IUF Skill Levels

General
1

John Foss <Unicycle@aol.com> writes:

>It’s time for the IUF to make a decision on Skill Levels. This is a call for
>opinions from anybody, but I’m especially looking for opinions or feedback from
>the other members of the IUF Skill Levels Committee. Last summer, the USA
>switched a pair of skills between levels 5 and 6, moving 'hop standing on wheel
>5 times’ to level 5, and ‘walk the wheel for 10 meters’ to level 6.

Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the way it was, not the recent change.

>This was done because skill level testing was showing a large number of riders
>getting stuck on the hop on wheel skill. Many were able to do all of level 6
>before getting that single skill from level 5.

>Remember, ‘hop standing on wheel’ includes going from sitting on the seat up to
>the standing on wheel position, hopping 5 times, and then (the hard part)
>getting back onto the seat and riding away. This skill is a part of my everyday
>show, and it took me quite a long time to get it consistently.

>I believe walking the wheel to be easier than the hopping on wheel skill, and I
>propose that the IUF make the same change that was made by the USA last summer.

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> writes:

>The IUF Standard Skill List has “hopping on wheel” valued at 3.0 points whereas
>“wheel walking” is valued at 3.5 in the same list. Clearly “wheel walking” is
>more difficult than “hopping on wheel”.
…[stuff omitted]…
>Getting back to the pedals from “hopping on wheel” is no more difficult than
>from “wheel walking”. I personally recall great difficulty in getting back to
>the pedals from “wheel walking”, but getting back to the pedals from "hopping
>on wheel" was not nearly as difficult (the IUF Standard Skill List values it at
>3.0 points). Getting back to the pedals from “hopping on wheel” is easier,
>because the wheel is not moving, thus the position of the pedals does not
>change. However, getting back to the pedals from “wheel walking” is harder,
>because the wheel is moving, thus the pedals are moving too. It is harder to
>hit a moving target (pedal), isn’t it?
…[stuff omitted]…

Don’t forget the rider has to jump up, turn 90 degrees to get on the wheel and
then turn back 90 degrees (while falling) to get down onto the seat again. And
he has to hit BOTH pedals at the same time with his full weight. With wheel
walking, there is no elevation change, no 90 degree twist and he can catch the
pedals one at a time in succession.

>The USA, Inc. switched these two skills last year at its general membership
>meeting, without its own Rules Committee even considering the change. It also
>did so without consulting the IUF Rules Committee. The suggestion that other
>countries’ unicycling unions should be consulted first was ignored; one
>member went so far as to say the Japan Unicycling Association didn’t care
>about the change.
…[stuff omitted]…
>Leave the IUF Skill Levels as they are! Bring the USA Skill Levels back into
>correspondence with the IUF Skill Levels.

I just learned to wheel walk recently, and can’t do ‘hop on the wheel’ yet. I
have tried to learn both and I was relieved to hear of the change because I
thought of the old way as being a major stumbling block on my way up the skill
levels ladder. Assuming the rules don’t change by NUC, I will attempt to qualify
for (USA) Level 5.

If the issue is really whether one is in fact harder than the other, then the
solution might be to poll as many unicyclists as possible (including non-USA/IUF
unicyclists and ask:

a) can you now walk the wheel?
b) can you now hop on the wheel 5 times?
c) If you answered yes to both a) and b), which did you learn first?
d) If you answered yes to both a) and b), which do you consider consider easier?

The tabulated answers to these questions should show which skill is the more
difficult.

Pointing to the IUF Standard Skills List to ‘prove’ that wheel walking is harder
than hopping on the wheel strikes me as begging the question. I don’t know the
history but I imagine the SSL was devised AFTER the Skill Levels were formulated
and the relative difficulty of the skills in question were assigned largely
based on their ranking in the Skill Levels.

If the new change remains and is adopted by the IUF, then undoubtedly the SSL
will be modified accordingly too.

But I think perhaps the real issue is politics. Perhaps the USA people were rash
to take this action without more communicating, both internally and externally…
But then also, perhaps the IUF people’s feelings were hurt at being left out of
the decision loop. Perhaps they are saying among themselves “We’re not going to
do it because it was THEIR idea and we don’t operate that way.”

I would like to suggest if it’s a good idea, it shouldn’t matter WHOSE
idea it was.

Dennis Kathrens

2

Re: IUF Skill Levels

d.kathrens@genie.geis.com wrote:

>John Foss <Unicycle@aol.com> writes:
>
>>It’s time for the IUF to make a decision on Skill Levels. This is a call for
>>opinions from anybody, but I’m especially looking for opinions or feedback
>>from the other members of the IUF Skill Levels Committee. Last summer, the USA
>>switched a pair of skills between levels 5 and 6, moving 'hop standing on
>>wheel 5 times’ to level 5, and ‘walk the wheel for 10 meters’ to level 6.
>
>Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the way it was, not the recent change.

Oops. Dennis is correct. ‘Walk the wheel’ is now USA level 5, and ‘hop standing
on wheel’ is USA level 6. Should IUF also make this change? So far I have only
heard from two people. Are theirs the only opinions on this matter?

John Foss unicycle@aol.com

3

Re: IUF Skill Levels

>
>Oops. Dennis is correct. ‘Walk the wheel’ is now USA level 5, and 'hop
>standing on wheel’ is USA level 6. Should IUF also make this change? So far I
>have only heard from two people. Are theirs the only opinions on this matter?
>
>John Foss unicycle@aol.com

It seems that multiple standards are the bane of organisations and any areas of
endeavour - such as sports, computing etc. Different standards only serve to
dislocate, divide opinion, confuse, and reinforce any parochial separatism.

For this reason I think the IUF and USA skill levels should match completely.
After all, being a small and largely non-commercial sport, unicycling seems
relatively free of such infighting, and we shouldn’t lay ourselves open to
create any division in the future. After all, a person having passed level 6 in
one place may find themselves demoted in other places - hardly a recipe for
peace and satisfaction.

As for which levels wheel-walking and hopping should be, I’ll leave that for
the competition experts to thrash out between them, and that looks like it may
mean IUF being the one to fall into line. But I look forward to a united front
in the end.

========================================================
Tim Sheppard tim@lilliput-p.win-uk.net Lilliput Press - Publisher of fine books
in miniature

4

Re: IUF Skill Levels

Hmm…I’d like to concur with Ken:

>Tim Sheppard <tim@lilliput-p.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>As for which levels wheel-walking and hopping should be, I’ll leave that for
>>the competition experts to thrash out between them, and that looks like it may
>>mean IUF being the one to fall into line. But I look forward to a united front
>>in the end.

>Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com>
>
>P.S. I believe Tim was simply stating that he thought the IUF would agree with
> the change made by the USA. I simply latched onto the rather unfortunate
> way he stated that opinion. I really don’t know what his opinions of the
> points I’ve made are.

Yes. I agree my choice of words carried an unfortunate nuance, which
wasn’t intended.

>Whether or not the change to the Skill Levels by the USA was a good one, the
>arrogance displayed by the USA, Inc. in its vote to change the Skill Levels
>did nothing but promote anti-USA feeling among non-USA members and even some
>USA members. This is not the way to promote unicycling in the USA or around
>the world.

To those of us who live outside it, America’s collective attitude is often the
cause of frustration or amusement. Although many individual Americans are
entirely reasonable people, the collective behaviour often seems to show
ignorance and inconsideration for the rest of the world. The United States
doesn’t have a monopoly on this attitude of course, before people get upset
about this, it’s just that the U.S.A.'s self-declared objective of being an
example to the world doesn’t really follow through. I don’t have any strong
political feelings here, I have just observed America’s tendency to assume that
it is the World. That is understandable to some extent, since it’s huge and most
Americans never leave it, but for a country that sees itself as a world power
and a world problem-solver, it is not sensible. This parochial attitude is
revealed not just at a political level, but by everyday assumptions by many
people who post to Usenet for instance. Also its effects filter into companies
like Microsoft, who use their size to succesfully declare worldwide standards
based on whatever they fancy doing for their own convenience.

I don’t mean to sound anti-America here - I’m not at all. Every country has its
own traits, good and bad. I just want to agree with Ken, and point out that the
USA’s skill level changes seem to follow a similar pattern. If they want to
promote and relate to unicycling worldwide, they ought to accept that there are
long-established bodies of intelligent people all over the world who’s points of
view are equally important.

I hope I haven’t offended, or stirred up patriotic indignance by this. If all of
us, not just in America, can look to any faults we have, individually or
collectively, and stay aware of them, maybe…just maybe, we can forge
agreements and establish workable standards.

>
>It is the USA, Inc. that needs to fall in line with the IUF, Inc. on
>this issue.

My point was merely that the USA skills change is a fait accompli. The method
may have been misguided, but is unlikely to be immediately reversed, especially
as there seems to be have been so much popular support. So, whatever wrangling
and recrimination may happen, if there is eventually a unilateral standard, it
seems more likely to come about from the IUF making similar changes or at least
a compromise. This is simply a pragmatic view on how to cleear things up, not on
how the whole matter should have been handled originally. I didn’t intend to
imply that an upstart IUF should do as it’s told by the boss!

Wobbling towards a better future…

Tim

========================================================
Tim Sheppard tim@lilliput-p.win-uk.net Lilliput Press - Publisher of fine books
in miniature

5

Re: IUF Skill Levels

Tim Sheppard <tim@lilliput-p.win-uk.net> wrote:

>It seems that multiple standards are the bane of organisations and any areas of
>endeavour - such as sports, computing etc. Different standards only serve to
>dislocate, divide opinion, confuse, and reinforce any parochial separatism.

Agreed. So why did the USA, Inc. ignore its own Rules Committee as well as the
IUF Rules Committee, when it voted to change the Skill Level at a General
Membership meeting? The USA President, Dr. Miles
S. Rogers, in a letter to the the Editor of On One Wheel said the USA Rules
Committee was dragging its feet on this issue. Does the Chairperson of the
USA Rules Committee (or any committee members) care to comment on this issue?

>As for which levels wheel-walking and hopping should be, I’ll leave that for
>the competition experts to thrash out between them, and that looks like it may
>mean IUF being the one to fall into line. But I look forward to a united front
>in the end.

In my opinion, USA, Inc. must recognize that it is not the largest nor the
most dominant unicycling organization on this planet. The USA has maybe 500
full service members in its roster; the JUA has 2000 to 2500 according to
Jack Halpern.

It is not the IUF, Inc. that needs to fall in line with the USA, Inc. The USA,
Inc. should follow it’s own rules, before it expects respect for its decisions
from anyone, even USA members. Whether or not the change to the Skill Levels by
the USA was a good one, the arrogance displayed by the USA, Inc. in its vote to
change the Skill Levels did nothing but promote anti-USA feeling among non-USA
members and even some USA members. This is not the way to promote unicycling in
the USA or around the world.

It is the USA, Inc. that needs to fall in line with the IUF, Inc. on this issue.
The USA, Inc. should at least admit that it didn’t follow its own procedures
(the decision should have been made by the USA Rules Committee, not by a vote at
the General Membership meeting). Secondly, it should have consulted the IUF
Rules Committee, who would have solicited input from the various national
unicycling unions around the world, before it made a decision. (I brought up
these points at the General Membership meeting before the vote, but the only
thing that seemed to matter to the proponents of this change was implementing
the change, regardless of the implications to world relations.)

I’m looking forward to a single Skill Level List too. The current IUF, JUA,
Quebec, UK, German, French, Spanish, Canadian, Chinese, Australian, New Zealand,
Israeli etc. one, NOT the current USA one!

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com>

P.S. I believe Tim was simply stating that he thought the IUF would agree with
the change made by the USA. I simply latched onto the rather unfortunate
way he stated that opinion. I really don’t know what his opinions of the
points I’ve made are.

6

Re: IUF Skill Levels

Tim Sheppard <tim@lilliput-p.win-uk.net> wrote:

>My point was merely that the USA skills change is a fait accompli. The method
>may have been misguided, but is unlikely to be immediately reversed, especially
>as there seems to be have been so much popular support. So, whatever wrangling
>and recrimination may happen, if there is eventually a unilateral standard, it
>seems more likely to come about from the IUF making similar changes or at least
>a compromise. This is simply a pragmatic view on how to clear things up, not on
>how the whole matter should have been handled originally. I didn’t intend to
>imply that an upstart IUF should do as it’s told by the boss!

I agree with Tim’s whole article and particularly the above. It’s a near
impossibility that the USA will ever reverse their decision, but I’ll never let
them forget that it was a unilateral one that insulted every non-USA member and
many USA members too - in the hope that this type of mistake will not be
repeated in the future.

Stay on Top,

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com>

P.S. The USA General Membership vote as I recall was perhaps 15 to 5 in favour
of the change. Had the opposition to the change known about the proposal
prior to the meeting, the vote may have been different and we wouldn’t be
having this controversy now.

7

Re: IUF Skill Levels

>It’s a near impossibility that the USA will ever reverse their decision, but
>I’ll never let them forget that it was a unilateral one that insulted every
>non-USA member and many USA members too - in the hope that this type of mistake
>will not be repeated in the future.

    I have divided loyalties on this issue, but I feel compelled to address
    Ken's hyperbole. Please note that I am not speaking in my capacity as a
    Director of the IUF. Here is my understanding of what happened:

  1.  The IUF Skill Levels were developed by a small group of highly-skilled
 riders. The skill levels were order based on these riders' own
 perceptions of relative skill difficulties, and on their experiences
 with teaching unicycling skills to others.

  2.  The USA adopted the IUF Skill Levels as an initial set of USA Skill
 Levels. However, there was/is no commitment by the USA executives to
 remain compliant with the IUF's rules.

  3.  Certain USA-affiliated clubs attempted the first "wide-scale"
 application of the skill levels, so far as the USA knows.

  4.  These clubs observerd that significant numbers of riders were
 prevented from advancing by the "hopping" skill. These riders were
 capable of all the remaining skills at level 5, and many of level 6's
 skills. The clubs requested that the USA consider rearranging the USA
 Skill Levels in 1993.

  5.  The issue was raised with the Skill Levels subcommittee of the USA's
 Rules Committee. The Skills Level subcommittee declined to address
 this issue.

  6.  The USA Executive Committee discussed a proposal to interchange the
 hopping and wheel-walk skills at its 1994 meeting, and voted to refer
 the matter to the USA 1994 General Meeting as new business.

  7.  The General Meeting voted to interchange the hopping and
 wheel-walk skills.

I think there are a few issues worth noting:

  8.  The Skill Levels list were initially developed by highly-skilled
 riders. It is possible that to this group of extraordinary riders the
 relative difficulty of some of the skills is different from the
 relative difficulty of the same skills among "ordinary" riders.

  9.  It is possible that differences in teaching methods account for the
 problems some clubs were having with the "hopping" skill. Improved
 teaching methods can change the relative difficulty of acquiring
 different skills.

  10.  The USA does not recognize the IUF as a supervisory organization
 (quoting the USA President). The USA wants to work with the IUF, but is
 not obliged to conform to IUF rules or policies when they conflict with
 the expressed interests of the USA membership. No disrespect to the IUF
 is intended.

  11.  The present USA leadership feels that raising New Business at a General
 Meeting, and reaching a decision via a vote of the membership present,
 is a legitimate function of the Society, and that advance notice
 (publication in On One Wheel) is not must be balanced aainst the
 timeliness of the decision-making process.

  12.  The present USA leadership gives considerable attention to the
 requirements of its "youth" members. The Executive Committee consider
 that delaying a decision on this issue for another year would have been
 injurious to these members.

  13.  The present USA leadership considers attendance at the annual
 conventions to be an important obligation of its members. The desires
 and needs of those who attend the convention are, in general, given
 precedence over those of those who don't. This, votes at the General
 Meeting are considered a satisfactory expression of the interests of
 the group as a whole.

  14.  The present USA leadership gives precedence to the needs "youth" and
 "ordinary" riders oer the needs of "highly-skilled" riders, when there
 is perceived to be an irreconcilable conflict between the two groups.

                                Craig Milo Rogers USA member
8

Re: IUF Skill Levels

>Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com> wrote:

>>It’s a near impossibility that the USA will ever reverse their decision, but
>>I’ll never let them forget that it was a unilateral one that insulted every
>>non-USA member and many USA members too - in the hope that this type of
>>mistake will not be repeated in the future.

Craig Milo Rogers <rogers@ISI.EDU> wrote:

> I have divided loyalties on this issue, but I feel compelled to address
> Ken’s hyperbole.

Craig, you were at the USA General Membership meeting. You know that certain
outspoken members acted exactly as I described above. Some rather embarassing
and clearly insulting statements were made about the JUA and its members.
Statements about other non-USA members were also made. I was embarassed just
sitting there listening to unicyclists who would say non-complimentary things
about other unicyclists to further their single issue position. Next they voted
in exactly the same manner, with the full knowledge they were insulting every
non-USA member and even some USA members.

I’m sorry if the truth embarasses some people. However, I’m a firm believer in
“The truth will set you free.”

>Please note that I am not speaking in my capacity as a Director of the IUF.
>Here is my understanding of what happened:

<Craig’s history and comments on the Skill Levels issue [omitted].>

Craig’s history and comments seem quite accurate, but he avoids details about
what happened at the USA General Membership meeting. He also doesn’t mention any
communication between Skill Levels change proponents and the IUF.

Considering the IUF copyright on the IUF Skill Levels, the USA could be a little
more considerate in its treatment of IUF intellectual property.

Stay on Top,

Ken Fuchs <kfuchs@winternet.com