other hand there are plenty of people I have played with or against that have been egregious cheaters. Ken wasn't someone who would even come to mind for me if forced to compile this list. To say that he swung National Championships with cheating seems like an accusation that cannot stand without significantly more explanation.

I truly hope this is rectified during the next vote. Let's fix it an move on to other votes that will be significantly tougher to determine, such as the one Jacob brings up previously.

flash

bayson22 said...

kenny should be in. there is no question about it. put an asterisk next to his name, footnote the damn allegations and be done with it. this deserves some discussion, but this thread seems a bit much for what should be a no brainer.

perhaps worth considering: was there ever action taken against him by the league regarding his spirit (probation or reprimand)? this whole HoF stuff is new and this idea of setting a precedent, of making an example of dobbins is a bad call. let him in, and add more emphasis on spirit for potential inductees of later years when the league's formal focus (and associated impact) on "spirit points" was more well documented, known, or understood.