Updated IUF Rulebook - Flatland Concern

[Julia B]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that flatland be redefined.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Guaranteed. Even if I'm not in charge on the next round, I'll make sure your name is on the list. I'll need an email address to go with that, or you can supply it through the official IUF Contact email.

belk.julia (at) gmail.com

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Okay, now we're back to "NOT any skill performed on a flat surface." And back to the problem of, how exactly should that be defined? If it cannot be defined, the event cannot work without having problems like the current one (Freestyle vs. Flat style).

From my perspective, I think that given time Freestyle vs. Flat style will cease to be a problem. When flatland competitions get a little more established and more participation (especially girls) freestyle riders/trainers will understand that it's a totally different event than freestyle.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

It was not fine before. Remember, a sentence was not added. That whole section was added. Before this version, there was no definition of what Flatland was. Which led to confusion and uneven judging.

Oh, I've been referencing these rules, which seem to be the 2012 IUF rules without the evil sentence and the definition.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

How many pages do you think the Flatland rules should take up?

However long they are now is fine, minus 1 sentence.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

He's got a point there. You can't have it both ways. It's either an open definition of what skills can be used, or something closed and complicated. Which should it be?

Open, definitely. I don't think a more specific definition is necessary right now, though of course the situation may change in the future.

Originally Posted by tholub

The Josef-Adrien battle from EUC 2011. Josepf finishes with a backwards wheel walk trick that, while clearly difficult, would be entirely at home in a freestyle routine.

It's called scuffcoasting. And that was my example of the overlap of freestyle and flatland, and why it would be overly difficult to separate the styles based on tricks. Josef won the battle, and his run was full of coasts and wheelwalk variations. That's why I think the sentence should be taken out. Skills typically known from freestyle haven't been discriminated against in the past, and there's nothing to indicate that they will be discriminated against in the future. But the sentence sounds like an invitation for freestyle trainers to send their riders to the flatland competition.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by Julia B

But the sentence sounds like an invitation for freestyle trainers to send their riders to the flatland competition.

Why shouldn't they?

[Lutz]

I just want to add one point to this discussion. Julia is always worried that freestyle riders win both competitions, flat and freestyle (i gues she means individual).
But nobody ever mentioned that freestyle is judget more and more on performing and not on the tricks. I know many freestyle riders which are really happy about the new competition because they never liked the performing part off freestyle (which counts over 50%).
Unicyclists like Till and Felix both reached the finals off many big flat competitions, like the last unicon and i think they matched in these competitions.
If you would figure out a way to change the rules to exclude freestyle riders they have to take dancing and acting lessons just because they are using the wrong unicycles and are doing to much coasting and dragseat tricks.

[onewheeldave]

I did see that page, but the committee information was from 2010, the blog hasn't been updated in months, and the forums have a grand total of about 10 posts in the last year.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Yup. Good thing they don't have me as a webmaster, it might be worse... Sites like that can only post what people give them. Most Webmasters don't want to also be authors/writers, because then the supposed site owners often never even look at the site, and don't know what's on it. This is true for the commercial web sites I do outside of unicycling!

I'd suggest the committee make it a priority to keep their webpage up-to-date: if the public/riders main access to info is that page, then it's pretty unprofessional to let it get so unkempt.

[Julia B]

Originally Posted by tholub

Why shouldn't they?

You can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand. There are hundreds (thousands?) of female freestylers. If a fraction of those entered the flatland competition, pretty soon it would be a second freestyle competition without the costumes.

Originally Posted by olarf

In female competitions we realy had here one german nationals whithin only Freestyle girls and it was a battle I had no words for it. Even those girls feel bad in that situation. Those riders often are send by their trainer and not by themself

Originally Posted by Lutz

I just want to add one point to this discussion. Julia is always worried that freestyle riders win both competitions, flat and freestyle (i gues she means individual).
But nobody ever mentioned that freestyle is judget more and more on performing and not on the tricks. I know many freestyle riders which are really happy about the new competition because they never liked the performing part off freestyle (which counts over 50%).
Unicyclists like Till and Felix both reached the finals off many big flat competitions, like the last unicon and i think they matched in these competitions.
If you would figure out a way to change the rules to exclude freestyle riders they have to take dancing and acting lessons just because they are using the wrong unicycles and are doing to much coasting and dragseat tricks.

I'm not worried that one lone freestyle rider will win a flatland competition, but that women's flatland will be overrun by freestyle riders. This isn't a problem really for the guy's flatland, because they have greater numbers, and they're a lot better than the women.

Leo said the same thing. Really, it seems like the best way to fix this is to just start a third competition that's purely technical freestyle. Flatland was not created to be that. Flatland was created by street riders, and then when there were enough of them they made a flatland competition. Flatland wasn't made for the freestyle riders, though I understand their problem and why the flatland competition seems like a viable option to those who don't like performing.

I haven't seem either of them compete before (they didn't enter at EUC I guess) but from the snippets of the battle I can catch from this video, Till at least was definitely doing plenty of traditional flatland. There were a lot more standup variations than you would usually see, but there were also lots of rolling combos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv9uUDtives

[tholub]

Originally Posted by Julia B

You can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand. There are hundreds (thousands?) of female freestylers. If a fraction of those entered the flatland competition, pretty soon it would be a second freestyle competition without the costumes.

So you think it's a good thing that you can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand?

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by tholub

So you think it's a good thing that you can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand?

Why would you say that???

Clearly julia has said nothing of the kind-

Originally Posted by Julia B

You can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand. There are hundreds (thousands?) of female freestylers. If a fraction of those entered the flatland competition, pretty soon it would be a second freestyle competition without the costumes.

She's making a straight observation that numbers of female flatland riders are much, much lower than numbers of female freestyle riders, and, pointing out that that fact creates a potential issue of flatland female comps being overrun by freestylers.

If you can find any indication that julia thinks the low numbers are a good thing, then feel free to show where- I think it's pretty obvious that, in fact, she would very much like it if there were a lot more.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Why would you say that???

Clearly julia has said nothing of the kind-


She's making a straight observation that numbers of female flatland riders are much, much lower than numbers of female freestyle riders, and, pointing out that that fact creates a potential issue of flatland female comps being overrun by freestylers.

If you can find any indication that julia thinks the low numbers are a good thing, then feel free to show where- I think it's pretty obvious that, in fact, she would very much like it if there were a lot more.

Apparently, she would like it if there were a lot more females doing flatland, but only if those females are not "freestyle riders." Whatever that means.

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by tholub

Apparently, she would like it if there were a lot more females doing flatland, but only if those females are not "freestyle riders." Whatever that means.

You said-

Originally Posted by tholub

So you think it's a good thing that you can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand?

I was pointing out that Julia has in no way said that she thinks it a good thing that numbers of female flatlanders are very low (and that her previous posts have made it clear she would very much like the numbers to increase).

Your quote above is basically endeavouring to put words in her mouth that she's not actually said.

Originally Posted by tholub

but only if those females are not "freestyle riders." Whatever that means.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Julia would be very happy if the ranks of female flatlanders were to be increased, in part, by females who have done freestyle and switched over to flatland i.e. who train in flatland, whose style 'looks' like flatland and, when entering competitions, do flatland moves.

As you've pointed out, there is an issue with defining 'flatland' (as distinct from freestyle)- but, there's been zero progress in this thread with sorting out such a definition.

Nevertheless, Julia's position is coherent: whatever that (currently indefinable) 'essence of flatland' is, it is recognisable and distinguishable from freestyle i.e. it's easy to tell apart a freestyle routine from a flatland one.

And if, as at least one poster has mentioned on this thread, there is a portion of freestylers who are tired of the performance requirement element of freestyle, there could be a chance that moving over to flatland would be a viable option. That's a very different thing though, to freestyle coaches just putting their riders into flatland comps, when they've done no flatland riding and are simply relying on swamping it with high numbers and high quality freestyle riding skills gained through years of riding freestyle. (or, entering them just so they get a bit of extra competition experience).

After all, if it happens that 80% of competitiors in a female flatland comp are actually freestylers doing freestyle moves/combos/routines, even if the judges are so clear on the rules that the freestylers won't win, it's certainly not good for competitive flatland, if only cos some of the audience are going to walk away with a misimpression of what flatland style is.

[tholub]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

I'm going to hazard a guess that Julia would be very happy if the ranks of female flatlanders were to be increased, in part, by females who have done freestyle and switched over to flatland i.e. who train in flatland, whose style 'looks' like flatland and, when entering competitions, do flatland moves.

As you've pointed out, there is an issue with defining 'flatland' (as distinct from freestyle)- but, there's been zero progress in this thread with sorting out such a definition.

That's exactly my point. If you want flatland to exist as a judged sport that's distinct from freestyle, you have to have judging rules which make it distinct from freestyle. The sentence that Julia is worried about is not the problem; the lack of flatland judging rules is the problem.

[leo]

Hello, I can't keep up with this thread.
So I will make some responses while wading trough it in reverse (I don't think it matters which direction I read trough it).

Originally Posted by Julia B

You can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand.

Originally Posted by tholub

So you think it's a good thing that you can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand?

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Clearly julia has said nothing of the kind

And I have to say: reading this in reverse is somewhat funny.

Originally Posted by tholub

the lack of flatland judging rules is the problem.

but creating more rules would let you end up in pretty much the same problem as in freestyle.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Leo said the same thing. Really, it seems like the best way to fix this is to just start a third competition that's purely technical freestyle.

I did not say a 3th competition is the solution. I would have the exact same rules as the flatland rules are now, and likely will result in a discussion of the exact same single sentence.

Originally Posted by Lutz

But nobody ever mentioned that freestyle is judget more and more on performing and not on the tricks.

I think I did on page 1

Originally Posted by johnfoss

The rule-creators must not only understand the events they are describing, but must also understand how to make rules that will work.

I'd like to make distinct to those who made the rules, and those who modified them.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

I think the IUF understands it pretty well. If another sports organization out there understands it better, I don't think I've heard of them. This is why "the IUF" created Flatland rules. Without them you can't have a Flatland competition.

Is it?
Do you seriously have the illusion an EUC would be any different with or without the IUF? I think not.
I'd like to downplay the IUF influence in the creating process. Adopting seems a better word. If I remember well then two of three core writers were not aboard of the IUF.
Again I think I can make a firm no to the last part of your statement: unicyclist minds have more anarchy than the IUF has authority.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Awhh, tholub you're starting to remind me of leo

@Tholub: that probably means you caused some friction with a cause. If you want to improve stuff it's hard when you're surounded with people that agree to every single thing you say.

Originally Posted by Julia B

I really don't understand why he is being so condescending.

I don't know if that is inregard to Tholub or Leo, in case it's me then condescending is your perception, and not intended. I do not consider myself any higher or lower than you, and would feel bad if you really think so. Still I do not agree with all of your opinions or fears.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

But surely you don't want Flatland to be limited to rolls, flips and spins, do you?

OK, but it in continue of my above response; it sometimes gives a good feeling if we'll agree. So here's bold +1 here, as it's the essence of my input.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Actually, 99% of BMX Flatlanders probably never even heard of Artistic Bicycling unless they live in one of the countries that does it in a large way.

Unless they live in countries with free access to media, or media that puts international competions in their face, using an international broadcast system; like Eurosport does.
The roots of that sport are European, but I think that covers a large part of your 99%

Originally Posted by Julia B

It's very difficult to articulate, which is why I'm NOT proposing to judge on it

See that even expert scrabble players could make great contributions to a unicycle rulebook?
And I think scrabble player are likely to be a more valueable as judge in freestyle than in flatland

Originally Posted by johnfoss

The organizers of a national competition should be allowed to limit entries to people from that nation.

Would any unicyclist benefit from doing so?
I think the IUF should encourage to develop unicycling, and maybe even should enforce where possible and needed.
So having 800 German competitors in Luxembourg would be bad.
But having no access to nearby competition if you carry a Luxembourgisch passport would be worse!
Considering it now I think Julian's point against anthems was pretty spot on!

[tholub]

Originally Posted by leo

but creating more rules would let you end up in pretty much the same problem as in freestyle.

Sure; it's inherent in the nature of judged competitions. It's a problem even in Olympic-level disciplines.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Julia B

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that flatland be redefined.

You aren't and you are. If you accept the current definition, then you must accept that there will be crossover from Freestyle. But I guess you don't have to like it.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Oh, I've been referencing these rules, which seem to be the 2012 IUF rules without the evil sentence and the definition.

Looks like EUC made its own version, using the IUF rules as a guide. Generally, most unicycle competitions seem to either use the IUF rules, or overtly use their own rules. Those rules may also be based on IUF rules, but have minor or major differences.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Skills typically known from freestyle haven't been discriminated against in the past, and there's nothing to indicate that they will be discriminated against in the future.

There was a lot of discussion/complaint about "Freestyle tricks", as if they were some other form of unicycling and should not be allowed. That sentence was included in the new definition to make it very clear that the Flat event was not trying to only favor certain styles of skills performed on a flat surface.

We have often added some verbiage to the rules when there is concern of people otherwise not interpreting it correctly.

Originally Posted by Lutz

But nobody ever mentioned that freestyle is judget more and more on performing and not on the tricks.

Good point. You brought up something I hadn't thought about. In the past. when Freestyle rules were simpler, it was a clear 50/50. Difficulty on one half, Presentation on the other. Those proportions were never meant to change, but the two "halves" of the performance, which are now judged by separate judges, are less clear in what they cover. There is overlap and it's (IMHO) messy.

Section 3.11 says: Riders’ scores are divided into two parts called Technical and Presentation, each receiving 50% of the score. But then the Technical score includes "interpretation", while the Presentation score includes mistakes (dismounts and boundary). Surely that is technical stuff? So it's not necessarily 50/50, though the way the judging process works, I'd say the majority is now on the Technical/Difficulty side.

Originally Posted by Lutz

I know many freestyle riders which are really happy about the new competition because they never liked the performing part off freestyle (which counts over 50%).

There has always been a percentage of Freesyle riders not interested in the performance/entertainment side. And various alternate events for those riders. Before Standard Skill (yawn) there was something I think we called Standard Artistic(?). One unicycle and just the tricks. But it was always a lot less interesting to watch. Uh, not compared to Standard Skill; compared to Freestyle. Flatland, to me, is more interesting because of its origins in Street, and from a more skate-culture place. So the tone is different from just removing the performance stuff from Freestyle.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

I'd suggest the committee make it a priority to keep their webpage up-to-date: if the public/riders main access to info is that page, then it's pretty unprofessional to let it get so unkempt.

Point taken. The new IUF site was just being populated back when we were doing the rulebook proposals (I think), but there's been plenty of time since then for us to pay attention to it. I'll try to get something done about that.

Originally Posted by Julia B

You can count all the female flatlanders in the world on one hand. There are hundreds (thousands?) of female freestylers. If a fraction of those entered the flatland competition, pretty soon it would be a second freestyle competition without the costumes.

Nope. Not the same rules. The performance method is entirely different. The implication here is that their skills are somehow the wrong kind for a Flat competition. But if they are, in what way are they wrong?

Originally Posted by Julia B

Really, it seems like the best way to fix this is to just start a third competition that's purely technical freestyle.

What would you make that one distinct from the Flatland competition? Without an event definition, they would seem to be the same thing.

Originally Posted by Julia B

Flatland was created by street riders, and then when there were enough of them they made a flatland competition. Flatland wasn't made for the freestyle riders.

Flatland was made by unicycle riders, for unicycle riders. Most people do more than one niche type of unicycling. Spencer would be welcome in any Freestyle competition. Or in a hockey game. It's all for unicyclists.

I think I may sound annoying. Sorry, I spent a bunch of time working on this post, and then my computer spontaneously crashed on me (yes, Macs can crash; it just doesn't happen very often). But not annoying that way. If Flatland riders want to have a competition just for Flatland riders, they should selectively invite people to enter, to keep it "pure". But if they want to have a world championship Flatland competition, they suddenly have to let anyone enter. It's part of having that "open" definition of what the Flatland competition is looking for. That means Freestyle tricks are okay. They are welcome. All skills are welcome.

Originally Posted by Julia B

...from the snippets of the battle I can catch from this video, Till at least was definitely doing plenty of traditional flatland. There were a lot more standup variations than you would usually see, but there were also lots of rolling combos.

I agree, that pretty much everything Till did by himself, on the ground, was Flatland riding. Not Freestyle riding. He was just concentrating on doing great tricks, but not on "selling" them or making them pretty. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

As you've pointed out, there is an issue with defining 'flatland' (as distinct from freestyle)- but, there's been zero progress in this thread with sorting out such a definition.

On the contrary, I think this thread has done a pretty good job of explaining why the current definition, the one that welcomes all skill types, was the correct one. Doing it any other way would be messy, confusing, and limiting to rider creativity.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Nevertheless, Julia's position is coherent: whatever that (currently indefinable) 'essence of flatland' is, it is recognisable and distinguishable from freestyle i.e. it's easy to tell apart a freestyle routine from a flatland one.

Yes, at least a good Freestyle routine. One of the easy ways to tell the difference is that the rider occasionally looks at the audience. But I assume you meant the style of tricks being done. Yes, there's a Flatland riding style. But it's only a subset of what can be done with a unicycle on a flat surface.

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

That's a very different thing though, to freestyle coaches just putting their riders into flatland comps, when they've done no flatland riding and are simply relying on swamping it with high numbers and high quality freestyle riding skills gained through years of riding freestyle. (or, entering them just so they get a bit of extra competition experience).

But it has to be open to anyone, does it not? I guess it really boils down to the question of whether Flatland is to be about the best skills done on flat ground, or about the best of a narrow area of certain skills.

Originally Posted by tholub

The sentence that Julia is worried about is not the problem; the lack of flatland judging rules is the problem.

Rules have a tendency to grow longer and more complicated over time. I think the Flatland rules now, if people are okay with the basic definition, are pretty sufficient for today's Flatland environment. Also that the Freestyle rules need to be chopped way down to size, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by leo

I'd like to make distinct to those who made the rules, and those who modified them.

Technically, the IUF Rulebook Committee made the IUF Flatland rules, and the IUF Rulebook Committee (some changes in members) later modified them.

Originally Posted by leo

Do you seriously have the illusion an EUC would be any different with or without the IUF? I think not.

I think it would likely be very different. Though I don't know in what ways. The EUC follows in the footsteps of the IUF. The IUF created a framework that most unicycle competitions today are based on. While they may not use the exact IUF rules, most events are very similar.

How things may have developed if there were not a previously existing IUF is hard to guess.

Originally Posted by leo

I'd like to downplay the IUF influence in the creating process.

Yes, it seems you would like to do that a lot. In your opinion, who were the two or three core writers?

Originally Posted by leo

"unicyclist minds have more anarchy than the IUF has authority."

I think anarchy generally trumps authority. It's just that anarchy doesn't get you much in the way of international competitions with usable rules.

Originally Posted by leo

Unless they live in countries with free access to media, or media that puts international competions in their face, using an international broadcast system; like Eurosport does.

I think it's very cool that people in Europe have access to Artistic Bicycling on TV. Is that several times a year or only once? Or every weekend? Many Olympic sports only get TV coverage (in the USA) every four years. But I've never seen Artistic Bicycling on American TV presented in any way as a sport. Ever.

Originally Posted by leo

Would any unicyclist benefit from doing so?

Of course; the unicyclists in the country holding the competition, and also the event organizers, who I will assume are also unicyclists.

Originally Posted by leo

So having 800 German competitors in Luxembourg would be bad.

Certainly it would be bad if you were trying to hold a Luxembourg unicycle championship. I don't know why we're talking about this. The USA doesn't allow large international participation in NAUCC because they can't afford the insurance to cover it. Luxembourg gets to decide if they want to have a national championships, or an international competition (or both).

Originally Posted by leo

Considering it now I think Julian's point against anthems was pretty spot on!

My belief is that the IUF should be completely non-political. But then we like the idea of Unicon being like an Olympics for unicycling. We could pretend we're all just unicyclists and it doesn't matter where we're from, but I think most attendees are proud of their homes, and like the idea of representing their land. So it's difficult to draw a hard line with that stuff. You will notice that the IUF Rulebook does not tell people how to do those parts of their conventions; it is up to the host.

[Panda]

I have to point out that Spencer actually competed in the freestyle competition at NAUCC '08. If I remember correctly, the judges told him something along the lines of "that was pretty good, but too much flatland" or something similar.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Panda

If I remember correctly, the judges told him something along the lines of "that was pretty good, but too much flatland" or something similar.

"The judges"? Like, as a group? I think I was taking pictures of Spencer's Freestyle performance (which was probably more of a Flatland performance). I can't remember the details offhand, but I do remember Spencer was popular, and well received by the audience even though he was pretty minimal on chorography and the other Presentation elements.

I'm not aware of any instance where the judges, as a group, have offered critiques to a rider after a performance. Perhaps he spoke to one or two judges, who may have said something along the lines of the skills he displayed didn't have a lot of variety. If it was all from the narrow range discussed in this thread of "Flatland style" skills, it doesn't show a lot of range. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not worthy of a win, but it depends what his competitors do. Even though he probably did a large variety of skills within the Flatland style, if he did nothing from the other major areas of common unicycle skills, he loses points for variety.

But a judge saying "too much Flatland" doesn't make sense. Flatland skills are as appropriate in Freestyle as any other kind of skills. It was probably more in the context of comparing Flatland with Freestyle.