What is "variety?"

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 01 May 2009 21:15

Hey, I actually feel bad. I don't like you most of the time, but that was pretty low. I'm sorry Jeremy O'Wheel. I understand and agree with what you said about not being compared to other players in judging variety.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 May 2009 22:38

lol, hilarious apology. "I don't like you most of the time, but that was pretty low." You called me a "cock," you didn't insult my mother. It was funny and childish, not insulting. Do you feel bad because you thought I was offended or because of how it makes you look?

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 01 May 2009 22:58

Because I don't like to be mean to people. As much as I dislike you

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 05 May 2009 00:28

Jeremy wrote: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."

Right, but when you're considering variety within the larger category of the technical score or when considering the "variety" thing in circles, all other things being equal,do you think variety of sets and variety of mid/downtime components are of equal value?

Also in Circle where there is the "variety" theme I wouldn't count proficiency across surfaces or sidedness as part of that score. I think these are "technical" issues better kept out of "variety" where this latter term is being used as a judging theme for circle. I think if you're going to do the themed circle rounds then make the themes as simple as possible.

Similarly, I agree that order of tricks (or the variety of links) should not be part of the "variety" score. Personally, while I can see Jeremy's point when he notes an exception, I wouldn't make such exceptions, I would consider "variety" purely in terms of sets and components, not the way the previous move affects the nature of a set - I would classify that as a matter for "links" or "difficulty". Even though this makes thing like spinning out of osis the same as spinning out of a butterfly as far as "variety" is concerned, I think its better to keep the judging simple even if it means that the criteria is a little more artifical.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 05 May 2009 00:47

Being that there is actually a round dedicated to links, this would make sense.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 May 2009 03:54

The links was just at Aus champs because "density" is so poorly defined.