Ranking the difficulty of transitions

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 13 Sep 2010 10:52

Inspired by Zac's pdx blender vs. barrage thread, I got to thinking about the overall difficulty of trick transitions in general.

I am sure there are personal opinions about it and this is the thread to express and discuss those opinions. Feel free to use any system of explanation or measure you would like, be it ADDS, the DS, physics, etc...

What I like about discussing transitions is that there is currently no system for measuring the difficulty of performing one trick into another.

Here are some basic questions to get things started:

How do transitions affect the difficulty of a combo?
How would you rank that difficulty?
Should there be a measure for transitions at all?
What would you consider an easy transition?
What would you consider a difficult transition?
If transitions were scored, how would that affect trick selection today?
Can a system of measure be instituted that would cover all possible transitions? Or are there just too many to try and rank?
Would an osis > pdx mirage be the same transition as pdx torque > pdx mirage? Why or why not?

I have some basic ideas for how I feel transitions affect game play, but I am curious first to see how they are generally perceived by other players.

Post away!

Post by **Zac Miley** » 13 Sep 2010 13:13

I think when this does happen, it is an important area to get correct, because we can't have a link system lagging behind the difficulty system.

This is also something I've attempted (with Matt, very crudely) that is difficult to do.

We did it by assigning 'multipliers' to certain types of links (osis>spin, non-nop downtime>set, basically anything which requires an opposing movement). This made the value of each link relative to the trick that comes before and after, which I think is the best way to do it.

As far as which parts of the tricks are counted, you take anything that happens in the downtime portion of the trick before the link and anything in the uptime portion of the trick after the link. So paradox torque would get a higher link value than osis, but it wouldn't matter if you did spinning clipper or spinning whirl out of it, you would get the value for the spin.

The theory behind all of this is nice, but I think actually assigning values to each link 'type' is the most difficult part.

Matt K · Post by **Matt K** » 13 Sep 2010 14:25

I agree with Zac.

brianbear · Post by **brianbear** » 13 Sep 2010 15:01

This would be soo difficult to do.
I will be using zac and i as examples:
Zooming out of mobius is easy for me, and i think difficult for zac.
Pixie out of dlo is difficult for me, and i think easy for zac.
There is too much of gap in what different players find difficult vs. easy to link to make an overall system for that.
I'll give it some more thought.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 13 Sep 2010 16:16

Exactly, Brian.

The link system has to be on par with the difficulty system because the link system is so much harder to formulate. It has the same problems that quantifying single tricks does, just more dramatic. My guess is that it has something to do with quantifying movements that happen in such a small amount of time, as opposed to tricks which are ~1 second.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 13 Sep 2010 17:14

It is impossible!
You can do the physics to figure out what "should" be easiest but that is a computer...
Different people practice different things. Some people may find
fairy butterfly> pdx illusion easy but I suck at those things. While torque>torque would be easier for me. See I can throw out 1000 links that I think people will disagree with what I find easier. Can you compare ripwalk>sidewalk to arcwalk>torque, symposium whirr> far clip totriple spinnijg clip> butterfly

Also what about people who have insane crank? I can bail to far frigid probably easier than far butterfly even with a new bag and new lavers. What about g units, quantoms, barefoot, lavers etc? I use lavers but all these things make some easier or harder.
Just an example but Can you really compare nemesis>clownface and arch nemesis>nemesis if you havent hit one? I cant.
I need to look in the physics of some of the moves to say how well it works with some of the moves I find hard and easy but that is just my two cents
I dont think the DS had anything on difficulty?
ADDS? How 'bout? DSC> spinning flapper vs. phoenix> spinning ducking osis??
Yeah...? Impossible! Here is a good one accurate difficulty system vs supernemesis

edit: after Matt's second post I am swayed.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 13 Sep 2010 18:01

If you've been in the game long enough, you can compare the things you are good at to the things that other people are good at and find similarly difficult tricks. For most things, people blow that out of proportion. I'm good at frantic and suck at atomic, but I still don't think Frenzy is easier than Atomsmasher in the larger picture.

Matt K · Post by **Matt K** » 13 Sep 2010 18:23

Obviously people are going to be good at different things based on their bodies and what they practice. Nick Landes is naturally double jointed, so he can do Dragons easier than people who are not double jointed.

However, there are objective portions of tricks that make them more difficult than others. Over the course of a career, you get a grasp on what makes tricks difficult, and you can apply these to any trick. No, neither Zac nor myself have hit Nebula, but we understand what makes it difficult, and we can compare that to other tricks.

brianbear · Post by **brianbear** » 13 Sep 2010 19:22

good points from everyone.
after some more thought I think that linking higher difficulty tricks (almost any fearless links) deserve something extra in general is an idea everyone can agree on. Linking most 3 adds on the other hand, doesn't deserve something extra, and I think a lot of people would agree with that.
(of course there are a few exceptions with really strange low add tricks)
more thinking...

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 19 Sep 2010 19:08

I noticed some references to a "difficulty system" - we don't have a difficulty system?! We only have the descriptive add system - which describes components but does not rank them in difficulty. The only other system for measuring difficulty in an objective way that I'm aware of is the shred 30 scoring formula, which uses adds combined with uniques as a measure difficulty over 30 secs.

So what is the intention here? If it's to have a list of links comparable to the add system (if so this wouldn't be that hard to do but it wouldn't have any measure of difficulty). But it seems to me the whole point would be to record difficulty in some way - I don't see how this would be possible as there is no simple objective measure of the difficulty of tricks or of componenets of tricks - only opinion. Sure, in many cases its obvious - nemesis is clearly more difficult than butterfly, but there are far too many cases where it is entirely subjective.

My final question is why? Why do you want an objective measure - what do you intend to do with it? Compete/Judge? Teach/train? Discuss and argue until boredom sets in then watch the thread slowly sink comfortable in the knowledge that you had the final say

I think there are more practical ways of improving judging, competitions, teaching and learning than centering on creating some universal measure of dificulty for the whole sport, but when it comes to discussion there are plenty of threads that show objective measures of difficulty will give you just what you need.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 19 Sep 2010 19:44

Despite misconceptions, the add system was supposed to be a difficulty system. ADD stands for Additional Degree of Difficulty. It's just not particularly accurate

Post by **Zac Miley** » 19 Sep 2010 19:51

The difficulty system will be something in the future, sorry I didn't explain.

It's counterproductive for the 'sport' (if you don't think footbag should be a sport, then perhaps you're right, but I think most people would argue that it is) of footbag to have such a shitty scoring system. Subjectivity makes people angry. Everyone hates routine judges, right?

If scores are given out by a computer, that's hard to argue against/hate. Obviously we would have to make something that is able to do that first, but it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that an objective scoring system would be a waste of time. If you think there is a better way to score tricks without pissing footbag players off, then think of one. There is no way to subjectively score tricks in footbag. It's even harder than doing it objectively, which is why the ADD system has such wide acceptance even though it's so shitty.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 20 Sep 2010 18:29

A bit of a long post, but you seem to be really interested in this and I think if you're going to put effort into it you should think more carefully about precisely what you hope to achieve and whether its possible before you get started.

Firstly, I should have been clearer - I am aware that the ADD system was intended to measure difficulty, but I think we're all aware that it failed. Given its failure it is only used as rough guide to difficulty at most, and only used in the scoring of shred 30 as part of a broader formula designed to mitigate its failures somewhat. If the intention of this proposed system would be to improve shred 30 scoring then you would need to make it easier to use in realtime while also being a better representation of the difficulty of shred 30 attempt than the current formula. Personally I think shred 30 isn't too bad for what it is but hey if you come up with something better of course that would be awesome. I'm not sure you're on the right track to achieving it becaus e I think it would be too complicated to improve on the current situation. Regardless that doesn't seem to be the intention anyway, judging from you post above.

Secondly, I don't think everyone hates routine judges - everyone hates poor judging. These are very different things.

Thirdly, the ADD system is not a scoring system - if by "shitty scoring system" you mean subjective judging - I don't agree that for footbag to be a better sport or to progress as a sport it needs objective scoring - there are plenty examples of established, well run, commercially viable, entertaining and fun sports that have subjective judging, and there are also plenty of examples of objectively scored sports that still have haters and controversy.

I think to paint an objective system as a controversy free system that won't piss anyone off is niave at best. It will piss off everyone who doesn't agree with whatever you subjectively decide to make its core. It will also piss everyone off while they argue about the limitations of the proposed system.

I presume you mean there are no good ways of subjectively scoring tricks in footbag. I disagree and think routines will become better judged in time provided people get involved in judging and make the right improvements.

More to the point - there are only subjective ways to score footbag in terms of difficulty, because difficulty is a subjective thing and any objective measure or set of measures you base your system on will have been subjectively selected from the range of possibilities.

If you want to improve competition by improving judging I think it would be far more productive to start by studying carefully the existing rules and improving and expanding on them in ways that make it easier to judge and judge consistently. Removing judges is not the answer to poor judging, improving judges is the answer.

There is no better system than some fantastic mythical objective measure of difficulty - unfortunately, such a thing can never exist - there will only ever be flawed systems and that's fine - but this whole process will only be productive if you isolate exactly what you want to get out of it - reducing haters and anger is too vague.

Better competiton is a good start - it sounds like you want to have someone competing, someone recording it then simply adding up numbers for a score. So this would not affect routines as we know them as they also measure artistry and degrees of execution which require judges in much the same manner that current comp does (although you could have deductions for execution errors it would still require a judge enforcing a subjectively establish template of technical perfection). I think most footbaggers think there should be a comp format that measures artistry. So even if you created this system we'd still probably want to keep routines.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 20 Sep 2010 18:53

Judges should not disappear, but their choices need to be limited. I think we're meeting somewhere in the middle now, after both of our first posts were pretty extreme.

I agree it's impossible to make a perfect scoring system, but the current one is so flawed (I'm talking about ADDs) that something radical needs to be done.

This goes beyond competition, really. The usefulness of ADDs is really restricted to telling outsiders what makes a trick difficult, or why a trick is more difficult (dimwalk is a 4, and blurry whirl has this other component so it's a 5! see!). As footbag gets more sophisticated, we need a scoring system able to adapt to these new sophistications. As Damon is hinting at, the body movements and physics involved is really what needs to be understood and quantified.

It's definitely a large undertaking and I (more than me) am taking it seriously, understanding that it won't make everyone happy, but also understanding that competition and our grasp on difficulty is so fucked up that something needs to be done before footbag can truly progress into 'mainstream' competitive sport.

Jorden · Post by **Jorden** » 21 Sep 2010 08:21

This whole thread needs a [nerd] emoticon.
Transition ADDs? Just...no.

By simply watching a player play you can tell how hard the transition is for them by how they make it look.

JM

Post by **Zac Miley** » 21 Sep 2010 08:32

Jorden wrote: By simply watching a player play you can tell how hard the transition is for them by how they make it look.

That's useless though. Could you tell me why, consistently and accurately for several different links, why one is harder than another, or why a completely different link is equally hard?

I'll agree that ranking links is close to going too far, but nothing decent has been created yet and people are already fighting against it. It's sort of like all these art school kids I go to school with refusing to be 'labeled' when they're so obviously already conformed (albeit some less than others).

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 21 Sep 2010 19:33

Judges need to share a conception of difficulty and artistry and cleanliness and all the things they are evaluating. If you were to go ahead with trying to come up with some systematic exploration of difficulty it could assis this - but not as a scoring system and only in so far as it would help individuals better understand the concept. You should drop the intention to quantify difficulty in a manner that would anything more than generally descriptive.

That said I still don't see how we're meeting in the middle - I don't see the need for a new scoring system for all the reasons I've outlined. And I think that if you're going to push ahead with this you should understand clearly that what you are doing is purely descriptive and should not be made the basis of a scoring system. Confusing these things was the mistake that was made when ADDs were conceived and you seem to making the same mistake again in the very attempt to surpass ADDs.

If you want to understand the physics and elaborate on what makes moves difficult that's great, but my point is that this will not result in a better scoring system, it will simply be another descriptive method.

I disagree that our understanding of difficulty (or lack thereof) is holding us back, particularly when it comes to competition. As Jorden notes, we know what is more difficult when we see and feel it. What prevents this being translating into a scoring system is that while there are large areas of agreement about this, there are also large areas of dispute and there always will be - the physics is only half the story - it also has a lot to do with individual players' physiology and training.

The level of difficulty of routines has seen a massive jump over the last decade and it's only natural that the standard of judging will lag. A routine technical score of 5-6 in 2010 demands a lot more than the same score range in 2000. I think there will be a slight lull before another prolonged period of significant improvement, but eventually it will top out and eventually judges will be able to apply the same standard of difficulty over a greater number of years.

I'm not saying don't go ahead and do it, I'm just saying be clear about what it is you're doing and accept that it would be best to stick to description rather than trying to merge description and scoring. If it is good enough your description might help people understand difficulty better and that greater understanding can be brought to bear via the existing scoring methods but I fail to see how it can improve scoring in a more direct way.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 22 Sep 2010 03:35

dyalander wrote:As Jorden notes, we know what is more difficult when we see and feel it. What prevents this being translating into a scoring system is that while there are large areas of agreement about this, there are also large areas of dispute and there always will be - the physics is only half the story - it also has a lot to do with individual players' physiology and training.

Training and physiology can't escape physics.

There is no singular person in footbag who can identify difficulty accurately subjectively for every single trick. Sometimes we can 'feel' it, but what good does that do us?

Your view is that I'm pushing for another ADDs, which is very wrong. The entire thought behind them (while a good thought for both, I suppose), is completely different and I think this new idea can result is something much more comprehensive and vastly more useful over several areas.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 22 Sep 2010 06:16

IMO if there were only 1 player in the world, then subjective scoring would work. That player could "feel" his own strengths and weaknesses and judge himself accordingly.

Unfortunately there are more than just 1 player. As a means of measue we must (as a sport) find the least common denominator (a foundation) from which to build upon and judge.

ADDs did this. However, it is flawed.

IMO routines are/should be a technical beauty contest. It is 50/50 tech/art.

Any difficulty/tech system should only apply to the tech side of the issue. Let's not try and solve the artistic side of routines. Instead let's discuss the value of such a system within the context of shred 30 and circle.

I don't believe a "tie" is technically possible in a circle comp. Yet there it was!

...please continue

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 22 Sep 2010 20:58

Of course it is true that there are and always will be differences between individuals' subjective evaluation of difficulty - but that's beside the point -you are proposing to come up with an objective method, and I have raised specific reasons I believe that such a thing is impractical and impossible. In your replies I haven't seen any detailed or specific answers, only more reasons the current system is inadequate and general statments re-iterating your premises.

I've more than had my say - I'd have liked you to have answered some of my concerns in more detail as I've tried to be as specific as possible about them, but in the end if you were to go ahead they would be easy to evaluate against whatever you come up with and you can be assured that you'll get plenty of constructive criticism along the way whether you like it or not