All-Star Idea For How To Score Better

[BlueCat]

But given a sheet with everything in it versus a one time live viewing, with it then being that objective that you could score the routine without actually watching the routine to know that if 2 teams did 7 of the same stunt sequence that they would receive the same score but if one had a front spot it would change.

Or a real example stingrays lime does quite a few jump to handsprings, does the third time doing essentially the same thing still increase the difficulty? Versus a team that does the same skill once in the routine?

I think that every skill you do should increase the difficulty a bit. A team doing 20 doubles and THEN someone doing a cartwheel should theoretically score a (VERY) tiny bit higher than a team doing JUST 20 doubles without a cartwheel. The cartwheel shouldn't lower the difficulty score at all. Every additional skill may lower the AVERAGE difficulty, but it would add to the TOTAL difficulty, which is what this system should be measuring.

An interesting quandry is the idea of a single tumbler repeating skills vs multiple athletes performing a skill simultaneously. I think it would be harder to have 10 kids doing toe fulls than having 5 kids do toe fulls twice.

I don't think we are quite sophisticated enough yet to have a full on COP, but this would at least be a step in the right direction.

 

[King]

I think that every skill you do should increase the difficulty a bit. A team doing 20 doubles and THEN someone doing a cartwheel should theoretically score a (VERY) tiny bit higher than a team doing JUST 20 doubles without a cartwheel. The cartwheel shouldn't lower the difficulty score at all. Every additional skill may lower the AVERAGE difficulty, but it would add to the TOTAL difficulty, which is what this system should be measuring.

An interesting quandry is the idea of a single tumbler repeating skills vs multiple athletes performing a skill simultaneously. I think it would be harder to have 10 kids doing toe fulls than having 5 kids do toe fulls twice.

I don't think we are quite sophisticated enough yet to have a full on COP, but this would at least be a step in the right direction.

And basically allow a COP. As standing tumbling is usually required to be 'synched' to get scored it leads itself to have multiple athletes do the skill in a short amount of time instead of repeaters. Running tumbling is where the repeaters tend to happen. But with the new synched tumbling requirement it will limit the amount of repeaters because of the nature of the beast. (or really if you think about it require all your tumblers to at least repeat once, so the end result is the same).

 

[CGAcheer]

You should do your routine like normal with 2 exceptions- have your toe full kid in the corner going at and have your partner stunt champions in another corner

 

[CGAcheer]

I think that every skill you do should increase the difficulty a bit. A team doing 20 doubles and THEN someone doing a cartwheel should theoretically score a (VERY) tiny bit higher than a team doing JUST 20 doubles without a cartwheel. The cartwheel shouldn't lower the difficulty score at all. Every additional skill may lower the AVERAGE difficulty, but it would add to the TOTAL difficulty, which is what this system should be measuring.

An interesting quandry is the idea of a single tumbler repeating skills vs multiple athletes performing a skill simultaneously. I think it would be harder to have 10 kids doing toe fulls than having 5 kids do toe fulls twice.

I don't think we are quite sophisticated enough yet to have a full on COP, but this would at least be a step in the right direction.

But if difficulty as additive, you could in theory do 100 cartwheels and outscore a full

 

[BlueCat]

But if difficulty as additive, you could in theory do 100 cartwheels and outscore a full

I don't think cartwheels would be adding much in a L5 routine's difficulty Maybe only a level below's skills could actually count towards difficulty? (A layout would add a VERY small amount to a L5 team's difficulty, but a FF Tuck would not?). We don't want the judges to have to do calculus, but perhaps there could even be diminishing returns on skills after a point.

I definitely don't think it should be averaged. A thigh stand at the end of a dance shouldn't HURT your stunt score, it just may not help it much (if any.)

 

[BlueCat]

I have also floated the idea previously of deductions being proportional to team size / the number of skills thrown. It always frustrates me that a small team that drops 1 of their 4 stunts gets a lesser penalty than a large team that drops 2 of their 9 stunts. The large team just successfully hit a higher percentage of their skills, but gets MORE penalties assessed.

 

[GreatWhite92]

I have also floated the idea previously of deductions being proportional to team size / the number of skills thrown. It always frustrates me that a small team that drops 1 of their 4 stunts gets a lesser penalty than a large team that drops 2 of their 9 stunts. The large team just successfully hit a higher percentage of their skills, but gets MORE penalties assessed.

I have always thought this! Especially with teams of 19 who only put up 4 stunts...drop one and it's the same as a team of 20 with 5 who drop one. Team 4 stunt hit 75% while team 5 stunt hit 80% but are counted the same.

 

[yojaehs]

BlueCat do you think there could be a "skill value" chart? I know this refers back to gymnastics a bit but I think for this it would work best.
Ex. Building - Prep would be an "A" skill, Extension "B" skill, One legged stunt "C" skill etc. etc.
Transition - Straight Load "A", Half up "B", Full up "C" etc. etc.
In gymnastics I feel this allows for simplicity in scoring an A-A skill scores 5 and A-B skill scores 6 etc.
Just trying to think of a way to value skills easier and faster.

 

[CGAcheer]

I don't think cartwheels would be adding much in a L5 routine's difficulty Maybe only a level below's skills could actually count towards difficulty? (A layout would add a VERY small amount to a L5 team's difficulty, but a FF Tuck would not?). We don't want the judges to have to do calculus, but perhaps there could even be diminishing returns on skills after a point.

I definitely don't think it should be averaged. A thigh stand at the end of a dance shouldn't HURT your stunt score, it just may not help it much (if any.)

I'm all for not doing calculus, but if we get it to where you can read a routine and judge difficulty. you could also enter that info into a program that will produce a difficulty score but coaches, eps, judges, programmers etc would have to come together to create it and have a suitable way to handle "new" skills but yes that would be a massive project but that would put us on the a touchdown is worth 6 points kind of level instead of this routine is worth 9.7 unless this other team is in the division then its worth 9.5

 

[King]

I have also floated the idea previously of deductions being proportional to team size / the number of skills thrown. It always frustrates me that a small team that drops 1 of their 4 stunts gets a lesser penalty than a large team that drops 2 of their 9 stunts. The large team just successfully hit a higher percentage of their skills, but gets MORE penalties assessed.

I actually agree with this but NOT based on number of stunts. I think it should be relative to the number of people on the floor. If you have 36 people on the floor, only put up four stunts, i think you should get the same percentage deduction as you would if you had 36 people and put up 9 stunts. I do think, however, with this video difficulty judging, you should get killed on ratios for difficulty. I suggest if the number of stunts up has a percentage times for number of people. If 20 people put up 4 stunts, multiply the difficulty by 95%.

 

[GreatWhite92]

I actually agree with this but NOT based on number of stunts. I think it should be relative to the number of people on the floor. If you have 36 people on the floor, only put up four stunts, i think you should get the same percentage deduction as you would if you had 36 people and put up 9 stunts. I do think, however, with this video difficulty judging, you should get killed on ratios for difficulty. I suggest if the number of stunts up has a percentage times for number of people. If 20 people put up 4 stunts, multiply the difficulty by 95%.

I think this was what I was trying to get across but kinda came out weird. I agree with this though!

 

[SarahS]

I actually agree with this but NOT based on number of stunts. I think it should be relative to the number of people on the floor. If you have 36 people on the floor, only put up four stunts, i think you should get the same percentage deduction as you would if you had 36 people and put up 9 stunts. I do think, however, with this video difficulty judging, you should get killed on ratios for difficulty. I suggest if the number of stunts up has a percentage times for number of people. If 20 people put up 4 stunts, multiply the difficulty by 95%.

Instead of mixing difficulty and quantity, couldn't you just have a quantity score, based on number of skills performed in relation to number of people on the floor? JAMScore does this - . They don't do proportional deductions, though, and I think that is a great idea.

 

[NoOneSpecial]

Just curious. Is difficulty based on the skill itself or is the quantity favored in? For example. You have a group with front spots throwing a double up versus a a group with no front spot performing 1.5? Is it the skill itself that gets scored regardless of the numbers underneath.

Same thing with tumbling. If you have half plus 1 throwing all level 5 skills but another team has less than half but throwing more difficult skills.

So many gray areas.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I think if the gray areas are defined (however it is decided) then routines can be created knowing the scoring value. If you know a 1.5 with no front is valued the same as, greater than, or lower than a double up...one would know how they want to choreograph the routine.

 

[King]

well, what if there is no COP. what if each section of difficulty is relate dot everyone else in your division?