Ranking the difficulty of transitions

brianbear · Post by **brianbear** » 22 Sep 2010 21:44

i have actually thought about it a bit, and basing footbag on physics is insane.
The question is, how much better would it be compared to the add system?
There would still be obvious subjective flaws, where people find the physics of spinning and twisting easier than the physics of fast mutli-dexing and vice versa. It might be slightly better than the ADD system, but i doubt it would be worth it.

More than anything, top players not in the finals and retired top players need to judge. they know whats difficult regardless of a scoring system.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 23 Sep 2010 11:32

[sarcasm]
..."Hey Kenny, you got some free time to come over here and check out the difficulty of this combo?"..."Oh, you've never hit that combo?"..."Hey Vasek, I know you can hit everything, you got some free time to travel to every event and do this judging thing for us?"..."My bad, didn't know you were so busy having a life." LOL
[/sarcasm] Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn't resist.

Michael Jordan does not have time to travel to every Basketball event and tell the refs how to do their jobs. Why should we expect any different? No one in this sport is 100% qualified to rank the difficulty of every single move based on personal subjectivity. Physics is objectivity to the fullest. What I don't understand is the resistance to the idea of change?

Ultimately the goal is to create a viable SPORT complete with rules, a difficulty system, master trick list, etc...

Post by **Zac Miley** » 23 Sep 2010 11:43

well, routines should just be killed altogether, but that's my opinion. I don't care who judges those.

Circle should have a difficulty formula (like shred:30 but better) as well as subjective variety, style, and execution points.

Sick 1 and Sick 3 (which need to be sanctioned, they're the most public-friendly events we have) should have a difficulty formula and execution subjectivity, guided by a chart.

physics is a great argument and a good theory, but as someone else said, there are other factors that make tricks hard which can't be ignored (obscurity of certain movements, etc).

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 23 Sep 2010 12:54

Right Zac! I think the obscurities also fall under the law of physics. Nothing escapes it. I see the point being raised, but movement requires work which can be measured.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 23 Sep 2010 18:19

Ok - now I've got a bit more of an idea of what you're intending.

Obviously I disagree with scrapping routines but as you note that's a seperate argument (at least for the most part).

I would love to see a better formula than the current shred 30 formula - it would have to capture difficulty, variety and drops better than the current one and it also has to more easily administered - you won't be the first to try and if I could see how you'd be bale to succeed I would have tried myself.

I've consistently argued that the way circles is judged as was judged in its earlier incarnations places impossible demands on the judges and needs to be re-thought entirely.

But the real crux of it is I'm still not convinced about the physics - exactly what laws are you thinking of employing - and are you talking about how those laws interacts with the bag - the dexing legs - both? I just don't see how this can work in any practical, usable way - other than to describe what's happening in the jargon of physics.

I guess I'll see when you've got something together.

brianbear · Post by **brianbear** » 24 Sep 2010 00:50

i'm sorry i made the topic change a bit much, BUT
I realize there will always be controversy with judges.
Look at the olympics. Bribery and nationalism has taken hold of a few judges in a really negative way.
I think judging would be way better for at least worlds if:
The top non-qualifers for finals judged.
I am not saying they have to be vasek, but people like boychuck and marcin who clearly understand difficulty despite "ADD systems" and I am sure physics has an influence on their perception of difficulty.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 24 Sep 2010 05:55

[thoughts]
physics could measure the parabola of the bags trajectory and the energy required. The width of the base from stall to stall should be no wider than the width of the player's body from clipper to opposite clipper to be considered a standard bag path.

Physics can measure the timing and energy required to complete a dex at a given point along that parabola. Physics can also measure the same for uptime versus downtime.

Obscurities like rake versus swirl, dragon versus doof versus clipper, pdx versus standard, can all be measured. Body movements and the energy and muscles required can all be measured.

What you do with the data and how that translates to a difficulty system is where I feel the controversary stems. I almost feel like an independent body like "Sports Science", the TV show, should be commissioned to address our specific needs and recommend a possible solution.
[/thoughts]

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 26 Sep 2010 17:37

They're the sorts of measurments I expected you were referring to and I agree with your assessment of where controversy will arise - my feeling is that the controversy and disagreement would be insurmountable, leave alone the question of how these measurments are then applied to judging.

Different styles and body types create problems with notions like "standard bag paths" (among others), which might make some sense for some moves, cannot be applied across the board. And this before you even consider what extent each notion should influence a broader assessment of difficulty.

Even assuming it was possible - would players deviations from these standards be deductions? How would these things be measured at a comp? In theory, some deviations from standards would increase difficulty and others would decrease it - how could such a system operate as a practical judging improvement on the shred 30 formula or provide a more practical and rounded comp format than routines? Moreover transferring footbag into these terms greatly reduces the artistry that can be involved in a good run - where moves can be hit with higher or lower sets or caught at different distances from your body for greater effect.

It just confirms my sense that this would be best undertaken as an excersise in description and analysis and not developed into a method of scoring.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 26 Sep 2010 17:55

They're the sorts of measurments I expected you were referring to and I agree with your assessment of where controversy will arise - my feeling is that the controversy and disagreement would be insurmountable, leave alone the question of how these measurments are then applied to judging.

Different styles and body types create problems with notions like "standard bag paths" (among others), which might make some sense for some moves, cannot be applied across the board. And this before you even consider what extent each notion should influence a broader assessment of difficulty.

Even assuming it was possible - would players deviations from these standards be deductions? How would these things be measured at a comp? In theory, some deviations from standards would increase difficulty and others would decrease it - how could such a system operate as a practical judging improvement on the shred 30 formula or provide a more practical and rounded comp format than routines? Moreover transferring footbag into these terms greatly reduces the artistry that can be involved in a good run - where moves can be hit with higher or lower sets or caught at different distances from your body for greater effect.

It just confirms my sense that this would be best undertaken as an excersise in description and analysis and not developed into a method of scoring.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 27 Sep 2010 08:54

[I am referring to the difficulty portions of a technical comp like shred-30. Or the technical side of circle comp.]

Thinking about advantages like 'zoom' instead of 'spin then set' are minor, but still measurable. I look at it as what was the intended purpose of the trick performed and did it deviate from that purpose? If you meant to do a legbeater, then it should look like a legbeater by the "agreed upon definition". Natural advantages like double jointed-ness are competitive benefits to the player, however, if a small low atomic flick to butterfly is the players "legbeater" and he intended it to be so, and the "agreed upon definition" says it should be "peak time", then it would deviate from the definition and therefore either be consider "un-clean" and warrant a deduction or be labeled a different move and judged accordingly.

[campaigning]
I think that as moves and definitions are agreed upon, then they should be labeled and placed in the "Big Book O' Tricks". Every trick deserves the right to have a rank and file among it's peers. As new tricks are discovered, let them be measured, ranked and filed!
[/campaigning]

If and when that ever occurs, you could apply a similar method for ranking transitions and have a somewhat complete list of numbers from which to create more accurate scoring for technical difficulty.

I realize that physics is not that easy to determine, and I am ok with some "really really really" good players sitting at a table for a few days and hammering out something a little less precise and probably more practical, but that hasn't happen yet.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 27 Sep 2010 18:58

Nor would/should it happen. Assuming it would be possible to reach a workable consensus (which it wouldn't be) you'd end up with gymnastics or diving - where innovation and style is stiffled and everyone just trains and competes to accepted parameters. I enjoy those sports but for different reasons to footbag and I don't think they offer a relevant template for footbag. A deduction style judging system simply is not necessary for footbag to improve as a sport, it is just one possible path forward - and it is one that would greatly undermine the freedom players have to perform and evolve their skills.

Every trick desrves to be hit in a variety of manners - something like drifter can legitimately be hit mid or down time (the "physics" are significantly different in each case and the relative difficulty is arguable)and it would be entirely subjective to make it otherwise and say one way is right and the other is deduction and if you say both are right then when do you allow those stylistic differences and when don't you - it becomes arbitrary. Moreover it's counter-productive to incorporate those differences in some physics based system as it would become even more unwieldy for little gain.

If you're willing to drop the physics and just have good players decide on a list you open yourself up to all the same errors and problems currently existing in routines, which despite generally being judged by knowledgeble and/or skilled footbaggers, still suffer from inconsistency. We fail the current system it hasn't failed us. We can improve and make it work without changing it in order to maintain the good things about the sport - its ability to rapidly change and evolve, and the diversity of styles.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 28 Sep 2010 04:57

I too enjoy the freedom of freestyle. No one is judging you in a casual circle of friends, unless you hold yourself to a higher level. In those circles is where innovation and style are created.

In a sport, there must be a standard. When is a smear a smear? Does bag height matter? How clean is clean? And how do you know?

We must as a sport make these decisions or at least agree upon them to make things legit.

If a new system is not feasible, small tweaks to the add system could be instituted as well. X-dex helped, but it's the relationships between adds that needs to be adjusted. Maybe the system needs 10 points/adds max and all tricks fall below. I want to see osis down graded and reverse whirl down graded. Does that make sense?

Post by **Zac Miley** » 28 Sep 2010 06:00

As far as deductions go, you would be deducting from what you see, not from some set list of tricks. If the person tells you what they're going to do beforehand, it's much easier to deduct from, also. That can only really be done in sick 1 and sick 3 though.

So if it's like a pixie, jog in place, huge mirage thing, that is harder than a regular smear. Unless there are balance or cleanliness issues, it also wouldn't be deducted just because it is different from the norm.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 28 Sep 2010 18:31

But there are clear examples that I provided above that show the effect of that style of judging on a sport - I don't see how you can simply ignore them and say footbag will be different becuase we'll be free to be innovative in circles. If you envision a future where competitors are training and working towards major competitions like elite athletes in other sports surely you can see that imposing a template will narrow styles down - yes players could do whatever they wanted but in the future you envisage the best players will be training towards the comp you envisage and there would be little reward for innovation and individual style and great reward for keeping within the narrow definitions and parameters you set out - and if you don't make them narrow you might as well stick with what we have and try to improve it within the current parameters.

I understand how deductions could work - I dispute their relative value to a system where you make a positive assessment of value based on established criteria (ie the current situtation). If you hit an unusual smear it may be a style thing or it may be a lack of control - these things can be judged according to their difference in the current system and its no issue. In a deduction system based on physics it is an issue - in a deduction system not based on physics if you don't make it an issue your just employing the same system we currently have in the other direction (taking points away rather than awarding them) so why would we change to that? You'd still have judges making calls and they'd still make errors.

I don't think the weaknesses of the current comps is a lack of standards. It is the difficulty of applying them to such dense routines/runs.

It seems like the idea has already changed quite a bit from the original intention - it was orginally about links and physics, you've mentioned that the physics bit could be dropped, you've mentioned routines are not a concern and should be dropped (not going to happen), now you've mentioned the possiblity of tweaking the add system further. We've (people interested in improving comp) have been through all this before - none of the ideas listed above are comlpetely new approaches to making a comp format and none have resulted in a format that has been adopted - not because of some unwillingness to change but because the alternative formats are not as good. I don't want to have to call my runs before hand, I want the freedom to improvise and adapt to how I feel in the moment and I suspect lots of players agree (not all, but a significant enough number to make such a comp devisive and prevent it from supplanting routines). I am just as confident that a judge can award me what a trick is worth as well as they can deduct points from a previously set score - and that this would be just as difficult across a longer run whichever way its done - so why not spend the same effort you'd spend overhauling everything - why not spend that effort working to identify the problems that exisit in detail and with evidence from past comps then identify ways to make improvements instead of relying on a general impression that there is a problem and then proposing various ideas that intuitively seem like they might be able to help. I understand that more detailed work and though goes on behind the posts, but the method is not rigorous enough to be productive.

boyle · Post by **boyle** » 28 Sep 2010 20:02

Just a note on that

I am not saying they have to be vasek, but people like boychuck and marcin who clearly understand difficulty despite "ADD systems" and I am sure physics has an influence on their perception of difficulty.

Marcin was a judge in the finals of worlds. Last year you had people like Dan Ednie, he was in the final in 07.

Not all of these players will want to judge either, and they shouldn't have to if they don't want to. It may help, but people won't take it seriously if they are forced to do it.

Post by **Zac Miley** » 29 Sep 2010 03:55

Generally, it's pretty obvious when something is done on purpose also. Gymnastics' deduction system is much more restricting than it should be, I agree. Footbag's soon to be deduction system would allow for differences in tricks, not the rigidity of gymnastics/figure skating/whatever else you want to say.

While gymnastics is a bad way of judging, skateboarding is equally bad on the opposite side of the spectrum. Complete subjectivity largely unrelated to execution is a terrible way to judge anything. I don't think anyone will disagree with that, or was even really proposing that.

The topic is going in circles, the project itself is on a certain trajectory. I don't think what we're doing is something that you've done before.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 29 Sep 2010 15:16

A starting place for evaluating links would be to make a table of links by
redefining a trick to start at the peak of the bag, and end at the peak of the bag. This captures the link around a stall in the middle of the trick.

From there, you now would have a listing of the downtime of one move, and the uptime of the next.

Start with the basic add system, and then incorporate additional adds for changing rotation and stalls that require the catching to snake around a mostly planted leg.

Now order them by adds, and look for the ones that are obviously out of order, start looking for a correction to the error.

I think that would be a good start to evaluating links.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Sep 2010 14:35

I think going in circles is what footbag is all about. But seriously, this is why I started this thread, to get multiple perspectives. I am willing to discuss going in any direction that will get us closer to a sustainable result.

However, it appears that the elephant in the room is difficulty at the moment.

I don't think coming up with a new system would be limiting at all. I find the current system to be limiting.

Examples: Current System

Osis - 3adds
rev up - 3adds

Pixie Sym rev whirling rake - 6adds
Nemesis - 6adds

Something is a miss here. Rev up is not something you can pick up and learn day 1, while you can get lucky and close you eyes and hit an osis. Pixie requires less effort than stepping, certainly less than furious. Then you get an extra add for the rake?

In a shred 30 I would be more likely to pick osis over rev up and certainly would not attempt nemesis.

I don't agree that each of the following are on the same level:

- del 1add
- xbd 1add
- bod 1add
- dex 1add
- xdex 1add
- pdx 1add
- uns 1add
- sym 1add

You can't do more than 1 del per move, and you can't do more than 2 sym per move. Yet you can do up to 5 dexes (so far). My point is that they are not equal. As dexes go up you lose timing for each. So 2 dexes done throughout the entire trick allows for more time than a furious set. Yet they are scored the same.

Fail!

In a physics based system (hypothetically), you could fix these relationship problems and use exponents instead of addition. This would bring some separation between a 1 dex move and 3 dex move that is more than simply 2 degrees away.

Example of something different:

- smear (2 dexes 1 up and 1 down) 4 points
- furious legover (3 dexes 2 up 1 down) 7 points

These numbers are just pulled out of the sky, but the point is to show a greater degree of separation. You would see differences between blurry whirl and stepping far rev whirl and be able to explain why other than just saying that one has a pdx and the other doesn't.