Team Hammond

[gsensel]

Does any one know why team 71 Team Hammond seeded so low?

[mtaman02]

the only thing i know that deals with T71 is that the were part of a strong alliance.

maybe there avg'd qp's were low everyone seeds according to avg'd qps.

[ssjcell]

people put to much emphasis on seeding, if you dominated every match (clearing the field)then off course your gonna seed low with first's crazy scoring rules.

however some of the lowest seeding teams did very well in the finals,

[Koko Ed]

Curie was a tough division. Alot of good bots ended up seeding low this year.

[Jack Jones]

A:

FIRST-2003 resembled/allowed/became Battle Bots. Hammond was the natural target!

[Wayne C.]

Originally posted by gsensel
Does any one know why team 71 Team Hammond seeded so low?

Team Hammond had, in my opinion, the best flailer machine in the competition but once they hit the wall they seemed a bit slow and had a high center of gravity. It made their machine vulnerable to being pushed around or excluded from the ramp.

Please don't consider this a negative coment. The Beatty team is one of the greats and a team we feel fortunate to have played against (we missed our chance last year). All should be proud of the great machine they built and the major accomplishments the team has under it's belt.

WC

[Tbuzz105]

People keep talking about how traditionally excellent robots did not seed well due to FIRST's scoring. The object of the game is to score the most points. Our bot was by far the best, but it was simple. We knew how to play the game well, and thats what did it for us. Bots play a giant role in how well you do, but the rest of it is all on how you play the game.

[Chris Nowak]

Originally posted by Tbuzz105
People keep talking about how traditionally excellent robots did not seed well due to FIRST's scoring. The object of the game is to score the most points. Our bot was by far the best, but it was simple. We knew how to play the game well, and thats what did it for us. Bots play a giant role in how well you do, but the rest of it is all on how you play the game.

yeah, we wondered how the heck you guys kept getting the top seed, as our bot was very simple. However, I'm sure a ton of people wondered the same thing about us at nats. Our bot isnt really anything special. We've got above average pushing power, decent speed, and a quick 2 stacker, but thats it.

[Tbuzz105]

OMG!!!


I am sooooo sorry.

Earlier i posted a message. I made a typo, I left out the word "not". I meant to say that out bot was by far NOT the best!!!! oh my, somebody just pointed that out to me.


Sorry for the confusion.

please forgive my stupidity.

[ryanspensley]

Originally posted by Koko Ed
Curie was a tough division. Alot of good bots ended up seeding low this year.

VERY TRUE!

[Jupee]

Your robot was very good this year and it was awesome to see an Indiana team represent this year at Midwest and nats. Way to go!

[Ian Mathew]

Originally posted by Jack Jones
A:

FIRST-2003 resembled/allowed/became Battle Bots. Hammond was the natural target!

I wish/hope/pray that people will get off the Battlebots thing. The interaction between robots made the matches better, and more exciting. The best part of nearly every match was the scramble for the top.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally posted by Ian Mathew
I wish/hope/pray that people will get off the Battlebots thing. The interaction between robots made the matches better, and more exciting. The best part of nearly every match was the scramble for the top.

While interaction was great (and pushing matches are always fun!), watching webcasts made me realize how much like 'Battlebots' this year's competition was. Lots of flipping, pushing, and tearing apart. I think a lot of teams went out there with a definite strategic plan but at the same time could only counteract someone else's strategy. Instead, they went out there with what they would like to have happened and just went along with what the other drivers and bots did. If you were losing, I guess all you could really do is play defense - and autonomous really determined who would play offense and defense. A lot of teams just gave up on their stackers and just cleared the field instead (of both robots and bins).

Beatty went with a great strategy again this year. What more can be said besides 'you can't win them all'? Now I'm just afraid that they will be quite a force to be reckoned with next year.

[Jack Jones]

Originally posted by Ian Mathew
I wish/hope/pray that people will get off the Battlebots thing. The interaction between robots made the matches better, and more exciting. The best part of nearly every match was the scramble for the top.

You can wish/hope/pray all you want; but the question posed was – What happened to Hammond? In my opinion (to which I believe I’m entitled) the best way to counter Hammond’s awesome flailer was to hit them hard before they could deploy. That fact wasn’t lost on Hammond’s opponents, as evidenced by the number of times they were run at in the Regionals as well as the Nats, where they were toppled out-of-bounds and had their pivot tubes bent in the process. The referees endorsed the tactic by disabling #71 and not penalizing the Bot that put them there.

Don’t get me wrong. The pushing, shoving, and the battles for the top made for an exciting game. On the other hand, some of us have serious doubts as to whether we can stay below the $3.5k ceiling while building our machines to military specs in order to survive the game.

So, let’s be careful what we wish. Or, we’ll end up wearing asbestos suits and sporting heavy armor plate as we try to dodge the Pulverizer.

[Jared Russell]

Team 341's (4th seed) partners were 175 (17th seed) and 236 (60th seed). We still ended up carrying the division - it just goes to show that sometimes the best robots don't seed well.