New 2002 IUF Unicycle Trials Rules - messed up

[Carl Hoyer]

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn't like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict ... the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it's a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

--- Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference... To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
"off-camber" description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a "pole"? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean "or" instead of "and"
> hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> "mod" and a "stock" classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
"stock" brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term "mod?" (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that's
what I call "MOD.")
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I've written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html> (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html).
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it's probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Carl Hoyer]

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn't like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict ... the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it's a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

--- Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference... To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
"off-camber" description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a "pole"? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean "or" instead of "and"
> hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> "mod" and a "stock" classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
"stock" brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term "mod?" (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that's
what I call "MOD.")
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I've written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html> (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html).
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it's probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Carl Hoyer]

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn't like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict ... the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it's a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

--- Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference... To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
"off-camber" description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a "pole"? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean "or" instead of "and"
> hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> "mod" and a "stock" classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
"stock" brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term "mod?" (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that's
what I call "MOD.")
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I've written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html> (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html).
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it's probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Carl Hoyer]

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn't like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict ... the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it's a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

--- Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference... To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
"off-camber" description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a "pole"? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean "or" instead of "and"
> hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> "mod" and a "stock" classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
"stock" brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term "mod?" (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that's
what I call "MOD.")
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I've written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html> (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html).
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it's probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Carl Hoyer]

One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
to competition.

In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's always
there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change much. Sure
different routes can be established on the same wall, but the rock rarely
changes. With trials however the type of obstacles (problems) may vary
greatly from competition to competition (drops might be higher, logs might
be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be wider, etc.).

Unless, some competition obstacle standardization was put in place it
would be very difficult to prejudge the U rating for a particular problem
(even if it were based on the moves required to complete the problem). I
personally wouldn't like to see any standardization because it can be
restrictive and inflexible on the creativity of problem design.

This could of course be solved (and I think this was already brought up)
by having a panel of riders at each competition pre-ride the problems to
determine their rating. This, however, could bring up a conflict ... the
riders on the panel will most likely be participates in the event. Will it
be seen as an unfair advantage if they get to pre-ride the problems in
order to rate them?

How do they do it for indoor climbing competitions?

I like the U rating system I just think it might be tricky for
competitions.

Carl

-----Original Message----- From: Kris Holm [mailto:danger_uni@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 5:53 PM To: Chris Reeder
Cc: unicycling@winternet.com Subject: Re: New 2002 IUF Unicycle
Trials Rules

Chris,

Good comments about the U system- definately there need to be more
specifics on grades.

Re whether there should be different uni categories: The reason I think
that it's a good idea for there to be two trials classes is that I
anticipate that there will be two distinct groups of riders emerging in
this sport: Urban trials specialists, and MUni riders that also like to do
trials. These people will likely have different skills I think. Actually a
third group will also emerge, I think- street riders that do Dan Heaton-
style riding such as grinds, spins etc in a street setting.

Likely there will only be a need for one class most of the time, and the
rules state that a judge can choose to lump all unicycle categories
together. Perhaps the categories should be left in for now and the taken
out later if they seem irrelevant.

-Kris

--- Chris Reeder <reed8990@uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Kris, Nice job on the competition guidelines.
>
> The U-rating system-- What a concept! A way for unicyclists to talk
about terrain difficulty
> with some perspective. Just for reference... To me a 4 inch beam for 10
> meters is more like U2.
>
> Some things we might add to the descriptions: drops to inclines or small
landing spots; gaps
> between narrow railing type objects ( or does this just fit your
"off-camber" description?
>
> Obviously with railing riding, the difficulty depends on the distance.
Riding a round railing
> for five feet is much easier than ten feet or more, for example.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> Pedal grab to pole vs. pedal grab to small landing space. How
> big is
a "pole"? A little
> quantification would be helpful. In U3 do you mean "or" instead of "and"
> hopping at least 15 inches... In U6 do you mean just pedal grabbing to a
> square railing? Or a
combination move (I
> assume the rubber involved is the rubber in the unicycle's tire...?).
>
> Unicycle Classifications: I am wondering about the validity of having a
> "mod" and a "stock" classes.
Mod an stock have a
> lot more meaning in the bike world, since Mod is ultra small
> standover height,
nearly unbreakable
> wheels, single speed, frame mounted bash guard, seat optional.
> Stock is rear
derailleur required (five
> speed minimum), 26" front and 24" rear minimim tire size, and bash
> guards are
only allowed on the
> drive side chainring. For unicycles, the only difference might be
> wheel or tire
size. But is there
> really a noticeable difference in capability based on wheel size?
> The word
"stock" brings to my mind
> a skinny-tired Schwinn with slick tire and plastic pedals, but who would
seriously do trials on
> one of those? On the other hand, is anything we ride really
> deserving of the
term "mod?" (If anybody
> starts doing the world record high jump on a 12x6 donut tire, now that's
what I call "MOD.")
> So perhaps we should either eliminate categories altogether or
> stick with
something more meaningful
> like small and large, Monty and Gazz, pogo and rolo, or something like
that. Comments?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MKris Holm wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > OK, I've written a proposed new version of unicycle trials rules that
follows the recently
> > proposed format. This proposed set of rules also includes guidelines
for setting up a
> U-rating
> > system for rating unicycle trials problems.
> >
> > The rules are located at
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html> (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~kholm/2002%20Trials%20rules.html).
> >
> > Other sports, such as climbing, are highly quantified without being
competative, and people
> define
> > their skill level by difficulty rating systems, not by whether
> > they have
beaten anyone.
> Personally
> > I like this approach. However, it's probably a good idea to have rules
in place in case they
> are
> > ever needed.
> >
> > Any input would be appreciated, especially on the U-rating system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Kris Holm.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail -
> > only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Kris Holm]

--- Carl Hoyer <choyer@724.com> wrote:
>
> One of the issues I see with the U system is that it might be very
> difficult to control the consistency of problem ratings from competition
> to competition.
>

True. But there are two issues here. One is the U-system, which is an
attempt to rate problem difficulties in general. The other issue is points
awarded for a particular competition.

Since the entire rating is internal for a (hypothetical) competition, it
only matters within that competition what the absolute point values are.
That means that it isn't imperative that one competition have similar
point values to another.

However, tying the point ratings to the U-system is an attempt to keep the
point values in some sort of reasonable range for different competitions.
Whether this works is anyone's guess.

> In rock climbing the rock is static (outdoor climbing anyway), it's
> always there for people to go and climb and it really doesn't change
> much. Sure different routes can be established on the same wall, but the
> rock rarely changes. With trials however the type of obstacles
> (problems) may vary greatly from competition to competition (drops might
> be higher, logs might be bigger, steps might be higher, rails might be
> wider, etc.).

This is true. However, local trials areas also don't change much either
- I have favorite problems that have been around for years and years. It
is only competitions that change. With the exception of a specific
effort at this year's NUC to create an initial set of standards, I think
that a U-system would be based on local rider's problems, and then
applied to a competition situation if necessary. This is how it works in
indoor climbing.

I think that one person (the Event Director) should be responsible
at a competition for rating problems. Otherwise there might be too
much arguing.

In any case I think there is more value in establishing a rating system
than in immediately going to a competition format.

Cheers,

Kris.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only
$35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/