At the end there is a newly updated section on the U-system for rating trials difficulty. Check it out and tell me what you think.
We have debated back and forth endlessly about how to do a rating system for MUni (and why you’d even want to), because it gets way more complicated if endurance is added alongside technical difficulty, and also because many MUni riders could care less about a detailed difficulty rating system. The U-system came about, on the other hand, because of a specific need to rate trials problems for competitions, and because trials sections lend themselves to difficulty ratings in the same way as rock climbing ratings that are already established.
The U-system can also be applied to individual short sections of trail, since, when you think about it, all trails is basically an infinite number of trials obstacles linked together. It’s not appropriate for longer sections or entire trails, though.
Long time no see. I didn’t see any connection in the text in this thread between Carol, the new levels system development, and TCUC. Carol is still an active member of TCUC and excessive involvement of TCUC members might make the levels system development seem somewhat biased. I view it as a good thing that she would be secretive about it and solicit advice almost entirely from outside the TCUC environment. I didn’t see Carol asking for more support in any way, either. Perhaps those are the points you’re trying to get across and I just missed them.
Harper,
Nice to talk again – see you in Ohio at NAUCC?
You are right - there isn’t much mention in this thread about TCUC, except for John’s brief mention. I have seen other threads where the new system and TCUC are linked. To me, the previous references imply that TCUC is supportive of the new system. Which may or may not be true (I don’t want to debate this point).
A minor niggling point (of which you are famous, right?): Carol IS a member of TCUC. AND a very active unicyclist (she has regular distance rides and private practices). But she would NOT be considered an active member of TCUC. Of course, this definition can be debatable: my definition is that if I don’t see someone at a TCUC event for a few months, they are considered inactive.
Regarding support from TCUC - again you’re right. Carol may not want TCUC’s support. Which is ok - it is her choice. I would hope that other clubs are involved, in that case. The new system (if approved) will affect many people and clubs.
I don’t see how John could be in touch. About 2 years ago, I volunteered and was accepted by Carol to be part of the skill levels development, specifically working on MUni. I put several 100s of hours of work into the MUni skill levels. I contacted 10 top riders worldwide, developed several documents, went through a couple of drafts, and even got praise from Andy Cotter (a temporary committee member) for the evolving result. Many of the riders I was working with also put a lot of time in (many, many emails).
I got no reasonable feedback, constructive comments, or anything of the sort from ANYONE that was on the committee full-time. I finally stopped working on it in disgust out of being ignored, and apologized to the people that were helping me.
I was very sorry to see this happen, because the result was becoming something of historical quality, of a class of what Sem and past developers had done.
Over the last two years, I’ve probably sent a few hundred emails on the topic that have been ignored.
In particular, I count 27 emails to a TCUC member who was once on the committee – all of those totally ignored.
Without going any further, the comments about being secretive and inactive are completely out of line.
I have also provided a ton of information to OOW. Because it doesn’t come out, it’s never been printed. That’s something I have no control over.
I also provided reports at the last two national meetings and mentioned that I was prepared to provide information to anyone interested. I brought over 250 pages of various copies of information to NAUCC last summer, which I announced at the meeting, and had only a few people come forward to learn more.
I’ve mentioned several times on RSU that input is welcome. And it still is, but only a few TCUC members have replied, which is fine. I’ve found it’s better to get input from a larger audience.
I think it would be normal procedure for anyone who’s interested in this system to contact me. If anyone has, I’ve answered them. Strangely, the one person who seems to be complaining about me the most has never actually contacted me about the new system at all.
In spite of the inappropriate comments here, I welcome the participation of anyone who is willing. I believe this is a very important step forward for the sport. It acknowledges that there are other kinds of riding besides Artistic, plus it expands Artistic to a higher level. While no one is required to use the skills system, it will be there if they want it.
Thanks to everyone who has been willing to work with this new system so far. All of you know that this has been an extremely time-consuming and difficult task, but we’re definitely making progress.
Head honchos? Almost sounds like we are being paid to do the work or there is a lot of perks. Here is a big tip in overthrowing or becoming a head honcho yourself, volunteer. Many of the people who end up as a ‘honcho’ are already busy with their own unicycle projects, burnt out or on their way to being burnt out. It would be really nice to see a new group of riders get involved.
As for the Trials rating system, you could submit it to the IUF Rulebook Committee and have it approved there. Then it will be official for the IUF. I know this might conflict with Carol’s skill level committee but I think she is focusing on the USA. So, come up with some skill levels for Trials, propose it to the IUF Rulebook Committee, get suggestions from others, get it voted on and then we have someting. It is much better then what we have right now, nothing. Most likely it will need some work after people use it for a while but that is all part of the process. Sometimes it is better to get something on the books that needs a little work then have nothing.
As I’m the IUF Rulebook Chairperson I can help with the process if you have any questions. I don’t read the forums all that much so you may want to email me directly. The rulebook will start wrapping up at the end of May so if you are serious about a proposal don’t wait too long.
Sorry, Carol. Secretive was obviously a poor word choice. My intent was to suggest that you might be trying to avoid what might be construed as biased input from a club of which you are currently a member. Neutral would have been a better word choice.
Thanks for all the work you and others have been putting into this. My next-to-zero contribution reflects a level of involvement which pales in comparison to yours.
Concerning my earlier post… I was not working with complete and thorough knowledge when I posted. My apologies, John F, if I was wrong in thoughts toward you.
I do find it frustrating that the USA, which appears to be the best organization for promoting unicycling in the US, seems to lack a unified direction with it’s efforts. Time is too precious to be working without organization or against each other.
It’s fine to send proposals to the IUF committee, but keep in mind that we need more than just Trials levels.
I’m not sure if the current IUF committee is considering the other shortcomings in the existing 10-level system, but I think that would be a good idea. It’s important to look at several areas of skill development in unicycling.
The new skills system approach that we’ve been developing combines Trials with other unicycling skill areas, rather than creating totally separate segments in our population. One of our goals is to keep our small community together as much as we can. That way, a Trials rider who wants to focus on some other skills, such as Artistic, can participate easily in both, since it’s a unified system.
It also keeps testing rules consistent across several different divisions. And offers comparable rewards to all riders, no matter what their specialty.
We’ve made a ton of progress on the Technical levels, but I feel they aren’t quite ready to field test. If anyone wants to help by reviewing what we have, let me know. It does require a time commitment to understand where it’s at right now, what the new rules are, and how it all fits together.
Thanks.
Carol
USA, Inc. Skills Development Committee Chair
Hello Everyone!
I would like to put my say in on the topic.
Earlier this year, as the person in charge of levels for TCUC, I did indeed send an e-mail to Carol about myself and Sue Shields wanting to be a part of developing the new skill level system. Since, Sue or myself have not been asked in any way to be a part of this committee, even for insight as I am one of the only level 10 riders in the world and have multiple world titles. From what I have personally seen of the new skill level proposal from Carol’s website, I honestly feel right now they are not realistic for implementation but I think improvements could be made if Carol would be willing to let TCUC officers, such as myself, Sue, Connie, to be a part. I am not knocking Carol’s work, I am just pointing out that I did seek to be on the committee but was denied a part in it.
Ryan Woessner
UNICON XI & XII World Champion
It seems that the easiest way to get lots of feedback and input would be to simply post the draft of the proposed levels and let people comment. That way people would stop feeling that they were somehow being excluded or that the process was somehow secretive. Of course, people on the committtee will (and should) weed out most of the comments, but I think that everyone will feel better about this if we had some idea what is being proposed. Of course some people will be unhappy because their comments were ignored, but that is unavoidable in any consultive process which will effect large numbers of people.
I responded with information to you on 12-17-04. I sent you the basics and asked you to review it. I said I was considering doing a workshop, and I said I was looking for people to evaluate parts of the new system. I expected to hear from you again, but you did not respond.
Your message on RSU is the first I’ve heard.
If you had comments to make or wanted to be involved, you should have replied.
It’s true you originally said you wanted to become a member of the committee, but that was after the group had already been operating for over a year. I wasn’t recruiting new committee members at that point (as I told you), but I’ve always recruited input. You don’t need to be a committee member to help out. We have enough TCUC members on the committee, and I felt it was important to keep a balance with representation from around the country.
I’m disappointed in your comments. They aren’t accurate.
But you can still be involved if you want. I would welcome your input. Contact me if you are interested.
I want to make a correction on what I said earlier about Trials skill levels. Kris Holm already has a system and it was ratified by the IUF rulebook committee earlier this year. Even though it was at the end of the proposal, I should have remembered it that it was Trails skill levels.
Kris’s experience and efforts in devising the U-system have been fantastic. He sent me his latest draft of it yesterday, and I’ve promised to review it in the next few days.
It’s a different approach from the usual method of skill testing, so we’ll look at how this all fits together.
Remember, all of this is aimed at helping riders learn new skills. That’s the primary goal of any of these systems, whether it’s the U-System or the new Skills System – they give riders the benefit of the experience of others who’ve already learned the skills. Unicycling skills are difficult to learn, so many people welcome any help they can get.
The new Skills System provides a lot more challenge for riders of all abilities and interests, if they want it. It can be expanded easily, or modified if the new divisions aren’t working as they should be. Several parts of it are being field tested now, and the early results are promising.
To give you some idea of the scope of the project, we’ve drafted and reviewed over 250 versions of just one of the new divisions. This has been an incredibly time-consuming project. Looking at the big picture and the future of the sport require a lot of research and effort.
Thanks to the people who have been field testing and who have responded to me privately recently. It’s the input from these people that has been so helpful in moving this gigantic project forward. I can’t even count the hours involved and the number of people who’ve helped out over the last two years in some way, and I hope that number will increase a lot in the coming months.
Carol
USA, Inc. Skills Development Committee Chair
What a fun thread, comments from all sorts of honchos! Airing some of our dirty laundry! Phew!
Obviously we do not always agree on everything. Combine that with strong personalities and limited hobby time, and you get situations where we’re in conflict.
Add to that the large unicycling organizations, which tend to be very inactive. They are run by volunteers, and some of our volunteers are not highly motivated.
Add to that the largest known unicycle club in the United States, which contains several of the best riders in the world. But not everybody agrees about everything within that club either. This creates conflict, but it also keeps people thinking of fresh ideas.
What the USA lacks the most are volunteers. Many members of our current board are not very active, or are active in areas that may not be visible to the riders out in the world. There is always room for more. If not actual working volunteers, more feedback! What do you members want from your USA? More conventions? Different ones? Different publication(s)? Keep us aware of what you’re thinking.
Carol’s Skill Level System group has done a ton of work. My apologies for suggesting anything otherwise. I initially chose not to be directly involved with her group because I was working on other projects. I expected to dive into it at a later state when they had something to share and were looking for feedback.
There has been some of that, but none recently. The group has been working amongst themselves, ironing out lots of details and figuring out how to connect things that are not easy to relate to one-another.
After two years, it seems that it is perhaps our fault (the honchos) for not setting some goal dates, or requiring regular reporting. We should do this with all our projects, and probably less of them would fade away like I was worried this one had. I’m glad it has not!
Being that it’s been two years, maybe it’s time to start getting feedback from a general audience. I recommend you post what you’ve got to a web site somewhere, with background information and instructions, and invite people to comment. This feedback you would be free to ignore, but you may also find people spotting things the group has missed, or even considered.
I’m worried you will get your system refined out to a place where you’re maybe not as open to suggestions as you need to be. So if you want my advice (in general; obviously I haven’t been involved in the details), it’s time to show it to a larger audience. Maybe only temporarily, and then take it back into your committee to respond to the feedback you may get.
It’s good to hear from you on this finally. I was surprised when I sent you the new FAQ months ago and you never responded. Did you receive it?
You also didn’t respond last summer after the nationals meeting, so I thought you were not interested.
In the past two days, I think I’ve made it clear that the committee has asked for and received feedback from a number of riders in the general audience. I had hoped that I’d also made it clear that it’s unrealistic to expect a large group to review some 250 drafts. If the committee hadn’t been open to suggestions, there wouldn’t have been over 250 drafts.
If you’re ready to “dive in” now, let me know. As I mentioned, it’s a time commitment, and I know you’re busy with other things.
Please contact me and let me know exactly how much time you feel you can devote to this project. I welcome your input because you have a great deal of experience and knowledge about unicycling, but I have not heard anything at all from you over the last many months.
Sorry, I have a feeling I didn’t. I’m sure I would have remembered reading it! I am not happy with my Spam filtering software, and am currently shopping for a new one (looking at www.OnlyMyEmail.com). I have missed a number of importan emails, and have since learned to arduously read through my spam folder. Yuck.
So far, if i understand correctly, you have solicited feedback from a specific audience. My suggestion to post if for a public audience may get you the freshest opinions you could hope to have. People who are farther away from the history and details of the project, who are seeing the current version for the first time. This could be very handy. I would like to participate in that, rather than receive a copy privately and be just one person responding.
Because we’re “hot on the topic” here, I’ll reply here (and follow up if I don’t think you’ve seen it). I cannot guarantee a fixed number of hours to any unicycle project. I hope this is acceptable. I also cannot guarantee the amount of time I have available to work on anything for myself. I guess that’s normal for most of us. Sometimes I’m really busy at work, and other times I have gaps where I can do some of this. The same is true at home.
As a USA director, I would like to see how things are going for your group. That’s kind of separate from offering knowledgeable feedback, but I wear multiple hats. If you could post something to the USA Board, it might generate some useful discussion as well.
The USA Board members have multiple issues facing them now, especially getting the publication out, which I understand is still weeks away from being in the hands of the membership. Very unfortunate and a long-time problem that needs to be resolved.
Yet, I’ve seen no progress on this or several other issues facing the Board, and I believe these take priority over discussing a new skills system that is still in the developmental phases and is a long way from being submitted.
Still, I’ll be happy to provide another more formal update, as I did at Nationals, after the Board has a chance to get moving on several of the more pressing issues.
As for your time involvement, I will accept whatever you have to offer, and I will contact you and send the information again. In fact, perhaps you can then help prepare the next report to the Board.
I’m glad you’re willing to help. While you may not totally agree with the process, I’m sure you’ll respect the tremendous amount of work that’s gone into it already and will acknowledge that people have different leadership styles. I prefer to ask for help, and if it isn’t forthcoming, I move on rather than let it drop. Maybe you would have handled things differently, but at least this committee has been active, while others have not (another major area of concern for the USA Board right now).
Finally, I can guarantee everyone that there is no secret plot to force through a new Skills System without a high level of support. That would be pointless. Everyone will have plenty of chances now and in the coming months to provide their input, criticism, or support. It won’t be considered “final” until a lot more people feel comfortable that this new system has a chance of appealing to a vast range of riders and that it may help build our sport for the future.
If anyone has further suggestions, comments, or concerns, please contact me privately.
