<<I really have to disagree with you here. Yes, the bodies of information drawn from to write for academic and trash differ, but I think that when that information is recalled many of the same processes are at work. Whether you're asking about George Clinton the VP or George Clinton the musician, I'm going to approach the material the same way as it's being read to me. Prowess at trash and prowess at academic material are quite different. I even think that people that are good at one can be good at the other. It's all a matter of the work you're willing to put in. I no longer wish to work at academic competition, but all doing well at trash requires of me is that I watch TV. It's all in what you *want* to be good at. The animals really aren't that different.>> Well, to say that TV-watching is all one needs to do well at trash is similar to saying that all you need to do to do well at academic QB is read Benet's, but otherwise...yes, it does all depend on what one *wants* to be good at. But the college quizbowl world has changed, like it or not; trash is now a part of it, and shows no sign of going away. Trash is still young enough that today's list of alltime greats will be dominated by pre-trash players, but that will no doubt change over time. Players since, say, 1996, excelling in only academic or only trash quizbowl, are incomplete quizbowl players. Period. --Greg the very incomplete
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST