Expert classes and age groups
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Some disciplines completely separate expert ratings from age groups. Others have age groups within the expert category. Others again do not have an expert category but instead an overall rating.
For example:
- Freestyle holds "Expert" and "Junior Expert" competitions completely separate from age group competitions - if someone enters the Junior Expert competition, they are not ranked against age group competitors. The World champion title is for the winner of the expert competition and will not get an age group medal.
- Muni uses "expert" as a difficulty rating, but has age groups within that rating. The World champion title is for the person coming first overall in the expert competition and will get a medal for both the World champion title and their age group.
- Road races don't have explicit expert categories, but the top overall ranking is often called expert ranking. The World champion title is for the person coming first overall and will get a medal for both the World champion title and their age group.
- I'm less familiar with other disciplines, but I think Street and Flatland have another system too.
I'd like to see more unity in how Unicon names and handles this.
Comment
For street and flat there is no age group. (Or well not the past years). There is only junior and aldult.
For trials we use the qualifications for age groups and then the best riders (all age) can go to final for winning the expert medal.
Comment
I think in the vast majority of disciplines we have a system in which there are age group/preliminary rounds and the best of these make it to a final/final ranking. I also think this system makes a lot of sense and I think it has proven itself in many disciplines in the past - and to be honest, I would like to see this principle applied in all disciplines, because then the best would actually always be in a final/expert.
Of course, it is not possible to hold a final as a separate competition in all disciplines - in the marathon, for example, it would simply not be possible to hold a final race with the best eight (or however many). I therefore find it logical that in some disciplines a final is held in the form of a separate competition (e.g. in all track races in the form of a separate final race) and in other disciplines a final ranking is made on the basis of the one competition that has taken place (e.g. in the marathon).
What I find even more unsatisfactory than the fact that finals/experts are sometimes handled differently between the individual disciplines is the fact that the rulebook foresees “junior experts” in some disciplines (e.g. freestyle) and in others not (e.g. track disciplines). I think this is something we should definitely address and standardize. I'm not sure whether this fits in with Elise's intention for this discussion or whether we should open a separate discussion for this.
Comment
I don't know if you can unify the different ranking systems over all disciplines. I really like it when an overall ranking is possible and the same rider can win age group and expert. I mean if someone wins the world championship title it seems obvious that they would be first in their age group. But the ranking doesn't work the same in all the disciplines and it just is not possible to compare everyone against everyone in all the disciplines.
For example:
- In freestyle the judging is pretty complex and one panel of judges can only compare so many routines against each other. On the other hand you cannot switch the panel of judges in between because the results of different judging panels unfortunately cannot be compared against each other. In Germany we developed a system where first all the riders are judged in their age groups. A couple age groups are grouped together for the same judges to judge. The best riders of those groups compete again in finals to determine who wins the championship. But even with that approach the number of freestyle riders per nation at unicon would probably have to be limited even further. Also if riders are close to each other in the prelims the result might change in the finals and a rider who won age group might loose against a rider in the same age group in the finals.
- With races it is possible to compare a indefinite number of riders against each other. In road races you start once in your category and then age groups and expert medals are handed out based on the riders speed once compared to riders in their age group and once overall. Riders in road races can win age group and expert. In track races the riders compete in waves that determine the age group winners. Out of those waves the best riders get grouped together to compete again in a final race.
- Muni is similar to the races. Even though muni usually offers different categories (beginner, intermediate, expert). I personally do think it is nice to encourage riders to try compete in disciplines that are not their main discipline and beginner muni promotes riders to have fun and compete in a discipline that might be usually a bit out of their comfort zone. At the same time with medals being handed it can be observed that some overly competitive riders sign up for an easier category in order to win their age group.
- Hockey and basketball are often divided in different categories as well (A tournament, B tournament). Same as in muni it is fun to be able to form a team and compete in the lower category for fun even thought you might not usually practice that discipline.
The way you could separate in a unified way would be to separate into "expert world champions" and the rest. That would mean you could hand out worldchampion medals to the best overall/expert (depending on how it could be done based on discilpine) and unicycle convention medals to the rest (age groups/categories).
Comment
Jan, your point definitely fits what my aim was with this conversation.
I really just wanted to get the conversation going about what expert/junior expert means,and that's it is a comparable thing in all disciplines
Comment
I do think it would be nice to standardize as much as we can across disciplines.
It seems as though we have two categories of competitions: timed (muni, road, track, etc.) and un-timed (urban, team sports, freestyle). Timed races are easier to have expert results compared after the event has concluded. Un-timed requires people to qualify or self-select into an expert category before the event begins.
Is there a way to standardize within each of these two categories: timed and un-timed?
Comment
Muni has people select into beginner/advanced/expert before the event begins. For basketball in Grenoble there was a youth tournament separate from A and B tournament.
I think it is useful to think about events where there are prelims or not. The concern raised by @Lisa that the ranking might change between the prelims and the finals is not a concern to me as this can already happen within the track races and is standard across other sports "The male and female winners of the finals will be considered the Champions for those disciplines, even if a different rider posted a better result in age group competition." however an issue that is relevant is that we need to consider the time it will take to run prelims and if it makes sense for each discipline, this may not be known until all competitors have registered to determine the pool size.
I think unifying names makes sense (the rule book is inconsistent between finalist and expert) but I worry that trying to unify different disciplines approach to determining experts is not worth it without at least having a specific issue in mind (e.g. we want to balance the medals across disciplines) otherwise we are interfering too much in what makes sense for each discipline.
Comment
I've been thinking about the whole discussion here again and I think the following point is the one that perhaps contributes the most to “confusion”:
> the rule book is inconsistent between finalist and expert
I think one of the main problems is that Expert is indeed used in some disciplines as a “competition level” and in others simply as a replacement for Final. So I've been thinking a bit about how we could standardize the whole system without having to actually interfere with how the finalists are determined in individual disciplines. My thoughts on this:
1. (World) Champion is always the winner of a final or a final ranking. The Rulebook should therefore consistently use the word final or final ranking.
Final should be used wherever there is a separate run/attempt/competition to determine the result, which is not combined with other rankings - e.g. in track races
Final ranking should be used wherever there is only one set of results and where final placings are based on an additional ranking based on a single set of results - e.g. 10 km or marathon.
2. If there are several “competition levels/levels of difficulty” in a discipline, a final will only be held in the Expert category resp. a final ranking calculated.
3. (World) champion titles are always awarded without the term “Expert”, as titles are only awarded at this level if there are multiple levels.
I believe that this would be a good way of dealing with the problems with the current often somewhat unclear naming without having to change the discipline rules themselves. The rules of the individual disciplines can stipulate how a final/final ranking is to be held and for disciplines in which there are several categories, it is still clear where titles can be won.
Comment
I fully agree with Jan here, we are good at causing confusion; with ourselves and outside (the media). After each Unicon germany has soooo many world champions according to the press ;) That is a testament to this design failure. We are carrying around old terms, that nobody really remembers where they are coming from, let alone their meaning. Time to clean up.
I come to realize that what we mostly refer to as "Expert or Final" is what we then grant titles for: World Champion, German Champion, etc. That's what I refer to as classes:
Classes reward championship title, eg. World Champion, Youth World Champion or German Champion.
There are three classes:
- Junior/Kids (< 15)
- Youth (15 - 18)
- Adults (18+)
IUF Endorsed (national, continental, international) events have to crown winners in each classes they offer. Based on that, these classes must remain rigid and fixed.
That actually should do it. What about the other terms?
- Expert: That's based on skill level for starting in a competition (only used in Muni I guess), and may be important for security reasons of the rider and their health
- Final: The last round in any competition that uses some sort of tournament in their modus operandi
Comment
Oh, I noticed one flaw in my own design. For team events: Basketball, Hockey and Group Freestyle, these classes may not be suited. A reduction is needed. Can fit in at any level: general, competition, event
Comment
I personaly dont think beginner/advanced/expert will fit well. Because when am I a beginner? when not? in urban we had this at unicon 2016 but we stopped it because there is no clear rule about when you are an expert and when not. Also there is a problem with the time. if we do this in flatland we have to do 3 finals and that will take waayyyyy to long (I am also judging during events and it takes a lot of energy and focus and a lot of hours already)
- Junior/Kids (< 15)
- Youth (15 - 18)
- Adults (18+)
dees sound nice for me but again its pritty hard in urban. (bodywased, scaredness and so on..)
I do like the way its working in trials atm. So the age groups are with the qualifications and then the best riders qualifi for finals and can get an expert medal. i dont know if its an option for all diciplines but i geuss in race its okay also? so that means if someone from 14 is verry good she can ride with someone from 20 and battling for the expert medal. ( i have no cleu if thats already how it is now) i think this is also what you mean jan?
i am fan from age group medals also but thats more for motivation young riders or for older riders its also a motviation. i mean everyone can use some support and is happy to reach a goal. i geuss if we do age groups from ranking the qualifications and then expert or world titels after a final only for the best over all. (open or female catagory)
Comment
With this idea of Classes, can someone enter a class older than their age or there a restriction? Thinking of Pairs Freestyle for example, the age of the older partner is taken. Can a partnership have a 16 year old and a 14 year old or can we not have partners that cross the Class line? Or if in racing, a young rider (age 14) is incredibly fast and they want to have a chance at the Adult World Championship can they race against older riders?
Comment
> I come to realize that what we mostly refer to as "Expert or Final" is what we then grant titles for: World Champion, German Champion, etc. That's what I refer to as classes:
In the end, this also leads to a final - you just start one level further down and describe where finals could be held, which I have refrained from doing for now, because in essence I think it should be initially agreed that to win a title, you have to win a final/final ranking.
In which classes finals should be held is another question in my opinion ;)
> There are three classes:
- Junior/Kids (< 15)
- Youth (15 - 18)
- Adults (18+)
To be honest, I am very strongly against introducing a third class - why? It's quite simple: in contrast to other sports, it's not the exception in unicyclilng that someone from the youth class is one of the best athletes overall, but rather the rule. So if we were to split the 15+ class once again, this would mean that, as a rule, the best athletes would no longer compete in a final for the championship title, because some of the best would be fighting for the Youth title, which would devalue the title of the top category overall. We already have the case, for example in track racing, that even athletes from the Junior class are among the best eight athletes overall - here it can still be explained to the athletes that they cannot compete for the title of e.g. “German Champion” - but if we have to explain this regularly to 17/18 year old athletes in the near future, then this will not be very much appreciated by the athletes.
In other words, I believe that the performance density in unicycling is (currently) simply not so high that it really makes sense to divide the athletes into three classes when determining titles. I would like to see us reach this point one day, but at the moment I think we are still a long way from it and are therefore very well served with two classes for the titles.
> I do like the way its working in trials atm. So the age groups are with the qualifications and then the best riders qualifi for finals and can get an expert medal. i dont know if its an option for all diciplines but i geuss in race its okay also? so that means if someone from 14 is verry good she can ride with someone from 20 and battling for the expert medal. ( i have no cleu if thats already how it is now) i think this is also what you mean jan?
Yes indeed, the age group results are based on the preliminaries in track disciplines - the best competitors make it to the final and can win a championship title there. However, the final is never called Expert and the word Expert does not even appear in the IUF rules in section 2 Track, for example. I would therefore always speak of a Final medal and never of an Expert medal. This mixing of Final and Expert is exactly what so often leads to confusion.
> i am fan from age group medals also but thats more for motivation young riders or for older riders its also a motviation.
Of course, but I would say that's a different discussion, because here in it's core it is about the titles and the associated wording, i.e. the confusion between Expert and Final - which is why I suggested a clarification for these terms earlier in the discussion.
Comment
There are so many people on this committee - how do you see things? From your point of view, is it practicable to have three classes in unicycling and to award three championship titles?
Is the term class sufficient? Or does this lead to confusion with the gender classes? Would age group classes and gender classes be more clear?
I think we all agree that a standardization of the division where titles are awarded across all disciplines would be desirable and not every discipline should have a different concept. Then let's implement something about that and find a feasible solution that we can include in the rulebook.
Comment
I think this is a really challenging issue and I find myself going back and forth. I think there is a question of do we want to crown the best in the world across the board? Do we want to promote longevity in the sport?
I will reference gymnastics because it is a sport I follow closely and am knowledgeable about. They have two classes Junior and Senior. For women, Junior is U16 and Senior is 16+. Men is U18 and 18+. In order to compete at a world championships or Olympics you must be a Senior athlete. They also have a junior world championships that is a separate event. There is sometimes the case that a junior athlete is good enough to win the senior world title but they still need to wait until they are older. In gymnastics there is a history of abuse and over-training at a young age and these age restrictions were put in place for safety measures.
While unicycling is certainly its own sport, I do think that we can learn from other sports. I personally would not be against having separate classes (at the same world championship) where a rider competes with their age. Then we have the titles of junior world champion and world champion. This is already happening in freestyle and works quite well. Even if a junior rider could potentially win the title, then they should stay healthy and keep training and be even better when they are old enough to compete as a senior.
Comment
Thank you for your point of view Patricia, I also think it's a very good idea to look at what other sports are doing and learn from them. Many of the suggestions I have made in recent years in the area of track rahing ave been strongly inspired by athletics, for example, as there are many parallels to track races in unicycling.
Back to the topic: In Germany we have been using the principle of two classes, in which everyone competes in the appropriate one for their age, not only for freestyle but also for racing for over 10 years now - and it works extremely well. Yes, it sometimes happens that someone from the junior category is so good that they would also make it to the final in the senior category, but so far the athletes have always understood that there is a differentiation according to age and that they can only compete in the senior category when they are old enough. So I'm very sure that such a system would be accepted by the riders, especially if it would be the same system for all unicycling diciplines.
Comment
I would be in favor of two classes. I think then there is a question of what age is the split at. Freestyle currently uses 0-14 and 15+ but I could see it being older such as 0-15 and 16+ due to physical maturity.
Once we have determined that split then we can talk about consistent age group splits within those. For example, if we are are using 0-15 then we would want the sub-age groups to fit within there as in a 14-15 age group and not a 15-16 age group for example.
Comment
With the exception of trials, I think all areas of unicycling where there are two classes actually use the age ranges 0-14 and 15+. These are also the ranges that we have been using in track in Germany for many years and I have the impression that they work quite well. However, I also see that in many other sports the youth range goes from 0-15 and we deviate a bit from this standard in unicycling. However, I would still tend to keep the established boundaries unless there are really good reasons to redefine them.
Comment
I agree with having two classes (Junior and Adult, or something similar). I also see the point about riders who are pushed by, for example, parents. However, I think this is a problem we can't fully solve. These parents/trainers will train their kids to be so good that by the time they reach the eligible age, they can win anyway (like you might know from Chinese gymnastics).
I would be very sad if we removed all awards or medals for kids or junior riders because I’m training some under-16 riders, and they love competing. In my team, fun is number one, but they still learn a lot with low pressure and at their own level and style. They—and I—would be disappointed if the medals were taken away. I think winning a medal also builds confidence and serves as a reward for all the hard work they put in.
I also agree with the idea that only riders above 16, for example, should be eligible to become world champions. We can still have junior categories, but they just wouldn't be eligible for the world champion title—hopefully reducing the pressure on kids.
Comment
So if I summarize this correctly, we are talking about different things here.
And I want to clearly name them to avoid confusion. I feel like this discussion could be chaotic otherwise.
1. How can I get a medal?
I like Jans idea that I have to be in the top 3 in a Final or rank top 3 in a Final Ranking to receive a medal and Final and Final Ranking are the names that are used throughout the rulebook consistently to refer to it.
Final being a separate round of the best riders within a class for disciplines that do have that separate Final round.
Final Ranking being a combined ranking of riders within a certain class for disciplines, that do not have a separate Final round.
How each discipline works out their exact way of creating a Final or Final Ranking should be a different discussion within each discipline.
2. Which classes should have a Final or Final Ranking?
I think there should be two categories having a Final (Ranking) and receiving medals. Junior and Adult.
Where the cutoff between the two would be, should be a separate discussion since this one already has enough items to talk about.
(although I think Marie did some research on it a few years back into physiology and other sports and came back with the recommendation to go with 0-14 and 15+.
3. What should these 'classes' be named?
We need to differentiate between gender and age here.
I do not feel confident enough in my english skills to really make recommendations on the naming, but I do not like the word class for both (ie. gender class and age group classes).
Only thought I have right now: age category and gender class?
I think we should come up with a clear naming convention and hierarchy here.
If we're talking about 'Flatland Junior Female' for example, we should define names for each of these descriptions and an order in which they should be used consistently throughout the rulebook.
1. Competition is: Flatland
2. Category: Junior
3. Class: Female
4. How are age groups awarded?
This has not been much of a discussion point here (if I have not missed it), but for me this should probably be something that is also discussed within each discipline for now, the same as how to create a Final or Final Ranking.
5. Full results
Would we need a standardized way to have a full ranking, so people know, that they placed 73. overall within their category/class?
If so, for disciplines having a Final round, this leads to some weirdness, that should at least be adressed:
I recommend having those, who made it to Final appear first and then everyone who did not make it fill the places below.
This should work for most disciplines, but not all. Freestyle most of all I think, since there, not everyone even was in the same competition. How could this be handled?
Comment
Thank you very much Ian for structuring the discussion - it is indeed a bit mixed up at the moment, which is certainly also related to the fact that the terms Expert and Junior Expert are currently partly used for where medals or titles can be achieved and at the same time for the two large age categories that exist in unicycling. I think it is therefore urgently necessary to clearly separate these terms in the rulebook and define them accordingly.
To your 3. point:
I completely agree with you that we need to find clear terms for the gender and age categories in order to make a distinction. I would be happy if some of the native speakers could provide some input here.
To your 4. point:
There is a separate discussion about the age groups. I think it would be necessary to have a framework in relation to the superordinate age classes so that the other discussion can continue in a meaningful way. Because individual age groups can only be meaningfully defined within these classes.
To your 5. point:
I have mainly raced track myself and have never missed an overall ranking. Personally, I would tend not to prescribe such an overall ranking because, as you said, it could be very incomprehensible in some disciplines - like the track disciplines: Of course you could list the finalists right at the top, but is it really understandable and comprehensible for outsiders if there are possibly worse performances among the first places than in the places after that? If someone does not finish the final, they would have to be counted with their prelim time, which is not trivial in terms of evaluation.
Comment
Classes in my idea are here to provide continuity. Riders strong in junior do disappear from the international stage and re-enter 2 or 3 unicons later - and that's what these riders tell (me): "last time junior, last time to have a chance at world title - before a long break" (currently freestyle and flatland). And that's true if you check the age of world champs/podium places (freestyle/flatland). To my knowledge these are all (or mostly?) adults (if there are youth riders, how high is their number?). Unicycling does not provide a good environment to support riders going from juniors into adulthood. That's why I introduced youth (taken from other sports that do support this much better). Giving them an environment to compete against others that do not have a 10yr training advantage. Gymnastics is addressing this by making adulthood begin at 16yrs (though there is huge critics around this and many studies if this is a good idea) - but an option.
One thing I had in mind about who receives world champ title is "world champ" tier vs. "community" (in absense of a better word) tier (that is age groups in freestyle or b-tournament in hockey/basketball, these tiers can even have qualification) -> but that is a topic for another discussion. At the moment it is ok to accept that these would run with the same framework.
Going through the discussion, I refine my initial thoughts about classes.
What are classes:
- an environment to compete for championship titles
- guarantees an environment to support riders from youth into adulthood
- guarantees an environment in which participants can expect to compete against others that trained under equal conditions (equality factor)
- (adults are the exception, this is the "final" class - expect to compete against the very best)
- provide a qualification strategy from most local competition up to worlds
- acts as a container to include groups (beginner competitions, "community" tier)
What classes are not:
- A mechanism to find the overall best athlete
- A mechanism to boost/discourage attractivity of a discipline
- A substitute for groups
Some disciplines could benefit from iterative adoption of these. Team sports (hockey, basketball, group freestyle) might only be one or two to accomodate the fact a team is one starting spot and to keep the schedule manageable.
PS. there are only finals if the modus operandi of a competition is a tournament mode. If not, Unicon itself is the final.
Comment
> Classes in my idea are here to provide continuity. Riders strong in junior do disappear from the international stage and re-enter 2 or 3 unicons later - and that's what these riders tell (me): "last time junior, last time to have a chance at world title - before a long break" (currently freestyle and flatland).
I don't believe that the problem you describe is simply due to the classes and the titles awarded in them. Above all, this observation cannot be extended to all disciplines. As I have already written, there are regularly junior participants in the Track, Road and Jump disciplines, for example, who would also make it into the Senior Final/the Senior Final ranking. So there is by no means necessarily and always this break between the two existing classes.
I think the problem - especially in freestyle - is more due to the fact that as a participant at a Unicon you have to decide between age group and expert. If there were a qualification round with age group rankings, like in the track races, for example, and the best of these would qualify for the (junior) final, then there wouldn't be such a big break for the participants. This is because they would still be good in their age group after switching from junior to senior and would be able to be among the top competitors. In my opinion, the system in Germany shows very well how something like this can work and how you can avoid losing the athletes.
I think we have to take into account that unicycling is a sport with a comparatively small base and not everything that works well in sports with a large base can be transferred 1:1.
Comment
From a native speaker standpoint I would switch up the words slightly:
Competition: Flatland
Category: Female
Class: Junior
For example you would say, Anna is competing in the flatland competition in the female category but the junior class.
Therefore, we would end up with a World Champion and a Junior World Champion. I don't think we need to delineate further as this is how it is done in so many sports. The World Champion, by definition, needs to be a senior level competitor.
Jan, in Germany is there a qualifier for Freestyle done in age groups that then advances to a final (like track)? I'm curious how we could do this better and can bring it up in the freestyle committee if Germany has found a good way to do this so that it is more consistent across disciplines.
Comment
> Therefore, we would end up with a World Champion and a Junior World Champion. I don't think we need to delineate further as this is how it is done in so many sports. The World Champion, by definition, needs to be a senior level competitor.
I would agree with that.
> Jan, in Germany is there a qualifier for Freestyle done in age groups that then advances to a final (like track)?
Yes. In the freestyle events in Germany, all participants start in their respective age group in a preliminary round (currently age group competitions U11, U13 and U15 in the junior sector and U17, U19, U21, U23, U25 and 25+ in the senior sector are offered in Germany). There will then be a ranking within the age group to determine the age group winners. In addition to the ranking per age group, there will be a joint ranking across all three junior age groups, from which the best 5 participants qualify for the junior final. The senior age groups are currently divided into two preliminary groups (U17, U19 and U21 is one group and U23, U25 and 25+ the other), where the best 4 of each preliminary group qualify for a joint final, in which the champions are then determined.
I think the big advantage of this system is that really the best riders of a event actually make it to the final and that still all riders have the chance to compete against athletes of the same age in their age group at the same time, so there is not as much of a break as with the system where you have to choose between either Expert or the age group.
The system with the age groups and the subsequent qualification for the (junior) final has been used in Germany for at least 15 years now and at that time, I think Ryan Woessner was IUF President at the time, it was also approved by the IUF for using at events according to IUF rules.
Comment
In an effort for consistency I would like to see us move to have a qualification system to finals in all disciplines to the extent possible, at least at the world championships. I understand that at smaller competitions this might not make sense. I'm happy to start a separate discussion thread about this if needed but I feel it can fit in this thread.
I will bring this up in the freestyle subcommittee but are there other disciplines where we see this being a challenge?
Comment
> I will bring this up in the freestyle subcommittee but are there other disciplines where we see this being a challenge?
I think in all other disciplines there is either already some form of qualification for the final (as in the track races, the jumps or the team sports) or there is only a final ranking, as a separate final is not feasible (as in the road races or the corss country). I think the individual and pairs freestyle are currently the disciplines with the most different system.
To summarize once again the main points of this discussion in which I think almost everyone who has participated here so far agrees:
1. How/Where are championship titles awarded?
Championship titels are awarded in Finals / Final Rankings.
We should move away from the term Expert here to avoid confusion with disciplines where Expert is offered as a category/difficulty level.
2. Which age classes/categories should be prescribed for a Final / Final Ranking in the Rulebook?
Many of you have not yet commented on this, gossi is in favor of three classes, the others who have commented here are in favor of two classes.
Ian had suggested opening a separate discussion for this, but I wonder if this topic hasn't actually already become the main part of this discussion and if we have a proposal for this we have covered the core of this discussion.
Comment
aiming for "final" is the wrong objective. final is correct when the competition has a tournament.
Classes is still the more broader concept and allows finals to be held in the competitions that operate that mode. Yet you brought up valid points in how and where they should be structured. I'm saying classes are still the best concept I see a lot of relationships in which classes perform better (in comparison to other concepts).
The subject here is connected to many other factors and solutions brought up here do not incorporate these other factors quite well, which will not lead to the outcome we are hoping for.
I have two more things in mind to help with that:
- Bring in some numbers. We work with hypothesis but can crunch numbers quite easily - I will look into freestyle and flatland (@jan can I contact you, to help me out with some racing samples?)
- I want to bring this into a presentation that explains these relationships (to make visible what I have in mind) - and run some simulations on how that would look like, if this is applied on some competitions (as Patricia asked in the meta discussion).
A second thing we are missing is a mutual understanding of what we are trying to solve here. We can make a separate discussion to collect problems that we observe.
Comment
> aiming for "final" is the wrong objective. final is correct when the competition has a tournament.
Classes is still the more broader concept and allows finals to be held in the competitions that operate that mode.
Gossi, I'm confused of you trying to pitch your 'classes', when we (or at least I) basically mean the same thing with it.
A class is a group of riders, in which a title can be won. That class (for example Junior) is part of a competition (for example Flatland) and has categories (for example Female),
so you can win a title in Flatland Junior Female. (the order and hierarchy of these are up for discussion).
What we mean when we are talking about Final is that many competitions have preliminary rounds that should not lead to any title, because the best riders in each class-category combination will have a Final to determine the winners.
What we mean by Final Ranking, is that competitions that do not have a Final round will have a Final Ranking within each class-category combination to clearly state the riders who win titles. (for example in Marathon all riders compete together, all times are collected (together), then Final Rankings will be created for each class to award titles)
So I agree with you Gossi, titles should be awarded in classes. But we also need to make sure it is clearly and uniformly stated, which round (Final) or ranking (Final Ranking) the winners are determined in.
> A second thing we are missing is a mutual understanding of what we are trying to solve here. We can make a separate discussion to collect problems that we observe.
From my point of view we are trying to standardize in what classes (Junior, Adult, ...) and what round/ranking (Final, Final Ranking) titles will be given out.
The major differences I see between your approach and mine is that
you want three age classes to award titles (Junior, Youth, Adult) and I want two (Junior, Adult)
and how you come to the conclusion that those classes are ideal ones.
That should probably be the topic then. How many classes should we have and why.
Which brings us to Jan's summary
1. How/Where are championship titles awarded?
Championship titels are awarded in Finals / Final Rankings.
We should move away from the term Expert here to avoid confusion with disciplines where Expert is offered as a category/difficulty level.
2. Which age classes/categories should be prescribed for a Final / Final Ranking in the Rulebook?
Many of you have not yet commented on this, gossi is in favor of three classes, the others who have commented here are in favor of two classes.
Ian had suggested opening a separate discussion for this, but I wonder if this topic hasn't actually already become the main part of this discussion and if we have a proposal for this we have covered the core of this discussion.
Jan, I did not mean a separate discussion for that point.
For me that one is pretty clear. I want to have Finals/Final Rankings and therefore official titles for Junior and Adult.
Comment
> aiming for "final" is the wrong objective. final is correct when the competition has a tournament.
I see it differently - the terms Final / Final Ranking make it clear that this is the highest level of a competition in which championship titles are awarded. We could finally get rid of the inconsistent use of the term Expert in the rulebook with this.
In disciplines such as marathon, there is no “tournament” and yet it works wonderfully and without misunderstandings to make a final ranking, from which the winner receives the championship title. I don't see where a “tournament” is necessary here for the standardized use of this terms.
> Classes is still the more broader concept and allows finals to be held in the competitions that operate that mode. Yet you brought up valid points in how and where they should be structured. I'm saying classes are still the best concept I see a lot of relationships in which classes perform better (in comparison to other concepts).
I don't think I understand what you mean by classes. For me, classes are the things in which a final/final ranking can be made at the end and thus a championship title can be awarded. So, in my opinion, a class is the prerequisite for a final/final ranking to be made. I don't see where these are two different concepts.
> Bring in some numbers. We work with hypothesis but can crunch numbers quite easily - I will look into freestyle and flatland (@jan can I contact you, to help me out with some racing samples?)
What do you want numbers for? The number of participants in the current “classes” U15 and 15+? The number of U15 participants in a junior final who would have made it to the final? I don't know what you mean...
> A second thing we are missing is a mutual understanding of what we are trying to solve here. We can make a separate discussion to collect problems that we observe.
In my opinion, this is quite simple: We are trying to solve the problem that the word Expert is currently sometimes used for a Final / Final Ranking and sometimes for a difficulty level in the competition (e.g. in Downhill, where there is then a Downhill Expert Final) - and this confusion of terms should be resolved.
Comment
Ian replied while I was typing - but I think his summary is pretty much in line with how I see things.
Comment
You really need to drop thinking in "final" - that word is only applicable to competitions that do operate in a tournament mode. There is plenty other modes: Placing, Ranking, KO, Point. There is tournament vs season competitions and many more. I know it happens for Jan and Ian to operate the two disciplines that are in tournament mode. Implying that to any other competition is invasive. It's up to each competition to pick its mode and determine a winner. If we apply your idea, then high jump, long jump, obstacle, coasting, gliding, cyclocross, 100k, downhill, uphill etc. would all be forced to run a "final".
I like the idea of category though. For connecting things it is not needed, but I see a point in combining class/group + "gender" and I think category is a good word here.
What I noticed is that is hard to connect the terms discussed here. When thinking about them in isolation is to make a change that ends up in a regression and the unicycling community will suffer from it the next two years only to repeat the same mistake again. This can go endlessly for the next 10 years or so.
While the isolated perspective is important, a hollistic perspective is as much as important. So I took the time to explain my idea. I even recorded it and while prepping the slides I uncovered more details. So have a look:
Comment
> If we apply your idea, then high jump, long jump, obstacle, coasting, gliding, cyclocross, 100k, downhill, uphill etc. would all be forced to run a "final".
As Ian and I have already written, one possible alternative to the final is the final ranking. In most of the disciplines you mentioned, there is either already often a final (high jump, long jump, obstacle) or we have been using the final ranking for many years to determine the champions when there is no final (coasting, gliding). A final ranking would also work without problems for cyclocross, 100k, downhill, uphill etc. and is already used in some competitions here too. So I don't really see where the problem is with either having a final or a final ranking?
> While the isolated perspective is important, a hollistic perspective is as much as important. So I took the time to explain my idea. I even recorded it and while prepping the slides I uncovered more details. So have a look:
I watched it, but to be honest I don't feel like it got me anywhere.
I think we agree that championship titles should be awarded in different classes - you think there should be three, I think there should only be two (for now) - but basically we agree and apart from the name “classes”, the rulebook already uses this concept in most categories with two "classes" (<15 and >=15).
The fact that these classes can be divided into (age) groups is already the case and not an innovation... so what should we take out from that for the discussion? The discussion was mainly about avoiding the term “expert” and instead clearly naming the round (final) or ranking (final ranking) in which championship titles can be won.
Comment
I am not sure, Gossi, you have fully understood what we mean by Final and Final Ranking
But this whole discussion is getting really messy, so I will try to explain as clear and short as possible what I would aim for.
Each discipline gives their Championship Titles based on one these two options:
a Final,
a separate round/battle/match, for which riders qualify during preliminary rounds/battles/matches.
a Final Ranking,
consisting of the results of a preliminary round or the 'general' round (as in 'the Marathon race' for example)
These Finals or Final Rankings will happen for each age class (Junior, Adult) in each gender category (Male, Female) in the competition.
This will lead clearly to exactly four Championship titles in each discipline without confusion
- Junior Female Champion
- Junior Male Champion
- Adult Female Champion
- Adult Male Champion
These four titles (and only these four titles) should be awarded during a podium ceremony.
Age group awards can be given out additionally, but should be noticably less ceremonial to avoid confusion with the actual Championship titles.
(currently, many riders post their age groups medals as world championship title medals)
The term Expert is then only used to state difficulty (for example in Muni)
___
Let's go through the disciplines and see how they are handling it at the moment or how it could be handled:
Road/Distance
currently:
Final Ranking overall. not ideal, because there is no Junior age class
possibly:
Final Ranking for each age class/gender category, based on the results of the one race.
Muni
currently:
chaotic because of the term 'Expert', no junior age class
possibly:
Final Ranking in each age class/gender category based on the results of the Expert competition. A rider entering 'Beginner Downhill' can not win a Championship title.
X-Style
currently and working:
Final (Round) in each age class/gender category, using a KO system
Flatland
currently:
Final (Bracket) in each age class/gender category, using a KO system
Street
currently:
Final (Round) in each age class/gender category, Preliminaries to qualify for that round
Trials
currently:
Final (Round) overall. not ideal, because there is no Junior age class
possibly:
Final (Round), for both gender categories of the Adult age class. best riders of preliminaries qualify
Final Ranking for both gender categories of the Junior age class. no Final round here, just taking the results from the preliminaries to award titles.
Speed Trials
currently:
Final (Round) overall. not ideal, because there is no Junior age class
possibly:
Final (Round), for both gender categories of the Adult age class. best riders of preliminaries qualify
Final Ranking for both gender categories of the Junior age class. no Final round here, just taking the results from the preliminaries to award titles.
alternatively, a Junior Final Round could be held.
Jumps
currently:
Final (Round) overall. not ideal, because there is no Junior age class
possibly:
Final (Round), for both gender categories of the Adult age class. best riders of preliminaries qualify
Final Ranking for both gender categories of the Junior age class. no Final round here, just taking the results from the preliminaries to award titles.
alternatively, a Junior Final Round could be held.
Hockey/Basketball
Final (Match), overall, using a KO tournament system. no age groups at all
Freestyle
this is the one complicated one
currently:
having a separate competition for Championship titles (Expert competition)
This would need reworking, since the term Expert should not be used anymore.
possibly:
Final (Round) in each age class/gender category (change the current Expert competition to the Final Round), Preliminaries to qualify for that round (change the current age group competition to the preliminary round)
Track
I am not confident in my track knowledge, but Track should then also separate their competition into four clear age class/gender category combinations. And give out age group awards for the sub age groups.
___
So for most disciplines, not a lot, if anything, needs to be changed. Almost all of them already use a Final (Round/Battle/Match) or Final Ranking System.
Comment
I think it makes sense to use Expert to always refer to difficulty level (this would mean Hockey/Basketball A becomes Hockey/Basketball Expert) and the expert in Freestyle is equivalent to the expert in Hockey in that the difficulty is being determined by the competition. In the case of road, track, and most other disciplines all riders compete in the Expert level but in theory a road race could have an expert and non expert route.
Comment
> I am not confident in my track knowledge, but Track should then also separate their competition into four clear age class/gender category combinations. And give out age group awards for the sub age groups.
This is basically exactly what we are doing in Germany at official track championships for over 15 years now: There are the (age) classes “Junior/U15” and “Senior/Adult/15+” and two gender categories. In total, we award four titles. Unfortunately, the IUF Rulebook only provides for two titles.
In the disciplines where there is a separate final, the titles are awarded in this final, in the other disciplines on the basis of a final ranking.
How the (age) classes and gender categories are chosen is of course independent of the principle of the finals / final rankings.
> I think it makes sense to use Expert to always refer to difficulty level
I agree - this would make it clear that the term Expert always refers to a division into different difficulty-/skill- levels/leagues. I had already mentioned this at the beginning of the discussion, that there is a possibility for these cases (like Hockey A and B) to keep the term Expert to signalize that this is the highest level.
Of course, this could also be transferred to other disciplines if other levels are offered in addition to the competition level on which titles are awarded (as with Muni). For most disciplines, however, this is in fact rather unusual.
Comment
I made a draft to put this into the rulebook and thanks to the discussion, it went very short:
---
## 1C.x Classes
Classes reward championship titles. Boundaries of a class ensure equal conditions to compete for that title.
There are three classes:
1. Junior/Kids (< 15)
2. Youth (15 - 18)
3. Adults (>=19)
Classes can be merged and take the name of the older class. At minimum one class is present (Adults).
Each competition lists their supported classes under event organizer rules.
---
That is, each section in the rulebook can describe for their discipline/competitions the setup they prefer but using terms (classes + groups) that are clearly defined. Ian made the list for how in each section it is described on how to determine the winner (art. freestyle is the only one to need an adjustmint, I will make a contrib there). Everything we have today is explainable through classes + groups. No changes needed on the rules itself but rewording.
It also ensures there is no regression, aka. no rule or wording fitting for one/many discs/comps but has negative impact on others.
PS. Joshua Ehrlich: I opened "Leagues" for that one, this is a special case.
Comment
I think I have expressed my opinion on the requirement of three classes often enough here.
It would be nice to hear what the other members of this committee think about two (as it currently is) vs. three classes and championship titles?
Comment
Freestyle requires them already. Don't be a blocker here for this. They are made to for each disciplines to express their needs.
Comment
The most important thing is to have uniform regulations so that we can finally get away from each discipline using its own system - which the riders absolutely cannot understand.
So if we want to introduce three classes, then for all disciplines.
Comment
// Jan: It would be nice to hear what the other members of this committee think about two (as it currently is) vs. three classes and championship titles?
I am in favor of having two classes. Junior (0-14) and Adult (15+)
// gossi: Classes can be merged and take the name of the older class. At minimum one class is present (Adults).
I am strongly against this. I am convinced we need a guaranteed Junior competition if event organizers allow Junior riders to register. They should never be forced to compete against Adult riders.
Gossi, what do you mean by 'Freestyle requires them ( three classes?!) already'?
The current iuf Freestyle rules require two classes.
And Freestyle (or standardized age groups, if we manage to find those) could still introduce a 15-18 age group.
___
So I would change Gossi's draft like this:
## 1C.x Classes
Classes reward championship titles. Boundaries of a class ensure equal conditions to compete for that title.
There are two classes:
1. Junior (<14)
2. Adult (15+)
Classes can never be merged. Organizers may choose to only offer competitions in one of the classes, but if they allow competitors of both classes, they need to be separate.
Comment
As I am quite busy at the moment I haven't followed the whole discussion in detail. However, I am in favour of having two classes (junior and adult) like the track racing in Germany.
Comment
I completely agree with Ian's last comment:
- we should always offer 2 classes (Junior and Adult)
- Classes can't be merged (Someone under 15 can't be expected to compete against an adult. For both fairness and safety)
Regarding the number of classes: I do agree with Gossi that we should support the transition between junior and adult, but I don't think it should (only) take form of an additional madatory class: the IUF/national federations/clubs could offer mentorship programmes, training camps, and could offer Youth Championships, separate from those two categories.
To make a parallel with the wider sports world: within one season, an athlete can participate in both the Youth Olympics and in national/international competitions at the adult level.
Generally speaking, I agree we should move away from using the term Expert - if several difficulty levels are offered, it should be clear that only the highest level will award championship titles.
Regarding the use of "expert" in Muni: In the past 2 Unicons the downhill "expert" competitions were what we'd call finals: an additional round of competitions from the top riders in the "Elite" race - it might get difficult to do a similar round in Uphill and Cross-country (from an organisational and timing point of vue), but overall rankings can be used for those
Comment
// There are two classes:
// 1. Junior (<14)
// 2. Adult (15+)
// Classes can never be merged. Organizers may choose to only offer competitions in one of the classes, but if they allow competitors of both classes, they need to be separate.
What are the implications for classes for team sports? If there is only one Junior team (14 year olds) but there is also a team of 16 year olds do we just have the 14 year olds win by default and make the 16 year olds play against the other adults? For team sports are <14 and 15+ the right separation, especially as these are semi-contact sports so the player size has a more direct impact rather than just affecting medaling.
Comment
Ian and me discussed this in length yesterday.
The danger, when changing parts of the general section is that even with the best intentions we have, it can accidentaly inflict damage onto other discplines/competitions we design these changes for. This is called a regression and has to be prohibited at all cost, as these damages are very expensive and usually cause plenty trouble for those affected.
Both Ian and me were always on the idea of two classes but identified two scenarios in which it would cause bespoken damage.
- Team sports (basketball, hockey, group freestyle): Naturally, there is less starts overall as they start in teams. Requiring two classes here will result in a lot of organizational overhead.
- Freestyle (Individual and Pairs): We are on the other side of the spectrum. Freestyle has the most athletes world wide and easily outnumbers all other disciplines (combined?). Japan alone has ~1Mio and in Germany we need to find a way to determine whom of the ~3000 freestylers (my last number) will make it to worlds. As such, three classes are already used in Germany as the IUF rules are not made for that amount of athletes. Freestyle is truly pioneering here. Requiring two classes here will be prohibit evolving the sport from scaling up.
While all that was already supported in my initial attempt, Ian and me reworked the paragraph:
---
## 1C.x Classes
Classes award championship titles. Boundaries of a class ensure equal conditions to compete for that title.
There are three possible classes:
1. Junior (< 15)
2. Youth (15 - 18)
3. Adult (>=19)
The default classes are Junior and Adult. The Youth class can be used, if decided in the Event Organizer Rules of each respective section. When Youth class is not used, the Adult class includes starters at the age of >=15.
When Junior starters (individual, pairs or teams) are present, a title must be awarded.
The oldest member of a pair or team determines the class they compete in.
A single agegroup cannot span multiple supported classes.
This section takes precedence over Event Organizer Rules of each respective section.
---
(We hope for a native speaker to proofread our english)
It goes well with the idea for guaranteed agegroups (at the time of me writing this, Ian still needs to put in the result of our discussion over on the linked discussion).
PS. As for this discussion of expert, advanced, beginner: This is not part of age group committee and is already being discussed in the main committee.
Comment
Hello everyone,
I would like to explain why we need the system of classes (junior, youth and adult) in Freestyle Germany.
In Freestyle Germany this year, we have 275 individual routines and 225 pair routines to determine a national champion in both competitions. Since the winner of artistic freestyle is determined based on qualitative evaluation criteria, these numbers are extremely high throughout Germany. By dividing the competition into youth and adult classes, we could halve the number of adults in the adult class (see appendix). This would make the jury's job much easier as well as improve conditions so competitors have an equal chance at winning the respective title, as they would no longer have to compare athletes across the entire 15–25+ age range.
Individual:
Junior: 130
Youth: 74
Adult: 70
Pair:
Junior: 94
Youth: 64
Adult: 69
One could argue that there are approximately the same number of routines in the individual routines. However, I must address the quality of the routines here. Many of the junior routines are very entry level (many first timers), whereas the evaluation of the same number of adult routines is significantly more challenging. Having three classes highlights this progression.
Comment
> The danger, when changing parts of the general section is that even with the best intentions we have, it can accidentaly inflict damage onto other discplines/competitions we design these changes for.
We have been causing damage for years by prescribing junior competitions and titles in some disciplines and not in others, and neither riders, trainers nor outsiders can understand why, for example, a junior title is awarded in freestyle, while this junior title is not foreseen in racing. One of the biggest criticisms of the current rulebook in this context is the inconsistency of this division into juniors and seniors/adults. For many years, discussions in the individual sub-committees in the Rulebook Committee, were closed with the statement: "A cross-discipline Age Group Committee takes care of this (which is why nothing could ever be changed in the track part of the IUF rulebook in recent years) - now there is this Age Group Committee and I see the most important task of this committee in finally eliminating these inconsistencies and making uniform and consistent rules for all disciplines. Otherwise we will achieve exactly nothing and the current more than unsatisfactory situation will remain.
> Team sports (basketball, hockey, group freestyle): Naturally, there is less starts overall as they start in teams. Requiring two classes here will result in a lot of organizational overhead.
Group freestyle is regularly divided into U15 and 15+ and this division is definitely not a damage to the discipline, but extremely positive. On the contrary, many riders find it unsatisfactory if there is no U15 category. So I think it would be positive if the two classes Junior and Senior/Adult were finally included in the rules for this discipline too.
There are currently no junior competitions in team sports. But would it really be a bad thing from a junior perspective if these were offered? I don't see that we would cause any damage if U15 teams had their own classification in the future.
All in all basketball and hockey are the only diciplines where prescribing two classes would mean real changes. In the end, however, I believe that we should also promote the junior sector here and if there are junior titles in all other disciplines at a competition, we should also provide these for hockey and basketball.
> As such, three classes are already used in Germany as the IUF rules are not made for that amount of athletes. Freestyle is truly pioneering here. Requiring two classes here will be prohibit evolving the sport from scaling up.
That's not true - in Germany, freestyle titles are only awarded in two classes: Junior (U15) and Senior/Adult (15+).
So if we stipulate these two classes in the rulebook for the moment, then we will have gained a great deal: After years of incomprehensible awarding of different titles in different disciplines, we will finally have a uniform, comprehensible concept.
I also don't see why this should prevent the sport from developing - if the number of participants in individual disciplines is so high that it is justified to offer additional youth championships, then the IUF rules do not exclude this. I would absolutely agree with Elise here, that in this case there can simply be additional youth championships in which participants aged 15-18 can take part, but this must not lead to exclusion from the Non-Youth championships.
Comment
> I see the most important task of this committee in finally eliminating these inconsistencies and making uniform and consistent rules for all disciplines. Otherwise we will achieve exactly nothing and the current more than unsatisfactory situation will remain.
I agree completely with this statement. The whole point of this committee is to finally address a major issue. Once that is handled, the rest of the rulebook can work to account for any discrepancies.
I am in favor of two classes, not three. I think that we should use the terms Junior and Senior, not Adult. It's confusing to use the word adult when we are talking about riders who are 15-17 years old. Also the terms Junior and Senior are used widely in other sports. I think then this allows for terms like Junior World Champion and World Champion to make sense.
Comment
> I think that we should use the terms Junior and Senior, not Adult.
I would be fine with that too.
Comment
two vs. three classes
Gossi and I came to the conclusion, that the standard would be two classes, Junior and Adult (or Senior if more fitting).
But we wanted to future proof the rulebook a bit by already including a third class, that is optional for disciplines with many competitors (mostly Freestyle probably right now).
If a discipline wants to use the third (Youth) class, it needs to be stated in its rulebook section. If no statement about that is made, it defaults back to Junior and Senior.
I do think long term our goal could be to have that third class. And since not all disciplines will arrive at the needed competitor numbers at the same time, doesn't it make sense to include it in the rulebook as an optional class before, so Freestyle can already take advantage of it. I don't think it ruins the standardisation goal too much.
But if a majority of you really dislikes that third class, I will not stand in the way and also support a strict two class solution.
regarding team sports
For team sports the age classes would need to be somewhat flexible. We can't enforce an exclusive Junior competition and not allow Junior riders to compete in a Senior team (imagine a team of 14-15 year olds, that obviously still needs to be allowed to compete together, in Senior then)
So a Junior competition could be offered for teams consisting only of Junior riders. Sure this can be done, and if a single team registers, they win automatically, which is actually what Gossi and I did prepare for in our draft. // When Junior starters (individual, pairs or teams) are present, a title must be awarded. //
moving forward with this
I think at this point, we agree about the basics here and could actually come to a conclusion, which would be a great achievement.
The only essential things we still need to decide on (from what I gather) are:
- strictly two classes or an optional third class
- Junior / Adult or Junior / Senior naming
I would ask everyone to comment on these.
I will start:
optional third class but would also support strict two classes.
I don't mind either naming but lean towards Junior / Senior (Patricia convinced me)
After we have got some comments on this I would ask Elise or Jan to prepare a proposal. Let's do this!
Comment
To come back to Gossis original statement:
"Each competition lists their supported classes under event organiser rules.
Classes reward championship titles. Boundaries of a class ensure equal conditions to compete for that title.
There are three classes:
1. Junior/Kids (< 15)
2. Youth (15 - 18)
3. Adults (>=19)
Classes can be merged and take the name of the older class. At minimum one class is present (Adults).
Each competition lists their supported classes under event organizer rules."
The proposal deliberately states that classes can be combined, so each discipline would be free to decide which classes to offer. If, for example, the youth class is not needed in track, urban and muni, it does not have to be used in the championship. However, it would make things much easier for the disciplines where it makes sense, especially in freestyle, as you saw in my post regarding the number of routines.
Comment
Thanks for summarizing, Ian. I do think we are getting close.
Here is my choice:
Two classes named Junior & Senior
Marvin and Gossi, I think the proposal of a third class is unnecessary mostly because I don't believe that we really need to be awarding more championship titles. Part of the goal here was to clean up the language about who is indeed a "World Champion" (or national, etc.) and by having a third class we are just creating more awards. With two classes, riders will still be competing in age groups but it doesn't require awarding more titles.
Comment
Two classes named Junior & Senior
I think I have already explained why in detail: I see the most important task of this committee in finally eliminating these inconsistencies and making uniform and consistent rules for all disciplines. If we now introduce an optional class, we will have the same situation in the future as we have now: In some disciplines, three world championship titles will be awarded and in others only two and athletes will not be able to understand why one discipline has a Youth title and the other does not.
Comment
Also for me Junior & Senior!
Comment
We (Jan, Marvin, Lisa and me) were discussing this on monday. We figured Jan requires a traceable reason as to why one competition may offer a third class. That's a valid point. I added it, so here is the new paragraph:
## 1C.x Classes
Classes award championship titles. Boundaries of a class ensure equal conditions to compete for that title.
There are three possible classes:
1. Junior (< 15)
2. Youth (15 - 18)
3. Adult (>=19)
The default classes are Junior and Adult. The Youth class can be used, with given reasons in the Event Organizer Rules of each respective section. When Youth class is not used, the Adult class includes starters at the age of >=15.
When Junior starters (individual, pairs or teams) are present, a title must be awarded.
The oldest member of a pair or team determines the class they compete in.
A single Agegroup cannot span multiple supported classes.
This section takes precedence over Event Organizer Rules of each respective section.
As for freestyle, this is currently under discussion at Classes and Age Groups. And the excerpt with the given reasons:
## 6E.5 Classes and Age Groups
### 6E.5.1 Supported Classes
Artistic Freestyle will support classes based on competitions.
### 6E.5.1.1 Individual and Pair
A youth class as per 1C.x shall be used when the requirements (see below) are met:
1. Junior (< 15)
2. Youth (15 - 18)
3. Adult (>= 19)
Requirements:
IUF Sanctioned events: All three classes are used
Other events: Youth and Adult class should have at least 8 starters each
Reasons:
- Visibility: Ensure athletes from the youth class are represented
- Equality: Ensure a stable competitor field within one class with similar conditions that gives athletes more equal chances to win a championship title
- Development pipeline: Establish conditions for growth within the discipline
---
And yes Freestyle is in need for this to continue ensuring development pipelines for its athletes.
Numbers in germany:
- Individual Routines: 244
- Pair Routines: 227
(find Marvin's post for the details).
---
Senior is an awefully bad name for this as it is super ambiguous in english and in respective native languages:
In english:
- Junior and Senior Highschool
- In College: Junior and Senior Year
- In Jobs: Junior and Senior title
The US (and canadian?) sport system is based on schools/colleges, so I guess the name connects to junior and senior highschool? But that type of sport system is very american, whole europe uses clubs.
In native languages, the word senior exists:
- Spanish: señor, señora, señorita - which I think translates to mr/mrs (I don't speak spanish)
- German/Netherlands (and a couple of other european languages): Senior - which translates to the english elder
I personally am sick to answer the 1000ths of time to a german children, why they now need to compete against their grandparents.
That's why I pick adult, which doesn't come with the conflicts (and Ian used the word at GUC, it worked much better in a german sentence, compared to senior).
Potentially, junior is also somewhat affected (I had "kid" as an alternative), but the meaning across all languages is the same, so we do not run into the ambiguity problem.
Comment
Junior and Senior is used widely in athletic events at the world and Olympic level. I don't know why on Earth we would try to deviate from those norms as unicycling is such a small sport. As a native English speaker there really is no confusion about it. How it is translated into other languages is separate from this discussion about the Rulebook which is only ever published by the IUF officially in English. Other countries and competitions can have freedom to translate it as makes sense in their language.
Comment
All in all, the feedback on the topic of two vs. three classes is not particularly high here - nevertheless, I can see the Committee's overall desire and efforts to find a solution in regard to the "classes issue". I would therefore find it a pity if a proposal with three classes were ultimately rejected due to a lack of consensus and we then had no solution at all.
I would therefore suggest making two separate proposals:
- One about the introduction of the two classes Junior and Senior/Adult (I personally don't really care which term we use here, I think it should be common in English language usage, which I can't judge as a non-native speaker)
- A second one about the introduction of a third optional class Youth
I think this would represent all the views in this discussion and we could vote on them separately, thus preventing a single aspect of the concept from leading to the rejection of the whole basic "classes concept".
I will open two new discussion for the two proposals, so this descussion remains open for other aspects of the topic "Expert classes and age groups".
Comment
Are there other aspects of this topic, apart from those for which official proposals already exist, for which an official proposal should be made?