It’s taken me a while, but here is my feedback:
A - 1. I like the flexibility the ranking has. Once you find there is something you can’t do, or don’t want to do, you can’t progress in a static level system, but in this, you can.
A - 2. Unfortunately, this is really complex, and doesn’t help guide people forwards. The less mathematical people among us, and those not willing to spend time “calculating” will not take it up.
A - 3. I’d find it straight forwards, and would have to create an offline calculator. I’d love to see something like E to compliment it, providing a guide for what to work on next.
B - 1. I like the two classification groups (though the numbering should continue into the second group). This should make it easier to distinguish between those who should compete in “beginner” events, and those who should compete in “advanced”, preventing people being unsporting (by competing below their weight) or being a danger (by competing above their weight). I also like that it is simple to follow.
B - 2. I do not like how specific this is, especially with the mount (see points above). If a person can’t/won’t do one of the items for whatever reason, they can’t progress to a level beyond that.
B - 3. I would likely ignore it and use the old version, or the “kewl” system. It’s too specific.
C - 1. The three classifications are good, like in “B”, only now you can say someone isn’t safe to do it at beginner lever either.
C - 2. It is a little too specific. I could see this going a little further to a point where level 10 is 90% of a the skills in an advanced skill set, level 8 is 60% and level 7 is 30%, level 6 is 90% of the intermediate skill set… and so on. Also, you may want to rename “sexchange” for the purpose of something official. Leaving it as “sexchange” is bound to make the lives of adults involved with young riders somewhat difficult.
C - 3. I may use this. It’s much like the present system, just with varying directions for the different disciplines. If I come across too much I can’t/won’t do, then I’ll shift to the “kewl” system.
D - This is exactly the same as “C” only for a different discipline. I had assumed each prototype was simply an example of an idea, only exampled in one discipline, so I have been “imagining” the prototype in the missing disciplines for that prototype. I shall persist in this assumption because it still fits best.
You may also want to make sure you get “intermediate” and “advanced” round the correct way. Intermediate is somewhere between simple and advanced… (in D)
E - 1. I like this one a lot. It is really quite straight forward, and unspecific, so you can still progress whilst missing things, but you still maintain simplicity and guidance.
E - 2. There isn’t much. The scoring even suggests you can skip a basic and do the advanced despite being unable to do one of the basic items. I guess the only downside of this one is it isn’t so simple that a non-rider could understand what a level 23 can do. It’s not as clear cut as the others. Seriously, a minor point.
E - 3. I’d use it and love it. It would be a useful teaching tool to new unicyclists and more advanced ones, as well as being useful to keep up apparent progression.
My summary:
I think the best all round would be “E”. Whilst “A” probably presents the best idea for extreme and sporting, it isn’t practical. “C/D” would be easy to follow for the relatively flowing nature of the skills in freestyle, providing a clear ranking for those interested. It also provides an idea of where to start and what to do next for new riders.
Question:
Can you please clear my assumption (about C and D). It doesn’t make sense not to be true, due to the lack of variance for extreme and sport disciplines.
A point to take note:
I don’t think you should ever be specific about a mount type (seen all 4 ideas): I won’t do half the “beginners” mounts (as in C/D) as they are way to dangerous for certain regions of my body, and every attempt has resulted in severe pain for days. I do however do some of the more complex mounts: kick mount for one.
