hip swivels wrote:But doesn't that feel a little bit lame?
hip swivels wrote:But doesn't that feel a little bit lame? Isn't it more exciting to learn something in a book or on tv or in class than it is to learn something just for quiz bowl? Isn't it better to be rewarded for the knowledge you acquire in the course of daily life than it is to be rewarded for the knowledge you acquire for the sole purpose of getting that toss-up? As much as I love Quiz Bowl (I love Quiz Bowl a lot), I don't think that I could bring myself to memorize lists of canonical Quiz Bowl facts. It feels phony. It takes the fun out of actually knowing things, out of learning.
On the other hand, there is value in being a great player, and knowledge gained is knowledge gained, no matter how superficial or for what purpose.
Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Experienced players know that you get literature tossups by reading masterplots, not by reading books, because they know that being able to get most tossups on the 2nd or 3rd to last clue (even on the giveaway) is more valuable than being able to get a few of them off the leadin.
Matt Weiner wrote:Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Experienced players know that you get literature tossups by reading masterplots, not by reading books, because they know that being able to get most tossups on the 2nd or 3rd to last clue (even on the giveaway) is more valuable than being able to get a few of them off the leadin.
This depends on who you are playing.
hip swivels wrote:But doesn't that feel a little bit lame? Isn't it more exciting to learn something in a book or on tv or in class than it is to learn something just for quiz bowl? Isn't it better to be rewarded for the knowledge you acquire in the course of daily life than it is to be rewarded for the knowledge you acquire for the sole purpose of getting that toss-up? As much as I love Quiz Bowl (I love Quiz Bowl a lot), I don't think that I could bring myself to memorize lists of canonical Quiz Bowl facts. It feels phony. It takes the fun out of actually knowing things, out of learning.
hip swivels wrote:There are ways to become familiar with literary works without reading them, or tv shows without watching them, or even even scientific things without knowing basic science. And natural-born quiz bowlers do a lot of these things naturally (read voraciously, skim Wikipedia, remember things heard on the street, etc). But there's a difference between doing these things and expecting people to read the entire ACF packet archive for the sole purpose of establishing quiz bowl canon and then memorizing it. Even if doing that kind of thing is the most efficient way of becoming a good player, I definitely don't think it's the only way, and I think that's worth pointing out.
Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Matt Weiner wrote:Kit Cloudkicker wrote:Experienced players know that you get literature tossups by reading masterplots, not by reading books, because they know that being able to get most tossups on the 2nd or 3rd to last clue (even on the giveaway) is more valuable than being able to get a few of them off the leadin.
This depends on who you are playing.
I don't think that in practice it does. See Chris Frankel, who while possessing good canon knowledge ultimately attempted to beat strong teams by gaining deeper knowledge on fewer things. This failed. There will most likely never be a team of people so good AND so specialized that they can buzz early on all things.
hip swivels wrote:so maybe i'm being kind of unreasonable about this. but i just don't want to feel doomed for being too lazy to take notes during practice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest