development of freestyle: technical progression

[Rieferman]

You're right about the flaw in scoring old shred 30's, but at the same time I think it's a worthwhile exercise.

For example, we are changing the commission system for our sales team next year. And though the new rules will change behavior, we don't expect the worst sales people to suddenly become the best, and vice versa. So we modeled this year's sales patters against the new sales commission plan to get a gut feel for what kind of effect there would be. It just gives a good apples to apples comparison for starters.

[Sporatical_Distractions]

Some personal thoughts:

Didn't read everything because this thread seems ridiculous.

footbag difficulty is subjective.

There will never be a system that accurately shows difficulty.

play for yourself, not for a score or to impress others

i'd rather see long guiltless runs with ripwalks, smears, and the easy tricks than a beastly run any day

Whatever happened to freestyle footbag?

I agree with Skaggs about bops

and with james, "less talk more play"

These are some of the reasons I haven't been to a tournament other than ours in over a year.

[LEGOMAN]

woah kevin i dunno if you should post that! you might not fit lauris definition of advance player and your opinion wont matter to them!

[Sporatical_Distractions]

Uh oh! I sure am concerned about what Lauri thinks.

[Anz]

It's nice to see more people contributing, but it's not really helping if it is said that you "like footbag freestyle as it is" when we are talking about the developement of shred.

Nobody's trying to kill freestyle footbag. We're just finding new ways for it. Artists talk about their works and get ideas from each other. Like on one day some painters do surrealist paintings for a museum, so do some shredders play genuine for an audience.

-----

OK, here's the winning Shred30's from 2005 and 2008. Notice my calculation system and how the results change from the add system.

rules:
-points from dexes, symposiums, spins, ducks
-link point from set out of Double Down, Whirl, Osis, symp>symp link with same foot
-Double Down counts as two dexes
-I'm counting DDD and Barfly as uniques.
-tricks worth no points don't count as contacts. Drops are.
-finals score: ((points * uniques) / contacts) * 2 [the same as in the old system]

***** Vasek Worlds 2005 - add 235,6
Legbeater > Sidewalk > Stepping Whirl > Blurrier > Blizzard > Parkwalk > Blur > Dimwalk >
Sidewalk > Blurriest > DDD > Barfly > Barfly > Stepping op Osis > Ripwalk > Spin Butter >
Step op Osis > Ripwalk > Spin Butter > Blurry W > Blurry W > PS Whirl > PS Whirl >
Symp Whirl > Spin Whirl > Scorp > drop > clipper > Superfly

contacts: 28 (27 unique) - clipper is not counted
dexes: 47
symps: 4
spins: 6
ducks: 0
links: 6
points: 57

score: 109,92


***** Tuomas Worlds 2008 - add 248
Dimwalk > P Illusion > Fairy Butter > Blur > Parkwalk > Sidewalk > Ripwalk > Blizzard >
Parkwalk > Sidewalk > Ripwalk > Pdx Whirl > Blur > Dimwalk > Matador > Barfly > Dyno >
Infinity > Blurry W > Dyno > Infinity > Spin Butter > Duck Butter > Stepping ss Clipper >
Duck Butter > Diving Clipper > Ducking Osis > Pdx Blender > Motion > Osis > PS Whirl

contacts: 31 (all unique)
dexes: 44
symps: 1
spins: 5
ducks: 4
links: 1
points: 55

score: 110

So Tuomas would barely win because Vasek dropped. Vasek had more links and more dexes.

[Jeremy]

And Jeremy, are you still involved with the IFPA board? I remember you doing hard work with the routine rules system. Can you explain what must be done if the competition rules want to be changed?

I'm still a member of the IFC (International Footbag Committee), which makes the rules for footbag. The process is basically that somebody writes up the new rules and then puts in a proposal, explaining how the rules will change and why. This usually has to be in by about November or December each year. Then there is discussion about it and it gets voted through, amended or rejected by the next meeting at worlds. Usually there is a 1 year gap between when it gets voted in and when it becomes official.

[Lauri]

[FlexThis]

-Whirl, Double Down, Drifter, DLO (and maybe some others too? Suggestions)

Is it fair to say that stepping out of any downtime component would get a link point? I assume that symp swirl counts as a downtime component?

link point from set out of Double Down, Whirl, Osis, symp>symp link with same foot

Since osis is a dexless trick, would you still get 1 point for the body? And then if you stepped out of osis you would also get a link point?

How about toe links? Would you consider certain toe dexes more difficult than others to link out of? For instance - if you hit paste (pixie op pickup) > quantum mirage, would you also get a link point?

I like you line of thought Anz.

[Jeremy]

Just a quick clarification; the scoring system should be points*uniques/contacts + points - not *2. For people who plan out their entire shred so that every move is unique then the score is double the points.


I understand the point about double dexes, especially when you think about pdx whirl/drifter vs barfly.

Speaking of which, how would you define uniques? Would pdx whirl>whirl be 2 different moves or the same move? I'd lean towards them not being unique, as that would encourage more variety etc. but it would also help the bias towards shuffle, so I'm a bit unsure. I don't think it's too big a deal either way though.

Also regarding rules - usually the rules have to be used in a serious competition a number of times before they're considered for change, so I wouldn't worry too much about it yet.

[Anz]

Is it fair to say that stepping out of any downtime component would get a link point? I assume that symp swirl counts as a downtime component?

I wouldn't give link points for uptime dexes out of Butterfly, Legover, Mirage, Pickup, Illusion.
And I'm not sure about Swirl, DSO and Barrage.
But Whirl, DD, Drifter and Symp Switch (DLO/Egg) for sure. And same foot symp>symp links.

Since osis is a dexless trick, would you still get 1 point for the body? And then if you stepped out of osis you would also get a link point?

Yes. Osis 1 point and stepping out of it an extra point.
But I don't know about link points when there's two components where you'd get the link point, like Blender (Whirl, Osis) and maybe Flurry (Barrage and DLO). Is two extra points too much? It would probably cause hunting of these links.

How about toe links? Would you consider certain toe dexes more difficult than others to link out of? For instance - if you hit paste (pixie op pickup) > quantum mirage, would you also get a link point?

No. It's not like you should only get the link point with a certain set from a certain downtime component. For example Eggbeater, it's not fair if you only get lnk point for doing Atomic out of it, and not from Pixie.

Just a quick clarification; the scoring system should be points*uniques/contacts + points - not *2. For people who plan out their entire shred so that every move is unique then the score is double the points.

Whops. I don't know what was I thinking. Maybe I'm just used to count adds*2 when planning my own shred.

recount:
Vaseks score: 111,96
Tuomas's score: 110 (stays the same)

so Vasek would win!

Speaking of which, how would you define uniques? Would pdx whirl>whirl be 2 different moves or the same move? I'd lean towards them not being unique, as that would encourage more variety etc. but it would also help the bias towards shuffle, so I'm a bit unsure. I don't think it's too big a deal either way though.

Since paradox does not count, Whirl would be all the same, no matter with setting surface. Same with Drifter and Double Down. But having Paradox Drifter worth only one point is kinda iffy.
Actually it's the same with Paradox Torque, it's only worth two points.
I guess one solution would be to give the link point for paradox miraging moves and their reverse version - except plain mirage. That would be Torque, Drifter and DLO.
So Whirl > Paradox Torque would be 1 point + 3 points. I think that works?
Still I'd keep Pixie op Whirl and Pixie ss Whirl uniques, does anyone see a problem there?

[C-Fan]

Or you could only award a point to tricks where you pivot one direction and then pivot back. This would cover pdx torque, pdlo, pdx drifter, all spinning pdx tricks except spinning pdx whirl. You wouldn't have to give points to down doubles or pdx whirls. This is essentially my understanding of the pdx add anyway, a double hip pivot (which is why swirl and whirl cannot be pdx).

[LEGOMAN]

I still don't like that system. It won't work for every player in footbag.

Difficultly can't be shown by this, what don't you guys understand about that? Someone can be one of the best toe to toe players in the world, but still have problems with clippers.

[Outsider]

Hi Anz,

I know I'm a little bit late to this discussion, but I wanted to back-track a little ("sorry kids... Party-Hardy is tardy" )

I divide tricks to full body moves and support foot moves. I explain it shortly, and I'm sure everybody gets my point. Ask me if you don't get this.

These tricks require more balance, control and timing, and right use of the support foot. Examples: Swirl, Enterrage, Symposium Whirl, Rev Swirling Toe.
--I can think of moves that would fit both categories, but I think we can all agree that players that can link support foot moves well are rare - and if you think ten years back, almost nonexistant.

Okay, well, it is an interesting way of thinking of tricks. I always like to consider a new way of looking at things. Thanks. I find it all a little bit confusing, though, especially when you say that some tricks could fit both categories... Is Paradox Drifter in the "Support Foot" category? It seems like would be...?
Also, I just wanted to put in a little bit of my historical perspective on that last sentence of yours about what players were capable of ten years ago. I think that plenty of the top players of ten or twelve years ago were perfectly capable of this style of play, and were actively using it. Guys like Scott Davidson have no trouble with traditional swirls (well, reverse swirl, anyway) and Symposium Whirls and doing them back-to-back. I learned combos like Symposium Whirl to Paradox Drifter (or vice-versa) from Eli Piltz about ten years ago, and Rippin' Rick Reese was easily capable of stuff like Symposium Whirling Swirl to Flurry. I think I recall a cool combo on Raw Shred if him doing Symposium Whirling Swirl to Eclipse mid-run. I think Eclipse seems like a "Support Foot" move... Ripstein to Symposium Whirl? I'm sure I was hitting that in 1999 (not quite ten years now, I know, but, come on, 9 and 1/2 is close enough, isn't it?).

I think that kind of stuff was probably a little more common than you realize -- Ten years back Atomic sets were basically brand new and being done by only a very few people, and Ducks and Dives were almost as new and uncommon. But Swirls and Symposium Whirls, Paradox Drifters and Eclipses, had been around much earlier, and people were doing all those things back to back to back. I mean, there just wasn't as much other stuff to do yet.
Enterrage has got to be at least 14 years old, since Daryl has been hitting that for almost as long as I've known him, and maybe even longer. I can't remember if he was doing it in combos that would qualify as "Support Foot" combos, but its not that unlikely that he at least did a few.

Okay, enough history!

I also wanted to comment on this part:

-there is no paradox or cross-body points

I can easily understand dismissing Cross-Body points for most standard stuff -- Butterflies are not really any harder than Leg-Overs, once you've skooled Clippers sufficiently well enough. And I certainly won't argue that Flappers are any harder than a regular Sole Stall (I think they're easier, in fact), but a Cross-Body Outside (Dragon) stall is much harder than a regular Outside Stall. I'd say that a cross-body heel is also somewhat harder than its non-cross-body counterpart, and a Tootsie Roll is WAY harder than a non-cross-body calf roll.

Basically, what I'm saying is: Dismissing points for cross-body makes sense ONLY when you're talking about Clippers. Once you move past those, its a different story. Sure, most people won't be using anything but clipper and toe moves in a shred contest, but I often use my Dragons and Flappers, and I might use the rolls too if they weren't already disadvantaged for other reasons. And saying that those kinds of moves shouldn't matter in a shred contest because most people don't do them just doesn't seem like a good arguement, because if rules are used that disadvantage them then that will simply become a self-fulfilling prophecy -- of course no one will use them in shred because your new rules would discourage their use.

[Anz]

Hey Jon, thanks for taking part in the discussion.

Maybe five years in the scene is not enough to talk about any history of the sport
I actually knew that Symp Whirl was the first symposium move that was ever hit, but I didn't know that Enterrage and Ripstein are so old tricks as well. But if you look at videos like Fo Shizza and Buda's Best for example, you don't see those kinda of links much.
Anyway, in the end my main point was to make people pay attention to support foot tricks and links more.

Right now I'd put Pdx Drifter and Eclipse in the full body category. But as I said, I can't divide all tricks in these categories. I haven't thought about the theory so far.

About extra points for different surfaces. I know this is freestyle footbag and so on and so on, but it's just a fact that the most easy surfaces to use stalling tricks are Clipper and Toe. Just because of the fact that they require less flexibility than others. Even Clipper requires less than Inside Stall.
For example I myself can't do Dragon. I can't simply flex my ankle. I can barely do Dragonosis! So if Dragon would give extra points in Shred30, you, Jon, would have an unfair advantage over me.
So that's why I think that the Shred30 rules should be made for the basic footbag player "John Smith" who does Pixie Butterflies and Spinning Whirls.
Now you made me think about some sort of link point system from Dragon and Flapper, but it would get too complicated. Having exceptions is not a good thing.

Ken, I thought about the idea of having paradox with it's essential meaning in the score system. But it would then only cover torque, dlo, drifter and their spinning versions. How about Ducking Paradox then?

[professor]

For example I myself can't do Dragon. I can't simply flex my ankle. I can barely do Dragonosis! So if Dragon would give extra points in Shred30, you, Jon, would have an unfair advantage over me.

Umm...I would hardly call it an unfair advantage. Catching tricks in dragon is much more difficult so he should get more points for it. Whether you can do it or not has no bearing on the fact that he should get more points for difficulty.

With that said, I still feel no scoring system is going to be good enough for footbag. As with any freestyle sport, footbag is subjective and difficulty is different for each player. Higher trained judges and better judging criteria is what's needed.

[FlexThis]

I agree with Ken about the double hip pivot. It requires more balance just like symposium requires more balance.

As for no cross-body: I feel that a clipper requires significantly more balance than does a toe stall. I would look twice at that one.

That said, a toe-toe player needs to step up LITERALLY in order to champion shred.

When I hear things like it is subjective to the player, I feel that is a cop-out. Why limit yourself to what you can easily accomplish? If you break a move down into simple movements and expand those movements over time you can see that certain moves REQUIRE more effort than others.

I am working on a system of lines that define movement per trick. You can take those movements and compare them to one another and start to see a pattern emerge.

I will try to make a mock-up that represents my theory and post it here. So far I have compared a few small tricks, but I am really more interested in seeing how it plays out with larger moves. I will get back when I have something solid. No promises, as it is Turkey weekend in the states.

EDIT: After re-reading Anz last post regarding exceptions being a bad thing; The MAIN problem with the ADD system is that it doesn't define exceptions. A new system should address as much as possible. And if you can't do a dragon because you are not as flexible, then you as a person in life are at a disadvantage. Not the system. John Daily can hit a golf ball 400 yards due mostly to his large frame. The system does not bend or penalize him for having this talent. Nor should footbag discourage Jon from using dragons.

[Sitarski]

I can't simply flex my ankle.

When i first started trying to do dragons, my foot was about 90 degrees from the dragon position... it took me just about the same time to get the dragon position compared to the clipper position. Most people believe they cannot do it because no one does it. When most people think of it they see in their mind nick's double-jointedness.

As for the double hip pivot, what about the double hip pivot in the same direction... Think of dragon infinity from dragon set
Dragon on your right foot - the front of the hips face toward the right - you set in front of body and hips go to neutral - you do firefly your hips now face left - hips have now traveled 180 degrees. Would this warrant a notation?
What about pendulous - would this warrant pdx adds?


Adam

[Slowsis]

All any system does is return us to the ways of add hunting. As much as we can try to create a perfect system to define the difficulty of tricks (so as to judge them objectively), people will always find the easiest way to rack up the points and to exploit the system.

Which is why circle/sick three/routine will always be the best. Subjectivity is key when tricks like Blurry whirl and whirling weaving ss whirl are considered the same point value. Any new system will still have parrallels like the extreme example above, mostly due to the unpredictable nature of footbag moves and the variety of possible ways in which to dex/stall.

[LEGOMAN]

define the difficulty of tricks


I don't get how you people don't see that defining the difficulty of tricks is impossible. This system will be biased towards the players that are better at double downs, and whirls. What about the people who have problems with those but can do illusions mirages and tricks like that that don't get any extra points "because they're easy"?


I think this system is worse then what we have with shred 30

[abstract]

I don't get how you people don't see that defining the difficulty of tricks is impossible.

i agree with this, which is why i had mentioned string composition being a much better determinant of "difficulty", if anything, than trick evaluation via segregation.

the part i love about anz' proposal is giving value to links.

is there a possibility of named components, re: whirl, dod, dlo, etc, being removed from the "link point" criteria, & attempt to create a basis for "unique link points"?

so a shred30 that combines unique tricks with unique links would score well. this, combined with dex / body points & removal of stall points?

weaving dragonfly kick > ss blender, for eg, wouldn't receive a link point under the current proposal. should it?