Bigger Figures has it changed the game ?
 

Hey my EF/MF family:
As i put my Rutgers team together I have noticed that I have some pretty beefy dudes on my squad, My Brother Rick Garrison also has some heavyweight dudes on his pirates squad also, on the old Miggle board we use to have some great discussions on figure size, some coaches felt that going bigger would take away from the standard size of the Fab five , but for me when i saw figs by Don, Reggie and some other figure artists I was hooked on having the choice of making larger atheletes, FF.com figs made it very easy to go big, but at the time using FF.com stuff made you one of the guys that was breaking tradition, but I liked using them so it was what it was. but my question to you coaches is, do you feel that going with bigger figures has changed the game?

Depends On What The Meaning Of Is Is
 

Define "bigger."

bigger in mass
 

bigger in mass not in height, even at 4.0 i still try to keep figs scale, but larger arms, bigger shoulders, legs muscle tone, or big belly lineman, bigger in the sense of larger in mass than the fable five.

The Bigger Figure
 

Yes, bigger figures are changing the hobby. The look and the feel of the hobby are different as a result of the stockier figures. These bigger figures open the door for the coach to display his creations through artful expression. From my perspective, that is what this hobby is; art.

In regards to standards, the bigger figure breaks that mold. Needless to say, the bigger figure causes controversy. When I say “bigger”, I am talking about height, width, muscles; the entire anatomy of the figure.

In the beginning, I wasn’t quite ready to embrace the concept of the bigger figure. After taking the time to create some of my own, I realized the benefits in having such figures on the board. One of those benefits is variety. I like the way my teams look on the board with varied poses.

To reduce the conflict between artful expression, which I love and standards, use the bigger figures where they are accepted.

Maurice

The Electric Coach

The impact of bigger
 

In my opinion, there has been an impact. From the game perspective as well as customizing perspective, I can readily see how it has impacted the game.

In games that I am associated with, the bigger players seemed to perform better on faster boards. That also has to do with the bases which deals with the "athlete principle". While they are slightly bigger, many of the players can and do blend in with traditional figures from years past.

The game is immediately felt to be impacted when a guy is trying to throw a pass to a receiver and the "Bruce Smith" pose is in his leaping stance, altering how the QB throws the ball or causing an incompletion to happen. At the end of the game, when we look back at "impact plays" in one team's ability to win, this play contributed BIG!

From a customizing standpoint, I think the impact has been tremendous. Give Electric Coach much credit for his honest of being one of those who did not embrace this change. I remember him as well as many others who now glorify the changes as "messing with the fabric of the game". Electric Coach's forward thinking made him think long and hard about the good that this has done. Bigger was not meant to replace the traditions of the game but add to the pleasures of the game was one of the goals.

For me, more importantly, the "hardness of the player" was even more significant. You have no idea the many emails and telephone calls criticizing the softness of the players. Until I stepped on one and saw him go back into his natural state did I even understand the significance. When I saw that, my "engineering" mind went to work. And thus, I became a "customizing fool"! And now, you see many guys who had no interest in this aspect of the game create a whole new craze. And this was because, their minds became free and clarity of vision became reachable. That's just my opinion.

Reg

Define Fast Boards!!!
 

OUT HERE ON THE COAST WE HAVE BOARDS THAT GO Voooooooo! THAT ALLOWS THE PERFORMANCE BLUESMAN DISPLAYED(PRECISON WITH THE GRACE OF A GAZELLE) ALSO YOU HAVE THOSE IRRIATATING BOARDS THAT SOUND LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR eeeeeeeeeeeeeee! SO WHEN U PLAY THE COACH WITH THE BRACASAURAS TEAM(AND HE CRIES I NEED A FASTER BOARD) NOTE DURING WARM UP ONE HAS DEMOED A PLAY RUN THE 100 AT 2.1 OR LESS( FAST BOARD?) THIS IS FOOTBALL NOT THE MONSTER TRUCK DERBY. THESKRECHBOARD!! WITH-OUT A BUZZ.(eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee)

I prefer linemen, both offensive and defensive, to be "bigger." The fact is, linemen in the NFL are well over 300lbs, where as receivers are about 200-220 lbs. If this is the case, why do we have them look and weigh the same in mniniature football? My vision is larger bases and figures for linemen, and smaller more agile bases for receivers, backs, and DBs.

Mark

Bigger figures for scale
 

I'm with Mark, its great to get some scale to the figures/game to add realism. You know- the bigger/fatter O-lineman (FF, 67 Big Man, or custom) and with the ability to also have the little guy (maybe a hati-repro WR for example). I think the figures we have today can actually blend well to get some interesting figure proportions. I recently created a post about this showing various figures at certain postions in order to create a level of scale that adds to the realism. For anyone interested that didn't see that post you can search for it under: Team construction ideas- utilizing all figures.

Joe

I share that view however...
 

certain things are very difficult to police during the course of a game.

If you look at FF.net (FF.com) players, I show under stock poses the actual weights of players. My players are broken down by position where OL and DL are heavier than the LBs who are heavier than the DBs, QBs, RBs, and receivers.

I thought these things out many years ago but also ran into the issue of police-ing such things. Trust me, I would love to see linmen get their proper respect but when you are looking at time issues and the police-ing of the game, it can be a SERIOUS issue. We tried it here in the DFW. Myself and Michael Robertson were the proponents but so much underhanded cheating can occur with this.

The same weights of all players I have found makes the game more efficient and takes away one more issue about the game. But if someone came up with a logical way to keep the speed of the game (at least in the DFW) high and efficient, I am all ears!

Reg

Short answer is yes. Everything we do has an affect on the hobby. Some things more than others. Some for the better. Others not so much.

I have always maintained that we have room for more weight and NO room for taller, wider, longer figures and bases. The boards can accommodate, or be built to accommodate, more weight. That isn't a tough deal. Most boards will already do just fine, overall. What we do not, have not, and probably will never have, is room for taller, wider, longer figures and bases. That is, if we are trying to keep some sort of scale.

This has been covered in type and talk for over 10 years now. So whomever already got the memo, feel free to ignore.......

Scale for current mainstream players (figure+base=player) is 1.75 to 1.76 inches tall. This is right at .86 inches = 1 yard. That means, IF we do NOT have anything taller than existing mainstream, we would need a board right at 8.6 feet long! Try toting that to an out of town game. And that is strictly height we are dealing with here. Let alone, length, width, footprint, etc.

Most people play on a 620 or smaller. Though the trend has been increasing to slightly bigger (compared to 620) boards. Still, nothing close to actual scale. Point is, w/relation to scale, space is at a high premium already. Bigger stuff means less room on boards that already have way too little. Just doesn't make good sense and it really just isn't necessary.

There are other very good reasons for not going w/taller, wider, longer figures and bases. But that's for another day... make it a week or even a month.

Heavier, yes. Taller, Wider, Longer, an emphatic NO! We're already trying to play in a friggin phone booth.

-Mike Pratt

Get The Board First
 

When I talk about using bigger figures, I am assuming that the coach who increases the size of his figures is already playing on a custom size board. I would never use larger figures on a traditional board because of the board’s small size.

If a coach is going to customize his figures in size, he must customize the size of the board as well. In my opinion, one should get the custom board before actually using custom figures.

Maurice

The Electric Coach

my "bubbas"...
 

i enjoy the use of big belly, beefed up players, but i ONLY use them on the defensive line. the weight is still within legal limits and they are NOT wider, taller, or longer then anything else. i use standard 67 big men and ff.com figs and just use a light weight "filler" to bulk them up ie bigger belly, or bigger "hittin" shoulder pads. I dont bulk up runners or recievers but i do like to add shoulder pads for a more relistic look. The enjoyment for me is simply visual...they dont out-perform any other figure just because i made it look different... i love the reaction i get from my oppenent when i set up my d-line with the big belly bubbas and they go.. "man those are huge" because now i am inside his head because now he "THINKS" i have the advantage and it messes with the head...kinda like a intimidation kinda thing.

Mike,
I totally agree with you, if the board is a 620 or smaller, larger figures and bases should not be used. However, I think the game is evolving past that. I have been playing on a custom field I made for seven years now. It is 60" long by 27" wide. On a field that size, there is some room to make the figures and bases for linemen a little larger. I agree with you Maurice...it ALL has to be bigger!

This is just how I enjoy playing, but it sounds to me like people are looking for other options than the old standards format, and perhaps the time has come to look at other styles we can employ. I still prefer the standards for tourneys on small boards, but am really looking for something better.

What do y'all think?
Mark

I love the idea of a multi weight team. Lineman 4.0 , TE, FB, LB 3.6 everyone else 3.3 grams. To me it seems simple to regulate. We weigh in all the players at Tournament time anyway. ?????? It is as simple as to set a rule that "NO ONE" can remove a figure from a base at anytime from check in to the crowning of the champ. NO extra empty bases allowed. A standard heighth and width can be controlled by a "cube". Pass through the cube and you are good to go.
If we let the possibilty of cheating regulate our rules it stifles us. It lets the minority rule.
Do we really believe the majority of the Coaches we are around will cheat?
Look at your league mates and answer that question. The cheaters will weed themselves out. Imediately when the game is over you simply & quickly weigh the championship teams, in front of everyone.
I personally think the conversations we have had over the past months, years whatever have revealed the interest in multi weight system.
With all of this being said. I DO NOT support Larger size figures or bases for obvious reasons that Mike Pratt pointed out. Weight is one thing Width & Heighth are another. We are all wanting to play on a bigger field now to open up the play. So it makes absolutely no sense to me to put ourselves right back out of room with larger bases or bases heavier than 1.3 grams.
Bluesman280 has it right. The visual effect is very pleasing and looks real and can be done with the rules we now have.
If we continue to up the size up the weight it will never stop and the cost will continue to go up & up & up.
We have witnessed that even within the standards today that evolution is still possible. The TDQ and TDK in my opinion are living examples. It is improvement without changing the standards.



Geno H

Ask 100 people for an opinion and you'll get just about 100 different opinions just about 100% of the time. Most of us are more prone to visual stimulation (shinny things) versus mental stimulation. I also prefer OL and DL to look bulkier than LB's, TE's, WR's, etc. But none of that has a thing to do w/the point I was making... size, scale, how it affects the hobby.

My point was scale. My point was IF we use a mainstream scaled player, irregardless of weight, on a scaled field, then we have a player that is 1.75-1.76 inches (tallest) on a field that is just shy of 8.6 feet long. So BEFORE introducing any taller players you need to get the board at that length JUST to achieve proper scale. Any board that is smaller is not to scale. Any taller player throws the scale off exponentially. Like I said, we are already playing in a phone booth, w/respect to scale. Even w/a board that is made at 1/2 inch = a yard, it's only about 3/4 scale. STILL not to scale of the 1.76 inch tall mainstream players.

So, please tell me, how is reducing the room to operate by introducing yet taller players on unscaled boards any sort of an evolutionary act? Evolution is generally thought of as a progression - Moving forward. Putting yet taller players on a board that is well short of 8.6 feet long is moving backwards. I.E., we never actually achieved a scaled board for the 1.76 inch figures. Taller figures on boards already too small is somehow an advancement? Advancement to better simulate football would require (a) same size players on bigger boards or (b) smaller players on existing and/or bigger boards.

I respect everyone's opinions. And I'm fine w/whatever people decide. It's not going to change my life either way. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. People are going to do what they want. I am just trying to inject some basic logic. Scaled players on a scaled field.. basic math.... how it affects the hobby.... trying to simulate football.

At any rate, if bigger is better then let's just cut to the chase. I propose 12 inch figures on the field. Just like the old G.I. Joes, Captain Actions, Barbies/Ken, etc. The paint jobs will look better, they'll be much easier to detail, much less controversy on tackles, completed passes, etc. We can use a scaled field to simulate football for these IF our backyards are big enough. thmbsp$ Now that is BIG. And that, to me, would be worth ditching all of my invested hobby goodies to start fresh. Lemme know when they're available. Until then, 1.76 inch tall players are already too tall until 8.6 foot boards are mainstream. I'm all in for bigger boards. So, at least we completely agree on that issue.

-Mike Pratt

i love the idea of a multiple weighted style, but it would be difficult to regulate, in my opinion.

look guys we can go allday with this,the way i see it is if u like larger figs by all means play with them,the hobby will only grow with new innovative ideas,but keep heavy weight with heavy weights,sure the bruce smith fig disrupted a play against smaller figs but against the big figs he's average at best,it's a larger scale fig,u want to mix them in with the traditional when they are not,personaly i find them extreme,but thats just me,i dont find that the larger figs have change the game at all it's the ones who want to put them up against smaller figs that's where the perversion comes in.

then you will start seeing....
 

Bigger figures in the backfield, ....................."Oh, thats my Lorenzo Neal, .... that's my Bettis, etc....."

It's a game, .........:cool:

We Are Big Enough
 

I am speaking hypothetically. I am not saying that Tweak Freak is suggesting that the hobby goes to this level. I am only speaking in regards to what he said.

Tweak Freak when I pick up a magazine, I don’t read it. I only look at the pictures. When we talk about customizing our equipment in the hobby, we must be careful to keep it all in perspective. That is my approach to the hobby.

Tweak Freak talked about the actual scale a board must be to truly accommodate a figure of a certain size. In regards to the hobby, it would be unnecessary to go to that level. Furthermore, there isn’t enough space for a tournament to house multiple boards that are 8 feet long. I personally, don’t have enough space in my house to accommodate such a board.

I like the hobby where it is now. I don’t see a need to go bigger than what we are in regards to the size of figures and boards. The total size of my board is 45 inches long by 35 inches wide. The actual playing surface is 39 inches long by 21.5 inches wide. The rest of the field is sidelines and space behind the goal post.

In my ideal world, I believe that a board should be no bigger than 5 feet long by 3 feet wide. Within that a playing surface can be set. The figures need not be bigger.

Maurice

The Electric Coach