Judging at Worlds

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 05 Aug 2004 06:41

Dude, at least try to think about what I'm saying! Again, seeding "praises" those who have done good in the past and holds them above others. And that is correct and proper. You'll find no other sport in the world that is compareable to freestyle routines, where this is not so. In fact you'll find no other sport in the world where a no name can just pop up at the world champs and expect to reach the finals. In all other sports people go through long series of qualifications where they make a name of themselves before going to worlds. but that's another issue.
I was saying, that we can't hold it against the judges, that big names influence their decisions. They're human.

Fuck no. Seeding "praises" players? It should only attempt to place them in a more even out pool, not give them an advantage. That is in no way correct and proper, if a player is determined enough to make it to each individual worlds and compete they will earn their right to advance through training and exhibiting their skill on stage (once again). If they do not, better luck next year, that's competition. I don't care if you're Kenny Shultz, if you preform like shit on stage, you should not advance. If you cannot understand and be content with this system, I'll give you a giant purple straw so you can suck it the fuck up.

Even better, organize the next worlds be the supreme head judge and make sure everything works out perfectly fine.

k

But even worse is an oldie with good skill who's proven himself in various tournaments to be pitted against Vasek first round.

Give me an example why that is worse. If you preform horribly, I don't give a shit who you are, you should not advance past those that preformed better. We all know that Vasek is beyond anyone, but if he goes on stage and has a routine with 10 drops in it and he still advances, what sense does that make?

... but this is the WORLD championships we are talking about here... some ppl have devoted hours of their lives every day for the past year or more, to get themselves to a competitive level and prepare a routine etc etc... there is just as much devotion in these competitors as there is in competitive swimmers, runners etc etc...

Not true! In any other "professional" sport people devote their WHOLE LIFE for a whole bunch of years to even have the chance of competing in a world championship.

He's saying that their is an equal, if not greater amount of devotion in our sport as any other. If you cannot understand what they are explaining, tell me how you comprehend footbag judging?

So that's it. If I ever attend worlds it won't be for competition, I don't care how good I get. I'll get more from meeting the people and shredding than I could ever recieve from the current system. You can't run a World Championship judging system like that. You're cheating everyone else.

Shredster · Post by **Shredster** » 05 Aug 2004 06:55

I've never been to worlds, but i don't see how a player, regardless of his skill level, should still be able to advance regardless of how crappy he did.

Many people that go to worlds to compete devote many hours towards trying to be first place in the finals. I'm sure vasek could still win a routine without any practice for say, a month or so. Others of us have to struggle to attempt to equal him or to even stay as good as we are now.

Lets say vasek's hypothetical month off made him drop, like maraxus said, 10 drops. Assuming someone with good talent had 0 drops, but not as high of tricks, or the rythem wasn't perfect, and didn't advance, that does not seem to make any sense to me. IF he/she devoted many hours to acquire a 0 drop routine, and vasek, who took a month off, gets to advance despite his hypothetica 10 drops, he should not advance just because he's vasek.

If you cannot understand and be content with this system, I'll give you a giant purple straw so you can suck it the fuck up.

That is hilarious.

... but this is the WORLD championships we are talking about here... some ppl have devoted hours of their lives every day for the past year or more, to get themselves to a competitive level and prepare a routine etc etc... there is just as much devotion in these competitors as there is in competitive swimmers, runners etc etc...

Not true! In any other "professional" sport people devote their WHOLE LIFE for a whole bunch of years to even have the chance of competing in a world championship.

Sorry maraxus, i took the quotes right off your post because i didn't fully read the thread.

I really don't agree that any other "professional" sport people devote their entire life. Vasek does not devote his entire life to footbag. There is a thing called natural talent. When you have plenty of that, you don't have to practice as much. Vasek does other things in his time (i'm pretty sure he does at least). I could very well become a "professional" (i'm not sure what status i have to meet for that), but i would not devote my entire life to footbag to become that.

Anyways, Maraxus, i agree with what you said. Vasek, i don't think you've ever had a routine with 10 drops, so yeah, don't worry about it.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 05 Aug 2004 07:33

---

Wait! There are no city, regional, state championships around you? Well then you better get your ass off the couch and start organizing that shit

That is officially the funniest, and greatest thing I have heard all week long.

Lets say vasek's hypothetical month off made him drop, like maraxus said, 10 drops. Assuming someone with good talent had 0 drops, but not as high of tricks, or the rythem wasn't perfect, and didn't advance, that does not seem to make any sense to me. IF he/she devoted many hours to acquire a 0 drop routine, and vasek, who took a month off, gets to advance despite his hypothetica 10 drops, he should not advance just because he's vasek.

Jan's not saying that if Vasek drops 10 times that he'll advance over someone who drops 0 times. That's ridiculous; you're putting words in his mouth that he didn't even say! This is what he actually said:

That's seeding! The better you have performed in the past the better your chances not to end up in a first round pool with Vasek.

---

Quote:
What's sad is that since it is a subjective competition, the judges IMO should be just as good if not better than the competitors

simply not true.

The important thing is that the judges have knowledge of what the competitors are doing, not be able to perform it.

It's impossible to rank all players! How do you rank players who competed in different pools? There's no definition of what a score of 4.32 is as oposed to a 4.33. And I'd like to see anyone make an effort to try to seriously define a system like that. No chance!

Exactly. And when you factor in someone like Clavins who competed in intermediate this year but will most likely compete in Open next year... he goes from #1 to a "?"

Quote:
Noone likes to see a newbie with good skills pitted against Vasek first pool. How ugly is that

But even worse is an oldie with good skill who's proven himself in various tournaments to be pitted against Vasek first round.

Neither of these is worse... if a new shredder OR a veteran shredder gets pitted against Vasek early on, they should perform to their highest ability, and accept their loss

. Just kidding!

Just a note to Jan: I think that since the sport IS in its infancy, that the arguing over these forums is very important... we're brainstorming ideas. I agree that the people complaining heavily should put these ideas into effect once we're through discussing them. I don't think they're necessarily trying to attack you, but more... change the way that this sport is headed... in a more positive direction. But I can't speak for them, that's just the perspective I'm viewing it from.

If you cannot understand what they are explaining, tell me how you comprehend footbag judging?

Agreed! This IS important, in my opinion.

---

DoctorJay · Post by **DoctorJay** » 05 Aug 2004 08:20

I think that only two players should be seeded in a pool.
The others should be drawn to their pools and their sequence should be drawn too.
I did not know up to now that all players were "seeded" - that sounds to me like the judges are able to affect who can make it to the next round before competition.

Performance should count - nothing else !

As mentioned before, an admitted player has already lots of advantages ( crowd; know the judges...).

If a judge cannot concentrate 4 to 9 routines; he should be replaced or the pools should only have 6 competitors.
Moreover it would be good if judges would be in their best physical condition when doing their job.
I think that every competitor earns this respect for his performance on stage( and his training hours before). I think it is not appropriate to have lots of beer bottles on the judging table or stoned judges, imo.

This topic shows how small this sport is; we are discussion the judging of the world championships- and as it looks like it depends still on things like personal relations and NAMES!

Sorry that`s ridiculous

I hope that I will be able to see many routines of wc04 soon and then make my own opinion about this.

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 05 Aug 2004 08:41

What exactly are you taking notes on? What color socks and how hygenic the competitors are? Or are the judges so stoned that their short term memory is non-existant?

No, (well, maybe the color of socks if it will help me remember who the player was when I'm not familiar with his name and there are several competitors in his pool). Keep in mind...It's not like you watch 1 pool when you're judging...more like you sit down and judge for 2 hours straight in between competing yourself. It may sound silly, but if you have never met some of these people before, it can be difficult to look at a list of names (especially foreign ones that you can't pronounce) and put a face to the name. If writing down "long red socks" helps me remember the player's overall routine and to judge more accurately, I will write it down. What i *do* write down (especially for technical) is unique tricks, long runs, unique things planned in the choreography, attitude, ...anything that stands out. you will forget a lot if you don't write it down whether you're puffing or not! take my word for it...and if you have never judged before at euros/worlds, then I'm not really interested in your opinion about this. watch any experienced judge (Kenny, Tu, Sam, me, etc.) look at their scratch paper...they're taking notes. when novice judges don't do this, they have trouble recalling certain details and then are forced to make a guess where routines are close in score. your bias can really interfere with the results when you are forced to start guessing. Take notes when you judge, I'm serious...even if you think it's funny. we don't video verify routines, your notes are all you have to go by if you need an instant replay. of course, don't write so much that you're not actually watching the routine...I don't even look at my paper while I'm writing...I just scratch a word or two without looking down...eyes glued to the player.

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 05 Aug 2004 09:44

That's exactly what I want to hear Jane. Don't take my sarcasm literally, I was just using bogus examples to critisize. I want the judges to take as many notes as possible, while maintaining supervision ofcourse, to give that competitor the recognition he/she deserves. My frustration came out of judge's "not" remembering what the competitiors did and didn't do, resulting in a playere like Nate, Damon in 99', or even you in the past if I remember correctly, not getting the scores they deserve. You are the type of judge I would want in such a competition because I agree with how you recollect things. It is very similiar to how I remember what occurs on post during late hours in Iraqi streets because it works.

But can anybody ensure that this is how each individual judge took note at worlds this year? Who is there to supervise the judges and to ensure mistakes are brought about before it is too late? It seems to me that we need judges of the judges, supervisors of the supervisors, it makes sense, it's called checks and balances, look at how our government is run.

(Suggestion)- Perhaps it should run through sets of judges? Each to identify certain aspects of a routine but also keep in check the other judges; just an idea.

Shredster · Post by **Shredster** » 05 Aug 2004 10:10

Jan's not saying that if Vasek drops 10 times that he'll advance over someone who drops 0 times. That's ridiculous; you're putting words in his mouth that he didn't even say!

Sorry, that was my interpretation from my maraxus's post. I wasn't trying to put words in anyones mouth. I'm sorry.

Give me an example why that is worse. If you preform horribly, I don't give a shit who you are, you should not advance past those that preformed better. We all know that Vasek is beyond anyone, but if he goes on stage and has a routine with 10 drops in it and he still advances, what sense does that make?

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 05 Aug 2004 10:13

Yeah I wasn't really blaming you OR Maraxus. I just didn't want the thread to form that way and have people commenting on it, when that's not what Jan said in the first place.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 05 Aug 2004 12:25

Juana wrote: The new system is designed to give quicker results...it makes routines more of a spectator sport. THe audience enjoys seeing how each player ranks almost immediately after she/he has performed. .

This didn't happen at this years worlds. Results weren't even shown for quater and semis, only placement announced, and the results weren't shown at finals till the very end.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 05 Aug 2004 12:49

few more comments, I'll try to not make them complaints, I don't have anything to complain about.

Being seeded with Vasek in the first round isn't bad at all. When 5 people advance in a pool the question is how good is the 5th best player. so it doesn't matter how good the top 4 are its the last spot that counts.

when I saw the 2002 worlds result and there was all the contraversy I thought Vasek should have won.
Ryan had more choreogrphy and less drops, Vasek had more adds and went last.
Thats actualy very similar to what happened to me. I'm going to be arrogant and say IMO I had the best choreography in my pool and the least drops, but ALOT more adds and 5 add tricks came after me, and they came after me. So at one time I would have judged in favor of the other competitors as well.
But hey my routine will be out eventualy and I'll probably get as much crap as I, and my buddies, dish out. For haveing a low add routine with lots of pauses and easy moves.
But thats the fun of these forums!!! 2 each there own

atze · Post by **atze** » 06 Aug 2004 01:31

Jan's not saying that if Vasek drops 10 times that he'll advance over someone who drops 0 times. That's ridiculous; you're putting words in his mouth that he didn't even say!

Thanks Dave for putting that straight.

And for a last time I'll try to explain the mysteries of seeding:

Yes, it is made to even out the pools.
BUT by doing that it automatically ensures that the best players of previous tournaments have the greatest possibility of making up the final round.
To illustrate and make it simpler, take seeding in net: seeding ensures that the top two seeded players will not meet head to head BEFORE the finals. Of course one of them can drop out in an earlier round if he looses to a worse seeded player. But Seeded at #2 automatically GIVES YOU AN EDGE over all other players because you won't have to play against the top seed until (and if) you reach the finals. Similar but less pronounced advantages hold for being seeder 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.

So with the seeding and making the pools you, as a tournament, are actuially ANTICIPATING the outcome of the tournament. As well as the outcome of each pool/round.

And in freestyle it is quite similar. And what is in the tournament organizers head is of course also in the head of the judges, players, etc. So if you have a name and are seeded, you do in all actual fact have a real advantage over players that are seeded below you, plus you have the psychological advantage of
a. playing later in the pool than the people seeded lower than you
This for instance helps if players before you manage to heat up the crowd. Plus being first in the pool is always the most nerve wrecking.
b. The judges SUBCONCIOUSLY giving you an edge becasue they either know you personally, know your reputation or simply remember your routine better because it was one of the last they've seen in the pool.

While a., simply happens, b. should not happen! But as I said before, judges are only humans too and while I'm sure all of them do their best to avoid bias, it does cause some erronous decisions every once in a while.
But as I also said, huge multi million dollar sports like figure skating still have their judging scandal every now and again. So we should all take it a little more easy on the judges. After all they are not "professionals".

SO, as stated above seeding has a direct and indirect influence on your chances of making it to the next round. The problem at worlds as I see it, is that propper seeding is not possible. Propper seeding meaning that we have a bunch of qualifying tournaments where people have to proove their worth first before competing at worlds. Then stuff like having a "no name" with superior skill go as one of the first in a pool simply wouldn't happen. And we'd eliminate one chance of a wrong decision.

Of course I agree with all of you, that the actual performance on D-Day is what counts. But I hope you also see that circumstances that are all in all fair and just (seeding, judging system, pools, human judges, making a name of yourself, etc.) can lead to unfortunate decisions like in the case of Nate. And that in the end it was more Bad Luck than a scandal or crappy judging system or whatever that lead to Nate not advancing as he possibly should have.

And as the case with bad luck, it usually doesn't stick. So I think Nate will do very well for himself in future competitions.

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 06 Aug 2004 04:20

Ok.. I will write something litle here:
The current judging system ist the best of the possible systems. The problem isn't in the system. The problem is in the LACK of good judges. It's because our sport is young and we have not experienced players who will not compete - only judging. If players like Kenny, Pete and other will be not able to compete they will be only judging (if they will want..). Now the players must be judges. Everything what we can ad to system is one or two mor judges and the higher and the lower rank is out... like in ski jumping. But if we have problem with find 5 good, qualified judges how will be able to find another 2...

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 06 Aug 2004 08:08

The judging in worlds could have been better, but it was okay and I think everyone got the place they deserved.

Anyway, in euros, the judging was perfect. Some reasons why:

1) they used the same judges alot
2) kept full judges meetings
3) had professionals working as judges

It was possible because judges got free food and free accomodation.

None on these four things weren't done in worlds, and that's because the judging could've been better, not because the system is poor.

All you who want to make a good organized tournament, talk to Mads at Denmark, they know how to do it.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 06 Aug 2004 09:29

pillar · Post by **pillar** » 06 Aug 2004 10:45

Listen to Jan Zimmerman. He clearly knows what he is talking about. Thanks Jan for speaking out loud with such experience as you have.

I thought judging was pretty good in the Worlds this year, but first round seeding was messed up. Steve made it for the semi's and it was a lot better (although one pool had 3 same finns _again_ against eachother than they did in the pool of death, but oh well).

As what comes to Nate, I think he probably did suffer from being seeded last in the pool, but I won't say he should have made the semi's. Only the judges got the contacts/adds and addratios and people are just talking about the amount of drops (which are ofcourse important as well). No one seems to notice the other routines in the pool (which were all really awesome!). Any other pool and Nate would have been easily in Semi's. I think same goes for Scott Davidson and probably even Dexter. That's why I say the seeding was messed up for the first round. I think the judging system worked pretty good and judges did okay in my book. If you want to have it done even better, look at mouseman's comments on euros judging. Those things really worked.

And as Jan said, give the judges a break, especially if you have never judged in the Worlds (or even attended one!). It is really hard (like in cases like the pool of death) and if the only thanks you get is getting publicly mocked, why would anyone want to be a judge?

Props for Nate being really cool about this and for having such a nice routine. It was well done and surely he will do good in the future (with more accurate seeding as well!).

Juana · Post by **Juana** » 15 Aug 2004 13:39

Having read all of these threads about judging, here's the main thing I think should be covered at future judging clinics:

1. Drops are part of artisitc and technical merit. You can not have good presentation with high drops no matter how choreographed or technical your routine may be. Judges need to seriously take into consideration the effect of the drops on the players overall routine when ranking. If not doing this subjectively, then maybe we need to quantify the drops as a deduction from your total score. This is a free and easy way to improve the current system.

2. Suggestion (also free and easy way to improve the current system): Throw out the high and low rank from each player's technical card and artistic card to reduce standard error caused by such a subjective judging system.

pillar · Post by **pillar** » 15 Aug 2004 14:05

I think Jane has some good suggestions going here.. let me give some of my thoughts on those..

2. Suggestion (also free and easy way to improve the current system): Throw out the high and low rank from each player's technical card and artistic card to reduce standard error caused by such a subjective judging system.

We thought about this one in Finland, but found it hard to integrate with the current system. We couldn't find a way to make it work with ranking type of a system, only when the scoring is based on points. It just messes the whole ranking really easily. I'm having a hard time to explain this, but just think it through and you will notice the problems. Another concern we had was that would 5 judges be enough with this?

So, I like this as an idea, but can't figure a way to make it work in our system. If someone does, please let me know.

1. Drops are part of artisitc and technical merit. You can not have good presentation with high drops no matter how choreographed or technical your routine may be.

Okay, obviously it affects them both, but how much? I think that's the question in this one right now and I haven't seen any real answers. I've just been given opinions like 'it should matter a lot' or 'no matter how little drops, if your routine is easy it shouldn't get high on technical' etc. Maybe it would be good for the judges and the players to know how much approximately a drop will deduct from their score. I think it should be more of a guideline than a rule. Sometimes a drop is worse than in other cases and the judges should be able to take that in consideration as well.

Well, it seems like I don't have any real answers to this question, but would like to hear one if there is any!

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 15 Aug 2004 23:00

It's a different matter to have a drop like Honza did in some round of worlds. He dropped to bag right next to his foot after a long run. He raised his arms and looked at the audience being rewarded by applause. At the same time he rolled up the bag to his toe and continued like anything isn't happened at all. I think 3/4 of the audience didn't notice that he dropped at the first place, so obviously that can't reduce his artistic impression scores too much?

Or then you can have a unfortunate drop like Greg Nelson did in semis. You lose control of the bag and while trying to maintain the control again you do alot running, kick the judges table and the bag still drops. I think this one affect Artistic Impression alot more than the previous drop.

So having a rule like "every drop costs you 0.2 points in AI and Difficulty" isn't quite fair. Also hand catches are concerned as drops, but still I think they aren't as bad as the usual drops.

But the common guideline could be good. But judges should know that they don't have to rely on that guideline too much.

AGAIN, this and other things should be discussed on JUDGES MEETING with IFPA OFFICIAL QUALIFIED JUDGES after they've rested enough in their FREE ACCOMODATION and ate enough in their FREE RESTAURANT, this shouldn't be a problem, because the JUDGES KNOW EACHOTHER from the previous times and they've all COMPETED BEFORE and FOLLOWED THE SCENE closely.

I can't point out my previous posts enough, because it really solves all problems. :>

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 15 Aug 2004 23:15

I think it would be nice to try judging a competition based on lowest amount of drops wins - and if players have no drops or the same amount, then it goes to technical and artistic scores. This would mean we'd probably see much easier routines - I mean lets face it under this system I could have stood with the bag stalled on my toe for two minutes and come 4th at worlds this year - However someone else might have come out and done the same thing except with a legover - and would beat me - so people will still be pushing a hard but it will make things look more impressive and more professional. If you have been watching the olympics like me, you'll notice that most of the competitors in sports like gymnastics hardly ever fall off - I imagine this is because they only do things they know they can hit every time - I think we should change direction of footbag to move into that direction.

The other thing I like about routines is flow. Flow means not pausing every 5 seconds - people like Ryan and Vasek do routines with great flow and in my opinion it looks a lot better than gimicky routines without as much flow. Pauses etc. are good - but not if they are overdone. If you watch other sports they hardly ever stop and do nothing - sometimes what they are doing is simply for artistic merit - but they keep flow happening in their routines.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 16 Aug 2004 16:20

[quote="Jeremy"] If you have been watching the olympics like me, you'll notice that most of the competitors in sports like gymnastics hardly ever fall off - I imagine this is because they only do things they know they can hit every time - I think we should change direction of footbag to move into that direction.

quote]

Me too. Even simple moves become tricky up on stage.

It seems that drops are very important as soon as you can do whatever the person on stage is doing. Before I could hit PS whirl, seeing one in a routine would throw my impression of tech merit and artistic inter way up, even with several drops. However once you can hit that move its less impressive.
This is probably where the old saying of "young players like big moves old players like no drops in routines" comes from.