Boundaries or no boundaries? (Closed for comments)

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 19 Nov 00:49

There are good arguments on both sides of the question. Taking away the boundaries gives riders enough space to fit in those big tricks, fast moves, or whatever they can fit in the room. On the other hand, using the entire gym seems to leave most riders doing their performances unnecessarily far from the audience and judges.

Why have limits on the performance space?

1. To give a consistent riding area, which is not unique to a one-time venue

2. Because in the real world, stages and performing spaces are almost never unlimited

Please discuss whether you think Freestyle competitions should have "edges" and why. Also how best to determine what they should be. In previous rules, the boundaries were based on the space used by Standard Skill, which is also the space used by Artistic Bicycling. Which also happens to be a fair compromise between the average stage (smaller) and the average gymnasium (bigger).

Comment 23 Nov 14:26

I enjoy the quality of the routines much better without boundaries. As a judge it is very noticeable that performers are paying attention to whether or not they are in bounds. You see their eyes looking for the lines on the floor. This is distracting to their performance.

Also it is much simpler as a presentation judge to not have to worry about boundaries. You are able to focus on their performance more and simply mark down when they fall. If you always have to watch to see if the rider is in bounds or not, you are not able to focus on their performance as much.

I am in favor of finding a minimum size that should be required for competitions. Also, the riding size that will be available should be announced to the competitors beforehand so they can prepare adequately. This way, there will be no space too small for competition and everyone will know what size the competition floor will be well before the competition.

Comment 25 Nov 17:57

I agree with Patricia as far as minimum size and prior knowledge of the physical boundaries. I was surprised when the boundaries were eliminated and figured that would be an issue, but didn't see any evidence of problems without them. I think having at least a center marker is a good reference point for riders to be consistent with their space usage and audience viewing balance. In general I'm in favor of fewer rules, so long as they cover the intent and promote safety. Perhaps we should look at this from the perspective of what the intent of the boundaries was originally, and if that intent is being satisfied without them or if their use is no longer relevant.

Comment 26 Nov 04:24

John will chime in here I'm sure but I believe the boundaries are meant to immitate the size of a stage in a theater. Freestyle is designed as a performance competition comprising of both technically dificult skills and artistic riding and storyline. I personally think that the reference to a stage size is no longer relevant to what Freestyle is now.

Comment 26 Nov 20:04

 What we're using currently:

Comment 26 Nov 20:05

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST (so glad I saved to the clipboard while I was working!):

In Freestyle competition, we choose to provide a smooth, dry floor. Traditionally it's a gym, but when we've done it in theaters with large stages, it was always more dramatic. Limited space is usually the next most important factor. The intent is to give riders enough space to be able to do everything, but also to assume there are limits to that space. It's part of the challenge. Why does basketball have boundaries? Given unlimited space there isn't any reason to have them. But in reality, you want to have an audience for interesting games, witch requires a limiting of the court size (or super-large gyms). Then you need a set of rules to make players respect those boundaries.

On a real stage, the boundaries are formed by curtains on the sides and back, and traditionally a drop-off in the front. If your competiton is on a stage of the optimum size, those things eliminate the need for boundary rules. They also allow for lots of creative options, such as entries and exits, hiding props or other unicycles out of sight, jumping off (or onto) the front of the stage, etc. At Unicon I we had a tiny set of curtains across the back of the performing area, which several riders used to dramatic effect, or just to conceal their props or other unis. There should always be curtains.

Scott (an others) believes Freestyle competition is a gym thing, and does not need to pretend to be on a stage. I have always leaned away from that approach, because it separates competition Freestyle from real-life unicycle entertainment. Since Freestyle is an entertainment event, the more theatrical we can make it, the better the performances will get. The reason why we have rarely used actual theaters is because they are hard to come by, and even if available on campus, the stages might not be big enough, and the seating might be even less sufficient to accommodate a large convention crowd.

So if a real theater is not realistic, I propose that we should strive to make our gyms more theater-like. I believe there should be a back curtain. I would put them on three sides, but assuming we are in a gym, some audience members will usually be on the sides and possibly around back. But give the performers a curtain. I would still prefer to have a limit on the remaining space, since it's such an important part of nearly any real-life show, but I'd be much happier without it if we at least had a curtain that offers a backstage "hiding area".

Curtains are easy to buy or rent in any city. height would not have to be regulated. I'd say have a minimum height to make it taller than a rider on a (standard) unicycle. Upper limit to be determined by sight-lines from the rear. The curtain would have to have at least one opening in it, for entrances/exits. Riders can of course also use the ends, if it doesn't run wall to wall. At least one opening should be near the center of the performing space. The curtain should not be placed across the back of a gym if it's large; I'd go by the current dimensions to say it should be a minimum of 15 meters back from the judges table. It shouldn't need to be much further for Individuals and Pairs, but then should be moved farther back for Groups.

What do you think of the curtain idea? The USA used to have a long set of curtains that were set up across the back of the performing area from around the mid-80s to mid-90s. I think they belonged to an individual that then stopped coming to conventions. I can dig up pictures if people want to see examples.

 

 

Comment 27 Nov 06:27

John,

There is a reason for maximum post length... But you managed to work around the system anyways ;-). Honestly your post was so long that I'm not sure if you're for, against, or unsure about the boundary discussion and I'm a native, well-educated English speaker. Can you please summarize your opinion in a few lines or less?

I have created a separate discussion for the curtain idea to keeps things separate.

Comment 27 Nov 11:15

Ouch. I missed the part where it tells us there's a post size limit, and was saved from a lot of re-typing (which should have been edited down anyway) only by thinking to save it as I went.  :-)

I think the main point I'm making above is that Freestyle should not be cut off from its parent, actual shows in front of actual audiences. I'd like to see it as a place where unicyclists can learn to be entertainers, and hone their skills so they can then pass auditions for Cirque du Soleil or similar. I'd like to see the competitions done in a theater, but this usually isn't realistic. Public shows would also be nice in a theater, but same problem with size and availability.

So since we are unlikely to be able to do that usually, we should make the gym at least a little more stage-like. A back curtain is the easiest way to create a piece of that environment without blocking sight lines from the sides.

At the same time, I hope to impress upon people that to separate Freestyle from entertainment is to "kill" it. What we do at our competitions should be something that can also be done in a more traditional performance venue, in front of a "general" audience. I was going to make a comparison to Figure Skating, but that sport requires ice, which determines a lot about their environment. For them, it's appropriate to have a stage the size of a hockey rink. We don't need that much room (except for large groups).

Comment 30 Nov 11:18

Hey John,

I'd like to address some of your statements, because I think they need to match modern reality:

1. "Because in the real world, stages and performing spaces are almost never unlimited" The real world of a competitive freestyler nowadays is a gym.
2. "As for me watching performances without boundaries, the good Freestylers do well with unlimited space. The not-so-good Freestylers don't necessarily grasp the staging, or choreography, or even the amount of time it takes to cross a large room" so, it is better to set boundaries, instead of educating the younger? I'll go with the latter one
3. "Top riders seem to be able to keep track of the boundaries without having to really look" this is a nice wish but in reality, they suffer painfully
4. "because it separates competition Freestyle from real-life unicycle entertainment" it is separated by the environment in which we perform. In compeition, it is competitive freestyle, if we do a show we are given the exact boundaries at which we perform and they are never the same, we need to modify our routines to fit them (We share, that it is an art).
5. Rebuild a stage in the middle of a gym - what's again with simplicity of just a floor and a unicyclist?

However, I think what John is about to say is he sees a decline in (performing/entertainment) art and I couldn't agree more with him. There are a couple of riders left, keeping up that art, the rest tends to become more like an x-style with music and costume. However, setting boundaries, building a stage won't change that. Interesstingly in Japan they have something like a Unicycle Show, where they perform on a stage and are judged by professional choreographs and other non-unicycling artists, which is what I guess John is looking for - however, would be better if someone from Japan can explain this in more detail.

Especially young freestylers and even me (hence I guess I meanwhile count to the older active, competitive freestylers) don't have that background of coming from entertaining/performing arts and I guess John is one of the Foss(ils) to have that link (I get my performing education at university in dance class and not in unicycle practice). The current active freestylers are more competitive-oriented, however do shows via their clubs or personal inquiries. Only a few of freestylers is going to continue as performing artists (as a profession, making a living out of it) and I hardly knew any of them staying as competitive freestyler.

PS. See also my post in Trying to get a true 50/50 balance in judging about the decline in arts.

Comment 04 Dec 16:23

I think we should try to focus on the boundaries part of this discussion since there are now other discussions to talk about the other issues.

I don't think that re-adding the boundaries will help encourage the artistic side of freestyle. In fact I think it actually takes away from it. It makes both the riders and the judges focus on one other thing than the performance itself. When I am judging presentation I rarely look down at my paper during a performance, I am able to give my entire focus to the performer. This wasn't true when there were boundaries. I agree with Gossi that for the newer, less experienced riders we should focus on educating them instead of restricting them with boundaries, which may or may not help them.

Comment 04 Dec 18:42

Responses to Gossi:

1. "The real world of a competitive freestyler nowadays is a gym". Of course; when was it not? But Freestyle is not like other events, in that it's based on the concept of a theatrical presentation. Track racing takes place on a track, and is all about going fast on a track. MUni is all about riding trails; done while riding trails. I think Freestyle is the only one that is a representation of something else. So the question here is whether we continue the concept that Freestyle is a show, which is best presented by remembering this as best we can in a gym, or we abandon the theater part of the concept, and make it a show in a gymnasium. I would like to see us remember that Freestyle is a representation of something beyond that big, open gym floor, bad acoustics and often far-away audience. In which case, we would have established boundaries like nearly any real performing area would.
2. "so, it is better to set boundaries, instead of educating the younger?" Yes, and yes. Of course we must educate riders to be better at the events they like. But it is not only younger riders that ignore boundaries. In fact, most young riders didn't have a problem with the old boundaries because they didn't need as much room as riders who could do higher-level tricks that needed more space. The reality, is that if one is doing a unicycle show, nearly anyplace other than in a gym, the space to ride will be limited. This limitation of space is a CONSTANT in real-world performing. The only thing not constant about it is the size available. Naturally we must establish a minimum size to ride in (which we currently so have). This discussion is whether it should be an absolute, and how to judge if it is, or if it's a "semi-permeable" boundary. That is, a boundary you are allowed to cross for the right reasons.
3. "This is a nice wish but in reality, they suffer painfully" Okay, so we don't agree on that one. Yes, some riders suffered by having to squeeze their performance into the allowed space. More specifically, they had to squeeze in some tricks that basically require more space. But this is what we all have to do if we want to perform in front of audiences outside the competition gym. I have seen many riders stay precisely within the boundaries without ever appearing to look at them. I believe I also had this skill as well, though I admit I come from an era before the existence of long stand-up gliding tricks and combinations. And I want to see those. I just don't think eliminating boundaries is the best way to do it.
4. "In compeition, it is competitive freestyle, if we do a show we are given the exact boundaries at which we perform and they are never the same, we need to modify our routines to fit them (We share, that it is an art)." In competitive Freestyle we never need to modify our routines to fit the boundaries; we should be designing the routines to fit them from the beginning. The most common stage I performed on professionally were those of elementary schools. These were usually much smaller than the 11 x 14 meters of the old Freestyle boundaries and I would not recommend such a small space for unicycle competition. With today's need for more space due to the long gliding tricks, we should have something bigger than 11 x 14 but not overly large.
5. I was never serious about building a stage, of course. The curtain idea is a compromise, which now has its own discussion so I'll leave that there.

I'm interested in Gossi's description of the "Unicycle Show" in Japan, which I'd love to hear more about from anyone who has seen it. Videos would also be highly instructive!

Not having a background in entertainment or performing arts is not age-related. I got mine by being immersed in the entertainment world as part of working for the National Circus Project. Others learn it by being fans of circus, variety and other forms of entertainment and actively going out to see performances. I was also inspired by watching competitive ice skating, which I could see on TV (more accessible). Unicycle clubs tend to be more insular, and even develop their own styles of Freestyle performing which are often very good, but not necessarily good on the theater side. It's a component of entertainment that you can't learn just by riding and watching unicycles. Maybe someday, but so far, if you only watch unicyclists you won't see enough good entertainers amongst all the good technical riders.

For Patricia, I agree that having boundaries will not make performers more artistic or creative. Well, possibly creative in that they may do things to make their performance fit a smaller space. But unicycling is supposed to be hard, not made easier. We accept the challenges of our vehicle of choice. If we want to perform in front of non-unicycling audiences, we almost always have to fit our performance to a limited space; usually one much smaller than what we would have for competitive Freestyle.

Comment 06 Dec 09:12

John, most of your arguments connect/relate competitive freestyle to something on show outside of the gym. These are two independent things as such all these arguments have no weight, because they simply don't apply to our situation.

Yes, there are routines, that need to learn to use their newly given space, we expected this. Some routines still stick to the old boundaries, because we forced them to that cage over the past years and I hope they can break out soon, to use their new freedom for a good demonstration.

Removing the boundaries was a blessing for riders to focus on their performance and don't be mentally distracted by that burden anymore - that's why it isn't coming back.

Comment 08 Dec 04:38

John, none of your arguments are really compelling to add the boundaries back. Saying that unicycling is supposed to be hard, not made easier...we are looking to have the most creative, best routines possible. Adding a man-made creation to the competition doesn't add to the quality of the routines. I would rather not have the boundaries and see how hard the riders can make their routines by adding harder skills instead of them having to worry about whether or not they can fit it all within bounds.

Of course, there will always be space limitations. But when given a big space, why limit it artificially? Let's just announce well ahead of time the size of the area so that riders can prepare their routines accordingly.

Comment 11 Dec 18:47

> The real world of a competitive freestyler nowadays is a gym.
>
And not many competitors care about what nightmare theaters could be like.

> 1: we would have established boundaries like nearly any real performing area would.
>
But who's happy with that?
> 2: educate
>
Education is often limiting creativity and teaching a norm that the majority thinks is good because it always was like that.
I think the truth is in the middle, I agree with most of your arguments, but not with all your conclusions (or what I speculative think they are).

> none of your arguments are really compelling to add the boundaries back.
>
Yes, and do I recognize copy pasting of paragraphs from earlier heated-up discussions, or is this truly another of the same?
I suddenly remember the clash between Simon Wells and Ryan Woessner (who blunt admitted it was in benefit of Western riders and in disadvantage of Asian routines).
I still don't see why riders should be penalized when they require more (available) space, and so be able to show something they otherwise can't.
I'm not in favor of rules that limit a rider from showing what she or he is worth.

To be honest I think riders are clever enough to know when they would perform far in the back they wont be seen that well, so I doubt enforcing any boundary rule other than a minimum guaranteed area is needed.

Comment 11 Dec 23:25

I like having a boundary but this may have to be due to the fact there has always been one ever since I started competing in freestyle, I'm a western rider and never needed the extra space and probably more so that I am a full time professional performer now. IMHO all freestyle comps should be held on a stage in a theater. It looks and sounds so much better than inside a gym. But I don't think this is an option due to the difficulties of finding a big enough stage and the limitations for how big an audience can watch.

I don't think it's good when the rider is so far back that the judges or audience cannot see their facial expressions. My solution would be to make the performing space longer/wider (left to right) and more narrower (front to back). This could be done with curtains (which I will discuss more in the other topic). That way people will still be able to do their stand up glide skills, but be closer to everyone. Plus the backdrop would look professional and better for anyone watching and great for photos.

Comment 12 Dec 07:31

In my view, the abolition of boundaries was one of the best things in the freestyle section of the rulebook that we decided on between UNICON 16 and UNICON 17. As a rider, I can say that it is a huge relief not to have to think about boundaries during the routine because you can focus more on tricks and presentation.

The problem addressed above (riders performing somewhere at the back) can be solved by letting people know that it will decrease their presentation score if their facial expressions are not visible and the space given is not used in an appropriate way.

Comment 12 Dec 10:00

I think that it would be better to have standard boundaries, it makes designing a routine easier when you know exactly how much space you have and would be able to take that performance to every competition. however until we would be able to insure that at every venue hosting a competition would be able to provide the same dimensions we should refrain from setting said boundaries. it would be ashame if a Unicon or even regionals/nationals would not have freestyle because they could not provide the exact boundaries at their venue. so maybe there should be no standard boundaries but minimums or  another option, the hosts will set the boundries and need to provide those boundaries to competitors well in advance. 

Comment 12 Dec 10:06

That is the current situation. We do have minimum boundaries, which is the basketball court, which is available in most gyms, that are suitable for hosting freestyle events. If there is more space available, hosts should announce it at least 3 (?) months prior to the competition.

Comment 14 Dec 02:54

"To be honest I think riders are clever enough to know when they would perform far in the back they wont be seen that well, so I doubt enforcing any boundary rule other than a minimum guaranteed area is needed." -- You should have seen how many riders at Unicon 17 did most of their performances in the back half of the gym. This was not a problem when we had boundaries. And I'm not referring to the youngest riders; I only watched the Jr. Experts and Experts.

"My solution would be to make the performing space longer/wider (left to right) and more narrower (front to back). This could be done with curtains..." -- Interesting idea! Even if we were to have put a curtain maybe 3/4 of the way back in the Unicon 17 gym, and nothing else, it would have improved many performances. How about a set of boundaries that has a very generous width, along with a still-reasonable depth so long stand-up glide runs can still be done on angles and with large curves?

"As a rider, I can say that it is a huge relief not to have to think about boundaries during the routine because you can focus more on tricks and presentation." -- Boundaries are much easier to work with when they are something real, like a curtain. It's much easier to keep track of where such a boundary is at all times.

"The problem addressed above (riders performing somewhere at the back) can be solved by letting people know that it will decrease their presentation score if their facial expressions are not visible and the space given is not used in an appropriate way." -- This may or may not have occurred in the judging; it would be hard to research without videos of the performances. I guess it would only affect the Presentation side.

"I think that it would be better to have standard boundaries, it makes designing a routine easier when you know exactly how much space you have and would be able to take that performance to every competition." -- That's what we used to do, though with only 11 x 14 meters for Individual and Pairs. The discussion here is whether to set something larger as a maximum, but not so large that it won't fit a gym big enough for a Unicon audience, for example. This is where a super-wide area, as Jamey suggests, could be a problem if we define a certain size that's too wide. Instead, maybe we define a certain depth (by putting a curtain across it), and let the width be whatever it is within the available space. What do you think of that idea?

Comment 14 Dec 07:11

"How about a set of boundaries that has a very generous width, along with a still-reasonable depth so long stand-up glide runs can still be done on angles and with large curves?" -- How about put lines on the floor at which tricks can be executed? That's the exact case to avoid.

"It's much easier to keep track of where such a boundary is at all times." -- These boundaries are physical boundaries, often refered to as 'walls'.

As Marie said removing boundaries was the best thing happened. It was the rule-change with the biggest, yet best impact for riders.

Comment 14 Dec 17:15

I agree with Marie, all the riders I talked to are glade, that there are no boundary mistakes anymore. We do have the performing size of 28 m  x 15 m in the rulebook.

Maybe it would be a good idea, if hosts still mark the performing size of 28m x 15 m on the foor, just as an orientation and this size should be as close to the judges and audience as possible.

Some riders at the Unicon used the centre circle, which was in that gym far away from the judges and the audience. In an other gym we might not have such a problem, but to avoid that, marking the performing field could solve this problem.

 

  

Comment 19 Dec 09:36

It doesn't seem like anyone is strongly in favor of this after all of our discussion. More are against re-adding the boundaries. Since that is the case, we don't really need to make a proposal. If someone still feels really strongly about adding the boundaries back in they can make a proposal and we can vote on it. If no one does that within the next two days I will close this discussion.

Comment 19 Dec 11:55

"It doesn't seem like anyone is strongly in favor of this after all of our discussion." -- That's rather biased, at least from the point of view of the person who started the discussion.  :-(

Anyway, clearly if anything is to get approved in this area it would not be a re-reinstatement of boundaries like before, even much bigger ones. However I would like to explore Jamey Mossengren's idea of a wider, but not overly deep performing area. I can do a proposal on that, but it might take a few days to get to. Many things with deadlines going on in my world at the moment. Or we could discuss that here first, if anyone thinks it is worth considering.

Comment 22 Dec 12:23

John, to be honest I could not tell what your opinion was. I just went back through the discussion and honestly am not sure what your stance is. You have multiple comments stating conflicting things. You tend to not be super concise with your posts and sometimes that makes it very hard to tell what your opinion actually is. I promise I was not trying to be biased, simply hoping to move things along and get some proposals started.

Comment 22 Dec 22:38

I think even what I suggested in my previous post would not get many votes. People seem happy with unlimited performing area, though as a spectator I saw lots of riders misusing it. Not only did many riders do their whole performances in the mid-to-back part of the gym, others did go forward but only a little bit. This is live entertainment, folks, the closer you are to the audience, the more they can see and the more real it is for them. That's why in the big venues, close seats cost a lot more than the far away ones.

Other than that, I think I've been pretty clear about the concept of limited space being a reality of nearly any unicycle performance that takes place outside of a gym. That reality is one of the challenges of being a good performer. It's always there, and you have to deal with it.

Comment 29 Dec 18:31

Busy time of the year I think for most people with holidays, family, etc. Finally just caught up reading and commenting on most topics myself.

Anyways, no one else has commented on the idea of a wider but not overly deep area except for Foss. Anyone else have any comments, good or bad? Personally I think it would solve many of the issues of having a too deep area and still allow for some of the tricks you need more room for. It would be easy to enforce with curtains or at the very minimum cones, tables or any other physical object. This would help prevent riders from having to "focus" on the boundaries. I'll post more about this in the curtains discussion.

Comment 29 Dec 21:13

I remember last committee, when we discussed about the minimal size we checked plenty of sources, which might be a good size that is present in most gyms (that's why we choosed the basketball field as minimum). However, some gyms provide enough space but doesn't fit with these dimensions. Though I come up with the idea of provide the squaremeters (m^2) as minimum. That would be 28m * 15m = 420m^2. I think it only was during a skype conference between with the germans and we dismissed this one (I don't remember why we did this). However, with a too narrow area, we would mostly see glides from left to right and right to left and ... That's something we should prevent from happening, so a standglide is possible from back to front.

Comment 30 Dec 00:29

Basketball courts are flexible. If you go to smaller gyms and measure, you will find many that are sized to fit the room, and are smaller than the regulation dimensions. The point there is to not assume a basketball court in a gym is of a fixed size. Even in large gyms, if multiple courts are painted they may also be downsized. The court for international basketball is 28 x 15m. This is a very generous space for any but the largest group, with plenty of room for today's most demanding stand-up glide sequences.

The idea behind a wide but not deep space is to still allow for those high speed gliding runs, without excessive depth. But it must not be a space so shallow to, as Thomas points out, limit riders to doing those skills only back and forth. There should still be sufficient depth for them to turn around. If the old 11m is not enough, why not just go with 15? And why not keep it as simple as possible, with 28m for the width? This gets you a regulation basketball court. Even if the dimensions in a small gym aren't exact, it should be enough room for anything an individual or pair wants to do. It would be too much space for most of them, but still better than an entire, large gym with people riding in the back half.

Whatever we agree on (if anything), I still think a Freestyle performance should have a specific amount of space, just like any real-world performance. The difference here would be that you would know it way in advance. In the professional performing world, you don't know the actual size of your space until you show up.  :-P

Comment 02 Jan 12:56

My opinion is to continue to have no boundaries. But there could be a recommendation for the host to provide orientation lines on the ground (maybe of the size for international basketball courts, 28 x 15 m). In that way, riders can still cross the border without being penalized for it, but it would help orientation in big gyms.

Comment 02 Jan 13:06

What I read, please correct me John, is you want to use boundaries to actually constrain a proper space management of the rider. Because in the first year they had this freedom they really used it? These punks!

Then you are using the wrong tool. Choreography is the part you want to adress here. Choreography is already tricky, yet judged wrong in many ways. I agree that the new space is just a new factor in which you can get a choreo "wrong", which should regulated (along with other factors) by penalizing, lower score, whatever else.

Comment 03 Jan 13:18

Correction requested by Thomas:

"I want to use boundaries to simulate a real-world performing space (of generous size), making the Freestyle routine more comparable to a performance in a theatrical environment. Because in the first year they had this freedom, a great many riders used excessive amounts of space unnecessarily, making their routines less interesting (padded), farther away, and longer."

In addition to that, I question whether the judges at Unicon XVII, as a group, penalized riders for "riding off into the distance" when it did nothing to enhance their routines. We gave everyone unlimited space, they used it, and everyone thought it was great. Except the photographers, who saw smaller unicyclists, and the audience, who somehow may have realized something was different, but may not have noticed it was because some riders never even rode near them.

This event (whether Freestyle is the best name or not) is about doing a unicycle performance. Performance = entertainment = theater. Not all entertainment has to be *in* a theater, but but as a performance it is theatrical in nature. This event is about unicycling as entertainment. Nearly all entertainment venues (especially those where a unicyclist would perform) have a fixed amount of space to do their performances. Nearly all *sports* also use a fixed amount of space. Downhill skiing? A ski run defined by trees. Football? A field of a specific size. Wrestling? Swimming? Cycling? Track? All of them. Nobody complains about the space they are working with, since it's the standard one they've been using for a long time.

We are discussing how big that space should be. It should be *something*. It's always *something*. Even if the rule is that riders can use the whole gym, there are dimensions to that. The difference is, those dimensions will never be the same. Also, realistically, riders will never know what those dimensions are. Hosts can only estimate. Generally they never actually measure their gyms (I've never seen such numbers). Even if they did, they usually cannot know exactly how much floor will be available for unicycling after the room is filled with all the equipment, people, judging tables, etc. that will be there on competition day. So essentially, our current rule is that riders will be provided with exactly ? x ? meters to perform in. It's sketchy, and it always will be.

You think a convention host will be able to provide their exact available riding size dimensions many months in advance of a competition? It has never happened. In my years as an entertainer, I never, ***EVER*** got an accurate set of dimensions for a performing space. This included the decision whether or not to haul my artistic bike to Singapore, since they told us the stage would exceed the size we requested. But that stage wasn't even built until the week we got there. And they built it the arbitrary size they thought would best fit the area where the shows would be, and it was what it was. I tried practicing the bike stuff on there, but I kept going off the sides. At least the stage didn't have carpet on it, which was what happened the next time I brought my artistic bike to Asia...

Give the riders a number. Give them a specific space to work in, like every real performer has when they perform for regular audiences. Make it twice as big as those spaces typically are, and you have something like a basketball court. That's a HUGE amount of space for Individual and Pairs, but still gives riders something to work with. Give groups the whole room; they are often big enough that this is the best way to do it for them. Maybe, if we want to create more of a separation for small and large groups, have the small groups use the basketball court, and only the large groups use the whole space.