Elimination Circle

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 19 Dec 2007 04:37

We used elimination circle in the final round in AFS Opening Jam. If you haven't watched it already, you can find the link below:

http://www.footbag.org/gallery/show/-13431

What do you think about circle with elimination?

In my opinion, circle is a great way of competing: it's natural, more forgiving than shred30 and there's not so much "free points" from presentation than in routines (still you gotta try impress the judges and the audience).

One thing I don't like about the routines is that audience goes to sleep after watching couple of routines. They all look the same if you are new to the sport. Circle is, in many way, the answer to this question - audience can always see how long the run is and what is the reaction of other players, it builds up the momentum like only the best routines do. It's relatively fast and let's audience have more diversity - circle allows audience to have a favorite, which you can cheer from the first round to the finals.

It's good for the judges, because you can more easily compare the players (than in routines, where there could be a significant time between the competitors). I have the feeling that players like it too - like it said, it's natural and allows more competitors to participate. It invites those players, who don't like to spend months practicing their routines in advance, to take part in the competition. Also, it's never the same! Even the best of routines are relatively boring if you see it even twice.

Yet there's one thing I don't like about circle. I feel it needs more immediate and, in a certain way, dramatic response. I feel like the audience isn't getting enough feedback, if four players play in a circle and after they have played for like 10-20 minutes, there is a long pause, and then there is the unofficial news, when someone goes and takes a peek to the judges' sheets and starts to whisper the results. After couple of hours (and the net finals) the official results are given and the audience probably won't even remember the circle event or the players.

Elimination circle allows immediate feedback to the audience. As we used it in the AFS Opening Jam, players compared it to Idols format, and I don't know if it's a bad thing - Idols is hugely popular :)

What we did was the following: we had two rounds of diversity and two rounds of difficulty and then we eliminated one player. After another four rounds we had only two finalists, which had earned six more rounds (three diversity rounds and three difficulty rounds) to prove their worth.

In my opinion, there wasn't enough of rounds. I think six rounds before elimination and eight rounds for the final would've been better. This would draw out the stamina of the players as well as decrease the chance of one bad run ruining it for you.

I think elimination circle is only good for the finals - the normal way is faster and still accurate to decide who goes to finals. Elimination circle is just a boost to the finals, especially to the audience.

Another idea is that we could have routines tournament and use circle as a way to decide who gets to be in the finals. Only the finalists get to perform their routines. I think this would be better for the audience, than a normal routines tournament, but not so great for the players. Also, using circle as an elimination measure would ensure that there are no "presentation clowns" in the finals. Then again, crowd usually likes these clowns over "shred120"-players. However, this would keep the routines more unique - you wouldn't see the same routine twice in a competition.

So, what do you think?

professor · Post by **professor** » 19 Dec 2007 07:28

I think the elimination is a great idea. It's like who can survive the circle. Puts even more excitement in an already exciting comp.

I don't like having the circle comp decide who gets to do routines though. Then both the routines and circle won't be as good because the player will either go easy in circle so they can do well in routines, or go all out in circle so they can get to routines, but then be tired out for routines.

They should be 2 separate comps.

Benzilla · Post by **Benzilla** » 19 Dec 2007 13:41

I like this idea. it gives circles a new spin.

gatapia · Post by **gatapia** » 19 Dec 2007 15:40

I think fitness plays to big a role in this format. After watching your video I was exhausted just watching Jere and Aleski (sp??) still kicking so hard after so many rounds.

Another problem with this comp is that its a bit too long, for example in your video you had 3 rounds? (maybe 4) to get the winner from 4 players. Normal circle comp can get the winner from 1 million players in that many rounds (simultanious pools, I couldnt be bother actually calculating).

But I totally agree that routines suck. If a skateboarder rocked up to a skate park in a batman cape and started prancing around to 'eye of the fucking tiger' or some shit 80s song he'd deservedly get his head smacked in. Thats what routines look like to me. Shit, artistic component?? What the hell are we playing?? Synchronised swimming? Footbag is a purely technical sport, and representing it in an artistic manner with ribbons and dancing is to its detriment.

Personally I think there is no better comp than rippin run, just man vs machine!

Guido

Benzilla · Post by **Benzilla** » 19 Dec 2007 16:11

I like routines..

I don't think you should be so hard on routines..They're just another way of playing and competing.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Dec 2007 16:22

It's good for the judges, because you can more easily compare the players (than in routines, where there could be a significant time between the competitors)

I disagree that circle comp is easier to judge. In routines you judge each competitor against a scale (the time between competitors doesn't matter because you can judge the competitor immediately after the routine without seeing anyone else's routine because you judge it against the scale not against the other competitors). Circle is supposed to be easier because you rank players against one another. But my problem with this is that it simply hides the fact that you still have to make some judgement against a scale as the basis for comparison. That ism after the first player has his go you need to judge the level in some way to be able to compare - that "some way" - is against some scale. Really its no easier than routines at all.

There may be many other reasons to prefer circle to routines but ease of judging should not be one of them.

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 19 Dec 2007 22:43

Interesting discussion.

I think fitness plays to big a role in this format.

Stamina/fitness is a big part of elimination circle. I tried gauntlet in the final run simply because I didn't have energy for anything more than one trick. But I think it's great - stamina always plays an important part in sports, it shouldn't be any other way. And two minutes routine also uses the players stamina pretty fast. Circle just does it more naturally.

Another problem with this comp is that its a bit too long

Elimination Circle is long, and thus it should only be used in finals, which would be "the event" with possible commentators, player profiles, show etc. I think it's only good that it has certain length (builds up the momentum). (Still not as long as 8 or 10 routines finals)

I don't like having the circle comp decide who gets to do routines though. Then both the routines and circle won't be as good because the player will either go easy in circle so they can do well in routines, or go all out in circle so they can get to routines, but then be tired out for routines.

This was more of a creative idea than something I really wanted to do :) Anyway, I think the idea is to have a winner who has it all: stamina to withstand both competitions, technicality and diversity to shred his/hers way through the circles and the charisma to assure the audience and the judges with the routine. Circle and routines could also be held in different days like semis and finals usually are, so it wouldn't be all about the stamina.

I think the weakest point of a routine tournament is this: the first rounds and even the semifinals. No one likes to judge a routine with 10+ drops. No one likes to watch that routine. No one likes to perform that routine. I don't want to be elitist, but I think this is just the way it is. This tends to rise the bar to participate in a competition (especially here in Finland). With circle as a elimination measure, we could invite all kinds of players to compete, not just those who like to entertain and stand alone before a crowd - the rise in the amount of players competing could result in lower entry fees for all players.

In routines you judge each competitor against a scale (the time between competitors doesn't matter because you can judge the competitor immediately after the routine without seeing anyone else's routine because you judge it against the scale not against the other competitors).

That would be the ideal situation. However, in routines, the score (4.3, 2.5, etc.) isn't what matters, it's the rank between players. That is because the score is just a way to a judge to rank the players - every judge has an individual scale what they use. Some judge can only give scores below 3 and some can only give scores above 3, but they'll still have ranks that are comparable in contrary of what their scores would've been. So it all comes down to the point that a judge has to think "was this player better than that player" and leave enough space in his scoring to allow him rank all players. So really, it's all about ranking the players and comparing them to other competitors. So, as a judge, I would personally prefer judging circle over routines. But then again, maybe I'm just a bad routines judge.

If we had specific standards what tricks should be in routine, a check-list type of thing, we could rely more on the score and leave the rank out of it. But because there is so much spread between the judges' scores, the rank between the players is the only way to ensure that all of the judges' opinions are balanced and no one judge can tilt the outcome to his/hers favor. But the ranking system automatically leads to raw comparison of the players and leaves the scoring system to be a useful help to the judges without self-value, because of its relativity.

Mmm.. I hope this is understandable..

Hopefully the discussion will continue :)

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 20 Dec 2007 16:48

So it all comes down to the point that a judge has to think "was this player better than that player" and leave enough space in his scoring to allow him rank all players.

As you say, that is bad judging. You should be judging each routine on its merits (in relation to your scale) not in relation to other players. The solution to bad judging is not to ignore it and have a different compotition, its to improve the judging. Moreover the same problems exist in circle as they do in routines - if you get the right result in circle, even if you judge routines poorly in the way you describe you should get the right result in routines too. But of course the argument is the ease on the judges not the nature of the results, so -

The thing is that even if you judge routines badly - you are still ranking players with the respect to some measure of their quality - which is the same as what you are doing in circle. You don't just rank players in circle - you rank the quyality of their turns - and that means at some point you have assessed that quality in the same way that you would for routines -that is against some subjective scale that reamins the same accross the comp - only you have less time to make the judgements and have more to judge, and the weighting of the scale is less explicit than in routines. I don't see how circle is easier to judge at all. When the level of the players is very high and they are very hard to seperate there may only be a couple of key contacts over the whole cround that seperate them and how exactly are the judges of circle supposed to be able to deal with that more easily than in routines?

Stoneman · Post by **Stoneman** » 20 Dec 2007 18:45

Footbag is a purely technical sport, and representing it in an artistic manner with ribbons and dancing is to its detriment.

Personally I think there is no better comp than rippin run, just man vs machine!

Guido

i disagree compleatly.while the technical side is sometimes understated,footbag still has many artistic aspects.[/quote]

gatapia · Post by **gatapia** » 20 Dec 2007 20:40

[quote="Stoneman"]
i disagree compleatly.while the technical side is sometimes understated,footbag still has many artistic aspects.[/quote]

I agree, I was wrong in making that statement.

Having said that, just because lets say.. Boxing, theres no reason why boxing could not have an artistic compoenents, and boxers could get points for doing pirouettes (sp) and doing crowd pleasing bows and wearing batman capes. Just because there is an artistic component does not mean it is a positive promotion to the sport.

I think if people want to do footbag-dance, go ahead create a competition, perhaps even routines is the right medium for that, I just dont think routines should be the blue ribbon event in footbag.

Another point. Routines are two hard!!! Have a look at this years worlds, only about umm 3 of the top 10 routines were worth watching (thats a bit tough, but you get my point), the rest are full of kicks and easy artistic point getters or too many drops. When 3 players in the world can 'shred' for 120 seconds (and sync to music) it makes it crap. Perhaps one day when there are 10-20 vaseks we can come back to routines.

All other events are exciting to watch, they show footbag as a progressive 'x' style sport.

Hmmm I'm finding it hard to vocalise my sentiments, but hopefully you understand where I'm comming from. You know, young kids watching footbag comps for the first time should be blown away, not think the sport is a glorified form of modern dance, coz even though I personally love modern dance tremendously, most young people don't.

Guido

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 21 Dec 2007 00:05

dyalander wrote:
As you say, that is bad judging.

You are right. Still, because the variety of tricks and the looseness of instructions and regulations given to judges, it is very hard, or perhaps impossible, to carry out satisfyingly. If you look at other sports, like ski jumping, figure skating or diving, all the components are strictly defined, competitors are within strict limits what they can do and the judges know exactly what they are judging - the instructions are clear and there are very limited number of different "tricks" and outcomes.

All of those sports use, as far as I know, same kind of method of judging than footbag routine judges do. It is clear to me that in order to give fair judging in a routine event, judges would have to be somewhat superhuman. Or rather, there is no right way to judge, because the components of routines aren't clearly specified yet, and it is more a matter of an opinion. This leads to comparing players, because different judges can have such different expectations from a routine, resulting in a very different scale of scores, even if the player ranks wouldn't be different.

My personal conclusion is that the vast diversity of components in footbag, which is still growing, makes the sport highly different from the other sports mentioned above and because of that difference they should be judged with different methods. I'm not that naive that I think the progress of footbag has stopped and that we've found the optimal resolutions to every problem. The sport is young and unique, the methods of judging are loaned from other sports and fit poorly in this sport. I really don't think that footbag is still competed and judged the same way in 10 or 20 years from now. This is, of course, just my personal opinion.

Circle is a more natural way of competing for this unique sport than routines. Don't take me wrong, I love routines, but I think every routine judge still compares the players and gives rank based on that. The routine training in worlds (2000, 2003, 2005) have always stressed this point ("not the scores, but the rank"). It would be chaos, if every judge would form some kind of subjective scoring system and act based on that. In circle, comparing the players is more easier because the time between players is shorter and the judges have even a vague viewpoint of what they're judging, that is diversity or difficulty.

In routines, judges write down the drops, some comments "good." "did flyers" etc, and the final decision is based on those comments, the overall impression and drops. Experienced routine players can take advantage of this, knowing what makes their routine look diverse, knowing that the second they move around with the bag or make a gesture to crowd, the judges will write down "moving" or "crowd" or something along the lines with that. As I said, it would take a superhuman to remember eight or ten routines trick by trick. As there are no clear, specific regulations to which the judges could apply, it is naive to think that each judge judges each routine separately and the routines wouldn't affect each others.

Well, I guess you can look this from many angles and I don't know how the judging went in worlds 2006 or 2007.

Stoneman · Post by **Stoneman** » 22 Dec 2007 10:47

gatapia wrote:Routines are two hard!!! Have a look at this years worlds, only about umm 3 of the top 10 routines were worth watching (thats a bit tough, but you get my point), the rest are full of kicks and easy artistic point getters or too many drops. When 3 players in the world can 'shred' for 120 seconds (and sync to music) it makes it crap.

well thats certainly true.

footbag isnt big enough for 10-20 vaseks, though, and in the meantime i see no problem with some crappy routines that no one who isnt a player watches anyway.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 23 Dec 2007 22:48

It doesn't take a suerhuman effort to clarify the basis of scoring at all. But you seem to miss the more important point

As there are no clear, specific regulations to which the judges could apply, it is naive to think that each judge judges each routine separately and the routines wouldn't affect each others.

There are and have been a number of different sets of regulations that have been and are applied to judging routines - and make it perfectly reasonable for judges to judge each routine seperately against those standards. Its not superhuman at all - in fact its far easier when, as you say, judges are provided with clear indicators as to what constitutes difficulty and diversity than when thay are not. So many drop will limit your routines score a certain way - easy discrimination to make requiring no comparison between competitors. The variety of sets and sides a player uses is will determin which score they can get - again easy discrimination requiring no comparison between players. etc etc.

On the other hand - the standards by which circle competitors are to be judged are not clearly explained anywhere for judges - how is "diversity and difficulty" a better and more easier standard to judge players? How does the fact that players present so quickly after one another on circle make it easier to judge. For example if two circle competitors who are extremely evenly matched go through a round with almost equal levels of difficulty and diversity, turn for turn - there may only be the slightest of differences between them - one move or link even. How is a judge to catch this. Surely that would be superhuman. Moreover how are these two differnt measures played off against one another? All other things (length and control) being equal is diversity better than difficulty or vica versa? If a player has awesome diversity but little difficulty how does s/he match up with a player who has awesome difficulty but little variety? None of this is dealt with in circle judging outlines and it needs to be. What is niave, is to say that these discriminations aren't important when players are ranked against each other. The same discriminations for routines are being made by circle judges only they are forced to do it faster and with little to no specific guidence.

I like both disciplines but my point has always been - that to say that circle judging is somehow easier or better is simply false. Both systems have pros and cons but circle is no easier than to judge properly than routines and when both are poorly judged they are still of equal difficulty. This will become more and more clear as comp circles get filled with players of equal standards.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 25 Dec 2007 23:17

Judging routines is hard, and takes a long time. There used to be a check list, you had to do tricks that comprised a certain # of components from each add category. Unusual surface was always hard for anyone to fill. That became outdated and was dropped.
Someone should update that system and try it out at a contest or 2 and if it works propose it to the IFPA.
BTW- Ive seen skate contests on tv but how are they judged? They kinda seem like our current system of just deciding who is best.

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 29 Dec 2007 06:01

I have to agree you on certain points, dyalander.

My main point was that if sports like diving, figure skating (or even ski jumping) are hard to judge even if they have a really limited number of "tricks" they can do, it is really hard to have same kind of system working in footbag. This seems clear to me because of the huge trick base in footbag. The instructions to routine judges (at least all the versions I've seen) aren't really that specific - just what common sense already tells you. Having a check list in footbag would be against footbag's nature - this is how I feel.

It all comes down to this: If the judging standards are too specific it is hard to follow or perform routines on. If the judging standards are too vague, it is just a matter of opinion. If we had only very limited number of tricks, we could have really specific intructions, like the other sports that use same kind of judging system.

Still, your posts made it clear to me that circle judging has its flaws. I guess the fact that every freestyle player spends so much time in circles makes it so natural to judge - having three good and experienced players as circle judges makes it feel like the outcome is more right.

But this wasn't supposed to be circle judging vs. routine judging thread, though it has been interesting :)

Happy Holidays!

pillar · Post by **pillar** » 29 Dec 2007 11:06

Having been there and being a judge for that circle comp I think I'm qualified to comment, just a couple of points on top of my head:

1) I agree that having three rounds both and maybe four for the final two would be better. Though then the preliminary rounds should not be right before the final.

2) With multiple eliminations in the final, a consistency is also well rewarded.

3) Elimination final didn't take that long as it may seem from the video, since it was really quick for us, the judges, to vote on who should be eliminated, instead of needing to rank them. Our decision took us 30 seconds at the most and then we were already moving on.

4) I got the impression that the mindset of "I just have to beat one guy in order to keep going" worked on the players and those of watching. There was constantly a question up in the air, who the next will be. Players hoping that it is not them and people watching not wanting their favorite player to be the one to be eliminated. I think that did good to the competition.

5) Final 1 vs 1 was especially nice, since it gave the players an opportunity to "battle" each other. Things like other making a gauntlet and the other to respond with a nemesis was just great to see. This can of course happen in a normal circle as well, but it is not so clear and might be missed.

So, I liked it, but I'm sure it can be tweaked to be even better. I recommend people to give it a try.

RawSko · Post by **RawSko** » 06 Jan 2008 20:49

mouseman wrote:"free points" from presentation than in routines

mouseman wrote:"presentation clowns"

I don't know what you're talking about. Good presentation takes so much control and consistency, it's rediculous. Routines are the hardest and most rewarding form of competition. Routines put more pressure on a player than any other event. If somebody is a skilled enough player to keep his or her composure during a routine and to present footbag in a way that makes it look the best, there is no question in my mind that this person is the champ. Ease off on routines. We know circles rocks...

This elimination thing does sound cool. I wanna try!

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 08 Jan 2008 03:54

I used "-marks because that was something I've heard, not something I myself believe in. Please don't quote me out of context :) I even said "Don't take me wrong, I love routines" :)

Wiktor · Post by **Wiktor** » 09 Jan 2008 14:31

Nice idea. I saw the video.

I agree, that its good only for finals.

Easier to jugde.

Battle 1on1 requires also lots of stamina and consistancy from top players.

But if one drop, second player has no time to rest at all!

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 09 Jan 2008 23:05

Maybe you could use that tactically ? :) Do couple of hard tricks and drop after your opponent has done a long run and pass the bag back to him so that he is too tired to do anything? :)

It brings another element to circle. Crowd is always amazed of athletes' stamina. It is easy for people in the crowd to judge themselves who is able to hit long runs after his opponent or other players in the circle are tired. If you look at sports like running you have to agree it's not the complexity that attracts people to the sport :) After all, people who see footbag for the first time probably don't differentiate the tricks - they just hear the music, look how long the player can keep the bag up and maybe notice change in tempo or some routine presentation tricks.

If we strip down footbag to its core - people playing in circle - and build an event to the finale, normal people would be able to watch footbag and have an opinion about who's going to win. I feel sometimes that my friends and family feel like they're watching running competition - only the last runner is announced as the winner. Well, it's not as bad as that, but people unfamiliar to the sport can't really tell who's doing good or who's doing bad if they don't drop a lot. When they can't see the difference, they can't relate and when they can't relate, they'll lose interest.

For people who don't have family playing, freestyle is like watching a handball game between norway and malesia, except you don't know the rules. You don't care who's winning because you can't "participate". It is crucial that people in the audience can relate and have an opinion. For this sport to become successful, we need to figure out a way to attract crowd (which brings money and more players etc). "Look at his legs go funny" isn't enough, it only lasts for five minutes.

This is why I'm saying that we need basic elements, like stamina, to play bigger part of the competition. Because of the audience but because it tells a lot of the player also (for the judges).

Elimination Circle

Elimination Circle

p

Re: p

Re: p