Routines

[bustinjustin]

Who's up for a heated discussion?????????

Well first off I want to say that I don't think routines have a future in footbag. In theory they are a great personification of footbag, in reality routines are falling farther and farther away from the direction this sport is heading.
Ever since 2002 when Ryan M. got dissed out of his championship there has been a growing trend that footbag routines are being judged much more critically on their technical scores. Now I know difficulty is a part of judging routines but I think it should be the smallest part, if you want to exemplify your difficulty that's for shred 30, keep routines for style and performance. This was made abundantly clear at this years US Open where Dave C. did his usuall shred for 2 minutes and it was great but Jordan brought the house down with a variety of tricks that were way harder than most of what Dave was doing (has anyone tried to do a hip delay? Man those are hard to get consistenly accurate, and it was one of Jordan's drops) and quite frankly Im really dissappointed that Jordan didn't win as it seemed clear to me that he connected the most with the audience and presented a much more all around depiction of footbag. Sure he had three drops but he was going for it, he was going for the unconventional, he was putting something together that most people at his level can't even do (think outside the box). To me routines should be all about the all around performance not the shred!!!! Even back in 2002 that audience was its loudest when Ryan M. finished his routine and I think everyone was dissappointed Vasek won, I still am!, Because clearly Ryan had a better performance, Vasek's may have been more difficult, but it was Ryan that really won that day.
So my conjecture is that if this trend continues routines will eventually be phased out and these other competitions (like circle shred) will become much more dominant. I really don't think Routines represent who the best footbager is anyway, unless it's based solely on difficulty, but it's supposed to be based on the players well roundedness, which I haven't seen until Jorden threw down on sunday.
This would be a good time to mention that I have no problem with the judging from this tourny, it was great, I just have a problem with routine judging in general!!!!
I personally don't do routines any more because I don't think of them in terms of difficulty and I know I could never place well doing the type of stylie routine I would do. Just like Alex Z. for example, if routines were what they were supposed to be Alex would be one of the highest ranked player's but not the best player.
So you see there is a discrepency with routines that they are supposed to judge one thing but represent another. Until these come together I think routines are doomed. And I feel sorry for the players that have been victims of these judging atrocities.

now let's debate, because I know most of you will disagree
justin

[Colin]

'Choreography' is the among the lowest pursuits of athletics. If routines were worthwhile, players would be composing them for fun, posting them on the net, and receiving enthusiastic praise.

Leave the performance art pieces to Freddy Prince Jr.

Leave the endless controversy and embarrasment of routines to established (and dying) sports like figure skating and rhythmic gymnastics.

[sidekick]

Who's up for a heated discussion?????????

.............

now let's debate, because I know most of you will disagree
justin

I agree whole heartedly, while Dave is an amazing shedder, and had a very strong and very difficult routine, but Jorden's was an actual preformance, and it was very amazing. Please take no offence to this Dave, but I think that Jorden should have won. Routines should not be based on difficulty and execution alone, his routine (and as soon as you see a video of it, you'll know exactly what i'm talking about) was so amazing and creative, and it went with the song so well, that this is the side of freestlye that is truely freestlying, not free-super-hard-link-ing

[david]

Keep your opinions to yourself. If you want to change the sport, ask to be a judge, don't sit on the side and complain.

I did a routine I thought went well with the music. I did tricks that aren't hard for me because drops look bad. I don't like doing silly "creative" tricks that in actuality probably aren't hard if you put time into hitting them. I saw half of Jorden's routine, and I liked it a lot. Different strokes for different folks. He probably hit shit that was a lot better than mine. But 3 drops are 3 drops.

I just got home from the airport and I just want to thank you Justin for giving me something great to read when I walked in. It makes me feel really great about what I've accomplished.

David Clavens
2006 U.S Open Champion and Technical Whore of the year.

[C-Fan]

I heard that Dave just did blurry whirls for 2 minutes for his routine.

[bustinjustin]

Dave,
the last thing I wanted to do was to be critical of this judging, it is merely an example of what is going on everywhere. And these forums are for opinions and discussions, which I think this event desperately needs.
I might also add, Dave, that you did a great job and your routine was suited to win the open based on the current judging, im saying the judging is wrong, not you. If Judging was different coming into this tourny your routine would have been as well, but you were just following the example set before you where technical players win and performances fall short.

One last thing, what if the person that won a tournament was the one with the highest average. So the person takes a 1st in routine a 3rd in shred 30 a 3rd in sick trick a 2nd in rippin run and 4th in circle shred combine all those and derive a hard score then compare to the placings of the other players, the one with the lowest score is the person who didn't just do good in one event but who's well rounded game got them good placings in every event. Seems like it would be a lot more comprehensive representation of who's game is actually the best, rather than just who is best at routines.......
bring it on

sorry and thanks

[jon]

I like routines but acknowledge how difficult they are to judge. Footbag is a relatively young sport and as such newer and more creative tricks have yet to find their place in terms of difficulty when compared to more common moves. This is a proper for those that want to be creative. That does not mean we should abandon routines. The community will deside what it wants and how it wants to judge routines and that is fine with me.

What I would like to see is people leaving the idea of "connecting with the audience" behind. In no other sport do people care about this. A routine is a performance for the audience not a connection with them. A olympic figure skater does not connect with the thousands of people in the rink they put on a well choreographed show for them. Connecting with the audience seems rather hokey and contrived. I want a performer to leave me amazed not involved.

As for drops... I think it is widely agreed upon that they are the worst thing you can do during a routine (aside from sitting there doing nothing). It makes the performance less professional, and leaves the audience with the notion that the athlete has less mastery of his routine.

Newf raised some interesting points which makes me rethink my stance on the matter but more important then anything else that has been posted in this thread (including ken's comments) is that David is correct when he said:

If you want to change the sport, ask to be a judge, don't sit on the side and complain.

[bustinjustin]

I think in all sports the person who does the best usually performes to the audience the best, your right, connect isn't the right word, is the one that wins. Im not saying the audience is the judge or anything but that they know a performance when they see one, which is what routine is about.

I also wanted to add that I would not be a judge because at this point I am biased toward routines. I would also like to add that sometimes judges are biased, kind of like having your best friend on the judging panel *cough*sam*ahem sorry had something in my throut, and I don't think that should happen either. I really would have liked to see Steve Goldberg/Eli Piltz/and Kenny Schultz have judged the open but that's not to say it would have made a difference.
oh and im not complaining this is a debate
keep it comin

[david]

I don't need to defend myself. The people who were at the Open can decide for themselves. At the end of the day the difference is $50 bucks. Jorden is an elite shredder whether he gets 1st or last, and that same thing goes for Penske and all the other routine finalists.

If you have such a problem with shit you should become more involved in the IFPA, or in having routines at a tournament you actually run. And as for personal attacks like Sam being my best friend and that giving me an edge, you have no idea what you are talking about.

David

[sampotter]

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. First things first: I did not volunteer to be a judge for the routines. Red came up to me and really looked like he needed my help. Secondly, of all the people who would respond to me with this kind of bull shit, I didn't think it would be you, Justin. Whatever. I will say this only once: Dave and my friendship did not influence my decision-making in the least. The judging process was very, very difficult for me. If anyone knows that my judging could possibly be construed as biased, it's me. I didn't come to the fucking tournament to fix it, people.

That said, this was my judging logic as follows: Jorden had an amazing routine. It was extremely creative, there is no other way to cut it. He interacted strongly with the audience, and there's a lot of merit in that. Dave's routine was no doubt very technical and similar to Vasek's shred 120's. Yet, at the same time it was strongly choreographed. Added into the mix was Penske's routine which had just as much electricity as the other two. Again, the judging process was very difficult. All of the routines were winning routines, but what it came down to was control. Jorden's routine was fantastic, but the drops and slop was out of control (no offense, Jorden). People say, "Oh, three drops," but that was NOT the whole issue. The drops were on key sections of his routine. Furthermore, he slopped through and bailed in other important sections of his routine. Pepper that amount of fucking up through a span of two minutes and the frequency is much higher. Again, Jorden, I don't mean to rip into your VERY cool routine, but this was how I looked at it. Dave dropped once and did not slop at all. Furthermore, his single drop was very minimalized and didn't break the flow of his routine. Honestly, if I had to reassess my judging, the discrepency wouldn't be between Jorden and Dave, but between Jim and Dave. This isn't vaudeville, this is footbag.

Now, as for what other people thought, Mike Hansen and I were on point with each other. I'll let him speak for himself, though. Further, Justin, you say that you would have been more satisfied if someone like Steve Goldberg were on the panel... Well, pretty much as soon as I left the judging table I made a beeline for Goldberg and started into a deluge of panicy babbling about whether or not I made the right call and all he said was basically, "I felt it was exceedingly obvious who was first." Dave.

To further defend my judging, if people haven't forgotten by now, I judged the circle competition finals as well with Mike and Steve. Steve and my rankings consistently coincided.

That said, I wouldn't have judged if I weren't ready to defend myself and take some flac. If anything, the more debate surrounding this issue the better.

Peace,

[professor]

I don't think we should go into specific incidents here.

I think what Justin is saying is that the purpose of routines should really be examined. Are routines supposed to be geared toward the more creative/performance parts of footbag, or the more technical? As it is now, it seems that the technical aspect heavily outweighs the creative aspect and I think that is what Justin is frustrated with. Artistic merit seems to be based on how well the performer plays to the beat and that's it.

So, what are the routines' purpose? What makes a good footbagger? In my opinion there are 3 main aspects of a good footbagger. Creativity, Technicality, Consistency.

We have Shred 30 that judges technical merit and Rippin' Run which judges consistency. Originally the routines were used to decide the best overall footbagger, but I think now the circle competition does a much better job of judging all 3 aspects. Then the logical thing to do would be to make the routines judged on only creativity; so we have a balance:

Shred 30: Technical
Rippin': Consistency
Routines: Creativity
Circle: Technical, Consistency, Creativity

That's what I think would be the best solution. Any thoughts?

[dyalander]

I haven't seen either of the routines discussed earlier in the thread and don't wish to comment on them. But in general terms, it makes no sense to dis the way routines are supposed to judged by pointing to a couple of specific instances where they were judged poorly in comparison to the expected standard (I'm not saying this is what happened at the U.S Open, though I agree its what happened in 2002). My point is that 2002 was not a reflection of a weakness in the structure of the routine competition, but a reflection of how in any judged competition there will always be room for controversy. I'd also dispute that since that result there has been a trend moving towards higher value of difficulty over creativity. Austrian masters 2005 when Stefan won, he won with a creative, well chorographed routine, beating Honza's more difficult but less well choreographed routine. To me this perceived "problem" would be better solved by having more people dedicate themselves to judging and thus raising the standard of judging in all events - not just routines. Jeremy held a Judging workshop last year which only a couple of people from modified showed any interest in - the result was a well judged Australian Champs last year, and hopefully that will carry on into next year too. If routines are judged properly, according to the current rules then there is no problem. The standard set is fine, the problem is that there aren't enough people around qualified to hold competitor's to it, and its difficult to keep judges judging when its generally such a thankless task and all you seem to get are people disagreeing with the results of your efforts (paying them might help).

the logical thing to do would be to make the routines judged on only creativity; so we have a balance:

Shred 30: Technical
Rippin': Consistency
Routines: Creativity
Circle: Technical, Consistency, Creativity

That's what I think would be the best solution. Any thoughts?

I agree that such a wholistic view is the right one, and instead of thinking of ways to make a single event somehow encompass all elements of footbag, having various disciplines test different skills to different degrees is a good approach - but I think having routines a balance of artistic and difficulty as it currently is supposed to be, connects it to the busking/performance aspect of footbag, something which should be maintained. Furthermore, the difficulty aspect is entirely necessary to judging routines - if it wasn't you'd be able to have intermediates and advanced players compete in one comp because in theory it would be judged only on artistic merit - this is clearly ridiculous. If two players show equal artistic skill in their routines, its important to be able to use difficulty to differentiate them to get a true winner.

[professor]

Furthermore, the difficulty aspect is entirely necessary to judging routines - if it wasn't you'd be able to have intermediates and advanced players compete in one comp because in theory it would be judged only on artistic merit - this is clearly ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to have intermediates compete against advanced players?

[shredzilla]

Because their level of shred isn't high enough to put forth a pro-level performance.

[james_dean]

I don't think it should be purely creative, but I support weighting it in that direction.

[professor]

They might not be able to hit same level tricks, but they can still put together an awesome routine that would compete with a higher level player.

[shredzilla]

They might not be able to hit same level tricks, but they can still put together an awesome routine that would compete with a higher level player.

But that routine wouldn't represent the same level of footbag, making it pointless to group them in with pros.

Could you see Kyle competing agianst Jorden in Routines up on stage in front of a big crowd? Eh, I really don't think there's much more to be said about it. No offense to Kyle of course, but seriously.

Getting back on track, I felt that the real tough decision to be made was between Penske and Dave's routines for 1st place. Both had one drop, and both had pretty amazing control and shred in their routines. I saw Penske bail a few times in addition to his drop.

Idk, they had a tough job, and I'm not qualified enough, nor would I want to be put in that position. It's funny that Justin mentioned that he wasn't faulting the judges, but the judging system, and then went on to say something about Dave's friend being on the panel. Just thought I'd mention that that was pretty contradictory.

Further on track lol, I'd say that the way routines are judged is pretty fair IMO. You have to represent the highest level of shred, present it in a good way, and be consistant throughout, leaving the audience with the impression that a true champion rarely drops. I'm not saying that judges have never made mistakes in looking for this, but this is what they should strive for.

Circle Comp does do this, however I feel it's a tad informal to replace Routines currently. It's tough to say though, it was very exciting. I just think Routines resemble more of a judged sporting event than Circle Comp I guess.

[Outsider]

Got lots to say on this subject, but I feel like keeping it brief for now, so I'll just pick one thing to respond to:

Newf said:

'Choreography' is the among the lowest pursuits of athletics.

Maybe it is the lowest of the low amongst pursuits purely athletic, but I don't see footbag as a purely athletic pursuit. I like to compete, like to beat other competitors and win events. It feels good. Thats not my sole, or even primary, objective in freestyle these days. Win or lose, when I compete now it is to take advantage of the opportunity to perform for an appreciative audience. I go on stage with the goal of putting on a good show for my fellow freestylers and any other fans. I get on stage for the sake of that little bit of "entertainer" in me as much as I do for that part of me that is "competitor."

The circle-contest? Haven't seen one yet. Give me a break, its only been around for a few months... Anyway, if I understand correctly, there are rules for how long you can keep the bag, what tricks you are expected to do (or what tricks not to do) and when you are supposed to pass it, with referees there to enforce on you. That sounds like a far more constrained sort of performance than the kind I'd like to give.

If I were a musician, I wouldn't be playing for fans and other musicians for the sake of winning an award. If I were a dancer, I wouldn't dance with others in order to beat them. Freestyle routines are sometimes my way of doing a song-and-dance act, and as such I'd hate to loose those opportunities to perform. Its frustrating to me that despite my hard-earned skills as a freestyler I am yet a very poor performer and have no rhythm at all. None-the-less, a mere demonstration of freestyle skills without any attempts at performance simply doesn't interest me much, not from a spectator's standpoint, and far less so from a performer's standpoint.

If freestyle tries to make itself "purely" athletic it will have to sacrafice something good to do it.

[bustinjustin]

Hey guys,
Big thanks to professor for clearing up what I was trying to get at. I really don't want to slam this tourny or the judging, it was awsome. My inconsistency is in citing examples from what has recently gone on and applying it to what has been going on. I really don't want to step on toes and I apologize deeply to dave and sam!!! it was just an example and I don't want it to take away from either of your accomplishments at all!!!! and the results and the routines would have been the same regardless of who was judging. Which is my point, its not the people! its the system!
Lastly I just want to have a discussion about this I don't want to change the world. Im sorry that I have personally "slammed" you guys, I was just using information to back up what I was getting at, because Im not complaining!!!! im having a discussion and part of a discussion is citing evidence of what has gone on...I think we can still have this discussion with out citing current events....sorry!!
so getting back on point, should routines be judged more artistically or more technically? How are they being judged now? Does this represent the best footbagger? Is it supposed to represent the person with the best game or the person with the best performance?
I really like the representation prof. brought up...

Shred 30: Technical
Rippin': Consistency
Routines: Creativity
Circle: Technical, Consistency, Creativity

So........who's the best?

[habitat]

The circle-contest? Haven't seen one yet. Give me a break, its only been around for a few months... Anyway, if I understand correctly, there are rules for how long you can keep the bag, what tricks you are expected to do (or what tricks not to do) and when you are supposed to pass it, with referees there to enforce on you. That sounds like a far more constrained sort of performance than the kind I'd like to give.

Players make the rules. That is the best thing about the circle competetion. The only time I seen Eli force someone to pass was when penske did a duck and it stuck on his head for about a second. I would agree with this as it is slop, kind of like bailing to a far legover in the middle of solid guiltless.

There isn't any rule to how long you can keep the bag. A referee will only force you to pass if you are hitting something simple and pointless like atw x30 because that is playing below the ability of the circle and you are taking time away from other competetors who are obivioiusly busting harder than that. Like I said, the main thing is players make the rules. You can tell someone to pass if you believe that they are playing below ability or if they slop. The ideal referee would know when this is appropriate.

As for tricks to do, ANYTHING GOES! Matt Cross hit an ass stall midstring and he ADVANCED! There is no limit on what moves to hit. That's the great thing about circle. When I was competeting in it (and getting my ass handed to me no less) everyone was hitting a variety of moves. Penske with his harcore shuffle/symposiums, Genzu with pixie mastery, and Matt with well rounded shred with creative stalls and moves. Matt beat Genzu and Genzu was rocking it hardcore. Matt just entertained the judges and crowd more (my opinion), so that's where the routine-style play comes into effect.

I know this thread isn't really about circle shred, but I just thought I'd put my personal experience about it since it was brought up. Circle competetion is the best competetion out there right now. It's sooo fun. I doubt anyone would knock it if they participated in one. Your chance is probably coming soon.