Fractured Axel

Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:25 am

Just posing an idea here... let's have some views.

We're all familiar with the 'ladder' format of competition right? How about a completely non-STACK-sanctioned (unless they want to) Trick Out ladder format?

All the interested parties start on a ladder, in whatever order is deemed applicable. You may challenge to a Trick Out any competitor above you on the ladder. At the next sensible opportunity you fly against that person following the standard Trick Out rules - music, six alternating 30 second rounds, judged by your peers. Maybe in the arena, or an appropriate clear area of the field, at a fly-in, whatever.

If you win, you swap places with them in the ladder, or move above them, or however these things work (spot who never played organised sport before :lol:

).

Some of the finer details would need to be thrashed out obviously, but what do people think of this idea?

germanjulian · Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:41 am

would that ladder always stand or would it be only for that 1 particular festival. how many times can you challenege the person who is above you?

sounds cool but is it really necessary to create yet another competition format

Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:45 am

In my mind the ladder would stand for a season. Rules like how often you could challenge would be based on similar formats for other sports. I don't know how they work.

is it really necessary to create yet another competition format

Is it necessary to only have two trick-oriented formats? How many types of officially sanctioned football tournaments are there?

Davey · Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:50 am

Possibly swap positions if they're within a couple of 'rungs' of you...

If there's a bigger gap then a 'better' winner would move up a smaller number of rungs than if the 'lesser' flyer won the round.

Closest parallel I can think of is chess ratings - Your score is adjusted by who you win/lose/draw against. If you beat a better player then your rating increases by more than if you'd beaten a muppet. Conversely - if you lose to that muppet then you lose more points in comparison to losing against a player closer to your standing.

HTH

Jason · Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:00 pm

The winner would move to a spot one above the person they've just beaten, hence the defeated moves down one. So in effect if you beat the No1 person you move to the No1 spot (because in theory you would then be better than all of them if the previous No1 was better than them all and now you're better) and they slip into 2nd.

Jason · Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:02 pm

I think the swapping rungs would be unfair on the defeated. The winner has proved they're better than the defeated but not proved that the defeated is worse than anyone on rungs inbetween.

Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:08 pm

Jason wrote:
I think the swapping rungs would be unfair on the defeated. The winner has proved they're better than the defeated but not proved that the defeated is worse than anyone on rungs inbetween.

Yep, sure.. Saves less shuffling of cards though

I think that the chess 'point' format might be a little too fine-toothed and complicated for this idea.

SpOoC · Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:34 pm

If I were gooder enough to compete I would definitly go for something on these lines, the simpler the better.

I think it is a great idea. The more competitions, the better the overall standard of kite flying is going to get in my opinion. Nothing like a competitive format for motivation.

The downside is as always going to be location, location, location. I don't think there is a good way around this, other than trying to have rounds of competion at generally advertised fun/informal fly in's so that people can plan for this.

Again, I was thinking about the festival side of things. There are some quite big gaps in the summer schedule. For example, on a competitive side, there is nothing happening between now and the next Middle Wallop, or at lease from what I am aware of. From a trick format point of view this seems a bit of a shame.

I imagine the ballet/free stylers need the gaps for practice etc, or perhaps there are some organisational issues ie, it takes a lot of money/manpower to organise. I am sure Mr Phelps will fill us in on this side of things.

Suffice to say, if the sport is to expand there needs to be more opportunity for people who want to compete/display their skills at ground level. Maybe this is a way forward?

Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:40 pm

I think that it would have to be up to the challenger to attempt to organise a time and place. Andy has enough on his plate already.

My thinking is you would challenge a player, by email, PM, public posting, whatever and then discuss a time / place. If it was a festival I don't see that you would have a lot of trouble getting half a dozen people together to watch you for 3 minutes... I'd volunteer every time!

At any festival I've been to there's been a fair amount of 'free time' over lunch and at the end of the day. Bring a portable stereo in case you can't use the PA and you're set.

There are obvious organisational difficulties involved but the informality of the event would help to overcome those. If you have to grab some passers-by to judge you then that's your problem. :lol:

SpOoC · Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:45 pm

Sorry, not making myself clear I see. What I meant was that for the ballet/free style there is a lot of organisation. I was just musing on why there aren't more of those during the summer as well. I wasn't trying to suggest any more involvement from Andy, just to clarify any points that I was wrong on.

The informal fly in's suggestion was so that people from diverse areas of UK can at least have the chance to plan to get to challenge more than one person in one trip which would perhaps be more feasible for some.

Eddie Green · Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:49 pm

What motivation is there in accepting a challenge from a lower ranked flier?

Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:51 pm

kHiTe wrote:
What motivation is there in accepting a challenge from a lower ranked flier?

Good point. What motivation is there in the local squash club ladder? I really don't know... is there generally a rule to say you must?

I can see a problem arising whereby the challengee does his level best to avoid meeting the challenger. All fine details that will need to be thrashed out.

Eddie Green · Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:06 pm

Or not make the effort to meet the challenger. Perhaps bonus ranking points for flown matches?

Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:06 pm

It looks to be a general rule that if a challenger is twice declined then he may claim it as a victory over the challengee.

Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:12 pm

sorry Andy, but whats the point, there are already Trick comps why confuse matters. As it is less than 20 people compete (novice and master) all your doing is flying against the same folks.

Now if there was prize money involved I might even participate:wink:

Fractured Axel

Proposal: New competition format

Proposal: New competition format