Proposal to Change Shred 30 is not too far off . . .

[Senor Grommet]

This is taken from the Nick Landes-created thread about how many moves fit in a Shred 30. These are my thoughts on why Shred 30 needs to be changed in order to fulfill it's purpose as the premier freestyle event to determine the best shredder:

"Again, this debate all comes down to the purpose of Shred 30. So, what is the purpose of Shred 30? I believe that Shred 30 is supposed to be the best method for identifying the best "shredder" in the game.

To ME, shredding implies the following: impromptu freestyle trick linking, a good percentage of hard tricks, use of ADD system to measure difficulty b/c no other scoring system is reliable yet, high difficulty throughout, go for as long as bag is off the ground.

What Shred 30 is NOT: speed based, style based, unique based, easy trick based.


If this is the case, to ME Shred 30 needs to be have a firm rule system that allows for the purpose of the event to be fulfilled. I believe that one way Shred 30 can fulfill its purpose is by limiting competitors to a maximum number of tricks that can he hit within the time limit. Secondly, I believe that uniques should play little to NO ROLE in determining the winner of a Shred 30 competition. As it is today, uniques basically comtribute to a doubling of the score, or something ludicrous like that. In place of the "uniques" part of the Shred 30 scoring system, I would propose a "repeated tricks" component, where players would be slightly penalized for repeating the same tricks in a Shred 30.

For example, who is shredding harder?:
Player A: butt>infinity>osis>op osis>pdx mirage>toe drifter> whirl>drif>whirl>pdx illusion>dlo>pixie clipper
Player B: ripwalk>rip>sidewalk>blur>legbeater>blur>pixie butt>ripwalk>sidewalk> ripwalk>sidewalk>ripwalk


To me, it is easy to see that Player B is shredding harder, as exemplified by the tripless level of play. But with Shred 30 scoring, Player A gets credit for 12 uniques and player B gets 7 uniques, so that their total scores (below) are not representative of the level of shred difficulty.

Scoring breakdown is here:
Player A: 36adds + (12uniques x3add ratio)= 72 total score
Player B: 48adds + (7uniques x4add ratio)= 76 total score
(where Adds + (uniques * add ratio). Add ratio: adds / contacts.)

So, while Player B throws down only 4 adds, he/she only narrowly beats Player A who only throws down 3s. That’s bullcrap. Since measuring the level of shred difficulty is what a Shred 30 is supposed to be all about, it is clear that the current Shred30 scoring system is outdated!!!"

[Sporatical_Distractions]

To me, Shred 30 does serve its purpose in finding the best shredder.

Are the top shred30 scores at worlds not accurate in their placement of the best shredders? Uniques make it so you don't have to strictly stick with high ADD tricks. it gives you more options on how to apply shred30 to your own style

[habitat]

ripwalk>ripwalk>spinning osis!!!!

[Skippy!]

Very interesting. I don't know much about shred scoring, but this seems like a pretty legitimate point being brought up. I'll be interested to see how this turns out.

[Colin]

We should be counting components instead of tricks. As Jeremy pointed out, it's a problem that a butterfly can out-score a ripwalk. This wouldn't be so if we counted 'butterfly' as already having being performed after say, a ripwalk or a dimwalk.

Instead of using a unique 'counter' variable in the scoremula (patent pending on that compound word), how about a component variance variable? Ie, it would punish repeated use of any component, be it stepping, pixie, whirls, etc, and reward balanced and varied play.

[Jeremy]

Rather than looking at the formulae - look at the results

Results at worlds 2005
1. Vasek Klouda (CZE) 235.600
2. Jan Weber (CZE) 232.000
3. Jorden Moir (CAN) 210.250
4. Ken Somolinos (JPN) 196.903
5. Felix Zenger (FIN) 178.500
6. Mikko Lepistö (FIN) 175.000
7. Juho Marjo (FIN) 157.733
8. Toni Pääkkönen (FIN) 144.571
9. Yves Kreil (GER) 130.593
10. Matthias Schmidt (GER) 119.429

I would say that definitely that top 3 is very accurate and the rest of the results are also fairly accurate taking into account some players choked and consistancy is definitely a part of being on of the best shredders in the world.

[habitat]

Results at worlds 2005
1. Vasek Klouda (CZE) 235.600
2. Jan Weber (CZE) 232.000
3. Jorden Moir (CAN) 210.250
........

If only some americans went to worlds ...

[sampotter]

James, you forgot places 4-10.

[sidekick]

how about Jim, at montana he got like a 230 or something crazy, and he had one drop at the end. He could have definatly gotten over 250 if he didn't get that drop. JIM IS THE MAN! (just in case you didn't know that already )

[Jeremy]

how about Jim, at montana he got like a 230 or something crazy, and he had one drop at the end. He could have definatly gotten over 250 if he didn't get that drop. JIM IS THE MAN! (just in case you didn't know that already )

Yeah Jim is good. He can't be given a result at worlds if he's not there though. I don't understand your point. I'd definitely rate him in the top 6 players in the world if you could get every player in the world to the one event.

[sidekick]

I guess my point is the same as yours, I just wanted to give a shameless plug to jim for his crazy score as well. If EVERYONE in the world could go to worlds then there might be an accurate measure of shed 30 ability. The fact that Jim is able to put such crazy scores out there is insane, and it makes me sad to see that there is no sponsorship for him to go to worlds each year (among others like Jordan and Flash)

[Senor Grommet]

Well, they should just start saving early then, or busking on the streets of their hometowns in an effort to make money. "Send the hometown boy to the World Championships to bring home the gold!"