Fractured Axel

Some of the questions that I have affect the way that the scores are calculated. So far I am happy with the process, and it does make sense. However, just in case there is something wrong, I will discuss it with Roger first, rather than cause consternation unnecessarily. I will update you with any questions that I have and can be published when I sit down and put my thoughts to paper.

d'you know, I flew really nicely over the weekend...

... and then stepped into the arena!

Well done again Steve.

Bryan

bryan beasley wrote:

and then stepped into the arena!

The wind really seemed to pick up for you and alot of your nominated tricks seemed to be fade or turtle based. I remember thinking if you'd have a few more axel based tricks you might have faired better.

Jason wrote:

we noticed that a lot of the 2 point landings were landing on their back, or on the standoffs, and then being pulled upright, technically not correct.

So not like this then? (the second one clearly on standoffs)

Where is this technically defined? I think this is flawed if you're penalising people for a standoff touch (if this is what you're saying). All the two point landings at FWC were performed in this manner to my knowledge.

To quote someone that isn't a FAer...

For one thing, to get a good snappy landing requires the kite to be knocked back sharply in the simultaneous stall & kill movement, the stronger the wind, the greater this movement is going to be.

Secondly, the deeper the kite, the longer the standoffs are going to be which means that for a deep kite you've got less back angle to play with before, you are going to get penalised for "inadvertant standoff tip to ground contact".

Another point is that there is a 3 point deduction for 'an improper ending', so becareful not to go in to your next track on your CD.. I seem to recall seeing a few instances of this on Monday.

The ones that got marked down really were almost flat on their back with the wingtips clearly completely off the ground. I've looked at the video and I wouldn't have marked down any of those landings. A standoff touch is fine, even a 4 point landing (2 tips and 2 standoffs) is acceptable I would say, even necessary in strong wind.

As for the ending bit, I don't think I penalised anyone for going over the end of the music, I gave extra points if the ballet appeared to have been in time with the music, or any level of "interpretation" which yours clearly was.

These are obviously areas that we can improve on, perhaps at the pilots meeting going through the compulsory tricks and any "key elements" to be borne in mind.

All suggestions welcome.

Matt B wrote:

The wind really seemed to pick up for you and alot of your nominated tricks seemed to be fade or turtle based. I remember thinking if you'd have a few more axel based tricks you might have faired better.

Thanks Matt, but none of the tricks should have caused any problems even in the conditions (it wasn't that bad), I just missed everything when it mattered.

Bryan

The ones that got marked down really were almost flat on their back with the wingtips clearly completely off the ground.

I concur 100% with Jason on this. Very few of the 2P landings that I saw last weekend approached the standard in that video. This is a skill that we obviously need to develop further within the UK.
Still, isn't that the point of Tricks Party?

My point is not that people did it right or wrong, because as far as I can tell there is no written discription of what is right. If the comment had been, we marked people down because they didn't look as crisp/tidy as someone doing x, y and z.. then I would have seen it more positively.

aphelps wrote:

This is a skill that we obviously need to develop further within the UK.

Disagree... lets be positive. We DO have the skills, we DON'T have the experience. The likes of Chris and now SMR (and a few others who are coming along nicely) are now on the scene and gaining headway towards the French. For me Chris technically is AS good as the majority of the French flyers, yet his style lacks their clarity (due to being a blur of one thing and another!) and is losing him points in this format that demands it.

I think most of us will give a damn good shot at getting the ball in the back of the net if only we knew where the posts have been set!

Can i recommend that for each imposed trick for the next TP that the judges describe what they are going to be looking for.. just in the same manner to which the head judge describes the key elements of figures.

mobius wrote:

Can i recommend that for each imposed trick for the next TP that the judges describe what they are going to be looking for.. just in the same manner to which the head judge describes the key elements of figures.

Excellent idea.

mobius wrote:

My point is not that people did it right or wrong, because as far as I can tell there is no written discription of what is right.

True, and that's one of the problems with Tricks Party. But in this case, I think "2 point landing" is pretty clear. We wanted to see the two wingtips land on the ground at the same time. Not one tip down and then the other, not all three tips, or the spine first, or even the whole back of the kite being dumped onto the ground.

Of course, we didn't realise this up front (or else we would have said at the pilot's meeting), but once we saw a few being done good and bad, the distinction became clear. We didn't say anything half way through because that would have given an unfair advantage to the latter fliers.

The same problem applies to pretty much every trick. There are no written descriptions and no lists of key elements. Heck, they don't even use the proper names!

So it's another black mark for TP from me, I'm afraid. As a judge, I can't help thinking it's got all the worst bits of a STACK competition and none of the good.

Can we play something else now?

A

I psy with my inner eye somthing the colour of pink ...

abw wrote:

So it's another black mark for TP from me, I'm afraid. As a judge, I can't help thinking it's got all the worst bits of a STACK competition and none of the good.

Reading that back, it sounds a bit harsh. Let me clarify.

I think the "worst bits" that it inherits from STACK/IRB is that it's very rule bound, has a complex scoring system, requires significant prior (and post) preparation on the parts of fliers, organisers and judges. It's a real shame that the scoring system is so complex that it's usually not even possible to calculate the final scores quickly enough to announce them on the day (or the day after, etc.). I'm not saying that it <i>can't</i> be done, but that in practice, it doesn't get done because it takes too long and the likes of Andy P are usually too busy doing other things.

It's a far cry from the "judges hold up score cards for immediate feedback" that I would rather see in such a competition.

The "good bit" that STACK/IRB comps have that TP doesn't (have enough of) is the general "ballet" element. I thought Dave Morley's ballet was really excellent in terms of working with the music. As such, it scored high on artistic impression and clarity. But they're just two relatively small marks in the big scheme of things. The larger chunk of marks come simply from nailing the tricks nicely (which Steve did slightly better IMHO).

So in that sense, I think Tricks Party is too heavily oriented on being a Precision Trick competition and not enough on what might be called the more "Freestyle" elements: the flow, working with the music, expressing a general feeling, and so on.

Well done to everyone all the same. It may not be perfect, but it's still pretty good. I just think we would be wise to think about evolving the format(s) rather than trying to stick rigidly to the Tricks Party rules as they are.

One immediate improvement I can see it to reduce the number of ballet tricks to say, 5, and only allow competitors to submit one tricks list. If they are handing their forms in at the pilots meeting, then they should have a pretty good idea about the wind conditions and what tricks they want to do. And apart from anything else, it saves copying out two sets of tricks list for each competitor, for each judge (2 x 9 x 3 = 54) which is one of the reasons the competition started later than planned.

I'm all in favour of having more tricks, multiple trick lists and all that jazz for an international competition. But at this level, I don't think it would hurt to pare it all down a bit and run "Tricks Party Lite".

A

I think that's fair enough Andy, but does it prepare our competitors enough for the international event?

Andy S wrote:

I think that's fair enough Andy, but does it prepare our competitors enough for the international event?

Yes, I think so, if it's a simple matter of changing the parameters of the format. Once you're familiar with the basic format, it doesn't really matter that much if you have to fly 5, 8 or 10 tricks, or whether or not you're allowed to submit one list of tricks or two, and so on.

If we evolved the format to something different, then your point is valid - it might indeed be a disadvantage for our (inter-)national interests. But it's also disadvantageous to those same interests if people are discouraged from entering (or judging) a competition in the first place because it's too complex or has too high a barrier to entry. Then they don't get any competition experience at all.

A

mobius wrote:

Where is this technically defined? I think this is flawed if you're penalising people for a standoff touch (if this is what you're saying). All the two point landings at FWC were performed in this manner to my knowledge.

IIRC Roger went out of his way to tell me at FWC that I had lost points for doing a 2 point landing that involved standoff or sail contact with the ground. I don't think it's written down anywhere, but he did tell me that a 2 point landing has to be on the wingtips only to get full credit.

Must say I'm following the Tricks Party discussions on this forum with interest, since we're just a bit over a month away from holding the first one in the US. One of the the things at the top of the long-term "to-do" list is to come up with a different name for it. IMHO "Tricks Party" comes off as too non-serious a name when put into the context of English. Even the French used "Freestyle World Cup" and not "Tricks Party" for their international event.

I just wish I could fly in it. Those of us from the US who flew at FWC have acknowledged that we probably won't be able to participate for a while, as we're the only ones remotely qualified to staff it...