Talk:Ultimate frisbee/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ultimate is *distinguished* by its Spirit of the Game???

"Ultimate is distinguished by its Spirit of the Game - the principles of fair play, sportsmanship, and the joy of play." Surely this is the definition of a sport. How is this unique to UF? If no one can explain this, I shall delete it.

• Because it's actually codified in the rules. I don't believe that is the case for most other sports. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, but Frisbee clearly has an advantage by being new. It might set the *rules* out as being different from the rules of other sports, but I don't think it sets the *sport* out as being different. My objection still stands. I'll accept a note that says that the rules are different from the rules of other sports. Damiancorrigan 00:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If this does get changed, I propose we compare and contrast with Fair and Unfair Play, because cricket is another sport associated with sportsmanship, and because they're both comparatively rare rules for games to have. --Sam Pointon United FC 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot 'compare and contrast' frisbee with fair play, as you are not comparing like with like - frisbee is a sport, fair and unfair play is an element of sportsmanship. You can compare frisbee with cricket, or the rules of cricket and frisbee with the notion of fairplay, but not frisbee with fairplay. You are welcome to compare the sportsmanship of frisbee - or even the specific ruling in question - with fairplay, but I don't think anyone is contesting this point: frisbee is perfectly fair in its conduct, my point is that it does not **distinguish** the sport; I do not doubt that frisbee adheres to said values. Damiancorrigan 00:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest an amendment? Something along the lines of: "Ultimate is relatively unique in that it specifically encodes the notion of fair play in its ruling (as does cricket)" Damiancorrigan 00:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have a real problem with relatively unique. :) How about "unusual"? Wikibofh_(talk) 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, as long as the rest of what I mentioned is incorporated. It is a point about the RULES, not the GAME. Damiancorrigan 10:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spirit of the game should be mentioned regardless of reference to it in the rules or not. It is an integral part of the game. The fact that the game is self-refereed makes the spirit of the game very important. Without it a self-refereed game would go to pot. If you have ever played the sport you would understand this - rhyswyn

• also the WFDF rule decription of SOTG should be used.

I think what makes the sport unique then, is its being self refereed, rather than the principles of fair play that are it has codified in the rules for this self refereeing system to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.44.111 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the SOTG is mentioned, isn't it rather stupid that the caption is clearly trash talk? I think the caption should be changed, and to something that is actually informative about what is happening in the picture... -brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.0.48.203 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption was vandalism. I've reverted it to something more neutral. --Megaboz (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is a bit too focussed on american ultimate

• This whole article should be about Ultimate frisbee as a global game, not an article on American ultimate.The current leagues bit certainly needs re-doing/removing and more besides.
• The field of play dimensions need to be ammended, by WFDF rules, endzones are 18m deep, not 23m. If 23m is the UPA size, this could be noted underneath the diagram. WFDF rules should be the default on a article that is about Ultimate Frisbee, this is what is used everwhere except north america as far as I am aware, and are the rules used at world championships.A small section on the differences between UPA and WFDF rules might be appropriate. - rhyswyn

Part of the problem there is that Ultimate is game of recent american origin. Not that the article shouldn't be more global, as it has become a world game, just that's why it's that way. And both UPA and WFDF should probably be included. I don't have any figures, but I'm pretty certain that the UPA is a larger organisation, and older. It might be important to note which were the original dimensions used as the game was codified, and who wrote them. Leppy 01:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate is getting pretty big elsewhere you know, as for the UPA being larger I would guess that more people are members of organisations that follow WFDF rules than are members of the UPA. In any case, the WFDF is an umbrella organisation, including all of the national bodies. At worlds what rules do they use? These are the rules of Ultimate. Although it would be nice if they agreed on a unification of the rules.

While I again still do not have numbers for the WFDF (UPA has ~22,000 members with a yearly budget in excess of $1,000,000 USD), I believe that it is a much larger organisation in terms of membership than is the WFDF-even despite the fact that the WFDF is not primarily an ultimate disc organisation. Also, I'm not sure of the origins of the WFDF, but the International Frisbee Association (founded 1964 in Los Angelos) was the original and only governing body for ultimate until 1979 and sometime around the 7th edition of the rules, when the IFA became the UPA. The WFDF was formed in 1984/5 from the European Flying Disc Federation, which was formed in 1981. also, please register! Leppy 00:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First time posting to Wikipedia but had to stick my foot in here. This article is heavily US-biased - for an article aimed to describe the sport and state of the game worldwide, it does a poor job. First of all, why in the Ultimate Gets Organised section is no mention made of the WFDF (of which the UPA is a member - therefore WFDF is much larger than the UPA)) nor the EFDF not any of the other worldwide federations. Why is no mention made of junior programs in other countries? Or College programs in other countries? Or club championships in other countries? Why is the UPA championships described but not the World Championships? Why is no mention made of which countries ultimate is popularly played in? A large portion of this article should be moved to another page under 'American Ultimate' and the article should be buffed up some details on the rest of the world.

Ultimate has a larger player base in USA and Canada than the rest of the world. Fact. This article is too focussed on USA ultimate. Fact. suggest creating a page for American ultimate and having this article retain its neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisbeelover (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Suzy Sticks or Durango Boot

Someone recently created an article on Suzy Sticks, one of those weird games that disc sport people play. It was recently deleted out of process, which is why it is at deletion review. Currently it redirects to Disc golf. I think that we should have an article for spin-off games associated with Ultimate and other disc sports. Obviously Goaltimate, Disc golf and Ultimate should have separate articles, but there should be a Disc games article for well known games as there is for Scrabble variants. There are many others out there like Hot Box, which probably aren't deserving of their own article, but should be included. This has been cross-posted at Talk:Ultimate (sport), Talk:Disc golf, and Talk:Goaltimate. I would like to know if others tink that there should be a combined article. Please leave comments at User talk:WAvegetarian/Disc games. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suzy Sticks is definitely a distinct game. If DDC gets a separate page, it should as well.

Beach Ultimate merge

This page was created to advertise for the Beach Ultimate Lovers Association. All the images are copyright by an organization and released "to promote their work or product in the media." Guess who owns the copyright. The entire article was a copy and paste off their site. Click here and then find the links under "New to the game?" on the left hand side. It's rather blatant marketing through Wikipedia. There should either be a small section here or a section in Disc games, which is being discussed at User talk:WAvegetarian/Disc games. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, considering the lack of non-copyvio material, I would merge it unless someone jumps out of the woodwork and opposes merging it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vengeful Cynic (talk • contribs) 13:52, April 27, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, merge in Beach Ultimate along with Lame-Ass Hippie Shindig. Djcmackay 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)David, Cambridge Ultimate

Why the rush? A while ago people in this discussion asked for more content. We (the Beach Ultimate Lovers Association) are collecting it, but since we are all volunteers this takes a bit. Was it really so horrible and waste of space to have a separate Beach Ultimate entry in Wikipedia? Whoever is editing this and removed the entry please contact me directly: (email can be found in history, removed to protect from spam)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.188.67 (talk • contribs) 08:35, May 6, 2006

HEY GUYS! Does anyone know what happened to the Beach Ultimate page? Nanoflop 09:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The page was merged into Ultimate (sport), leaving a redirect at the original title. After I removed the copyright violation there really wasn't much left. In fact, the only thing that the article contained more than what was at the main ultimate article was, "Beach Ultimate is played 5-on-5 or 4-on-4 on a beach court and is derived from "regular" Ultimate, which is played on a grass field." You can see the history page here. There was very little unique content and to me seemed to be more promotional than informational. I had unanimous support of all commenters and no one had "jumped out of the woodwork." It can be easily restored as it wasn't deleted. As far as I can see, however, there is only one major difference between BU and regular ultimate: it uses a different size/surface field. Following that, the number of players and stall count is reduced proportionally, which makes more similar rather than distinguishing it as there would be more difference between the two if there were 14 people on a tiny field. The UPA and WFDF have completely separate rule books, regulations on equipment, and play with different sized fields. Should we have separate articles for American Ultimate and World Ultimate? The answer is no, we shouldn't, because they really aren't that different. Also, putting BU in a separate article will get it categorized more closely with the games guts and goaltimate than the more established and recognized sport of ultimate.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 16:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I can argue a different side: Beach Volleyball and Volleyball are 2 separate entries in the wikipedia and are considered different sports. Furthermore, perhaps a sport that has their own World Championships should be considered a unique sport. And if that doesn't convice the censor of the entry... I will stick with my first question: Was it really so horrible and waste of space to have a separate Beach Ultimate entry in Wikipedia? If many people think it is different? (people not technological advanced to be on the Wikipedia but people I talk to almost each day) If there is an official organization that helps promote Beach Ultimate? Should the censor of the (Beach) Ultimate really put his foot down and determine that because he thinks it is not different he is right? Sorry, but to me that is not the spirit of the Wikipedia...Betacyte 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not censored. If you are referring to me, as the merging editor, when you say "censor," then I can't help but start to take offense. 'There was no removal of content, therefor no censorship. If someone goes to Beach Ultimate, they will be redirected to the main ultimate article, which contains all of the information from the BU article. Furthermore, there was a consensus of those who had responded at the time. Finally, anyone can change it back; it's not like I deleted it. As I said before, my reason for merging was that there was hardly any unique content. I'm not sure what you think I was censoring. If you have enough content to make a legitimate stub, then by all means, go ahead. If you use the provided history link and click on one of the time stamps there, you can edit that version. That way, you won't have to retype any of it. Stop attacking me and my motives. It won't get you anywhere. Simply jumping out of the woodwork is enough. Please refer to the welcome message on you talk page with tips on how to proceed.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 17:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what you have achieved is that now when someone who is looking to know more about Beach Ultimate and types "beach ultimate" in the search box on on wikipedia finds himself on the Ultimate (Sport) page and has to dig out the information from the article.

I could start debating whether Ultimate and Beach Ultimate should be considered two sports or two variations of one sport, but it would not be a very exciting discussion. For rugby there are different pages for rugby league, rugby union, rugby sevens, touch rugby, tag rugby, and wheelchair rugby. There is one page Billiards sports, but also separate pages for Eight Ball, Nine Ball, Straight Pool, One Pocket, and Snooker. So I really don't see much harm in having a separate page for beach ultimate even if it contains part of the content already present in the Ultimate article.

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.187.126 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to copyright violations and advertising, you are simply off track. There were no copyright violations and BULA is not selling any product, but promoting and informing the public about Beach Ultimate, just like UPA and WFDF do for "grass" Ultimate.

I would comment about "Lame-Ass Hippie Shindig", but I honestly don't understand what Djcmackay is trying to say. -Nanoflop 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the merge. Beach Ultimate is exactly the same sport as Ultimate, but on a different surface with smaller teams. Having played indoor, outdoor, and beach tournaments, there doesn't appear to be enough differences/unique content to warrant a seperate article. Also, I think you are underestimating people's intelligence if you think they will give up looking for information on Beach Ultimate if they are redirected to the main Ultimate article. You don't have to look very far down the contents to see the link to the Beach section. Ends Of Invention 20:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to restore the BULA material, BULA would have to agree formally to license that material under the GFDL. This could easily be done by the appropriate authority at BULA. The best way to do it would probably be to indicate on the appropriate pages at the BUDA homepage that the material is GFDL. (See Wikipedia:Copyrights). That would make the licensing / copyright status clear to anyone now and in the future. In addition, anyone at Wikipedia would be free to edit it to remove any kind of "promotional" tone they might feel it has. If BULA does not want to license it to GFDL, then it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Sbwoodside 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Different Lesser-Known Variants on Ultimate (sport)

I think there should be a little more information about the lesser-known variants on Ultimate. Ultimace A very rare and new type was only invented early this summer (June 2009), but has begun to spread around Leicestershire. It might not be broadly acknowledged, but a little general information would be useful. Several times I have attempted to edit in some text under the "Rules of Play" header, along with two references to recent literature and one to an external website (link), but to no avail. The extra information was promptly deleted! 86.150.187.126 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.187.126 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article need to be more focussed

Yep. It's a bit all over the place at the moment and a bit too long. How about a seperate page for ultimate strategy? Which would cut down this article and allow for more in depth ultimate strategy on the other page. Also I'm sure there's somebody out there who would like to make a page on American Ultimate, they could use some of the stuff I cut out.

I put back what you cut. Please discuss major changes before making them to articles with large numbers of interested parties. It is common courtesy. I realize that there is much more about "American ultimate" in the article than on non-"American ultimate", but guess what, that's where the center of ultimate is. It has only recently become an international sport. Some American high school and college leagues are larger than the ultimate communities of many other countries that compete at World's. Removing content as you did without replacing it somewhere else within the article or in a new article is called blanking and is vandalism. If you wish to make an American ultimate article go ahead, but make sure to include the Canadians, Mexicans, and Central and South Americans as well. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 00:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I probably should dicuss the changes, sorry about that. I'm new to this. Although I would hardly call it vandalism as I was trying to make it better. Obviously there is going to be a lot of American stuff on the page, and the origins of ultimate bit obviously has to be based in America! However there are certain things which are excessive, such as the naming of all the College regions, I mean come on, it's hardly one of the first things someone would want to know about the sport. Perhaps it could be replaced by a bit saying that the U.S. has the largest college championship in the world with (over?) 300 teams. Incidently, in Britain we have over 50 teams in our University competition, playing both indoors and outdoors. Even though there are only around 100 universities(the number of teams will increase as well).So there's plenty going on outside your borders, don't be so inwardly focussed!!!! My point about the American Ultimate article was about the excess stuff, thats specifically about American Ultimate, should go in a different article. By American I meant U.S., and your suggestion that it includes mexico, canada, central and south americans is pretty facetious. There would be an argument for a North American Ultimate article though. I don't want to write it, someone who wants to write all the stuff about specific college regions, and all the other american stuff that shouldn't be in the article can write it. If I wrote an article on Ultimate, it would be on British Ulimate, as I know more about it. I wouldn't impose it all on the main ultimate page though. First world championships was 1983, is that even mentioned? What about a mention of the immense fitness levels needed to play at the top levels?

The "American" business was a good natured jab at the folks who write "USian," not at you. I guess it requires knowing the background in the internationalising debates. Like I said below, I think that covering it by level is probably better. This would allow people who have knowledge of only one level of their or another country's organization to contribute without getting an article on Russian ultimate that only covered masters or something similar. Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Japan and the U.S. are the only countries to be allocated 10 or more teams at the world championships this year. If we do break it up by country, they should all have separate articles. I'll note that GB has the least (11) of those countries allocated to it, meaning that there probably a bunch of material for all of theose countries.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Ok "cheers" have never been known as calling in the U.K., never have, probably never will. This is incorrect, and just a guess what I wrote before was better because it was factually correct. Therefore I'm changing it.

Sorry, the section looks good now. I understand that you are trying to improve it. Thank you. Most people who are involved with the article would love to have more information about ultimate in other countries. You could definitely help us with this, but achieving balance by removing good content is not good. We need a different format that allows for more international coverage. I think dividing it by level, i.e. youth, university, adult club, we will be able to use the content we have as a starting point for getting more international coverage without getting divisive nationalism and pride factors. It doesn't make sense, IMO, to divide it by country until we have more non-U.S. content.—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant you were changing it to when you said "Therefore I'm changing it", but I've been playing Ultimate in the UK for over 5 years, and I have only ever heard British players refer to cheers as "calls". "Cheers" is an exclusively North American term in my experience. Ends Of Invention 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was my use of "calling" as opposed to calls, i.e. not a verb form. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes thats what I meant, they are known as calls and not calling. Sorted now anyhow.

Daredevil Disc

Someone added that Daredevil Discs as well as Discraft are used often in competitive play. Is this true? --Liface 18:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, any disc can be used as long as both the captains agree on using it. The Discraft Ultrastar 175 is just the one everyone is used to. I assume Daredevils are probably used in competitive play on some occasions - maybe moreso in the winter as DD make a "winter" disc that's made of slightly softer plastic. DDs are not very common in the UK though. I imagine there's more in Canada (where DD is based) and the US. Ends Of Invention 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One Daredevil mold (the "Gamedisc") is approved for UPA competition, although not at the Championship Series where only Discraft "Westland" mold discs are legal. Comparatively there are three Wham-O molds ("China," "Mexico," and "#3") and a second Discraft mold ("web") approved for non-Championship series play.[1] The Daredevil "Frostie" disc is not an approved disc. That being said, Ends Of Invention is right that the captains can use what they want to. Basically, if it weighs about 175g, is roughly the right diameter, and both captains agree, the disc is fine to use:

From the 10th Edition IV. A., "Any flying disc may be used as long as it is acceptable to both team captains. If the captains cannot agree, the current Official Disc of the Ultimate Players Association shall be used." and from the WFDF Rules Article IV Section 403.01 "Any flying disc may be used as long as it is acceptable to both team captains and meets the requirements set forth in Article I of the WFDF rules. If the captains cannot agree, a disc designated by the WFDF Ultimate Committee as an official disc for the event shall be used." (from [2] and [3] respectively)

I just switched the mentioning of Daredevil and Discraft since Discraft is used more than Daredevil or Wham-O. I don't have much experience with DD discs since they aren't used that much in the U.S., but I think I remember liking them better than Wham-Os. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Local leagues and associations - maybe too much - maybe another page?

Hi, I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is, but I think that the "Local leagues and associations" section that was just added could easily overwhelm the article. The ones that are added look like they are all US, but there are tons all around the world, and adding every one would probably yield a massive list. Sbwoodside 21:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think they should go. The article that they used to be in was deleted via AfD. IMO. Wikibofh_(talk) 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Was deleted or should have been deleted in your opinion? Link? Sbwoodside 05:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • It was deleted. Here is the page I userfied before it was deleted. Took some digging, but here is the original VfD debate. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • "I think they should go." - Wikibofh

I concur. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Ends Of Invention 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Wikipedia policy cited by Ends Of Invention, I think that probably the national leagues should go too. Sbwoodside 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also question the "Player resources" section. I like it, but we just cleaned all of those out a month ago, so am not sure. I have one I'd add back if we decide to keep it, but it's mine so would like some sort of sanity check on the inclusion of them at all. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that Ultipedia.org has wiki pages for listing Ultimate leagues - see http://www.ultipedia.org/wiki/Leagues 216.129.80.2 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Teams too. Ends Of Invention

• I added a link to a sports social network that was resourceful for people to play Ultimate but it was taken down. I can't understand why the admins would take down a perfectly legitimate external link when in essence it helps people organize their games of their beloved sport of Ultimate.

It seems to me that many teams especially high schools are organized by independent leagues beyond the UPA or WFDF. Some of these leagues have interesting histories or statistics that I'd like to learn about. I think it may get too lengthy to include them on this page. But pages should be made for the larger leagues of this type, BUDA, PHUL, (DiscNW already has one) and whatever international equivalents may exist. Blackdog3592 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Last 5 minutes?

The article mentions a variant in which "Timeouts cannot be called in the last 5 minutes of the game." How do you know what the last 5 minutes are, of a game played to points, not time? (Does this mean that whenever a time-out is called, the game must play for at least 5 minutes more? That would seem to lengthen the game, not shorten it.)

I think it refers to tournaments where a strict time limit is enforced and no cap is played - in my experience you get a "five minutes left" warning and then when the buzzer goes the game ends (unless the disc is in the air, in which case the pass counts as a score if it is caught in the zone). This is the case in most indoor tournaments, where pitch time is often limited and so games cannot be played to a cap (as is common outdoors). The "no timeouts in the last 5 minutes" rule might also apply in outdoor games where you play for X minutes then have a 2 point cap (where the "no timeouts" period is the 5 minutes before the end of the X minutes), but I can't remember the exact rules right now. Hope that makes sense... Ends Of Invention 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• All tourneys I've played or helped in have "caps". These are specified times where the score is capped. Soft cap is normally highest plus 2, 20 minutes before the end of the game, and hard cap (finish point, if tied play one more) is normally 5 minutes before the end of the game. They are typically announced with a loud horn and someone yelling. The point of no timeouts is so that team in the lead doesn't try to milk the clock. Calling a timeout when you have the disc during cap is a turnover. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Early history

An IP editor recently removed all references to Jared Kass or to the fact that Joel Silver didn't invent it without significant inspiration from a similar game. I believe that it is generally recognized that Joel Silver adapted it from a form of frisbee football which he learned the previous summer while at a summer program in Massachusettes. In suppor I cite the UPA's description of the founders, UltimateHistory.com's timeline of the sport (as found in the definitive text Ultimate: The First Four Decades) and text no longer available on the UPA's site but copied by two other well known online sources:WhatIsUltimate.com and The Ultimate Handbook. If anyone can provide something to refute these sources, please do so. Until then, let's leave references to Kass and Mount Hernon in the article, despite the desire by some to promote "Columbia Pride".—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins discussion

• Ok, it seems to me to be contradictory. In the first paragraph we say:

The game was invented in 1968 as an evening pastime by Joel Silver.

Then, down in history we say:

The following spring, a group of students got together to play what Silver claimed to be the "ultimate sports experience," adapting the game from a form of frisbee football, likely learned from Jared Kass while attending a summer camp in Mount Hermon, [[Massachussets] where Kass was teaching. The name "Ultimate" comes directly from Kass, who came up with the name, when asked by a student, on the whim that it was the ultimate sport.

which seems contradictory within a two sentence gap. We have the following sources:

1. UPA
2. Ultimate Hall of Fame
3. Newspaper Image
4. Ultimate handbook article

We need to clean the mess up and at least add references to the article.

IMO. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the hall of fame site. I had remembered reading that article, but couldn't remember where. I had also forgotten about that newspaper clipping. Having the first claim to a completely new history of the sport come to light now after the currently accepted version has become so entrenched is rather incredible. If the clipping is indeed original, then we might be looking at multiple, independent inventions with only one line carrying on into what we know today, like convergent evolution, but with one species dying out. I guess the best thing to do would be to see if JHU has an archive of the News-Letter. If the university can verify this clipping, Wikipedia could make news for breaking the story on the new/real history of ultimate. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The News-Letter is still in publication and has a website. I will contact them to see if they have an archived copy they would be willing to check. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The main JHU library has copies going back to the 1800s. We want Library of Congress call# LD 2637 .J66 and copy 1963-64 c. 1. The Oberlin College, my college, inter-library loan website is down, but I will enquire when the library opens tomorrow. If anyone knows a JHU Wikipedian who happens to be on campus, the volume in question is currently sitting on a shelf somewhere in the "Libraries Services Center" collection. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do all this. It's not often that we actually do major research for a Wikipedia page. --Liface 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Having played the sport for 7 years and I'm very interested in the sport and its history. It was pretty straight forward since I was researching a citation instead of a fact like most research I do for Wikipedia. Oh right, I'm writing "was" because the request was sent to JHU by Oberlin earlier today. I should be able to upload a scanned image of the full page sometime this weekend or Monday if JHU's library staff is particularly busy. For as much outreach Wikipedia is trying towards librarians we really should use them and their resources more often for our project, something we discussed at the last meetup in Seattle.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it was independent. The stretch to play "football" with a frisbee isn't very large. I suspect that it just never took off, and the Silver/Kaas version is the one that was the progenitor. I'm going to remove the Joel Silver portion from the top paragarph. We already have a history section that needs to be cleaned up, we can do it there instead of having it spread around. Thanks for following up on verifying the newspaper. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, so I hope I am adhering to the etiquette. I am the publisher of the Ultimate history book "ULTIMATE--The First Four Decades" and we researched the origins of the game and its name quite thoroughly. Jared Kass was definitely involved, but Joel Silver did not get the name Ultimate from Jared. Jared may have used the word while teaching his Ultimate-precursor to his summer school students, but Joel never heard it from Jared. Joel learned the game from Jared and then he and a few friends developed and wrote down the rules while at Columbia High School in Maplewood, NJ. Joel should get the credit for naming the sport the Ultimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseidler (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006

Hmm... we may have to change the article around, citing the book as a source. --Liface 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been planning on getting a copy at the end of the summer when I have some money because this book is the closest thing to a definitive history of the sport. These guys know their stuff and did the interviews; I'm willing to go with whatever they say when it comes to naming things. The origin of the sport isn't in dispute, IMO, as it is quite clear that the modern sport developed from the game played at Maplewood. As to who first started playing the game it is much more uncertain. There is large dispute over this even within the community. I don't know what the book says about it, but we have a (hopefully, see below) verifiable source for an earlier date of independent invention.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification

So I screwed up. Apparently I requested the October 8, 1963 issue instead of the November 8 issue. This has been straightened out and I should have the right one by the end of the week. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So it's been a month instead of a week... The second request wasn't responded to by JHU. I had my library request it again. And received no response. I have requested it a third time. My guess is that their library is horribly understaffed during the summer and random requests like this tend to get lost. I haven't given up yet, though.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Kitsilano from highschool section

While prestigious, Spring Reign is just a large non-championship tourney and winning one division of it once doesn't make a team a powerhouse. By point of comparison, the Colorado State Championship has more teams in it. Would winning that make a team a national powerhouse? Northwest, Amherst and Paideia are listed because they consistently do well in the UPA Championship Series. If Kitsilano had won Westerns decisively and did so again next year, then I would consider them to be a newly emerged powerhouse. Currently they aren't. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia standards WP:NOR, the definition of who is and isn't a powerhouse team should be left to quality sources published outside of Wikipedia (see WP:RS). And, ideally, the names should be given with a citation to the source (see WP:CITE). It might seem like a lot of rules but ultimately I think it would lead to a better article if we can find good sources for that kind of information. Sbwoodside 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of 'ultimate' in the article?

I changed the many references to 'Ultimate' in the article to 'ultimate', as it is a simple sport name; there's nothing that I'm missing here, correct? Drop a note or revert me if otherwise. I am additionally intimidated by the fact that 'ultimate Frisbee' is visually awkward; ended up doing that seperately. ~ PseudoSudo 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that lowercase makes sense. I might even drop the F in Frisbee to lowercase as well... Sbwoodside 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The WFDF [4] uses lowercase "ultimate" when referring to the sport on their web page. The UPA [5] is inconsistent but mainly uses uppercase. Wham-O's frisbee page uses uppercase but I think it's traditional to uppercase trademarks anyway. Sbwoodside 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Initially I thought this was a shitty idea. Then I thought about "football" "soccer" "futbol" ... etc and realized that although I am used to "Ultimate", and "Ultimate Frisbee" is probably correct, it should be lowercase in the article. Frisbee depends, as it is technically a trademark, and thuse a proper noun and should be cap'd. Good edit, thanks. Wikibofh_(talk) 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "Frisbee" looks weird capitalized. We should change Frisbee to lowercase, because when people talk about ultimate Frisbee they're not referencing the actual "Frisbee" disc exactly. --Liface 04:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Frisbee" needs to remain capitalized as it is a proper noun. For non-proper references, we should technically use "flying disc." I could go either way, but I don't think we should decapitalize "Frisbee." Adamkik 10:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While Frisbee may be a proper noun we do not use Frisbees, we use Discraft discs. Just as we don't play ultimate frisbee, we play Ultimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.200.20 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is grammatically correct, but we typically use "Ultimate" to refer to the sport so as to easily distinguish it from the "ultimate" as an adjective or meaning the best. Blackdog3592 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kick-catch legal?

Are intentional kick-catches legal? I know that intentionally "pushing" the disc forward instead of catching it is illegal; would a kick-catch be an extension of that? (I know we are not supposed to discuss subject matter here, so I'll weasel my question a bit: if it's illegal, it should be noted in the definition.) Adamkik 07:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kick catches are legal. A catch in defined as controlling and completely stopping rotation of the disc. If you can do that with your foot it's perfectly legal. Any intentional advancement of the disc that isn't preceded by a catch is illegal.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not intentionally bobble the disc in order to advance it. You may intentionally bobble it, even forward, to try and gain possession. This includes using your feet, or whatever. I don't know why a "kick-catch" is even described here. I think I've seen it happen in a game once in 10 years of playing ultimate. 192.132.210.30 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe rule IV E. : Players may not use clothing or equipment to unfairly inhibit or assist the movement of the disc or another player. I always interpreted this pretty liberaly, such as no jumping off of your team mates back, etc. Also XII D 6: An offensive player uses an item of equipment to assist in catching a pass (e.g., throwing a hat or shirt at the disc). If a defender uses an item of equipment to assist in blocking or intercepting a pass, the intended receiver is awarded possession. XV A : states that intentionaly bobbling (or perhaps kicking) is a travel. So if your better at kick cathcing than getting down and cathcing it then the penalty (or lack of) seems worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.200.20 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Intentionally bobbling is only a travel if it purposely advances the disc in some direction -- you're still attempting to catch it at the same place, so it's no travel. Take this kind of discussion to RSD or the rules committee, seriously. Fantusta 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

seriously, whats wrong with discussing here on the discussion page? 65.184.200.20 00:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Callahan

I've never heard of a Callahan, but someone just added a section about it. Does anyone else know about this move? If so, check out the article for accuracy. Adamkik 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was a college rule in 9th, and codified into the standard UPA rules in the 10th. It's named after Henry Callahan. Wikibofh_(talk) 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not playing at a high enough level if you haven't seen a callahan before. At Harvest this year a handler on my team actually threw a callahan to a guy named John Callahan. He stood up and yelled "I got a meee!" It was hilarious--Escapedlunatic (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pull" mentioned before it is defined

The bit about Quebec rules mentions that there are two pulls (but doesn't explain how it works without them), but the term "pull" hasn't been explained yet.

The Worst

I just reverted an edit involving "The Worst," where a player on the receiving team drops the pull but is allowed by the pulling team to recover it. I haven't heard of this name, and the play itself seems like it doesn't warrant being called "The Worst." SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 11:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you did not hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I never heard of the Stupidest. The Wikipedia is actually to teach and promote knowledge sharing. I don't know why you only reference the first part of the text that was put in the first time but the play was: "pull -> drop -> disc given back as a part of fair play -> throw into the ground -> defender turns offense and scores..." This term was coined in Portugal because it truly is the worst play someone can make (drop, throw away, and getting scored on in 3 seconds). I hope this will clarify things and the play gets back into Wikipedia. Betacyte 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

SquidSK, can you respond? I think I cleared up the confusion and want the addition back into Wikipedia Betacyte 19:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Four Players?

How many versions of Ultimate can be played with 4 players to a team? The only mention of this is Beach Ultimate, but surely any form can, right? I'm asking because I'm creating a super-power who makes a flying energy disc from his lifeforce and he has the power to absorb the bodies and life force of three people so I thought he and the people he can absorb could be a frisbee team. Tyciol 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

what. --Liface 09:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur - what? --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 14:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tycol is creating a "super," Incredibles reference, who has the ability to make a disc of energy which he can throw similar to a flying disc. The super also has the ability to absorb/control three other people. Tycol is asking whether it would be plausible for the four of them to form an Ultimate team of sorts that could pass the disc between them. My answer is that the official rules of Ultimate are that it is played with 7 players to a side on a field measuring 70 yards long with 25 yard endzones. The sport of Beach Ultimate has fewer to a team, 3 or 4 depending on field size iirc, and is played on smaller fields made of sand. These are the official rules of the official sport. I don't see that they should constrain you, however. Many people play football two-hand-touch or with fewer than 11 people to a side. I have played Ultimate, well variations of it, with everywhere from 2 to 20 people on a side. Just like there's three-on-three basketball, you shouldn't feel constrained by the official rules of the sport. Especially not in a fantasy piece. I think people will understand.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Discs

I don't think this horse is dead yet, so I'm going to wail away. I have NEVER seen Wham-O nor DareDevil discs used in competition. I have never even seen a DareDevil disc. They may be used when people just "toss the 'bee," but in "competition," as quoted from the beginning of the article these discs aren't approved by the UPA. IN MY EXPERIENCE, for "competition," Wham-O discs are shunned and DareDevil discs are non-existent. These discs get too much "above the fold" (if you will) space in this article. Discraft discs are the standard and are ankles, shins, knees, thighs, hips, torso, shoulders, and head above every other disc. Comeon, neutral point of view does not mean prominently listing irrelevant disc brands in some grasping attempt to counter-balance an illustration that is accurate in its uni-polarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.236.217 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I sort of agree with this. --Liface 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wham-Os have been approved for all but the highest levels of UPA play, iirc. I'm not sure what the WFDF approval situation is. I have heard of non-sanctioned Canadian tournaments using DDs. That said, I've also seen competitive games that used aerobie rings (bad idea) and disc golf discs (even worse idea). I wouldn't mind if someone rewrote the intro taking out the competitive use of DDs and Wham-Os.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wham-o's were the official disc of the sport until the company got a bit too lecherous and the official disc was replaced with the discraft. It is not entirely unheard of for Daredevils to be used instead for competition outside of Amereican timezones. In ultimate's early days a copy of the rules was included with a wham-o disc which helped promote the sport; however the company soon changed its mentality and didn't like the idea of a sport they could not control using their product without their consent. Wham-O#Wham-O.2C_ultimate.2C_disc_golf_and_the_flying_disc_market Frisbeelover (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion heads-up

A bunch of Ultimate articles have been placed for deletion. They are contained here: Vancouver Furious George --Liface 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop the Chump

I've redirected Stop the Chump to Ultimate (sport). Since there are no sources and it's possibly unverifiable, I don't feel there's anything to merge, so I've speedy-redirected this here, in lieu of going through AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 03:32Z

Terms section

There was earlier discussion about the inclusion of this section. What seemed to be the consensus was that only well known, universal terms would be used to avoid regionalisms, the problems associated with OR, and to keep it from taking over the article. I would like to trim this section down considerably to keep it inline with this earlier discussion. Since that earlier discussion happened mostly 2 years ago (Wow, I'm starting to feel old.), I would like input on whether others agree. If no expresses strong concerns I'll cut the list down in a week or so.—WAvegetarian (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Terms list is definitely out of control... it should be severely culled. Fantusta 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Btwied 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of terms that I feel could be deleted: Bomb, Cherry Picker, Darsh, Double Happiness/Bookends, Double Unhappiness/The Books, Hanging up the phone, Henry, Hell Point, Hospital Throw, Kick-Catch, Rickel, Scurvy/Scurvy-Dog, Steve. I have no claim to particular authority on which should stay or go, but I thought providing a list might give folks a starting point.Btwied 21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote some and removed others. I left in hell point as it is a term known widely throughout the united states' ultimate community and shows international web use based on a google search for "hell point" ultimate.—WAvegetarian (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Soft Cap/ Hard Cap?

the article currently reads: However, in most styles of competitive play, if game time runs beyond a certain time limit (preset by tournament host), a "soft cap" is first called, which announces 10 minutes until the "hard cap," where the game ends as soon as the point being played finishes.

This does not mesh with my understanding of the terms or rather seems only part of a definition. In the league in which i participate a soft cap is when the next team to secure a two point lead wins. a soft cap is called either at a certain time or a certain point score for example at 16s (or some other score.) A hard cap is either when the previous method does not resolve the game and the next team to score a point wins or a time when the game ends unless the score is tied. a hard cap is often called two-four points after the soft cap so if the teams each get to 16 a soft cap is called if they both score twice 18's a hard cap will be called and the next point wins. Am i the only one (or rather are we the only league) to play this way? and if not where in the article should the ideas be expanded upon further or do they even deserve mention? Beckboyanch 22:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In tournament play soft and hard caps are to determine the score needed to win the game if one team cannot reach the predetermined score (13/15/17/etc.). Usually, a soft cap is called 10 to 15 minutes before the scheduled end time of the game, you add two points to the leading team's score and go to that, and a hard cap is to finish the point. If the hard cap point is finished and the teams are tied, they play one more point to determine the winner.

There can also be scoring caps, like in a game to 15 scoring cap at 17, if one team does not get to 15 while being two points ahead, as 15-14, they must play until they either reach a two point margin or reach 17 points.Pokerjedi36 14:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

youth powerhouses

In my opinion, this section should include only Amherst, Columbia, Paideia, and NWS. But it's such a subjective thing, and will always grow and if we include this team, we should include this team, yadda yadda... what do other people say? I'm thinking it should just be removed completely, as it's so subjective and un-referencable. Fantusta 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just have it removed. --Liface 10:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Any other opinions? If no one more says anything, I'll kill it at the end of this month. Fantusta 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Soccer or football?

I'd suggest soccer; it is unambiguous especially for Americans who probably make up most of the game's players and the article's readers. Before I revert to "soccer", opinions please? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My original opinion was for soccer, but then again, most of its references take place with respect to European indoor leagues. I'm quite torn, but I still think soccer sounds far better here, and is clearly unambiguous. Fantusta (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Element

I felt that it was odd to leave out the social element of the game so I put something in. I know it's not well done so please edit it to make it shiny and good with the other parts please. Or if you feel that it gives off the wrong impression of the sport, please at least make mild reference to the 3 pint challenge and then give that it's own little page or something. Though it's not on the pitch it is a part of who we are. Crispin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.121.133 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate spreads to clubs and internationally (1976)

The first uni club in the UK was Warwick Bears, founded in 1976. Southampton Skunks didn't arrive until 1978, with the other clubs listed arriving later. Suggest the article be redifined.

In the UK, the sport was governed by the BUF (British Ultimate Federation) from sometime in the 1990's until it was replaced by the UKUA (United Kingdom Ultimate Association) in 2002 (which remains the National Governing Body). Frisbeelover (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redefined a few points and put a reference in. Richard Hicks (who effectiveely brought ultimate to the uk in 1978) told me that the sport started out between his friends as 'Frigby', a cross between frisbee and rugby. Wham-o europe then got in touch with him and introduced him to the official rules and gave him some discs, he went to Warwick and one of his friends went to Cambridge, they both formed the first clubs in the UK.

In 2006 due mostly to the efforts of BUSA vice chair Ed Blockley, ultimate beecame a BUSA accredited sport for both indoor and outdoor open divisions. It is currenetly not BUSA accredited for mixed or women's.Frisbeelover (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tournaments

Suggest that tournaments is redifined into official tournaments (eg WUGC, WUCC, WCBU, etc) and existing major tournaments (eg April Fools Fest, Trouble in Vegas, etc) as the current listing appears clumsy.

Daredevil

I'd really like to see some sources showing that they are the 'preferred' disc in Canada and that they are in use by major leagues. Otherwise I'm going to revert it. Beach drifter (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox needed?

Does anyone else think that this article needs a Game or Sport infobox? StevePrutz (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 04:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one would be better--game or sport? StevePrutz (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Does anyone think the demographics of ultimate players are significant, especially considering the general public's opinion of disc sports? I know the UPA keeps decent stats, and it's certainly interesting to note the the high percentage of club players who hold advanced degrees, work as 'professionals', etc. Or maybe it's just me who'd like to see it? Juicifer451 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just you. The fact that Ultimate is most commonly a college sport obviously means that a lot of the players are academics. There are no similar demographics infos for other sports, ultimate does not need them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.16.154 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pick Up

Some comments on the Pick Up Section: The way that it reads now, it sounds ridiculous. Players are "encouraged" to play a loose style of offense and stack and forcing are rarely used? Wherever I have played pick up, there has been some sort of organized offensive play.....and stack is usually the offense of choice. Other comments like that the stall count is usually 3, is also something I have never experienced in pick up as well as the comment that in some cities players tackle other players and take away the disc after a stall count of 3. There are no references for any of these comments, so I think they should be taken out and Pick Up should make reference to looser rules and local takes on the play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyst (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The pick-up section should not be a description of the type of pick-up that the particular author happens to play, but an analysis of how a pick-up game can differ from a regular game. A better solution might be to point out that various rules may not be enforced, or may be enforced differently. (ex. sideouts, brick, picks, fouls, stalls). I'm sure the skill and strategy evident at pick-up games varies wildly.--Jesterjester (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mini

What happened to the Mini article? Has it been removed? I think there should section on the main Ultimate article. Nanoflop (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

History section - extensive copyvio

I've removed a large chunk of the history section as it was an extensive copyvio of this website. Please read the policy on copyright before re-introducing this material, as it may be removed. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. Many thanks, Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ulti sportswear companies?

Shouldn't this article include something about companies like Five Ultimate, VC, Gaia, etc.? They're kind of part of the "ultimate community", and it certainly says something about the sport that there are companies started by and for ultimate players, specifically. 76.100.175.5 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Normal rules

This article seems to only list the rules for variants of Ultimate, not the basic or "normal" rules. Can someone please clear this up? I find it confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.45.146 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I came to this site to understand the basics, and they were never outlined. Perhaps someone could put a section before the Origins section? Clevell (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)