Rules: Age groups for artistic events

General
1

Scott Arnold had great ideas, which look like they were written to cover all
events, not just artistic. But let’s keep them separate because the methods we
use may be different for each.

>We attended our first ever convention this summer when we were able to go to
>the NUC in Monrovia, California. One of the things I appreciated was the
>participatory nature of the convention; there were a wide range of skills and
>anyone who wished to compete, could.

Important fact: Being able to participate makes the conventions a whole lot more
fun, and makes people more likely to return in the future. So in my mind,
participation is a given. But how many events, and how to divide?

>We also volunteered some as race officials and that was also a lot of fun.

Thanks! Anything we can do in this area (to make volunteering more fun, and to
make it more a part of the process) will also be an improvement.

>As long as it is logistically possible, I would like to see the NUC remain open
>for all competitors.

Well qualified. Logistics have caused our convention to grow from a weekend
event into the six days it was this year…

>somehow be separate into distinct parts: a “novice” or qualifying division
>where anyone is encouraged to participate (with lots of those same people
>helping to officiate/run those competitions). This

I love how he includes the volunteering part. Just as you must teach to become a
black belt in most martial arts forms, helping make our giant event happen could
be thought of as a part of participation.

>division could be closed to those are “experts” or who otherwise qualify for
>the “serious” competitions.

Qualification will be the hard part, and where most of our discussion will
probably take place. Several methods have been proposed, which we will go
over later.

>>How to weed people out?
>That has a bad sound to it. Who wants to be a weed? :slight_smile:

Of course nobody wants to be a weed (well, hardly anybody). But at the same
time, our spectators should have a way of predicting what they will see if they
decide to stick around in the hot gym (it’s almost always hot, not just this
year), or should they go elsewhere and be less bored. So can I say chaff? We
want to separate the wheat from it.

An elimination round is basically a weeding out process. There are many ways to
approach it, and convention hosts should be given freedom in choosing the
method(s) they would like to use. Part of what we must decide for our future
rules might be a shift in philosophy. Is the championship the most important
part of the convention? Or the convention part of the convention. If it’s a
national or world championship, do we really need to have competitors who put
together their performance last night and don’t even have it memorized? I would
rather not sit through that at the major competitions, either as a spectator, a
competitor, a photographer or especially as a judge.

>The “expert” competitions could then be limited to a certain number of
>participants and/or age groups.

Number of participants would have to be limited, based on our method of judging.
Our current method involves remembering what all competitors did and ranking
them in relation to each other (Freestyle only). If there are too many riders,
this cannot be done accurately. For Standard Skill this limit does not apply. I
would not want to judge more than a max. of 10-12 competitors in one group.

There would be no “age groups” to our experts, just male and female. We might
choose to keep the junior expert group, but it has had weak participation since
the beginning, with often only two competitors.

>Maybe the “novice” competitions could be the first couple days of the NUC.
>The “experts” and the one who just want to watch the “experts” wouldn’t need
>to come to this part if they didn’t want to, and the “expert” competions
>could go a lot faster, so the whole convention wouldn’t necessarily be a lot
>longer overall.

I would like to think of this as a qualifying round. Though some experts might
be prequalified based on past performances, most riders will have to pass the
qualifying round to advance to the experts. Like the Compulsory Figures event,
which is no longer held at the Olympics for ice skating, nobody needs to watch
that event unless interested, and non-competitors don’t need to arrive until
later in the convention.

A separate gym should be available at all times for warmup and the “convention”
part of the convention. A Freestyle qualifying round should not need a gym. Just
enough room for riders to ride and ample space for judges and a reasonable
amount of spectators.

>>walking on rickety tables??

>What about rickety tables? I guess I need an explanation of that question . :slight_smile:

That was at UNICON. We had judging tables that were entirely made of plastic and
weighed less than 5 pounds each. Idiot Max Louvius, in an attempt at comedy,
insisted on climbing over the judges tables for his entrance and exit. These
tables had a collection of food, drinks, glass containers, cameras and important
papers on them. I am absolutely amazed the tables didn’t collapse and break.
Sorry Max, however funny the rest of your act may have been, you’re an idiot.
That act belonged in the Renegade show or nowhere.

jf

2

RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>Maybe the persons who attended the UNICON should start sharing your
>experiences. Nobody have really posted anything about the UNICON. I What was
>most enjoyable? Any good story? Those of you who attended, what is the best
>thing you got out of it? Will you start doing new things in a unicycle?

Sorry for the Ruiz’s and others who couldn’t make it to UNICON. I hope some
people who were perhaps at their first UNICON could tell us what they
though about it?

>OK. Let’s start arguing.

Here we go!

>I believe that there are too many age groups. I especially dislike the Junior
>Experts and the 15- 29 Age Groups. Now I will explain. the best part of The
>UNICONs typically happens off Competition. Also, people who have not prepare
>themselves and earn their right to compete, want to participate in every event.
>That comes at a cost. It creates havoc to the organizer’s logistic and drives
>the cost of running a UNICON up.

We need to decide how much competition we want with our convention.

>If they are ready for competition, they should not be protected. If they are
>not, why compete. They should enjoy the non- competitive part of the UNICON.
>What we have seen thru all the UNICONs are on one hand, persons in their prime,
>with a legitimate chance in Experts, going for an easy, unmeaningful medal. In
>the other hand, way too many improvised routines that are a waste of our time,
>and the host’s money.

Hear hear! Though I’m noticing this theme comes more from people who have
attended many conventions and been involved in running them. People who have
been to only a few (or one) still like the idea of participation for all.

>So, my opinion is that we should have a really nice competition, limited to
>those who have prepared themselves for it, and organize and market a lot of
>non-competitive activities for the bulk of the attendees, who should enjoy, as
>spectators, the performances of the unicyclists who prepared themselves, as
>well as the non-competitive activities organize for them.

I like this idea, and I think it is our future. We can have a killer competition
for world champions, but still all kinds of great fun reasons to go to the
convention, including open gym time and more opportunities to share, learn, and
get to know each other.

>Going back to the Rules Committee, I believe that we should start a permanent
>Judge’s Committee, totally independent of the Rules Committee.

Sounds interesting. What would a judges committee be all about?

>Do you have enough?

Never! (obviously it’s early in the current rules process :slight_smile: )

So here’s some more from me on convention vs. competition:

As I see it, we have an underlying conflict between the convention and the
competition. Each takes away from the other, so perhaps we need to better
define our goals before we can come up with the best solution. Let’s use UNICON
as an example.

Which is more important, the convention or the championships? I say the
convention. You can have a great convention without a championship (but not as
great). But you can’t have a great championship without a convention. I just
don’t think you’d get the people to show up.

We hold the championship at the convention because it’s the best time and place
to bring all the unicyclists together, and give them the opportunity to share,
watch, and see the very best riders prove themselves.

But the conflict arises when the championship tries to include everybody. I
think we can have the best of both worlds, but it may not be possible to have
all of both worlds. If everybody enters everything, the convention runs the
risk of collapsing under its own weight. We have only seen this in recent
UNICONs, as the number of participants has grown.

At UNICON IX we had 369 riders assembled in a park on the very first day of
the convention! The total number throughout was undoubtedly higher. If we all
want to play hockey, and race, and enter an artistic event, the convention
will have to be a monster. Events will not be able to be scheduled at the same
time, and it will all take so much time there will be little or none left for
the fun “convention” stuff. This is essentially what we experienced this year,
and in the past.

So rather than add more days, perhaps we should approach the problem
differently. If we hold some events at the same time, it will force some riders
to specialize (by entering only the events that are more important to them).
Final championship events should not be held at the same time as other events
because everyone should want to see them. Participation is automatically cut
down, though some riders will probably not be happy.

Some riders are good at everything. They should have the opportunity to shine
(or at least to represent their country) in any events where they are qualified
enough to be experts. This might mean not having to enter a qualifying race for
track events, if the rider has previously established times. Not having to
qualify for Standard Skill because she has a score from her last competition as
an example. Not having to qualify in Freestyle because she won it at her
national competition.

I would like to see an elimination round for artistic events. Results of this
will fill the available slots for each country for each event. Riders don’t have
to do the elimination if their national organization or national team leadership
represents their results for them.

This would apply to Standard Skill also. Anyone can show up with a 300 point
program, but we only want to watch the riders who have a chance of performing
it, not losing 60 points while we watch.

For riders who haven’t had any other chance, or for countries that can’t decide
which riders are their best entries, the qualifying round. This would be a
competition in less formal surroundings than our main artistic events. Judges
are still needed, but this could also be a major training forum for judges. A
big gym isn’t needed, just enough room to do it with space for all the people
watching and participating.

A limited number of entries will be allowed per event by each country. This
means Luxembourg can enter, even if they have only one rider. This is how it’s
done in the Olympics. Later steps can be taken to put the competitors in an
order where all the “top” performers are close together.

However, the number of entries need not be the same for each country. This might
be determined by the number of attending riders from each country, or some other
means. Countries with more participants should have more possibilities of
entering if their riders are worthy, though the host and other “local” countries
should be expected to have the largest numbers of riders and more elimination
should take place among them than riders from the opposite side of the world.
Meanwhile the one guy from Luxembourg should not participate in events unless he
feels qualified for them.

In thinking about this, if the big countries are allowed only 5 riders per
event, it can still add up to a lot of riders. And 5 might be considered a small
number from a place like Minnesota :-), which has such a concentration of top
riders. This would still give us maybe 20 or 30 entries in Individual Freestyle.
perhaps these can be the competitors for the final round, and a top 10 or 5
picked from that. Then they get to perform again so the judges can rate them
without having to remember the other 20 riders.

What about Group Freestyle? Logistically it’s hard to set up, so I don’t think
we’d want to have groups perform twice. This year we had performances from 13
groups, which is too many for the judges to track. But I don’t think it would
be hard to divide them into two groups, an “A” and “B” if you will. It could
even be done voluntarily, because most groups can tell if they’re championship
material or not. If they’re not sure, that’s okay too and they compete in
group “A”.

So I’d like to see an elimination (or “qualifying”) round. Not all competitors
must enter it, as long as their national team representative is able to provide
the list of who from their country will enter each event. Dividing competitors
by age or skill level would not be needed in the final round, but would be in
the qualifying. Groups of 10 or less would be best for the judges. Age is not
the best way to divide them up, but neither is “skill level”.

The IUF Skill Levels are not a useful way to quantify a rider in Freestyle
competition, and I will not support any proposal to use them as such. The
purpose of the levels is to guide riders in figuring out what skills to try
next. Freestyle is a performance that uses skills that are probably not found in
the levels, and many other factors the levels don’t address at all
(presentation, basically). This is enough, without considering the accuracy of
level testing as done by different groups throughout the world.

So how to divide the riders up? Here’s an idea that may sound dumb, but I think
it would be more effective than age or skill level: Riders fill out a simple
survey. It asks them to list 5 of the “coolest” or “hardest” skills they will
attempt (they need not describe them in detail if they’re secret), their
estimated odds of making them all without a miss, and to rate their
presentation on a scale of 1 to 5. Riders may have to totally guess on
something like that, but it should give us a rough idea of who to put with who
for the qualifying round.

That’s enough for now. C’mon, tear my ideas apart!

jf

3

RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

At 03:14 PM 08/31/1998 -0700, Fossa, John x wrote:

>Alberto Ruiz wrote:

>>Maybe the persons who attended the UNICON should start sharing your

>>experiences. Nobody have really posted anything about the UNICON. I

>>What was most enjoyable? Any good story?

>>Those of you who attended, what is the best thing you got out of it?

>>Will you start doing new things in a unicycle?

>

>Sorry for the Ruiz’s and others who couldn’t make it to UNICON. I hope

>some people who were perhaps at their first UNICON could tell us what

>they though about it?

Please do.

>

>>OK. Let’s start arguing.

>

>Here we go!

>

>

>We need to decide how much competition . . .

>

>Hear hear! Though I’m noticing this theme comes more from people who

>have attended many conventions and been involved in running them. People

>who have been to only a few (or one) still like the idea of

>participation for all.

>

These may be more important than even John realizes. Somebody else mentioned how
much (s)he enjoyed participating in (her)his first event. It was a NUM.Also
about volunteering.

At a UNICON, we are already up to 8 days, and we have no free time.

We also have lots of expenses.

But we cannot forget the importance of participation. The question is if
participation must be competitive.

Maybe more hands-on didactic, maybe more “do a duo with your heros” Maybe
renegade shows. Maybe new skills sessions.

If it must be competitive, how can we separate that participation with little
spectators value (except for his in mediate family) from the participation with
spectator value that one day might pay a big chunk of the UNICONs.

So, making a change from my initial position, <bold><underline>we must not
forget the importance of participation to the newcomers.</underline>

</bold>We have to look for a way we can harmonize it with the logistics.

We have to look for a way so that it will not disrupt the elite stuff.

John suggested some ideas on his postings already. I have to further analyze his
long posting, and will discuss more of it in the future.

Alberto Ruiz

IUF President.

Alberto Ruiz

ruizb@coqui.net

4

RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

>Foss, JohnX wrote…
> >An elimination round is basically a weeding out process. There are
>>many
> >ways to approach it, and convention hosts should be given freedom in choosing
> >the method(s) they would like to use. Part of what we must

Jack Halpern wrote (and by the way my name isn’t JohnX, that’s just my corporate
email name!):
>I disagree. Leave it up to the host without guidance form us, and it just won’t
>hapen. Hosts have enough work as it is.

I take it back. I have to agree that it’s usually been a problem when convention
hosts are given free reign on rules issues.

When new events have been held, this is definitely encouraged, but hosts are
supposed to publicize the details of such events so riders can train for them
and be competitive. Here’s what our rulebook says:

–1.4 PUBLISHING RULES: For each convention, an additional “amendment” --to this
rulebook may be needed to explain items such as specific --races, additional
events, additional age groups, etc. All information --should be included in the
publishing of registration forms.

This communication has almost always been a weak point. Wherever new rules are
required or variations on traditional rules will be used, the riders must be
notified far in advance of the competition. This will let the riders know if the
10k race will be downhill for 5k and then uphill returning, or that unlimited
wheels will be permitted, or that certain colors of tire cannot be used.

Probably the best way to cover this will be for people in the Rules Committee
to stay in close contact with the convention hosts and help them nail down
the rules for their non-traditional events. Often no rules have been
established, and when someone asks the right questions, last-minute decisions
have to be made.

This doesn’t mean events can’t be set up at the last minute, or “surprise”
events can’t be held (they should be a surprise for all riders then, not just
some). There also may be situations where details can’t be finalized well enough
in advance to set up rules, in which case the hosts should give out whatever
information they have, so everyone will have an equal chance to be prepared.

There will always be areas where the host gets a choice, such as in the number
of age groups to use (in addition to whatever minimum we have), or the
break-point to combine age groups. But these are decisions the hosts should make
very early in their planning, and publicize to everyone so we (and they) know
what to expect.

On the same subject, registration forms are key pieces of information that
riders rely on. They can’t contain all rules of course, but must be accurate in
listing the choices available to riders. These choices differ for each UNICON,
so the registration forms should be checked by a Rules Committee person before
they’re translated and distributed with mistakes or missing information. This is
already covered, in section 1.7 of our rulebook, but not well enforced.

We should have a “rules liaison” between the Rules Committee and the UNICON (or
whatever convention someone wants to hold). This person will be the contact for
things of a technical nature and make sure the hosts aren’t missing anything in
their convention preparations. This person can also report on any new rules or
special events to be held, where the age groups will break, etc. It will be that
person’s job to make sure all such decisions are made well in advance of the
convention.

I will volunteer for this (as long as my contact in China as email!). Does
anybody know who that contact should be? Jack, we met several guys but I can’t
connect their business cards with their faces. Who should I (we) contact?

jf

5

Re: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

Greetings

In message “RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events”, Alberto Ruiz wrote…
>At 03:14 PM 08/31/1998 -0700, Fossa, John x wrote:
>
>
>So, making a change from my initial position, <bold><underline>we must not
>forget the importance of participation to the newcomers.</underline>
>
></bold>We have to look for a way we can harmonize it with the logistics.
>
>We have to look for a way so that it will not disrupt the elite stuff.

Well, perhaps we can have two competitions going on at UNICON. The World
Championships, restricted to the good riders selected upon the criteria we will
agree upon, and an International Meet or something like that for the others. Of
course there are logistic problems to be worked out. But this will satisfy
everyone, I hope. The Yiddish saying goes – “tantsn af tsvey khasenes” – dance
at two weddings.

Regards, Jack Halpern Kanji Dictionary Publishing Society, http://www.kanji.org
Voice: +81-048-481-3103 Fax: +81-048-479-1323

6

Re: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

Greetings

In message “RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events”, Foss, JohnX wrote…
>
>Here we go!

And you certainly went a long way! We should all be grateful to John for his
many ideas and lengthy discussions of how to make UNICON a better experience
for everyone.

>So rather than add more days, perhaps we should approach the problem
>differently. If we hold some events at the same time, it will force some
>riders to specialize (by entering only the events that are more important to
>them). Final championship events should not be held at the same time as other
>events because everyone should want to see them. Participation is
>automatically cut down, though some riders will probably not be happy.

Here is a time-saving idea taken from the Japanese national meets. Run races at
the same time on the other side of the track! We do this in Japan, and manage to
finish in one day all the races for about 1000 riders (though less races than
UNICON). In Japan it works smoothly and efficiently, and if done right the same
could apply to UNICONs.

>
>What about Group Freestyle? Logistically it’s hard to set up, so I don’t think
>we’d want to have groups perform twice. This year we had performances from 13
>groups, which is too many for the judges to track.

We had some pretty low quality performaces too, not befitting of a world
championshiop.
>
>
>The IUF Skill Levels are not a useful way to quantify a rider in Freestyle
>competition, and I will not support any proposal to use them as such. The
>purpose of the levels is to guide riders in figuring out what skills to try
>next. Freestyle is a performance that uses skills that are probably not found
>in the levels, and many other factors the levels don’t address at all
>(presentation, basically). This is enough, without considering the accuracy of
>level testing as done by different groups throughout the world.

I agree, and withdraw my original proposal to use IUF skill levels for
this purpose.

>So how to divide the riders up? Here’s an idea that may sound dumb, but I
>think it would be more effective than age or skill level: Riders fill out a
>simple survey. It asks them to list 5 of the “coolest” or “hardest” skills
>they will attempt (they need not describe them in detail if they’re secret),
>their estimated odds of making them all without a miss, and to rate their
>presentation on a scale of 1 to 5. Riders may have to totally guess on
>something like that, but it should give us a rough idea of who to put with who
>for the qualifying round.

Sound interesting. I wonder if it will work. As they say, the devil is in the
details. This needs further discussion.

Stay on top, Jack Halpern, IUF Vice President Website: http://www.kanji.org

7

Re: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

Greetings

In message “Rules: Age groups for artistic events”, Foss, JohnX wrote…

>An elimination round is basically a weeding out process. There are many ways
>to approach it, and convention hosts should be given freedom in choosing the
>method(s) they would like to use. Part of what we must

I disagree. Leave it up to the host without guidance form us, and it just won’t
hapen. Hosts have enough work as it is. And the language barrier in case of
pre-UNICON elimination is a major problem. Take China? Do you think they are
capable of planing and managing an elimination? Remember, most hosts have never
run a UNICON before.

I am definitely for the IUF to establish the guidelines, or even mandate the
rules, for the weeding out should be accomplished.

Regards, Jack Halpern Kanji Dictionary Publishing Society, http://www.kanji.org
Voice: +81-048-481-3103 Fax: +81-048-479-1323

8

Re: Rules: Age groups for artistic events

Greetings

In message “RE: Rules: Age groups for artistic events”, Foss, JohnX wrote…
>>Foss, JohnX wrote…
>I will volunteer for this (as long as my contact in China as email!). Does
>anybody know who that contact should be? Jack, we met several guys but I can’t
>connect their business cards with their faces. Who should I (we) contact?

I don’t have the name of the English speaking guy who will be our main contact
on me. (I on a plane back to Japan – sorry I couldn’t make it to your place.
The name of the makin guy in charge is Zhang. Theuir email address is
office@sportstravel.com.cn

Will someone from the Chinese travel company please respond and give us your
full names and who is the English-speaking contact?

>jf
>

Regards, Jack Halpern Kanji Dictionary Publishing Society, http://www.kanji.org
Voice: +81-048-481-3103 Fax: +81-048-479-1323