Opinions regarding routines

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 19 Aug 2008 09:51

Some really good points were made regarding routines from both sides of the isle in the video section. I am curious about how my fellow freestylers feel about routines in general? Like em? Don't like em? Outdated? Needs an over haul?

This is the place to discuss ROUTINES. This is NOT the place to bash this years competitors. Let's simply discuss how we feel about routines in general and see if we can find any common ground on the subject.

Thanks!

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 19 Aug 2008 09:59

Good call, we should have done this earlier.

I feel like routines have theoretical merit in that some players may enjoy presenting in an artistic way (vs. a shred way). There are many excellent players that may not be world class shredders hitting nemesis back to back... but they could very well put on a terrific routine.

However, I think truly excellent routines (that I would personally, in my opinion, define as: players and non-players alike can appreciate the performance) are relatively rare. More often, routines feel hokey to me, or worse, like 2 minute shred. (side note: 2 minutes of shred-worthy tricks can constitute an amazing routine when it is properly arranged. e.g. Mulroney and Vasek both have examples of that in their history.)

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 19 Aug 2008 10:36

Thanks for starting this thread.

When I got into footbag I thought of it as a cross between athletic activity, art and magic. Emphasis on magic. Pendulum changed the way I saw things. I was, after all only 15.

When I was first introduced to routines I was impressed by the performance element of it. I was also, and perhaps the most impressed by the opportunity for an individual to create what they wanted with this new creative medium.

Footbag is the common interest of footbag players, and routines was a way of awarding someone for best representing our sport, and mastery of it.

These days footbag has gone more the direction of an extreme sport, rather than be a balance of creativity and athleticism.

I still like routines. I still have not had the chance to perform a routine that I am happy with. I hope they stick around because I would like to do this eventually.

I agree that Vasek-esque routines are generally what I consider this sport at it's finest. It indicates mastery and self-expression. It also shows deliberance.

On other occaisions I have seen some of my favorite footbag demonstrate routines that I don't identify with. Typically a Vasek routine matched the aesthetic both in terms of music, performance etc that I love about this sport. Another variation would be Scott Bevier. These routines I feel demostrate a very "Olympic" picture of a footbag player at their finest.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Aug 2008 07:04

*BUMP*

I can see by the overwhelming number of replies to this thread that this is an extremely important issue.

I guess all the whining over in the video section was just that. WHINING!!!

Oh well,

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 20 Aug 2008 07:37

FlexThis wrote:*BUMP*...I can see by the overwhelming number of replies to this thread that this is an extremely important issue...
I guess all the whining over in the video section was just that. WHINING!!!...Oh well,

I think this section generally gets less hits. It's much easy to watch a video, get your fix, and have an emotional response. Besides, the title doesn't say anything like: video footage of something that you have been waiting for a really long time! lol.

I would not be surprised if there was a corelation between people not bothering to post and being annoyed by the prospect of forward thinking (potential change).

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 20 Aug 2008 08:59

We've tried this before in the past and it usually doesn't even go this far. lol

But those with a heart continue to beat, even if it is out of rhythm with the rest of the governing body.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 20 Aug 2008 09:15

I feel for both sides.
I agree with what Sergey said about how Circle should be the deciding factor of world champ, since it is the most accurate representation of what we do -- we shred, we don't do routines in our spare time, the majority of us. It's FREESTYLE, not PREPLANNEDSTYLE.

At the same time, though, I agree with what someone else said about the artistic merit of routines. To truly be a master of footbag you need to master all of your elements, be able to go 2 minutes without dropping, and be creative. Shred is awesome and the most fun that I have experienced, but it is also a narrow-minded aspect of the sport. Players like Jorden Moir and Jubal Hume are the real masters of the sport; doing tricks that are fun and don't necessarily conform to any popular style or set of rules. Footbag is about being creative and routines have the POTENTIAL to really exploit that.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 20 Aug 2008 12:16

Erik Chan wrote:It's FREESTYLE, not PREPLANNEDSTYLE.

First-off, you are the man. So please don't take this the wrong way, but I disagree with this point. Let me breakdown why.

Freestyle is a term that is used to describe many different activities. The first that come to my mind are ice-skating, gymnastics and activities that have direct ties to hip-hop culture.

Freestyle gymanstics and ice-skating are pretty much similiar to routines, so I will let that be for now.

Regarding freestyle, as a product of hip-hop culture:

The first ideas that pop in my head are breakdancing, freestyling, and wildstyle grafitti.

Aside from breakdancing, wildstyle and freestyling have the appearance of being entirely improvised, but it is an illusion (arguably). In freestyling components are schooled to the point that they can be modulated on-the-fly. Often it is questionable how original any freestyle really is. For wildstyle, I am familiar with the culture enough to say with confidence that pieces are prefabricated and then reproduced at a larger scale.

Breakdancing, on the other hand is extremely similiar to circle competitions. Breakdancing, however, is not the definition of freestyle.

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that freestyle does not inherently imply on-the-fly, improvisation. The word breaks down to freedom and style. Two of the most difficult things in the world to quantify, but without any question, two of my favorite things about this sport.

Routines are an opportunity to make the most of these two elements. Having never been interested in sports before playing this game, they are still crucial, defining elements for me.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 20 Aug 2008 18:13

First off I think its important to keep in mind that no single discipline offers a true test of freestyle footbag and routines and circle comp are no exceptions. But using three or four of them together you can test a range of skills. And I can't see there ever being enough other disciplines worth running such that routines would need to be dropped from the program. I think footbag comps should be thought of in terms of gymnastics where there are a range of various disciplines within the sport and they all co-exist quite happily becuase they all vary in the way they tap into the competitor's skill set. You might think that the floor is a better test than the rings or whatever, but that's not to say that they don't both have a place within the competition.

To me routines test important elements of freestyle footbag not tested by other comps. It's not just the artistic part and the choreography, its also endurance and form. It should also demand a higher level of variety than any other comp.

Together (when judged properly) routines, shred 30, and sick 3 cover a lot of ground and offer a pretty good all round test of skills. Unfortunately if you simply judge routines as if it was 2 min shred then it makes the comp seem a little redundant.

Circles and battle formats add their own thing, but I don't think their judging criteria is clear enough or settled enough, and even if they were I don't think they would fullfill the role played by routines.

It seems to me that the problem is not with the format but with the way its judged, which has had a knock-on effect into the way its perceived and the way competitors prepare for it.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 20 Aug 2008 19:50

Agreed. Although I'd say the problem really is that there isn't any set in stone official specifications about how it should be judged. There needs to be much more clarity and much less room for interpretation. Of course easy thing to say, harder to actually do.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 21 Aug 2008 01:37

I wonder how it would work to say that competition signs you up for every event, and you need to place well in every event to place at Worlds; like an average of scores from Shred 30, Routines, Sick 3 (where you have to compete in all)... this might better determine the ACTUAL best player in the world (assuming all of the best players were at Worlds and competing)...

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 21 Aug 2008 06:29

Interesting that this conversation just went this way. In vids section I posted this comment earlier:

Back in the day (maybe still?) there was an "all around title". At the time, all around meant net, consecs, freestyle etc. That's sort of obsolete now because each game has progressed so far, that most players specialize in net or freestyle etc.

But, I was thinking (and this post reminded me of it) that an all around freestyle title could be pretty cool. There's enough varied events now, that someone that did well across many of them, would really have "proved" something in terms of competition. Events could possibly be weighted to some degree as appropriate (say, double weighted less than singles maybe? it's up for debate).

For one, if you won the all around, it would be a pretty cool indicator of how skilled and well rounded a competitor is ("competitor"... note that best player by popular opinion still may be someone that doesn't compete.. but my comments are for those that choose to compete).

Maybe we do this already? Can someone that has attended some recent huge events (euros, worlds etc.) comment? Thanks!

---------------

In terms of judging routines. Couldn't the technical side basically use shred 30 rules? That would be 100% objective (assuming the burden of the calculations is mitigated through some computer tools - excel program? - that I've heard exist). Then, that leaves only artistic side for us to argue about.

Well, and it would also leave us to argue about the weighting of the two components. I'd argue that since it's routine, and there are other competitions that focus solely on technical side, artistic score should comprise more than 50% of result.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 21 Aug 2008 07:51

Rieferman wrote:In terms of judging routines. Couldn't the technical side basically use shred 30 rules? That would be 100% objective (assuming the burden of the calculations is mitigated through some computer tools - excel program? - that I've heard exist). Then, that leaves only artistic side for us to argue about.

I generally agree with this line of thinking, but there are multiple dimensions of freestyle technique that shred 30 simply does not address.
Here is a brief list: variety, toe:xbdy, etc. I would be pained to watch someone do the same add-hunting move repetively for 30 seconds and have that cover the demands for displaying technique (think dada curves).

On another note, while there seem to be heated topics flying around right now pertainging to judging etc, these are imo actually great signs of progress that I forgot I was hoping for. Let me briefly explain: up until now there have been gross oversights regarding what needs to be done to verify a world champion.

While I do not share some of the recent sentiments that anyone is operating on a level near Vasek's (though I consider exceptions when I think about Clavens and Moir- I clearly have no idea, though I have seen Moir play recently and it's mind-blowing) Vasek has made it very easy on judges for the last several years. Not only has he pushed the sport to a whole level, inspiring wave after wave of new talent, but he has also demanded the world title, giving a solid reference point with his dominant mastery. This has also assited in verifying the order of runners up. Now we are in a position where other players are competing better and Vasek appears to displaying previously unavailable weaknesses. The combination of these two elements is brand new.

Throughout the several years that Vasek has dominated this sport we have had the luxury of not taking the judging criteria seriously. This is because we have been able to rely on Vasek's performances to guide us through the process. Not only has dominated the events, but he has also influenced our opinion of what freestyle means, and has given us a solid reference point. IMO this era has ended and it is vital to the longevity and integrity of our sport that we make up for an extreme neglect.

I like the suggestions that have been kicked around in this thread already. Let's keep this up!

Here is one quick, philisophical idea. It has occurred to me that the freestyle champion of an eventis the individual that best catpures the spirit of the event. Freestyle is freestyle. Freestyle implies creative expression, through the words freedom and style. Since up until this point the sport has been on the path towards perpetual growth, I feel like it is crucial that an element of openness be applied to towards evaluating the winner. This is bacause the winner will set the standard, and thus represent footbag. This is why I believe that the winner should dominate on more levels that just hard-set, beat-synced toe shuffle. Otherwise the judges are encouraging the sport to continue in a direction that only handles one small element, or dimension of the sport.

The reason I bring this philisophical question up is because I feel like it was just as true when I put together my first routine in 1997, only I didn't feel I have ever had to communicate it, because there were always the Erics, Petes, Ryans and Vaseks that seemed to communicate this. This year around we hazardously continued to put our trust in our top contenders to make the decision for us and clearly. Whoops.

There are a handful of very influential players and I think that it would be a great tragedy to allow them or a concensus of new talent to make the decision for us. I feel that all perspectives need to collaborate and agree upon some imprtant, implemented, and adhered-to rules.

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 21 Aug 2008 07:59

lofa wrote

Rieferman wrote:
In terms of judging routines. Couldn't the technical side basically use shred 30 rules? That would be 100% objective (assuming the burden of the calculations is mitigated through some computer tools - excel program? - that I've heard exist). Then, that leaves only artistic side for us to argue about.

I generally agree with this line of thinking, but there are multiple dimensions of freestyle technique that shred 30 simply does not address.
Here is a brief list: variety, toe:xbdy, etc. I would be pained to watch someone do the same add-hunting move repetively for 30 seconds and have that cover the demands for displaying technique (think dada curves).

previously, I wrote

I'd argue that since it's routine, and there are other competitions that focus solely on technical side, artistic score should comprise more than 50% of result.

Since shred 30 scoring accounts for uniques as part of the formula, and since artistic merit could be weighted to discourage add hunting (say artistic 70% of score, technical 30% of score), I don't think your concern would happen for the players that are actually interested in winning the event. See what I mean?

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 21 Aug 2008 08:06

Rieferman wrote:Since shred 30 scoring accounts for uniques as part of the formula, and since artistic merit could be weighted to discourage add hunting (say artistic 70% of score, technical 30% of score), I don't think your concern would happen for the players that are actually interested in winning the event. See what I mean?

I do see what you mean. I am unclear about how uniques fits into the formula though. I obviously put more interest into Routines and Circles, though I do appreciate the outcome of this event.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 21 Aug 2008 08:10

Arguably shred 30 could be the defining event, with some tweaking. Particularly, I generally don't think the music is consistent from player to player and that is appropriate.

My number one example is a C-Fan shred 30 at worlds (2003 maybe? I don't recall atm) where as he is kicking some F'd-up sample of a baby screaming starts kicking in, over and over again. Ken still tore sh&* up but that is beside the point.

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 21 Aug 2008 09:44

I needed to brush up on shred 30 rules too.. Found a post from iron clad ben on the .org forum that does a nice job explaining in plain english, with examples:
ben wrote:

here is the basic premise:

Shred30 score = ADDs + (uniques * add ratio).

where add ratio: adds / contacts.

So mathematically another way to think about it is:

Shred30 score = ADDs*(1+(uniques/contacts))

So if the shred 30 is completely unique (not easy to do of course), i.e. #contacts=#uniques, then the number inside the parentheses is 2, and the score is simply double the total add value of all tricks in the run.

Shred 30 is a freestyle competitive event based solely technical merit. Players have 30 seconds to hit as many big tricks as they can in a row. Drops count as a zero add contact. Uniques are rewarded through the ADD ratio formula. Any trick 2-ADDs or lower does not count as a unique.

Example: 30 contact guiltless run, all moves unique, no drops:
Contact: 30
Uniques: 30
ADDs: 30 x 3 = 90

So their score would be: 90 x (1+ (30/30)) = 90 x (1 + 1) = 180

So, in my opinion, like in gymnastics (and I'm sure there are other examples), the "overall champ" would be the premier title (biggest trophy/cash prize.. therefore esteem) and would be made up of:

- Circle comp - shows modern freestyle in the form closest to how the majority play each day.

- Shred 30 - shows pure technical prowess and is a key aspect of overall ranking since it's currently the only way to judge in a 100% objective way.

- Routines - artistry and performance, along with a nice mix of showing difficult tricks under pressure. edit: in my example here, I'm assuming a judging method like I proposed above. 70% artistic (which would need some definition, or not.. it could simply be overall 'wow' factor) 30% technical (using shred 30 scoring... only change to scoring might be to not penalize tricks under 3 adds since some artistic contacts will be 1 or 2 adds.)

Whichever player had the best combined ranking (call each of the events 1/3 of the score) is overall champ.

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 21 Aug 2008 10:55

I like your proposal. If I can think of any suggestions I will add them but I think it's a pretty solid start to say the least. Also, thank you for breaking down the Shred 30 rules. I officially appreciate the event considerably more than before.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 21 Aug 2008 11:24

Maybe we need something NEW. Like all competitors of the event would need to perform the same criteria with their own added variations and levels of diffficulty.

For example the criteria might be:
- 5 unique double dexes per side
- 3 unique triple dexes
- 4 spins per side
- 4 ducks/dives per side
- 3 fliers per side
- etc ...

Then let the competitors decide which tricks to hit and when and to what music. This way the field could be leveled to some standard. Not like the cards standard of travel, drops, etc... But something a little more like what we all agree is standard professional footbag. (certain components, tricks, and combos)

This could be similar to ice skating routines where they have required elements. Points could be deducted for bobbles, or 'the' components. Additional bonus points could be awarded for extras, like if there were a 2 dex > 3 dex combo requirement, and the individual decided to up it by a dex to 3 dex > 3 dex.

I like this idea because it defines the requirements and still lets the competitors decide how to present the requirements. It would also help competitors decide if they are ready to move up to the next level.

This would be just one contest and fits nicely with Riefer's idea of an overall score/ranking scenario that includes shred 30 and circle comp.

Thoughts?

Ian Brill · Post by **Ian Brill** » 21 Aug 2008 11:34

Off of the top of my head I do not think that this would be fair for competitors that do not fit the standard model of a footbag player.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head would be Outsider.
He does things that nobody else does and I don't feel that this model would do this adequate justice.