Opinions regarding routines

[Tsiangkun]

If "routines are a no brainer" why can't we get some entertaining ones ?

[Outsider]

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

Dude! Olympic Marco Polo FTW!

I'm gonna go kick now

[professor]

If "routines are a no brainer" why can't we get some entertaining ones ?

That was in reference to thinking up the idea of routines. Not the actual execution of a routine.

And by the by, I find routines entertaining. They aren't the best to watch on video, but in person I think they're great.

[Zac Miley]

I think routines should be shorter.

I'll probably agree with Ben on pretty much everything, so keep posting Ben.

[Rieferman]

Here's what I'm talking about. Watch this (again, for most of you). There is a lot of difficult footbag in this very well coreographed routine. And I still get pumped everytime I watch it.

http://www.footbag.org/gallery/show/874

(ryan's lone ranger routine)

edit: Or, if you want a nearly identical re-creation of it that's amazing to watch and easier (youtube instead of download)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77dtU5-V3Eo

[Tsiangkun]

Similarly, I think this is a good routine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nxtrV0M ... re=related

[Frank_Sinatra]

Well Ben, I think there are some gaps in your logic.

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.

1: Just because gymnastics is more popular, and gymnastics has certain events, does not mean that copping gymnastics' approach is going to make footbag popular.

2: Popularity and competitions which accurately reflect who is the best at the sport are two different things. I hope this thread isn't going down the "how can we make footbag popular" path because its a completely different discussion.

3: We have to do what is right for footbag, first. Whether footbag ever becomes less obscure or not is unknowable. We can not make all of our decisions based on the hope of mainstream awareness or acceptance.

4: It appears to me that routines are an imitation of gymnastics, and routines are sparking debate and dissatisfaction with comps. So we've failed to find the best way to do things, or put any big questions behind us.

I'm all for learning from the experience of others, but we need to ask ourselves, does this apply to footbag? Or are we shoehorning footbag into a weird imitation of something else?

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.

By the way, I actually like the idea of an "overall champion" with different comps testing different freestyle skills. I think it is appropriate to footbag. And I'm all for looking at how different sports approach competition accross different skills and testing those ideas, when reasonably applicable to footbag. What I'm rejecting is the "sport X did such and such" as a sufficient reason for footbag to do the same. It needs to flow organically out of how footbag is played, and flow out of how footbag skill is demonstrated.

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.

I think the argument that "people listen to music while kicking, so lets have routines" is an incredibly weak justification. Its such an insubstantial relationship.

When I mean "how we play footbag now" I mean the following: people play solo or in circles. They try to hit long runs, with variety, challenging links, and big tricks. Each player has their own challenges and there's a wide range of talent, but each player is striving to do their personal best. At the higher levels, certain moves become frowned on for being too easy, and it is expected that a higher level player will not fill out their runs with easy tricks, or by repeating the same few tricks many times. Players are also generally conscious of form and style as worthwhile pursuits. We shred.

So here's how I'd characterize our current state of affairs: we play footbag like I described above. We have a world champion. But we establish the world champion in an event that has some similarities, but also some significant differences, to what was described above. To me, that's screwed up.

Let me ask you this - what's closer to Marco Polo? The vids from routines or the vid from Circle Comp?

Let me also ask you this - if routines didn't exist, would they need to be invented?

[dyalander]

If "routines are a no brainer" why can't we get some entertaining ones ?

I would say this is problem with the way they are judged as well as differing aesthetic sensibilities not a problem with the underlying strucutre of the discipline. The differing aesthetic sensibilities will always be a problem, but I think over time, with discussion and practice, judging can improve.

Let me also ask you this - if routines didn't exist, would they need to be invented?

Obviously this is an unanswerable hypothetical but the thrust of the question is trying to get at what it is people think routines measure and how that relates to what we think are the skills involved in footbag.

I think it would be invented primarily because having footbag competitions springs from the desire for our hobby to be a sport and so its only natural that it would model itself on other sports. Other sports have routine style events and so it would inevitably be a path followed by footbag.

But to answer the thrust of of the question rather than its content - I'd say that the artististic scores is not simply measuring an artistry or expressive quality in and of itself - using freestyle footbag in an artistically choreographed manner over 2 mins demands high levels of control, mastery and endurance. That it is treated as simply a matter of "expression" is a mistake made in the way it is judged not a problem with the format. Other format measure these skills but not with the same rigour that routines do because the other events do not demand that this control and mastery be set against an external measure - the music. As such in the other comps, small chinks in control can be more easily overcome, all you have to do is keep the bag up, and get into the next move. But in routines the smallest of misteps has a knock on effect. This is why choreography is such a good test when judged properly. It should not be primarily about "expression" it should be a matter of using artistry as a measure of technical ability.

Regarding the gymnastics model - I think it is a sound one, but I understand it a little differently than it has been expressed here. I thought there are individual events as well as an all round competition. So each individual event is run on its own terms, then they are all re-run together. Sort of like there are different athletics races and then there's the decathelon. Or there's different swimming races, then there's the medely. The winner of the all round gymnastics title isn't just calculated from the scores in each discipline, its run as its own discipline. I think footbag should endevour to move towards this model.

Let me ask you this - what's closer to Marco Polo? The vids from routines or the vid from Circle Comp?

A number of people are suggesting that circles is a better discipline, I know this is a thread about routines but I think it's necessary to make two points if we are going to judge routines via a comparison to circles

Some claim that circles is a better representation of how we shred because it is a closer fit to how we go about our "sprot", and while this may well be true it doesn't make it a better, more rigorous, or fuller test of the skills within that "sport". It may be a broader test, but isolating skills can be more rigorous adn this why i repeatedly make the point that in the end we will have to go with a set of different disciplines rather than trying to chase down some holy grail that measures it all.

Moreover I think circles is far more difficult to judge than routines and all the problems we are having with routines will also pop up in circles in the future. As the level goes up the differences between players will get smaller and as this happens it will get harder and harder to spot the slight differences between players in the circle especially in the absence of a clear and uniform set of measures and without the choreography to help expose the slight differences. A day will come when players will be hitting long runs of very similiar variety and difficulty with very similar form and control and it will be slight differences that set them apart and I don't think circle comp gives the judges a chance to keep those slight differences in mind as the bag goes around the circle. Judges will be able to compare one competitor the preceeding one, but how they are supposed to simultaneously and instantaneously compare the 3rd in the circle to the 1st and 2nd and then the guy who goes 4th is supposed to be simultaneously and instantaneously compared to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, all without some clearly established extrernal system of measurement?! THis is what the ranking style of judgement used for circle asks judges to do. Its fine if there are clear and obvious gaps between the runs but when it gets long and close - forget about it.

[LEGOMAN]

best routine ever imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XW1mr7V8as

[Rieferman]

(side note: Tsiangkun, that's definitely a good routine, hadn't seen that one in a long time)

2 questions for the group:

1) I feel like the open competitors in circle comp can judge themselves in most instances - and just have a clause for when there's a stalemate in opinions. For example, recent circle comp with Penske, Grant, Johnny, and Jorden... I think all competitors are honorable enough to say that Jorden owned on that particular day. Plus, we always talk about how the top competitors are often the best equipped to judge. I don't think we're at the place right now where all 4 finalists (say) would submit their vote for themselves if they didn't honestly deserve it. PLUS, if there's a simple procedure to break that sort of stalemate should it ever occur, it seems like a really cool way to do it. What do you think?

2) Anyone out there a good enough add counter to test the "technical" portion of the scoring I suggested for a routine? (note: that technical scoring is the shred 30 scoring, minus the restriction on adds in the routine). Maybe the Mulroney lone ranger routine vs. Vasek's routine that same year. And then we can all do a mini-vote on overall impression (you can either give your own, or get some opinions from non-players if you want) Goal would be to just try using gut feel as much as you use more analytical methods. It's definitely ok to be analytical, but let some emotion come in too. I just think it would be interesting to see how an idea would apply to something real (and using this year's routines is too emotionally charged, so I think using something older is better). Maybe a stupid idea, what do you think?

[Frank_Sinatra]

But in routines the smallest of misteps has a knock on effect. This is why choreography is such a good test when judged properly. It should not be primarily about "expression" it should be a matter of using artistry as a measure of technical ability.

This is a good point.

Unfortunately, I think this has two unintended negative consequences. The first is repetitive, safe, easy tricks. The other is what I think of as 'filler to the beat' which seems to be what almost every competitor (even someone as gifted as Vasek) has to include in order to try to measure up to the format's requirements.

Zac mentioned shortening routines and I agree. IMO this would alleviate a lot of the pressure that results in the harder to watch portions of routines.

[professor]

1: Just because gymnastics is more popular, and gymnastics has certain events, does not mean that copying gymnastics' approach is going to make footbag popular.

I agree that we shouldn't copy another sport. What I wrote was learn from them. Vis a vis, take things from other sports that work for footbag already instead of trying to "reinvent the wheel".

2: Popularity and competitions which accurately reflect who is the best at the sport are two different things. I hope this thread isn't going down the "how can we make footbag popular" path because its a completely different discussion.

First off, up to this point it seems that most everyone agreed that Vasek as the best footbagger in the world. And he also won routines 6 years in a row. So, it seems routines does a pretty good job at deciding who's best if that's the goal.

Secondly, your going to be disappointed if you think any competition is going to accurately reflect who's best at our sport; any sport for that matter. The person who wins a competition is the person who is the best at competing at that moment in time. You can never decide who's truly best, only who wins.

4: It appears to me that routines are an imitation of gymnastics, and routines are sparking debate and dissatisfaction with comps. So we've failed to find the best way to do things, or put any big questions behind us.

And gymnastics are an imitation of ice skating? Just because we have something similar to gymnastics doesn't mean it's an imitation.

Routines have sparked a debate and dissatisfaction between what? 10 people online? What about the other thousands of people who haven't complained?

So here's how I'd characterize our current state of affairs: we play footbag like I described above. We have a world champion. But we establish the world champion in an event that has some similarities, but also some significant differences, to what was described above. To me, that's screwed up.

Agreed, but that's not the fault of routines. It's our fault for deciding routines should be the measure for world champion. This is why I like the All-Around champion idea.

Don't get rid of routines, just make them less important.

best routine ever imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XW1mr7V8as

I agree 100% and I have thought this since the video was posted. To me this is an example of what's possible in routines. Difficulty and artistry integrated at it's best.

[Tsiangkun]

Definitely one of the best routines ever. I like the well executed difficult footbag, and I enjoy the song in that routine.

I'm not convinced that any of the choreography was intentional, and think a variety of songs would look just as awesome behind such clean footbag.

[CIC flurry]

About the all around champion: I think if someone wins several or all the events then they are the overall champion. but I think we should consider each event by itself. Obviously people hold the winners of particular events in higher regard than others, and that's a personal opinion. I don't think some outside person should say "well he won routines and that's worth 2 all-around points, and shred is another .5." it seems like people want to be be told who's the best in the world so there's no discussion, like "you may think your favorite player did well, but the results say this, so nah."

also I agree with Frank_Sinatra. Especially the first post explained so well and with good laser analogies.

[Zac Miley]

If footbag had a more strict judging system no one would complain. It needs to have an overall score, and people need to know what makes up that score. Right now it's just broken up into Artistic and Technical with a paragraph definition for each.

Ok, what is Artistic worth? Is throwing your hat off on the beat worth more than blurry whirl? It's ridiculous how unprofessional this sport is. I realize that it's young, but very few people are actually trying to be at least somewhat professional.

To get accepted (which is obviously the larger goal at the moment), footbag needs to be professional, and I think that should start with fixing judging (for ALL events, including sick 1, 3, Shred:30, and Circle), and making routines shorter so that people can stand to watch them. 2 minutes is too much. Hell, 1:30 might be too much.

I'd like to hear what some of the top players think about this.

edit:

Also, Bob mentioned that players should judge themselves? I completely disagree. Maybe 20 years ago. That would be like taking a step backwards.

[Jeremy]

I absolutely agree that the judging systems ideally would be more transparent, objective and understandable. There is far too much interpretation at the moment.

I think it's important to think about if and how this can be fixed though. Obviously more detailed and specific statements about judging could be written up, but apart from that, I think a serious issue in most expressive sports, but especially footbag because of the number of tricks, is quantifying skill.

If we had an accurate point system per trick, it would be an easy sport to judge, but we don't.

Something to consider is that most expressive sports only allow a limited number of tricks to be performed. This is especially noticeable in diving and gymnastics. I know a lot of people would hate that, but maybe it's something to consider for footbag. Perhaps routines could have a number of specific tricks that have to attempted in the routine, and the technical score would be based purely on the execution of those tricks, and not the rest of the routine. This would mean that a stronger focus could be put on showmanship and artistic expression outside of those tricks. It would also mean you'd be judging people on their ability in a much easier comparison, because you're judging on the same tricks. If this was introduced, shortening the time limit would probably be a good idea as well.

I also think we need to absolute reject this notion of having some kind of format that decides who is the "best footbagger." That can't be done, and really no sport tries to do that. We can only decide who is the best within specific constraints at a specific time. It may be unfair to some players if a requirement for routines was being able to hit scorpion's tail, but that's the same with all sports. If the height of hurdles was raised 5cm, it would be a massive disadvantage to some competitors and thus an advantage to others. The hurdles events decide who is the best person jumping that specific height over that specific distance at the time of the event. Nothing else.

Changing the format like this could also make it much easier to separate divisions. People who couldn't demonstrate that they can hit the requisite technical moves would have to compete at a lower level. In fact people could compete at any level they choose, because Vasek wouldn't be judged on his ability to hit bs clown face competing at a lower level, he may be judged on his ability to hit drifter. The different levels of competition could turn different running distances or different diving heights.

[Zac Miley]

I don't really like the idea of requiring specific tricks, so rather than doing that, I think tricks requiring certain components would work well (i.e Double Downs, Swirls, Juggling). There are endless possibilities with a lot of components. So instead of saying, "You have to hit Scorpion's Tail" you could say "You need to use a double down component somewhere in your routine". That leaves open blurriest, blurrier, nemesis, scorp's tail, bullwhip, spanishfly, whatever. That also wouldn't restrict footbag like synchronized swimming and ice skating do in their routines.

An all-around champion I think sounds like a good idea.

[Rieferman]

Isilwar (and others)... I'm surprised you don't think judging themselves in circle (only in circle, I don't mean that for routines etc.) could work well. I mean, we all know when we're schooled in a circle.. if that particular event represents the closest thing to how we play, AND if there's provision for controversial situations, I think it could be really cool. I've really never met an un-honorable shredder yet

[Zac Miley]

It's not about how honorable footbag players are, it's about how professional that makes the sport look. That could work at smaller events I guess, but a set judging guideline would be more useful. Not all footbag players are idiots, and I'm sure most people would be able to use one.

I understood that you meant only in circle, by the way.

[Zeb Jackson]

So I've thought of a judging system thats based off of the current ones for circle, and routines, I'm going to try them out at the Idaho Jam and then I'll let you know how it all works out...