x a brazillion million and one
Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
Bruiser vs. Joust (aka the thread about Lee crashing in to Jonny)
I'm selling off an old project bike, and I'm considering using those funds for a new frame for polo. Current setup can be seen here:
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/bike/liamg/polo-bike-20
Bruiser would be a pretty nice upgrade from my current frame, I could keep the 700c wheelset I have and would just need a new brake setup.
Joust would be polo specific, but overall would be a more expensive polo project since I'd need a new wheelset.
Discuss...
March 2, 2010 - 12:23am
#4
Your current polo bike looks awesome. If you like 700c, stick with it. If you want 26", you have to decide if it's worth the cash to switch.
I've heard a few people say they're happy with the joust for getting around town. I like 700c, but that's just me.
March 2, 2010 - 9:59am
#5
If you describe your height, weight, playing style, proclivity for breaking wheels etc. Someone may have an opinion. But its really a complicated personal issue. (I sound so serious)
March 2, 2010 - 11:00am
#6
A Bruiser is just as "polo specific" as a Joust, they're simply branded differently. I'm currently riding a Bruiser for polo and couldn't be happier with it. It's all about personal preference. Your current frame is somewhat similar in geometry to a Bruiser, but if you were to buy one you'd have better brake options.
March 2, 2010 - 1:03pm
#7
the bruiser wasn't designed for polo in the same way the joust was. The bruiser was designed to be a fixed gear trick bike and it crosses over to polo as well. The joust was designed specifically to be a bike polo bike. I like the joust more then the bruiser so far but i'm assuming the polo bike will evolve very quickly.
March 12, 2010 - 2:43pm
#8
"Simply branded differently" is a phrase i would save for BMX bikes.
I agree more with the apples and oranges statement. These bikes are not at all similar, and a side by side comparison would reveal this.
To define the end all be all polo bike is hard thing to fathom, especially because there are so many different playing styles. You can't make one bike and expect everyone to cling to it.
The reason why our frames are marketed for polo is because constant court testing has manifested it self into the Joust. This bike has had bike polo in its DNA from day one, and has never been afraid to change a little bit to better performance.
The Joust is built locally and can change the design when an improvement comes to light, but the end result is always a bike that excels at polo.
At the end of the day, its the player that matters. If you can't shoot, pass, or see the field, a polo bike is not going to make you the next bad ass.
What a polo bike is going to do is:
-Allow you to turn sharp without much toe over lap or pedal strike.
-Give you stability on turns
-Not getting your mallet stuck between tire and down tube
-be strong enough to hold together for your ride home.
My argument for the Joust is that these things plus other attributes have been calculated into the Geo. At the end of the day the Joust allows me to think about how I am playing the game, not if my bike is going to flop on a sharp turn or not.
March 2, 2010 - 11:49am
#9
I just started riding my Bruiser won at COG and it feels good, fast and stable but I'm not a fan of the u-brake compared to a v-brake. I may go to the double break system as a result
March 2, 2010 - 1:04pm
#10
I'm not a fan of the u-brake compared to a v-brake. I may go to the double break system as a result
Why aren't you a fan of it?
March 2, 2010 - 1:27pm
#11
because it sucks! where's the stopping power?! rory looks like an old man on this thing.
March 2, 2010 - 1:58pm
#13
WRONG!!!
March 3, 2010 - 12:55am
#14
Hahaha....BMX industry should pay you for how much you defend U-Brakes. I understand why the Bruiser developed the way it did, but I honestly hate straddle cables. That's my only complaint about non-linear pull cantis. U-brakes and old school cantis have plenty of braking power if adjusted correctly, they're just a lot more time consuming to adjust than V-brakes.
March 2, 2010 - 2:02pm
#15
U-brakes are STILL in production.
March 2, 2010 - 2:01pm
#16
If you learn to use a wrench, it works fine :)
March 2, 2010 - 2:36pm
#17
Do tell. What is the secret?
March 2, 2010 - 2:47pm
#18
I think a common problem is over-tensioning the springs. With a u-brake, less is more. Try giving it about an 1/8 of a turn and you should be set. Just make sure the bolt holding the spring in place is thoroughly loosened beforehand.
March 2, 2010 - 3:06pm
#19
Try and get lighter tensioned springs. Depending on manufacturer, they may or may not offer something that will fit your brake. I think odyssey offers two different spring tension springs.
Do what Tim says and try to source lighter springs too.
And of course running the correct pull in your lever makes a difference too.
March 2, 2010 - 4:35pm
#20
I had trouble pulling 2 U-brakes with 1 lever, but with 1 brake and even highly tensioned springs plus a tiny lever, it's really not that hard...
March 2, 2010 - 9:43pm
#21
x2... listen to tim. i didn't like my ubrakes till i followed his advice, now i think they are great once adjusted properly
March 2, 2010 - 5:21pm
#22
Learn to use a wrench class is at the same time as big fat goals class.
March 4, 2010 - 12:27am
#23
My V-brakes work great but I could do with a "Big Fat Goals" class - Saturdays at Grandview? I'll have to check my schedule to get out for one.
March 4, 2010 - 12:46pm
#24
Also Rory, if you want a U break that behaves more like a v break in adjust ability look into some of the Tektro freestyle breaks like the FX720R model or something similar, it doesn't use a straddle cable, and they are pretty affordable, like $25-$35 range.
March 2, 2010 - 6:47pm
#27
thanks for all the comments. I totally get that this is a bit like apples and oranges, but I do pull a bit of info from all this that is helpful. All my other bikes are 700c, so sticking to something with similar geometry is probably a good idea. I'm a pretty lightweight lanky dude (6'0" 145lbs) so I'm not too hard on my gear, but I have bent the fork on multiple polo frames. the 48h 700c deep Vs have been holding up fine for me. The frame I am running now was a decent upgrade from my first polo bike which was an old conversion that had super slack geo, I'm just looking at this upgrade now because I'd like to start this season fresh (we just got 3' of snow up here, so our return to polo is still a few weeks off). the 1' steer tube on the Pake is going to fail at some point, so a new frame now will potentially save me from that downtime later.
March 4, 2010 - 8:43am
#28
Burlington needs to come down and pay Boston a visit! The last week in March the Troy NY kids are coming, you should come then as well.
March 5, 2010 - 7:15pm
#29
Jav, would love to road trip this spring. We've got the US Open at Stratton the 3rd week of March and will need at least a week to recover after that is over... then we'll be back on bikes and playing polo.
March 11, 2010 - 4:13pm
#30
the joust is better if you want to have lots of control, speed, and finess. the brusier is good if your sponsored or dont understand the only diff between 26 and 27 is just an inch.
that being said, i think MKE could make a kick ass polo bike, and the bruiser can def be used as one, but its not a polo bike, in the same way surly's arnt polo bikes.
March 11, 2010 - 4:23pm
#31
So personal preference doesn't factor into what a "polo bike" is? Just marketing and a different design (Joust) and sponsorship (Bruiser)?
I think any bike on a polo court that someone has put any thought into their set-up is a polo bike. This sport is still too young to strictly define equipment. Just sayin
March 11, 2010 - 4:26pm
#33
Ben, referring to modern road bike size wheels in 27" is out dated.
Unless your name is gary fisher or you have a full understanding how certain geometry specs will feel like in real world instances categorizing bikes should be left to those who can respectively discern the advantages of a 26" and 700c. Different strokes for different folks, saying the bruisers is not a polo bike is incorrect and you're opinion is not the final say.
March 11, 2010 - 5:45pm
#34
ben rides a joust ask yourself..does he exhibit control, speed and finesse?
March 11, 2010 - 5:50pm
#35
I'd say 1 out of 3, but he does embody 2 other "virtues" of a polo player: disregard for personal safety, spectular crashing ability.
March 13, 2010 - 9:11am
#36
Whatever it is Ben has. . . ya'll wish you could take a hit of it.
Mr Hunter Goes to Columbia from Mr.Do on Vimeo.
March 11, 2010 - 6:52pm
#37
since when did i start being taken seriously on this forum
March 11, 2010 - 10:34pm
#38
haha you all make me laugh rory if you are running two breaks run a noodle in front like my set up if you want pics check our blog having less housing in less bends makes it you brake feel way better (obviously) and get the evo 2's put in the light springs and you can start to compare u brakes to v brakes. theres no point in arguing over what bike is better any A player could get on all most any bike and still slay.
March 11, 2010 - 10:53pm
#39
Hey Kemin...thanks for the info. I might just do that. I am really enjoying the Bruiser is fits me really well. As you know I'm a big dude and more stopping power is need over the current setup I have.
I've played polo on both the Bruiser and the Joust (at day one of ESPI 4 when my seat stays failed - thanks Dumptruck) and they both worked fine for me. Thanks to MKE Bike Company and Waterford for being the first of I imagine a number of companies to try to build polo bikes.
I also won a Volume Cutter last year...didn't work for me but I think the frame is also a bit big for polo.
March 26, 2010 - 2:47pm
#44
No bruisers were damaged in the playing of Bench Minor...how many Jousts were?
March 26, 2010 - 2:55pm
#45
the question is who's jousts
March 26, 2010 - 3:31pm
#46
ah well ya got me there...we all know whos they were
March 26, 2010 - 4:12pm
#47
brian are you blaming me for my joust getting busted? Both of my crashes were not my fault. I'm not a physical player, and i don't crash much. The crashes i had a bench minor were the first crashes i have ever had on that bike.
I fucking hate it that people associate my style of play with ben's.
Joe Burge crashed his bruiser way more often then i did this weekend and his bike is fine.
March 26, 2010 - 4:50pm
#48
well if it makes you feel any better, i always thought you were rougher than ben.
March 26, 2010 - 4:56pm
#49
whether one of us is rougher or not isn't really the question, it is the collisions that one gets into on the bike. I have a lot fewer collisions then ben does and i dab a lot less then he did.
March 26, 2010 - 4:14pm
#50
and how many bruisers went at top speed into a cement wall?
March 26, 2010 - 4:55pm
#51
My bike didn't break the first time by going into the cement wall. It is was when kremin clipped my front wheel when we were both going fast. My bike hit the ground no the wall. The second collision that did my bike in was with mr. lee from st. louis who hit me from behind on a scoring chance and my bike ended up hitting his bike first then the ground then hit the wall. His bike collision was what did my bike in not the wall.
March 29, 2010 - 11:39am
#52
my apologies, all i heard was they both broke going into the wall. so i assumed it was at high speed and the little space behind the net that was the culprit. it wasn't meant to offend.
March 26, 2010 - 4:15pm
#53
What happened to the Jousts?
March 26, 2010 - 7:44pm
#56
pics?
April 7, 2010 - 4:26am
#58
First off, we could talk about the hunter brothers and bike frames bending all day. Its like asking if a bear shits in the woods, or if the is sky blue. I knew that as soon as ben bought the 4th joust that we would be in for a learning experience. We are going to take what we learn from here and make improvements where needed.
My biggest joy of Bench Minor was watching three jousts slaying on the court during the finals (Jon Atwell, Sean Pheno, and Lefty Zach on a borrowed joust), and only one Bruiser (good job Matt). Where was the rest of the bruiser pro team? Was it third or fourth place? I can't remember, I was to busy drinking on the bench and taking pictures after clinching the spirit award earlier that day.
Here is Jonny's last crash
Thanks Ulumo
April 7, 2010 - 8:23am
#59
At least you didn't call it an accident.
April 7, 2010 - 10:10am
#60
looks clean to me.
April 7, 2010 - 10:12am
#61
It is a pretty high def piece of footage. Barely pixelated even in slow motion.
That is what you were talking about right?
April 7, 2010 - 10:49am
#62
har har. Nah, I thought that the hit was fine, Jonny knew he was coming but still turning and leaned in order to hit the ball. Lee kept his line and was able to brake and stop before the wall.
April 7, 2010 - 11:47am
#63
How is that clean? He was behind the player with possession of the ball and ran into him. Look at when the contact happens, Jonny is clearly ahead of Lee. Lee is basically in an out of control skid and just looking to take both of them out.
I don't understand what "kept his line" even means. So I can run into someone as long as I'm going in a straight line? Sounds like the definition of a t-bone.
Plays like these are bush-league and dangerous.
April 7, 2010 - 12:27pm
#64
It didn't look like a t-bone or bush-league to me. Yeah, it looked like Lee came in a little hot but that happens sometimes. If there wasn't a two foot brick wall there no harm would have come of it. I don't think any rules were broken and maybe that is what he meant by "clean".
April 7, 2010 - 12:46pm
#65
I see Lee's front wheel goes right into the middle of Jonny's bike, aka TBONE. There is clearly no intent to play the ball or even the man. Just crash'em up bullshit.
You can knock a guy off his bike cleanly. This isn't close to that.
April 7, 2010 - 12:48pm
#66
To me, it looks like maybe front wheel to front wheel, but it's hard to tell. And Lee did cut off the ball and then be started braking, so I think he was trying to play the ball. Lee's not a dirty player like that.
April 7, 2010 - 1:02pm
#67
He stopped the ball with his wheels! If he didn't come in at that angle at that speed he wouldn't have been able to make that kind of play. From the angle of the footage it isn't possible to say what Lee's front wheel did or if there was even any bike to bike contact at all.
April 7, 2010 - 1:04pm
#68
Or you could take the person who was there's word a little more seriously than someone watching a video.
Several side's to this coin.
April 7, 2010 - 1:17pm
#69
Of course, I was not there and I only saw the video. But in the video it is clear that Lee stopped the ball with his wheel so effectively playing the ball and making the play! Sweden, I'm pretty sure you were at home tweeting so you don't know anything more then me. If I spoke up about something out of place anyone that was there please forgive me.
April 8, 2010 - 6:11pm
#71
exactly, who gives a shit if he blocked the ball? it's a textbook t-bone hit clean and simple. lee needed to control his bike before ploughing into jonny, just like anywhere else on the court. saving a goal or playing the ball is no justification for hurting someone, isn't that the whole reason we have contact rules in the first place? if you can't stop from slamming into someone you have no business making that play-- whether he was playing the ball or not is irrelevant here.
i don't think it changes the responsibilities of the situation, but could having more space behind the nets have prevented this, or at least it's severity? johnny has no escape route and has to cut behind the net to avoid the wall, running right across lee's path. i originally had to watch the video several times to see if jonny would have been able to avoid the wall even without the hit on the play. anyone want to chime in on whether jonny would have touched the wall regardless?
April 8, 2010 - 7:22pm
#72
i remember watching it happen and thinking they were both going a little too fast considering the brick wall. you can see lee shifting his weight backwards to slow down. i don't know if jonny would have hit the wall, though.
April 7, 2010 - 1:14pm
#75
Ok, I see he made the play on the ball, but I assert he wasn't in control, which led to a high speed crash.
I'm not saying Lee's a dirty player. He made plenty of clean hard plays that tournament. I just don't think this was one.
April 7, 2010 - 12:41pm
#77
The contact looked like it was shoulder to shoulder to me, not bike to bike. If it was bike to bike, that's different but I can't tell based upon this video. If he just ran his front wheel into Jonny's frame, that's not ok, but it doesn't look like that's what happened.
edit: also, Lee plays with a front brake. I doubt that he was skidding.
April 7, 2010 - 2:21pm
#78
I can't people are trying to argue that lee played the ball. Yes, he did play the ball with his wheel, but the only way that he was able to play ball was first, hit my bike with his front wheel first. Also, i would argue that there is little to playing the ball here. Both hands are on the handle bar, he isn't using his mallet to try to play the ball, he is riding as fast as he can to try to block the goal. It isn't a strategic play. It is bush league. It is crazy that people defend this shit. We might as well throw out the idea of playing a sport and hit each other with swords and feed the losers to lions if that is the case.
Be so completely out of control that he whips around at high speed and crashes me into the wall. It wasn't a safe play and i just don't see anyway to justify this play as being safe. You can't expect an offensive player to move out of the way because someone is riding their bike straight at them. This isn't chicken, it was a dangerous play that recked my bike. I'm sure he is really proud that he saved the goal but we need to think about safety here and it wasn't a safe play even if he played me straight with his shoulder. He was going to fast and was too out of control.
Pete if Lee is playing with a front brake then it would have had to have been the force from his front wheel that whipped his bike around and caused him to collide right into me?
April 7, 2010 - 2:49pm
#79
I can't people are trying to argue that lee played the ball. Yes, he did play the ball with his wheel, but the only way that he was able to play ball was first, hit my bike with his front wheel first. Also, i would argue that there is little to playing the ball here. Both hands are on the handle bar, he isn't using his mallet to try to play the ball, he is riding as fast as he can to try to block the goal. It isn't a strategic play. It is bush league. It is crazy that people defend this shit. We might as well throw out the idea of playing a sport and hit each other with swords and feed the losers to lions if that is the case.
Ya he clearly wasn't playing the ball, but i don't think Lee would argue that either.
I'm sure he is really proud that he saved the goal but we need to think about safety here and it wasn't a safe play even if he played me straight with his shoulder. He was going to fast and was too out of control.
I think this is a good point. It was a clean shoulder check from my perspective (you can see in the video i was following on the play) but it was needlessly dangerous. Lee or someone from his team pulled exactly the same thing on me in Como in November and i flew in to the boards after scoring a goal, probably my scariest crash ever. Not sure if there's a way to regulate this tho, outside of "dangerous play" like in soccer.
April 7, 2010 - 4:43pm
#80
Couple of points here kevin,
From this video it is hard to see what happens with the front wheel, but it is what leads into my frame, you can see this in the way that front of Lee's bike moves after the hit. Also, Lee doesn't make a clean shoulder check. I move forward into the fence. If lee had hit me clean with his shoulder then my momentum would not have carried me into the fence. Lee's hit was front wheel first into my frame, then body check into my back and then lastly the rear wheel on his bike bangs against my bike. I just don't see how this is a clean check.
Even if someone leads with the shoulder it doesn't mean it was a clean check, if the bike follows and creates contact that is still a dirty play. A clean check is when the only exchange of is like contact and does not lead to bike to bike contact.
April 8, 2010 - 12:35am
#81
OK, we can debate whether or not this was a check from behind, maybe it was, and whether the bike-on-bike was incidental, which i'm pretty sure of.
But I've been thinking about this more, and i think what distinguishes this as dangerous is that Lee leaves his bike--there was no way he was going to be able to deliver this check and maintain control and ride away. Same shit in semi-finals of CMWC in 2008, us against Dalrymplestiltskin.... Doug D "cleanly" dragged Ben along the splintery fence when Ben tried to thread the needle between him and it, and i retaliated by "cleanly" delivering a shoulder check on Doug in which i completely left my bike in delivering the check. member that Doug? Classic game, also involving crazy glue on Jonny's face, but with lightning and thunder all around us.
There's a rule against leaving your feet in hockey when giving a body check, seems like a good analogy? If Lee had been able to stay on his bike after, there is no way you would have hit that fence at all.
April 7, 2010 - 4:06pm
#84
Jonny, out of curiosity, do you think we would be having this conversation if that play had been in a game somewhere other than the Pit? That is, if instead of limited room and an awkward concrete/chainlink rear wall there had been 15 feet behind the goal and 42-48” hockey boards as the rear wall, would that have changed your impression of the dangerousness of the play?
I saw this hit in real life, and it WAS real fast and I couldn’t really tell if Lee’s bike hit the ball or your bike first, or if it was a shoulder check first. I think it has to be a legitimate play on the ball to get your wheel in shot-blocking position but, of course, you can’t be able to T-Bone or intentionally wreck the attacker in the process ( which I understand you are saying IS what he did). I guess I think that Lee’s play there was on the wild side, but the dangerousness of it was mostly about the Pit, not the play.
April 7, 2010 - 4:37pm
#85
It did suck that i ended up against the fence but the impact of lee's bike hitting my bike was the most dangerous part of this play and that is what broke the bike and what pissed me off so bad about the play.
I actually think hitting the fence with some give is slightly better then hitting the ground with no give. I don't love the how short the area is behind the goal but it isn't a problem in this situation if Lee doesn't lead with his forward momentum.
April 7, 2010 - 4:46pm
#86
Based upon what you and Javier have said, his bike hit you before his shoulder. In that case, I'd say that the play was wrong. But it's really hard to tell front the video.
April 7, 2010 - 5:50pm
#87
so pete, you saying that it is okay to hit a player with your shoulder first then to take out their bike with your bike? I mean, should like contact stay like contact through the play? Even if he did hit me with his shoulder first, it wouldn't matter because his bike definitely collides with my bike. Is it okay to hit someone with a mallet if i play them with my shoulder first. Like contact should be like contact throughout the play, not just the first contact.
April 7, 2010 - 6:10pm
#88
Like contact all the way through is what I thought I saw. But if the shoulder contact made you or any one lose control that's their own fault.
April 7, 2010 - 5:03pm
#89
I guess I think that Lee’s play there was on the wild side, but the dangerousness of it was mostly about the Pit, not the play.
LOL
April 7, 2010 - 3:02pm
#90
funny you are defending this play as if someone did it to you you would be complaining about it. Just sayin...
April 7, 2010 - 4:40pm
#91
He did almost exactly this at the pull out into the boards. Wasn't the slightest bit upset. I'm fine with shoulder contact. It's accepted in most other similar sports.
April 7, 2010 - 11:35am
#92
joe burge was in the final as well on a bruiser.
April 7, 2010 - 2:39pm
#94
lee was not going for the ball he had his mallet in his hand on the bars. he was trying to block the angle or shot with his bike.dangerous high speed move. i side with jonny on this one
April 7, 2010 - 6:42pm
#96
x2
I believe at this point that at the tourney level, riding with mallets high has potential for catastrophe. I don't doubt for a second that lee's save was justified, but my objection comes when the play extended beyond the net. Jonny had an exit line that was clearly blocked as a result of this save, which could have been prevented if lee used his mallet more proactively in the play or made a more effective stop while blocking the ball. The footage depicts a lot of rulebook gray area as far as intention and negligibility, but either way not acceptable.
It was one of the scariest head on collisions i have seen in a while, and i feel that it could have been prevented.
We have to be mindful of bush league play, and we are all guilty of it. I feel bad highlighting Lee to make the point of playing safe, because I'm guilty of colliding with him at the Lock In on a double joust i mistakenly instigated, and i think he is one of the nicest guys off the court.
Bottom line, safety should be just as rooted in our community as much as the competition itself.
We are all going to have a shitty time when the first player is fatally injured on the court as a result of negligible play.
April 16, 2010 - 2:22pm
#98
It really looks like the goal is way too close to the wall. This appears to be more of a problem than Lee's play on Jonny. Can someone confirm the dimension (imperial units please). Sorry about your bike Jonny, good hustle.
April 18, 2010 - 12:05pm
#100
I don't doubt the overly aggressive or reckless play of Lee. Last time I played with him he knocked the shit out of me (blindsided t-bone at mid-court) & I WAS ON HIS TEAM. I don't believe he is focused on the game when he plays. That needs to change too.
April 19, 2010 - 9:15am
#101
i rode my Bruiser in the final game.
April 7, 2010 - 10:48pm
#102
I can't believe what I'm reading from the parties involved in this video after having played against most of the posters involved at least once, and seen them a number of times. Change the heads on the players around a bit and people would be cheering about how awesome it was.
It is this kind of play and the action after the hit that has made me question going to anything billed as a "serious" tournament anymore.
April 7, 2010 - 11:51pm
#103
I dont think you need to change the heads around. that would not matter.
The Video and review from people not there is what is making this hot.
I was there and I watched the slow-mo.
It looked super dangerous, No matter what court it happened on.
I would not want to be either one of the players in that play, for different reasons for both.
I'm just glad Jonny was ok after. I thought he got slammed into the fence pole pretty hard.
People, If you're gonna play against mad men, wear your helmet.
April 8, 2010 - 12:33am
#104
X2
April 8, 2010 - 9:12am
#105
Most of the people saying it was super dangerous were there. The video angle isn't great and it's harder to judge. If my interpretation of the video is wrong, then I'm sorry but it's all I have to go on obviously.
April 8, 2010 - 4:27pm
#106
Going to chime in and just say, IMHO Lee came in too hot and was trying to make a play and resulted into a two man crash. It's quite obvious that it wouldn't have resulted in a sketchy crash if Lee wouldn't have skidded into Jonny. Instead, he should have played the ball then make a right hand turn behind the goal. I'm willing to bet Jonny would have been able to stop his bike before slamming into the wall, if Lee wasn't there to "help" him along the way.
Anyone saying Lee was playing the ball is out of their mind.
It was a stupid play and i'm positive Lee would have had possession of the ball if not for both of his hands on the bars while going full blown balls to the walls skidding into player/wall(brick wall?!?!)
case closed..
April 8, 2010 - 5:18pm
#107
I'm confused about what you thought his mallet should have been doing. Should he have been crossing over his body? Protecting his five hole? Reaching out in front of him where the ball wasn't? Playing the ball is apparently something other then blocking the shot. I'm not defending the crash but this not playing the ball thing when he clearly made the play on the ball is bullshit. Case reopened.
Edit: Again I wasn't there, and really I am confused by all the references to where Lee's hands were and that he wasn't playing the ball. I'm not looking for trouble but these statements just don't make sense to me.
April 8, 2010 - 5:21pm
#108
I'm confused about what you thought his mallet should have been doing.
Sorry for the confusion, but he should have had his mallet ON the ground playing the ball. Not at chest height, in the air NOT doing shit. Instead he was playing the defense into the wall at stupid speeds.
Case closed & can't be re-opened.
hakakakakakaka
April 8, 2010 - 6:01pm
#109
Not defending the crash just how he was caring his mallet. On the ground where? When we're burning up the court I think we pretty much all carry our mallets like that. Is that wrong? It seems normal to me and in this case the mallet didn't cause any harm. A lot of people don't reach across their bodies at high speed and try to whack at the ball, that's normal right? Using your wheels to block shots is pretty standard. Btw, how much room is actually behind that goal? It looks dangerously close to me.
April 12, 2010 - 1:06pm
#111
I guess it's doubly impressive that he could trail the person with the ball and block it with his back wheel! The angle may not indicate that but they were obviously closer then it looks.
No disrespect meant to anyone pictured. It's just odd that people would point out something so common like holding your mallet and steering and try to say there is something wrong with it.
If it is okay with everyone else that people state obscure aspects of normal playing and riding and make them out to be facts of how Lee was in the wrong for playing defense then fine. Consider it dropped.
April 12, 2010 - 1:27pm
#112
Holding your mallet on your bars is a rookie move. Its dangerous, plain and simple. By putting your mallet hand on your bars your mallet is exactly at head height.
Oh its also something I see fixed gear riders doing more often then freewheel riders. So there's that I guess. It maybe one of the handicaps of riding fixed.
Sorry to the people pictured above but I'm replying to what Stevenso said and not the photo.
/edit this post was written before stevenso edited his original post. Not sure exactly what he added.
April 12, 2010 - 1:50pm
#114
i have to agree with stevenso here. if you never put your mallet on your handlebar, you're probably going too slow sometimes.
April 12, 2010 - 2:50pm
#115
I agree. I put my mallet on my handle bars all the time while pushing hard to speed up. Not just a newbie move and most importantly not against the rules.
April 14, 2010 - 1:48pm
#116
everybody rides with their mallets in the air, especially on the bigger courts where rory-like speeds are required. the newbie move is in hitting someone with it.
April 12, 2010 - 3:09pm
#117
Correct. Never is word I rarely would use when discussing rules. I put both hands on bars to sprint but rarely at slow speeds or when turning. Many times when new players are on the court I have to actively dodge their head level mallets because they are using two hands to turn or steady themselves when stopping.
My use of "plain and simple" was a poor choice of words. Its just really hard not to use superlatives when replying to stevenso.
April 14, 2010 - 9:52am
#119
You waste too much time misreading comments. I didn't address Sveden's comments at all other then stating that I didn't change my comment while he was typing. Sveden was interested in the dangerous aspects, take it up with him and work something out!
I heard I hit Chris but I didn't know I did it until the next day and luckily there was no damage caused and all was forgiven.
April 14, 2010 - 1:51pm
#121
this answer too please: is riding with your mallet in the air more dangerous on a bruiser or a joust? please don't answer like it's your first time playing polo.
April 8, 2010 - 7:45pm
#122
did anyone notice the end of the video where jonny wraps his fuckin arm around lees neck and shake his head and then whisper in his ear? I wonder what he said to him.
by the way pieter jonnys name doesnt have an h.
one of the things about lees style of play during that game, was its consistency. He did the same shit like six times, where he defended his goal on a breakaway and came from behind caused a wreck and stopped a goal. did he stay up for one of those? god i got pissed during this game.
April 15, 2010 - 9:48am
#123
jonny with no "H" from the mid-west not to be confused with johnny midwest.
and the pit has nothing to do with the bullshit play i see there.
April 9, 2010 - 8:42pm
#124
Pieter you and leon got in a very simular situation in NA last year did you not? shit happens all the time and its going to continue to happen. i say deal with it. jonny also could have mad a shot instead of trying to walk it in. shit was dangerous but competitive polo in general is dangerous i hope espis arent in the pit
April 9, 2010 - 8:52pm
#125
Agreed in that charging the goal with the ball comes with inherent risk, especially in high speed situations. Although I wouldn't wanna be the one to run up full speed behind someone there are plenty of yahoos who will. Against the rules? No. Scary? Yea. But shall we shun said yahoos? Debatable.
Truth be told I have learned to pull up for a shot in some fast break situations. In a live to see another day mentality figure that I am better with a lower percentage shot that eliminates the risk of being taken out of a game due to broken bike or body.
April 9, 2010 - 9:11pm
#126
The Pit
April 9, 2010 - 9:56pm
#127
actually it was totally different.
April 10, 2010 - 3:37am
#128
you scared of the pit now kraaamin? You better be.
April 10, 2010 - 12:36pm
#129
The Pit
April 16, 2010 - 12:29pm
#130
you scared of the pit now kraaamin? You better be.
Scared of the Beaver Boys arent you Blewitt? You better be.
April 11, 2010 - 3:25pm
#131
anybody have the link to the NA crash video for comparison? i know i saw it somewhere on this forum.
April 13, 2010 - 12:22pm
#133
Yup, totally different. Pieter was in front of Leon for starters, the only mallet in the air was Leon's back swing and the only one who crashed into anything was Pieter into the boards. I was there I saw it happen. in fact it was totally different because Pieter only put himself at risk in that situation.
April 15, 2010 - 9:58am
#134
what made pieter crash there was the ball getting between the fork and the wheel cover (slow the video down and you'll see) otherwise he might not have lost control of his bike and been able to recover. pieters play was clean in my opinion where lees play was not anywhere near being clean.
April 15, 2010 - 12:20pm
#135
I've slowed the video down and I don't see the ball doing that. Looks like he grabbed a handful of brake to me.
April 15, 2010 - 1:43pm
#136
yep, i had a lot of problems with brake adjustments that day, there was just more brake than i could handle. in the super-slow mo you can see me pick up the rear wheel and put it down again, and then go all the way over.
April 15, 2010 - 4:18pm
#137
Damn. I've been thinking about going front brake freewheel. Maybe not. When rushing towards the boards like that I think I will always prefer washing out the rear to an endo.
Thanks for sharing the video.
April 15, 2010 - 1:56pm
#138
stand corrected, when that happened in seattle i thought he rode over the ball, ninja ball style of wipe out, now reviewing the vid it doesn't appear to be the case still clean play though
April 15, 2010 - 10:01pm
#139
never said anything about NA play being dirty but it is totally the same situation theres a break away on the goal deffender speeds up and trys to make a block not every play is executed perfectly. to argue about lee and jonnys crash is stupid it was obviously a sketchy but so was Pieter's and he almost pulled that play of surgically. polo is ruff and dangerous deal with it.
for the record i wish the pit was in mke
October 22, 2011 - 6:18pm
#141
Holy Crap!
So I ended up dropping out of this thread (after some solid advice) and ended up just playing on my current setup for another season. I just checked back (since winter is coming) and realized it had turned into a total drama fest about something that most people on here never even saw in real life... Ive been too busy playing polo and have neglected the internet.
In the meantime, it seems like MKE has released a polo specific Bruiser. Since I'm still on 700c, can anybody comment on the updated frame? (or is this now for talking about rules and other bullshit/)
October 22, 2011 - 9:05pm
#142
... Ive been too busy playing polo and have neglected the internet.
this
October 23, 2011 - 7:37pm
#143
I've got one of the new bruisers sitting under my bed ready to be built up. Unfortunately up here we definitely have an "offseason", so it might wait till spring.
There's info on the Ben's website but what i know is; Frame is made in the USA by Waterford. Its 2lbs lighter (nearly a kilo). The fork is Taiwanese and is a little lighter too. Both frame and fork come with canti/v posts. The posts on the fork are removable if you arent running a front brake.
Seat tube is a little steeper to shorten the top tube a little. A few other things but I forget.
Also Bens/MKE rules. Theyre awesome to deal with and their bikes are great. Nuf' said.
October 24, 2011 - 9:28am
#144
yep, I gathered most of that from the site as well. One question, since you have one under your bed... is the 'polo fork' on the bike the same as the fork they sell separately (which is spaced at 120, like the rear?) If I go with this frame, I'm hoping not to have to get a new front wheel (since I already have a 700c 48h wheel set)
October 24, 2011 - 11:34am
#145
No the fork is 100mm spaced. Its basically the normal bruiser for but with the conti bosses and tapered blades
October 24, 2011 - 4:12pm
#146
that is what I was hoping you'd say. I did notice on the site after closer inspection that you can sub the 120 spaced fork if you want it (which I don't).
October 23, 2011 - 8:10pm
#147
what dogs Nuf' mean? does thte postrafy' at the end mean its an abbreviation. just for the record, i think jonny has abandoned the joust. for the 27 ermmm 700
October 26, 2011 - 10:03pm
#148
Yes. It's an abreviatikn for enough.
Thanks you Drew and Vince for the zine with picture of the Hunters in it, and recommended visit the badlands respectively. Bens cycles.are great.
For the record El Presitente's Joystick is great too. Oops. Houston. Fucking autocorrect. Houston. Joust.
Who's new
- polophil - Hamburg
- axlissel - lima, Peru, Miami FL
- Deguerrilla - Landover MD
- AndrewMBP - Miami
- thecatman - fresno, ca
- kona29ermtb - eugene or
- Jamie Edwards - Sydney
- malletheadz - Florida
- KCJ - Jacksonville FL
- orange26kitty - Pomona
Recently added polo bikes
Apples vs oranges.
Minneapolis Bike Polo dot Com