New Trials Unicycle Competition Format- IMPORTANT!!!

General
1

Hi all,

For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some point,
please read this!!

This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
unicycle trials. It’s a long email- if you prefer the same text is located
at <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>

Last year I wrote an IUF uni-trials rulebook that basically follows the
North American Bike Trials competition format, with a couple of minor
modifications. For those of you that are unfamiliar with conventional
uni/bike trials competitions, here is a very brief description:

Three to six obstacle courses are laid out, called sections. Each rider
must attempt to negotiate a section- if they fall or put a foot down (a
“dab”) they are given penalty points. Riders do all sections at least
twice, and at the end of the day the person with the least number of
penalty points is the winner.

In my opinion, there are some significant problems with this format:

  1. It can be extremely boring!!! With such a low number of sections, you
    spend almost all your time waiting around, not riding, while one
    person at a time goes through a section.
  2. A system that penalizing failures (dabs) encourages an
    ultra-conservative, boring riding style. Generally you ride way slower
    and more cautiously than normal, because you are so afraid of screwing
    up. This is stressful and not that exciting either.
  3. The conventional format encourages “strategic dabs” over hard
    obstacles. This is where the rider intentionally puts their foot on an
    obstacle and lifts their unicycle over (or on to) the obstacle. The
    rationale is that it is better to accept one penalty point (one foot
    down) than to completely wipe out and get 3 penalty points (in bike
    trials, 5 penalty points). To me this is completely lame- it would be
    much better to encourage riders to “go for it” instead of
    intentionally not trying an obstacle.
  4. Putting long sections together can be difficult for the organizer, and
    requires lots of space and many obstacles that only get used when one
    rider is in a section (see point # 1).
  5. It’s not natural. Most people don’t ride for fun this way- you see
    something cool, and try it over and over until you get it- the reward
    is success and failure is just something that happens before success.

Last night my roommate (who is a climber but not a unicyclist) had a
brilliant suggestion: conduct unicycle trials competitions in a similar
format to bouldering competitions in rock climbing. This is a proposed
format, modelled after bouldering competitions:

  1. The organizer lays out numerous obstacles, generally much shorter
    and simpler than conventional sections. A good competition would
    contain lots of different obstacles, of varying difficulty, designed
    to test different trials skills. Each obstacle is independent of all
    the others.
  2. The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
    obstacles having a higher point value. This requires judgement. In
    climbing, this works well because there is a climbing rating system
    that allows other climbers to (more or less) agree on how difficult
    routes are. In uni-trials this consensus would need to evolve over
    time as the sport matures.
  3. To compete, riders complete as many problems as they can in a
    specified time period. They can go to any obstacle in any order, so
    there is much less waiting around (and it’s much more fun to watch
    people try things).
  4. There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
    with no dabs. Otherwise you could try the obstacle as many times as
    you wanted with no penalty for failure. If there was a lineup for
    the obstacle, you’d just have to go to the back of the line after
    each attempt.
  5. At the end of the time period, the rider with the most points wins the
    competition.

This format has the following major advantages over the current setup:

  1. It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
    “go-for-it” riding style that will ultimately increase technical
    standards in the sport.
  2. The format is much closer to how we ride for fun and maximizes riding
    time during a competition.
  3. It is MUCH simpler in terms of rules than conventional bike or
    unicycle trials, and course set-up is much easier for the organizer.
  4. It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
    intermediate or advanced categories. Everybody competes on the same
    course- the people in the beginner category would just be inclined to
    try easier problems than the people in more advanced categories
  5. It removes several ambiguities from the current format. For example,
    if a rider wipes out, the current unicycle trials rules stipulate that
    the rider remount “where the rider was last in control”. This can be a
    very grey area.
  6. This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
    that is required is to observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a
    short problem.
  7. It is way less stressful. Many riders (including myself) ride because
    we’re self competitive, not because we particularly care whether we
    beat anyone. This format allows both casual and highly competitive
    people to have fun on the same course.

The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
experience and judgement to award points for problems according their
difficulty. However, this is negated somewhat by riders choosing to do
problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a problem seems to be
overly hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just choose
not to do that problem.

Corresponding to this competition format, I’d like to also propose that we
create an open-ended “U system” for rating unicycle trials problems. This
would be similar to the V-system used in bouldering. For example, a
hopping up a set of stairs would be rated U1, whereas the hardest problems
currently done might be around U7 or U8. This is NOT an objective system
like levels in artistic unicycling and would not correspond to specific
moves (since, like climbing, there is infinitely variable terrain that
offers varying types of difficulty). It would just provide a mechanism to
track how standards in uni-trials will evolve over time.

In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out. Any
thoughts, opinions, comments?

Regards,

Kris Holm.

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

2

Kris,

I think it sounds great. For Unicycle Trials to gain acceptance,
competitions have to be able to fit into schedules, be reasonably easy to
set up, and be interesting to watch. I think your improvements will enable
Trials competitions to be held in more places and times.

Not only did you eliminate a lot of complicated rules, there are maybe
some other advantages you did not list:

  1. Courses will be much easier to set up, which means they will require
    less course-building knowledge to be good courses.

  2. Holding the competition will take less time. Way less. MUni Weekends
    are short, so we can’t spend all day on a Trials competition (though
    some wouldn’t mind).

  3. This format should be more accessible to riders. They don’t have to
    learn a lot of rules and remember them on the course. Instead, see who
    can clear the most obstacles!

  4. Sounds like it will be easier to judge as well, though it will still
    require people keeping track of all riders’ progress.

Judging the difficulty of the various course problems is just a different
version of knowing how to set up a longer course. Without an expert, you
end up with a course that’s either way too easy or way too hard. The
expertise to get it right will just move to the area of determining
difficulty.

> 2) The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
> obstacles having a higher point value. This requires judgement.

Though quantifying the difficulty of various problems should be very
difficult, I don’t think it should be too hard to figure out the order of
difficulty of the problems you set up. With a group of four or five
riders, it should become fairly clear what the sequence is, and the
problems could perhaps be scored in that order.

> 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
> with no dabs.

Does this mean we are counting dabs? Or are we just counting dab-free
completions? Surely the guy who gets through on the third try should score
better than the guy who takes 30. How to score that?

> 4) It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
> intermediate or advanced categories. Everybody competes on the same
> course- the people in the beginner category would just be inclined to
> try easier problems than the people in more advanced categories

I worry here that you are giving zealous kids a little too much credit.
Surely we would like to see dangerous obstacles for expert riders, but I
know there are people that will try those obstacles (in the “go for it”
spirit) that have no business being on them. However I do not have a handy
solution as far as how to limit riders to certain sections. I like the
openness and freedom, but a guy in my position has to be aware of the
safety factor.

A simple solution would be to leave safety in the control of the riders
and parents. And judges. Riders to stay off sections that are clearly
beyond their abilities. Parents to help out, as many riders don’t know
their limits (I’m not worried about the ones that do). Judges to draw
the line if they see a rider in a section that appears to be beyond
their skills.

> 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
> that is required is to observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a
> short problem.

We tried self-judging in Santa Cruz (old-style Trials). I don’t believe it
works. Somebody objective has to witness who has cleared sections and who
has not. Otherwise you get into the cowboys and Indians problem of “I shot
you!” “No, you missed!” There always needs to be some form of referee,
especially if you are allowing any form of dabs, or giving credit for
doing things on the first try.

> The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
> experience and judgement to award points for problems according their
> difficulty. However, this is negated somewhat by riders choosing to do
> problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a problem seems to
> be overly hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just
> choose not to do that problem.

It is self-policed in that way. Also, if the scoring is very simple, there
is a clear maximum possible amount of points. If each successive obstacle
is worth one point more than the others, it seems logical that the riders
who can do the harder ones will also do the easier ones. So maybe all you
need is that one point spread. This depends on how you deal with dabs,
first-time success, or otherwise crediting people for taking less tries.

> In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out. Any
> thoughts, opinions, comments?

There is a technical problem here, in that the convention has already been
publicized to use the IUF rules for Trials. So if the hosts decide to try
this new system, they should make every effort to publicize this change
(which I’m sure Carl Hoyer will). As the precedent for Trials is fairly
tiny (only a handful of competitions has ever been held?), I don’t think
it should matter much to riders either way.

The convention hosts are under no obligation to hold Trials at all, and it
is up to them how they would like to do it. I favor this new system, as I
think it will allow more people to participate (especially if there’s no
lightning at the time), and will be easier to set up and run.

But the details will have to be worked out first! Keep me involved, I’ll
offer help as I can.

Stay on top, John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone jfoss@unicycling.com
www.unicycling.com

“Someone who thinks logically is a nice contrast to the real world.”

3

Hi,

John you have some good comments, some of which I want to respond to:

> > 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
> > with no dabs.
>
> Does this mean we are counting dabs? Or are we just counting dab-free
> completions? Surely the guy who gets through on the third try should
> score better than the guy who takes 30. How to score that?

My opinion is that it is most simple to just credit a rider with bonus
points for “onsighting” the problem first try, to use the climbing term.
Trying a problem over and over takes time. If a rider spends the whole
competition trying one thing over and over, they will not get as many
points as if they just gave up on the problem and did other problems that
they succeeded at. Counting how many tries a rider takes would be too
complicated, in my opinion.

> > 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
> > that is required is to observe whether a rider successfully cleaned
> > a short problem.
>
> We tried self-judging in Santa Cruz (old-style Trials). I don’t believe
> it works. Somebody objective has to witness who has cleared sections and
> who has not. Otherwise you get into the cowboys and Indians problem of
> “I shot you!” “No, you missed!” There always needs to be some form of
> referee, especially if you are allowing any form of dabs, or giving
> credit for doing things on the first try.

Self-judging is used at many small-scale bike trials competitions. There
is also a head judge that resolves any conflicts. Under this new format I
forsee several riders watching one rider try a fairly short obstacle.
Since you’re only judging pass/fail, not adding up points (as in
conventional bike trials), I think that this should be workable. If anyone
prefers, they could ask the head judge to observe them.

Cheers,

Kris.

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

4

Kris, this is GREAT. Tell Sean I said he’s a genius. Let’s try it out at
NUC this year and I bet it will be a blast for competitors (casual and
intense alike) and spectators. I like the “U” rating idea. We’ll just have
to play that by ear the first time or two, then (as in bouldering and
climbing) everyone’s experience will give us consensus “U” ratings.
Imagine the future magazine articles! A no-dab, first-try success is a
“flash” - with the “flash bonus” as you proposed. Other climbing concepts
like “on-site” and “beta” etc would apply perfectly too. Can you imagine
crashpads from bouldering being used in Uni trials?

I’ll volunteer to help out with setup, ratings or whatever’s needed at
NUC. What do you Toronto organizers think?

Looking forward to it, Nathan

“Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010601165648.76985.qmail@web11605.mail.yahoo.com…
> Hi all,
>
> For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at
> some point,
please read this!! [long proposal snipped]

5

“It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
“go-for-it” riding style that will ultimately increase technical standards
in the sport.”

I especially agree on that one, Kris. Riding with the possible penalities
in mind is not really constructive.

For the rider remount point (ie after a wipeout), what would we suggest
? ‘checkpoint’ remount places scattered along a section, between
technical passes ?

Nice proposal, definitively worth trying at NUC01. O-

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 12:57 PM To: unicycling@winternet.com
Cc: John Foss; Robin Coope Subject: New Trials Unicycle Competition
Format- IMPORTANT!!!

Hi all,

For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some point,
please read this!!

snip

In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out. Any
thoughts, opinions, comments?

Regards,

Kris Holm.

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

6

I definitely agree. This is exactly how we ride when we’re out practicing:
You try something that looks doable until you either get it or decide to
move on to something else. He that can do more stuff (or in less tries,
which is where the time limit would play in) is the winner.

As for details, it does sound like we would need a lot of judges and a
lot of individual obstacles. As for how much time to allot, I think it
should be enough that it doesn’t become speed trials, but not so much
that riders are exhausted at the end trying to fit in a couple last
points that they really aren’t capable of anyway. Or maybe instead of a
set time, it could be something like 30 minutes, with extensions allowed
by the head judge if it appears that people haven’t had enough time to at
least make the rounds once.

Okay, in a somewhat formal competition, like what may be at NUC, do we
still hand out cards at the beginning and just have everyone that’s
standing in line watching sign your card if you make it, and also mark
whether it was first try or not?

We could even do this in rounds, like run it once and then rearrange all
the obstacles and assign new point values, etc, then go again. This seems
applicable since there are many different combinations of say barrel, log,
and ditch that can be attempted.

I’ve been trying to start a grassroots trials club here in Moscow (mostly
bikes, but anything shy of a motorcycle we’ll probably let in) , and this
sounds like a much better way of running informal comps for a club, too.
That brings up another issue, should pre-riding still be disallowed?

Chris

Who says we have to follow the bike world, anyway? Who knows, maybe
they’ll follow us.

http://www.reeder.unicyclist.com

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Kris Holm wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some
> point, please read this!!
>
> This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
> unicycle trials. It’s a long email- if you prefer the same text is
> located at
> <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>
>
> Last year I wrote an IUF uni-trials rulebook that basically follows the
> North American Bike Trials competition format, with a couple of minor
> modifications. For those of you that are unfamiliar with conventional
> uni/bike trials competitions, here is a very brief description:
>
> Three to six obstacle courses are laid out, called sections. Each rider
> must attempt to negotiate a section- if they fall or put a foot down (a
> “dab”) they are given penalty points. Riders do all sections at least
> twice, and at the end of the day the person with the least number of
> penalty points is the winner.
>
> In my opinion, there are some significant problems with this format:
>
> 1) It can be extremely boring!!! With such a low number of sections, you
> spend almost all your time waiting around, not riding, while one
> person at a time goes through a section.
> 2) A system that penalizing failures (dabs) encourages an
> ultra-conservative, boring riding style. Generally you ride way
> slower and more cautiously than normal, because you are so afraid of
> screwing up. This is stressful and not that exciting either.
> 3) The conventional format encourages “strategic dabs” over hard
> obstacles. This is where the rider intentionally puts their foot on
> an obstacle and lifts their unicycle over (or on to) the obstacle.
> The rationale is that it is better to accept one penalty point (one
> foot down) than to completely wipe out and get 3 penalty points (in
> bike trials, 5 penalty points). To me this is completely lame- it
> would be much better to encourage riders to “go for it” instead of
> intentionally not trying an obstacle.
> 4) Putting long sections together can be difficult for the organizer,
> and requires lots of space and many obstacles that only get used when
> one rider is in a section (see point # 1).
> 5) It’s not natural. Most people don’t ride for fun this way- you see
> something cool, and try it over and over until you get it- the reward
> is success and failure is just something that happens before success.
>
> Last night my roommate (who is a climber but not a unicyclist) had a
> brilliant suggestion: conduct unicycle trials competitions in a similar
> format to bouldering competitions in rock climbing. This is a proposed
> format, modelled after bouldering competitions:
>
> 1) The organizer lays out numerous obstacles, generally much shorter and
> simpler than conventional sections. A good competition would contain
> lots of different obstacles, of varying difficulty, designed to test
> different trials skills. Each obstacle is independent of all the
> others.
> 2) The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
> obstacles having a higher point value. This requires judgement. In
> climbing, this works well because there is a climbing rating system
> that allows other climbers to (more or less) agree on how difficult
> routes are. In uni-trials this consensus would need to evolve over
> time as the sport matures.
> 3) To compete, riders complete as many problems as they can in a
> specified time period. They can go to any obstacle in any order, so
> there is much less waiting around (and it’s much more fun to watch
> people try things).
> 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
> with no dabs. Otherwise you could try the obstacle as many times as
> you wanted with no penalty for failure. If there was a lineup for the
> obstacle, you’d just have to go to the back of the line after each
> attempt.
> 5) At the end of the time period, the rider with the most points wins
> the competition.
>
> This format has the following major advantages over the current setup:
>
> 1) It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
> “go-for-it” riding style that will ultimately increase technical
> standards in the sport.
> 2) The format is much closer to how we ride for fun and maximizes riding
> time during a competition.
> 3) It is MUCH simpler in terms of rules than conventional bike or
> unicycle trials, and course set-up is much easier for the organizer.
> 4) It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
> intermediate or advanced categories. Everybody competes on the same
> course- the people in the beginner category would just be inclined to
> try easier problems than the people in more advanced categories
> 5) It removes several ambiguities from the current format. For example,
> if a rider wipes out, the current unicycle trials rules stipulate
> that the rider remount “where the rider was last in control”. This
> can be a very grey area.
> 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
> that is required is to observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a
> short problem.
> 7) It is way less stressful. Many riders (including myself) ride because
> we’re self competitive, not because we particularly care whether we
> beat anyone. This format allows both casual and highly competitive
> people to have fun on the same course.
>
> The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
> experience and judgement to award points for problems according their
> difficulty. However, this is negated somewhat by riders choosing to do
> problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a problem seems to
> be overly hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just
> choose not to do that problem.
>
> Corresponding to this competition format, I’d like to also propose that
> we create an open-ended “U system” for rating unicycle trials problems.
> This would be similar to the V-system used in bouldering. For example, a
> hopping up a set of stairs would be rated U1, whereas the hardest
> problems currently done might be around U7 or U8. This is NOT an
> objective system like levels in artistic unicycling and would not
> correspond to specific moves (since, like climbing, there is infinitely
> variable terrain that offers varying types of difficulty). It would just
> provide a mechanism to track how standards in uni-trials will evolve
> over time.
>
> In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out. Any
> thoughts, opinions, comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kris Holm.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
> $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

7

Chris,

Some comments: — Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:

> As for details, it does sound like we would need a lot of judges and a
> lot of individual obstacles. As for how much time to allot, I think it
> should be enough that it doesn’t become speed trials, but not so much
> that riders are exhausted at the end trying to fit in a couple last
> points that they really aren’t capable of anyway.

Lots of judges are available if the competition is self judged, led by a
head judge.

My opinion is that it shouldn’t be a time-limited race- the time limit is
just a cutoff point so that it wouldn’t go on forever. A standard
competition might run 3 hours or so. The competition would be difficulty
limited: ideally, only a couple of people could complete all the obstacles
(the person with the most onsights would win). Ideally most people
wouldn’t be able to do everything no matter how much time was allotted.

> Okay, in a somewhat formal competition, like what may be at NUC, do we
> still hand out cards at the beginning and just have everyone that’s
> standing in line watching sign your card if you make it, and also mark
> whether it was first try or not?

Yes that is correct.

> We could even do this in rounds, like run it once and then rearrange all
> the obstacles and assign new point values, etc, then go again. This
> seems applicable since there are many different combinations of say
> barrel, log, and ditch that can be attempted.

Ideally I’d like to see enough obstacles that nothing would need to be
arranged, since it takes a lot of time to set up cool structures, or
flag-out natural obstacles.

> Who says we have to follow the bike world, anyway? Who knows, maybe
> they’ll follow us.
>

Why not? Right now bike trials is hurting a bit as a sport in North
America; in many ways our sport has a much more organized infrastructure
than they do.

-Kris.

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

8

In a self-judged competition, the judges are just riders that aren’t
riding at the time. In the new scheme, all the riders will be either
riding or waiting in line. So do we use the line as the panel of judges?

Chris

9

— Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> In a self-judged competition, the judges are just riders that aren’t
> riding at the time. In the new scheme, all the riders will be either
> riding or waiting in line. So do we use the line as the panel of judges?

If it turns out anything like bouldering, there will usually be at least a
couple of riders gathered around waiting and generally hanging out being
entertained by the person trying the problem. They would be the judges,
and would be the people that verified that the person filled out their
card correctly.

-Kris.

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

10

Kris et al,

Your proposal looks very interesting. For those who don’t know, I’m the
author of the North American rules for Bike Trials. We are to some extent
battling the same issue of trying to make contests more interesting. One
thing that we have done is run dual speed trials, with two parallel sets
of relatively easy obstacles that riders race on. Generally you don’t need
to add dab penalties since dabs cost time anyway. Anyway, this format is
fun for pro/experts, but it doesn’t work so well for beginners. Kris’s
proposed format looks interesting, for both bikes and unicycles. It
reflects recent developments in BMX freestyle comps which have moved to a
“jam format” which better reflects what people actually do out there on
the street. Here are some thoughts:

  1. The rating system is going to be hard to do because uni and bike trials
    are about 25 years behind climbing. For the math people out there, I’d
    say the parameter space has been insufficiently mapped in uni or bike
    trials. I wonder if you could have a large committee of riders go round
    the course and vote on the sections before the contest. You could have
    them rank the sections in order of difficulty, which would probably be
    more accurate than trying for absolute ratings. There are also
    non-climbing factors like whether or not it’s raining. If it’s drying
    out, a U65 diffculty at 2:00pm might become a U15 at 4:00 pm after the
    sun came out. That would make ranking a good choice since the relative
    difficulty wouldn’t change as much as the absolute difficulty.

  2. You might want to limit the number of attempts so as not to waste
    inordinate amounts of time. It could be set at five or ten or
    something. In biketrials in BC, we used to use the same format as now,
    but only count your best run out of two attempts. The idea was that it
    encouraged big attempts, but the downside was that it didn’t do a good
    job of ranking riders, since everyone would score mutiples of zero or
    five. I think the solution to that is in #3.

  3. In Biketrials, better technique generally = more speed. I’d be tempted
    to time people through sections and have a formula which emphasizes
    section difficulty ranking, speed and then how many attempts you took.

I’m sure there are some other problems, but this type of format does bear
very serious thought. I look forward to hearing about whatever attempts
are made to hold such a comp with unicycles. I will put my mind to trying
to do the same thing with bikes and seeing what happens. Remember that
whatever we do, the rules have to be reasonably simple, or you run into
problems of the riders and spectators being severely confused.

Robin Coope www.biketrials.com

11

Awesome! I LOVE IT!!

I’m all for switching over to this new format for this years NUC. I think
it will definitely create a much better experience for everyone and really
help to foster the sport.

I’ve got more to say on this subject and I’m definitely interested in
helping to contribute ideas for formalizing and documenting the rules, but
I’ve had very little sleep in the past few days and must get rest.

More from me soon. Great idea Kris!

Carl

----- Original Message ----- From: “Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com> To:
<unicycling@winternet.com>
Cc: “John Foss” <john_foss@asinet.com>; “Robin Coope”
<rcoope@physics.ubc.ca> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 12:56 PM Subject:
New Trials Unicycle Competition Format- IMPORTANT!!!

> Hi all,
>
> For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at
> some point,
please read this!!
>
> This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
unicycle trials. It’s a long
> email- if you prefer the same text is located at
> <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>
>
> Last year I wrote an IUF uni-trials rulebook that basically follows the
North American Bike Trials
> competition format, with a couple of minor modifications. For those of
you that are unfamiliar
> with conventional uni/bike trials competitions, here is a very brief
description:
>
> Three to six obstacle courses are laid out, called sections. Each rider
must attempt to negotiate
> a section- if they fall or put a foot down (a “dab”) they are given
penalty points. Riders do all
> sections at least twice, and at the end of the day the person with the
least number of penalty
> points is the winner.
>
> In my opinion, there are some significant problems with this format:
>
> 1) It can be extremely boring!!! With such a low number of sections, you
spend almost all your
> time waiting around, not riding, while one person at a time goes
> through a
section.
> 2) A system that penalizing failures (dabs) encourages an
ultra-conservative, boring riding style.
> Generally you ride way slower and more cautiously than normal, because
you are so afraid of
> screwing up. This is stressful and not that exciting either.
> 3) The conventional format encourages “strategic dabs” over hard
obstacles. This is where the
> rider intentionally puts their foot on an obstacle and lifts their
unicycle over (or on to) the
> obstacle. The rationale is that it is better to accept one penalty point
(one foot down) than to
> completely wipe out and get 3 penalty points (in bike trials, 5 penalty
points). To me this is
> completely lame- it would be much better to encourage riders to "go for
it" instead of
> intentionally not trying an obstacle.
> 4) Putting long sections together can be difficult for the
> organizer, and
requires lots of space
> and many obstacles that only get used when one rider is in a
> section (see
point # 1).
> 5) It’s not natural. Most people don’t ride for fun this way- you see
something cool, and try it
> over and over until you get it- the reward is success and failure is
> just
something that happens
> before success.
>
> Last night my roommate (who is a climber but not a unicyclist) had a
brilliant suggestion:
> conduct unicycle trials competitions in a similar format to bouldering
competitions in rock
> climbing. This is a proposed format, modelled after bouldering
competitions:
>
> 1) The organizer lays out numerous obstacles, generally much shorter and
simpler than conventional
> sections. A good competition would contain lots of different obstacles,
of varying difficulty,
> designed to test different trials skills. Each obstacle is
> independent of
all the others.
> 2) The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
> obstacles
having a higher point
> value. This requires judgement. In climbing, this works well because
there is a climbing rating
> system that allows other climbers to (more or less) agree on how
> difficult
routes are. In
> uni-trials this consensus would need to evolve over time as the sport
matures.
> 3) To compete, riders complete as many problems as they can in a
> specified
time period. They can
> go to any obstacle in any order, so there is much less waiting
> around (and
it’s much more fun to
> watch people try things).
> 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first
> try, with
no dabs. Otherwise you
> could try the obstacle as many times as you wanted with no penalty for
failure. If there was a
> lineup for the obstacle, you’d just have to go to the back of the line
after each attempt.
> 5) At the end of the time period, the rider with the most points
> wins the
competition.
>
> This format has the following major advantages over the current setup:
>
> 1) It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
“go-for-it” riding style that
> will ultimately increase technical standards in the sport.
> 2) The format is much closer to how we ride for fun and maximizes riding
time during a
> competition.
> 3) It is MUCH simpler in terms of rules than conventional bike or
> unicycle
trials, and course
> set-up is much easier for the organizer.
> 4) It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
intermediate or advanced
> categories. Everybody competes on the same course- the people in the
beginner category would just
> be inclined to try easier problems than the people in more advanced
categories
> 5) It removes several ambiguities from the current format. For example,
if a rider wipes out, the
> current unicycle trials rules stipulate that the rider remount
> "where the
rider was last in
> control". This can be a very grey area.
> 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since
> all that
is required is to
> observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a short problem.
> 7) It is way less stressful. Many riders (including myself) ride because
we’re self competitive,
> not because we particularly care whether we beat anyone. This format
allows both casual and
> highly competitive people to have fun on the same course.
>
> The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
> experience
and judgement to award
> points for problems according their difficulty. However, this is negated
somewhat by riders
> choosing to do problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a
problem seems to be overly
> hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just choose
> not to do
that problem.
>
> Corresponding to this competition format, I’d like to also
> propose that we
create an open-ended "U
> system" for rating unicycle trials problems. This would be
> similar to the
V-system used in
> bouldering. For example, a hopping up a set of stairs would be rated U1,
whereas the hardest
> problems currently done might be around U7 or U8. This is NOT an
objective system like levels
> in artistic unicycling and would not correspond to specific moves
> (since,
like climbing, there is
> infinitely variable terrain that offers varying types of difficulty). It
would just provide a
> mechanism to track how standards in uni-trials will evolve over time.
>
> In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out.
Any thoughts, opinions,
> comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kris Holm.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
> $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

12

Kris Holm <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that it is most simple to just credit a rider with bonus
> points for “onsighting” the problem first try, to use the climbing term.
> Trying a problem over and over takes time. If a rider spends the whole
> competition trying one thing over and over, they will not get as many
> points as if they just gave up on the problem and did other problems
> that they succeeded at. Counting how many tries a rider takes would be
> too complicated, in my opinion.

This is similar to the danish Uni obstacle race that was run at eurocycle
two years ago. There were a seris of obstacles or sections in a circuit.
If you failed an obstacle you could try it again to get the points or skip
it to keep your time fast. There were choices on some sections ( easy,
mid, hard) with more points for the harder option. It was quite fun to
ride and tacticaly interersting as the medal winners were not always the
ones you expected , I a managed to win my age group with a fast time and
only a moderate number of sections cleaned.

sarah

Euro-cycle 2001 20 - 22 July Plymouth UK A european unicycle convention
http://www.eurocycle.org

13

Kris Holm <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that it is most simple to just credit a rider with bonus
> points for “onsighting” the problem first try, to use the climbing term.
> Trying a problem over and over takes time. If a rider spends the whole
> competition trying one thing over and over, they will not get as many
> points as if they just gave up on the problem and did other problems
> that they succeeded at. Counting how many tries a rider takes would be
> too complicated, in my opinion.

This is similar to the danish Uni obstacle race that was run at eurocycle
two years ago. There were a seris of obstacles or sections in a circuit.
If you failed an obstacle you could try it again to get the points or skip
it to keep your time fast. There were choices on some sections ( easy,
mid, hard) with more points for the harder option. It was quite fun to
ride and tacticaly interersting as the medal winners were not always the
ones you expected , I a managed to win my age group with a fast time and
only a moderate number of sections cleaned.

sarah

Euro-cycle 2001 20 - 22 July Plymouth UK A european unicycle convention
http://www.eurocycle.org

14

Having little personal experience with uni-trials, I cannot comment
technically, but I believe your idea would be fruitful for the reasons you
mentioned. The goal above all else should be to try (and hopefully
succeed) at the challenging stuff.

Taking the artistic unicycle performance, I expect people will fall at
some point, but I would rather they try something impressive that they
might get, rather than simply something they know for certain they can do
every time.

Of course, trials are not coreographed to music, and are not supposed to
have a perfect flow in the same sense artistic performance does. As an
observer, I would be much more forgiving of mistakes on trials, if it led
to people accomplishing some challenging feats.

I am glad to see this sport as it quickly evolves. I am seing some real
potential develop, and am sure that will continue as such.

Jeff Lutkus

— Kris Holm <danger_uni@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some point,
>please read this!!
>
>This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
>unicycle trials. It’s a long email- if you prefer the same text is
>located at
><http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>

Free e-Mail and Webspace - http://Unicyclist.com

15

Kris, I like this idea. It almost reminds me of a skateboard competition.
Like was said before, I like that this is straying from bicycling. In my
opinion, Unicycle Trials, though it have similar aspects, should not be
closely knit to bike trials. For example, when you fall off a unicycle,
you are easily racking up dabs, but on a bike it is a bit easier to “ride
it out” and just put down a foot. But this is a great solution to most if
not all of the problems associated. Overall I love the new idea!

Jeff

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Kris Holm
<danger_uni@yahoo.com> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some
> point, please read this!!
>
> This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
> unicycle trials. It’s a long email- if you prefer the same text is
> located at
> <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>
>
> Last year I wrote an IUF uni-trials rulebook that basically follows the
> North American Bike Trials competition format, with a couple of minor
> modifications. For those of you that are unfamiliar with conventional
> uni/bike trials competitions, here is a very brief description:
>
> Three to six obstacle courses are laid out, called sections. Each rider
> must attempt to negotiate a section- if they fall or put a foot down (a
> “dab”) they are given penalty points. Riders do all sections at least
> twice, and at the end of the day the person with the least number of
> penalty points is the winner.
>
> In my opinion, there are some significant problems with this format:
>
> 1) It can be extremely boring!!! With such a low number of sections, you
> spend almost all your time waiting around, not riding, while one
> person at a time goes through a section.
> 2) A system that penalizing failures (dabs) encourages an
> ultra-conservative, boring riding style. Generally you ride way
> slower and more cautiously than normal, because you are so afraid of
> screwing up. This is stressful and not that exciting either.
> 3) The conventional format encourages “strategic dabs” over hard
> obstacles. This is where the rider intentionally puts their foot on
> an obstacle and lifts their unicycle over (or on to) the obstacle.
> The rationale is that it is better to accept one penalty point (one
> foot down) than to completely wipe out and get 3 penalty points (in
> bike trials, 5 penalty points). To me this is completely lame- it
> would be much better to encourage riders to “go for it” instead of
> intentionally not trying an obstacle.
> 4) Putting long sections together can be difficult for the organizer,
> and requires lots of space and many obstacles that only get used when
> one rider is in a section (see point # 1).
> 5) It’s not natural. Most people don’t ride for fun this way- you see
> something cool, and try it over and over until you get it- the reward
> is success and failure is just something that happens before success.
>
> Last night my roommate (who is a climber but not a unicyclist) had a
> brilliant suggestion: conduct unicycle trials competitions in a similar
> format to bouldering competitions in rock climbing. This is a proposed
> format, modelled after bouldering competitions:
>
> 1) The organizer lays out numerous obstacles, generally much shorter and
> simpler than conventional sections. A good competition would contain
> lots of different obstacles, of varying difficulty, designed to test
> different trials skills. Each obstacle is independent of all the
> others.
> 2) The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
> obstacles having a higher point value. This requires judgement. In
> climbing, this works well because there is a climbing rating system
> that allows other climbers to (more or less) agree on how difficult
> routes are. In uni-trials this consensus would need to evolve over
> time as the sport matures.
> 3) To compete, riders complete as many problems as they can in a
> specified time period. They can go to any obstacle in any order, so
> there is much less waiting around (and it’s much more fun to watch
> people try things).
> 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
> with no dabs. Otherwise you could try the obstacle as many times as
> you wanted with no penalty for failure. If there was a lineup for the
> obstacle, you’d just have to go to the back of the line after each
> attempt.
> 5) At the end of the time period, the rider with the most points wins
> the competition.
>
> This format has the following major advantages over the current setup:
>
> 1) It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
> “go-for-it” riding style that will ultimately increase technical
> standards in the sport.
> 2) The format is much closer to how we ride for fun and maximizes riding
> time during a competition.
> 3) It is MUCH simpler in terms of rules than conventional bike or
> unicycle trials, and course set-up is much easier for the organizer.
> 4) It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
> intermediate or advanced categories. Everybody competes on the same
> course- the people in the beginner category would just be inclined to
> try easier problems than the people in more advanced categories
> 5) It removes several ambiguities from the current format. For example,
> if a rider wipes out, the current unicycle trials rules stipulate
> that the rider remount “where the rider was last in control”. This
> can be a very grey area.
> 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
> that is required is to observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a
> short problem.
> 7) It is way less stressful. Many riders (including myself) ride because
> we’re self competitive, not because we particularly care whether we
> beat anyone. This format allows both casual and highly competitive
> people to have fun on the same course.
>
> The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
> experience and judgement to award points for problems according their
> difficulty. However, this is negated somewhat by riders choosing to do
> problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a problem seems to
> be overly hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just
> choose not to do that problem.
>
> Corresponding to this competition format, I’d like to also propose that
> we create an open-ended “U system” for rating unicycle trials problems.
> This would be similar to the V-system used in bouldering. For example, a
> hopping up a set of stairs would be rated U1, whereas the hardest
> problems currently done might be around U7 or U8. This is NOT an
> objective system like levels in artistic unicycling and would not
> correspond to specific moves (since, like climbing, there is infinitely
> variable terrain that offers varying types of difficulty). It would just
> provide a mechanism to track how standards in uni-trials will evolve
> over time.
>
> In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out. Any
> thoughts, opinions, comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Kris Holm.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
> $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access
for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

16

> Like was said before, I like that this is straying from bicycling. In my
> opinion, Unicycle Trials, though it have similar aspects, should not be
> closely knit to bike trials.

I agree. It’s nice to be consistent if the sports are similar, but
unicycling usually isn’t. Our track competitions are based on track and
field, not bike racing. Our Freestyle competitions are based loosely on
ice skating, definitely not BMX Freestyle. Even the new event, Open-X, is
not trying to copy bike rules, because they may not apply.

Standard Skill was designed to closely follow the rules for Artistic
Bicycling, but many changes had to be made to accommodate the slower speed
and lack of convenient coasting on a unicycle. Most things have changed
except the floor markings and judging method.

Unicycle Trials should be what it needs to be for best results. For
competitor fun, spectator interest, and ease of setup and execution for
event hosts. This new version is definitely a winner!

Stay on top, John Foss President, Unicycling Society of America President,
International Unicycling Federation jfoss@unicycling.com
www.unicycling.com

17

Carl,

Just one thought: This is a maybe a a bit arguable because NUC is supposed
to be the U.S. National competition, but I have one thought/question: How
many people that like to do unicycle trials actually care whether they
beat anyone in a competition format?

Many sports, including many types of unicycling, depend on competition as
an inherent part of the sport. There wouldn’t be much point to a tennis
tournament or a track racing meet if there wasn’t some sort of competition
involved. However, in some technical outdoor sports (e.g. climbing and
mountaineering), the “competition” is primarily self-driven. Many/most of
the best athletes in the world in these sports do not compete in a formal
competition format. True, people have formulated competative events around
these sports but the fact remains that the vast majority of people push
themselves very hard in these sports for reasons that make
person-to-person competition irrelevant.

Competition does increase credibility of some sports in media circles.
However, I thought I’d just put the question out there: If a large effort
was made to create an awesome course with tons of cool obstacles, how many
people would rather push themselves (and push themselves hard) in a
supportive social environment, where satisfaction comes from personal
success? Does anyone feel that they would get anything more out of this if
they were competing against other people?

This is a brand new sport. We can do anything we want with it. I’ll
add my opinion: I’m just as stoked to see someone else succeed at
something as when I do it. This isn’t lack of motivation- it’s a
self-driven way of looking at things. I’m guessing that many other
riders are in this category.

-Kris.

— Carl Hoyer <carl@mountainunicycling.com> wrote:
> Awesome! I LOVE IT!!
>
> I’m all for switching over to this new format for this years NUC. I
> think it will definitely create a much better experience for everyone
> and really help to foster the sport.
>
> I’ve got more to say on this subject and I’m definitely interested in
> helping to contribute ideas for formalizing and documenting the rules,
> but I’ve had very little sleep in the past few days and must get rest.
>
> More from me soon. Great idea Kris!
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: “Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com>
> To: <unicycling@winternet.com>
> Cc: “John Foss” <john_foss@asinet.com>; “Robin Coope”
> <rcoope@physics.ubc.ca> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 12:56 PM
> Subject: New Trials Unicycle Competition Format- IMPORTANT!!!
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > For all people who like uni-trials and may want to compete at some
> > point,
> please read this!!
> >
> > This is a proposal to completely change the competition format for
> unicycle trials. It’s a long
> > email- if you prefer the same text is located at
> > <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/New%20trials%20rules%20proposal.htm>
> >
> > Last year I wrote an IUF uni-trials rulebook that basically
> > follows the
> North American Bike Trials
> > competition format, with a couple of minor modifications. For those of
> you that are unfamiliar
> > with conventional uni/bike trials competitions, here is a very brief
> description:
> >
> > Three to six obstacle courses are laid out, called sections.
> > Each rider
> must attempt to negotiate
> > a section- if they fall or put a foot down (a “dab”) they are given
> penalty points. Riders do all
> > sections at least twice, and at the end of the day the person with the
> least number of penalty
> > points is the winner.
> >
> > In my opinion, there are some significant problems with this format:
> >
> > 1) It can be extremely boring!!! With such a low number of sections,
> > you
> spend almost all your
> > time waiting around, not riding, while one person at a time goes
> > through a
> section.
> > 2) A system that penalizing failures (dabs) encourages an
> ultra-conservative, boring riding style.
> > Generally you ride way slower and more cautiously than normal,
> > because
> you are so afraid of
> > screwing up. This is stressful and not that exciting either.
> > 3) The conventional format encourages “strategic dabs” over hard
> obstacles. This is where the
> > rider intentionally puts their foot on an obstacle and lifts their
> unicycle over (or on to) the
> > obstacle. The rationale is that it is better to accept one
> > penalty point
> (one foot down) than to
> > completely wipe out and get 3 penalty points (in bike trials, 5
> > penalty
> points). To me this is
> > completely lame- it would be much better to encourage riders to
> > "go for
> it" instead of
> > intentionally not trying an obstacle.
> > 4) Putting long sections together can be difficult for the organizer,
> > and
> requires lots of space
> > and many obstacles that only get used when one rider is in a
> > section (see
> point # 1).
> > 5) It’s not natural. Most people don’t ride for fun this way- you see
> something cool, and try it
> > over and over until you get it- the reward is success and failure
> > is just
> something that happens
> > before success.
> >
> > Last night my roommate (who is a climber but not a unicyclist) had a
> brilliant suggestion:
> > conduct unicycle trials competitions in a similar format to bouldering
> competitions in rock
> > climbing. This is a proposed format, modelled after bouldering
> competitions:
> >
> > 1) The organizer lays out numerous obstacles, generally much shorter
> > and
> simpler than conventional
> > sections. A good competition would contain lots of different
> > obstacles,
> of varying difficulty,
> > designed to test different trials skills. Each obstacle is
> > independent of
> all the others.
> > 2) The organizer gives each obstacle a point value, with harder
> > obstacles
> having a higher point
> > value. This requires judgement. In climbing, this works well because
> there is a climbing rating
> > system that allows other climbers to (more or less) agree on how
> > difficult
> routes are. In
> > uni-trials this consensus would need to evolve over time as the sport
> matures.
> > 3) To compete, riders complete as many problems as they can in a
> > specified
> time period. They can
> > go to any obstacle in any order, so there is much less waiting
> > around (and
> it’s much more fun to
> > watch people try things).
> > 4) There would be bonus points for completing an obstacle first try,
> > with
> no dabs. Otherwise you
> > could try the obstacle as many times as you wanted with no penalty for
> failure. If there was a
> > lineup for the obstacle, you’d just have to go to the back of the line
> after each attempt.
> > 5) At the end of the time period, the rider with the most points wins
> > the
> competition.
> >
> > This format has the following major advantages over the current setup:
> >
> > 1) It rewards success instead of penalizing failure, and promotes a
> “go-for-it” riding style that
> > will ultimately increase technical standards in the sport.
> > 2) The format is much closer to how we ride for fun and maximizes
> > riding
> time during a
> > competition.
> > 3) It is MUCH simpler in terms of rules than conventional bike or
> > unicycle
> trials, and course
> > set-up is much easier for the organizer.
> > 4) It is not necessary to set different sections for beginner,
> intermediate or advanced
> > categories. Everybody competes on the same course- the people in the
> beginner category would just
> > be inclined to try easier problems than the people in more advanced
> categories
> > 5) It removes several ambiguities from the current format. For
> > example,
> if a rider wipes out, the
> > current unicycle trials rules stipulate that the rider remount
> > "where the
> rider was last in
> > control". This can be a very grey area.
> > 6) This format could easily be self-judged by other riders, since all
> > that
> is required is to
> > observe whether a rider successfully cleaned a short problem.
> > 7) It is way less stressful. Many riders (including myself) ride
> > because
> we’re self competitive,
> > not because we particularly care whether we beat anyone. This format
> allows both casual and
> > highly competitive people to have fun on the same course.
> >
> > The only potential problem with this format is that it requires
> > experience
> and judgement to award
> > points for problems according their difficulty. However, this is
> > negated
> somewhat by riders
> > choosing to do problems that most efficiently gain them points. If a
> problem seems to be overly
> > hard for the number of points awarded, the rider can just choose
> > not to do
> that problem.
> >
> > Corresponding to this competition format, I’d like to also propose
> > that we
> create an open-ended "U
> > system" for rating unicycle trials problems. This would be similar
> > to the
> V-system used in
> > bouldering. For example, a hopping up a set of stairs would be
> > rated U1,
> whereas the hardest
> > problems currently done might be around U7 or U8. This is NOT an
> objective system like levels
> > in artistic unicycling and would not correspond to specific moves
> > (since,
> like climbing, there is
> > infinitely variable terrain that offers varying types of
> > difficulty). It
> would just provide a
> > mechanism to track how standards in uni-trials will evolve over time.
> >
> > In Toronto at NUC, I think it would be great to try this system out.
> Any thoughts, opinions,
> > comments?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
>

Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

18

Personally I will be “competing” with myself, trying to succeed on
obstacles that are really hard for me. It goes without saying that I’ll
require multiple tries on the obstacles. I feel exactly the same way as
you: I am just as stoked to see someone else succeed as when I do. This
Trials Competition will be great because it will be one time where
everyone there who’s interested will get together and inspire each other
to new heights. This format will really encourage that in contrast with a
system where you are penalized for every time you fall or dab. Too much
pressure and not enough fun.

If/when the sport becomes more mainstream and is in the media more, the
only change I think that’s needed is the ability to grade the problems
very consistently. This will develop naturally over time as more people
have more experience with this format of competition. You can compare
this to coursesetting at indoor climbing competitions. There are quite
a few people out there with amazing expertise - since these
competitions have been going on for years now.

—Nathan

“Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010604181252.74432.qmail@web11601.mail.yahoo.com…
> Carl,
>
> Just one thought: This is a maybe a a bit arguable because NUC is
supposed to be the U.S.
> National competition, but I have one thought/question: How many people
that like to do unicycle
> trials actually care whether they beat anyone in a competition format?
>
> Many sports, including many types of unicycling, depend on
> competition as
an inherent part of the
> sport. There wouldn’t be much point to a tennis tournament or a track
racing meet if there wasn’t
> some sort of competition involved. However, in some technical outdoor
sports (e.g. climbing and
> mountaineering), the “competition” is primarily self-driven. Many/most
of the best athletes in
> the world in these sports do not compete in a formal competition format.
True, people have
> formulated competative events around these sports but the fact remains
that the vast majority of
> people push themselves very hard in these sports for reasons that make
person-to-person
> competition irrelevant.
>
> Competition does increase credibility of some sports in media circles.
However, I thought I’d
> just put the question out there: If a large effort was made to create an
awesome course with tons
> of cool obstacles, how many people would rather push themselves
> (and push
themselves hard) in a
> supportive social environment, where satisfaction comes from personal
success? Does anyone feel
> that they would get anything more out of this if they were competing
against other people?
>
> This is a brand new sport. We can do anything we want with it. I’ll add
my opinion: I’m just as
> stoked to see someone else succeed at something as when I do it. This
isn’t lack of motivation-
> it’s a self-driven way of looking at things. I’m guessing that
> many other
riders are in this
> category.
>
> -Kris.

19

Personally I will be “competing” with myself, trying to succeed on
obstacles that are really hard for me. It goes without saying that I’ll
require multiple tries on the obstacles. I feel exactly the same way as
you: I am just as stoked to see someone else succeed as when I do. This
Trials Competition will be great because it will be one time where
everyone there who’s interested will get together and inspire each other
to new heights. This format will really encourage that in contrast with a
system where you are penalized for every time you fall or dab. Too much
pressure and not enough fun.

If/when the sport becomes more mainstream and is in the media more, the
only change I think that’s needed is the ability to grade the problems
very consistently. This will develop naturally over time as more people
have more experience with this format of competition. You can compare
this to coursesetting at indoor climbing competitions. There are quite
a few people out there with amazing expertise - since these
competitions have been going on for years now.

—Nathan

“Kris Holm” <danger_uni@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010604181252.74432.qmail@web11601.mail.yahoo.com…
> Carl,
>
> Just one thought: This is a maybe a a bit arguable because NUC is
supposed to be the U.S.
> National competition, but I have one thought/question: How many people
that like to do unicycle
> trials actually care whether they beat anyone in a competition format?
>
> Many sports, including many types of unicycling, depend on
> competition as
an inherent part of the
> sport. There wouldn’t be much point to a tennis tournament or a track
racing meet if there wasn’t
> some sort of competition involved. However, in some technical outdoor
sports (e.g. climbing and
> mountaineering), the “competition” is primarily self-driven. Many/most
of the best athletes in
> the world in these sports do not compete in a formal competition format.
True, people have
> formulated competative events around these sports but the fact remains
that the vast majority of
> people push themselves very hard in these sports for reasons that make
person-to-person
> competition irrelevant.
>
> Competition does increase credibility of some sports in media circles.
However, I thought I’d
> just put the question out there: If a large effort was made to create an
awesome course with tons
> of cool obstacles, how many people would rather push themselves
> (and push
themselves hard) in a
> supportive social environment, where satisfaction comes from personal
success? Does anyone feel
> that they would get anything more out of this if they were competing
against other people?
>
> This is a brand new sport. We can do anything we want with it. I’ll add
my opinion: I’m just as
> stoked to see someone else succeed at something as when I do it. This
isn’t lack of motivation-
> it’s a self-driven way of looking at things. I’m guessing that
> many other
riders are in this
> category.
>
> -Kris.

20

> However, I thought I’d just put the question out there: If a large
> effort was made to create an awesome course with tons of cool
> obstacles, how many people would rather push themselves (and push
> themselves hard) in a supportive social environment, where satisfaction
> comes from personal success? Does anyone feel that they would get
> anything more out of this if they were competing against other people?

I think that I would try to have as much fun as I could without
getting seriously hurt. I don't really care all that much if im
competing or not. I know that there are a lot of people that would
Smash me in a real competition. So I just do my best, be happy for
everything I do right, and don't Give a %#@! how well I do compared
to other people. Unless I do almost as good as somebody else, that
would be good.

-Max A Dingemans.