Excerpts from a couple of strings about standardizing the U-system:
> > This could be addressed by having at least some “standard skills” > > obstacles… > — Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote: It seems like it would be > pretty boring to have to construct an obstacle to meet such > criterion…some skills are pretty similar no matter where they are, and > they don’t require building anything…these will certainly serve as > some of the more measureable-across-the-Web obstacles.
I completely agree with Chris. A bit of history from climbing: In
climbing, the North American (Yosemite) rating system for rock climbing
was originally developed at two main climbing areas, Tahquitz Rock
(southern California) and Yosemite National Park. It was developed by a
very few number of people who basically set the original standards, and
the system expanded from there. Over time, several famous rock climbs have
become the “standard-in-the-grade” climbs that serves as a reference point
for grades. Grades are not completely consistent from area to area (some
areas being “softer-graded” than others) but in general a system has been
built up that everyone understands in numerous areas around the world.
Climbing routes are WAY harder to describe than trials obstacles. If
setting this good a standard is possible in climbing where you can’t
verbally describe a climb (OK you can but not very many people would
understand the lingo), then definately it is possible to have this happen
in unicycle trials, where basic objects such as picnic tables, railroad
tracks etc. are familiar to everyone.
Many rock climbing videos often state the grade of a climb that an athlete
is attempting. Maybe future unicycle trials videos could do this as well.
> Over time, several famous rock climbs have become the > “standard-in-the-grade” climbs that serves as a reference point > for grades.
This is where climbing diverges from Trials. For climbers there are the
famous places to go and climb. Every climber probably has a list in his or
her head of the “dream” climbs they want to do someday. These are famous
routes climbed by thousands of enthusiasts from all over the world.
For us, we have thousands of different college campuses, skate parks, and
other local places where we ride. Same for Bike Trials competitors. Though
we have famous trails people may want to ride, such as Mr. Toad’s at Lake
Tahoe, they are more famous for the overall experience than the specific
obstacles to be covered.
There are some ways things can be broken down though:
height of jump
level or flat surfaces
smooth or rough surfaces
wet or dry surfaces
something that can be pedal-grabbed vs. something that can’t
smallness or narrowness
distance of gap
existence of pungee sticks under gap
etc.
This gives you a generalized idea for individual obstacles, or components
of obstacles. But I think we have to live with the fact that courses
should always be different. Since the general concept of Trials is to
“make it over,” the idea of a standardized obstacle to me doesn’t work.
Standardized objects, yes. Stairs, cars, picnic tables.
But to go to standardized obstacles means everybody not only has to build
things to practice, but competition courses would have to be hand-built
every time, and existing objects could not be used. I don’t think this is
the intent of the Trials concept.
— John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com> wrote: > > Over time, several famous rock climbs have become the > > “standard-in-the-grade” climbs that serves as a reference point for > > grades. > > This is where climbing diverges from Trials. For climbers there are > the famous places to go and climb. Every climber probably has a list > in his or her head of the “dream” climbs they want to do someday. > These are famous routes climbed by thousands of enthusiasts from all > over the world. > > For us, we have thousands of different college campuses, skate parks, > and other local places where we ride. Same for Bike Trials competitors. > Though we have famous trails people may want to ride, such as Mr. Toad’s > at Lake Tahoe, they are more famous for the overall experience than the > specific obstacles to be covered.
Agreed. However, this is also how bouldering diverges from roped climbing,
and is why there are different rating systems for bouldering and roped
climbing. I should have used bouldering as an example.
BTW it’s sometimes hilarious to read in climbing magazines about the
latest and greatest six-foot long boulder problem in some obscure corner
of the world, complete with a highly technical, jargon-filled blow-by-blow
account of the moves required to complete the route. If this can be done
for something as hard to describe as bouldering, then it definately can be
done for uni trials.
I can see the lingo coming…“Dudes- check the latest U7 by John X in
southwest England- grab to pedal on a slanty positive but knobbly edge,
left up on rubber then a back 70 degree rotation to a second grab on a
good fencetop. Rest here then to rubber and forwards lunge onto a 30
degree boulder slope (good friction), gap right to finish”
