I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I'm part of the process of trying to write up the official rules of Circle Comp for the IFC and having a lot of trouble understanding and concisely defining "variety" as part of those rules.
It would be a massive help to me if people could attempt to define the term in a formal manner themselves, or even in an informal manner. While the entry in the rules should obviously be concise and eloquent, explaining your attempt with examples and a lot of details would be fantastic.
Without clear definitions it's unlikely circle comp will be approved by the IFC.
Cheers.
What is "variety?"
I helped judging Circle at the last two Worlds, but I never sat in on a judging seminar or anything, so I just went with it. I kind of more of less gave points for different uptime and downtime elements. So drifter gets you a point, and spinning clipper gets you a point, but then vortex gets you nothing more for variety round. I also gave high points for strange tricks whether guiltless or not, like unusual stuff. I looked for major downtime tricks first of all, like whirl, drifter, double down, duck, spin, and then sets, pixie, atomic, stepping, though I kind of put more emphasis on downtime, as I think it's more difficult. Rake tricks or flyers, that sort of thing would get points, and Flash would prolly win every round he entered.
To me It was frustrating to judge most players because it seemed like they didn't understand "variety", and did pixie shuffle, like, 5 pixie tricks in a row, which does nothing.
I'm not sure if that was really obvious, or if that helps at all, but that's kind of how I start to view Variety in Circle.
To me It was frustrating to judge most players because it seemed like they didn't understand "variety", and did pixie shuffle, like, 5 pixie tricks in a row, which does nothing.
I'm not sure if that was really obvious, or if that helps at all, but that's kind of how I start to view Variety in Circle.
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
Great videos of variety here: http://www.freestylefootbag.com/steve.htm
You do bring up a good question Jeremy: how does one define variety? Is it strictly speaking unique tricks (as defined in shred 30)? Is it an *unusual* trick selection, and if so what does unusual mean?
From seeing what the majority of people do in variety rounds of Circle comps I'd sum it up as being either "how many different components can I fit in a run" or "how many goofy tricks that anyone barely ever does can I do in a run".
You do bring up a good question Jeremy: how does one define variety? Is it strictly speaking unique tricks (as defined in shred 30)? Is it an *unusual* trick selection, and if so what does unusual mean?
From seeing what the majority of people do in variety rounds of Circle comps I'd sum it up as being either "how many different components can I fit in a run" or "how many goofy tricks that anyone barely ever does can I do in a run".
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
To me variety means different concepts. For example in a run where you hit Pixie Legover and Blurry Pickup, if you then do a Pixie Pickup to me it adds no variety.
I don't remember the exact definition, but in circle competition I'd say variety means both unique tricks and different concepts. Also tricks that no-one else does.
Jeremy, you should ask Ianek about this Circle comp stuff.
I don't remember the exact definition, but in circle competition I'd say variety means both unique tricks and different concepts. Also tricks that no-one else does.
Jeremy, you should ask Ianek about this Circle comp stuff.
Re: What is "variety?"
It's really not. I judged circle, and i think even a round of STP, and I never received very clear guidelines about what constitutes variety. I'm curious to see what comes out of this discussion.Jeremy wrote:I know this sounds like a stupid question, .
In my opinion, variety constitutes parts of the following:
1. Probably at the top of the list is a variety of concepts. Sets, downtime, unusuals, and flyers are all different concepts.
2. Variety should include links, and not just tricks. Stepping out of whirl and spinning out of whirl are very different. Somebody who hits stepping, whirls, and spins all separately would have less variety than somebody who can both step and spin out of whirl. So just because two people hit the same components, doesn't mean they have the same variety, because variety of links aren't considered.
3. Being able to hit concepts on both sides is part of variety.
4. While this can be hard to quantify, variety can also encompass changing the flow of your game. So somebody who equally uses spins, drifters, and torques in their runs, but does that in every run, may have less variety than somebody who has one run like that, followed by one spin-theme run, then a drifter run, then a torque run.
I may add more later, but this is a start.
Ok thanks for all the replies so far - they are all good.
In my opinion, which is hopefully something that will have no influence on what the rules say (since at this stage we're trying to document the actual rules used, not impose our own judgements), hitting weird and uncommon moves has nothing to do with variety. The frequency of how often moves are hit outside of the specific competition has nothing to do with footbag skill. Judging in footbag competitions should be such that if the same people perform the exact same runs in future competitions they should get the same results. If judges take into account how often moves are hit outside of that competition then it's entirely possible for a move that was once very rarely hit to become a common move and then for the results to change.
Judging is hard enough without also having to know how often all the moves are hit around the world. There is also the question of regional common moves - some tricks are more common in some areas than others. How do judges take this in to account?
How frequently a move is hit is also something that can only be judged on an exceptionally broad level. Yes we can make a judgement between ripwalk and pixie gyro miraging lap catch, but what about ripwalk vs dimwalk or spinning rake vs toe ss blender? We can only make accurate judgements about the frequency moves are hit in footbag when the difference is very noticeable. I suspect therefore that judging this would then be based almost entirely on players own personal experiences - the frequency of moves in their game and the games of the people they play with most, and not based on any kind of objective idea. This also creates a huge bias towards players who have played with the judges the least.
In my opinion, which is hopefully something that will have no influence on what the rules say (since at this stage we're trying to document the actual rules used, not impose our own judgements), hitting weird and uncommon moves has nothing to do with variety. The frequency of how often moves are hit outside of the specific competition has nothing to do with footbag skill. Judging in footbag competitions should be such that if the same people perform the exact same runs in future competitions they should get the same results. If judges take into account how often moves are hit outside of that competition then it's entirely possible for a move that was once very rarely hit to become a common move and then for the results to change.
Judging is hard enough without also having to know how often all the moves are hit around the world. There is also the question of regional common moves - some tricks are more common in some areas than others. How do judges take this in to account?
How frequently a move is hit is also something that can only be judged on an exceptionally broad level. Yes we can make a judgement between ripwalk and pixie gyro miraging lap catch, but what about ripwalk vs dimwalk or spinning rake vs toe ss blender? We can only make accurate judgements about the frequency moves are hit in footbag when the difference is very noticeable. I suspect therefore that judging this would then be based almost entirely on players own personal experiences - the frequency of moves in their game and the games of the people they play with most, and not based on any kind of objective idea. This also creates a huge bias towards players who have played with the judges the least.
A difference between this and other competitions is that I think it is subjective (whether it should be that way or not). For example, for the difficulty round, it's not so much how difficult your tricks are, but more how the judges view your tricks in comparison to that of your opponents'. So, for variety (as it stands now from my perspective) if one player hits an eggbeater in a turn and nobody else hits an eggbeater trick for the whole variety round, that player has an advantage for using a component that the others didn't, even if that player ends up having less variety in the long run due to lack of other components. I think that is why we all mentioned that weird tricks are good in variety round (again, regardless of whether or not that is how it should be run ideally). So it's not even really trick commonality regionally or whatever, but rather trick commonality in the context of the event, which I think seems a fair basis by which to judge.
I'm not sure how Sick 3 and such events are judged, but I think that the rules should be similar in that Sick 3 is also a subjective event. Circle is only different in that the "combos" (runs) are longer and there are the variety and difficulty qualifiers.
I think that we should be careful in defining the judging system for Circle, because it would be a real shame to have it end up like Shred 30 where it is all about adds and creativity loses value. Circle should be circle shred. I can't see that it could be judged any different (generally speaking) than Sick 3 (assuming that Sick 3 is judged on a sort of individual basis where each judge's personal interpretation is an integral aspect of the outcome) -- it would become something different entirely.
I'm not sure how Sick 3 and such events are judged, but I think that the rules should be similar in that Sick 3 is also a subjective event. Circle is only different in that the "combos" (runs) are longer and there are the variety and difficulty qualifiers.
I think that we should be careful in defining the judging system for Circle, because it would be a real shame to have it end up like Shred 30 where it is all about adds and creativity loses value. Circle should be circle shred. I can't see that it could be judged any different (generally speaking) than Sick 3 (assuming that Sick 3 is judged on a sort of individual basis where each judge's personal interpretation is an integral aspect of the outcome) -- it would become something different entirely.
Sick 3 is judged by giving each combo a single score out of 6 for their technical ability. Things like variety are aspects of technical ability. Terms like "difficulty" and "variety" are not directly judged in isolation in any footbag events apart from circle. It's obviously shows a greater technical ability if somebody can hit three completely different moves compared with hitting the same move three times. Technical ability includes variety, difficulty and form/execution.
Thanks for your clarification - that makes a lot more sense. There is certainly a lot of confusion, especially since the unofficial rules we were given included in the definition "original moves," which can easily be interpreted to mean moves that are generally unusual in footbag - rather than unusual in that phase of the circle comp.
Of course "variety" is still so much easier to understand and define than "density."
edit;
It seems to me that at the moment the rules for circle comp don't encourage players to perform as if they're in a shred circle at all. If I had a say in it (and I don't), I would completely rewrite the rules so that there are not separate phases judged on different criteria but a single set of criteria, probably similar or identical to the current definitions of technical ability. The variety phase in particular encourages long easy runs of base components and bops. For example a combo such as blurry drifter>blurriest has less variety than pdx drifter>sidewalk>barfly but is clearly a much better combo. Separating out the different phases results in people hitting runs they wouldn't hit in real shred circles - they do highly technical runs, then very long easy runs with lots of components, and then long genuine runs, probably with a lot of repetition of components. If you combined those three things into one run - high technical and genuine runs with a range of components, that would be what people are striving for in actual circle shreds. Of course due to the nature of the judging being based on the entire phase, not individual runs, you could still hit runs that only focus on specific parts of the criteria rather than all of it at once, you'd just need to make sure you address the other criteria on your subsequent runs.
Thanks for your clarification - that makes a lot more sense. There is certainly a lot of confusion, especially since the unofficial rules we were given included in the definition "original moves," which can easily be interpreted to mean moves that are generally unusual in footbag - rather than unusual in that phase of the circle comp.
Of course "variety" is still so much easier to understand and define than "density."
edit;
It seems to me that at the moment the rules for circle comp don't encourage players to perform as if they're in a shred circle at all. If I had a say in it (and I don't), I would completely rewrite the rules so that there are not separate phases judged on different criteria but a single set of criteria, probably similar or identical to the current definitions of technical ability. The variety phase in particular encourages long easy runs of base components and bops. For example a combo such as blurry drifter>blurriest has less variety than pdx drifter>sidewalk>barfly but is clearly a much better combo. Separating out the different phases results in people hitting runs they wouldn't hit in real shred circles - they do highly technical runs, then very long easy runs with lots of components, and then long genuine runs, probably with a lot of repetition of components. If you combined those three things into one run - high technical and genuine runs with a range of components, that would be what people are striving for in actual circle shreds. Of course due to the nature of the judging being based on the entire phase, not individual runs, you could still hit runs that only focus on specific parts of the criteria rather than all of it at once, you'd just need to make sure you address the other criteria on your subsequent runs.
Last edited by Jeremy on 08 Apr 2009 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
-
Zac Miley
- Post Master General
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: 04 Jun 2006 12:11
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Contact:
Curiousity question:
Would you consider a string like:
Pixie ss Mirage>Fairy ss Mirage>Pixie ss Clipper
to have variety?
What if it were parkwalk instead?
Basically, I'm curious how important the surface is in determining variety?
Would you consider a string like:
Pixie ss Mirage>Fairy ss Mirage>Pixie ss Clipper
to have variety?
What if it were parkwalk instead?
Basically, I'm curious how important the surface is in determining variety?
Jay (8:06:01 PM): Bu-bu-buu-buug--Looks up, and the feeling goes away like a sneeze-bu-buuuh-BULLLSHITTT
Jay (8:06:14 PM): *wipes bellybutton*
Jay (8:06:14 PM): *wipes bellybutton*
Variety in most cases is surely an ordinal measurement - you have to have a frame of reference to say something has or does not have variety unless it's an extreme at either end.
I would say that the combo has some variety, but not a huge amount. Parkwalk would be more variety because there's an extra component (the out dex on the butterfly).
However the combo has limited variety because there's a repetition of pixie sets on the same foot, mirages on each foot and all the tricks are just dex tricks. A far better combo would be something like pixie ss illusion>double over down>ducking clipper.
I would say that surface definitely plays a big part in variety. All toes moves or all clippers is obviously not ideal. All stalls on the same foot is not ideal. In a sick 3 you have 4 stalling surfaces. I always aim to use at least 3 out of my 4 primary surfaces (both clippers, both toes).
I would say that the combo has some variety, but not a huge amount. Parkwalk would be more variety because there's an extra component (the out dex on the butterfly).
However the combo has limited variety because there's a repetition of pixie sets on the same foot, mirages on each foot and all the tricks are just dex tricks. A far better combo would be something like pixie ss illusion>double over down>ducking clipper.
I would say that surface definitely plays a big part in variety. All toes moves or all clippers is obviously not ideal. All stalls on the same foot is not ideal. In a sick 3 you have 4 stalling surfaces. I always aim to use at least 3 out of my 4 primary surfaces (both clippers, both toes).
Definitely. I don't think I considered surface much unless a player was noticeably one-sided or predominantly clipper/toe (one or the other). For your combo I basically would have given you a point for the pixie set and a point for the fairy set (but of course that's just me and I have no education in footbag judging (but if my explanation of how I judged at Worlds is any indicator of the average judging in Circle comp then this might help you.))Jeremy wrote:A far better combo would be something like pixie ss illusion>double over down>ducking clipper.
I never gave butterfly or 2 add downtime tricks any real recognition. But if it had been a pixie whirl or double down or drifter then I'd've given you a third variety point for that downtime component. Although, the same score if it was just the downtime component on its own, especially since you'd already done a pixie set (and especially since it's the same side as the first pixie set).
I'm a bit bummed I don't have more time to be involved in this discussion because I find it interesting.
In terms of circle comp rules I'm not a massive fan of the themed rounds. I think judging is difficult enough without them adding further complications. But that's a seperate issue.
I've always considered variety in two ways - 1) variety of sets - and 2) variety of mid/downtime components.
I'm not sure you can say that 1 is more improtant than 2 or vica versa.
Say Competitor 1 hits 5 stepping moves, each with different down-time components, strung together with various bops
Competitor 2 hits 5 different sets all into mirages, strung together with the same bops as Competitor 1.
Do they score the same in terms of variety?
I'm inclined to think demonstrating a proficiency across surfaces and on both sides is something that should be considered as part of a "technical" score rather than variety.
In terms of circle comp rules I'm not a massive fan of the themed rounds. I think judging is difficult enough without them adding further complications. But that's a seperate issue.
I've always considered variety in two ways - 1) variety of sets - and 2) variety of mid/downtime components.
I'm not sure you can say that 1 is more improtant than 2 or vica versa.
Say Competitor 1 hits 5 stepping moves, each with different down-time components, strung together with various bops
Competitor 2 hits 5 different sets all into mirages, strung together with the same bops as Competitor 1.
Do they score the same in terms of variety?
I'm inclined to think demonstrating a proficiency across surfaces and on both sides is something that should be considered as part of a "technical" score rather than variety.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.
Dylan Govender.
There are no competitions where there are a variety and a technical score. In routines you have "technical" and "artistic" - of which variety would fit in to "technical." In circle you have "difficulty," "variety" and "density." What's the link between difficulty and variety? Is using all surfaces a sign of difficulty or variety? I would say it's a mix of both. It's obviously a variety of different surfaces but it's also more difficult to be proficient with clippers and toes on both sides. Of course it's easy to make judgements when we're talking about extremes but how do you make a clear decision when it's close?
player A hits mobius > pdx dlo > butterfly.
player B hits mobius > butterfly > pdx dlo.
would these combos be considered identical in terms of quantifying variety?
is the evaluation of links purely a technical one, or do unique links add to variety?
player B hits mobius > butterfly > pdx dlo.
would these combos be considered identical in terms of quantifying variety?
is the evaluation of links purely a technical one, or do unique links add to variety?
greg raymond, kingston
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey
FB: Rocker Holliday
"What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know." - Jack Handey
I think the nature of the link would certainly help determine variety points. But something more obscure may be more obvious and conducive in a judge's scoring. So a better example might be eclipse > drifter, as opposed to drifter > eclipse. Because eclipse is a rare trick and even more rare to not bail out of. Where mobius > pdx dlo is a tough link, it's more "mainstream", and I think we established that less mainstream (especially in the context of the event and players therein) tricks and combos are recognized as more heavily variety-laden.
Not at all. "Mainstreamness" has nothing to do with variety. Judges do not have to know whether a move or link is common or popular outside of what's actually being done in the specific event they're judging.
edit; Just to answer the question - except in exceptional circumstances the trick order should really have no impact on the variety score. This is a consequence of separating variety from difficulty rather than including both in a "technical" criterion.
An exceptional circumstance would be something like;
right blurry whirl>stepping whirl>blurry whirl
vs
left blurry whirl>blurry whirl>stepping whirl
In the first combo the person steps out of whirl twice on one side and never on the other. In the second combo the person steps out of whirl once on both sides. Hence the second has more variety.
edit; Just to answer the question - except in exceptional circumstances the trick order should really have no impact on the variety score. This is a consequence of separating variety from difficulty rather than including both in a "technical" criterion.
An exceptional circumstance would be something like;
right blurry whirl>stepping whirl>blurry whirl
vs
left blurry whirl>blurry whirl>stepping whirl
In the first combo the person steps out of whirl twice on one side and never on the other. In the second combo the person steps out of whirl once on both sides. Hence the second has more variety.
Erik Chan wrote:(especially in the context of the event and players therein)
Way to read.Jeremy wrote:Not at all. "Mainstreamness" has nothing to do with variety. Judges do not have to know whether a move or link is common or popular outside of what's actually being done in the specific event they're judging.
Cock.
Hey Erik - learn English.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q ... =&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&s ... arch&meta=
Ok, thanks.
edit;
And to be clear - in no context could drifter>eclipse be seen as having more variety than mobius>pdx dlo. If somebodies entire routine consisted of mobius>pdx dlo>clipper repeat and then the next person did that some combo, it should be judged as having the exact same amount of variety (just that combo, not the whole routine) in both cases. People's "variety" certainly should not be judged on what other competitors do.
Good job resorting to personal insults.
edit2;
To be even more clear - in all events competitors should be judged solely on their own performance - not the performance of other people. Hypothetically speaking if two players choreographed the exact same routine then it would be entirely unfair and illogical for the second player to perform to be penalised for this, only because they were seeded to compete second and not first. If variety is judged on anything other than what's hit in the specific performance being judged then it creates an unfair bias towards those competing first. What other people do at the event, should be largely deemed as irrelevant.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q ... =&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&s ... arch&meta=
Ok, thanks.
edit;
And to be clear - in no context could drifter>eclipse be seen as having more variety than mobius>pdx dlo. If somebodies entire routine consisted of mobius>pdx dlo>clipper repeat and then the next person did that some combo, it should be judged as having the exact same amount of variety (just that combo, not the whole routine) in both cases. People's "variety" certainly should not be judged on what other competitors do.
Good job resorting to personal insults.
edit2;
To be even more clear - in all events competitors should be judged solely on their own performance - not the performance of other people. Hypothetically speaking if two players choreographed the exact same routine then it would be entirely unfair and illogical for the second player to perform to be penalised for this, only because they were seeded to compete second and not first. If variety is judged on anything other than what's hit in the specific performance being judged then it creates an unfair bias towards those competing first. What other people do at the event, should be largely deemed as irrelevant.