Technical Judging (Closed for comments)

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 08 Dec 04:25

Comment here to discuss how we can improve the Technical half of judging.

Comment 11 Dec 19:25

If your question was about improving the quality of artistic judging I would evangelize to have judges from outside unicycling.

Disclaimer 1: just brainstorming below here:

But for technical... you would need people who understand the technical... or better: know the technical themself.

When Connie Cotter proposed rules that would make countries responsible for supplying a number of judges I was not very keen on that.
Evaluating it now, then I have to admit that was a very good thing to do.
It forced people to volunteer :) Sounds paradoxal but IMHO it brought the planned improvement.

So... if we want judges with actual and current knowledge; I would say; give limited space for self judging:
have each competitor sit down and judge 3, 4 or 5 others, rotate one of them after each routine, and so be able to add a number role judges.

Again I'm just playing with thoughts, and I do realize it would be hard to have a consistent scale while having different people doing one role.
Anyone an improving additional suggestion on this thought such that it all makes better sense?

 

Disclaimer 2: What the hell for spell check is going on here? I rather prefer my own errors then to have automagically inserted.

Comment 12 Dec 07:16

I think the IUF rulebook should provide a judging sheet (maybe as an attachment) which should not only be used at UNICON but also at national and regional competitions. It helps the judges to remember the IUF rules according to which they are supposed to judge. Moreover, it prevents that every national/regional unicycling organization has their own judging sheets. I experienced that those judging sheets are not always conform with the IUF rules. 

Comment 12 Dec 08:40

> I think the IUF rulebook should provide a judging sheet
> ...
> It helps the judges to remember the IUF rules according to which they are supposed to judge.
>
Good point! Besides that it shows riders and potential judges how it looks like, making them realize how the math comes together.

Comment 14 Dec 05:29

I created a judging "cheat sheet" that I gave to all of the judges at Unicon that summarized what they were supposed to be judging. I think that it helped a bit. I really like Marie's idea of making this something that the IUF has to be given out at all competitions.

Comment 14 Dec 05:31

Also, to talk about the results of technical judging at Unicon.

Regardless of discrepancies within the judging categories, the overall results almost always agreed. I think that there's still some tweaking that can be done to define the current categories better but the good thing is that the results were accurate and almost all of the judges agreed.

Comment 14 Dec 08:25

I like the idea with the judging sheets. I would recommed the Judging Sheets from Kirsten Häusler, they are beautiful and have clarity. She also has cheet sheats, with a perfect summary. Must be translated but maybe changed after this committee.

 

When it comes to technical, there are issues with the current judging system. Fatal problems that reveal the complete misunderstanding what certain topics are.

Quality

Quality of execution should be the most important goal for a trick. Hence, the judging criteria is ridicoulus in this point:

• Mastery: Well, if a rider falls down, he shows zero mastery, so basically dismounts fall into this category. Mastery also means shaky movements in general, e.g. those the are required to regain balance.
• Duration: This ONLY affects glidng and coasting. Either of these is a sportspecific ability. Depending how good evolved the rider has this ability, the rider can in comparison to another rider, given the same acceleration speed with the same momentum coast or glide longer. That ability can only be measured in laboratory conditions. Also in a routine there are other criteria on how long you coast or glide, though gliding/coasting longer than the average or better let me say longer than the expected duration is surprising and as such impressive (See Kaito individual Unicon 17).
• Stability: Just a synonym for the description at mastery.
• Speed: Executing a skill faster or slower than the personal-optimal speed can be an ingredient to difficulty.
• Synchronization: Timing a skill is difficult, true. However the term we are looking for here is musical representation and can be realized in 4 different possbilities, yet they can change from move to move. The musical representation is determined by choreography, judging it under tricks is wrong.
• Fluidity of Transition: Transitions are skills, like every other. Skills are moves. Sequence of moves have their plan in choreography.

What quality actually means is described here (with arabesque example). I developed the Skilltester (unfortunately in german only, so far) to quantify quality of executed skills. Basically, there are so many riders that show us arabesque, yet don't know what they do - I'd be ashamed showing such an execution to anybody - why they aren't? (Arabesque is just the most prominent example at the moment).

Difficulty

Many people think they know what difficulty means, the truth is nobody knows. X-Style is judging difficulty only and we also see high discrepancies. We also did a survey for X-Style asking people what they think difficulty means, the results are widespread (the question had a multiple choice for the answer), however the option which we considered the most accurate one, was also receiving lower scores.

At the moment, we judge something which we don't know what it is. I'm studying sport science and I plan my diploma-thesis on measurement of difficulty of skills.

Quantity

It should not be quantity of skills, it should be quantity of moves, regardless of tricks or artistics and at best they have a 50:50 relationship.

Variety

I see variety as a negative one. Riders are tempted to put as much as variety as possible into one routine. In contrary they should deliver a good package (And by package I mean where tricks, artistics and choreography work well together). That said, a high variety through this is possible if the rest fits. Through this temptation, I very often see, that people are put in a trick of a different category to get a higher score here, while actually they devalue their overall routine.

Comment 15 Dec 00:43

"Duration: This ONLY affects glidng and coasting." -- I'm not sure why you think that. It applies to any skill. Someone who manages only 3 revolutions of Side Ride, for example, is not showing the same amount of skill as someone who does it in a complete circle. Duration can be a big deal. But I'm not sure if all judges are paying attention to it. It can be considered a subset of Mastery, as longer duration shows greater mastery. But it also shows a general higher level of skill.

"Synchronization: Timing a skill is difficult, true. However the term we are looking for here is musical representation and can be realized in 4 different possbilities, yet they can change from move to move. The musical representation is determined by choreography, judging it under tricks is wrong." -- This is a good example of why trying to split judging into two halves is a bad idea. If you are trying to fit a run of difficult tricks to a specific set of music, yes it's definitely choreography. But it's also technical skill to be able to time all of that. For it to work, you have to control your pedaling speed and do exact numbers of wheel revolutions for each trick, in turn, without getting out of synch. That should not be counted only on the Presentation side.

Yes to the inclusion of judging sheets, cheat sheets or any other materials that will help reader to see how it all fits together. Ultimately, someday we can also point our readers to videos of sample performances, with discussion about each on what made it successful or not successful.

Comment 15 Dec 08:09

Duration: You can ride cyclic movements "endless" (until you are out of energy). Argumentation must be biomechanical (I hope the vocabs are correct, I'm using a translator for those). A rider must create the initial starting force and surpass the effect when you only need to overwheel the friction force to continue, when you have managed to neutralize all energy that comes with the initial starting foce. That happens when you start a skill from a static position (e.g. idle to 1ft), the effect typically stops after 2-3 revolutions for us unicyclists. After that one can continue "endless". That is why we tell our riders "to demonstrate your skill long enough to convince people you can do it". Which typically is after those 2-3 revs, everything after is bonus. It isn't more difficult to ride 4 revs 1ft, than 5 revs, yet easier or harder to master. For gliding and coasting you got a momentum which you have to play with, you ain't got a new one during this execution. Actually all acyclic movements fall into this but in freestyle (Oh, hey hoptwists are also affected by this and duration is their air-time - wohoo). However, those measurements fall into skill-specific quality variables.

Synchro: Well, then you actually are talking about timing ability. Please get the words right here. This is acceptable, but not quality. (For musical representation, this shouldn't be judged neither by tricks nor presentation artistics, this will fall into its own category, realted to choreography)

All those values (not just duration, synchro, timing, whatever) just reveal, that the rules are built with absolutely no understanding what those values are and how to treat them, this is the main point here.

Comment 15 Dec 17:11

I would suggest to divide the judging Workshops at the Unicon in 2 workshops (one for technical judges and one for presentation judges)

Each group has more time to be trained and the group is smaller. After going through all the judging criteria - the judges should be trained by practising the judging, at least 

three similar routines should be judged and discussed with the participants. (3 Individual/3 Pair and 3 Groups)

The technical judges have to make notes, they have to know the skills by name, they should know short cuts for example (dsib bw = drag seat in back backwards) they have to know how to take notes for the transitions etc. They have to see the difference in the mastery etc.

As I can see by reading the above there are a lot of parts which should be explained and discussed, so that all parts of the technical judging criterias are clear.

Another good thing would be to have more than one workshop trainer, maybe workshop trainers from different countries. These trainers should meet prior to the workshop to

plan the workshop. 

 

 

 

Comment 15 Dec 17:17

for practising privious Unicon videos could be used

Comment 16 Dec 23:34

Duration: It feels like we're still having a disconnect here:
"That is why we tell our riders "to demonstrate your skill long enough to convince people you can do it". Which typically is after those 2-3 revs, everything after is bonus. It isn't more difficult to ride 4 revs 1ft, than 5 revs, yet easier or harder to master."  -- But it IS harder to ride more revs of any trick than to ride less. For cyclic tricks the difficulty level doesn't increase, but the time factor plays in as well. Using Standard Skill as an example (I'm not a SS fan, but it's what we have to compare with) a trick (skill) ridden in a line must last for 8 meters to earn the points offered. That score is based on riding it for that distance. "Long enough to convince people" is the most basic element of showing competence of a trick, but how long is enough? Regardless, riding it farther shows that you are more comfortable doing it -- more Mastery.

Synchro/timing ability:
Acceptable but not quality? Not sure I am understanding. Indeed it is choreography. But the more technical your choreography gets, the more it also should reflect in the technical scoring. At the least, it should not be scored the same as good choreography that doesn't demand as much technical skill. My point here being that Technical can be an element of Choreography (artistics, as you call them), and artistics can be an element of Technical. Even with a surgical scalpel there is no way to completely separate them.

"All those values (not just duration, synchro, timing, whatever) just reveal, that the rules are built with absolutely no understanding what those values are and how to treat them, this is the main point here." -- I think we agree on that. We throw out a lot of words, which we don't necessarily define, and hope everybody gets it. That's why we need to start using concrete examples.

Kristen wrote: "For practicing, previous Unicon videos could be used." -- Absolutely. But they don't have to be from Unicon, as long as we have permission to use them. Any performance that's a good example of the qualities we want to discuss. Or perhaps some riders have better videos of their Unicon performances, but not from Unicon. Good quality video will help everyone to see what the riders are doing.

 

Comment 29 Dec 18:40

> I would suggest to divide the judging Workshops at the Unicon in 2 workshops (one for technical judges and one for presentation judges)
>
Sounds good!

> We throw out a lot of words, which we don't necessarily define, and hope everybody gets it. That's why we need to start using concrete examples.
>
+1

> For practicing, previous Unicon videos could be used.
>
Yes, there's plenty made with that purpose!

Comment 02 Jan 05:58

I'm kind of lost in this discussion.

I think that the current categories work pretty well but I think the descriptions are confusing. Often there are too many elements in the descriptions, that are often redundant. It would be helpful to be more concise with the descriptions of the categories.

The one thing that I think is missing is an emphasis on originality of skills and transitions. This doesn't have to mean that the skill is something brand new that nobody has ever seen before, but rather a new way of doing the trick, whether it be with a transition or just a variation on a skill.

Comment 02 Jan 13:13

I absolutely agree with you, Patricia.

Comment 02 Jan 13:36

I will provide knowledge-base articles for that, that will help to provide better descriptions and education, too. This discussion is bleedingly screaming for it, hence all the judges that need to get educated.

Comment 03 Jan 12:45

"Often there are too many elements in the descriptions, that are often redundant. It would be helpful to be more concise with the descriptions of the categories."

I agree. Also there are too many sub-sections to score. Even going from 3 to 2 would make judging easier. Work with the same elements, but divide them into two parts instead of three. (Presentation should do same: two parts instead of four)

"...bleedingly screaming for it, hence all the judges that need to get educated."

Wow, I like that phrase! Please let's remember to include the creation of a long-term judge training process in our end results. Thomas has already started that by collecting great video examples.

Comment 13 Jan 12:12

Ok, I have done something incredible for this. I created the Trixionary, which just got released on sunday. Here is the introducing blog post and the Trixionary. As you can read in the blog post, I talked with Olaf about an IUF Education program. We have a bunch of work ahead of us. The Trixionary will become very important for the education and we are working on the education program throughout the year.

Comment 16 Jan 01:03

I'm liking the idea of the Trixionary! A very long time ago, Ken Fuchs and I made a very primitive version of that. We called it the 2-way Trick Chart, with an x and y axis of types of riding and body positions, with variations making up the chart. Some of the combinations were anatomically impossible, but others were stuff none of us had though of until we put that together. It was published in the USA Newsletter in 1982 or so. I should dig it up so you can have a good laugh.  :-)  Thomas has brought that idea into the 21st century.

However I caution about getting too specific, within the realm of a Freestyle performance, with defined tricks. To define the trick is to suggest that it has a specific value. That value is only meaningful if you define all the parameters of the trick; duration, riding pattern (if applicable), entry and exit. Those are all variables that affect the "value" of each trick against a simple list of definitions. Freestyle should be anything but Standard Skill. Some tricks will be short duration, while others will be done longer for dramatic effect, or just to "burn in" the fact that they can really do it with confidence. Some will be distorted by their entry, exit or both. They will not fit into neat categories, even if such categories have been meticulously defined.

I had 2 rules I used to use when judging the Technical side of Freestyle:

1. Thou shalt not count tricks. It doesn't matter how many, it matters what the overall Difficulty, Mastery, etc. was demonstrated. That cannot be done by a simple count.
2. Thou shalt count dismounts, but only in relation to the amount of stuff the rider is trying to do. And all dismounts are not created equally. For me, the quantity of dismounts was rated in proportion to the overall amount of riding and skills in the performance.

Today's Freestyle judging is too complicated. One of the reasons I no longer do the judging is that it's like doing math homework. By the time you climb over all the individual scores you must do, and apply all those criteria to the "art" you can't even tell which one you're giving the better score to. This takes all the fun out of watching those great performances. The judging criteria should be a guide for the judges to determine their scores, but they should not be split into so many sub-scores.

 

Comment 16 Jan 07:35

I'm glad, that we have more specific technical rules in the rulebook, which are mainly clear. I do agree with Patricia, that we need a better discription for the originality and also if a skill is performed twice (exactly the same skill) , judges are not supposed to count the skill twice, if there is a new transition into an new skil, the transition should count. We always have two judges working on one technical sheet in the north of Gemany. Both judges are supposed to write down every trick (by name) and transition. In that way they don't miss a trick/transition and its easier to compare the performances. By doing that it is also easier to remember the other parts like duration, mastery etc. Technical judging is not a question of tast, like it might be with the presentation score.

Wehave to train the judges better!!!

 

Comment 16 Jan 15:42

Would it make it easier if all competitors had to submit a complete trick list for their routine from the start to finish? This would give the judges more time as they wouldn't have to write down every single trick. Instead they could just circle tricks that were completed and give them more time to watch the routine...just an idea.

Comment 17 Jan 13:14

Performing the same trick twice is worth more than performing it once. Not double, but you are showing that you have the skill (and confidence) to risk it again. And a specific trick might fit to the performance, and repeat when the music repeats.

• This is not Standard Skill
• All "tricks" do not have names
• Naming them implies a fixed value, which is only true if you do all tricks the same way (Standard Skill)
• Naming them also implies that there is no style, entry or exit associated with the trick
• Many tricks can be done with an wide range of variations
• Doing a common, named trick in a very different way may be much more difficult
• Duration is a big factor in how much a trick is "worth" by scoring

For the above reasons, writing down trick names is not a sensible approach to Freestyle judging, Technical or otherwise. Each trick, or body movement, is part of the overall performance. Technical and Presentation (artistry) are intertwined.

So I'm a no to submitting a trick list. To list tricks is to imply that each has a measurable beginning and ending, that none overlap, and that all fit Standard-Skill like definitions. They don't.

 

 

Comment 17 Jan 14:09

Totally agree with you John. I was just thinking since all judges (I believe) are required to write down all tricks, this just might save them some time. They could then add special symbols to tricks if there were unique or different than usual by putting start next to it....putting a L if it was done for a long duration...putting a S for short...etc. If we are leaning towards ice skating rules, I think every judge knows in advance what trick is next so this could be a step in that direction. All tricks might not have official names but they should all be able to be described or named by the performer.

Comment 17 Jan 15:35

Since this is not standard Skill, the idea of submitting the skills in advance is not what we what to do, but in order to compare performances you have to take notes, I don't care if the judges uses signs  or the correct name of a skill,  but to remember sometimes more than 10 performances is impossible without notes and you are suppose to compare the performances. That what a judge is for. How do you know, if a rider had good transitions without taking notes? There are easy transitions and more difficult transition and easy and more difficult skills and you have to notice them/remember them. You have to judge the difficulty and all the other sections. On national competitions the skills of the performers are sometime very similar. You even have to compare, if a rider is doing the skill in a circle instead of in a line, if you have beginner performances or if the skill is performed backwards instead of forward. Just looking at 10 performances and putting them in a ranking, is in my opinion impossible without taking notes.  Technical as well as Presentation judges need to take notes, there is no way without doing that.  

Comment 17 Jan 16:21

I would expect all judges to take notes in some form or other. My notes contained a few things, but for difficulty I would use small and large marks, which accumulated, to indicate difficulty as it was performed or attempted. Separate marks for small and big dismounts. Additional notes for anything special, if I though I might not remember it in relation to the other performances.

I could never write fast enough to try to write trick names, even short ones, during performances with lots of tricks.

For Jamey, I'm pretty sure there is no requirement for judges to take any specific type of notes. And while I can probably describe all the moves I do in a performance, it might take a lot of words to describe transitions that aren't found in existing terminology (like Standard Skills List or Trixionary).

Comment 17 Jan 16:49

if you take short ones and signes for transitions, judges are able to write fast enough, sure they have to have practise. We always collect these notes after the competition, so we are able to tell. It's just for our records and we are able to see what the judge did see and didn't see and we can include the knowledge for the next judging workshop. Sure judges need to have experience to be fast. But you can see the whole performance on these sheets including transitions and also for example if the skill was performed or if the rider had a dismount during the skill. A good advise for judges: Do practise with Video at home.

Comment 20 Jan 12:47

When I have judged technical I have used abbreviations for all of the skills and that makes writing them down faster. I know that this is what Kirsten has her judges do as well. I don't think that having riders submit a list ahead of time would actually help that much. The judge would be busy reading what the rider submitted and might miss a skill that the rider is actually performing. That's why there was a reader for standard skill but I don't think we want to head back in that direction for freestyle. Also I know that some riders change their routines at the last minute if they aren't landing a skill while warming up and do an easier variation. I think again this just comes down to judges practicing and being properly trained.

Comment 26 Jan 15:44

- This is not Standard skill - no lists in advance.

- I don't think that detailled lists of the skill's are needed to range.

- For the future: If we want to ensure to quality of a judge this should be done in a training of the judges before the competition. Ideally with a test at the end of the training/education. Otherwise the competitors may be in luck (or not) with the quality of the jugde (competitors as probands).   

Comment 29 Jan 07:13

I'm finished with my proposal for tricks (thanks Scott for proof-reading). Similarly to Patricia I opened a google docs document. It basically keeps the headings, just shift things a little and has better explanations and definitions. So far it is mostly focussed on individual and can be adopted to pairs and group once this is sanitized.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQpX7AJgauM2WI2gtK21MqRqsxngRWFbpM8Igrwxk_k/edit?usp=sharing

Comment 29 Jan 07:26

I did proof read the document, but that was just to correct the English. This doesn't mean that I agree with all of it :)

Specifically, I think variety of tricks is a very important part of Freestyle routines. (I know Gossi disagrees with me here.)

Having a variety of different tricks does not by definition make a routine more difficult. I think this is why Gossi thinks variety shouldn't be a part of judging. I disagree. We have to ask ourselves: Is a routine, for the audience, better if it has a variety of tricks? Is it more interesting? To me the answer to that question is definitely yes. If we agree that routines are better with a variety of tricks, then our judging system needs to reflect this. This means a routine with more variety of tricks should get a better score than a routine with all gliding tricks for example (if all other parts of the routine are the same of course). Since we are judging tricks here, it makes more sense to me to include this component in technical judging than in presentation. Variety doesn't specifically judge the difficulty of a routine, which the other parts of technical judging do. However, it is a part of judging the technical portion of riding, and thus should be included in the technical judging rules.

To summarize: A routine with a variety of tricks isn't necessarily more difficult but it is a better and more interesting routine. Thus it should be part of technical judging.

Also, I don't agree with having compensating motions as part of the "fall count". Primarily because it is soooooo subjective to judge.

Comment 29 Jan 07:30

Okay, now I feel dumb. Gossi did include variety still. However there are no changes from the previous rulebook so I missed it in the doc.

It's in 5.23.1 Quantity of Unicycling Skills and Transitions.

 

Comment 29 Jan 21:08

I think there's something else we need to say on the topic of Variety. Not sure how to express it, but the idea is that "variety is not required". Yes, it enhances your score. But at the same time, riders mustn't think they need to hit all the major types of tricks to be "good". Some performances might not lend themselves to certain tricks. A zombie, for example (since we've seen a few lately), is not necessarily a graceful rider. It would be out of character for a zombie to d a bunch of flowy, Japanese-style skills. Another example would be a beautiful performance of style and grace, Japanese style, might not be enhanced by hand wheel walk, or a bunch of hopping tricks. They don't fit the style, or theme, of the routine.

Does that make sense? I don't want riders to think they MUST cover all the bases in every Freestyle performance. They don't. I'm not sure how much of this a Technical judge is supposed to be aware of, but they can't ignore what's happening in the Presentation/Performance/Art side of the routine. If they only judge tricks, like a dynamic Standard Skill performance, we're doomed to having riders concentrate too much on tricks (since this frequently wins), and too little on the performance side.

Comment 31 Jan 17:38

Dear Gossi,

I refer to your proposal for tricks. Here are some remarks.

A technical judge has to look for so many things I'm glad that  the dismounts are judged by the presentation judges in the present rulebook. Dismounts are easy to judge and a presentation judge can do that without being disturbed by counting the dismounts, they still can focus on the presentation. 

A possibility might be, having extra people counting the dismounts, like we do it with the groups.

I like to keep the mastery and quality of execution in one section. We can include some better descriptions, if necessary,  but for example your description for Fluidity of Transition

"Fluid movement: Keep the movement fluid instead of rough (unless this is on purpose)"

 

does not make it clearer.

Old Version is in my opinion much better and clear.

Fluidity of Transition: High scores are given for transitions when the rider performs a skill straight into another skill quickly. Low scores are given for transitions if several revolutions, idles, hops (or other setup-type skill) need to be performed before performing the more difficult skill - unless it is obvious that these are used to increase the overall choreography and timing of the routine.

If a rider has to hop 10 times before he/she is jumping into "stand up wheel walk" it is not a fluid transition (unless its part of the choreography). A judge can see the difference if a rider is hopping or idling, because he needs to do it sometimes before he/she is able to do the next skill.   

You also deleted other parts like: Synchronization, which is in my opinion important.

So I would suggest, that we may include better and more descriptions to the old rulebook instead of changing everything.

For example your description for leg extention is good - we should include that part.

In my opinion the present technical rules are not that bad, that they need to be changed totally - so we should look

where better examples are necessary etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 01 Feb 10:42

"In my opinion the present technical rules are not that bad, that they need to be changed totally - so we should look where better examples are necessary etc."

I absolutely agree. I think Gossi has some good examples to add to the current rules.

 

Comment 01 Feb 11:32

First of all, I actually didn't change anything, I give it more accurate and proper labels, which required some restructuring. I'm happy to answer your questions:

Dismounts in technical: This is a pure trick thing as such must be judged under tricks (You don't fall in your pure trick practice and scream: "damn, I ruined my choreo"). Each part (tricks and performance/art) is a feedback we give to the riders. Saying for your tricks part you scored second place amongst all other competitors. We can't give them feedback for tricks when some of this isn't judged in tricks, same goes to performance/art. As such, the argument that dismount can have an impact on your choreo is only quarterly true. The other quarter says you can still play over your fall, which actually negates this argument. The other half is, that dismounts as of now take the role of the scapegoat for choreo interruptions. In that case we should actually give many, many dismounts to riders (basically whenever the choreo is interrupted).

Synchronization: This obviously is now labelled timing.

Fluidity: My description was poor, I agree and I'm happy you found it. Although the current one only targets transitions, which isn't what I meant (see next point) - I will provide a better description soon.

The current trick judging rules and description are over-specified, they often solve one particular use-case, which is bad because we must serve many many permutations. That's what I mostly did. To use more general words: Timing over synchronization, fluidity for all tricks/movements not just transitions, etc. Please keep the questions coming, if you can't find (one of) your beloved things you expect in there.

Kirsten: I also thought about the judging on seat/table. I share your fears about overloading judges. This is something we need to address after the contents of the judging system are correct. E.g. I know from other judging systems (Breakdance and Figure Skating), each judge has a particular thing to look at, which synzergize with your idea to have people extra looking at dismounts. Yet we cannot legitimate a judging system, which doesn't judge what it's saying with judge limitations as possible cause, that could not overcome elsewhere.

Thus, I really appreciate the feedback as it helps to find the odd parts and am happy for more people to join in - thanks a lot.

Comment 02 Feb 21:56

I agree with Gossi that a separate group of people counting dismounts would not work. You can't just count dismounts and make a score from that. It has to be considered along with everything else, especially how many tricks were attempted. They could perhaps provide a backup for the Technical Judges' own notes, but I don't like the idea for the same reason. The Technical Judges have to be the ones responsible for the entire Technical part of the score.

Yes, Technical judging is always going to be harder than Presentation/Performance/Art judging. We can't cure that, though we can strive to not be so specific on the Technical side.

On Syncronization vs. timing: I like the way it is presented in Gossi's linked proposal. Timing applies to Individual Freestyle (and optionally Pairs). Synchronization is used to describe how two (or more, for Group) riders move together when synchronous motions are intended. Two different things, with two different words to describe them.

Comment 03 Feb 05:54

John, I guess there is some missunderstanding. I was saying, that people could judge particular parts and distributing trick judging across multiple people is something very well examined in other sports.

Sync vs timing: Timing, obviously is the general qualitative movement ability/capability behind, that controls synchronization. It's not two different things, sync depends on timing.

Comment 03 Feb 06:16

Gossi,

This is getting picky, and is probably only important to native speakers. However, John is correct:

Timing and synchronization are not the same thing. They are in fact two different things because they have different definitions.

However, they are not two independent things/factors. This is what I think you are trying to say.

Comment 03 Feb 09:14

Ah ok, thanks Scott for the explanation, it was me misunderstanding this, though I get it now. So let me precise what I meant: As timing is the required ability to realize synchronization, I can judge sync through timing but not vice versa: My best timing moment happened in Pairs 2006 Brixen, Haruka and Ryohei. Ryohei landed a 540° Hoptwist directly into pushing Haruka in Standglide bwd, that was absolutely hilarious. Thought that timing can not be judged through synchronization. I hope that explains what I meant.

PS: Meanwhile and with the big help of Scott, I updated the description for fluid movements.

Here's the link again, please have a look: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQpX7AJgauM2WI2gtK21MqRqsxngRWFbpM8Igrwxk_k/edit?usp=sharing

Comment 03 Feb 16:28

 Sorry to jump back into the conversation now. I was at a unicycle convention all weekend and am catching up. Some notes of mine:

 

In 5.23.2 Quality of Execution why are we saying that palms facing up are better? I don't think this matters and should be taken out. It seems like "Angle of the Leg" and "Leg Extended" could be combined into one thing called "Leg Extended".

 

In 5.23.4 Mastery, Reliability does not really mean the same thing as Consistency in English. Consistency is definitely the better word. How you are currently defining it doesn't really make sense in English. I agree with the others who have said this, Dismounts should remain in Presentation.

 

I think overall there are way too many edits to the current rules. I think that the changes add a lot more text that doesn't really clarify things and in some cases make things much more confusing.

Comment 03 Feb 16:48

"Leg Extended": I separated this, e.g. Coasting 1ft ext, the angle of the leg is uninteressting, same if you have a crank idle/how kick. I'm pretty sure, you had something in mind that you can tell us.
Palm facing up: that is a very good indicator for body tension. Palm up mostly means shoulders rotated outwards. Shoulders rotated outwards means a contracted back.

Reliability vs. consistency: These are things that I as a non-native speaker struggle with very hard. Yet, what I understand as reliability is, that given 10 tries, how often you succeed, e.g. 7 out of 10 (we only see 1 out of 1 try, so we can only play with this). Consistency I used for reliability across all tricks in the routine. I'm very much learning english these days and I am happy to continue.

The confusing part is the lack of education - no offense, I know how this is handled as of now.

Comment 04 Feb 00:45

"In 5.23.2 Quality of Execution why are we saying that palms facing up are better? I don't think this matters and should be taken out." -- I also questioned this when I was looking at the sample images. It's important that we aren't telling people how a trick is supposed to look. That's what Standard Skill is for. In Freestyle, we should be looking at the tricks in terms of how they are being performed. For example, a zombie character might do a trick in a very different way than a ballerina character.

So it's important that we don't dictate how any trick is "supposed" to look. But what we can do is educate the observer (judges) on the more technically demanding ways to do a trick. In this case, palms up is more difficult to do; requires more control and confidence. That kind of stuff is what matters to a Technical judge. They just have to realize what the *intent* of the rider is. Are they trying to ride like a zombie or a ballerina? This matters to the Technical judge in terms of how to judge the finer details of the trick.

We are not figure skating. While there may be an accepted "best" way to perform some of our hardest tricks, we must not assume that is the intent of every rider in every performance. This must be clearly stated in the judging criteria.

Comment 04 Feb 00:50

Oops, hit the button before I was finished...

On the Timing vs. Synchronization topic, yes Gossi you need timing to have synchronization. I was referring to how to use each word as a label to describe two different aspects of a performance. An example of timing is for the rider to hit tricks on the beat of the music, or to pedal on the beat, or to hit a pose at an exact moment. The rider shows a sense of time. Synchronization is what I would use to describe the movement of two or more riders when they are trying to do the same thing, or to meet up (as in your example above) at a specific moment. My best example is spinning riders whose extended legs all rotate at exactly the same "clock position" as they go around.

Comment 04 Feb 06:42

Aaaaah, I can help out here: I understand hitting the beat of the music also as synchronization (you sync music and movements) while timing also means be at position x at time y. Yes, we must be clear about those words.

About rules vs education material: Scott already mentioned, that pictures can't go into the rulebook (though I decided to let it in for now, to serve as additional explanation). I guess there is more material that has a better home in education material than the actual rules.

Comment 17 Feb 17:27

Similar to Patricia, I would like to ask everybody to have another look, read through it and see what needs a better explanation or what is still odd, so this can be moved towards a proposal - thanks.

Comment 23 Feb 11:47

Gossi, I looked back through your proposal and I really disagree with most of it, mainly the 'Quality of Execution' section. I don't want to go back towards Standard Skill where we tell a rider exactly how their body should be held. I can get into all of the specifics of it if you really want but I don't think it's necessary to do so because I don't really see the need for the section at all.

Basically I don't think that the proposal you suggest improves upon the old rules. It's still missing key elements like originality. I would not vote yes for this proposal. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I just want to be honest.

Comment 23 Feb 17:15

Patricia, thanks for being honest, I really appreciate it. Basically, where the current judging system fails completely is the 'Quality of Execution' and poor and good quality received the same score at the moment. I don't like Standard Skill either and if it sounds like that, than the rules are written wrong. If you could provide a basic outline on that, that would be enough without going too much in detail, so I can better shape the rules.

Please keep in mind current section 5.23.1 is kept untouched, which includes Quantity, Variety and Originality.

Comment 01 Mar 10:46

Gossi, sorry it's taken me some time to reply. I guess where I feel like your new proposal starts to look like Standard Skill is in the Quality of Execution section. If a routine has a theme that is zombies, for example, are we really going to look for perfectly straight arms and legs? I would say no. I do see the point of listing the characteristics of what makes a skill have nice execution but I still disagree with what you are saying about some things.

For example, I was a dancer for 14 years and unless it was specifically choreographed that way, having our palms up would have been something that would have been corrected and scolded. What was important was that there was tension all the way through the arm, including the fingertips.

Additionally in dance, for an arabesque, the important part is not how high your leg is but rather the angle between your leg and your back. The smaller the angle between the two, the better. In this picture you can see that while the dancer's leg is high, her chest is also kept up. So I don't think that the picture you used is a very good arabesque at all.

Also, in 5.23.1 this is all that is said about Originality- Originality: In Freestyle, new skills are less important than in Flatland. However, skills with unique variations that are completely new or with new approaches will get more points. Originality is mainly judged in Presentation (section 5.24). I think that we should be encouraging Originality more than this. This almost makes it sound like Originality isn't important.

Comment 01 Mar 22:17

Zombies vs. ballerinas. I think someone should make a movie based on that concept.  :-)  But I guess it works as an example of very contrasting intents, or performance styles, that may be applied to a Freestyle performance. The ballet rider is, for the most part, going to want to present tricks in the most beautiful way possible, which is not necessarily the most technically difficult way. For the zombie it's less demanding, but in a way harder. A zombie performer wants to still show high levels of difficulty, but performed like a zombie which might equal being sloppy. The challenge is to do sloppy/difficult.

So while we may work on creating models of the "correct" way to do Freestyle tricks (which are hopefully not based on the simple rules of Standard Skill), we can but we can't just blindly go by those models when judging a "free" performance. Judges must detect the level of difficulty required to do the tricks *in the way they were performed*. That much for the Technical score. A different way of thinking must also be applied to that in determining the Presentation score. Everything the rider does has the potential to affect both scores.

Comment 05 Mar 16:26

Thanks Patricia, I'll give it another rewrite and will also address the originality part (I had in mind it was more clever realised than it actually is).

In my dance education we also learned full body tension, through arm and finger tips, though palms up are easier to achieve this because it supports bending the upper body.

Arabesque Example: Exactly, my picture demonstrates what I would call the minimum quality I would expect in routines (unless riders have no honour and pride) though not full quality (that's why there isn't 100%).

Comment 12 Mar 09:04

Thanks for your feedback everyone, I updated my document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQpX7AJgauM2WI2gtK21MqRqsxngRWFbpM8Igrwxk_k/edit?usp=sharing

Changelog:
- Included 5.23.1 again and removed the words/sentences that lowered the value of originality
- I give a better and more accurate explanation for quality of execution and made the general characteristics as orientation that should only be applied if applicable
- Same for body posture and tension explanation
- Removed the Arabesque example, that is meant for education

Please share your feedback.

Comment 12 Mar 16:57

Dear Gossi,

 

Here my comments: 

5c. delete 0 to 15 , since your idea does only 0 to 10 points.

On the other hand its much nicer to have a wider range, because it is much easier to judge if  for example an age group is large. Since we use placing points later, why shouldn’t we use 0 to 15 in all categories?

 You deleted duration totally. In my opinion it is still important.

Stand-up gliding and for lot of other skills the duration makes a difference and should be part of the judging, because it is more difficult. Please note that the rules are not only for Unicons  they are also for local events. So there is a difference for example if a rider is wheel-walking 1ft only a few steps, the rider might not be able to walk a longer distance. This is an example which probably everybody knows from a local/beginner event.

 In section 5.23.2 it looks like we are judging standard skills – we are judging freestyle! It is not important to have “palm facing up” if you are a riding as a witch or a zombie.

 

Where is the part “Speed” – you deleted that  part also.

Some your explanations are good an should be included in the present rules, but overall I don’t see the advantage of changing our old rules by deleting necessary parts.

The technical judges need to take a lot of notes and it is impossible to judge correctly without taking notes. Technical judges always noted the dismounts, but not so precisely/accurately as the presentation judges, because they have to note all the skills and transitions and this hard work in expert categories. So the technical judge noted for example, that the transition failed, caused due to a dismount or the skill did not count, due to a dismount.

Presentation judges do have plenty of time to note the dismounts while watching the presentation. You do not need to be a unicyclist to recognize the difference between major and minor dismounts. 

Do not try to make the judging for the technical judges more difficult. They already have to look for so many things.

I still think that we all should train the judges better and that would help. Let’s look for the better explanations in Gossi’s rules and let us include them in our present rules.The main problem is, that judges have to practise judging otherwise technical judges are not able to take all the necessary notes fast enough and they can't remember all the performances without these notes.

I guess Patricia knows what I try to explain, cause she alos judged the technical part on an event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment 12 Mar 19:19

Hey Kirsten

I probably don't understand you properly on the 0..15 vs 0..10 points. However, 0 to 10 is judged very much easier, because 10 is easy to be seen as 100% mentally and as such more accurately to score and compare. If there is something that needs more value, then it is best to multiply it afterwards (and if there is one category that deserves more, than definitely quality, as this is what freestyle is about).

For all judging criteria, we must ask ourself, what we want to judge, how we judge it and if that still judges what we want or under what conditions we bring riders. Duration is the how but we want to judge mastery and the condition for the rider is, he must tricks do longer. The rules have the preassumption for routines, longer trick execution makes a routine better, more beautiful, etc. That is so damn wrong, stupidity in perfection. That's why my approach focusses more on mastery. I remember one iteration of the judging system ways saying "show the trick long enough to persuade every watcher, you mastered this trick", that's quite good though there are music constraints that require quick execution times.
That said, the difficulty part of a longer execution (which basically only affects glides and coasts) is addressed under difficulty with "precision of control" and "timing" to address a humans controlling, differentiation strength ability.

Speed (and Duration), well you run into a trap here. Let me explain. First of all the current rules are a huge pile of bullshit, because it doesn't judge what it says to judge. And with that document people are hazardously educated toxicated. They believe the rules and take it as a holy grail. So, if the last rules would contain some other _important_ words like "Strength" for body tension you would ask me for that word if I removed that one. No offense here, I want to get rid of that trap and want to use adequate words and explanations for accurate judging (Speed obviously is addressed through timing).

Judging Composition: Yep, Technical judges will have a lot todo more than artistic judges. This will stay. Brake this down to consumable pieces for each judge is something which happens afterwards (maybe split judges for taking over individual parts, sepearate judges for particular things, etc.). What cannot happen and that is something that would fall under the banner "stupidity in perfection" is to change the judging rules for inadequate results or misplaced mixing of judging contents. I'm still with the view, that riders prepare up to six months or more for a competition they have the damn right to expect judges that are able to properly read their routine and judge them accurately.

 

Comment 12 Mar 23:30

I agree with Gossi on the 10 points vs. 15. Judges can use decimals (I assume), allowing for at least 100 levels in the 10 points.

I recommend you combine the scores for Difficulty with Quantity of Skills (they go together). I also recommend you combine Mastery with Quality of Execution. They go together. 10 points each. Allow for up to 2 decimal places for people who need it.

I did not understand your response on the omission of Duration. Duration is a component in Difficulty and Mastery, and must be addressed so judges do not ignore it (like some do now). I have already explained why above. Some judges seem to count a skill with the same value whether it's done for 3 rotations or for a complete circle. It's not the same. Of course we do not want to imply that tricks must be done for maximum time; hopefully everybody gets this. But if a rider has a long space in the choreography, or if they just want to drive home the point that they aren't afraid to Backwards Coast for 10 meters, that MUST be recognized.

Same for speed, which can show difficulty but shouldn't be done simply for the point of being fast. The current section on Timing does not cover that. It allows a routine to be done at a snail's pace, with excellent timing to the music, while another rider might do the same sequence faster, which is (generally) more difficult.

In the 5.23.4 you define Reliability as the ability to get a high percentage when performing the same trick 10 times. Since this method can't be applied to a Freestyle performance, a better definition should be found. I guess it should be tied to the percentage of successful skills vs. the unsuccessful ones.

I agree with you that Technical judging will always be more complex than Presentation/Artistic judging. This is because unicycling is the sport in question; it's a given. The Presentation side is wide open, to any type of performance, and we generally have less knowledge of all the other elements that make a good performance. We can't be nearly as specific with what we're looking for on that side. But let it be known that I don't think those jobs should ever be done by two different people; each judge should do both!

Presentation judges still should not be the official counters of dismounts, as those are more related to Technical. Surely they are easier to note than all the different tricks being done (if one tries to document all of them)! As I have mentioned earlier, I did not try to name all the skills in a performance; rather I kept a running tally of "Difficulty Value" that I would add to as the routine progressed, with other notes as needed to indicate additional qualities.

Comment 14 Mar 14:38

I agree that all of the points should be 0-10 not 0-10. It's so much easier to think of things this way. 0-100% or approximately 0-10 skill level. I find myself having to translate stuff from what it would be in 0-10 to 0-15 when I am judging. And like John mentioned, decimals can be used. I don't see any reason not to do 0-10.

I'm kind of getting lost in what people think the categories in Technical should be. John, what categories would you like to see and what components would they contain? If you could do this in a bulleted form I think it would be easier to follow.

Comment 15 Mar 12:33

 Patricia, please see above for more detail:

1. Difficulty, including Quantity of Skills (0-10)
2. Mastery, including Quality of Execution (0-10)

Difficulty and quantity of skills naturally go together. The more skills you accomplish, the more difficulty you are demonstrating. Mastery, among other things, is about quality of execution. They belong together. Scoring each of those components separately, for me, is a compromise, since in a reasonable world that same judge will also have to score the rest of the performance. I'm for a total of 2 numbers from each judge, but 4 can work also.

Comment 16 Mar 14:59

John, thanks for the summary. I really like those two categories and everything that they would encompass. I'm thinking that we still need a way to incorporate Originality into the Technical half of judging. Any suggestions on how we could do that with these categories?

Comment 17 Mar 01:06

In the "olden days", Originality was scored under Presentation. One of the advantages to having each judge rate the whole performance is being able to have them judge originality in all aspects of the performance. I would leave it on the Presentation side.

However, if that can't be done, Originality and Variety would be components of the Difficulty score. The assumption is that being "original" is more difficult than doing what is known. Same applies to Variety, where you would recognize that the rider is pulling from a wide variety of skill types (if appropriate to the performance).

Comment 17 Mar 13:13

Comment 18 Mar 00:36

 Woah Gossi, that was an epic post! Lots of good info to digest. I go bit by bit:

"Basically by reducing this to two categories instead of four you are just nesting things without any gain." -- There is a very big gain, in the form of only having to come up with two final numbers. How we arrive at that, and how we structure each half of that score, are still up for discussion but we need to un-complicate this judging system and this is perhaps the most obvious thing we can do to help.

"For this upcoming it is a little longer post because contains a lot of explanation to destroy myths that - during this discussion - I discovered you rely onto too much taking it as granted, which actually isn't." -- We have different understandings of the same terminology. This is not uncommon among people who grew up speaking the same language, let alone people coming from different native languages. So it is definitely important that we make clear explanations of what we mean by *everything* in our judging criteria, to do the best possible job of having every judge starting from the same set of assumptions. This can't be accomplished 100% (we will all walk in the door with a lifetime of assumptions about many things), but we must do our best.

You mentioned the combination of Quality with Mastery as being questionable. Your example for Quality was to compare a given skill against the example of it being done "perfectly". But that is not necessarily the intent of the performance. Quality must be flexible. If the performance is a straight ballet-style act, your straightforward approach to Quality makes sense. But, if I may return to the zombie unicyclist again, a one-wheeled zombie doing a perfect arabesque would not make for a good overall performance. It should be performed "zombie style" (yes, the judge must determine what that is and how well it was done). And don't say it's up to the Presentation judge to deal with that, because I'd like to assume it's the same person. Should the "zombie stuff", or "style variations based on persona" be left to the Presentation side? Perhaps, but in this example they directly affect Difficulty/Quality/Mastery. Perhaps a zombie arabesque, being performed by an undead unicyclist with part of their brain missing, is performed in a bizarre position that's extremely difficult to do. The judging system must recognize and allow for this. We cannot be held to a "standard" (I use that word on purpose) of what a skill is supposed to look like.

I will also offer an exception to your definiton of Difficulty, as "How difficult the execution the the base trick is." -- To me that's the starting point of measuring the difficulty of a trick. A Freestyle judge, however, doesn't judge the base trick, she judges the actual trick that was performed. The base trick assumes, again, a "standard" of how to perform it, for what distance, in what body position, etc. The only "standard" we currently have for such things is Standard Skill. It's fair to use those definitions, but only as a starting point! Because our Freestyle performer probably doesn't have his arms out straight to the sides, with palms down, and riding for a minimum 8 meters. He is doing something else. That "something else" is what determines the Difficulty value of that trick, not the Standard Skills list. We have a (very) different competition event for that.

I might not be grasping your idea of Quality though, because I still see it as something that goes with Mastery. Maybe someone else can jump in here and let us know what all this means to them.

You are absolutely right in that the popularity, or common-ness of a trick does not determine its difficulty. I always knew this, but it might not be obvious to everyone. Take the Kick-up Mount as an example. Very popular among performers (since it spread from Daniel Dumeng showing it a USA conventions in the early 80s) because looks cool, and difficult, but isn't. Judges must know what's actually hard to do. This gets tough though, because each of us knows only what we know. The unicyclists at the judging table are very familiar with all the tricks they can do, but not so much with the rest. They have to guess. Non-unicycling judges have to do the same, but with all tricks. The more you have watched other unicyclists practicing, the more informed you can be without having mastered the tricks. Coaches have a good idea of what's more difficult than what, but still some skills will be common in a given group, because they may be popular with that group even if they're very hard.

I like your theories about how to otherwise estimate the difficulty of a trick. One in which there is a very small or precarious "balance zone" seems like a good way to estimate. Gliding is harder than pedaling (less direct control of wheel). Coasting is harder than Gliding (WAY less control of wheel). But at the same time, all of this explanation, education and theory is overwhelming to read. It points to the need for multi-step training for judges, and definitely something beyond having them read many pages of "how to judge". There have to be example videos, tests, and ultimately classes to bring it all together.

"Quantitiy of skills as difficulty?" -- It is good that you asked this. It can be applied in a meaningful way, or used wrongly to negative effect. Quantity does not equal Difficulty! For Quantity, I always think of the great Ryan Woessner. He's not the perfect example because he had *too much* quantity. But rule-breakers help to define rules. For those not familiar with Ryan's multiple Unicon gold medal performances, imagine 600 hard tricks being performed in 4 minutes. I think he did a little less, but you get the idea. Quality and Mastery aside, he had very few dismounts. For Ryan, Quantity was a given, and was probably a large part to his victories. That's why he is not the best example.

When I write about Quantity, the assumption is that, all other things being equal, more quantity suggests more accumulation of Difficulty. I think of Difficulty as an accumulation. It's much easier to score that way. Rather than attempt to note each individual trick (and transition and new thing without a name), I make marks in my notes to indicate a growing accumulation of Difficulty. Anyway, if two riders are very similar in skill level, and doing similar types of skills, the rider doing the larger number of skills (more Quantity) accumulates more Difficulty. As Thomas suggests, it's important not to misuse these factors. We don't want Quantity for the sake of Quantity. While it can be done successfully, there won't be many more Ryan Woessners in this world, if any, so it's not a safe bet.

Gossi goes on to talk about Mastery and Quantity, and how this may make more sense. Doing the same trick twice demonstrates you have mastery of that trick. Does that mean doing a super-hard trick 10 times? I think no, since you are going to earn a super-high Mastery value for one trick. Time is a factor. Some repetition can make sense (especially if it fits theme or music) but too much is a negative because it takes time away from doing anything else. Variations of the same skill can also play into this. It's not exactly the same skill, but if it's similar it shows a higher level of Mastery to do multiple variations.

Again, Quantity should not be thought of as a goal, and it's important we don't make it look like we want riders to do as many skills as possible. We don't. We want a great performance, with excellent stuff being done to cover all the areas being judged without too much focus on any single one. On that note, I will add that Ryan wasn't a Quantity-monger. What he blew us away with was sheer overall Difficulty, and the happy, Smiley character he portrayed while doing it.  :-)

Gossi also points out the pitfall of asking for speed. Not that we are asking for it, but by saying it's harder to do tricks faster, we don't want to say to riders that they should do everything as fast as possible. How best to explain that in the rules? It needs help. The idea is similar to Quantity. All other things being equal, usually (depends on the skills being done), riding them faster is more difficult than riding them slower. For some skills it's the other way around. In fact, the point being made by talking about speed is to remind the judges that speed is a factor in Difficulty/Mastery/Quality. Some skills are very hard to do slow, such as one-footed Slow Racing. Others are harder to do fast. Judges should pay attention to the speed of any skills where it's a factor in Difficulty.

I'm out of time. If I wrote more than Gossi did on his last post, I apologize to your eyes.

 

Comment 23 Mar 09:18

Hey John,

as with what I end up with, we must get the scope and context for what we are putting our definitions into. Yet it looks, you missunderstand me at some points. Let me correct you on that.

With base trick, I meant the execution of a particular trick. Just the common actions that uniquely characterize that trick. E.g. 1ft: One foot is on the frame, the other on the pedal, the rider sitting on the seat, that's the unique characterization of 1ft. Now, this base trick has a difficulty itself (you cannot avoid this - if you do, everybody would be able to ride 1ft). For what the rest of the body is doing, arms straight or not, palms up or not, upper body upstraight or not, etc. these are the traits the are part of the quality. They determine the quality of exection. All other variables that alter the execution but are not bound to body/joint positions (etc. speed) can have an impact on the difficulty. Taking Ryan is a good example, he had like that very wiggly exection. His base difficulty would be very high, yet his quality wasn't very impressive (although I like his style) - that's something for X-Style, for routines high quality must be the goal. Same goes with quanitity: In X-Style its all about the tricks, so go hit one after the other, if you do this in routines, you are in the wrong competition.

Speed (as it stays to be the standard example), is more like a symptom that alters the base difficulty. Yet, we should not judge the symptoms but the origins that affect the symptoms as they are less specific, more generalized and can be applied to more situations. Anyway we would need very much symptoms to look at, that probably work against each other, instead could just pick less of the more generalized origins and rate them. That's a win-win because it takes less thing to look at and by excluding symptoms we don't prejudge routines yet don't set up to specific expectations on riders.

So, tricks must also match that theme, they need to make up a good package where everything matches. That said, if somebody is doing that zombie-style routine and doing an arabesque trying to mimic that creepy posture of an undead. Although this would match pretty well, if the arabesque is not of a high quality I would give that lower score to that rider for that trick. Not because he was trying to match trick and theme but penalizing him for choosing the wrong trick for that situation.

Another point where you misunderstood the context is reliability. Doing a trick 10 times and see how often you land it is a great why to test reliability, yet this is not an appropriate test for a routine. Yet, the reliability is a given thing, how we transfer it to something that can be judged. Try not to port everything to judging even if this is the main discussion topic here.

One thing... that made me cry: "Maybe someone else can jump in here and let us know what all this means to them". No, we cannot ask somebody to ask them about their meaning, that's not our job. Similarly we cannot ask a rider to come up on stage and ask them how they mean they would ride their routine. It both takes hard work. Our job is to learn to understand what is required to achieve a good routine and then break it down into its parts, that we need to understand and then put this back into something we can use to judge the components that are necessary for that achievement. That requires research, that requires to read a book (or at least the necessary part of that) and compare it to other source to prove the credibility. If the reason is "it is easy to judge" it is a loud cry for help. That said, this is not what I mean unicycling works, that is because I researched on it (and if needed can provide the references). It can start from a personal experience, yet if not backed up by literature it is not worth. So please provide references.

With all the discussion and while just refining my document I come up with two simply adjectives for difficulty and quality. Quality is how a trick looks and difficulty is how a trick works (though work is probably not the best word). I added this to my document. I also refined the quality characteristics to serve as orientation and as a hint and finally included Variable Controlling under difficulty.

Please re-read and place your feedback: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQpX7AJgauM2WI2gtK21MqRqsxngRWFbpM8Igrwxk_k/edit?usp=sharing

Comment 23 Mar 10:32

I put this quick presentation together, especially in order to help through the visualization (It also has a very nice logic keeping everything together I didn't thought about earlier):

Difficulty - Stability - Mastery