nates's routine

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 12 Aug 2004 14:58

ericksonj wrote:
FlexThis wrote:
I second that
Motion carried (I also agree).
ditto

pwned

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 18 Aug 2004 02:39

You seem to forgot that:

1. Others in that pool didn't just shred. All other competitors had routines that went well with music.
2. Names like Scott Davidson were also dropped.
3. All other competitors had A LOT more adds with less contacts.
4. All other competitors had A LOT better add ratio.
6. It was more harder than a semi-final pool.
7. All other competitors hit 5's and even 6's - to music.
8. Some competitors had more 5's than he had 4's.

So basicly you haven't seen any other routines, which were all great. The seeding absolutely sucked and some people have to pay :\ I'm sorry it's nate this time, he would have been in semi-finals if he would have been in any other pool. Hopefully there wouldn't be a new time this happening. So don't make this judges fault based on limited facts you know. If you weren't there, you are in no position to say the whole judging system blows. If you have to point out the fault, it was the seeding system. Originally, the pool of death did have Jorden Moir also. Like I said, it was probably harder than a semi-final pool :\

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 18 Aug 2004 09:25

I think 3 and 4 are a bit redundant

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 18 Aug 2004 10:42

mouseman wrote:You

Who me again? Oh, no you didn't...

1. Others in that pool didn't just shred. All other competitors had routines that went well with music.

Take a deep breath and read what you wrote, now did that even need to be said? I HOPE they had routines for their sake.

2. Names like Scott Davidson were also dropped.

Don't make me bring up the topic of names versus drops again.

3. All other competitors had A LOT more adds with less contacts.
4. All other competitors had A LOT better add ratio.

What Nate said. Quit beating the dead horse.

6. It was more harder than a semi-final pool.

Who's fault was that?

7. All other competitors hit 5's and even 6's - to music.

And they dropped just as many times. WOW TO MUSIC, NO?!?!?

8. Some competitors had more 5's than he had 4's.

Maybe if they didn't drop six times more I would congratulate you with a worthy explanation.

So basicly you haven't seen any other routines

Do I need to? LISTEN, THEY DROPPED 6+ TIMES

Hopefully there wouldn't be a new time this happening.

I know your first language isn't English but re-read that please.

So don't make this judges fault based on limited facts you know.

Spare me the ignorance. Fact 1: There is no reason why Nate shouldn't have advanced in this pool. Fact 2: He is capable of so much more yet put up enough to advance to Semi's regardless of the routines difficulty.

If you weren't there, you are in no position to say the whole judging system blows.

the whole judging system blows

If you have to point out the fault, it was the seeding system.

Thanks for catching up to what we already know.

MrMeebles · Post by **MrMeebles** » 18 Aug 2004 21:07

Hi everyone,

I wasn't at worlds so I don't know how fair or not the judging was, but I was very active in the discussion that led to the current world's judging system (mostly on the loosing side of the debate). Some ideas that were thrown around at the time that seem very topical now:

1. Mandatory deductions. Every drop, also perhaps every body slop or the'd move immediately lowers the maximum score your routine can receive. Gymnastics does this and it seems to work pretty well for them.

2. Mandatory elements. Perhaps just for the qualifying rounds, require moves or strings from every players routine. As an example, require a certain number of five add moves, or a tripless string, or perhaps just a certain number of moves from each category: spinning, flying and so on. This would put the players on more of an even ground and make it easier to differentiate between routines.

I'm personally all for mandatory deductions, don't know about the second but they seem to address what happened to Nate pretty well. Anyway, food for thought, cheers.

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 19 Aug 2004 02:08

Maraxus, don't flame if you don't know how to do it.

I don't even answer your childish insults. Do something with your life.

You are just the type of guy who wouldn't say anything if we were discussing in real life.

All your arguments are wrong. Since you didn't disprove my arguments but rather just said something you thought was wise, I have no need to comment your post.

http://www.boomspeed.com/logan_god/arguing.jpg

Also, if you start arguing with a retard, he'll drag you to his level and win you with experience.

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 19 Aug 2004 06:32

See other post.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 19 Aug 2004 06:35

A difference in opinion should be respected. Quit being assholes to eachother. There are too few of us.

max · Post by **max** » 19 Aug 2004 06:44

Could somebody upload the raw footage of the pool 6 routines please?

It'll probably just fuel the debate but at least everyone will know EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 19 Aug 2004 08:21

Maraxus wrote:
mouseman wrote:Maraxus, don't flame if you don't know how to do it.

I don't even answer your childish insults.
You don't answer because you can't come up with a worthy explanation to why Nate lost his routine this year when he shouldn't have. Your like a rebel always trying to get the last word in, in an argument that you cannot win. Your so content on protecting this judging system that you refuse to look past your ignorance and allow another set of opinion's to reflect what happened.

Do something with your life.
I'm warning you not to step too far before you hurt yourself Jere.

You are just the type of guy who wouldn't say anything if we were discussing in real life.
Act like you know who I am too.

All your arguments are wrong. Since you didn't disprove my arguments but rather just said something you thought was wise, I have no need to comment your post.

I didn't find a need to again, since many other players and I already did weeks ago. Let go of it.

Also, if you start arguing with a retard, he'll drag you to his level and win you with experience.

This doesn't make sense since you haven't won anything. I don't have time to do this anymore, I'm being convoyed to Najaf in a few hours.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 19 Aug 2004 10:38

Yeah I like what andrew was talking about. I realy think gymnastics sets a good example of a judging sytem that could pretty easily work in footbag. Especialy for tech merit.
Have a judge counting 5s and 4s and such and another person writing down combos or move elements present in a routine. Then a raw difficulty could be found. Some one like Jere would probly get a 9 or 9.5 where mine would start at like 6.5 or 7. Then just deduct from obviouse errors. -.2 for thes, -.3 for obviouse saves, -.5 for drops, -1 for big deviations.
The problem with this is that in gymnastics the judges know what the competitor plans to do ahead of time, so its easy to see deviations where ours is partly improvised so if we hit blurry whirl>ripwalk when we wanted bw>bw the judges may not know we bailed the last one.
And this doesn't even go into artistic interpretation, from what I've seen artistic interpretation is kind of BS. I didn't see anyone with enough artistic interpretation that justified giving a whole score equal to tech merit. Does anyone ever get a realy high tech merit and realy low artistic interp or vice versa, NO. Its all just lumped together in the judges impression. Thats why AT should be thrown out and go back to the awarding bonus points thing again. some moves were on the beat +.5. Lots of unusuals, +.8. Something new that makes the adience go awwwwww, +1, and so on.
But the fact of the matter is the sytem we got is pretty good and 95% of the time judges get things right. And any other system would probably give us about the same results 95% accuracy and one or two guys a year who get to write tons of responses about being robbed

footbag is great.

james · Post by **james** » 19 Aug 2004 10:52

What is the point of a routine?? To impress whoever's watching. It's about how good it looks. Spectactors and judges will obviously have different opinions on how good a routine looks because a judge knows what's going on. Whose opinion matters? Well I guess it will have to be the professional one, it can't be any other way. I was on the panel for the pool of death and I judged based on a number of factors. The two most important were how much I enjoyed the routine and how difficult it was. Drops affect the flow and energy of a routine but if they're spread out enough they're less of a factor. That pool was loaded with enjoyable routines, it was insane. I had several of the last few players (to qualify) tied in either artistic or technical merit. I left it up to the other judges to even it out. I don't agree with the order of the players but I completely agree with who got in and who didn't. Massive props to Nate for representing in that pool but the difficulty and variety wasn't there; in other words I enjoyed those other routines more, drops and all.
I don't like the judging system used however. It was too subjective and there is no way to rank players inbetween pools. Notice how in the complete results there are massive gaps in the numbers and then five players tied in one position. Yuck.
Props to me and Andrew Coleman tied in 47th. Hahahaha

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 19 Aug 2004 12:23

edit: never mind

pillar · Post by **pillar** » 19 Aug 2004 12:46

Okay chill out you guys. Nice post there James - I'm with you all the way.

the Executioner · Post by **the Executioner** » 19 Aug 2004 13:23

james wrote:That pool was loaded with enjoyable routines, it was insane. I had several of the last few players (to qualify) tied in either artistic or technical merit. I left it up to the other judges to even it out........
............I don't like the judging system used however. It was too subjective and there is no way to rank players inbetween pools. Notice how in the complete results there are massive gaps in the numbers and then five players tied in one position. Yuck

.

??????????

Might there be a correlation between the two above quotes? Isnt the job of a judge to rank the players? How can you have several
people tied in artistic or technical merit? Would the results have differed
had you actually ranked them?

Aside, one factor is that Nate's seed hurt him. Had he gone much later in the pool after a few 6 drop routines, his chances of making semis would have greatly improved.

Another factor is the judge's opinion on what a good routine is. It seems the emphasis is on technical ability, but the fact is that a routine is a presentation, a show in front of a crowd. Nate is good in front of a crowd, and confident with personality, more than many players. It's obvious that he is enjoying himself, and regardless of technical level this has to help him. This should be evident to any competent judge.

In my opinion, drops are extremely important in a routine--especially at worlds. I think this game is at the level that there shouldnt be too much dropping at the world championships. I think 5 or 6 drops is alot at worlds, in any routine regardless of the difficulty.

I would like to watch all the routines over again for sure so if anyone has that footage please post it soon.

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 19 Aug 2004 14:40

Okay maraxus, I don't know you, but based on your comments I assumed you were some 13 year old geek. During the time I spent with online games I met SO much people who used the same phrases and lameass comments you do - so I automaticly assumed you're one of them. Maybe I was too quick to judge you, but why act like that?

I don't have the routines on tape, but I have some facts, since my brother pillar was also a judge on that pool and he took home his judging papers. Maraxus, if I understood right, you haven't seen any of the routines and the only fact that you rely on to is the drops. You said that all of those who made the cut had 6 or more drops more than nate. If we take a closer look to the drops, we can see that Jere V. had 3, Juho M. and I had 5 and Ales & Jonathan M. had 6. So none of us had 6 drops more than nate, only 2-5 drops more. I wonder how can you be so sure of your point of view when your only argument isn't valid?

Other important fact is the adds. The five who made the cut had adds around 240 (220-270) and nate had 189. This must count with the fact that nate actually had less contacts than anyone who made the cut (more resting time -> less difficult). The technical proof just isn't there.

So how much does a drop count? Do we really want to see more and more two adds tricks on the stage? If we punish people too much based on drops, we will doom the majority of competitors to do alot easier routines. Of course drops have to count, but they shouldn't be the only thing that matter. Judges have to find the balance. The best place would be judges meetings :)

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 19 Aug 2004 15:28

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 19 Aug 2004 17:38

FlexThis wrote:... and I believe that is what Nate was trying to do and succeeded, unfortunately he succeeded on an intermediate level.

Ordinarily I offer some sort of sarcastic remark in retort but after the props from mr irish I'm as happy as a clam and could care less about any slams!! BOOYAH

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 19 Aug 2004 17:58

I was there and I saw all the routines. Frankly, I have to disagree with Jere about everybody having a routine in that pool. A couple players in the pool of death had almost no choreography (pauses, moves on the beat, unusual surfaces, fliers, interaction with the audience). This, coupled with the big drop counts, to me means that Nate should definitely have made the cut.

And for all the people giving Nate grief about his add ratio or add count, watch Yacine`s finals routine from last year. I thought it was a real good routine, and he took 3rd place with it, and I dont think the difficulty was THAT much higher than Nates.

I will write a more detailed critique about the judging at worlds later, but as somebody who was there (and who has seen many great routines in my life), I personally think it was a travesty that Nate did not make the cut.

Oh and Jere, Aaron, take it down a notch. Y`all are getting worked up over nothing.

bob · Post by **bob** » 20 Aug 2004 01:28

so i was watching the olympics a few nights ago and this thread reminded me of a thought i had. i started thinking about how the freestylers could have a set difficulty before hand (pre-planned out combos for higher difficulty givin to the judges). In the olympics (gymnastics, ice skating, namely i was watching parallel bars) they have, for example, a set degree of difficulty, say 9.5 degree of difficulty. this means that a 9.5 is the highest score they could get. If they did everything perfect, it would be a 9.5, but any flaws they have would decrease that score.

for example:

ales may have a 9.4 difficulty routine, where he drops three times and maybe messes up one of his "judges combos" or "difficulty combos" he gave to a judge. The judge would look at his total performance, and make deductions starting from 9.4. He gets a 7.9.

Nate may have a 8 difficulty routine but only drops once and hits everything cleanly and sharply. He gets a 7.6.

Anyway, just some thoughts on a new judging system.

obvious flaws would be deciding how much a deduction a drop is worth, how much a deduction for a blotched up "judges combo" is, and how to decide the pre determined difficulty of a routine. Just some thinking i was doing during the olympics though, so i thought i'd shout it out here. (i wonder how they decide pre determined difficulty in parallel bars? anyone?)