Ideas for improving the U System for trials

Discussion in 'rec.sport.unicycling' started by billham, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. billham

    billham Guest

    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:
    1. Top riders don’t get to rack up mega scores. May not look as
    impressive.
    2. It’s harder for spectators to know which sections are the highest
    difficulty.
    3. 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:
    1. Would be more useful in showing the difficulty of the sections in an
    event, especially if signs were posted that spectators could see.
    2. Would also give riders a sense of the difficulty level they can
    ride.
    3. 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:
    1. It would be harder to set up the course for the organizer of the
    event. Takes more knowledge of uni trials.
    2. 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



    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
    Tags:


  2. vincelemay

    vincelemay Guest

    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.

    >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.

    >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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  3. muniracer

    muniracer Guest

    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!!

    http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4339
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  4. vincelemay

    vincelemay Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  5. Checkernuts

    Checkernuts Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/801
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  6. billham

    billham Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  7. muniracer

    muniracer Guest

    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!!

    http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4339
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  8. merrill

    merrill Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/818
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  9. johnfoss

    johnfoss Guest

    merrill wrote:
    > *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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  10. merrill

    merrill Guest

    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
    do.

    Joe


    --
    merrill

    "...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
    Dubya on On NPR's Morning Edition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    merrill's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/818
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  11. unigeee

    unigeee Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5397
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  12. billham

    billham Guest

    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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  13. bugman

    bugman Guest

    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.:D 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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/3812
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  14. vincelemay

    vincelemay Guest

    Originally posted by Billham:
    >''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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5812
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  15. billham

    billham Guest

    This could be a problem if I ever compete, unless the easiest section is
    riding down a curb.:D 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. :D

    Bill


    --
    billham

    Direction is everything, distance is secondary.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    billham's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4625
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/378
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/378
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  18. muniracer

    muniracer Guest

    Ben Plotkin-Swing wrote:
    > *
    > 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!!

    http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albuq25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    muniracer's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4339
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/378
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
  20. danger_uni

    danger_uni Guest

    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.

    3) 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: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/21
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759
     
Loading...
Loading...