In light of the new poll, let's clear this up for good. Are we going to do official tug of war, demonstrated above by Moerder and his former squad at the distinguished alma mater, or are we jousting, shown below. Jousting is the aforementioned (by me and hafer) hippie-style of tugging, a much more finesse game (as demonstrated by the finesse-oriented physique of the other Harvard alum modeling the joust), and maybe more fair, but the traditional tug allows the entire team to compete at once. Votes?
9 comments:
This post brings up a good point, and I hope people weigh in on it. Here's what I think...
Could we split it into two events like Badminton? A joust (1 vs. 1) and then 3v3 tug of war? So basically there'd be a winner from joust and a winner from tug?
My concerns with this plan are as follows: 1) Time. The joust will obviously take longer than tug of war, let alone making each one an event, which would take even longer. However, these events are probably the quickest and easiest to set up, so time might not be a big factor, plus each match will last only like a minute or so.
2) Are the two events really different enough to warrant being split up? I imagine the team that wins joust would most likely also win ToW. We don't have this problem with Badminton because one player competes in singles while the two others do doubles, so it can be totally different outcomes.
3) I feel like I may have already convinced myself that this should be one event, but I still am not even sure which I'd prefer. I love events where everyone competes at once, so I'm inclined to say ToW, and maybe with three people the teams might actually be more evenly matched than it appears. your thoughts?
here's a thought:
split it into two events, but make the tug the two guys who didn't joust. that way it's more like 'minton. one guy jousts, the other two tug, and you select your singles and doubles men the same way we do minton, making it more strategy-based.
remember, the joust isn't strength-oriented, hafer will most likely win since he's got the most hippie experience. it's more about balance, and therefore much more zen and pachouli-oriented.
that might balance it out better, though, and with 'minton as a good example, i don't think it would be too much time. plus, it would be a good substitute for tetherball to have one on one jousting in the games.
not trying to be a prick, but could you explain joust to me a bit? Im in the boat that I really dont care about the events...cept TP i like that cuz dane gets pissed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_Jousting
My team and I are down for whatever.
I like Brooks' idea of splitting it into two events, one singles and one 2 vs. 2, with singles possibly taking the place of tetherball. Strategy-based games are more fun and this adds some strategy to the lineup.
Yeah i vote yes for this, too
I vote for the same. One jouster and two ToW. This will be fucking interesting. Can we stand on the cinder blocks in a pit of snakes? That would be crazy.
Good idea B-mil, Time will not be a concern. In my experience a game will last anywhere from 1 second to 74. As for the set-up; my first experience was in the Pisgah National forest during a backpacking expedition so we opted out of cinderblocks and the rules were to be in a crouch position. While I have seen it played on 5 gallon buckets which are really unstable, and then the hippiest of all at F and W which were on well foot worn logs. We can figure out these details later. Just givin my input.
Post a Comment