There was a suggestion (I guess from Dyalan) that xdex and pdx not be counted as adds for scoring shred 30 at the next Aus champs in order to make scoring faster. I've given this some thought and I think it's an excellent idea. The spirit of shred 30 is still maintained and I don't think particular players are especially advantaged or disadvantaged by it either. It just means that scores would be slightly lower (and some lower add tricks would become more favourable than their pdx equivalent).
I also had another idea which would help even more in making shred 30 a audience friendly competition event. Rather than using the formula of adds+adds*uniques/contacts, change the event to just whoever scores the most adds in 30 seconds wins. However players must hit at least 15 (or even 20) unique moves to be eligible. You could have 2 judges. 1 counting adds and the other counting uniques. The unique counter only needs to count 15 and can then stop, so it's much easier. Of course you could check by video if you're unsure how many there were.
Of course it's a trade off. You'd see many more ripwalks, but you'd also be able to tell the crowd what the person scored straight away. Given that the average non-footbagger can't tell the difference between a ducking butterfly and a ripstein anyway, I don't think they'd be missing out on anything. Players would also be forced to hit harder high add moves if they want to win (ie. no pdx whirl moves) and it could make the event closer - so more exciting as well.
Thoughts?
edit; In fact perhaps a better idea than not counting uniques would be to have a series of components that must be used in the shred. You can use any moves you like so long as you have a 2 different [bod] components (ie. duck, spin or symp), 3 different uptime dex sets and 5 different downtime dex components.
It also might be good to add that you're not allowed to repeat the same trick 3 times in a row (including both sides - ie. you can't hit ripwalk>ripwalk>ripwalk). You could include this rule about repeating combos or phrases.
A new way of scoring shred 30
I'm sorry, but how does the pdx rule make scoring slower?
The only effect I would predict from removing x-dex and pdx is that people's shred30s would be way more clipper based, and have fewer tricks ending on toe.
Also, if you are still counting uniques in the formula, then I don't see the benefit of having a "no repeated phrases" added in.
The only effect I would predict from removing x-dex and pdx is that people's shred30s would be way more clipper based, and have fewer tricks ending on toe.
Also, if you are still counting uniques in the formula, then I don't see the benefit of having a "no repeated phrases" added in.
I've been thinking about this for a while.
In regards to the faster judging - it would make judging easier because you would no longer need to know any more than which side a move started and ended on to know if it was unique or not - you only need to know the dexing leg. This would make judging slightly faster. Not so much that it could be judged between competitors but significantly faster when you're confronted with a large number of shreds to judge. I think it may also lead to less mistakes at is removes a couple of key variables, but this effect would depend on the type of mistakes that most often get made. I don't make mistakes so I can't comment on this with any authority.
As it is if you have a downtime component (obviouly not for all downtime components, but for many of them) you can use it twice, then to up its worth and still add to your uniques you can just throw it in pdx. If you remove pdx then you have to add a set or use another component. It may have the effect of slightly increasing variety and making toe moves of more equivalent use. I don't know - but surely it is worth a try?
I don't expect it would completely remove pdx moves from shred 30 anyway because players will still have those moves in their shred vocabularies and will naturally hit them as comfortable moves within the links they train and aspire to hit regularly.
Personally, I'm not sure what it would do. But given the current state of shred 30 I think its worth a try. As it is shred 30 is heavily clipper based, I'm not sure this would do signifcant damage in that respect. It's also not a very good test of variety anyway and I don't think this will effect that either.
If it was to be combined with some sort of new way of scoring variety, then it would have the potential to make judging a hell of a lot faster and possibly even allow shreds to be judged on the spot rather than by review.
The thing is - what would really be the harm in trying it? Not at Worlds, but at some of the other events. Why do we just make do with what we have when we haven't really exhausted any of the other possibilities. Worlds is not the place for experimentation, but clearly there are a significant group of shredders who think there is room for change around shred 30. It should be happening at other smaller events, and it need not be so extreme as an entirely new competition.
I am going to try some altered form of shred 30 judging at the next Jam I organise and I hope that others think about doing the same. If it doesn't work there will be little harm done. If it does work better than shred 30 as we know it, the potential gain is significant.
I am particualrly interested in any suggestions of how to force variety other than the current formula becuse counting uniques is the big downside to judging shred 30.
I like the 15 uniques minimum. I also like the idea about a set of component requirements. But the latter would have to be carefully executed otherwise they have the potential to be just as much of a drag as counting uniques. It needs to be as simple as possible so someone can just watch closely and tick it off it real-time without too much difficulty.
The next Australian Champs are in 2009. I don't think anyone has planned their shred 30 for it yet. Regardless I have decided not to change it at that event because I agree with Jeremy's suggestion, made in our previous discussion on footbag.org, that it's best to experiment with it at a smaller jam first.So wait... You want to stop counting X Dex and Pdx? Not only would that mess with a lot of peoples pre planned shred 30s I don't even that it would make judging faster.
In regards to the faster judging - it would make judging easier because you would no longer need to know any more than which side a move started and ended on to know if it was unique or not - you only need to know the dexing leg. This would make judging slightly faster. Not so much that it could be judged between competitors but significantly faster when you're confronted with a large number of shreds to judge. I think it may also lead to less mistakes at is removes a couple of key variables, but this effect would depend on the type of mistakes that most often get made. I don't make mistakes so I can't comment on this with any authority.
Yes it would have this effect for lower level players in particular who are reliant on pdx mirage/illusion type moves such as pdx mirage and blur. But, I would have thought that people of a higher standard go to clipper because they can get pdx adds there that they can't get with moves starting on toe. Removing pdx would remove one of the reason clipper moves are better value than toe moves? does that make sense?The only effect I would predict from removing x-dex and pdx is that people's shred30s would be way more clipper based, and have fewer tricks ending on toe.
As it is if you have a downtime component (obviouly not for all downtime components, but for many of them) you can use it twice, then to up its worth and still add to your uniques you can just throw it in pdx. If you remove pdx then you have to add a set or use another component. It may have the effect of slightly increasing variety and making toe moves of more equivalent use. I don't know - but surely it is worth a try?
I don't expect it would completely remove pdx moves from shred 30 anyway because players will still have those moves in their shred vocabularies and will naturally hit them as comfortable moves within the links they train and aspire to hit regularly.
Personally, I'm not sure what it would do. But given the current state of shred 30 I think its worth a try. As it is shred 30 is heavily clipper based, I'm not sure this would do signifcant damage in that respect. It's also not a very good test of variety anyway and I don't think this will effect that either.
If it was to be combined with some sort of new way of scoring variety, then it would have the potential to make judging a hell of a lot faster and possibly even allow shreds to be judged on the spot rather than by review.
The thing is - what would really be the harm in trying it? Not at Worlds, but at some of the other events. Why do we just make do with what we have when we haven't really exhausted any of the other possibilities. Worlds is not the place for experimentation, but clearly there are a significant group of shredders who think there is room for change around shred 30. It should be happening at other smaller events, and it need not be so extreme as an entirely new competition.
I am going to try some altered form of shred 30 judging at the next Jam I organise and I hope that others think about doing the same. If it doesn't work there will be little harm done. If it does work better than shred 30 as we know it, the potential gain is significant.
I am particualrly interested in any suggestions of how to force variety other than the current formula becuse counting uniques is the big downside to judging shred 30.
I like the 15 uniques minimum. I also like the idea about a set of component requirements. But the latter would have to be carefully executed otherwise they have the potential to be just as much of a drag as counting uniques. It needs to be as simple as possible so someone can just watch closely and tick it off it real-time without too much difficulty.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
