What's so appealing about Shred 30?

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 03 Mar 2006 08:16

I really don't like Shred 30. One of my main beefs is that it's too much of a pain to score.

It also doesn't allow for varieties of styles or tricks. Last week I watched Evan Lovely totally play against his style in his shred 30 because if he had played his way it would have taken too long.

A really good short shuffler will almost assuredly win over a really good tall spinner every time because they can fit in more tricks in 30 seconds.

Too much money goes toward paying out Shred 30 than other events.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 03 Mar 2006 08:23

i dont really like shred 30 either...obviously part of the appeal is a long string is appreciated at least as much (if not more) than a single big trick, or even 3 of them. for me, the best solution has always seemed like removing the time limit and putting in trick limit instead, like 30 tricks, 20 tricks, 15 tricks, or maybe just a wicked string of your ten biggest, styliest (sp?) tricks, that could be shuffle, a lot of ducks and spins, a lot of style components, a high add count, or a combination of all of that. 10 tricks is plenty to showcase a wide range of skills.

Bander87 · Post by **Bander87** » 03 Mar 2006 08:28

I'm not speaking from any kind of experience, but I think the reason why people do like shred 30 is that you can see more solid results with a single score. It also gives some of "lower" players to step up to a more even playing field.

Caleb · Post by **Caleb** » 03 Mar 2006 08:47

I heart shred 30! As an avid shuffler, I love to see the the extreme technical side of footbag. Shred 30 may not be much for creativity but there should be at least ONE event for a balls-out, machine-like, sprint of footbag awesomeness. Yes, in high level shred 30 it's totally choreographed, but thats actually kind of cool. Where else are you going to see 30 consecutive, unique, tripless contacts than in a Vasek shred 30. You just hate shred 30 because you always get screwed into scoring it, Brad!

I'd feel pretty shitty too if I had to watch the Cleaver tear his blades through the floor panels over and over again. Haha.

My only gripe with shred 30 is that I think it should be shred 45 again. Shred 30 IS easier to score than shred 45 (and I think that's the only reason it changed) but it's just too too close anymore. I don't think the competition was ever designed to have a completely unique run. It's way too close to call who could win. Only 1 or 2 points of separation anymore. Scream it from the mountain tops "Shred 45! Where have you gone!?"

Also, there already is a trick limiting competition: Big 3, Sick 10, etc. Doesn't anyone want to see how fast you can go? I love watching Penske play even faster than he normally does. When he's in shred 30, he almost hits 2 tricks every second.

Anz · Post by **Anz** » 03 Mar 2006 09:07

I've never planned shred30, but I've competed three times - always scored something like 100 points

I guess one thinks it sucks when he doesn't plan it and plays sucky.

sen · Post by **sen** » 03 Mar 2006 09:17

I've done one Shred30 in my life. It wasn't scored because I wasn't anywhere near the level fo the other competitor's. That said, I really like to watch it. I like to see the speed and energy.

Also I like that player's can easily compete against themselves in it. Try to beat there personal best. Leading up to CSS I really enjoyed reading Ken's blog as he practiced his Shred30 and tried to beat his personal best score of 206. Also seeing how he tweaked his run, or knew he could tweak it if he wasn't right on was interesting to me.

I like having the concrete numbers that you can look at and see what is happening. It makes it possible to see how you're doing compared to someone you've never competed against, but know what they scored. You can't do that with a judged routine.

I feel that there should be one event based on technicality instead of judging.

HG · Post by HG » 03 Mar 2006 12:17

what if you are a really really short spinning/ducking/shuffler

cd · Post by cd » 03 Mar 2006 15:33

I like it because it is so fast and intense. It's the most fun for the spectator in my opinion. Routines can sometimes get kinda boring and there's always so much waiting and setting up in between them, while shred is one after another with no delays. It's exciting. And I like that there's at least one kind of event thats 100% technical, although I respect routines as the main event and it is the best in a number of ways.

Shred30 is not perfect though. It's already been said, but the main problem is that you have to limit your variety in order to score well. I think the solution to this is in how we define uniques, as they are a HUGE impact on the scoring. Maybe it would be best to score according to "unique concepts" as opposed to "unique tricks"...

(what I mean is that you shouldnt be able to get a high unique/contact ratio just from doing lots of combinations of pixie, stepping, mirage, butterfly, whirl (for example). Instead, you can only get credit for doing those concepts once (on each side, of course). Obviously this idea needs a lot more developing... maybe its a discussion for a different time and place.)

but yeah, shred30 is awesome

Uranos · Post by **Uranos** » 03 Mar 2006 17:44

I love shred 30, but these days i think most of the rankings is decided by whoever doesnt stuff up, rather than whoever aces it (with exceptions of course).

Like at Aus nats apart from DYlan's awesome shred, 2nd place was 131 and so on.

But reguardless, i love watching people go out for 30 seconds giving it their best shred .

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 03 Mar 2006 22:16

Splint wrote:A really good short shuffler will almost assuredly win over a really good tall spinner every time because they can fit in more tricks in 30 seconds.

which is why shred 30 is my favorite event.

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 04 Mar 2006 13:18

if the time constraint is removed and shred 30 becomes thirty tricks, what's to stop someone from just hitting 30 huge tricks and taking 3 minutes? would there be a limit of drops to deter this?

i suck at shred 30 and get frustrated as all hell, but it's still pretty fun. I'm all about 30 seconds. it would be rad if someone busted an all ducking shred 30 despite the lower score they'd receive. it's about pushing yourself, not winning imo.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 04 Mar 2006 19:20

I think its b.s. when people enter competition and pay money and then they arent even scored other than to say they arent in the top 10. Everybody should get a score/rank so they can tell if they improve next time.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 05 Mar 2006 16:28

I like shred 30. I think it offers an important counter point to routines and sic 3. I think that together those three comps are a good all round test of footbagging skils, while alone each have key limitations. Thats not to say it couldn't be improved but i think a shred 30 -like comp holds an important place in footbag comp.
I think technology will help with scoring as more ppl have access to laptops and cameras i think it will be eaiser to score as you could just stream it to a laptop and run it back at half speed and score it on a custom shred30 score sheet, it would take all of 90 secs of scoring. I also think practice is important - the same as shredding, judging and scoring takes practice.
I'm sure a tall spinner/ducker can prepare a solid 220+ shred 30 which could compete at the top level, it's then a matter of execution come finals time. Dylan Fry scored 215 or thereabouts at Australian Champs this year and didn't go totally unique or dropless (if i remember correctly) - sure he also shuffled but he did have a ducking section and some spins. Perhaps stricter unique rules will force more variety. The way I see it the unique rules should be designed to promote the use of as many different move groups as possible (by group I mean spins, ducks, double down, stepping, pixie, attomic etc.) and punish players who can only shred within a couple of these groups. Perhaps any moves with the same jobs should be counted as the same move. This has an important downside in which alot of difficult moves become almost pointless to attempt (but no-one hits many of them in shred 30 as it is). Also it make scoring slightly more labour intensive which is definitly not what we want to do. Or maybe something like only 5 moves from any one set can be counted as unique, now that would be tough, but would force variety.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 05 Mar 2006 17:37

Basically, when someone says "my game is not built for shred 30 because Im a spinner and ducker- its not fair," I say too bad. You didnt fully develop your repertiore of tricks. Sucks to be so limited like you are. Being a spinner/ ducker is no excuse for low Shred30 scores.

I suck at Shred 30. But the reason I hate Shred30 is not that I suck at it, but because Shred 30 is no longer shred- it is routine 30. When players map out 30 consecutive unique tricks, how can you call that shred? You wouldnt call a repeating drill shred, would you? To me, practicing a Shred30 takes all of the interest out of it. Of course it makes you more confident come competition time though.

What Id like to see is a Shred30-like competition where there is a theme that is not discussed before actual competition starts. To elaborate: Players learn that the theme is "dlos" so in their shred 30s, they are rewarded for doing many dlo tricks (similar to being rewarded for uniques). The coolness of this idea would be that there is no preparation so everyone starts on an even playingfield.

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 05 Mar 2006 17:41

wouldn't that lead to biased judging?

for instance: such and such was being an asshole to me earlier. I know he sucks at eggbeaterss. let's give everyone that does eggbeater variations extra points.

sen · Post by **sen** » 05 Mar 2006 17:43

Everyone wouldn't start on an even playing field. Some people are still better than others. And as it is anyone can practice their Shred 30 and therefore be on an "even playing feild" with those who have their's mapped out.

The other problem you brought up isn't really a problem with the event itself, but rather with the name. And definition of words. I've always thought that Shred meant to play as hard as you can. Does that mean it can't be pre-meditated?

Just some thoughts.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Mar 2006 17:45

I think the appeals of shred 30 are obviously the intensity of the event and the definite score given. I think it's important to understand that all sporting events have set rules that give particular people an advantage. For example I'm not that good at volleyball because I'm too short and I gave up playing because of that - my spikes were too easy to block and people would spike over the top of my blocks. You could concievably come up with rule changes that made height less of an advantage in volleyball but that would change the event. Shred 30 is basically a race as to who can score the most in a set time. If you change it so that people can take more time the event is no longer a race. It's like changing the 100 metre sprint to an event testing who can take the least amount of steps to cover 100 metres.

From a judging/organising point of view I think the significant problem with shred 30 is how long it takes to calculate scores and I think a better solution to video scoring would need to be figured out if shred 30 were ever to become an event at a more mainstream sporting tournament (ie. the olympics). With enough experienced judges I think it would be possible to calculate scores within 1 minute but it can't really be done at the moment.

I think the other problem with shred 30 is the use of the adds system - which I think really controls what kinds of tricks people hit. For example if I were doing a really intense non competative shred I'm sure a move like whirr would be in there somewhere. In a shred 30 it's far too much of a risk for no benifit to hit that move in a shred 30. In many ways I'd like to see a change to the shred 30 judging system so that judges give subjective scores (just one for technical ability) instead of using the add system but I think this would defeat one of the main appeals of the event - a non subjective result. However perhaps a solution would be to do the same as a sport like ski jumping where competitors are given a distance for how far they jumped plus a subjective score for their style. Maybe something like changing the formulae so it was adds + adds*judges score/contacts. This would make scoreing much easier and the judges score would be to encourage players to hit more variety and harder moves.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 05 Mar 2006 17:45

There could be a bunch of downtime components tossed into a hat and one is drawn at random prior to the event.

OR

The winner could be determined not by how he/she does in one themed- Shred30 but by his/her performance over 5 trials of themed Shred30s. The winner would have the highest average over the 5 different-themed shreds.

Both of those ideas are random. And a computer could generate a "random" downtime element as well. There would be no bias.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 05 Mar 2006 19:46

Sporatical_Distractions wrote: it would be rad if someone busted an all ducking shred 30 despite the lower score they'd receive. it's about pushing yourself, not winning imo.

do you remember my shred 30 at css 2005, ie css6???
unplanned, dropless, no double dexs

150 something....

hahahah, the crowd liked it, but my wallet didn't.

To JM: plan a shred thirty you wimp!

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 05 Mar 2006 20:57

css6 was my first css

modified

What's so appealing about Shred 30?

What's so appealing about Shred 30?

Re: What's so appealing about Shred 30?