Unify Routine Length
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
As we would like to turn this discussion into a proposal, I am setting up the discussions. However, Gossi has prepared the necessary texts. Please refer to the first post.
Comment
Routine length was defined long, long time ago (> 30 yrs) and still unchanged since then (excluding the reduction of group length). The original idea was to welcome new riders (first timers) with short routine length and give more experienced riders more time. Freestyle drastically changed since then, but this rule is still to be modernized. Now that we have plenty of experience with situations in which it went wrong, we can give it the update it needs.
The routine length rules are utterly complex and nowadays are considered harmful to riders as they even have routines with three different lengths within one season/year. Not only that, the relation of 4 minutes for one person in comparison to 5 minutes for 16 people stands in no healthy relationship. The problems continue: Around 10 yrs ago, in Germany “all” routines went “expert” and as such everybody above the age of 15 was forced to start with 4 minutes. We now clearly see, this is not in the favor of riders, quite the contrary. Not many routines (maybe only expert routines at Unicon) are able to use the 4 minutes effectively at all. The result is many trick-wise bloated or on the other end of the spectrum very bland routines. In both cases ruin the attractivity of our discipline. Events are stretched for no reasons while compromising by having less athletes to compete.
Example from Schleswig-Holstein state championships in Germany (no limits, no qualifier):
-
Individual Youth + Adults: 46 routines
-
Pairs Youth + Adults: 37 routines
-
Total saving: 83 routines which equals to 83 minutes saved
Savings in Germany, across all state level events, would be: 4h37m
We want highly attractive routines without any harming effects on the riders, while keeping the original idea of welcoming new riders to the sport.
Draft for changes to the rulebook:
### 6B.8.1 Time Limits
The maximum for routine lengths are:
- Individual: 3 min
- Pair: 3 min
- Group: 5 min
Non IUF events (such as newcomer events) can allow shorter durations to lower the entrance barrier for first timers. The maximum routine length must be announced with tender/bidding for each event.
Comment
I'm fine with this change.
Comment
I think standardizing the routine length is a good idea - the time saved at the competitions is certainly one thing, but I see the much greater advantage in the fact that for the riders the change from U15 to 15+ no longer means that they have to set up a longer routine, so this change is considerably simplified.
At the same time, standardization also means that (even with the current age group and expert system at Unicon) it makes no difference for the riders in their preparation whether they start at Unicon in the age group or in expert.
I also think that the really good riders have often filled the current 4 minutes very well, but overall I think the advantages of a standardized routine length outweigh the disadvantages of a shorter length and I would agree to shorten the routine length as suggested above.
Comment
There seems to be no objection. Perhaps Marvin or Gossi can turn it into a proposal.
Comment
Wait — does this proposal mean that even expert routines won’t be 4 minutes anymore?!If that’s the case, I’d like to share some thoughts based on my experience.
I have competed in the solo expert category at Unicon three times, and I consider that being able to make full and effective use of 4 minutes is an essential part of what defines an expert-level rider.
At Unicon, only expert routines are given 4 minutes, and this format seems to work well.
When watching German competitions online, what I thought was that some routines use multiple unrelated pieces of music, making them feel like four separate 1-minute performances combined.
Although this may be slightly outside the main topic, I believe that introducing a rule requiring each routine to follow a single, consistent theme could help encourage riders to engage more thoughtfully with their music and artistic expression.
In Japan, the routine time is only two and a half minutes, and this has led to a trend of packing in as many tricks as possible. The national federation attempted to address this by placing limits on the number and types of tricks allowed, but as many of you may know, this has often resulted in routines built from similar tricks and choreography. In my view, it has not improved the overall quality of performance.
I would also like to highlight a concern that shortening routine time could shift the focus of the sport away from performance and more toward the technical part, which I believe is an important consideration in this discussion.
In my opinion, creating a strong 4-minute routine requires a clear artistic theme. Without it—or if similar tricks are repeated too often—the performance can feel long and unengaging. If we don’t address this, cutting one minute may simply lead to a slightly shorter but still unengaging 3-minute routine.
Comment
While writing this, I realized that making riders who aren’t quite ready perform a full 4-minute routine can actually be quite harsh.
So if every rider is required to perform the same length, maybe it does make sense—like Gossi said—to limit routines to 3 minutes.
Sorry that my thoughts are a bit all over the place.
But I still wonder—would it really be so difficult to keep the 4-minute format just for expert level?
In Japan, we have a video qualification system. Could something like that be a possible solution?
Comment
Very valid points Gou. Germany is I think much higher affected by these "trick-firework-routines-without-a-soul" problem, and is not liked either over here. But that is not a routine length problem. Shorter routines though might have an effect on this as it requires athletes to make a better choice of what they want to put into their routine - but it's not promised these routines will become more balanced which is why that needs to be handled elsewhere.
I made an analysis of how effectively athletes use their given time, and figured that even Unicon competitors have a hard time using the 4 minutes effectively (and we speak about the best riders here). You can read more on Time Tracking Analysis (I hope that works well with a translator). The sample you see there is Kazuhiro at Unicon in Brixen. More publicly analized routines.
> In Japan, we have a video qualification system. Could something like that be a possible solution?
Germany uses multiple events througout the year, that qualify you for the next higher event.
State (6 events) -> Regional (2 events) -> national (1 event) -> international/unicon
That is, we train for one routine in one year. Training different routines with different lengths jeopardizes year-long training schedules.
Comment
I understand your points, Gou, and I do see why it is nice to have 4 minute routines at the Expert level. However, I think that the pros of unifying the routine length outweigh that and so I am in favor of a 3 minute routine for all.
As a note, in gymnastics (and other sports with routines), all athletes have the same 1:30 minute time limit for their floor routines regardless of their level. So Simone Biles has the same amount of time for her floor routine as much more amateur competitors. So I do think there is precedent in other sports. And certainly Simone Biles is able to display her prowess and skill within the same time as a less talented competitor.
Comment
I am also in favor of a 3 minute routine for all, individual and pairs freestyle.
Comment
I like the idea of limiting all Individual and Pair routines to 3min. I would say much more riders cannot fill the last minute effectively than those who can.
That means, Small Group Junior would also be 5 minutes, am I correct with that assumption?
Comment
Thanks for sharing your insights — I found your time tracking analysis very thought-provoking.
In Japan, the standard routine length is 2.5 minutes, but interestingly, many routines still give a similar impression to Kazuhiro’s performance in Brixen. Even within a shorter time frame, it’s common for athletes to overpack their routines, which can result in the same kind of imbalance we see in longer performances.
I’m not familiar with the technical side of time tracking, but if you’re interested, I’d love to hear your thoughts on a few examples from Japan:
https://youtu.be/OXYUsboWraI?si=J2JoRWLHHq9xqSmg
https://youtu.be/BOhsKDAhCgM
https://youtu.be/3ds7WrAJuVE
Is it possible that shorter routine times cause an increase in similar-style routines, like what happens in Japan?
I understand that in Germany, competitions are held with 4-minute routines in all categories, and that problems are occurring because of that.
It seems to me that this is a problem that could be solved by following UNICON and changing the time limit by category.
I had recognized that qualifying competitions in Germany were held separately, but is it now continuous with the national championships?
In Japan, the video qualifier is held separately from the national competition, and it is held with a time limit of 2 minutes and 45 seconds, which is different from both the national competition and UNICON.
It feels like the system is testing whether athletes can dance longer than the domestic standard of 2.5 minutes.
And this leads to a structure where only those who are confident in dancing for 4 minutes will enter the qualifier.
According to your idea, the number of people who want to enter the Expert category at UNICON will probably increase.
But in another proposal, you are aiming to reduce the number of participants, right?
After all, since only three riders from each country perform 4-minute routines at Unicon, shouldn’t we keep some kind of barrier or limitation to entering the Expert category?
Comment
Thank you for your thoughtful reply ,Patricia. I understand the appeal of unifying routine lengths for all categories, especially from a logistical or judging standpoint.However, I still believe that having a longer time for the Expert category serves an important artistic and technical purpose.
Unlike gymnastics, unicycling involves a much broader variety of skills and riding positions — on the saddle, frame, tire, and pedals — which require different pacing and transitions. Also, our judging system evaluates not only tricks but also artistic elements and storytelling, which sometimes need more time to fully develop.
The gymnastics example is clear and helpful, but I think the nature of the disciplines is fundamentally different, so it may not translate directly to unicycling.
In my view, keeping 4 minutes for the Expert category preserves space for those who want to express something more complex or nuanced,even if that applies to only a few riders.
Comment
@Gou: I can understand that at first it seems strange to reduce the Expert routine time, but I think a standardization has more advantages than disadvantages. And as gossi has already written, it's not primarily the length of the routine that determines how many tricks the riders put into their routines - so I think standardizing the lengths of routines would be a good step in the right direction.
Comment
@patricia we were looking for the english word that announces an event (german is ausschreibung). We found many english words: tender/bidding/offer/announcement - which is the correct english word for this?
Comment
>> IUF Sanctioned & Endorsed events: Time limits are enforced.
The same as in the other discussion: Endorsed events may deviate from the time limits and the event may still be endorsed, so the rule gives a false impression of what applies to endorsed events.
Comment
Endorsed events were chosen for their guarantees they provide: either using the IUF rules as is or document deviations.
It's by expectation, that events will deviate. The more deviations we see, the more the IUF rules need improvement. Nationally, there is quite an amount of planning required, the documentation part is the escape hatch here, while at the same time highlighting the gaps to the organizers. So each country can choose their approach at their pace, including coming back here next time to propose changes.
Comment
Yes, but none of this takes away from the fact that the rule, when it says “IUF Sanctioned & Endorsed events”, gives the impression that this is always the case for the events mentioned. So the rule gives the wrong impression, which is why I don't think it's a good idea to word it like that.
>> It's by expectation, that events will deviate.
Then the rule does not need to contain any exceptions if it is assumed that whatever is written in the rulebook will be deviated from anyway. Then we can simply write time limits in the rulebook without mentioning an exception - that doesn't change the fact that organizers can still deviate from them. But it also doesn't give the impression that something very specific applies at certain events, which may not be the case at all.
Comment
In order to find a compromise between you, I would suggest that the time limits be enforced for sanctioned events and strongly recommended for endorsed events.
Comment
@gossi - can you give me an example sentence? Then I can better give a word translation.
Comment
What gossi means is that for competitions in other sports there is usually an official document in which all relevant information about the competition is published - i.e. when and where the competition takes place, who is eligible to participate, how to register and how high the entry fees are, which disciplines are offered, which age groups exist, which rules are applied in case the rulebook allows a choice, which rules that go beyond the rulebook are applied etc.
I think for many sports federations this document is a kind of legal document to document official competitions.
An example sentence would be: All relevant information about the competition and the entry procedure as well as the participation conditions can be found in the *competition tender/bidding/offer/announcement/bulletin*.
Comment
Hmmm. Okay I think I would go with competition brief.