ADD system changes brainstorming

[Lackey82]

I'm not diverse enough to have an opinion on the [uns] debate, but one thing seems to make a lot of sense to me:
[Del] is a redundant add, and basically brings nothing of worth.
Just about every trick in every video I watch (not all, but just about) is a delay, and the ones with kicks are fundamentally harder. They are all done with a bag actually designed to delay easier.

Maybe this is just some sort of subconscious effort to differentiate footbag from kicking a hack around, maybe soccer too, just thinking out loud as it were...

[sniikeri]

So if dex>delay tricks in a run didn't get an add for the delay, and the dex>kick tricks did, would this mean that you get rewarded for footed tricks (midstring or not) too?

[Lackey82]

Maybe there could be a provision on [kick] adds, I mean there would have to be some definition, maybe it would include that the bag has to be hit again after the kick, or maybe it has to have upward motion past a certain extent. I dunno, any thoughts?

[dyalander]

Would a kick add count everytime you kick the bag?
I don't thing it would be possible to set up a definition which excluded just kicking the bag and sketchy stalls that end up kicks.
Lackey82 wrote

the ones with kicks are harder

I don't think the add system can be changed to reflect difficulty. Its only a means of scoring shred 30, and one way of many, of understanding whats going on in moves regaring their components. I agree that a kick is a defineable component, but turning it into an add would not be feasible for shred 30.
Clearly you recpect the difficulty involved in alot of flyers, I think that's enough. Difficulty is something we can demand of each other. The same way that people push each other to go guiltless etc, they should push each other to be imaginative and hit difficult moves not just big add moves, and I think alot of ppl do that already.

[sen]

Adds reflect components in a move, not the difficulty of the move.

I think we need to remember that. Especially since the difficulty changes from person to person. I can't imangine osis being a two. It's just too hard for me! And the thing with kicks . . . they are a coponent so they should be adds. So should Rolls and maybe unusual positions (not sur eon that one).

Just my thoughts.

Also, why wouldn't kicks getting an add work for shred 30??

[dyalander]

One reason i say kick adds wouldn't work for shred 30 is because many players like to kick the bag a few times before starting. My understanding is that shred 30 time starts when the first add is hit.
I guess it's not such a big deal to force players to put it on their toe and start as soon as it comes off. Perhaps it might even be a good way of doing it.
The other reason is that personaly I like shred 30 being something distinctly different from routines and sic 3 and even ripp'n run type events. I like that it forces players to work within limits. Kicks getting an add would mean players would be punished less if they bail to a kick during a shred 30 including if they sketch out a move and don't manage to hit the stall. And also I don't mind the fact that flyers don't really have a well valued place in shred 30 and don't feel compelled to see that change.

[dyalander]

sorry, i hit submit twice by accident.

[Jeremy]

sorry, i hit submit twice by accident.

What happened? You used to be good...

[Tsiangkun]

kicks aren't tricks.

Kicks used to link tricks are tricks.

It's totally possible to play using tricks instead of stalls, without resorting to the flyers, and it's hard.

It's these links that are completely unrewarded by the add system.

[Outsider]

Tsiangkun gets it.

In my previous post I was not saying that kicking tricks are harder than stalling tricks, or that kicking tricks deserve an extra ADD, I was just trying to point out that stalls make it easier to hit multiple sophisticated tricks back to back.

Consider how common it is to do about thirty guiltless tricks in a row with most of them being unique (there must be over a hundred pro competitors who can usually manage to do a guiltless 30 Second Shred with a majority of their moves being unique). Now just consider how much more difficult it would be, without using any delays at all, to do a string of 30 tiltless tricks (flying or otherwise or both) that were mostly unique. 30 tiltless with even 1/5 being unique would be difficult. The point is simply that stalls make linking tricks much easier, yet make all those linked tricks more valuable and theoretically more difficult, yet without the stalls all those links would become harder rather than easier.

Since we were brainstorming about changing the scoring system, I just wanted to put the idea out there to give everybody some food for thought. I'd say its done just that. Yet many seem to have missed my point, so I'd like to take this opportunity to say thank you to Tsiangkun, 'cause its nice to see that somebody out there understands me. Thanks, Cameron.

edit:
Tsiangkun said:

It's these links that are completely unrewarded by the add system.

To me, its not so much that the non-stalling links are unrewarded, but rather, all the stalling links are over-rewarded. We're rewarding those tricks for being easier than the alternative, which has just started to seems silly to me.

[janis]

I don't think the add system can be changed to reflect difficulty. Its only a means of scoring shred 30, and one way of many, of understanding whats going on in moves regaring their components. I agree that a kick is a defineable component, but turning it into an add would not be feasible for shred 30.

Why wouldn't it be feasible?

Perhaps a kick by itself doesn't warrant an extra add but doing a kick before and after a trick deserves an add if the trick is made considerably harder. I know that the add system is meant to be about the number of components in a trick and not difficulty, but there should be a kick add in particular circumstances. A good example is double around the world:
toe del>dex>dex>toe del this is 3 adds because of the delay at the end wheras kick>dex>dex>kick is currently 2 adds as the kick is not recognised as a component even though it makes the trick way harder.

My 2cents is that a kick deserves an extra add if it is used to link tricks where it would be way easier to stall.

[King Monkey]

When do you stop then? How many kicks between tricks (ie. linking them) get extra adds before you say 'thats too many kicks, no more adds for you'?

[JoshMan01]

jh

[dyalander]

I understand that linking tricks with kicks is substantially harder that linking shred with stalls and that its not just about flyers. But like I said, I am happy with shred 30 being shred with stalls. So with that in mind I don't think the stall add should be removed - furthermore, removing the stall add would mean sketched out kicks at the end of moves would not be punished in shred 30, so not only would intended kicks and stalls be of the same value, but so would mistakes that don't end up in a drop ie, slops.
Janis wrote

Why wouldn't it be feasible?

I answered this before. Basically what it comes down to is that you guys want to be able to do flyers and link you're shred with kicks in shred 30, and I don't think that its a good direction for shred 30 to take. If you don't think it has anything to do with shred 30 then i don't understand why you want to change the add system. If its just about getting stylers to diversify then theres another thread with suggestions for that, and i don't think changing the add system is the best of those suggestions.
JoshMan01 wrote

Like the clipper equivalent of a mirage is... drifter

- no its not, the clipper set equvalent of mirage is cliper set mirage. Drifter is the clpper set equivalent of toe drifter. In both cases I feel that the clipper set equivalent of these moves is easier as do many people. However I don't feel that is necessary to change the add system to reflect this because i don't think that its such a big deal if shred 30 is clipper dominated.
JoshMan01 wrote

Like blurry whirl is easier than blurry whirl rake since the adds are used in the same way, but blurry whirl is much easier than pdx high plains drifter even though they use the same components

I think i understand what you're trying to say but these two moves don't use the same components. I think you mean to say that there are a number of moves which have the same jobs notation, but that are substantially different in the real world. We all get this, but I don't get why its so important for the add system to get it - the only thing it will change is shred 30.
I don't understand why all you guys are so obsessed by wanting the add system to describe on paper what we can all plainly see and feel. Is shred 30 that much of an abomination to you guys, or do you really think the add system means more to footbag than simply a way of scoring shred 30. If its the later, surely changing perceptions of the add system will be more useful than changing the system itself, because even if you change the system it will only affect shred 30, it will have no effect on the masses of shredders who don't shred with adds in mind except when they're competing in shred 30. I know I'm over-simplifying and clearly alot of shredders consider adds while striving to go guiltless, fearless, etc, but do you really think its all about adds, and that these shredders don't innovate or strive for variety because there too busy chasing adds. Consider the fact that all you guys recognise difficulty and respect it in face of an add system which doesn't. So go out and do difficult tricks, just not in shred 30, in shred 30 consider the rules and maximise your score.

[Lackey82]

Heh...

I argue for a distinction between being obsessed and just blowing steam off to other people who actually get what you're saying.
I try to theorize about ADDS to my girlfriend. She leaves the room.

Anyway, it IS just brainstorming. We know these things will never change, but discussing opinions and the way these opinions' expression encourages thought and diversity in the footbag community is a productive excercise nonetheless.

[Jeremy]

I think it's a very good point that the only thing that adds effect is shred 30. Apart from that I think it's much easier to change attitudes than to change the add system. The add system is meant to reflect difficulty and it does that with the theory that the more components to a move the harder it is - this is why there is a pdx add and also why there is a proposed x-dex add which will no doubt become part of the official rules within the next year or two and is already accepted by many people including the Australian Footbag National Council. It is, of course, clear that while the add system works as a judgement of difficulty in many cases and is generally correct - there are lots of exceptions.

Reading through the proposed changes to the add system - I don't think very many of them are relevent to the current nature of shred 30s. The way I think of shred 30 is that it is a race to get the most points in a set time. I know some people would like to see that changed to a 30 contact event but in my mind that's a completely different event. The correct name for shred 30 is "timed technical variety competition". While I definitely see an arguement for encouraging more variety, I don't think that changes to the add system alone would have much effect on that - what really needs to happen is a change in the definition of what unique moves are. Already we've seen moves towards counting less moves as unique and I see that trend continueing. As I see it, most of the proposed changes are to moves that are unlikely to be used in shred 30s in any event because of the time taken to perform those moves. Because of the way the shred 30 system works - scoring a 5 add unique move in the time you could do 2 4 add unique moves would actually most likely lower your score. To win a shred 30 these days at a serious competition you need to score around 200 + which is about 30 unique moves of an add value of around 3.3 per move. If you allow for a drop or two you're really looking at a mainly tripless shred 30 - at least from the top players. How many of these proposed "more unusual" moves are easy to link to another genunie move. If not - there are really only a small amount of bails you can use to keep things unique. The way I see it - with the current definitions of "unique" and the current rules for shred 30 - it's really very unlikely that a player would put any no conventional moves into their shred 30s - especially if they're trying to win.

This could definitely change. I'd like to see a significant change of the rules for shred 30s. In particular a possibility is following other "freestyle expression" style sports - which is something I'd really like to see - and having a list of moves that are allowed to be hit in competition with specific scores for each of these moves. An active panel - presumably the IFC Freestyle committee would keep the list up to date and players could submit any new moves they wish to use in a shred 30 to that committee. I could see a great deal of opposition to this but I'd like to point out it's the way pretty much every single freestyle sport is judged - especially sports like diving, figure skating, airial skiing gymastics etc. (I've been watching the winter olympics and the commonwealth games trials a lot recently ).

Although it may take some large amount of initial work, once the system was in place it would result in much more accurate shred 30 scoring, as well as a much easier sick move competition which would be much more inline with other freestyle sports and give us a much greater chance of being accepted by the IOC - which is a long term goal of the IFPA.

The rules for freestyle footbag are definitely changing and will definitely change in the future. Considering the rules for a sport like cricket - which is hundreds of years old - are still changing today - a sport that is only 25 years old (realistically probably less depending on how you look at it) will definitely have a lot of changes to come.

My goal as a member of the IFC is to push freestyle footbag as a serious sport rather than a past time or hobby and I want to see rules that reflect that.

[sniikeri]

My goal as a member of the IFC is to push freestyle footbag as a serious sport rather than a past time or hobby and I want to see rules that reflect that.

Me too (although I obviously am not a member of the IFC).
This is not a response to Jeremy's last post then:
I want footbag to be a sport too - and stalls are a part of it IMO. I think it would look plain aweful if people shredded with non-flyer dex>kick tricks. I know that if the dex>kick tricks would get rewarded better (or the value of stalling tricks would be decreased), people would still probably use as much stalls as they use now, because they make the shredding easier more stylish.

Adds aren't a hardness factor. That's why x-dex feels a bit artificial - it's supposed to make adds more based on the hardness and not only on the components.
The question is, do people want adds to be a hardness factor or something that only tells how many components a trick has. Some people have already made an initiave about a whole new hardness factor separate from the adds. The other question is, do we need a hardness factor at all or should the rating be always done individually, for example by the judges in the competitions.

[janis]

In particular a possibility is following other "freestyle expression" style sports - which is something I'd really like to see - and having a list of moves that are allowed to be hit in competition with specific scores for each of these moves. An active panel - presumably the IFC Freestyle committee would keep the list up to date and players could submit any new moves they wish to use in a shred 30 to that committee. I could see a great deal of opposition to this but I'd like to point out it's the way pretty much every single freestyle sport is judged - especially sports like diving, figure skating, airial skiing gymastics etc. (I've been watching the winter olympics and the commonwealth games trials a lot recently ).

I have some experience with figure skating as I did it for a while. The thing is, you can have a close to complete list of the ice skating moves as there as considerably less combinations of tricks than in footbag. for example there are 3 toe pick jumps(toe loops,flips,lutzes) and 3 edge jumps (salchows,loops,axels), there are variations on these but not all that many. In comparison if we considered say footbag tricks involving a jump there would be at least 100, probably more. In other words a list of permitted footbag moves would be way more restricting than in say figure skating
where a similar list could encompass a lot more (percentagewise) of the tricks that are out there.

Also if you wanted shred 30 to be judged like other sports that would involve creating artistic merit judging. Anyway what I'm getting at is that shred 30 is what it is because it is not judged like other sports.

I think it's a very good point that the only thing that adds effect is shred 30. Apart from that I think it's much easier to change attitudes than to change the add system. The add system is meant to reflect difficulty and it does that with the theory that the more components to a move the harder it is - this is why there is a pdx add and also why there is a proposed x-dex add which will no doubt become part of the official rules within the next year or two and is already accepted by many people including the Australian Footbag National Council. It is, of course, clear that while the add system works as a judgement of difficulty in many cases and is generally correct - there are lots of exceptions.

Adds effect more than just shred 30, for example someone I know was asking me what easy 3 adds he try, also I have heard countless times references to guiltless, tiltless, etc., surely this has an impact on what tricks people try. Perhaps it is easier to change attutidues, but in the interim if people wanted more variety in the game it would be better to change the add system a bit so people could encorparate some more variety in their guiltless/tiltless runs and in shred 30 if they felt like it. I think topics like this http://modified.ca/footbag/viewtopic.php?t=12213 show the influencec of adds.

With x-dex and x-spin, which aren't a component in themselves being added to shred 30 scoring there could be something like x-kick where there is an extra add for some moves where the trick is made much harder.

I understand that linking tricks with kicks is substantially harder that linking shred with stalls and that its not just about flyers. But like I said, I am happy with shred 30 being shred with stalls. So with that in mind I don't think the stall add should be removed - furthermore, removing the stall add would mean sketched out kicks at the end of moves would not be punished in shred 30, so not only would intended kicks and stalls be of the same value, but so would mistakes that don't end up in a drop ie, slops.

With x-kick there would be no extra add for a slop, and besides I don't think anyone was suggesting slops be given an add.

[shreddaily]

I guess I'm the only one who LIKES THE ADD SYSTEM!!!!!

Every time I watch a video of a killer shredder, espesialy finlanders, it reasures me of how great the add system is. I find nothing boring with fearless/tripless comos.

I started playing footbag to emulate the greats, mulroney, irish, ect... not to create a new language.

[dyalander]

Look janis clearly we simply disagree on a lot of things and its not going to be productive to just go around a merry-go-round of posts, but i'll answer a couple of things in you're post anyway because i've always liked merry-go-rounds, they make me feel merry:

With x-kick there would be no extra add for a slop, and besides I don't think anyone was suggesting slops be given an add.

Of course no one wants to give slops an add, but you can't just have a definition for a kick add and tack on "oh and it doesn't count slops". Until I see a reasonable definition that isn't problematic, i won't think a kick add is a good idea, and even if i do see such a definition as i said, i'm happy for shred 30 to be kickless so i still won't think its a good idea.

Also if you wanted shred 30 to be judged like other sports that would involve creating artistic merit judging. Anyway what I'm getting at is that shred 30 is what it is because it is not judged like other sports.

I think what jeremy meant is that he wanted difficulty treated the same way that it is in other sports. He is happy for routines to be judged for artistic, and for shred 30 to be something different, judged on an accumulation of points, but such that the points reflected difficulty in the manner that it is reflected in other sports.

Perhaps it is easier to change attutidues, but in the interim if people wanted more variety in the game it would be better to change the add system a bit

Either its easier to change attitudes or its easier to change the add system. Clearly you believe the latter, otherwise you wouldnt suggest we do something more difficult while we wait fot the easier thing to be done - that would make no sense whatsoever.
I feel more merry already.