Presentation Judging
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment here to discuss how we can develop the Presentation half of judging.
Comment
Patricia, I know you have observed issues with the current judging system at unicon. Could you put them into their respective topics, to give us a start for discussion? Probably some of them are symptoms, which can be solved very easily.
Comment
I would like to address the concept of "theme", because I think it is mostly misunderstood. Escpecially in germany, where is a translation issue (english: "theme", german: "thema", sounds similar but are different things to give a hint for all non germans - "thema" translated back into english is "topic"). What annoys me over the past years so is, that people pick a "topic" for their routine, pick a costume and a music which fits their chosen "topic" and think it's ok.
However, I think "theme" is the correct english word for it. Let me describe what I do understand with it. For me it means that I can express a certain topic, that I can express an emotion/multiple emotions, that I can present kinesthesia (german: "Bewegungsgefühl" - Scott, help me!) - typically what some people refer to as "japanese style", that I can tell a story. It is all that, like the frame of a picture. In germany (especially due to the similar wording) it is almost only reduced to express a "topic".
I also have examples for these:
- Topic: Thomas Tiercy - http://unicycle.tv/unicon16
- Emotion: Maya Sugo - Unicon 12 / Switzerland
- Kinesthesia: Everything dancing, like japanese do modern dance, kazuhiro did jazz dance at unicon 16
- Story: That's obvious I have no example
When it comes to represent this given frame with content, it is actually the artistry of a rider to perform and tell the content through their body motions. I'd like to refer to my example at the beginning, where riders pick a costume and a music that fits their chosen "topic" and believe they now do a routine about that "topic", which they do not. Costume and music help to set the context to better help understand the theme.
Most often, these routines are choreographed in a way, that they place the tricks first to scaffold the 3 minutes and fill the rest with some unqualitative arm movements, that we see in every other routine, no distinction, no relation to their chosen theme. They ride exactly that way, an X-Style with costume and music and preplanned riding paths and tricks - no artistry included and they almost get the same scores as routines where you can see a 10 years practice difference - that makes me very, very sad.
I'd like to close with one of my favorites: Keone & Mariel Madrid Choreography; Don't stop the music. They have a topic, they have emotion only expressed by their body motions (ironically the music is a metaphor).
Comment
Bewegungsgefühl = "sense of movement"
Patricia suggests "body awareness"
It's quite hard to choose one term in English to express what you mean.
Comment
I believe we can develop both halves of judging with training materials, not necessarily any new/more rules. If I had unlimited time, I'd be happy to organize this but I know I can't. I just hope somebody can invest the time to gather videos and run a committee or group on it. I'd be happy to participate in that.
Even if we make no Freestyle rule changes, we need training materials! And more consensus on what we generally agree to be "good" and "bad" things about the performance examples we work with.
Comment
In regards to the problems we saw at Unicon:
It's hard to identify exactly what the problem with the presentation judging was at Unicon because the results were crazy. For example, it one event, Judge #3 would give rider #2 1st place and Judge #5 would give rider #2 8th place. There was just no consensus between the judges, and rarely did anyone agree on the results. For me, this points to a need to start with a clean slate.
I propose that we all go watch some videos of routines from different backgrounds, countries, and styles (the one's Gossi provided are a great start) and identify what we like about them from a presentation point of view. From that we can create four new categories, that may have some similarities to the current ones, to use for presentation judging.
I know that this is not a perfect solution and I agree that ultimately the judges need more training. However, this would be a start and hopefully would improve the judging results.
Comment
Training material will be good, I completely agree. I'm working on an education system for the IUF which can be used for this purpose (hopefully available mid 2015) - however education can be done in parallel and shouldn't be discussed here. Even educated people (I count myself in) cannot judge properly, because I can't place my points for good routines in the current judging system.
However, getting the good and back from watching videos and defining points why and why not. Well, that took me 4 years of studying (sport science at university - half of my courses are pratical), almost 8 years of unicycling and another 2 years to bring this into my prototype - yet the part about artistics is still the one with the most gaps in regard of definitions. I wonder how you will do this in the short time of this committee - not that I dislike this plan, however I'm missing research on this. Basically, Rythmic Sportsgymnastics is the most related sports to unicycling also figure skating, so looking into their judging system about how the judge artistics.
I'd like to emphasize more on art in freestyle.
Things to adress:
- More definitions. The rules are so undefined and unclear.
- We did a survey in germany: Bascially no judge was convinced with the interpretation category - hence it is sometimes a duplication of what's already present. It is more a sign for the incompetence that is baked into the freestyle-rules. Let's replace them with more appropriate categories that prepare for what my prototype can become.
- Replace tricks interpretation with dismounts, move them from presentation to tricks - because it is tricks. When you do bare tick training and fell off, you never shout "damn, I ruined my presentation". Yes, it may also adress presentation but must be judged somewhere else.
- Rename presentation to artistics? I have defined artistics. A presentation for me is, when I stand in front of people, have a projector and tell them something but we want art, not presentation.
- Put in body tension !! Exclude most of the japanese riders and riders look like they have a posture of a rice-bag. (I know THIS requires a lot of education, most of the time I see people think they have body tension or trainers compliment their riders for good body tension, while actually they have none).
- Refactor choreography. Can be 10 points.
- Be more clear about what the context is (music and costume) and how to weight it for the judging system.
- Getting dynamics of a routine judged properly (not adressed at all, currently)
- Properly judge the quality of body technics (= artistics), because quality should be the goal of a good routine.
Comment
I don't think we need new judging rules. We just have to train the judges better. It is not so hard as it sounds here, I think the judges are not well trained. We have judging workshops at least twice a year here in the north of Germany and it takes always a whole day with video judging. People have to come to refresh lession after a while. I don't know how the other countries handle the judging lessions. Gossi did you train yourself or have you been to a judging lession besides the one at the Uncion, which is in may opinion a refresh lession. How do they train the judges in your region? How do they train jugdes in the USA? How is it done in all the other countries? Just 2 hours before the event?
A lot of things changed in the rulebook before the Unicon 17 - we should not focus on changing all the times the rules. People don't do it in other sports, people don't change every 2 years the football rules. Rules have to be little constant. Otherwise we never have experienced and well trained judges and riders sign up for example at the Unicon for judging, they already judged 2 years ago at a Unicon. Does it gives you a clue if the person is a good judge? Rules changed in between some times dramatically, sometimes maybe just a bit.
Comment
this probably should be in its own discussion, but i think it would be cool if the audience had some say in the judging. maybe besides the top 3 there could be an award for audience favorite or something.
Comment
Yes, a different discussion. The audience is usually pretty good at spotting the best performances, but not always. They are often better than our judges, as a group, on the Presentation side. But they are also untrained, of mixed knowledge, biased and political. Popular people get more weighting. Stuff people haven't seen before might score higher than it should (compared to people with more background of watching the performances), etc.
I do like the idea of a people's choice type of award, but don't know if it's something for the Rulebook, or would be better in that mythical "convention guide" that never seems to get made. That's the book that would contain all the collected knowledge of past hosts, and recommendations for avoiding their mistakes, doing things more efficiently, ect.
Comment
I don't like audience vote as that is basically just a who's the most popular or who has the most fans from your country.
As for making presentation judging better and more accurate, I think training should be the number one thing to focus on. From what I read on Kirsten's post it seems like the current system works with proper training. Maybe we could follow how they do it.
Comment
I'd go even further and say we should educate people, before making new rules here.
Personally, for me spoken (and because Kirsten asked for it?): My view on art and such represented through motions changed over the past, especially because I studied sport but I also got a dance education, which had the most impact on that (I will receive a B-Trainer license for dancing soon, through universal education). I would consider myself to pretty good identifying high quality/proper art when seeing it and partly be able to name the difference between a good and poor routine (though very bad at defining it generally - this is what I realized when I worked on my prototype). That being said, I also talked with other freestylers, that had a similar education as I had and we pretty much see this decline in freestyle (which is also a cause for some riders that I know, they dropped competitive riding, because these poor routines continue to win)... but I'm drifting away. However, with the current judging system you cannot reward this kind of quality/art to riders.
So people educate through the rules but they don't teach you art nor quality (nor anything related to this) and those people are also working on the rules, mostly without any further education - a devicious circle. Without external education we are doomed and I highly recommend dancing for this. This is widely accepted and recommended (even in sport science books). I don't say we shouldn't become dancer but we must understand them and learn the basics.
Comment
"I don't say we should become dancers but we must understand and learn their basics." - That's the correct last sentence.
Comment
Hi Gossi, sorry that was not my question, I know you study sports.. I just wanted to know, if you visited a freestyle judging lessions in Germany in your region or if you just read the judging rules in the rulebook. Are you judging for the BDR?
Comment
I completely agree that there needs to be better training of the judges. However, the current judging system is not working at all, in the US or at Unicon.
Kirsten, I think perhaps why you might see more conclusive results compared to what we see at Unicon is because everyone who is judging is German and all of the competitors are German as well. Each country has a style of freestyle that they like to see and so if you are only judging a group of people from one country and all of the judges are from the same country, it makes sense that you would get more homogenous results, no matter what the judging system.
While the rulebook is used for regional and national competitions I think it's also incredibly important to have a system that works at Unicon. And it would make sense that a system that is successful at Unicon would also be successful at smaller competitions. At Unicon we have a judging panel made up of judges from many different countries and they are judging an international group of competitors as well. So naturally the results will be more varied.
In reference to your comment about continually changing the judging system every two years...I think it's important to keep in mind that unicycling is still a very young sport. I don't think that we have yet found a system that provides the best results. So it is necessary to modify it. This is also done in other sports as well. Gymnastics for instance, has a rule committee that meets after every Olympics and makes changes to the rules.
As the rules are now I find it very hard to judge. I consider myself an incredibly experienced judge and I was also a dancer for 14 years. I find myself struggling to figure out how to complete the judging as is. An example of this would be the category, "Showmanship and Originality". To me these are two completely different things. How somebody can engage with the audience is a very different thing than whether or not they have an original idea for their routine. When I was judging at NAUCC and Unicon I found myself having to mentally separate the 15 points for this category into 7.5 and 7.5 and judging each separately and then adding them back together. This shouldn't be happening.
Bottom line, the presentation categories as is aren't yielding accurate and conclusive results at Unicon. We need to pick new categories and define them well. And then train the judges to understand them as well.
Comment
I think it would help, if each part has its own scores:
for example:
Expressiveness 0 - 3 points
Showmanship 0 - 3 points
Originality 0-3 points
Total Impression 0-3 points
By doing that judges would be forced to look at each part closer, instead of just putting total points without any explaination. It would clarify how the points were given.
Patricia, could you explain which categories you miss in the present presentation sheet?
Comment
The audience does not need to break a performance down into 20 hard-to-define parts when noticing the best performances. I'm speaking not of a voting audience, but a general audience consensus that is often more accurate than the judges when it comes to Presentation. I think it needs to be less granular, not more. Arm the judges with all the things we want to look for, but more importantly provide them with lots of examples of bad, good and controversial performances.
If it were up to me I would have no more than three different numbers in the Presentation score. Two would be better.
Comment
I recognize much of what's being said here, but I'd like to keep my reply short.
> the current judging system is not working at all, in the US or at Unicon.
>
Because judges are supposed to make the verdict if wearing an Elvis costume is more "artistic" than wearing a Smurfs costume.
In the meanwhile the girl in the Batman costume silences the filled sporthal...
For age groups the system doesn't work because there is not really a way to rank these "artistic" performances fairly.
For experts the problem is the other extremity; it's impossible to compare total different approaches against the other. Gossi's example's are brilliant illustrations of that.
> I think the judges are not well trained.
>
I firmly agree.
Plus, I doubt if most presentation judges have seen a lot of different artistic performances, and/or are capable to recognize performing skills.
Even a David Haselhoff votes unicyclist out of America's Got Talent before they really started, and tells them they are not good enough for showbiz (while they were truly pro's - as in paying all bills from it).
Who should we approach to do a better judging job?
Probably more in the direction of real producers of variety/circus/theater, programmers of street-theaters, tv-show editorial. Professional skate- or dance choreographs.
People that have no unicycle-clues, and recognize the skill of exchanging energies with an audience.
Would they do much better? And still it will ever be impossible to please everyone.
> provide them with lots of examples of bad, good and controversial performances.
>
Sounds like learning HR management from a book. But so far it sounds here that it's needed :(
Comment
Scott and I found the judging rules for Figure Skating. They use some similar criteria as we currently do but the way that they have defined the categories and the language they use is way more clear. At least in English, the words that they use really evoke what is looked for in a stellar routine.
General:
The Skater's/Pair's/Couple’s whole performance is evaluated by five (5) Program Components: Skating Skills, Transitions/Linking Footwork and Movements, Performance/Execution, Choreography/Composition, Interpretation of the Music/Timing.
Skating Skills and Transitions/Linking Footwork and Movements would fall under the Technical half in our current system. I mainly want to focus on the language used in the three other sections. This can be found on pages 15 and 16 of this document. http://static.isu.org/media/156266/handbook-for-referees-and-judges-2014.pdf
I think a lot of what we are looking for can be found in this language. Our current judging system has been trying to move towards this but instead of reinventing something, we could perhaps use a lot of this language in redefining our categories. I would be happy to adopt these three presentation categories (with minor alterations) along with our current section for Dismounts. When there is something this good out there for our usage, that has proven successful, I say we take advantage of it.
Also, on another note, the table on pages 17-19 is an example of what we could use for the "cheat sheet" that people have been talking about. We already have a breakdown like this for each section but I think it is nice to have it all together.
Comment
Can you provide a link to the ice skating rules?
Comment
http://static.isu.org/media/156266/handbook-for-referees-and-judges-2014.pdf for those that can't copy and paste a link anymore :D
Comment
Oh I'm sorry....I read this comment on my phone and I guess I just skipped the link.
Comment
I'm through the ISU rules. I like them. I like them even more because I know what those words mean (I know some background of that). Can we easily replace all the "presentation" stuff with their 3 components?
A Note: They talk about movements and don't differ between skating skills and body skills. This is a good thing!
Comment
Agree with Thomas, and thank you Patricia for digging up those rules and sharing them with us! I would prefer making it into 2 components though. Just combine those elements into 2 scores instead of 3.
Comment
I would love to just take the three skating categories and turn them into our new presentation rules (with minor edits and the edition of the current falls section).
John, I think it would be better to leave the three sections as they are instead of combining them into two. The skating system is one that is proven to work and I would like to use it as is and see how it works for us before modifying it much.
Do we need to worry about any copyright issues or anything like that with just taking their rules?
Do we have enough support for this? I would be happy to write up a proposal, I should have time in the next couple of days. Does anyone strongly oppose this?
Comment
Sounds good to me Patricia.
Comment
I notice the rules Patricia shared are for Ice Dancing (rather than the other competitive skating categories). This is probably the one with the most in common with what we do, at least Presentation-wise. Yes, please see what you can come up with for a draft proposal, and then the group can help tweak it from there.
Copyright can be complicated for some forms of intellectual property, but I imagine that by the time we convert those rules to unicycling they will be altered enough that nobody would cry foul. It's different with things like songs, where you can use a riff or similar melody and end up in court.
Comment
Here is the link to the Google Doc where I have created the proposal. It seemed simpler to start it there so we can make edits before it gets made into an actual proposal. Please read through it and let me know what you think. I'm wondering if some of the terms need more explanation. Also take a good look at the table part as well, I think this part is the most helpful.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11bUjC5jwIu5lq-_LFWmLNcOCmrfmWYpDOSXq68ahkVg/edit?usp=sharing
Comments are most welcome.
Comment
Thank you Patricia, you've done a great job.
As we all are talking about more artistry and the changes Patricia proposed judge more artistry than ever before, can we also change the name from "presentation" to "artistics" as this fits better, catches the attention of riders and overall denote what this section is about?
Comment
Artistics is not an English word. It's a famous musical group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artistics
"Presentation" works for me, but perhaps that is because I've been around it for so long, helped to create the (still flawed) definitions of it over time, etc. In the end, the word we use is just a label, but good labels are descriptive of their content. What about "Performance", "Art" or even "Show"?
Comment
I approve "performance" or "show".
The expression "art" means is too wide. A judge becomes a little difficult because of that.
The expression which makes the audience unpleasant also includes "art".
I think such acting isn't suitable for UNICON.
Comment
I like Performance.
Comment
When "Artistic(s)" is not an english word, why we used "Artistic Freestyle/Unicycling" ever since?
Comment
Gossi, I already explained this to you at EUC. Artistic is an english word and thus can be used in "Artistic Freestyle/Unicycling."
"Artistics", at least in this context, is not an english word and thus makes to sense to use.
I also like "Performance." I think Performance captures both the artistry and the show needed in a good routine. Artistic doesn't seem to capture all of this (in my mind).
Comment
I'd have to look at old Rulebooks, but I don't think the actual name for the event was ever "Artistic Freestyle". This was something Andy Cotter kept falling back on, year after year, when he was the maker of all the functional competition databases. It was just Freestyle, but before that it had other names.
I like "Performance" but it would be nice to include art in there somehow. What about "Performance Art" or "Performance/Art"? Performance Art, as a term, has negative connotations for some people, because it may make people think of esoteric, weird performance pieces that fit the definition of art, but are often way too outside the normal realm of entertainment for people to like. Even a little. So if we call it Performance/Art we get both in there, without making the name much longer.
Comment
I also talked with Scott about the right words and what they mean, because they come with connotations that can be either bad or good (as John also mentioned), especially in german, as translations can be easily missunderstood. That's why I used the word "Artistic(s)" (german: Artistik) and defined it, so I was fine with using it and also described what I meant with it (I'm still happy using it - for me it captures 'all'). So, for me personally I connect "performance" and "show" with entertainment, often comedy, too to make the audience happy. Unfortunately I wouldn't connect this to the Art, that makes people thoughtful (e.g. Maya Sugo in Switzerland 2006) or to Art that expresses feelings (e.g. Thomas Tiercy). The term must be catchy to properly express what's covered with it. It can also be followed by an initial definition paragraph as with each section Patricia proposed in her document.
Regarding Patricias document. When I last watched it, there were still some skating references that are now removed (props to you Scott). I have only one note left, because I'm not yet satisfied of how timing is handled. From dancing we know, there are four types to represent music through your body: Analog, congruent, contrastive and autonom. Only the first two are covered while the others can be used to cleverly express a certain message or feeling or whatever. Let me explain in short what they are about to give you an impression.
- Analog: Mostly represent the highlights/cues in the music through your movements
- Congruent: Represent every beat/tone/note in the music through your movements (that's what the japanese aim at)
- Contrastive: Move contrary to the music, put your moves on the off-beat, ride slow when the music is fast and vice versa, etc. (Only works in connection with analog or congruent but not stand-alone)
- Autonom: Movement and Music are indepent. Music and movements don't need to match, yet can. This offers the artist the most freedom in his creative process (This is what most routines look like. Not because they choosed to use autonom representation but because the others don't apply).
In the end it is up to the judge to properly identify what was used and more importantly why it was used.
Reference for this:
Vent, H. & Drefke, H. (1982). Sport-Sekundarstufe II: Gymnastik/Tanz (R. Geßmann & H. Zimmermann, Hrsg.). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel GmbH.
Comment
I like art, and want people to have it in mind when judging (and watching). But it's also a performance, a show, and entertainment. Hmm. What about "Performance and Art" or "Art and Performance"?
Good luck teaching today's Presentation judges those four different music interpretations. While I think it's good background to know those, what's more important is for the judges to give informed opinions of their impressions of that, and the other aspects of the performance. I used to try to be very congruent with my music. In my Unicon IV performance, much of the pedaling was done on the beat of the music.
Comment
Gossi, how would you propose modifying the document I started to incorporate your terms of timing? I'm happy to try to work it in if it is in a realistic way. I agree with John that you might have a hard time doing this in our present judging situation. Again this comes down to better training of judges but we also need to be realistic.
Comment
"Performance and Art" pretty much matches very good. If there is one word to describe both, even better. Though the word is better be chosen by native english speakers.
At the moment, I don't know how to properly formulate this but I'm already thinking about. What I already thought about and I'd like to share this with you, is that it already happened. As I mentioned earlier, autonom is the most present realisation as of today (but mostly, because the others don't apply) and that this would by the current rules judged negatively, which is correct, there are routines that would be true negatives. Thomas and Joachim at Unicon in Brixen both had an autonom representation but for the good, that would according to the rules would give them a negative judging, althought their choice was clever and they used it beneficial to their routine. As said earlier, judges need to identify and understand if it was on purpose and why and if that fits the routine or whether it had a negative affect. Education-wise this is one of the easier topics.
Comment
Gossi, I don't quite understand. Can you clarify? I don't see how you propose to change the judging system.
I looked up some synonyms for performance and art and actually found presentation. I don't think we necessarily need to change the name. If we did I would vote for performance. I would definitely want it to only be one word. It just becomes a mouthful if it's more than one.
Comment
"Presentation" isn't working for us, that's a part of why we're having this conversation. We've had it as the label on that part of the judging since the 80s, I think, but people still have very different ideas of what is meant. New labels may or may not be improvements, but I think we need to try one. I do like the idea of the two separate words Performance and Art, since it paints two pictures in a the reader's mind instead of one. I'm still open to suggestions for other labels.
*Performance* covers the idea of Presentation, while also indicating you aren't just trying to be pretty; you are acknowledging that there is an audience. And the audience is not the judges. They can be thought of as part of the audience, but they're working so hard they can't see the performance as everyone else does.
*Art* is a reminder that we aren't looking for a narrowly defined standard of performance/presentation but creative ideas. Your art can be traditional, or avant-garde, or esoteric, or silly, or counter-culture. By overtly labeling it "Art" we remind all that being very different is acceptable.
Comment
I remember for the final practical tests at the end of various dance classes we had specified what kind of music representation was allowed. Would that also help in our case, would like to hear your comments - thanks.
Comment
Besides the name for the category currently known as Presentation, could people take a look at the google doc I made and make some more suggestions. I would like to turn it into a proposal soon.
Comment
Maybe "Art-Performance" or "Artistic Performance" ?
Patricia: Except the music realization I'm fine with what's in your proposal. I have exams on wednesday next week. I'm already breeding to implement musical realization and I would like to provide it on thursday (in a week as of now).
Comment
Ok, I put some thoughts into this, although it took a week longer. The figure skating rules can be understand in two ways: 1) they predict an analog/congruent musical representation and the scoring is built on top of that 2) They expect the judge to properly inspect and realize which musical representation is used and apply the scoring on top of this. Yet, none of this is precisely explained and judge A judges the first way and judge B the second way they come to completely different results, which shouldn't be the case. The main question I have and I actually have no answer so far is, whether is a judge is able to corretly identify which realisation is picked by the rider for a specific part (hence it can change during the routine many times) and whether this particular part is matching (even it is contrastive, e.g. if hectic moves match slow music because of that contrast). If this wouldn't be hard enough, what happens if the judge completely misinterprets what's happening. Likewise a probably judging method for me would be to suggest what would be the best realisation for that particular part. If that doesn't match with what I see, I would give the rider a lower score. What if that was on purpose and the judge completely misses that point, e.g. I did a contrastive part in my last routine though I think no judge ever gets this.
To summarize: How to prevent wrong identification by judges?
Apart from that including the four options into the rules is definitely recommended. It's more how to incorporate this any further - Please help me out.
Comment
I think that the problem you bring up is definitely something that is happening a lot and I'm not sure that there will be a judging system where it isn't a problem. I would also say that it is a big responsibility of the rider to make sure that the theme or idea that they are trying to convey with their performance is well executed. So some of the responsibility is on the judge to identify what the rider is doing but a lot of the responsibility is on the rider to create a clear routine. I also think that it is okay if different judges interpret different things in a performance. There can be lots of messages given by one performance and I think that it's good that there are different opinions amongst the judges, that's why we have more than one judge.
Comment
If a judge misinterprets the performance, is it the judge's fault, or the rider's fault? Could be both. In some cases, the riders may not have a clear idea of what they are trying to convey, or just aren't executing it well. Meanwhile, some judges will have a lot more entertainment background than others. But even among the more experienced ones, each may have very different background of what they know, and also what they like. This is a quality that the rider must take into account when crafting a performance.
We will never (I hope) get to a place where everyone has the same expectations for a Freestyle unicycle performance. If we do get there, our sport will look like competitive skating, where each routine is very similar. That would be boring (though skating remains a popular TV sport). I like the total possibility of variety. Along with that will come a more messy "range" of judge interpretations, and judge expectations.
That may be why competitions like the Cirque du Demain do not have concrete judging rules. Because if you wrote them, it might limit the creativity of the artists.
Comment
What I'm more concerned with in this case, is that as a Judge I would probably correctly identify what's happening and then being turned down, because the judging system would force me to negatively score this, because it is to strictly and specific formulated. That's the case to prevent here.
Comment
Another thing, that just comes into my mind I heard about figure skating, which is important to know: I remember that for some competitions/seasons there is a specified theme/dance given, e.g. salsa and then all routines must do salsa. As a result, the rules may be adjusted to this given setting. It would be interessting to know, if this is true for the rules Patricia found, we need to review them under different conditions, especially on the music representation part.
Comment
Gossi, it is correct that some competitions have specific themes. These competitions have separate rules. I found the rules that are used for the standard ice skating competitions.
Comment
Ok, so for now I saw the musical part to limiting by forcing it into one direction. I think I found a way to get rid of the limit. Please see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KhbkWRBeC87qJTPQEcLw-VjQP6Aq-br8QuQ9diXOcgw/edit?usp=sharing I targeted the musical part only in this doc. Please provide feedback - thanks.
Comment
I like the doc.
Comment
I like the doc as well and think that it is a good way to incorporate both the skating rules and what Gossi is getting at.
Comment
I also rechecked the judging grid. It still works with my changes (I had worries, they were probably contrary but glad it still matches). Could you include my changes into your document patricia? I think its fine to put it into voting then (at least for me).
Comment
Patricia, could you please some of the notes at the end, specifically these lines:
Under Interpretation of the Music/Timing, the characteristic “timing” means:
- riding primarily to rhythmic beat
- program well synchronized with musical phrasing,
They are contrary to my changes. Riding to the beat is just one thing, you could also stand still and move your body to the beat, also both would mean analog or congruent musical realisation, though primarliy may not be that wrong I should mention. However timing as such is clarified through the 4 ways of musical realisation that should explains it well enough.
Comment
Gossi, what wording would you like used there instead? I added your changes to the Music/Timing section. I'm happy to make a change I'm just not sure exactly what you want.
Comment
Just remove the bold highlighted sentence from the previous post, they are now superseeded by my changes.
I'm afraid we have no new name yet, we must stop with the word presentation (this is what the moderator is doing, presenting the next rider). I think we had something like "Art and Performance" or vice versa. I'd still go with "Artistic" as it means both (at least to me). Suggestions?
Comment
Hmm, I don't see that text. Are you looking at the google doc or the actual proposal. I already incorporated your text.
What about the word Expression? The reason I hesitate to use the word Artistic is because I still think that is what describes the whole category of the performing aspect of Freestyle. In my mind the category of Freestyle encompasses Xstyle, Standard Skill, and Artistic (what most people just call freestyle right now). So Freestyle would be like Urban.
Freestyle:
-Standard Skill
-Xstyle
-Artistic
Urban:
-Street
-Flatland
-Trials
-High Jump/Long Jump etc.
Comment
Several people have already said they like 'Performance' as a replacement for Presentation. As I mentioned earlier, we don't have to change the label; it's just a word that we agree means all the stuff we describe in the judging criteria. But if we must settle on a single word, I like Performance. That word means a multiple of things, including how well you did it, and also is a reminder that the competitor is supposed to perform (not just do hard tricks).
I agree with Patricia that the word 'Artistic' has been used as a wrong label almost as long as it's been used correctly, and also it's a pretty generic word. Let's not use Artistic.
Comment
I think Performance is fine as well. I like that it sounds close to Presentation so it won't trip up people to much.
Comment
Ok, lets go for it.