Judging criteria 'Difficulty', 'Variety' & 'Consistency'
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
I suggest reworking the definitions of the three judging criteria 'Difficulty', 'Variety' & 'Consistency'.
Reason behind it being, that these criteria overlap, punishing or rewarding riders too much in certain cases and making it harder for to judge them individually.
For example: A rider doing only attempting a very limited amount of tricks in their run but landing them all, would receive a high 'Consistency' score, and the difficulty score would have to cover the difficulty of the tricks landed as well as the fact, that it was only a few ones.
We have tried slightly different definitions of the criteria at Winter EUC and found them to be clearer and more separated from each other.
'Difficulty' and 'Variety'
was scored on the average difficulty/variety of the tricks landed (without regarding the actual amount of tricks)
'Consistency'
was replaced by 'Fullness', scoring how much time was used for actually landing tricks. This would basically still judge the amount of tricks done, but not in relation to the attempts and instead in relation to time. (or in other words, having downtime during your battle/run, where you are neither landing a trick nor preparing/riding up to a trick will be punished)
Important to note:
- riding up to tricks is of course part of landing a trick, so it is not deemed downtime during the battle/run.
- harder tricks also usually require a longer preparation/run up, which is also expected and will not be punished.
- attempting and failing tricks will be judged as downtime
This way, we have better separated the amount of tricks done, from their difficulty and variety and at the same time removed the loop hole of attempting and landing very little tricks and still getting a high 'Consistency' score.
My suggestion would be as follows:
Difficulty
currently:
Score is given for technical diffculty of the tricks and combos landed during the battle/preliminary.
new:
Score is given for average technical difficulty of the tricks and combos landed during the battle/run.
Variety
currently:
Score is given for variation in the types of tricks done during the battle/preliminary.
new:
Score is given for the average variation in the types of tricks done during the battle/preliminary.
Fullness (currently Consistency)
currently:
Score is given for number of landed trick/combos on total of number of tricks/combos
attempted during the battle/preliminary.
new:
Score is given for time used for succesfully landing tricks. Preparing and riding up to successfully landed tricks is considered part of the trick. The harder a trick is, the more time is acceptable as preparation/run up time.
Comment
The ideas sound meaningful and comprehensible to me
Comment
I think this makes a lot of sense
Comment
@Ian: Could you prepare an official proposal? Maybe one or the other from the committee will comment when it is clear what is to be voted on.
Comment
Sounds great overall! I just think it would help to define Variety and Difficulty more clearly—especially with combos. Combos often add to difficulty since they combine multiple tricks, but they also affect variety depending on what’s included.
So what exactly are we counting for variety? Tire tricks, rolls, coasting, flips, spins… anything else? Would be good to be on the same page about what’s included and how it’s judged.
And to understand how do you judge difficulty for combos...
Comment
Great thought, that combos should find their mention in the definitions.
Defining a combo is its own thing though. Many hours of my life have been lost to that.
So I would put that off for now or at least in a separate discussion.
But I would go ahead and at least mention that combos should increase the difficulty score considerably and leave the definition of a combo up for directors and judges for now.
Would that be fine with people here?
Comment
Happy to leave the definition for now - will need some further thought in the future though I think. I'd like to see what happens with the "style" definition in the other discussion as well as it has the old definition here - where style is basically not defined at all.
Comment
Just had a thought, following that discussion with Ben, maybe combos don't break (unless going to normal riding), but their value gets diminished when the suspense is lost, e.g. by doing an easy rolling wrap or hopping on tyre in between?
Comment
I think that would make a lot of sense but maybe we should start a new discussion about it