shred 30 score

[Anz]

You forgot to mention Dragon and Zipper set

I'd say that there are four different Butterflies: None X-body set OP and SS Butterflies and X-body set OP and SS Butterflies.
That would be somehow fair, I think.

Well, I'd count Forehead set Butterfly also unique...

Hand set Double Down is a tough one to judge... it wouldn't be fair to count as unique.

[james]

Anyone who disagrees with me is a turkey, especially you Mr. Randall.
Anssi, what did I say about jobs? It's useless!

For Randall and Anssi: So you're basically saying that if I set a butterfly from an outside stall it's a new move, or if I set it from my head, or hand, or elbow, or ass. ALL different moves. Well then I guess if I do a little foot wiggle before I dex it's also a different move, or if I wave my hands up and down while I dex that's also a different move. Any slight deviation in the cosmos makes a different move.
The fact is, a core move is NOT defined by it's STARTING location. Very simple. A torque is a torque no matter where you set it. The move changes when you change the END location in relation to the dexes. That's how all core moves were created.
Observe:

Let's circle the bag once, from out to in, and catch it on the same leg (toe) that does the dex

set>out-in>same toe : this is what's known as a legover.

Let's circle the bag once, from out to in, and catch it on the opposite leg (toe) that does the dex

set>out-in>op toe : this is what's known as an illusion

Now let's circle the bag from out to in, and catch it on the same clipper that does the dex

set>out-in>same clip : this is what's known as a grifter

Now let's circle the bag from out to in, and catch it on the opposite clipper that does the dex

set>out-in>op clip: The type of dex must be specified, but you either have butterfly (hip dex) or reverse whirl (knee dex)

The same can be done for in-out dexes giving you: pickup, mirage, drifter, whirl
The same can be done for the ending 'osis' which gives you the following moves: out-in: reverse blender/refraction, flux
in-out: blender, torque

All core moves are derived from changing the END location in relation to the DEXTERITIES, just like Jon said and showed with offishall rules booyaa!

Jon I will have to disagree with you on the Schmoe=Magellan issue. Sets define moves as well.

[Outsider]

You forgot to mention Dragon and Zipper set

Good call! Thanks.

The way I see it is kind of a philosophical problem. I would say that the way you would like to interpret what counts as unique means that we've got to accept too many things as unique (the butterfly from various sets, including forehead, could easily apply to osis, torque, and every other possible trick). It is a slippery slope. Once you start down it, it can be hard to stop, hard to draw a line anywhere. I would like to put more strict limits on it so that "unique tricks" need to have more difference from one to the next than its setting surface in order to count. This way, the line is drawn, we already know right where to start including or excluding stuff.

Whats more, in your interpretation, the following situation could be a real problem:

Hand set Double Down is a tough one to judge... it wouldn't be fair to count as unique.

In my interpretation, at least, the answer is very easy to see. Its clearly not unique, and nobody needs to discuss it or wonder about it.

[Anz]

James: please look at the post I made just before you

Jon: Yes the line must be somewhere. I think that those limits I gave to Butterflies should apply to all moves.
That would mean also that DOD, Paradon, DDD and Barfly would be all unique tricks.

[brian relly]

John, are you saying moves with pixie sets and moves with stepping sets should be the same move?

Yes, Stephen, thats what I'm saying. At least so far as scoring a shred contest is concerned.

I disagree. The sets are done differently. You can't master pixie sets and then suddenly be a master stepping setter, without ever practicing stepping.
I think most would agree that stepping is harder than pixie.

[james]

Anssi: Please look at my post after your post and before your next post. And when I say look, I mean read.

[bob]

I agree with everything jon says except the setting differences. I do think that stepping and pixie (as the examples givin) should count differently, however I also think that all 4 traditional double butterflies (done on both sides would be 8 uniques) should only count as 2 uniques. The same way that butterfly in all those instances would count as 2 uniques. But we are also going to run into a problem i think with whirl. because if we apply this thought to whirl then toe set whirl and paradox whirl are going to be not unique, except one would be one more add than the other. I dont know if the solution is to consider every whirl on one side as one unique or if it is to count the paradox whirl as a unique and then the other 3 on that side as a different unique. I don't particularly like adds, but in a situation like this we have to look at them since the competition uses them. still with this instance we create another double standard.

so the question is, can you have 2 moves be not be unique, and be different add counts?

bob

[Anz]

Well I've read them both. Now twice.

[qphox]

The individual setting surface doesn't matter. It's location does.

If I do a toe set ss butterfly, I would consider that the same as...knee set ss butterfly, or oustisde set ss butterfly. It's all based on sides rather than surfaces.

The only time it gets interesting is when it's set from a "non-side", a la chest, forehead, crease in jeans...I'm not sure what would happen here.

Also, that wa a good wuestion with the handcatch > double down. What happens in real life when that occurs?

[Jeremy]

Basically I think that the easy 3 add moves - butterfly, osis, drifter, whirl, ducking and diving clippers, dlo, symp mirage - there are probably more that I can't think of - should not count as uniques if set from toe and clipper - so you can only do two uniques with those moves from the standard sets - one on each side. If you're setting from a non standard set then I think they should definitly count as a unique since this encourages people to do more unusual sets. I'm not sure if inside stall should count as standard or not. Basically there should be a list of moves that can't be done as uniques from a toe and a clipper - basically all the easy downtime moves and ducking and downtime clippers. It would be stupid to extend these rules to all moves because some thing like clip set swirl and toe set swirl are completely different moves and feel way more unique than say the difference between ripwalk and legbeater.

[Outsider]

Bob said:

then toe set whirl and paradox whirl are going to be not unique, except one would be one more add than the other.

and

so the question is, can you have 2 moves be not be unique, and be different add counts?

Sorry, Bob, but that is not what I said. Nor is it what the rule says. Read it again;

Unique Move
For the purpose of Composition Judging, a unique move is any move containing an add value whose add components are different from any other move done in that performance. Spin directions and leg direction in dexterity moves are considered different; moves coming from a different set are not unique unless that set forces another add component (i.e. body, in the case of "paradox" moves) to be added

Again, its very clear. A different set does not make a move unique unless the different set results in another add component, like a paradox add.

qphox said:

Also, that wa a good wuestion with the handcatch > double down. What happens in real life when that occurs?

Thank you. And I assure you this is not merely a hypothetical question. I have seen this happen in shred contest. I do not know how it was scored. I wasn't doing the scoring.

Jeremey,
You're still talking about a double standard. "Moves that I find easy should be counted one way. Moves that I think are harder should be counted another way." Its nothing personal, but I don't find your own opinion of move difficulty to be a firm logical basis for a ruling like that.
I'm looking for something more universal here.

Still, I appreciate that ideas people are bringing up. This is one of the better discussions on this particular topic that I've seen.
I find Anssi and Kevin's position that there are basically four positions to set from:
non-cross-body same-side,
non-cross-body op-side
cross-body same-side and
cross-body op-side,
to have some merit. It could almost be said to be a logical and consistent solution, though I still have some problems with it.
I also like Jeremy's position that the setting surface doesn't matter unless its a non-standard setting surface (like setting from a flapper?).
However, I find both of these positions (both with some merit) to be more-or-less diametrically opposed to each other. Interesting, no?

[Jeremy]

Jeremey,
You're still talking about a double standard. "Moves that I find easy should be counted one way. Moves that I think are harder should be counted another way." Its nothing personal, but I don't find your own opinion of move difficulty to be a firm logical basis for a ruling like that.
I'm looking for something more universal here.

Still, I appreciate that ideas people are bringing up. This is one of the better discussions on this particular topic that I've seen.
I find Anssi and Kevin's position that there are basically four positions to set from:
non-cross-body same-side,
non-cross-body op-side
cross-body same-side and
cross-body op-side,
to have some merit. It could almost be said to be a logical and consistent solution, though I still have some problems with it.
I also like Jeremy's position that the setting surface doesn't matter unless its a non-standard setting surface (like setting from a flapper?).
However, I find both of these positions (both with some merit) to be more-or-less diametrically opposed to each other. Interesting, no?

Jonathananan ,

I think the fear of double standards is why there should be a "these moves are too easy to have be able to be able to count as 8 different uniques in a shred 30" committee - rather than simply going by my views. The fact is that some moves are eaiser than others. For example toe stall is clearly easier than tunguska (alpine predator) - Nobody could disagree with that. I think there are a number of 3 add moves that everybody once they get to a certain standard finds easy. For example I think that most people agree that from standard sets you should only be able to do 2 unique butterflies. The same goes for osis and symp mirage I think. The other moves I mentioned - dlo, drifter, ducking and diving clippers and whirl might be a little debateable. But I think the majority of players who can consistantly score shred scores over 150 would agree that those moves are too easy to to be able to do 4 - 8 ways unique.

Frankly I will never agree with a system that means you can start off a shred 30 like this:

rt toe>op side butterfly>ss butterfly>op side butterfly>ss butterfly>op side butterfly>pdx mirage>op side butterfly>pdx mirage>ss butterfly>dlo>dlo>ss butterfly>dlo>dlo>same foot osis>same foot osis> op foot osis>same foot osis>op foot osis>symp mirage>symp mirage>op foot osis>symp mirage>symp mirage>same foot osis>...

thats 25 "unique" moves for a shred 30 score of 150. Add pdx whirl>ripwalk>sidewalk>blur>dimwalk>blurry whirl>ps whirl at the end and you score 200 points for 32 moves - This would be enough to win almost any tournament and would have placed in the top 3 at worlds this year I think - but it's basically cheating in my opinion and I would score it at 95 adds, 32 contacts, 17 uniques = 145.5 - which is a much more realistic score in my opinion.

[Outsider]

Jeremy, you said:

I think the fear of double standards is why there should be a "these moves are too easy to have be able to be able to count as 8 different uniques in a shred 30" committee - rather than simply going by my views. The fact is that some moves are eaiser than others. For example toe stall is clearly easier than tunguska (alpine predator) - Nobody could disagree with that.

And you went on about what tricks should not be permitted to be scored as unique and gave an example why.

I agree with everything you said that came AFTER the part I quoted. All along I have been advocating the same thing. Its your reliance on a committee that is problematic to me. Some committe that decides on a list of tricks, one-by-one, and presumably must meet again somewhat regularly in order to keep up with the changing game. And probably will make biased decisions simply because of who is on the committee. And probably will make some mistakes. And when is this committee scheduled to meet, anyway? And where? And who is on the committee that decides who gets to be on the shred-exclusion-committee?
And there is bound to be disagreement amoung the committee. On the other hand, if we were to actually observe the rules as they appear now, with no change and no committee meeting... this whole conversation would not be taking place because every example would be easily determined by any one person fluent in freestyle. SETTING SURFACE NOT WITHSTANDING, ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THE MOVE THE SAME OR NOT? Your worse-case scenario would clearly not be allowed by these rules, and all those other ducks and whirl and such you mentioned would also be excluded, and all kinds of other stuff that passes for unique but isn't really, or is but just barely. Hell, even I can do both ripwalks and both dimwalks in a combo, and even I can do that schmoe-magellan-parkwalk-sidewalk combo, and I'm not even any good at pixies OR stepping sets. There is too much stuff that would have to go on your committee's list, and my way gets the same results without having to ask the committee. Plus, it has the benefit of being an objective standard that can be applied to any new case that comes up without asking for the opinion of some chosen group of qualified shredders. A committee is going to make arbitrary decisions and will need to be consulted for every case that they forgot to deal with at its last meeting.

"No time to discuss this with the committee!"

- Han Solo

Everybody that wishes Jon Schneider would just stop grinding that old axe of his, raise your hands! (but please don't forget that it was Nasty Nate that re-opened this old can o' worms again; thanks alot, Nate... I just can't get enough of them yummy worms... and just where do you stand on this one anyway, Nate?)

[Jeremy]

pixie sets are clearly different to stepping sets though. You only have to compare ripped warrior to phoenix to be able to see this. Moves with a different up time component are definitly unique.

I would say the IFPA would decide who is in the "shred 30" committee. Non IFPA events can make up whatever rules they want.

I mean ultimately toe set butterfly and clip set butterfly are different moves - you have different technique and foot work for doing them. Just the fact it is that those moves are so easy that they shouldn't be both counted as uniques. Dimwalk and ripwalk are also both easy - but not nearly as easy. Butterfly is easy out of any move - there is not a single move I can think of that I couldn't hit easily hit butterfly out of (providing I can hit the first move) - Blurry torque>ripwalk is a hard combo for me. Shooting dlo>dimwalk is a hard combo for me - those moves can have some difficulty if you hit a hard move before them.

Shred 30 isn't about who can hit the most variety - it's about who can hit the hardest 30 second run. If somebody hit consecutive nemesis' for 30 seconds I would have no problem with them winning a shred 30 - the fact is it is much harder to hit all different moves than to hit all the same move - that's why uniques are counted in a shred 30 - but there are some moves that are so easy that hitting them in a shred 30 isn't hard at all - we need to make sure people can't "cheat the system" to win - but hit a shred 30 in the spirit of what it's meant to be judging.

This is why I'm in favour of subjective judging rather than arbitary judging - Obviously there might be problems with subjective judging - just like with routines and sick 3 - but we can also finally get rid of adds altogether and it's the job of the tournament director to make sure they have experienced people to judge the events who know what they are supposed to be judging.

[HG]

Dimwalk and ripwalk are also both easy

HEY NOW!!!!!!!

[Allan]

Jon, you are so right on with everything you've said. People stop arguing with pure logic!

And since World's is an IFPA event, judged by IFPA rules, am I reading correctly that Honza actually beat Vasek in Shred :30 this year? Because DOD is one unique move whether you set it from toe or op clipper.

Keep in mind people, that this is not a new discussion. We had this debate on [email protected] before most of you knew what "footbag" was and the rules were developed from years of actual tournament experience. Just because something is "old school" doesn't mean it doesn't fit into "new school". Fundamentals are just that.

Footbag is actually far more simple than we are making it.

[Allan]

haha - Jon, call Daryl and talk some sense into him! I just told him about this thread and he was thinking that paradon is unique from barfly. I explained it to him, but he doesn't really care enough to argue with me about it.

Anyhow, back to work.

[shreddaily]

And since World's is an IFPA event, judged by IFPA rules, am I reading correctly that Honza actually beat Vasek in Shred :30 this year? .

THATS what I was going for when I made this post. We can definatly argue about wheather they are unique or not, but I was under the impression the IFPA rules said that they were NOT unique, thus someone should check the scores!

Although I guess most of you think its a mute point because you think they are all genuine,(deep down I do too) but I accept the rules and think the worlds shred 30 should be scored right.


EdIT: So as long as we're sure the rules say they aren't unique, somebody should doublle check my scoring. This thread might be pointless if Vasek got 225 without the uniques.

[Jeremy]

I think it says a lot that as far as I can see there is no official definition of what is meant by "unique" at the IFPA home page - footbag.org - and that the 3 time world champion did not know what the official definition of "unique" was and that the tournament directors/judges at the IFPA World Championships did not know what the official definition of "unique" was.

As I have mentioned before - there is in my opinion an enormous problem with the lack of transparency of judging at footbag tournaments - especially IFPA tournaments. The crap people come up with about it being hard work and the judges only being volunteers is bullshit. The judges at a local music eisteddfod spend 9 hours a day judging without getting paid - that are volunteers too - listening to high school kids play bad music - and yet manage to give a much more transparent and understandable reasoning for their results - such that you know what you have to do to win and you know why you finish in the position that you finish in. What's the point of competing if you don't know how you're being judged?

edit: moved to general footbag where this topic belongs. I'll leave a shadow for a while so you can find it

[Outsider]

I think it says a lot that as far as I can see there is no official definition of what is meant by "unique" at the IFPA home page - footbag.org

http://ifc.footbag.org/article-5.html#508

and that the 3 time world champion did not know what the official definition of "unique" was and that the tournament directors/judges at the IFPA World Championships did not know what the official definition of "unique" was.

I can't speak for the champ or some of the top contenders, though I think they could be excused as the rules are printed in English, and that is not their native langue. As for the judges, I believe they know perfectly well what the IFC rules say, but choose to ignore them in this case since they do not like that rule. Consider the response I get whenever I assert the rule in similar discussions we've had here on Modified. People get upset by it. I think some take it too personally. (This is understandable too. I also take footbag personally, and can see how my position on this concern can seem like criticism of how they play [it can sound like I'm saying "you don't have as much variety as you think"]) Lots of people don't like the rule, and state publicly that they themselves would not follow this rule when scoring a shred contest.

I think it says a lot

I think it just says that footbag players find it easier to change the rules simply by ignoring the ones they don't like, rather than engaging in discussion with those on the IFPA freestyle committee. http://ifc.footbag.org/roster.html
Some talk about starting committees for one reason or another (deciding which tricks are too easy to count multiple times in shred, deciding what official names of tricks should be, etc.). In this case, the committee already exists and you can join it, or at least speak with those on it, if you wanted to go further than just talking about it here...