An attempt to accurately rate difficulty

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 May 2009 16:02

I haven't had anytime in the past 2 days to revisit this topic, but I thought a lot about what Cod said and wonder if we may be trying to create a one size fits all solution. Or comparing apples to oranges.

The intent was to avoid this, so I gave a little more thought to Rasmus's .pdf with regards to uptime & downtime. Like maybe they need to be explored in 3 parts; uptime, peak, downtime. And with that said I also gave some thought to the timing involved in a single versus double dex on either an uptime set or downtime finish. I also gave some thought to whether or not moves require a full stop, a reversal of direction, or flow (compliment) with the direction of momentum. The planes idea is also starting to seem like a weak argument in terms of rating difficulty. Scoring a clipper from a clipper as high as some double dexes or even single dex moves, doesn't seem legit. Which is why I revisited Rasmus document. I feel that a lot of what he had to say holds merit in this discussion and should be explored deeper and included here. I am not on board with the degree theory (60 versus 120, etc...). The reason is that I just cannot seem to wrap my mind around it. I think it holds some value, but not exactly sure how.

So I propose we explore some of the ideas mentioned above and try to assign some value to them.

In an uptime set you are providing the energy necessary to send the bag into the air. I see value in this. On a downtime finish gravity is providing or returning the energy necessary to complete the move. No value there IMO. All the energy needed was accomplished through the set, therefore I see no energy value awarded in a downtime component. For placement that is - obviously if you dex or stall you are exerting energy, but by the bags nature to return to the earth requires nothing extra.

So I would award a point for a set. This is counter intuitive to the ADD system, which ignores the set altogether. A butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly no matter where it is set from.

Now visiting the multiple dexing theory gets a little tricky and I want to avoid upsetting anyone by assigning values to sets themselves. I would rather take a look at what is possible in a set and then try to break those down into measurable components. I will list a few sets for demo purposes below:

Uptime single in dex from toe (pixie)
^/ = 2 where ^ is equal to an uptime set that requires energy and / for the dex

Uptime double dex from toe same foot (double pixie)
^// = 3

I disagree that 2 uptime dexes is only a fraction more difficult than a single dex and hope that physics can solve this one for us. It is my opinion that as dexes are added either to the set or finish that they have an exponential effect on difficulty. Granted this is also not as simple as // = 2 or even 4. Why? Because of the direction of the dex relative to the setting foot, and the direction of the 2nd dex relative to the first, and whether or not the dexes are split one leg then the other (frantic). So as for assigning a point value...I think we have a little more theory to work out first.

Do you guys agree with that? If so, do you have any strong feelings on uptime versus downtime?

Jason Crook and I have had discussions in the past about furious versus barrage. In a furious set the dexes are exactly the same as barrage, but performed in half the time required. Yet furious op toe and barrage are essentially the same move. I see a flaw in this logic and hope that we can find a way to improve this to something a little more realistic.

Thanks for reading - hope to have more time to explore. But it's Friday and I need to get home.

~peace

sergio · Post by **sergio** » 04 May 2009 03:10

Tsiangkun wrote:Once a trick is learned, the difficulty *for that player* is greatly reduced.

If you sample a thousand people off the street, I bet more can hit toe stall than clipper. r

Which did you hit first, clipper or toe stall ?

Which took more practice to hit, clipper or toe stalls ?

Of course clipper took more practice to be able to hit consistently, but is that really the question?

If you ask the best hunded players in the world which of a toe stall and a clipper stall is safer for them, I'm pretty sure a majority will answer clipper.
I personally use a lot more toe concepts than the average experienced player and even for me a toe stall is not safer than a clipper.

We don't rate the difficulty of tricks for people that have never played footbag or for those learning toe stalls, but for advanced players!

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 04 May 2009 10:12

We don't rate the difficulty of tricks for people that have never played footbag or for those learning toe stalls, but for advanced players!

The attempt is to rate difficulty for EVERYONE!!!!

I am not catering to any specific group, but rather for the sport as a whole.

I play with a variety of players and watching them bobble through clippers constantly is visual proof that INDEED clippers are more difficult than toes.

We are not talking about safety, but rather about difficulty.

Thanks,

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 02 Jul 2009 21:57

too much reward for dexes. Maybe body adds should be increased to compensate? Its alot easier to do 2 full dexes plus another component than to do 2 full spins plus another component.
And- I suck and if I tryed for awhile I could hit 1000 toe delays, but even the best players would have a real hard time to hit 1000 clippers without keeling over in exhaustion.

Jorden · Post by **Jorden** » 03 Jul 2009 12:55

There already is a perfect way to judge difficulty...
the opinion of an experienced and well educated player.

Why does math need to influence the tricks we do?

JM

Pinkus · Post by **Pinkus** » 03 Jul 2009 21:50

The problem with creating a system that tries to judge difficulty is that certain downtime tricks are much more difficult, despite having the same amount of "elements" as other tricks. Osis for example has huge synergy with many elements because an osis can be done "last minute" with relatively little energy and burst movement.

The ADD system tried fixing this using xdex, but for some tricks that was not enough, while it was too generous for other tricks.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 04 Jul 2009 05:42

The problem with the add system is that it was (as I have heard) a means of facilitating the development and describing a specific set of components. It was used to describe moves and was instead attributed the role of defining their worth, even after new components and concepts were introduced into the sport. It's a legacy: something handed down to a successor. It is not the ten commandments. It is out-dated and incomplete.

Either new concepts/components need to be adequately covered within the structure of the add-system, or it needs to be abandoned. imo.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 07 Jul 2009 08:44

Jorden wrote:There already is a perfect way to judge difficulty...
the opinion of an experienced and well educated player.

Why does math need to influence the tricks we do?

JM

The problem here as Jeremy O'Wheel has pointed out, is that upper level players cater to their own opinion and value it highly. This leads to elitism and a skewed outcome based on a single player's experience, without exploration of non-traditional footbag moves.

The point of math is to reach a logical conclusion based on logic and objectivity of what is actually taking place rather than someone's personal opinion.

I think Chris makes a good point about synergy of moves. I feel it is important to look at as many possibilities as you can in order to make logical comparisons. I don't feel that the current system I am trying to see created is meeting that criteria. I feel that more exploration and examination is needed. Ultimately I see a computer program doing the math and including all the physics.

This thread is a kinda visual means to that end without getting so overly complicated that everyone gives up on trying to find a solution.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 07 Jul 2009 08:50

A computer model would work in some respects but it is questionable that a computer could identify wether a combo was more difficult, or a serial sequence.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 07 Jul 2009 09:19

Actually I am hoping that things like links and link difficulty would become clearer. Although I can see how difficult a task this would be to implement.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 07 Jul 2009 20:16

Another note as far as judging. Most sports arent judged by active players/peers. The older people make the rules and the players follow them.
There have been alot of attempts at a "system" to judge but never any follow through.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 16 Jul 2009 15:27

This sport is definitely difficult to wrap your head around. There are so many variables to consider, trick combinations, uniques, style, etc... This is my main reason for seeking a computer generated solution.

I look at the Genome Project Cam Kennedy is working on. It takes a ton of research, collaboration, and patience. The DNA sequence is so long.

If you took a look at all the variables that make up footbag freestyle, we would be here quite a few years just trying to read on the possibilities. It starts to become a calculus project where we are measuring some variable as it approaches infinity.

I feel that if we start to create the building blocks, examine simply probabilities, and formulate some form of data, then we could feed that data into a some computer program that will generate a somewhat accurate result.

One of things I did a while back was I started to create a database style table of dexes. It is somewhat difficult to imagine without a visual, but I will try to explain. We have 2 main dex IN and OUT. However, we have a variety of each. To help demonstrate this I drew a parabola representing the path of the bag from a toe stall to the opposite toe stall with the apex of the parabola being about head high (to incorporate ducks/dives, etc...). Along that path I noted a number representing the bags flight from 1 - 7. I choose an odd number so that at the bags apex you will have an even number of dexes on both the uptime and downtime travel.

Looks like this:

.......0.......
......0.0......
.....0...0.....
....0.....0.....

0 = the bag

As the bag travels up it loses speed and as it falls it gains speed. This curve represents the timing involved in dexing the bag. If I were to number it as mentioned above it would look something like this:

.......(4).......
......(3).(5)......
.....(2)...(6).....
....(1).....(7).....

These numbers represent the point at which the dexes take place. 3 uptime, 1 peak and 3 downtime. Make sense so far?

1 = low quick dex (ie. pixie/fairy or step, low atomic, etc...)
2 = mid-low dex
3 = mid-high dex
4 = peak dex or duck/dive/zulu etc....
5 = mid-high dex downtime
6 = mid-low dex downtime
7 = low dex downtime

My theory is that by examining these placements you can determine their difficulty rating. The effects of this can be felt by performing the dexes at their heights and feeling the timing of each.

For example:Barrage versus furious set toe stall.

According to the add system these are worth the same (yes I know adds don't equal difficulty, that's why we are here ). Physics will tell you that the timing for a barrage can take place at numerous spots along the 1-7 curve. A text book barrage would use the entire curve to fill out the entire time of both uptime and downtime. Somewhere at points 2 and 6. While a furious set toe stall would generally take place at 1 and 2.

I am talking text book style for comparison, obviously styles vary and a barrage can also be used as the start to flurry with the dexes taking place at 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 or 2 and 4, etc.... It gets complicated to say the least.

What I see is that there is a pattern that can be followed using this simple curve. You can rate the difficulty of the each spot and give it a number a fraction even if you prefer.

Ultimately I abandoned the attempt in favor of something a little easier to deal with, but keep circling back to it as it is the most accurate so far.

I bring all this up to demonstrate that this is a physical sport and the things we do trick for trick can be measured in some way. I am only one person with limited capacity to produce anything more than mere demonstrations. My hope is that just like the Genome Project take a lot of resources, this too requires the minds, bodies, and ideas of the community to solve. It is no easy task, but I feel with time, effort, and patience we can crack the code and find a resolution that we can all be proud of. Especially when this system is adopted by governing bodies like IFPA, the Olympics, Pan Am games, hell even the X-games.

Just more babble to ponder.

~peace

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 16 Jul 2009 17:24

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 17 Jul 2009 15:22

One way to do it may be to get some sort of concensus froma poll on different moves/combos difficulty based on 100 points max. Then you can use that to see whether the system fits current opinion.

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 21 Jul 2009 22:39

how about anything damon mathews, aaron orton, or ales zelinka hit counts as more difficult because of mass

we win damon, we win

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 22 Jul 2009 07:48

Well if wonders never cease! Aaron Orton! Where the F__K you been?

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 12 Aug 2009 21:07

I think Ales weighs 50 lbs less.