Fractured Axel

Resurrection time for this thread I think

Let me phrase this as simply as I can (RonG, kindly look away at this point as I'll be using you as an example once again ).

Once more with regard to this video.... under Tricks Party rules this was "good". Under STACK rules, I put it to you that it would be "bad" (why not take my word for it for argument's sake ?).

And the question I have is:- do we see this as being "good" or "bad" ?

If we see it as being "good" then TP has it more right than STACK rules. Being honest with you I simply can't get my head around the idea of 4 crashes in 2½ minutes being "good" but then again..... what do I know ? Yes, I do see the good bits of flying in there too and I think that they are really very good indeed. But to simply dismiss 4 crashes as irrelevant which is what TP rules seems to have done..... is that really what is wanted ?

Mike.

I only counted 2 crashes.

And the 2 there were I guess he could have recovered without help. So they were assisted takeoffs.

Although I love Ron's flying for me it was too structured and defined as a style. It didn't make me ask 'What was that?'How? Why?

But that is TP I guess.

And what can I say. I work 50/52 weekends a year.

Zippy8 wrote:

And the question I have is:- do we see this as being "good" or "bad" ?

Ok.. I agree.. crashes are bad, however, look at it differently - by not wiping away a competitors score by 10 points each time they crash (true of STACK precision), what you do is encourage people to 'go for it'. To this end you are likely to up the overall quality of the competition with more exciting things being seen.

If you penalise people for a failed trick and there isn't much to be gained by doing a good risky trick in a STACK judge's eye.. then why bother doing it? In a STACK competition, two crashes is likely to put you completely out of the running scores-wise. The TP mind-set is that you really have to do risky stuff in order to do well against a quality field. For me this is more exciting to watch.

And the watching part is important.

The General Public want displays not competition.

So the question is do other fliers enjoy watching the format.

Eddie Green wrote:

I only counted 2 crashes.

I'd appreciate your views on what was happening at 00:39, 00:51, 01:30 and 02:20 then.

And the 2 there were I guess he could have recovered without help. So they were assisted takeoffs.

Ah... the joy of language. It's not a crash, it's an unplanned landing at an unadvantageous angle and velocity.

Although I love Ron's flying for me it was too structured and defined as a style. It didn't make me ask 'What was that?'How? Why? But that is TP I guess.

That would be judged competitions of any sport in general I might suggest.

Mike.

Zippy8 wrote:

Resurrection time for this thread I think
Let me phrase this as simply as I can (RonG, kindly look away at this point as I'll be using you as an example once again ).

That's fine. I've grown accustomed to it

Once more with regard to this video.... under Tricks Party rules this was "good". Under STACK rules, I put it to you that it would be "bad" (why not take my word for it for argument's sake ?).

FWIW, it was "bad" for me, too. I don't know how much the video conveyed, but when I move off the field that quickly, it's generally a good thing if there isn't a major roadway nearby

No one was more shocked than I was when I saw (long after the fact) my placement within that round. So I watched the video again with "Tricks Party" eyes, and realized that I had, in fact, gotten a good percentage of my high-value program tricks.

Now compare the round 3 video that Mike posted to the round 2 video, which by TP standards was of lower quality. Granted, the wind was very low and things were a bit "soft", but the flying was clean and the tricks pretty good (at least to the naked eye). But in that second video many of the tricks had a small problem such as insufficient rotations, entrance/exit issues, etc. that caused them to score lower. Under AKA (or STACK) judging, that round 2 routine would have scored much, much higher.

Given the goal of TP, I like the fact that we don't get destroyed for a ground incident or 2. The TP rules call for a 2 point style deduction for a crash, and one for a tick, which is not a routine-killer by any means. Perhaps where the gap widens the most is that judges are given no discretion to assign greater penalties to more severe crashes. In my round 3 ballet, I noted 1 severe crash (assisted), one "moderate" crash (assisted), and 2 less severe ones. Under TP rules, those all would have received the same deduction, though the impact on the routine varied greatly.

Perhaps something to think about if discussing internationally-accepted rules for this form of competition?

RonG wrote:

That's fine. I've grown accustomed to it

One thing caught my eye in your comments:-
all would have received the same deduction, though the impact on the routine varied greatly.
Just how much of a routine does TP actually call for ? You're marked mostly on the elements of what you fly, rather than the entirety of it. You could fly an extremely disjointed piece with nothing more then Car Washing Music* going on and still score very highly if the declared tricks were good.

I'm still asking if this is what people really want. And quite how this relates to any concept of freestyle I'll leave to the individual's conscience.

Mike.
* Car Washing Music is a David Hansen term for poor choreography. No-one washes their car to music, but the music might be on in the background.

* Car Washing Music is a David Hansen term for poor choreography. No-one washes their car to music, but the music might be on in the background.

Carried forth by David Hansen, originated I believe with Terry Murray. A term Terry passed on to me when I was but a young lad in the world of sport kite competition. Yes...washing the car with the radio on, with only passing relationship between the music and the activity.

Still, "style" is 40% of the score, so can't it be argued that Tricks Party does ideally want to see a well-choreographed routine? Just as one can argue that the 40% of the score given to execution in IRB ballet means that you can can't just go out and fly a nicely choregraphed routine very badly.

What do people want to see? I don't know. Personally I'd like to see a nice blend of both - well-choregraphed routines with risk-taking encouraged by making mishaps a bit less lethal.

Zippy8 wrote:

I'm still asking if this is what people really want.

No, of course not. I want to watch 32 of the world's best pilots <i>all</i> flying perfect routines in perfect wind to perfect music provided by Pink Floyd playing live on the beach, with a perfect cocktail in my hand while a perfect babe gives me the perfect kiss*.

In reality, that ain't going to happen. So in that case, I want to watch 32 of the world's best pilots do the best they can and still get a reasonable score out of it. I had total respect for everyone who entered the arena at Tricksparty and I would have been dissappointed to see them get heavily penalised for doing their best in such awful conditions.

It's more like "league-style" STACK competition, where you get marks for the figures, and then you get an <i>extra</i> mark for continuity, flow, choreography, etc. If your routine sucks then you get a sucky "routine mark", but they don't start taking points away from the compulsory parts that you did OK.

TP is pragmatic whereas STACK is dogmatic. I prefer the former, but to be honest, if I've got the babe giving me a kiss* then I couldn't care less what's going on in the sky.

A

*Post moderated slightly for the sake of the more delicate amongst us - RR

abw wrote:

... to be honest, if I've got the babe giving me a kiss* then I couldn't care less what's going on in the sky.

Very pragmatic!

*or a snog even - RR

Some one give this post an 18 cert!

Matt B wrote:

abw wrote:

... to be honest, if I've got the babe giving me a kiss* then I couldn't care less what's going on in the sky.

Very pragmatic!

I think I'll wait for the reaction on the forum before I download any of this summer's ABW videos!

*a kiss is so romantic don't you think - RR

Bastiaan wrote:

Some one give this post an 18 cert!

Done sensitively I hope.

Post moderated slightly for the sake of the more delicate amongst us - RR

Thanks, my wife would not let me go on the forum after reading that.

abw wrote:

Zippy8 wrote:

I'm still asking if this is what people really want.

No, of course not. I want [...] a perfect babe gives me the perfect kiss*.

We all know that a <i>kiss</i> isn't what I <i>really</i> want, but I guess I'll have to make do.

Sorry if I offended. Thanks to Roy for his delicate moderation.

A