Fractured Axel

why can't a trickster be one-on-one ?

Say you have 15/20 tricks write them on a piece of paper then pull 6 from a hat, both flyers then have to do the random 6 plus extra points for style etc.etc. (you don't even need music).

Okay, good point. It's down as a suggestion.

Do the majority of flyers want Trick Out or Trickster though?

For the ladder - Trickster (or some variation on that theme). It's easier. You can either do the trick or you can't. Simple as that.

For the ladder - Trickster (or some variation on that theme). It's easier. You can either do the trick or you can't. Simple as that.
_________________

Agree with this Roy.

Trickout surely is just "fun", after all is open to corruption, bribery of your peers, voting for your mates etc etc..i.e. an ideal competition format better only by bare knuckel fighting. Maybe we should combine both (bare knuckle fighting that is), and run a best kite fighter comp. You should be able to physically intimidate a competitor if they are flying bettr than you, in order to win.

Trickster, on the other had seems to be more suited to a black or white scoring and ranking system.

SteveR wrote:

Trickout surely is just "fun", after all is open to corruption, bribery of your peers, voting for your mates etc etc.

Yeah, but who'd bother?

I think the voting may be a little 'relaxed' at times but crooked? What's to gain? It's voted for by the other competitors.

Yeah, but who'd bother?

I think the voting may be a little 'relaxed' at times but crooked? What's to gain? It's voted for by the other competitors

Thats the fun of it, sometimes. Its all subjective, that was my point, whereas trickster isnt, either you can or you cant.

SteveR wrote:

Thats the fun of it, sometimes. Its all subjective, that was my point, whereas trickster isnt, either you can or you cant.

Ask Craig how easy it was to judge the Trickster in February. I don't think it's as simple as you think. You *still* have to score the attempt out of 10.

A Trick Out judged by whoever's around and can raise a hand is much easier.

Ask Craig how easy it was to judge the Trickster in February. I don't think it's as simple as you think. You *still* have to score the attempt out of 10.

I think its much harder to judge, because by nature its more objective. Subjective judgeing "could" (not necassarily my opinion) be a cop out because its easier. I dont think i have a different opinion from you on this andy, im just not explaining it clearly (tired long day etc etc)

As a format I think the trickster is less likely to appeal to new flyers. Faith said she'd have a go at this new format on page one or two, because it's possible to get a ranking just flying about a bit and doing some axels.

How many potential competitors will be put off because they live in fear of putting their hand in the bag and pulling out a load of tricks that they can't do?

The way I see it, the ladder has serious location problems, whereas a ranking system is in effect location independant. Also, there's the question of how the scores are maintained. I suggest that a ranking system whilst overtly more complicated is actually simpler to maintain and administer. I also think that any two flyers who get together and compete by any set of rules that they agree to fly to and can get judged could be entered as a valid result. Further, any result from any other competition (e.g. a stack trickout) should be submitted. It works well in chess. Lots of on-line game sites use a similar system, and a lot of local club competitions use the system. It effectively allows a league where everyone doesn't have to play everyone, and where competitors can compete against each other as often as they like.

OK - the only things i don't see obvious solutions to... disputes, and submitting false results. Anybody have any ideas?

SteveB wrote:

OK - the only things i don't see obvious solutions to... disputes, and submitting false results. Anybody have any ideas?

Disputes? What possible disputes could there be?
There would have to be judges there, and we'll have to agree that the judges decision is final.

A certain amount will have to go on trust. After all, it *is* just kite flying.

Other ladder/ranking systems must face these problems... what solution do they use?

Steve, can you link to a specific set of rules, for something like a chess system, that might be adapted to our use?

I'm beginning to warm to the idea of the 'choose your weapons' kind of duel. Who would specify? The challenger or the challenged?

Andy, there are essentially 2 systems in operation. In one, ratings are adjusted periodically, say every 6 months, based on results over the previous 6 months and the starting rating. The rating table is hosted and updated by the administering authority. This is the system the British Chess Federation, for example, use to grade chess players.

A fuller explanation can be found here: http://www.bcf.org.uk/grading/how_it_works/notes.htm

Club tournaments use a similar calculation, but grades are updated after each match, and this can be administered by the players themselves, either on a card they carry around, or on line via a hosted service. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficuly to sort out software.

A typical system works like this: points are exchanged depending on the grade of each player and the result. The calculation works like this.

points won = (400+losers rating-winners rating)/30 (rounded up)
points lost = -points won

if points won < 0 then points won = 0

in this system everybody starts with a score of 800, and the ratings are just carried forward ad infinitum.

Hope this helps

What about a handicap system too to give us hopeless a chance, something like.......Craig, Andy, Martin and others have to stand on one leg.

Hi guys. I amn busy elsewhere at the moment, and have only just spotted this thread. I will log on again tonight and contribute more fully then.
I like the ideas though.

Here's my thoughts on some of what has been said.

Yes, in theory a new freestyle oriented competition is a good idea. That was the original motivation behind the "Technical Freestyle" competition I devised after the original Freestyle Knockout, but it was a case of "nice idea, bad execution".

The thing that I don't like about competitions like the Tricks Party, Trickster, and so on, is that they define which trick you are to fly. To me, this is a precision trick competition (which is fine), but it's not a freestyle competition. A key part of freestyle is that it is up to the flier to fly what they like and how they like. For those watching, it is exciting because you never know what is coming next. That's what I tried to build into the Technical Freestyle format - innovation within a framework. But it's just too damn hard to judge anything like this.

The problem with the existing Trickout/Freestyle Competition is that the judging and scoring is a little ad-hoc. Most of the time it works just fine, and it has always been more about having fun than serious scoring. However, when we start incorporating national rankings and an overall "champion", it does up the stakes a little. An unlucky draw can have the two best fliers up against each other in the first round, ensuring that one gets knocked out and receives no points no matter how well they fly. And there have been a few, rare cases when judges have made what I considered to be the "wrong decision" based on a slightly skewed representation of judges, perhaps containing more friends of one flier than the other. But then, that's kind of what it's about. If there are enough people to out-vote me then I'm out-voted.

So what we want is something that has a more rigorous and well-defined scoring system. But we don't want to stifle innovation by forcing everyone to fly the same tricks, just to make the judging easy.

I've been thinking about this for some time, and mentioned a few ideas to Andy P at Wallop. What I propose is based on a format used for freestyle snowboarding events (e.g. half-pipe) and similar. Something like this:

Give pilots a 1 minute session to fly whatever they like. Just like the current freestyle comp, with some random music in the background and a bit of commentary. But one person at a time for a one minute session.

They are then awarded one score for technical content (i.e. the overall difficultly of what they did) and another for artistic impression (i.e. how well they executed it). The scoring is entirely subjective, but we can easily russle up 3 or more judges who have the necessary knowledge and experience to make an <i>informed</i> subjective decision. Average the two scores over three judges and you've got something fairly reliable. Certainly more reliable than the trickout scoring.

Although it is still a bit finger-in-the-wind, I don't think it is that hard for a judge to give a mark out of ten for content, and another for style. An important part of having two scores, IMHO, is that less experienced pilots can attempt simpler tricks (thus getting a lower technical score), but can do them exceptionally well (thus getting a high style score).

I think this captures the essence of freestyle: freedom to fly what you want, and to do it with style.

I think it might also be good to do two rounds, with the fliers going in reverse order second time around. Best score of the two counts. This allows someone to do a "safe" routine first time around, and then attempt some harder tricks in their second stint, or the other way round. It's something that makes the competition more forgiving, and hence more fun to fly, and more likely to draw less experiences pilots in. I also think it will encourage people to fly harder and more difficult tricks (thus pushing the level up) because you can totally foul things up and you don't have to worry about scratching that score.

And also, because you're only flying against yourself, there's no misery about getting knocked out straight away, either because of an unlucky draw, or because you didn't realise your trick line was wrapped around the wing tips, or whatever.

I've started writing up a more formal definition along these lines, but I'm holding off on the details, hoping for some feedback, suggestions, ideas, etc. Feel free to pitch in!

A