rec.sport.unicycling archive · Public discussion

Ideas for improving the U System for trials

Started by Billham · · Last activity · 23 posts · 1,479 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
rec.sport.unicycling archive
Published
12 April 2004
Last activity
15 April 2004
Original author
Billham
Posts
23
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,479
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 23
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Let me preface my remarks with the following… I have only
    been involved in one trials event, Motorama 2004. That event
    used the U system. Joe Merrill, event organizer had Kris
    Holms (U system creator) there to help with set up and to
    offer guidance. I have great respect and admiration for each
    of these men for the uni skills and event organizing
    knowledge they brought to this event. I have also read the
    standard trials event system that is used for bicycle trials
    events. These are way too difficult and complex in my book.
    It might be that my lack of experience in this event gives
    me a fresh look at it. OR, maybe I am missing some critical
    points due to my inexperience. Thus a post for your thoughts
    and ideas!

    Someone help me here, I lost the link to Kris' U system
    description. Please post the link for those unfamiliar with
    the U system.

    I have been thinking more about the U system for trials. I
    think one of the strong points of this system is the
    simplicity of it. Easier to judge and to score. At Motorama
    this past spring it worked very well. The main point of
    this post is…If it’s a better system because it is simpler,
    why not make it even simpler? I really liked the overall
    system and have a few ideas that might make it easier to
    use. One of my main concerns with the U system is that it
    takes a very knowledgable person to establish the point
    value for each section. In my opinion, that makes it harder
    for event organizers to use it. If it was simpler, it would
    be easier for someone to put together a uni trials event,
    thus it would be more likely to be done. In keeping with
    the simpler version thinking I have the following thoughts
    for your comments.

    OPTION # 1 (the ultimate in simplicity?) Don’t assign
    difficulty ratings or points to each section. Just have
    numbered identification for each section. Scoring is done by
    showing a point for each section completed.

    Advantages:
    1. Easiest to set up, requires less time for rating and
    more time is available for setting up and building
    the sections.
    2. Beginning riders don’t have as great a gap between
    their scores and the top rider scores. This may help to
    encourage the newbies.
    3. Quick and easy tallying of scores at the end of an
    event. Less room for math errors and easier to verify
    the total score.

    Disadvantages:
    4. Top riders don’t get to rack up mega scores. May not
    look as impressive.
    5. It’s harder for spectators to know which sections are
    the highest difficulty.
    6. It might be easier for the people setting up the course
    to overlook some key skills.

    OPTION # 2 (slighty more involved that # 1) Assign U system
    difficulty ratings to each section. This rating would then
    become the point value of the section. For example, a U4
    difficulty section would be worth 4 points, U5 worth 5
    points, etc.

    Advantages:
    7. Would be more useful in showing the difficulty of the
    sections in an event, especially if signs were posted
    that spectators could see.
    8. Would also give riders a sense of the difficulty level
    they can ride.
    9. Closer attention to the U system levels would help
    create a more balanced course, all the skills would
    have a better chance of being included at each level.

    Disadvantages:
    10. It would be harder to set up the course for the
    organizer of the event. Takes more knowledge of
    uni trials.
    11. This would require a well defined description of
    each U level.

    One last idea.. In case of a tie score for first place I
    think it would be a great idea to have a ride off. A
    strength of the U system is that the time used for the event
    can be controlled very precisely. That allows the organizers
    to allow time at the end if needed for a ride off to break a
    tie. A ride off would be a great event for spectators as the
    top riders fight for the top spot! Each of the riders picks
    two sections to attempt (strategy and drama here!) Then each
    rider gets 3 attempts to complete each section. If both
    riders complete a section, then the one doing it in least
    attempts wins that section. I think it would be a lot of fun
    to watch a ride off as a spectator and it gives additional
    exposure to the top riders. It might even be fun to do this
    with the top 3 or 4 riders even if there wasn’t a tie. A
    rider challenge just for the fun of it and to give the top
    riders a victory lap.

    Again, I feel the U system is a good one. But it is young
    and still getting established. I hope my $.02 worth of ideas
    might help make it a little better.

    Bill
    [B]

    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: unicyclist.com4625
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  2. Hey Billham,

    There is the link to the Internationnal Unicycle Trials
    Rules: www.krisholm.com/trialsrules

    ­>OPTION # 1...

    I think you should forget about it, because the point of
    making difficult obstacles is to separate the awesome riders
    from the good ones. If someone clean a 6' high rail-to-rail
    transfer and gets the same score as another rider who hop on
    a curb and drop off, it's not a trials competition anymore,
    but a simple session with other unicyclists.

    Quoted message said:

    OPTION # 2...

    That one is a possibility. But I think Kris based the
    scoring system on the riding experience. In fact, it's
    almost exponantial, just like the difficulty. Think of the
    10 level for freestyle; it's harder to go from level 8 to 9,
    than from level 2 to 3.

    Quoted message said:

    In case of a tie...

    See Section 14. The tied-riders can choose to both attempt a
    long section, and the winner is the one who clean more
    obstacles.

    That's what they did at Toque to separate the winners: Kris
    Holm and Ryan Atkins. Ryan won by totally cleaning the
    sections, while Kris dab before the end.

    Anyways, you should e-mail to Kris your suggestions, there's
    always room for improving.

    Vincent

    --
    vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vincelemay's Profile: unicyclist.com5812
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  3. i see your point, but i think the best solution would be for
    kris to better detail the scoring. first, i think the
    disadvantages of your first option far outweight the
    advantages. good riders wont try big stuff if they have to
    spend all their time on this little stuff. but if a really
    hard line is 20 points, they can focus on that without
    worrying about the 1 pointer. the problem with the second
    problem is similar to the first, the points are out of
    proportion. my solution is for kris to better detail the
    scoring, with both natural and urban trials taken into
    consideration. perhaps he could post a couple pictures of
    lines and explain how he scored them.

    --
    muniracer - Hell On Wheel

    The Hell on Wheel Unicycle Gang owns you!!

    unicyclist.comalbuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: unicyclist.com4339
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  4. And for the assignation of the scores, see Appendix1 for
    some examples of obstacles and their scorings. Of corse, the
    list could be infinite, but if you think some obstacles
    should be in, I don't see why Kris would not listen to your
    specifics propositions.

    --
    vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vincelemay's Profile: unicyclist.com5812
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  5. Tie breaks should always be done with a round of rock paper
    scissors, this is how it was done at Motorama and it has
    been by far the most fun to watch as a spectator.

    A ride off is a good idea, I think that was what was done at
    TOque this year between Kris and Ryan, and it made for a
    good demenstration of skill on a long and difficult line.
    But it still was missing a certain charm that RPS has.

    --
    Checkernuts - Me Fail English? That's Unpossible

    No one said it was gonna be easy and I'm not afraid to try, with the
    odds stacked up against me I will have to fight, One Life One Wheel got
    to do it right. H20
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Checkernuts's Profile: unicyclist.com801
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  6. Top riders should be able to complete the lower level
    sections easily and quickly. If they needed much time on the
    easy sections, that would reveal a weakness in their riding.
    I heard Kris saying at Motorama that the course should test
    a rider for all types of skills. Some riders couldn't ride
    skinnies very well but could hop high and gap far. An all
    round rider should do both well. So a simple on the ground
    skinny is important to revealing weaknesses of even the
    upper level riders.

    One assumption I was using was that the top riders would
    have time to complete all the sections and still work on the
    tough ones for a good while. If that was the case, all the
    levels would be needed to get the top score. At Motorama,
    the best riders did have time to do all the sections. If the
    event was short on time and not all sections could be
    completed, then Option 1 would not work. Option 1 needs a
    long time frame or fewer obtacles. Lots of time was a
    critical assumption on my part for option 1.

    See there you go. I put out some ideas and get some great
    feedback. Gotta love this forum.

    Bill

    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: unicyclist.com4625
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  7. for those of you dont understand how incredible RPS is,
    check out www.worldrps.com

    but a ride off is better, sorry chex. whether or not better
    riders should have to do easier lines depends on time and
    number of participants.

    --
    muniracer - Hell On Wheel

    The Hell on Wheel Unicycle Gang owns you!!

    unicyclist.comalbuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: unicyclist.com4339
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  8. These are certainly some intruiging ideas. Option #1 would
    certainly be easier on the event organizer.

    I think the question is whether or not the point values
    currently used in the u-system actually yield a more
    accurate and fair score than the "flat" point values Bill
    suggested. I have a hunch that relative point values
    could be somewhat arbitrary and that a flat point system
    has its merits.

    I agree with Bill that the top riders should be able to
    complete the easier sections easily and quickly. The ability
    for a rider to quickly nail all the lower level sections,
    regardless of skill tested is an important part of the test.
    The rules stipulate that "The time duration should be
    sufficient to allow each rider to attempt each obstacle
    multiple times, if necessary." Also a comp should be 2 or 3
    hours depending on the number of sections and riders.

    For a rider to spend all of his/her time trying to nail
    tough sections and gain high points, to the neglect of a few
    easy sections is contrary to the idea that a rider's all
    around ability is being tested. In fact, a flat point system
    would eliminate this possibility and could more clearly
    expose rider weaknesses, rewarding the more well rounded
    rider who can clean every type of challenge.

    I think option #1 would yield more ties among the top three
    scores. For example, at Motorama, I think there were 31
    sections. Kris and Ryan would have scored 30, if I remember
    correctly. Then there might have been multiple scores of 29,
    28, 27, 26 etc. A ride off would settle this, and I think it
    would be very exciting to watch.

    All in all, I'm thinking that Motorama would have been a lot
    simpler, and just as much fun with a flat system.

    As for spectators, I don't think they will ever know, be
    interested in, or able to follow a relative point system.
    Even if point values were posted on huge signs, it would be
    logistically very difficult to post them in a visible and
    meaningful way. I think audiences are simply interested in
    watching riders try difficult things, and some things
    immediately draw a spectators attention, based on what is
    being DONE, not based on a numerical value.

    And as for the riders, who cares about the "appearance" of a
    high numerical score. We go to comps to have fun and ride,
    not to collect trophies.

    Just my 2 cents, but I like option one, but I'm sure there's
    something I'm missing here, though, that I'm not
    considering.

    Joe

    --
    merrill

    "...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
    Dubya on On NPR's Morning Edition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    merrill's Profile: unicyclist.com818
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  9. merrill said:

    *I think option #1 would yield more ties among the top
    three scores.*


    The option 1 system sounds like it would work best for
    smaller events. It would get more troublesome at crowded
    (high attendance) events or if there are a lot of lines of
    similar difficulty.

    I've participated in a small handful of Trials events using
    various scoring methods. Compared to the earlier ones, the
    U-system is the simplest from a rider point of view. System
    #1 would be even simpler, but same for the riders. In some
    of the events where I participated, I did not have enough
    time to try all sections. This was partly based on my
    relatively low skill level, and possibly on me taking
    pictures, but if all lines had equal scores, more time might
    be needed to make sure riders had sufficient time to work
    all of them.

    In an event with lots of lines, some will tend to be of near-
    equal difficulty. A 1-for-1 scoring system would make it a
    test of quantity, and kind of invalidate the difference
    between all the different lines.

    But yes, the current scoring system is hard for organizers,
    and causes an automatic addition to the set-up time to
    figure out what the scores should be. If a Kris Holm or Joe
    Merrill aren't available, it might be hard to put accurate
    scores on your lines. But as the current set of rules gets
    more developed, I'm sure this area will be addressed.

    --
    johnfoss - Walkin' on the edge

    John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
    "jfoss" at "unicycling.com"
    www.unicycling.com

    "Hey, could I have some of that spinach? I need to get this pork rind
    taste out of my mouth." -- Ryan Atkins to Kris Holm, on the way back
    from Moab after sampling some of my pork rinds. They grossed out the
    whole van!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    johnfoss's Profile: unicyclist.com832
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  10. John,

    I like your Avatar.

    Kris's rules also state:

    " The time duration should be sufficient to allow each rider
    to attempt each obstacle multiple times, if necessary. "

    and

    e) Section difficulty should correspond to the range in
    ability levels of the participants. The easiest
    sections should be cleanable by all participants
    after one or two attempts, and the harder sections
    should require multiple attempts by the best riders.
    f) It is highly recommended to include one or two
    sections that are so difficult that they may only be
    cleaned by one rider, or not at all. This will help
    prevent ties for first place, and may also help to
    increase the technical standards of the sport if a
    rider succeeds in doing something that has never
    been done before.

    If these guidelines are followed, everyone should have a
    fair chance to try as many sections s they wish within the
    allotted time. I don't think a trials comp is likely to be a
    test of quantity of lines cleaned because of the limitations
    in building a well rounded course.

    So for example, at a large competition with 50 riders and
    30 lines, the course setter would need to allow some extra
    time, perhaps 3 to 4 hours. I think that a competition
    where you felt rushed just to get through the lines that
    you are capable of, would be one where the basic guidelines
    were not adhered to. Not that that's a problem, it's just
    different. If you have lots of lines and lots of riders,
    hopefully the comp duration is set in a realistic way.
    Having to rush through a course just to hit everything
    would seem less than ideal.

    Also, if you had lots of lines of similar difficulty, or
    (even worse) if there were not enough hard lines of
    increasing difficulty, you would wind up with many riders
    cleaning everything and everyone tying.

    At the next competition, I think it would be quite
    interesting to tally results both according to "traditional"
    u-system point assignments, and flat scores, and see what
    the differences are. This would be easy to
    fa.

    Joe

    --
    merrill

    "...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
    Dubya on On NPR's Morning Edition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    merrill's Profile: unicyclist.com818
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  11. my opinion of the u-rating system is that it should
    attempt to emulate the climbong rating system and that
    difficulty should be reached by consensus. in montreal we
    set the obstacles and among the organizers disscussed the
    difficulties and agreed on a rating. this will never be
    accurate and will vary from one rider to the next. kris'
    guidlines are a great start that will evolve as the system
    gets used. it's gret to have a guidline as to what is
    generaly considered more difficult than another obstacle
    (and fun too, great discussions). after that, i used
    option two in assinging the u score as the score and it
    worked out well for a small event (i welcome any opinions
    on my assertion). i also agree with the ride-off. that's
    ton's of fun.

    more two cents

    john

    --
    unigeee - Hmmmmm!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    unigeee's Profile: unicyclist.com5397
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  12. There are not too many trials competitions available for
    riders to do but there seems to be lots of interest in doing
    trials competitions. One question that needs to be asked is,
    "How do we encourage others to hold events?" A simpler
    system makes it available to more event organizers. And
    hopefully would encourage more to do a trials comp.

    To help facilitate making it easier for a non trials rider
    to be able to set up a trials event, I think it would be
    helpful to have a set of guidelines describing various lines
    that could be incorporated into the comp. If this guideline
    had the lines broken into sections similar to the U levels,
    it would help assure a well rounded course was built. this
    type of guideline would be useful for any and all types of
    trials systems. I believe Kris said at Motorama that he was
    working on something of this nature.

    I could envision myself setting up and organizing a trials
    comp with Option 1 (and my trials skills are certainly
    limited). But I find the present U system a bit intimidating
    due to it's complex nature. It is also more prone to being
    questioned by riders, although from what I've seen in the
    uni community, that seems to be a minor issue at present.

    Might be useful to have a couple of options for the U
    system. A simple option and the more complex option. Larger
    events may need to use the complex option and smaller ones
    or ones with less experienced organizers use the simpler
    version. I think it's a good idea to strive for a common
    "system" of doing the competitions so that regional and
    national events have consistency between them.

    Another option for larger events is to allow the
    intermediate and pro riders start for the first hour and
    then turn the lower level riders loose for the rest of the
    time. This would free up some section availability for
    those who need to do all the lines for the top score. With
    this method of staggered rider release, you could still
    use option
    1.

    Fun discussion!

    Bill

    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: unicyclist.com4625
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  13. e) Section difficulty should correspond to the range in
    ability levels of the participants. The easiest sections
    should be cleanable by all participants after one or two
    attempts, and the harder sections should require multiple
    attempts by the best riders.

    This could be a problem if I ever compete, unless the
    easiest section is riding down a curb.😄 If they require
    riding up a curb, I may not make it cleanly in one or
    two attempts. Guess I have no business competing in a
    trials event.

    --
    bugman - Survivor 2004 Wolfman Duathalon
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    bugman's Profile: unicyclist.com3812
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  14. Originally posted by Billham:

    Quoted message said:

    ''There are not too many trials competitions available for
    riders to do


    but there seems to be lots of interest in doing trials
    competitions. One question that needs to be asked is, "How
    do we encourage others to hold events?" A simpler system
    makes it available to more event organizers. And hopefully
    would encourage more to do a trials comp.''

    I think the main problem for events organizers is money. For
    a trials competition, a relatively big course is necessairy.
    Add to that the possible transport of the sections, and
    depending on the location, renting the place needed.
    Assurances can also cause some problems.

    Also, those unicycling events are not yet big enought to be
    hold independably (except for UNICONs and such). To have a
    good crowd, I think everyone must still work in conjonction
    with a related organisation (such as bike ones) to hold
    regionnal events.

    I surely hope one day there's gonna be some regionnal,
    nationnal, and maybe a world cup series. But the sport is
    still young compared to others.

    So I think the rating system is just details for an event
    organizer.

    Vincent

    --
    vincelemay - Quebec unicyclist
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    vincelemay's Profile: unicyclist.com5812
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  15. This could be a problem if I ever compete, unless the
    easiest section is riding down a curb.😄 If they require
    riding up a curb, I may not make it cleanly in one or two
    attempts. Guess I have no business competing in a trials
    event. [/B]

    Bugman, I only completed a handful of sections at Motorama
    and had a blast. I had a good time riding with the others,
    working on harder sections (hard for me!) and watching
    others work out the sections. The U system is a casual,
    informal approach to the competition that works really well
    for all types of riders. That is certainly one of the
    strengths of the system. I decided to enter the competition
    at Motorama just so I could ride and not just have to watch
    the comp. My goal was to a least come in second.... second
    from last!

    If you get a chance to do it. Go for it! And yes, the Krispy
    Creme training plan works well for trials also. 😄

    Bill

    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: unicyclist.com4625
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  16. I really don't think option #1 is a good idea. It doesn't
    make sense to value all lines equally, when some take much
    more effort and skill to clean. Plus, it isn't that hard to
    rank lines by difficulty. Getting some consistency between
    competitions, as far as a U4 being the same in one place as
    another, would be nice, but its not critical. As long as
    things are consistent within one particular competition, it
    works out. Even if some things are rated weirdly, it doesn't
    effect the fairness of the comp because everybody has the
    same chance to ride all the obstacles.

    The trials comp at NAUCC 03 was set up almost entirely by
    teenage trials riders (specifically Max Dingmans, Joey Cohn,
    Ryan Atkins and myself), so it is possible to get the U-
    system to work without Kris around. We just walked around as
    a group and assigned U-values to all the lines.

    There was discussion at motorama of whether the non linear
    point values of the U ratings made sense. In my opinion, the
    things for and against it are:

    Against:

    Makes adding up scores at the end difficult.

    Makes the gap between the top riders and the almost top
    riders appear very large.

    For: Gives riders lots more incentive for trying really hard
    to ride the most highly rated sections. A U8 (27 points) is
    worth more than twice as much as a U5 (13 points). If a U5
    was worth 5, and a U8 was worth 8, than you'd be better of
    riding two U5s, than really trying to get the U8.

    So basically, I think the slight inconvenience of large more
    complicated numbers is outweighed by the benefits.

    Ben

    --
    Ben Plotkin-Swing

    www.benps.com

    "Every truly great accomplishment is at first impossible" -Fortune
    cookie.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Plotkin-Swing's Profile: unicyclist.com378
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  17. Heres my idea for an improvement of the U system:

    At the TOque games, we had so many people in such a small
    place that we had to run beginner, sport and expert comps at
    different times. Between each we basically rearranged
    everything, and wrote out new lines. I thought it was a huge
    improvement over the usually system, which forces expert
    riders to ride all of the beginner lines if they want to
    stay competitive. I really don't think ridding beginner
    lines demonstrates any kind of skill for expert riders. It
    just takes up time. I've never seen beginner lines make a
    difference in the placement of the top riders, except in
    situations where some riders weren't able to find all of the
    lines, or else cared more about interesting riding than
    scoring high. I don't see anything to be gained by forcing
    people to make that choice.

    I don't think its reasonable to expect organizers to make
    three different courses like we did at TOque, but I think
    it would be worth considering creating classes in the U-
    system. Expert riders wouldn't be scored for riding any
    lines below a U4 (this is arbitrary, I say U4 because that
    was the lowest rated line in the expert comp at TOque).
    Sport riders wouldn't be scored for riding lines below U3.
    Beginners would be allowed to ride anything they want. This
    also doesn't add any complications to the setup, and allows
    us to continue with the practice of having experts and
    beginners separated only on paper. (excepting special cases
    like TOque)

    Any thoughts on this?

    Ben

    --
    Ben Plotkin-Swing

    www.benps.com

    "Every truly great accomplishment is at first impossible" -Fortune
    cookie.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Plotkin-Swing's Profile: unicyclist.com378
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  18. Ben Plotkin-Swing said:

    * I don't think its reasonable to expect organizers to
    make three different courses like we did at TOque, but I
    think it would be worth considering creating classes in
    the U-system. Expert riders wouldn't be scored for riding
    any lines below a U4 (this is arbitrary, I say U4 because
    that was the lowest rated line in the expert comp at
    TOque). Sport riders wouldn't be scored for riding lines
    below U3. Beginners would be allowed to ride anything they
    want. This also doesn't add any complications to the
    setup, and allows us to continue with the practice of
    having experts and beginners separated only on paper.
    (excepting special cases like TOque) Ben *

    i think this is a good idea if there is a division between
    beginner, sport, and expert. i do think that everyone should
    be riding at the same time though. it is awesome to ride
    along side kris holm and all the other great riders even if
    you are not that great. if this was used though, i think
    that there should be warm up time where eperts could ride
    U1, U2, and U3s, and sports could ride U1 and U2 lines
    before the comp begins. the only problem i can see with this
    is if someone enters a class that is too advanced. this
    would make the rider aggrivated if he/she couldnt get any of
    the easiest lines allowed for the class. this could easily
    be fixed if one is allowed to change classes during the
    comp. also, if a sport rider got a higher score than an
    expert rider, shouldnt that rider be ranked higher? i think
    overall i prefer no classes, like motorama. as long as there
    is plenty of time, i dont think anyone would complain.

    --
    muniracer - Hell On Wheel

    The Hell on Wheel Unicycle Gang owns you!!

    unicyclist.comalbuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: unicyclist.com4339
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  19. In practice, everybody would still be allowed to ride any
    sections they wanted. If a sport rider ranks with the
    experts, even discounting lines that experts weren't scored
    for, than it would be up to the discretion of the event
    organizer to allow them to switch to the expert category
    for scoring.

    Expert and Sport riders would still be allowed to ride on
    U1s and U2s, they just wouldn't get any points for them. If
    there was a crunch for time and space, I'd say that riders
    who aren't going to be scored on a section should give
    priority to riders who will be.

    Ben

    --
    Ben Plotkin-Swing

    www.benps.com

    "Every truly great accomplishment is at first impossible" -Fortune
    cookie.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Plotkin-Swing's Profile: unicyclist.com378
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

  20. Interesting ideas. Honestly it hadn't occurred to me that
    sections could not be rated and still have scores kept.

    At Motorama, Toque, or the 2002 UNICON, I don't think the
    top ranking would have changed if option number 1 was
    done, because in all cases the best rider (s) completed
    all the sections.

    However, several points come to mind:

    1) What about cases where even the best riders don't
    complete all sections? This will inevitably happen at
    future competitions. What if, for example, there are 30
    sections and the top 2 riders both complete 25 sections,
    but they aren't the same sections (ie one rider completes
    a section that the other can't and also vice-versa)? You
    could assign a tie, but this would not consider which
    rider completed the *hardest* 25 sections.

    Consequently, I do think that ratings of some sort are
    necessary.

    2) Secondly, another question is, what is supposed to be
    more important, completing all sections or completing
    the hardest sections. In other words, if you spend a
    long time working on one incredibly difficult section,
    and in doing so, miss several easy sections, is this
    worth more? I think that it is, because the competetive
    goal of a trials comp is to determine who is technically
    the best rider.

    The question is, how much more is it worth?

    Right now, assigned point-values are non-linear with respect
    to U-ratings, because, for example, doing two U4 problems is
    MUCH easier than doing one U8 problem, and probably
    shouldn't be worth the same.

    However, I do think it is too skewed at present. If you pull
    off a U8 problem and there's only one of them, you
    automatically get so far ahead that there's no way another
    rider could catch up without doing that same problem (or
    another equivalent problem).

    That said, as long as there is plenty of time for all
    riders to attempt all obstacles, U-ratings could be used as
    point ratings.

    3) Although I say otherwise in the rules, I do think it
    would be interesting to try holding a comp with so many
    sections that it isn't possible for everyone to do all
    problems in the time required. This could work in areas
    with abundant natural problems.

    In this case, strategy would be required to pick the highest
    point problems you think you could do in the shortest time.

    In this situation, it would be important to have a somewhat
    non-linear relation between U-grades and points (as per the
    current system) because as I said, doing one U8 problem is
    way more impressive and generally takes much longer than
    doing two U4 problems, and I think that top riders should be
    awarded for this.

    4) An additional reason for assigning U-ratings to problems
    is general education. Trials meets are one of the only
    places where a larger group of riders gets together and
    rides. For purposes of communication, it's useful to have
    some way to communicate about the difficulty of problems
    you did back home, and how skills are progressing over
    time. The only way riders can consistently rate problems
    in different areas is if they are exposed to the ratings
    at one centralized place (the meet) and then go home and
    apply the same system in areas where they came from.

    In bike trials, riders have no quantified idea of how hard
    people were riding 20 years ago, but in climbing, you can
    track the increase in riding standards since the 1950's
    because climbers have a rating system describing this. It
    would be great if unicycling could be the same.

    In conclusion, I do think that it is important to rate the
    problems in trials comps, as long as at least one person is
    there who is capable of doing it. In summary:

    a) If none of the trials riders or organizers feel
    capable of rating problem difficulties, it is much
    better that no ratings be assigned than that incorrect
    ratings be assigned.

    b) If there are sufficiently few trials problems that all
    riders will get ample time to attempt all of them, U-
    ratings can be used as point ratings. Generally speaking,
    this should be the case.

    c) If there are more sections than can reasonably be
    attempted during the time frame of the competition, a
    point system that's non-linear with respect to U-ratings
    should be used. However, probably it shouldn't be as
    skewed as the current points are.

    Additionally, I do think that the U-system reference table
    should be updated and clarified somewhat, and that there
    should be an expanded guidelines for course setters section
    in the rules, or as a separate manual. I'm working on both;
    any opinions on this would be much appreciated.

    Kris.

    --
    danger_uni - Kris Holm
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    danger_uni's Profile: unicyclist.com21
    View this thread: unicyclist.com31759

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.