|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas for improving the U System for trials
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
29er Tire Study. Wanted! Active 29er riders and design ideas | U-Turn | Unicycling | 19 | March 8th 05 02:54 AM |
9 speed chain on 8 speed system | bicyclette | Techniques | 3 | February 19th 04 02:35 AM |