Re: Ideas for improving the U System for trials
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:16:31 -0500, “danger_uni” wrote:
>In bike trials, riders have no quantified idea of how hard people were
>riding 20 years ago, but in climbing, you can track the increase in
>riding standards since the 1950’s because climbers have a rating system
>describing this. It would be great if unicycling could be the same.
I haven’t read the U-System, but are the ratings obejctive enough so
that they are safeguarded against inflation (or deflation) over a
period of twenty years?
Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
Clearly a system of 1/14 and 1/16 is not decimal - Mikefule on the English weight system
Another reason for setting point values for each section: even at the same U-level, the “lengths” of segments may vary.
Example: one U-3 segment may contain 3 U-3 problems, whereas another U-3 segment may contain 7 U-3 problems.
In this example the 2nd segment is more than twice as hard as the first. Though this may not be an ideal segment design, but I’m guessing it is realistic when space or the number of and types of props is limited.
Excellent and interesting discussion!
I have to echo the sentiments of Kris with regard to the fact that I too don’t believe the top ranking riders at previous events would have changed had one of these options been used. When I have some free time I’ll take a look at both the 2003 & 2004 TOque games scores and see what would have happened.
As to the question of whether a rider should spend all her time working on a hard problem worth more points (by the current system) or attempt many easier sections … that is clearly up to the rider and the strategy she uses.
I believe a rider going only for the hardest problems is still displaying all around skill. Those hard lines typically require a number of the basic trials skills in order to complete them successfully.
One issue that I do think that has to be addressed is that of ties. The 2003 and 2004 TOque Games both had ties for top spot in the expert category and the sport category had multiple ties aswell. There was a tie for top expert spot at Motorama. It’s great that we have the option of a tie breaker line or PRS (which I think is a great idea), but out of the 5 or so trials events that I know of (2003/2004 TOque, Unicon, 2003 NAUCC, 2004 Motorama) that have used the u-rating system 3 of them have had ties and typically the top riders completed all the lines. Competitions need to be setup so that ties don’t happen at the majority of events. Either more lines need to be setup or lines have to more difficult or idealy both.
One observation I’ve made about course and line setup is that it’s the top riders that typically do the setup and rate the lines. While I’m sure every intention is made by those individuals to create difficult lines, subconsciously I would guess that they are relatively confident that they will be able to pull the line off.
At this years TOque games I was almost positive that we would not have a tie for first in the expert category due to the fact that we split the classes up which allowed us to create more difficult problems for the experts. But alas, I was wrong. With just seconds to spare Ryan completed the last line which Kris had cleared just minutes earlier.
That being said I think the addition of some hard lines would have made all the difference. I think one of the goal trials organizers should aim for is having more lines setup that can be humanly completed in the alotted time.
Now that there are some trials events outside of the Unicon and NAUCC circle we really have the chance to try different systems and ideas.
Just wait for TOque Games 2005!!