Skill Level Prototypes, Round II

This is one of the main uses.

I also see it as a good way of evaluating your own ability, and comparing in things like forum discussions, or even matching riders with a similar level of abilities together. It’s also good for where there are no competitions, or very few competitions. Here in the UK I am only aware of BUC holding competitions, and that only happens once a year. A lot can change in a year, and it would be good for people to actively see their progression, and even compete in progression through discussions… I can see a lot of use for a number driven by skills as opposed to a level driven by competitions.

Oh, and I don’t do competitions, but I like to know where I am at in comparison to some of the riders who do, so there is another use.

Here’s an idea, stop writing lists, get your unicycle out & have some fun!:slight_smile:

I see most people don’t like skill levels and I understand their point but maybe you’re forgeting something. The beguinners !!. I’ve riden my uni for two months and I progress very fast because I know what should I learn first. Of course this is no science, so my path is flexible and it depends on my particular habilities, my mood, and my interest in some kind of unicicling. I love flat and street but I’m finding really difficult to progres because the lack of a skill levels or a path to guide me. Of course I learning alone, I don’t have the luck of living near a uni-pro (even a uni-rider). So I think the pros should helping built the skills level althought they don’t need them or follow them.

Schrodinger, you may or may not take use from this :slight_smile:

Sweet !!, thx alister :wink:

The skill levels were kind of a “copy” of figure skating levels, only ment to stimulate individuals to learn a number of basic skills, and NOT ment for a competetive thing nor to make a distinct (ranking) between multipe riders.
In my opinion any altering to the system is bad (except that -yes- a 180 unispin is not a level 10 difficulty). But because it isn’t 100% perfect, I don’t see why it should be replaced by something that doesn’t improve, but only brings more rules.

I do like A, but it doesn’t stimulate or require or help the rider to learn a variety in skills like in the old system.

The B system (I maybe don’t understand I think) even more: in the old system there was more a “hyarchy”, for example “1ft, 1ft ww, gliding, coasting”. I think B is not an improvement either.

A concept with C AND with D would maybe be nice, because they allow for different styles. At one point somebody made the USA unicycle differ even more from the IUF levels then they did already, by making a certain variation in mounts madatory.
If things are going to change, then yes, I do like that the way it’s done in D.
But then I wonder if it isn’t posible to have C and A co-exsisting.

Anyway, if I would have a vote and only can choose one it would be A.

But to be honest, I don’t see any of the 4 drafts as an improvement of the exsiting (unless you abuse the system for what is was not ment for).
It only brings along more rules, in stead of something clear and fixed.
Therefor I think it will be less attractive, and harder to explain, and so I don’t expect the impact of having such a system will be the same, while today I think the levels guided many to reach a certain level (and wasn’t that what they were and should be ment for?).


The part that sais “not connected to the competition rules” sais it.
I was in there not just without a reason.
If you have a system for competition, and a system for schooling, then why the need to make 2 systems for competition (or out of competition rules)?

Still no Muni or trials directions. AlsoBasic in the street direction seems a little non-basic to me. how about hoptwists, tire-grabs and shifties?