Hi footbag freestyle community,
I've been working on a new competition format and we will be trying it at this year's IFPA World Footbag Championships in Prague. After trying it at a big tournament (Worlds), STP will be adjusted as much as it needs to, just like we did with Circle.
I want to thanks a few people for their big help with this project : Jorden Moir, Honza Weber, Tina Aeberli and Wiktor Debski.
Here is the version we will be trying at Worlds:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short Technical Program (STP)
(removed) no artistic criteria
-No music, no background music, silence.
Time :
-Time limit:
a-Qualification: 30 seconds, +/- 5 seconds.
b-Semi-final and Final: 45 seconds, +/- 5 seconds.
-Moves hit after maximum time do not count.
-Routines less than minimum time automatically get penalized in Structure.
-Competitors can ask for a countdown and/or specific time cue.
Judging:
-2 judging categories of equal value, each category contains 2 criteria:
a-Content : Variety & Difficulty
b-Presentation : Execution & Structure
-2 judges per category. 2 Content judges and 2 Presentation judges.
-Each judge gives 2 score. 1 score per criteria.
-Subjective judging: 0-6 points scale for each criterion.
-A judge’s total score is out of 12 points.
-A competitor’s final score is out of 48 points.
-Pools are used to eliminate competitors.
Methodology:
-DJ puts some music between competitors.
-MC calls next competitor.
-Competitor goes on stage.
-Competitor can do few basic kicks and stalls.
-Competitor hand catches or toe freeze the bag.
-Competitor gives a cue to the DJ.
-DJ stops the music.
-Timer starts on first movement of the bag.
-Competitor performs his/her STP.
-MC gives a countdown and/or specific time cue. (If the competitor asked for it.)
-MC calls end of time.
-Competitor catches the bag.
-Competitor exits stage.
-DJ puts the music back on.
Detailed judging criteria:
A-CONTENT:
1-Variety:
a-Varied moves & links
b-Balance between Front & Cross contact (ex: toe & clipper)
c-Both sidedness
2-Difficulty:
a-Difficult moves & links
b-Long strings
c-Density
B-PRESENTATION:
1-Execution:
a-Clean dexes
b-Good bag control
c-Good body posture
d-Low drop count
2-Structure:
a-Beginning & ending
b-Themes (ex: spin&duck, shuffle, symposium, drills, osis moves, easy to difficult whirl moves, etc)
c-Dynamics (changes of speed, intensity, high&low set, front & cross contact, etc)
d-Transitions (between themes)
e-Time limit
STP version 1.0
Ianek Regimbald, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have any questions, email me back.
ianekregimbald at videotron dot ca
Ianek Regimbald
New competition at Worlds : STP
New competition at Worlds : STP
Last edited by ianek on 31 May 2008 15:42, edited 2 times in total.
Ianek Regimbald
Maybe I am just biased because it's Ianek, and Ianek is awesome, but to me it sounded neat not because of the event itself, but because it will help develop current and future events. It doesn't matter if this ends up being used ever again, in my opinion, but the results and the feedback from it will help fuel the progression of new events and help modify current ones. The more you experiment the closer you come to perfection. Or something. Jorden-esque. Like Benjamin Franklin said, [paraphrased because I have a sketchy memory] "I didn't fail; I found 500 methods that don't work, and that brings me 500 methods closer to one that will."
Sorry. That was terribly paraphrased.
I think you catch my drift.
Sorry. That was terribly paraphrased.
I think you catch my drift.
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
Before voicing my opinion on the new format, I'll wait and see how it plays out. I'm confident Ianek has put a lot of time, effort and thought into this (as he did with Circle Comp) and that although some fine-tuning may be in order this should be a cool event.
However, I'm not sold on having an event replace shred 30. Yes, we all know that shred 30 has a ton of drawbacks but it does have one colossal redeeming advantage: it gives you a final calculated score. No subjective judgments, no "artistic scores" (whatever that means on the year in question) etc. This I think is important for two groups especially:
- spectators
- newer players
When you do routines, does anyone think back and say "oh yeah at semis open routines in 2004 I scored a 4.7 in TM and a 4.2 in AM. That was the best I ever did."? I doubt it. At least with Shred30 there's a way to know how well you did and how you place against past performances and other players.
My 2 cents.
Regarding the new format: again, I'm very eager to see how this plays out. Props Ianek for pushing the sport in new directions!
However, I'm not sold on having an event replace shred 30. Yes, we all know that shred 30 has a ton of drawbacks but it does have one colossal redeeming advantage: it gives you a final calculated score. No subjective judgments, no "artistic scores" (whatever that means on the year in question) etc. This I think is important for two groups especially:
- spectators
- newer players
When you do routines, does anyone think back and say "oh yeah at semis open routines in 2004 I scored a 4.7 in TM and a 4.2 in AM. That was the best I ever did."? I doubt it. At least with Shred30 there's a way to know how well you did and how you place against past performances and other players.
My 2 cents.
Regarding the new format: again, I'm very eager to see how this plays out. Props Ianek for pushing the sport in new directions!
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
Yeah, Ianek IS awesome.
I totally appreciate the idea of this new technical competition, so different than shred 30 in a few major aspects. Just a few that come up to my mind: 1) It's not based on adds (which as we all know aren't perfect, BUT at the same time are the best objective way of valuing difficulty), so Flurrys, Ripsteins, Swifters will be worth more than Ripwalks, Sidewalks, Spinning Butterflys. 2) We should see more Duckings and Spinnings, tricks taking time, not just shuffle. 3) Variety counts. 4) Links count, finally. 5) And... there's no annoying music, hehe.
At the same time, I was sooo angry finding out there's no shred at worlds. The only objective competition with clear rules has sharply gone. Subjectively, it was the only thing I prepared for the last few months, being probably the second man to break the magic barrier, and hoping to even win the competition with some luck and positive mindset. Now I'm unsure how to prepare, to get the best possible results. Also, I'm not the only one who've been negatively surprised, at least in my country (not by STP!!, but disappearing shred 30).
Summing up, I'm happy for the improvement of technical competition, but on second thoughts I'm hesitant about replacing shred by something new, unknown. Nevertheless you're the best Ianek for creating another great competition, I'll later contact you to explain what specifically bothers me.
I totally appreciate the idea of this new technical competition, so different than shred 30 in a few major aspects. Just a few that come up to my mind: 1) It's not based on adds (which as we all know aren't perfect, BUT at the same time are the best objective way of valuing difficulty), so Flurrys, Ripsteins, Swifters will be worth more than Ripwalks, Sidewalks, Spinning Butterflys. 2) We should see more Duckings and Spinnings, tricks taking time, not just shuffle. 3) Variety counts. 4) Links count, finally. 5) And... there's no annoying music, hehe.
At the same time, I was sooo angry finding out there's no shred at worlds. The only objective competition with clear rules has sharply gone. Subjectively, it was the only thing I prepared for the last few months, being probably the second man to break the magic barrier, and hoping to even win the competition with some luck and positive mindset. Now I'm unsure how to prepare, to get the best possible results. Also, I'm not the only one who've been negatively surprised, at least in my country (not by STP!!, but disappearing shred 30).
Summing up, I'm happy for the improvement of technical competition, but on second thoughts I'm hesitant about replacing shred by something new, unknown. Nevertheless you're the best Ianek for creating another great competition, I'll later contact you to explain what specifically bothers me.
Olaf Piwowar, My Footblog
Having subjectivity is good because it allows tricks we all know are harder to be properly valued even when add count doesn't give them "enough" credit.
On the other hand, what will we do when a dragon player, or even that sole stall player, steps in? Certainly there are only a few players in the world that can do those types of tricks right now - how do you score that?
Also, how do you judge difficult links? For Sunil (back in the day) flurry > pixie paradon was a bail. Ehhhh, I could give a bunch of examples, we all know what I mean >> difficult links change from player to player, so is it just what the judges personally find difficult?
Perhaps, you score more similar to shred 30 in terms of having a raw calculated score, and that score is just enhanced (or not) by originality and all the other subjective components. If the 'bonus' points are strong enough, that could be enough to add spice to the competition, and give all sorts of competitors a fighting chance, all while not counting out fast, shuffle etc. This takes away the "I've figured out the shred 30 formula" player from automatically winning.
One other suggestion.. At one of the Chilly Philly events that I held years ago, we ran a shred 30 type of event, with one small change. There was only 15 seconds between players. The crowd really enjoyed the 'no break in the action' format, and the entire event was over very quickly. Of course, all the scoring was done afterwards in this format, but it was very crowd friendly. Nothing disperses a crowd more quickly than dead time.
Oh, one other thing.. Crowd needs to understand what the judging criteria is. When we used to do demo's, the crowd was much more appreciative if we explained difficult vs. not-difficult, and then gave them an example (i.e. Kenny would rip something crazy out as compared to me doing some butterflies). If you're able to do that before hand, the crowd might really get into it.
On the other hand, what will we do when a dragon player, or even that sole stall player, steps in? Certainly there are only a few players in the world that can do those types of tricks right now - how do you score that?
Also, how do you judge difficult links? For Sunil (back in the day) flurry > pixie paradon was a bail. Ehhhh, I could give a bunch of examples, we all know what I mean >> difficult links change from player to player, so is it just what the judges personally find difficult?
Perhaps, you score more similar to shred 30 in terms of having a raw calculated score, and that score is just enhanced (or not) by originality and all the other subjective components. If the 'bonus' points are strong enough, that could be enough to add spice to the competition, and give all sorts of competitors a fighting chance, all while not counting out fast, shuffle etc. This takes away the "I've figured out the shred 30 formula" player from automatically winning.
One other suggestion.. At one of the Chilly Philly events that I held years ago, we ran a shred 30 type of event, with one small change. There was only 15 seconds between players. The crowd really enjoyed the 'no break in the action' format, and the entire event was over very quickly. Of course, all the scoring was done afterwards in this format, but it was very crowd friendly. Nothing disperses a crowd more quickly than dead time.
Oh, one other thing.. Crowd needs to understand what the judging criteria is. When we used to do demo's, the crowd was much more appreciative if we explained difficult vs. not-difficult, and then gave them an example (i.e. Kenny would rip something crazy out as compared to me doing some butterflies). If you're able to do that before hand, the crowd might really get into it.
Bob R.
I don't think that getting rid of our only objective event is a step in the right direction. I understand that judging Shred30 is a nightmare (and at Worlds there will be tons of players), but still I think that this change was done too fast, and that STP shouldn't be tested at Worlds.
There should at least be an IFPA newsletter sent out about that, and some space for debate.
EDIT: This format is very similar to Circle Contest. I've participated in Circle Contest about 10 times already, and, as much as I like it, I know that with final players close in skill, the judges are very prone to mistakes.
EDIT2: Basically, I'm fine with having another event, diversity is always good, but I don't like the way it's being implemented, replacing Shred30.
Pozdrawiam
Szymon Kałwak (Ners)
There should at least be an IFPA newsletter sent out about that, and some space for debate.
EDIT: This format is very similar to Circle Contest. I've participated in Circle Contest about 10 times already, and, as much as I like it, I know that with final players close in skill, the judges are very prone to mistakes.
EDIT2: Basically, I'm fine with having another event, diversity is always good, but I don't like the way it's being implemented, replacing Shred30.
Pozdrawiam
Szymon Kałwak (Ners)
My first post seemed more negative than I wanted it to last night. Sorry for putting up such a stupid first post. Other's have better expressed what I was trying to say.
The format itself does sound good. But to take out the only raw calculated event and replace it with another subjective, judged event doesn't seem like the right direction. I think Shred30 is great because you can sit down, figure out what you want to do. Calculate your score, practice it and then, if you hit in competition, you know your score. No waiting to see if the judges liked it, or if someone bought off the german judge (Figure skating reference, not prejudice). It's clean, clear cut. You can use your score to base your past and future performances.
Ianek, I'm not saying I don't like the new formula. It seems great and I am looking forward to seeing it. I'm just not sure where it fits in and I don't think it should replace shred 30.
The format itself does sound good. But to take out the only raw calculated event and replace it with another subjective, judged event doesn't seem like the right direction. I think Shred30 is great because you can sit down, figure out what you want to do. Calculate your score, practice it and then, if you hit in competition, you know your score. No waiting to see if the judges liked it, or if someone bought off the german judge (Figure skating reference, not prejudice). It's clean, clear cut. You can use your score to base your past and future performances.
What's stopping anyone from figuring out the shred 30 formula? It's not that tough . . . Don't do the same move twice and use fast, big add tricks. To me, Vasek usually wins because he's got the biggest tricks and goes dropless on a pre-planned run, not because he's the only player who has been able to dechipher the formula.Perhaps, you score more similar to shred 30 in terms of having a raw calculated score, and that score is just enhanced (or not) by originality and all the other subjective components. If the 'bonus' points are strong enough, that could be enough to add spice to the competition, and give all sorts of competitors a fighting chance, all while not counting out fast, shuffle etc. This takes away the "I've figured out the shred 30 formula" player from automatically winning.
Ianek, I'm not saying I don't like the new formula. It seems great and I am looking forward to seeing it. I'm just not sure where it fits in and I don't think it should replace shred 30.
I've frikking planned Shred30 for the first time ever - and you're telling me there's no Shred30?!
And you're already saying that it WILL replace Shred30. WTF?
This sounds like Shred mixed with Circle. Ianek, how do you see this competition being better than Shred30? You're just sick of adds? What new will this form of competition bring to footbag?
And you're already saying that it WILL replace Shred30. WTF?
This sounds like Shred mixed with Circle. Ianek, how do you see this competition being better than Shred30? You're just sick of adds? What new will this form of competition bring to footbag?
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
At the very least, this thread is quickly generating some good discussion...
I basically agree with most of whats already been said so far:
Ianek kicks ass - working hard to push the sport -- pushing in more than just one way --- pushing in ways that most people don't ---- a true innovater.
AND...
It does seem quite presumptuous to outright replace Shred30 at Worlds on somewhat short-notice. As has already been pointed out, or at least alluded to, Ianek's last innovation, the Circle Contest, didn't outright replace some other established competitive format, and Circle Contest had a few good test-runs at other (smaller, of course) events prior to being adopted at our sport's premier event.
BUT:
I'd like to move this discussion beyond those areas for the moment (perhaps another topic regarding Shred30 at Worlds) and re-focus the discussion here on this new format. We are already all aware of Shred30's strengths and weaknesses -- (in short -- Pros: a familiar event with objective standards of scoring whose results can, in principle, be planned in advance and easily compared to results from most previous or future events of the same format; -- and -- Cons: scores for "difficulty" using a system long known to be flawed, and who's format is biased towards faster players rather than better players, and, similarly, biased against more time-consuming moves. Also, scoring takes a great deal of time, making results unavailable until much later) -- and I don't really think we need to keep discussing the Shred30 event right now.
-- What I do want to know now is some more about this newly proposed event. I want to hear from Ianek (and/or Jordan, Honza, Tina, and Wiktor) about some specific areas of the Short Technical Program's scoring.
For instance:
Also, could you explain what you mean by "Dynamics", because I really don't know what this refers to at all.
Lastly, and I know this one is mostly personal, and doesn't really apply to everyone else, but...
Ianek, I apologize if I've said anything that sounds overly critical of your new format. My point right now is not to critique that format, rather, I'm just trying to understand it better.
Regardless of what gets run at Worlds this year and what doesn't, I appreciate the effort you put into inventing and implementing new ideas. As has already been mentioned, footbag is not a completed work yet. It is still a work in progress, and it is good to propose and try new things in our sport. Thanks, Ianek.
I basically agree with most of whats already been said so far:
Ianek kicks ass - working hard to push the sport -- pushing in more than just one way --- pushing in ways that most people don't ---- a true innovater.
AND...
It does seem quite presumptuous to outright replace Shred30 at Worlds on somewhat short-notice. As has already been pointed out, or at least alluded to, Ianek's last innovation, the Circle Contest, didn't outright replace some other established competitive format, and Circle Contest had a few good test-runs at other (smaller, of course) events prior to being adopted at our sport's premier event.
BUT:
I'd like to move this discussion beyond those areas for the moment (perhaps another topic regarding Shred30 at Worlds) and re-focus the discussion here on this new format. We are already all aware of Shred30's strengths and weaknesses -- (in short -- Pros: a familiar event with objective standards of scoring whose results can, in principle, be planned in advance and easily compared to results from most previous or future events of the same format; -- and -- Cons: scores for "difficulty" using a system long known to be flawed, and who's format is biased towards faster players rather than better players, and, similarly, biased against more time-consuming moves. Also, scoring takes a great deal of time, making results unavailable until much later) -- and I don't really think we need to keep discussing the Shred30 event right now.
-- What I do want to know now is some more about this newly proposed event. I want to hear from Ianek (and/or Jordan, Honza, Tina, and Wiktor) about some specific areas of the Short Technical Program's scoring.
For instance:
If there are not supposed to be "Artistic Criteria", what difference does "Structure" make? I mean, the "Execution" criteria make sense to me, but I don't see how "Themes" in your strings makes any difference except to makes things easier for the judges and to appeal to an audience in a fashion more-or-less the same as Choreography. If this event is about control, difficulty, variety etc. (technical components), couldn't it be reasonable to say that grouping your tricks into themed strings (putting most of your ducks and dives together back-to-back, or all your spins, etc...) is actually easier to do than to spread them out and always put dissimilar move elements back-to-back instead (for instance, osis to stepping to barraging to fairy to ducking, stead of ducking to diving to ducking, etc.)?Detailed judging criteria:
B-PRESENTATION:
2-Structure:
b-Themes
c-Dynamics
Also, could you explain what you mean by "Dynamics", because I really don't know what this refers to at all.
Lastly, and I know this one is mostly personal, and doesn't really apply to everyone else, but...
... could this be changed a little bit? How about if, instead of referring specifically to toes and clippers, we said "Balance between Cross-Body and Not-Cross-Body moves" For instance, there are some people who have gotten really good at "Neo-set Miraging Inside" (for instance) style of tricks. Clearly, its not clipper or toe... Myself, I've been working for a long time on stuff that is neither clipper nor toe, but I can still see some value in differentiating between the moves that are Cross-Body and the moves that are not.Detailed judging criteria:
A-CONTENT:
b-Balance between toes & clippers
Ianek, I apologize if I've said anything that sounds overly critical of your new format. My point right now is not to critique that format, rather, I'm just trying to understand it better.
Regardless of what gets run at Worlds this year and what doesn't, I appreciate the effort you put into inventing and implementing new ideas. As has already been mentioned, footbag is not a completed work yet. It is still a work in progress, and it is good to propose and try new things in our sport. Thanks, Ianek.
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
I wrote:
You're misreading the intent of my comment. What I mean, is that the person that is able to put together the fastest run of uniques wins. As Jonathan wrote regarding the cons of shred 30:
So, what I mean is, that someone that figures out how to game the system allows a someone that may not actually play what we'd all consider "the best" to win. Chad vs. Vasek with identical strings... Vasek finishes all the tricks, Chad doesn't get through the last 4 tricks. Vasek #1 with creativity and hard tricks that are potentially not as many add due to our flawed system vs. Vasek #2 manipulating the scoring system. Vasek #2 wins because he's "figured out the formula".
But, I'm glad you've figured out the formula.
Sen replied:Perhaps, you score more similar to shred 30 in terms of having a raw calculated score, and that score is just enhanced (or not) by originality and all the other subjective components. If the 'bonus' points are strong enough, that could be enough to add spice to the competition, and give all sorts of competitors a fighting chance, all while not counting out fast, shuffle etc. This takes away the "I've figured out the shred 30 formula" player from automatically winning.
What's stopping anyone from figuring out the shred 30 formula? It's not that tough . . . Don't do the same move twice and use fast, big add tricks. To me, Vasek usually wins because he's got the biggest tricks and goes dropless on a pre-planned run, not because he's the only player who has been able to dechipher the formula.
You're misreading the intent of my comment. What I mean, is that the person that is able to put together the fastest run of uniques wins. As Jonathan wrote regarding the cons of shred 30:
Cons: scores for "difficulty" using a system long known to be flawed, and who's format is biased towards faster players rather than better players, and, similarly, biased against more time-consuming moves.
So, what I mean is, that someone that figures out how to game the system allows a someone that may not actually play what we'd all consider "the best" to win. Chad vs. Vasek with identical strings... Vasek finishes all the tricks, Chad doesn't get through the last 4 tricks. Vasek #1 with creativity and hard tricks that are potentially not as many add due to our flawed system vs. Vasek #2 manipulating the scoring system. Vasek #2 wins because he's "figured out the formula".
But, I'm glad you've figured out the formula.
Bob R.
-
the Executioner
- BSOS Beast
- Posts: 447
- Joined: 13 Mar 2003 16:18
- Location: Laurel, MD
I have questions on whether or not the World Championships is really the right venue for trying out new events.
Replacing an established event like shred 30--which people have already put routines together for--with a new experimental event, this close to the World Championships, seems to me to be a bit irresponsible. I'm not a huge fan of shred30, and I appreciate Ianek doing the work to try and improve the system, but perhaps there is a better place to try out new events than Worlds.
Replacing an established event like shred 30--which people have already put routines together for--with a new experimental event, this close to the World Championships, seems to me to be a bit irresponsible. I'm not a huge fan of shred30, and I appreciate Ianek doing the work to try and improve the system, but perhaps there is a better place to try out new events than Worlds.
Peter Irish
Bob, my highest Shred 30 score is about 85. In intermediate. I haven't "figured" it out in a way that I can score well. But I know how to make a shred 30 that would score well, should I be able to pull it off. My skill isn't there.
My point was more that Shred 30 is unique. Yes, it's flawed. I'm not disputing that. But it also isn't influenced by judges opinions of what is good or balanced. Maybe a judge likes the way Chad's double dexes look because of how his long legs make a huge window. That judge could feel that the trick was more styley when down by Chad, instead of by someone shorter like Vasek. Is that any better than Chad being "penalized" in shred 30 for being tall?
I like the idea of the STP, but am leary about it replacing shred 30. I don't think it's the fix for shred 30 we seem to be looking for. I look forward to going to Shredmonton next month and trying to beat my Shred 30 score from last year. If there were different judges or they thought differently about tricks this year, that wouldn't work for STP.
My point was more that Shred 30 is unique. Yes, it's flawed. I'm not disputing that. But it also isn't influenced by judges opinions of what is good or balanced. Maybe a judge likes the way Chad's double dexes look because of how his long legs make a huge window. That judge could feel that the trick was more styley when down by Chad, instead of by someone shorter like Vasek. Is that any better than Chad being "penalized" in shred 30 for being tall?
I like the idea of the STP, but am leary about it replacing shred 30. I don't think it's the fix for shred 30 we seem to be looking for. I look forward to going to Shredmonton next month and trying to beat my Shred 30 score from last year. If there were different judges or they thought differently about tricks this year, that wouldn't work for STP.
Sen wrote:
and Peter wrote:
Why does the event need to replace shred30? Maybe we're trying to measure too many things with a single event. Shred30 is what it is, flaws and good points all included. An additional event on a trial basis might be better than eliminating something that does have the one inarguable benefit of being totally objective.
Very good point..That judge could feel that the trick was more styley when down by Chad, instead of by someone shorter like Vasek. Is that any better than Chad being "penalized" in shred 30 for being tall?
and Peter wrote:
True (in my opinion)but perhaps there is a better place to try out new events than Worlds.
Why does the event need to replace shred30? Maybe we're trying to measure too many things with a single event. Shred30 is what it is, flaws and good points all included. An additional event on a trial basis might be better than eliminating something that does have the one inarguable benefit of being totally objective.
Bob R.
Thanks everyone for the replys. It made me realize few things. I won't reply to everyone now because it's nice outside and i want to go shred 
I agree on what you guys said about canceling shred30.
So, i'll contact Dexter very very soon to make sure shred30 will be at Worlds.
more soon
I agree on what you guys said about canceling shred30.
So, i'll contact Dexter very very soon to make sure shred30 will be at Worlds.
more soon
Ianek Regimbald
it's true, but it's based on a very out-of-date system. and i still haven't found any other similar sport with objective scoring only. all X-games events (except races) are subjectively judged and olympic sport have at least 50% of subjectivity. and both x-games and olympic are pretty huge organizations even if it's mostly subjective judging.max wrote:shred 30 has a ton of drawbacks but it does have one colossal redeeming advantage: it gives you a final calculated score.
------------------------------
exactly!Olav wrote:
1) It's not based on adds (which as we all know aren't perfect, BUT at the same time are the best objective way of valuing difficulty), so Flurrys, Ripsteins, Swifters will be worth more than Ripwalks, Sidewalks, Spinning Butterflys. 2) We should see more Duckings and Spinnings, tricks taking time, not just shuffle. 3) Variety counts. 4) Links count, finally. 5) And... there's no annoying music, hehe.
i totally understand that, as soon as i'm done with this post i'll contact Dexter to make sure shred 30 will be at worlds.Olav wrote: Subjectively, it was the only thing I prepared for the last few months, Now I'm unsure how to prepare, to get the best possible results.
------------------------------------
you might be right, but as i replied to Max, most similar sports are not 100% objectively judged. also, i think that all use of the ADD system in the past 10 years was a big step in the wrong direction. It might be possible to invent a "real" difficulty system, but i've put countless hours 2 years ago on this issue and i couldn't find a solution. I also realized that x-game type sports (skateboard, bmx, etc) don't have any difficulty system. They just name moves. competitors and judges know what's difficult and what is easy. and skateboarding was one of the fastest growing sport of all time and it became huge. Does skateboarding absolutely need some difficulty system? is skateboarding going in the wrong direction? i don't think so.Ners wrote:I don't think that getting rid of our only objective event is a step in the right direction.
Judging shred 30 was 50% of the reason why we though it needed to change. (other 50% is the use of ADD system) It’s soo long, there is always some argueing (people on modified score it afterward with different result), unclean moves are often still counted. And it’s probably the only event in the world that is 100% judged by slow-motion video replay, wich doesn’t make sense at all.Ners wrote:I understand that judging Shred30 is a nightmare (and at Worlds there will be tons of players), but still I think that this change was done too fast, and that STP shouldn't be tested at Worlds.
I admit that the change was done too fast. We finished this project mid-april and we though it was still early enough to have it at worlds. In fact, it shouldn't totally take shred30's place yet. As i said to Olav, i'll contact Dexter about it. But it think there is still enough time for a few players to get ready for STP and give us all a good show.
About testing something at Worlds: it's the biggest tournament of the year, so testing something will give a real feedback. after worlds we should know if we keep working on the project or we throw it in the garbage.
I will also talk to Dexter about having only 1 round of STP. so it will really be just a test.
It’s true that it’s kind of one-at-the-time Circle Contest. The idea behind STP was to have a “shorterâ€Ners wrote:This format is very similar to Circle Contest.
Last edited by ianek on 06 Jun 2008 21:19, edited 1 time in total.
Ianek Regimbald
