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?

Define "bigger."

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.

[Electric Coach]

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

[Reginald Rutledge]

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

[ajahaana]

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)

[mklingbeil]

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

[Michigan Joe]

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

[Reginald Rutledge]

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