Underachieving on purpose: why is it important?

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:50 am

I keep reading all these issues regarding things like sandbagging, criddling, being open instead of pro, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sure does sound like racers spending a whole lot of time worrying about what other racers are doing. If a competitor spends all his time improving his own performace, enhancing his own skills and doing everything possible to make himself as fast and as precise as possible, then isn't other racer's behavior sort of unimportant?

I've been around skateboard racing a long time. Sure, I'll admit we down here in the Land Of Cotton were a bit isolated and never made the pages of SKATEBOARDER. That doesn't mean, though, we weren't racing, winning, losing, going around cones and pushing our equipment and ourselves to extremes. I never, though, at any time ever remember us worrying about whether or not some other racer was UNDERACHIEVING ON PURPOSE. From my perspective on being competitive, giving these matters any thought only accedes your position to whoever is trying to play headgames doing it.

What's accomplished by making this an issue?

Terry Kirby · Post by **Terry Kirby** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:59 am

I agree Wes. I don't think sandbagging is really a factor. I guess its a form of stratagy but a very risky one. I'd rather race my best and be in good enough shape so I didnt have to worry about who I might meet if so and so loses etc. Sandbagging is lame.

Brady Mitchell · Post by **Brady Mitchell** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:12 am

I can`t speak on issues of sandbagging or pro/am status, but I do think about criddling at a difficult section of a course. Mind you it was not a matter of a faster time just recently but just to get through a section without blowing out.

I was the one that set the course this past weekend in WP and decided to throw in a wicked S-curve. After numerous attempts and blowing out of course, decided to blink a cone on purpose. It was the one that was throwing me off balance through the rest of that section. After a few runs and staying in course, I was finally able to know the line that I could run clean.

In this case, criddling worked out for me.

Eric Groff · Post by **Eric Groff** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:44 am

As far as sandbagging goes I had to teach my 8 yr old Nathan how to do it yesterday, You see he had Baseball tryouts, His team has been the best team 3 years in a row, This year the Coach is not allowed to keep his team intact, everybody has to tryout and then there is a draft, Well in our best hopes of keeping this team of best friends and school mates together, we decided to teach the kids the fine art of Sandbagging, I sent my right handed son out with my Glove(I'm Left handed) not only was the glove the wrong hand but it was way to big, As they threw Fly balls to the outfield he would just bat em down and make a bad throw back to second, There was a couple coaches instructing the kids, and they were telling my son how to catch and throw, (My Kid has been 1 of the top 9 players in his div for the last 3 years), So then its on to some infield, again Nathan made it look real good and didnt catch one ball, I could see he was becoming adjetated by one of the coaches, so he made a diving catch and thru out the runner at first with a blistering throw, He walked off the field and came to get his bat from me, when I asked "Whats Wrong?" He said "that coach was telling him what to do and how to play", "I said Nathan thats what coaches do", He sez "I know how to play Dad rememeber I'm sandbagging", I said "no more Nathan go out and let em RIP!", So the Coach is Pitchin to Nathan, Nathan lets a couple pitches go by, I realize after overhearing one of the other coaches that they think he was a girl because of his long hair, At this point the coach that is pitching moves in and starts pitchin underhand to the little Girl, Nathan looks over at me and smiles, Here comes the Pitch and Nathan line drives it right at the Coaches face and drops the guy to the ground. Nathan doesnt even miss a step, he strolled off the field and said How was that Dad, I said I think you Impressed em! and you wernt supposed to Dummy!

He said, yeah but I dont think that coach will pick me.

[ This Message was edited by: ARAB on 2003-01-14 01:49 ]

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:21 pm

I guess y'all missed my point, which I can understand because sometimes when I go on a tirade I tend to get incoherent. I wasn't trying to ask whether or not sandbagging or some other performance issue was important. My question is "why should I as a racer concern myself one way or the other with whether or not some other racer is doing it?"

Arab, you discussed how your son sandbagged to get on a particular baseball team. My question would concern whether or not some other kid in the dugout should care what Nathan is doing? Shouldn't that kid just be concerned about his OWN performance?

This year I lost to some of the best. I lost to Gilmour, Price, Kimbel, PSR, Kirby and Aszoldi. I didn't walk away, though, from any of those losses questioning or wondering what THEY did in order to win. My question is always what I DIDN'T DO to go faster and make up those last few hundredths or tenths of a second. Whether it was a question of equipment, (don't say it, TK

), conditioning, practice or just plain guts, my racing is ALL ABOUT ME. I'm not standing around on the sidelines wondering if some other guy is "cheating" or "sandbagging" to get along in the races. That's not in my nature.

Then I come here and read all this stuff about whether or not some skaters should or should not be pro, whether or not some skaters sandbag to get a better place in the brackets, whether or not some skaters hit a cone on purpose to get an advantage.

So I have to ask again: why should I care? What am I missing in these discussions? Is it just fun to shoot the breeze about racers' motivations, but everyone really thinks about the way I do? Or is there some reason why dissecting some other skater's motives is going to make me faster?

I just don't get it.

[ This Message was edited by: Wesley Tucker on 2003-01-14 07:30 ]

Matthew Wilson · Post by **Matthew Wilson** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:45 pm

W. Tucker-
Though I can't apply what you are questioning directly to my own slalom experience--since I suck, and what the rider does next to me makes no difference at this point--I can say that one should be BOTH concerned and unconcerned about what the rider next to you is doing in order to win, better position themselves, etc.
1) You concern yourself with it because other riders may be making decisions that force you to decide what you need to do in order to race effectively. For example, you may be apt to consider criddling in order to win, even if you are opposed to criddling. So what others do, DOES affect the decisions you make.
I would argue that in some cases you can try and try all you want, but always come up short if you are not considering the tactics used by the opposition. Kind of like a cartoon where a cat tries to catch the mouse by running straight at hit, but never taking into account that the mouse has a hammer.

2) But it is not always neccesary If you saw me out there doing something questionable, you probably wouldn't have to care since I am not a threat to you...yet!

In the end, I don't think that one should care (emotionally anyway) what other racers are doing, just consider their own options and choices when faced with the race tactics used by others.

Brady Mitchell · Post by **Brady Mitchell** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:11 pm

Knowledge of what others do CAN make you a better skater. Example...

My first race was at the Gathering `01. GBJ had set this dual dragon with an offset before a stinger section. At first I kept blowing out at that cone and only began to make it when I started sliding it out and scrubbing off speed before the stinger. I then jsut barely crawled through that section. It wasn`t until weeks later that I learned of criddling on purpose and that others were hitting that cone intentionally. Had I known what others were doing, I might have done the same and bettered my time. Sometimes a cone can cost you more time by scrubbing speed than it would by criddling it.

Knowledge is the operative word. Gain your insights but what others do and use what you can or can what you don`t use :razz:

Andy Bittner · Post by **Andy Bittner** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:43 pm

Brady, Just to be clear... the course you are referring two was the Summer Night Season Finale. You were not at The (first) Gathering. Furthermore, there were no cones on that course that required either criddling or sliding. Just remember that your recollection is tainted by the fact that you hadn't seen a hill in years.

[ This Message was edited by: Andy Bittner on 2003-01-14 11:45 ]

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:22 pm

Wes,
I guess there are two ways to look at it. If you race only for fun and to meet friends you may not bother about what others do. But if you race to win I think tactics is a part of the game. And it may very well be the tactics that makes you win in some situations. But tactics are never easy. And you can never win on tactics alone. Unless you "deconcentrate" your opponent so much with the way you are behaving that he looses his focus and doesn't do very good. But then that could in some cases be seen as not being fair play.

Slalom personality test. What makes you feel the best.
A. You make a good run but you loose.
B. You make a bad run but you win.
C. You make no run but say that you would have won if you did.
D. You don't do your best. The other win but you know that if you would have done your best you would have won.
E. "So complicated phrase that you wouldn't know what to think anyway".
F. I never feel good. Wheather I win or loose.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:37 pm

Hans,

I would say my answer would be "D" with ONE CHANGE:

"D. You don't do your best. The other win but you know that if you would have done your best you (would) COULD have won."

I would never finish a race and look back and say, "if only I'd been more on my game I WOULD have won!" The reason is simple: who knows if the guy you're racing is completely 100% on HIS GAME? Maybe you can pick it up a notch, but then he can too. Who knows?

As I said, though, I always look at racing in terms of what I CAN DO BETTER. Look at it this way - there's two or three hundred racers out there. If I start sweating over how each one approaches a race, I'd end up spending more time studying spreadsheets and analysis papers and not enough running cones.

That I think is the surest way to defeat!

Hans Koraeus · Post by **Hans Koraeus** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 8:59 pm

Just some words on the pro/am concerns.
The way I see it it's not correctly formulated the way I see it. Pro or amateaur is not an ability label. It's a personal choice you do weather you want to win cash or not. I think the pro/am label have been misused over the years in the skateboarding history. I think amateurs and pro's should race together. Pro's pay more to enter but only pro's can take the cash prizes.

But there could be an "A" and "B" course set up. "A" being for experienced riders and "B" for others. If you manage the "A" course that's where you should race. If you can't make it you have the "B" course.

This was just me explaining my general thoughts. Now get back to the thing that may concern people and maybe with all right. Like it is today a medium good rider may choose the so called "amateur" group to increase his chances of winning and having a lot more fun that way. This instead of taking on the "pro" group where he risks getting out of competition very early. Who wouldn't get a little bit upset if you yourself enter the pro group and are out after 2 runs. Then you see your friend in the amateur group. He is just as good a slalom skater as you are but he is having a great time getting the audience applause and fame winning one race after the other.

Then you could say. So why don't you choose the am group. Well, OK! And suddenly we have all these good racers in the am group and the whole point with the am group is gone.

Jack Smith · Post by **Jack Smith** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 9:17 pm

Pro = cash and usually greater skill.
Am = non cash prizes and usually lesser skill.

I really don't understand all the confusion and hand wringing.

There will be very few Pro races in 2003, hopefully there will be numerous amateur events.

Wesley Tucker · Post by **Wesley Tucker** » Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:03 pm

Jack, I agree with you. I don't think I was ever confused. I was just completely in the dark as to how the hand wringing made anyone a faster racer?

I still really don't know.

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:12 pm

Strategy can work or screw you up- sometimes depending upon whom you are racing.

In Morro Bay 2001- my strategy in the early brackets was pretty straight forward. I would go just fast enough stay slightly ahead of my opponent- forcing the other to try harder and harder until he DQ'd or plowed enough cones for a DQ. Then I would enter the next round with a 1.5 second advantage without having expended much energy.

If I had just raced as fast as possible- I would have expended energy better saved for later and if I got say .5 seconds ahead of my oponent he might relax and not DQ. This only works if you have a much better seeding and there is a wide spread of times. (and the other guy did not sandbagg in qualifying and is faster than you)

Here is where sandbagging was effective racing strategy. Now with a 1.5 second advantage a racer would be able to "cruise" his next run....and he got to (almost) cruise the first run. Besides it makes for exciting finishes and can motivate the other racer to practice more. Brad Edwards - saw right through this strategy however.

The idea of course is to make the other guy screw up. But this is really a safe strategy....only if you feel you would win anyhow.

EXCEPT>>>>
If you are up against an opponent who is almost always faster and knows he is faster....you're in trouble.

Such was the case with Evans Vs Ransom in one of the Catalina races on Mollica's DVD.

Evans likely would have lost to Ransom in this particular course. But Evans- ever the strategist- knew this. So did Ransom. So Evans formulated an interesting strategy.....

Early in the course there was a technical section which was difficult to make if one were to enter it at full speed..... it was about 8 cones into the course.

So the tones go beep....beep....beep....BEEP! And Evans charged hard out of the start. Evans pumps like a madman- heading towards almost certain DQ if he keeps it up.

Ransom seeing Evans pull so far ahead that he might not be able to catch Evans "Freaks" and fires up to top speed- full steam ahead.

Evans has Ransom exactly where he wants him. Evans shuts down the afterburners and lets Ransom pull ahead- Ransom is so excited to be past Evans he fails to notice that he is closing fast on the technical section. Ransom goes right into the speed trap. Ransom blows up. Evans is already in cruise mode and watches it happen. Evans advances.

Classic Captain Kirk strategy- perfect execution.

Bruce Brewington · Post by **Bruce Brewington** » Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:25 pm

Hey JG,

Has your sandbagging strategy ever failed ?? There must be some stories that you can share...Catalina, perhaps ? Also, in you opinion, how crucial is the start. We have seen Olsen and Chicken with incredibly explosive starts, while we have also seen some great gate barges (JG, Hackett).

John Gilmour · Post by **John Gilmour** » Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:39 pm

I sandbagged hard at two events last year. One was at DC where I tried to use a double eliminations bracket to influence placings and demonstrate distortions (people put in teh wrong positions) which can occur within a large eliminations bracket. I did about the slowest qualification run ever. (in retrospect to cause more distortion I should have run a little faster so not to take the #1 position in the 1 vs 32 or 1 vs 16 round) landing about 5th to last would have caused more mayhem. As other people in the top spots would also be misplaced and causing distortions in the bracket. :lol:

In Double eliminations you have to lose twice to be out-

So I found myself working through the brackets until I saw I would meet Tway and TK in a bracket. Surely not good as one of us would be eliminated. So I decided I would "lose" and TK or Tway would beat each other "once" and then one of them would join me in the losers bracket.

It was a safer strategy to do in this kind of race as the qualifyng times were spread wide. I had to do a lot of runs. Mollica won that race and had to do about 10 runs. I had to do 22 runs. By the time I hd done 20 runs I got Curt Kimble and just barely had enough energy to make it by him. Then I faced Mollica and lost. I do think it helped TK and Tway's placings. And it certainly upset teh bracket which was what I wanted to do- it would have been nicer if I had won, but I was too tired.

In Catalina I also chose to sandbag. I figured if I got anyone but Paul Dunn it would be okay as I would not have expended teh warrm up energy to post a good qualifiing time and should I have met Paul in the Semis or finals I would be warmed up.

As it turned out I ended up bracketed with Paul. I think I dq'd on my run as well. The end result being a lower placing than I likely would have gotten without sandbagging.
I think Paul did not have to race Cross as Atilla did well on his run.

As for the barging of the gates. Hackett got hung up on them in Catalina agaist me and I got hung up against Cross in Breckenridge. The gates are a problem as opposed to tape switches which would not hang/injure a competitor.

Join the ISSA 25 cone series. One cyber race every second month!

Regular sessions allow newbies to join our community and discover slalom racing.