Opinions regarding routines

[FlexThis]

I laugh at that notion because Outsider (no offense) is not the best in the world, nor would he qualify under these circumstance. Which is kinda the point.

To be the best you have to have a wide variety of skills, not just a specialty.

EDIT: For example every pro should be able to hit ripwalk. Ripwalk would be a stepping far component. If it were required then a competitor could choose to up that to a more difficult stepping far component like blurry whirl, or food.

The point is to lay a foundation, not to include every possible style. I do a shit ton of rake tricks, but I do not consider myself the best in the world at rakes even though I hold world records for them. I also don't expect the requirements to include them with any real wieght, nor would I expect dragon stalls to be included. However, and unusual surface component I would expect to see as a required component. John could choose dragons, I could choose sole stalls, and Vasek could choose pinchers.

[Outsider]

I like the topic of conversation, but I simply don't feel like getting very deeply involved right now. I just wanted to comment on one recent aspect of this discussion:

I generally agree with this line of thinking, but there are multiple dimensions of freestyle technique that shred 30 simply does not address.
Here is a brief list: variety, toe:xbdy, etc. I would be pained to watch someone do the same add-hunting move repetively for 30 seconds and have that cover the demands for displaying technique (think dada curves).

and

Since shred 30 scoring accounts for uniques as part of the formula, and since artistic merit could be weighted to discourage add hunting (say artistic 70% of score, technical 30% of score), I don't think your concern would happen for the players that are actually interested in winning the event. See what I mean?

I just wanted to caution you both on what seems to me to be a false assumption that you might both be harboring:
The Shred30 formula does indeed measure Uniques.
This is not precisely the same thing as measuring Variety, which, I think, is a more important element of a routine.

The Uniques score is really just a measurement of how much the competitor avoids doing the same move over and over again. But, one can be very one-sided and still have a great Uniques score. One could also display relatively little Variety and still get a very high Uniques score. One could conceivably do ALL Unique moves in a Shred30 (a perfect Uniques score) WITHOUT doing any Spins, Ducks/Dives, Flyers, or Unusual Surfaces. One could do a large selection of dexterity tricks, mixing up dexing directions and adding paradox and symposium versions and thus do all Unique tricks, and yet, without any spins, ducks, flyers, and unusuals, have they really displayed much Variety?

"Uniques" DOES NOT EQUAL "Variety". I just wanted to remind you of this. I think Lofa was initially saying this, but that its easy to get confused by the language when you talk about "Variety" and "Unique Tricks." They sound like the same thing...

(This is, in brief, why I have always argued against counting different setting surfaces as creating a Unique trick - I think its disingenuous to say that "Dex [In] > Op Dex [Out] > Delay [Clip]" can be up to four different moves instead of one just based on setting the same sequence of motions and a catch from the four most basic setting surfaces [both toes and both clippers] - they may technically be counted as unique, but I don't feel that they display much in the way of real variety between them.)

[Ian Brill]

I laugh at that notion because Outsider (no offense) is not the best in the world, nor would he qualify under these circumstance. Which is kinda the point.

I really don't think you understand my point. Footbag is not a defined sport. I don't believe that you agree. That is the nature of both your laughter and why you cannot understand my reference. It is however a possibly large offence to individuals like Outsider (this is an assumption on my behalf) to discredit their legitimate methods of executing freestyle from more common ones.

EDIT: For example every pro should be able to hit ripwalk.

No. I disagree. Theoretically the best player in the world would not have to play by the same rules and could easilly conquer previous individuals while executing an entirely unique repetoirre. I see no point in perpetuating or encouraging an artificial narrowing of the potential evolutionary options for this sport.

The point is to lay a foundation, not to include every possible style. I do a shit ton of rake tricks, but I do not consider myself the best in the world at rakes even though I hold world records for them. I also don't expect the requirements to include them with any real wieght, nor would I expect dragon stalls to be included. However, and unusual surface component I would expect to see as a required component. John could choose dragons, I could choose sole stalls, and Vasek could choose pinchers.

Same thing. If an idividual chose only to do rake tricks but was able to execute an alarming variety of unqiue variations it could still make for a fulfilling style, let alone routine.
Of course these are my ideas, but I am confident I can reinforce them with convincing theory.

[Ian Brill]

I think Lofa was initially saying this, but that its easy to get confused by the language when you talk about "Variety" and "Unique Tricks." They sound like the same thing...

You are correct. Thank you very much for correcting me on this vital difference. FWIW I agree on everything on your last post, though I still feel that there should be a reward for general both-sidedness.

[FlexThis]

I really don't think you understand my point. Footbag is not a defined sport.

Yes it is. It starts with a kick, add a stall, add 1 of 5 add categories and stir. lol

And yes I am still laughing at how serious you are taking your points. Everyone has to start out learning a stall to begin, no way around that if you are playing footbag. You can play footbag.com and hit a 5 point safety belt, or dance around in your underwear playing blou-me (blouchi), but that's not footbag as we play it.

Theoretically the best player in the world would not have to play by the same rules and could easilly conquer previous individuals while executing an entirely unique repetoirre.

...Theoretically... aliens are watching from outer space. You can't "what if.." an argument and it be valid. In order to prove your own point there would still need to be a means of measurement. Without a level playing field you are comparing apples to oranges.

Same thing. If an idividual chose only to do rake tricks but was able to execute an alarming variety of unqiue variations it could still make for a fulfilling style, let alone routine.

Well thank you - but I am not that good.

My point is that no matter what the sport, there has to be a means of measure in order to determine who the winner is. In this sport, we can't seem to agree on difficulty, we still count adds (like they matter), and style points are subjective. It is not fair in the least to even begin to compare apples to apples until you have nothing but apples in front of you. You can't compare the way a tiger growls to a diver's splash height.

If there are a set of criteria laid out defining the contest then it will be easier to compare ones performance to the next. In gymnastics they have floor exercises, in diving they choose dives, it s the same shit, we just have more to choose from. Thats were the creativity comes into play. Ones ability to pick decent combos, tricks, timing to music, etc...

What I am trying to avoid is a 2 minutes shred contest. If you have a set criteria that is required by all (and can be agreed upon) then it will work. It is the agree upon part that I feel we disagree with. And that is OK, because through open dialogue like this, as well as, personal shred interaction, I think we (the community) can figure it out.

[Rieferman]

Jon, I agree that uniques is not = to variety.

HENCE my opinion that "technical" score would only be 30% of routine score, and artistic would be 70%. Further, I think the 70% artistic should really just be judged on overall impression of qualified judges (which of course would take into account audience response, wow factor etc. which is just what happens in many subjectively judged events.. and usually works fine).

With that setup, someone has very little incentive to game the system (because it won't actually benefit them enough to cause them to win) but instead has incentive to put together an honestly enjoyable program.

Side note: The reason I go for overall impression or gut reaction or whatever you want to call it is... whenever we try to define it more, it creates hokey performances that are trying to "fill the card". Overall impression allows creative expression and encourages players to really figure out their own best way to impress today's judges and audience. It keeps the routines more relevant and cutting edge and expressive. No need to define artistry in my opinion, we all know it when we see it (case in point: everyone's reaction to that recent Johnny Suderman video where everyone was raving about his style etc. we know what looks good without needing to define what looks good)

[FlexThis]

No need to define artistry in my opinion, we all know it when we see it

Geees Bob! We all know it when we see it? Clearly we don't or Sergey would have won routines.

Again - it is so important that the subjectivity be brought under control or else technical difficulty will win the day always.

Albeit back in the day when kenny hit the first 5 in competition everyone flipped out and went nutz. But today -its like ehhh so what.

[Ian Brill]

...

Not only do I completely disagree but I dissaprove of your behavior. Your childish demeanor is sullying your own thread. For shame.

[FlexThis]

Example please?

You argue as if you are the final word...

Are you?

[Ian Brill]

Example please?

You argue as if you are the final word...

Are you?

I have a hard time investing effort after the "tone" of you last post. I imagine if you hold the world record for rakes you have the common sense to figure out how you last direct post seemed alienating. I give you two hints. Aliens and underwear.

Why don't you explain why you think I am acting like I have the final word? I do feel confident about my opinions but I am not imposing them. I thought we were having a reasonable discussion until you lost interest in treating my opinions in a respectful manner.

[Rieferman]

no worries, I'm not offended

flex wrote:

Geees Bob! We all know it when we see it? Clearly we don't or Sergey would have won routines.

You just made my point. Artistic and technical currently weigh "equally" for one (so even if we see it, the 'dark side' of technical shred can still win out). Also, many hold onto the old "he must travel the space, juggle the bags, and hit a flyer to cymbal crashes" definition of artistry when they judge (i.e. even if they see it, they over think it, apply old definitions, and convince themselves in another direction).

They hold onto that despite written definition (thanks Jeremy!):

Artistic Merit refers to artistic variety of the tricks and
combinations performed by the competitor, the relationship between the
competitor and the music, including the timing of moves and music, the
rhythm of the routine, choreography, the start and finish of the
routine, the use of space, time, environment and music, the
competitor's appeal to the audience, the artistic impression,
including style and originality and the overall impression of the
routine.

When I say you made my point I mean this: Besides my wife, I've now had about 10 non-players watch this year's finals. ALL ten (withOUT coaching from me) picked Sergey PURELY based on how much fun they had watching his routine. They mentioned rhythm, confidence, overall thrill of seeing him cruise along through his performance compared to the others. Their overall impression was he was the best.

So, you see, we're agreeing basically. It just wasn't applied this way in actuality (which is another conversation)

[FlexThis]

Not only do I completely disagree but I dissaprove of your behavior. Your childish demeanor is sullying your own thread. For shame.

I consider the above an attack on my character.

I have a hard time investing effort after the "tone" of you last post.

Further attack.

Theoretically the best player in the world would not have to play by the same rules and could easilly conquer previous individuals while executing an entirely unique repetoirre.

It was the word conquer that brought about the aliens dancing in their underwear. <<< That's a laughing guy, which means "hey bro, I'm making a joke." Relax. I'm too old and too feable to argue too seriously with you wipper snappers and your fast come backs.

In order "to conquer" you would have to meet the "criteria", aka the "requirement" for what to conquer means.

We are missing that definition routines. That is my point.

If you were offend, I apologize. That's what I do - I say sorry when I offend. Like the creativity in freestyle, I often get creative when I write. Again - sorry if my implied "tone" rubbed you the wrong way.

~double peace bro

EDIT: Rieferman you are awesome! And I've kicked with Bob by the way.

[Ian Brill]

You got it. I'm an old timer too. Thus no sense of humor at times. Mostly I just didn't want my points onscured. That's all.

Peace.

[Rieferman]

hey, since it's just the 3 of us basically, don't miss my post above more clearly stating my position (and backing up my opinion that we do indeed "know it when we see it")

[FlexThis]

No worries bro - I like arguing with you. You are making awesome points. It is in my nature to debate, even if I know I am wrong. It demonstrates that we are human and flawed.

Hopefully we can see past our differences and embrace our commonalities, like the fact that we both love footbag. Otherwise we wouldn't be on this forum at this time.

And BTW - I'm dirt old like 33, and have had the privilege to kick with both Bob and Outsider, so I don't feel bad giving either one a hard time. I am just an opinion on a forum.

EDIT: You're still awesome Bob - and yes your point is taken!!!

[Tsiangkun]

First and foremost, routines should be interesting to watch.

Most routines fail at being interesting to watch.

We really need to get better routines if we want to get into the olympics. We already have an obscure sport, and we are already using a confusing and subjective scoring system that the audience doesn't understand. If we could just make the routines enjoyable to watch we could be in the olympics too.

[Frank_Sinatra]

I don't understand why we try to translate what other sports do into what footbag should do. I mean, the governing board of figure skating wouldn't look at the x-Games and say "build us a ramp".

The competition(s) that we use to determine our world championship need to be a reflection of how the sport is actually played.

For whatever reason, routines were thought up by somebody & have stuck around for a long time, but they don't have anything to do with how we play footbag now. Honestly I have no way of knowing if it ever did. Regardless, standards have changed.

I disagree with justifying routines by invoking artistry (choreography, synchronization w/music, etc). I think Erik made a crucial point that we are just talking about potential artistry. It seems to me from watching maybe 3 dozen videos of routines that whatever potential for artistry exists is rarely realized. Now, one could take that to mean that competitors need to work harder on their routines. I think it says something about the nature of the competition.

Let's suppose that someone dreams up a competition unlike all the others. And the difference is this competition involves lasers somehow. Now it might be true that 'Laser Comp' is the only comp that tests how well we incorporate lasers into footbag, that does not mean that incorporating lasers is how a player should be judged.

On a side note, many of the attempts at artistry are the most excruciating parts of watching a routine. Or maybe I should say that you can get away with doing dumb shit while holding a toe stall just because you're doing a routine.

Routines are boring. The two minute time frame puts so much pressure on reserving energy and not dropping, so the result is very little footbag that's actually worth sitting down and watching.

And let's ask ourselves the following - how expressive is this sport? Even players with great style who I love to watch, what are they expressing? In the context of routines, is it supposed to be an interpretation of the music? (<-- this is not a rhetorical question)

[FlexThis]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I guess I compare footbag routines to ice skating or even floor exercise, because I see routines as a means of filling cards creatively.

I have been trying to bridge the gap between what we do in shred with what the audience can comprehend. It is tough to do. But I am trying.

I perform daily for tourists and the less I do the more they can see. The more they can see the more I can make ($$$).

In routines it seems like we are performing for each other, rather than an unknowing public. This is even how I explain it to people.

Having to explain it - makes it suck ass. Showing them is better. "A show" - what a concept. But that is what I am trying to do with my shred today. Show people freestyle, and have them understand it, without having to say a word.

Peter Irish once did a routine to a pan flute (I think - or something) and was accused of having his buddy play the instrument along with his shred instead of him playing to his friends music. I thought the whole experience was awesome! So I can see what you are saying about lasers.

About the posed question - it should be about footbag, not the music. The music keeps it on beat.

But you know the more we talk about it, the more I don't like routines.

[shredzilla]

I feel Vasek's starting to get a little too 'cutesy' with his routines. He needs to go back to the classic routine style of old, or maybe a hybrid of the two.

In the Olympics they make deductions on certain things like not keeping your legs perfectly together on the uneven bars. I would've deducted for the amount of pauses, the number of toe bails, the number of unnecessary kicks, and level of difficulty throughout the routine. And drops should be a deduction as well.

Based on that criteria, I would've placed Sergey, then Damien, then Vasek. I didn't care for Sergey's music, but that's a personal preference that I wouldn't deduct for unless it was something offensive or just didn't fit with the routine. If Damien hadn't dropped I would've given him the gold.

I haven't seen the other routines so Vasek may have even been lower. But the number of kicks and bails Vasek had was way more costly than a drop IMO. He's obviously much better than that routine, but he needs to perform at 110% to keep his title instead of trying to coast through Worlds every year.

[professor]

I don't understand why we try to translate what other sports do into what footbag should do. I mean, the governing board of figure skating wouldn't look at the x-Games and say "build us a ramp".

We compare because these sports have been around much longer than footbag and are already popular. Which means those sports have been through all the arguments and changes that a new sports goes through and have found the best way to do things up to this point. I think we should learn from these sports so maybe, just maybe, we can skip a few growing pains.

This is why I think we should model footbag competitions similar to Gymnastics. Each event has it's place and each event has it's own World Champion, but the best footbagger overall gets the title of All-Around Champion. They may not be the World Champion in any 1 event, but they average the highest score in all the events combined.

For whatever reason, routines were thought up by somebody & have stuck around for a long time, but they don't have anything to do with how we play footbag now.

I'm assuming when you say "how we play footbag now", you were referencing when we shred in circles for fun. How many people play with music while they shred? Whether it's with friends or by themselves, almost everyone has music playing. So Routines seem like a no brainer when it comes to footbag. Not to mention that what we are doing looks a lot like dancing.

If swimming used your logic, we'd be watching Michael Phelps win gold in Marco Polo instead of the 4 x 100 Medley.