Ideas for improving the U System for trials

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
[b]


--
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

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

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

Another reason for setting point values for each section: even at the
same U-level, the "lengths" of segments may vary.

Example: one U-3 segment may contain 3 U-3 problems, whereas another
U-3 segment may contain 7 U-3 problems.

In this example the 2nd segment is more than twice as hard as the first.
Though this may not be an ideal segment design, but I'm guessing it is
realistic when space or the number of and types of props is limited.


--
duaner - -

duaner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
duaner's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4297
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

Excellent and interesting discussion!

I have to echo the sentiments of Kris with regard to the fact that I too
don't believe the top ranking riders at previous events would have
changed had one of these options been used. When I have some free time
I'll take a look at both the 2003 & 2004 TOque games scores and see what
would have happened.

As to the question of whether a rider should spend all her time working
on a hard problem worth more points (by the current system) or attempt
many easier sections ... that is clearly up to the rider and the
strategy she uses.

I believe a rider going only for the hardest problems is still
displaying all around skill. Those hard lines typically require a number
of the basic trials skills in order to complete them successfully.

One issue that I do think that has to be addressed is that of ties. The
2003 and 2004 TOque Games both had ties for top spot in the expert
category and the sport category had multiple ties aswell. There was a
tie for top expert spot at Motorama. It's great that we have the option
of a tie breaker line or PRS (which I think is a great idea), but out of
the 5 or so trials events that I know of (2003/2004 TOque, Unicon, 2003
NAUCC, 2004 Motorama) that have used the u-rating system 3 of them have
had ties and typically the top riders completed all the lines.
Competitions need to be setup so that ties don't happen at the majority
of events. Either more lines need to be setup or lines have to more
difficult or idealy both.

One observation I've made about course and line setup is that it's the
top riders that typically do the setup and rate the lines. While I'm
sure every intention is made by those individuals to create difficult
lines, subconsciously I would guess that they are relatively confident
that they will be able to pull the line off.

At this years TOque games I was almost positive that we would not have a
tie for first in the expert category due to the fact that we split the
classes up which allowed us to create more difficult problems for the
experts. But alas, I was wrong. With just seconds to spare Ryan
completed the last line which Kris had cleared just minutes earlier.

That being said I think the addition of some hard lines would have made
all the difference. I think one of the goal trials organizers should aim
for is having more lines setup that can be humanly completed in the
alotted time.

Now that there are some trials events outside of the Unicon and NAUCC
circle we really have the chance to try different systems and ideas.

Carl
Just wait for TOque Games 2005!!


--
muni_guy - Carl Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
muni_guy's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/77
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/31759

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

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

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

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

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