Run judging categories
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Lets talk about the categories for the run (that being difficulty, variety, flow and consistency).
I think difficulty and variety are pretty set as they are (as long as no difficulty points are deducted when a lot of tricks are failed).
So talking about flow and consistency
I feel in some cases flow and consistency could overlap as when you fail a lot of tricks your flow gets interrupted. There is also the valid argument that doing few tricks could lead to a high consistency score with little riding being done. In contrast to flatland however I feel like there can be good and "full" runs with only a low number of tricks being attempted as the manouvering around the park plays a big role and if that is being done in a high level way this could result in a high score in my opinion.
In contrast to Flatland I feel that for Street Flow is the main indicator of the look of the riders riding as not only the tricks but even more the chaining of tricks and the ability to seemlessly connect your lines are more impactful.
However thinking about Flatland that could shift toward fullness replacing consistency and style replacing flow it may be an idea to implement the same criteria in street aswell.
So Im eager to hear your thoughts about which judging criteria best reflect the look of the riding, the amount of riding being done and the ability to manouver in the street course. Do we need 3 criteria for that?
Comment
i agree with the overlap. I think to change consistency in an easy programm should maybe work? idk how to work it out but for example you put in a document the amount of tricks and the amount of fails and then the document give you a score based on the time a rider got and of course the tricks and fails. (idk if we could make it but would make it easier to judge and also more fair)
about style. thats a little hard to judge (or well i thought it was a bid hard) because everyone has his own style so who do you give then more points. i feel like having your own style is nice and is for everyone different. as you know i like flips but for example marie has her own great style to. so how to compair that to eatchother. I feel like that really hard.
Comment
Mh I get what you mean. I don't think that changing consistency into an easy programm will fix the overlap tbh. In contrast to Flatland I fell that with street there is more room for not doing tricks while still having a good run. In Flatland if you are not doing tricks and not doing a run up for a trick that always will result in a worse run. But with street I feel that is harder to judge.
If you would use a similar system with the fullness score that we tried for Flatland then I think the categories could still overlap.... Im still thinking of a great idea but atm didn't come up with something yet
Comment
Thinking about this a little bit more. Tell me what you think:
Difficulty: average difficulty of all landed tricks
Variety: average variety of all landed tricks
Flow: how much time of the run was used for riding street
- deduction points for wandering around and doing nothing in the park
- Plus points for combining obstacles in a flowy and unique way
- Note: in contrast to Flatland the run doesn't have to be packed with tricks in order to achieve high flow. Flowy riding matters more that fullness of the run if the run combined the obstacles well (no need to jump on an obstacle every two seconds)
- deduction points in flow for failing tricks (set deduction not relative to the total amount of tricks)
Style: how cleanly executed were the tricks
Comment
Edit: Style could also involve hops not only after tricks being landed but also hops in the runnup process. I could see this for flow also but thats on the edge for me.
Comment
So you would get rid of consistency. Interesting idea.
I think for Flatland 'Fullness' and 'Style' work together well as new categories (if implemented) but 'Flow' and 'Style' in Street seems to be to close together and hard to think of seperately.
I would think of combining obstacles in a flowy and unique way as part of 'Style' too for example.
From what your describing though, it kind of does sound like 'Fullness' mostly.
- Deduction for wandering aroud and doing nothing? That fits 'Fullness'
- Deduction for failing tricks? Also fits 'Fullness'
And the clever combining of obstacles would definitely find a place in 'Style'
So why not go with 'Fullness' also. And if a rider needs to get to the opposite side of the park, they can choose to just ride there (losing 'Fullness' points but being there quicker to have time for a bigger trick maybe) or to use obstacles on the way (scoring 'Fullness' but having less time for tricks left)
The layout of the course should obviously be regarded by the judges.
If there is no obstacle close by that could be used to transition through the course actually doing street tricks, riders should not be punished for having downtime until they reach the next usable obstacle.
Comment
My comment is indirectly related to the discussion above:
I've found there's been a lot of penalty for failing in street in recent years, because consistency and flow, are both so important. I think it's a bit of a shame because riders have often been attempting less difficult tricks as a result. Maybe "fullness" of run could help with that - or getting the "difficulty" score up as a judging criterion?