All-Star Les Response To James Speed Reaction

[tumbleyoda]

Even though I believe a fully objective grid for difficulty of skills is theoretically possible, I don't think it is practical or necessary given how many possible combinations of skills there are.

I have proposed simply having "anchor points" or milestones within the scoring range. Using a very rough, arbitrary example: if squad tumbling difficulty were on a 0-10 range, for L5 you could define that full squad round-off back-handspring fulls was a "4" and full squad RO BHS Doubles was an "8". (again, just examples) The judges could determine whether what you did was harder or easier than those anchors and give you a score accordingly. Other skills, repeated skills, percentage of squad performing them would all factor in your difficulty score going up or down related to those predefined scores.

The "anchors" would help keep scores from drifting too much.
The "anchors" could be redefined annually (or as needed) without requiring a major overhaul of the system or significant re-training of judges/coaches.

Execution, creativity, choreography, etc are still subjective and would be scored accordingly. No one is suggesting we get rid of the subjective elements of the sport.

I like this idea. A lot.

How would you truly define full squad however? Because when I hear that term I think every athlete on the floor at that time throws and successfully/safely lands that skill in the routine on this day at that event. 32 athletes - 32 ROBHS Fulls. Not recycled fulls. Not well we needed a flyer but she couldn't do those skills or a base and she couldn't, or the always well hidden ROBHS Layout. But in years past it has been argued we needed those specialty base, flyer, dancer type athletes and we did not want to be penalized for not having full squad tumbling either. Also would it be up video review if the coach felt they missed the one going to the back left corner? JMO but that term full squad is the most over used yet under represented term we use.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Based on that system, how would execution be scored?

Out of 1, 5 or 10? However we do it now would work just fine with that system.

Also- if you have 2 judges per panel doing video view of routines for quantities/deduction review and 2/3 judges doing live execution/choreo plus one safety judge, it might help expedite the process.

 

[Official OWECheer]

Out of 1, 5 or 10? However we do it now would work just fine with that system.

Also- if you have 2 judges per panel doing video view of routines for quantities/deduction review and 2/3 judges doing live execution/choreo plus one safety judge, it might help expedite the process.

What I meant to ask was, what specific things would constitute a 4 vs an 8 (or 5 vs 10?).

 

[BlueCat]

I like this idea. A lot.

How would you truly define full squad however? Because when I hear that term I think every athlete on the floor at that time throws and successfully/safely lands that skill in the routine on this day at that event. 32 athletes - 32 ROBHS Fulls. Not recycled fulls. Not well we needed a flyer but she couldn't do those skills or a base and she couldn't, or the always well hidden ROBHS Layout. But in years past it has been argued we needed those specialty base, flyer, dancer type athletes and we did not want to be penalized for not having full squad tumbling either. Also would it be up video review if the coach felt they missed the one going to the back left corner? JMO but that term full squad is the most over used yet under represented term we use.

In this case it would mean everyone on the team doing the skill once. It is just a benchmark. It would NOT mean that a squad had to attempt full squad anything. All it means is that the judge would compare the difficulty of what you actually performed to that hypothetical standard. Is what they did harder than squad doubles? Higher score.

I'm not necessarily arguing that "full squad doubles" should be an 8 - or even that run tumbling difficulty should be worth 10 points. Those are just examples. I am just pointing out the concept of having pre-defined scores for a specific group of skills that is used as a measuring-stick for the difficulty in the routine. This would help reduce the drift in scores due to performance order & it would still "allow judges to judge" in the way that I believe Les means it. (I don't agree with the way he presented that particular point, but skipping that for now.)

Execution is a different animal, although something like giving a 5 out of 10 for "average or typical execution for a team in this age group" would be possible as well. (don't get caught up in the actual scores or ranges I'm using - just example.)

Dance, choreo, routine flow, formations, etc could be judged the traditional way.

 

[12stepCheermom]

In this case it would mean everyone on the team doing the skill once. It is just a benchmark. It would NOT mean that a squad had to attempt full squad anything. All it means is that the judge would compare the difficulty of what you actually performed to that hypothetical standard. Is what they did harder than squad doubles? Higher score.

I'm not necessarily arguing that "full squad doubles" should be an 8 - or even that run tumbling difficulty should be worth 10 points. Those are just examples. I am just pointing out the concept of having pre-defined scores for a specific group of skills that is used as a measuring-stick for the difficulty in the routine. This would help reduce the drift in scores due to performance order & it would still "allow judges to judge" in the way that I believe Les means it. (I don't agree with the way he presented that particular point, but skipping that for now.)

Execution is a different animal, although something like giving a 5 out of 10 for "average or typical execution for a team in this age group" would be possible as well. (don't get caught up in the actual scores or ranges I'm using - just example.)

Dance, choreo, routine flow, formations, etc could be judged the traditional way.

There's far too much logic and common sense in this hypothetical system guaranteeing it will never come to fruition.

A shame, this is good stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catlady]

Could this be accomplished by giving technique a higher point value? In the past, technique has only been worth 1 pt, so if I'm a coach, I'm going to sacrifice technique to put out a more difficult skill, knowing I'm only going to be, at the most, 1 pt. behind in that category. We are seeing more and more fast paced, difficult stunts/tumbling but, now the complaint is "sloppiness", "under rotated" and "too much going on". It's difficult to increase the creativity and get the showmanship/cleanliness I believe we are all wanting to see, when these athletes are putting every ounce of their energy into hitting more difficult skills but, often, end up looking sloppy and exhausted in the process.

IMO, the "KISS" (keep it simple stupid) strategy would be the smartest. If judges are wanting to see difficulty, technique, and creativity, then weigh them equally, 5 pts. each, no matter the level, on stunts, tumbling, jumps, pyramid, and dance. It's consistent and it's an easy score sheet to teach. 1=Poor, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Very Good, 5=Outstanding I truly believe most of these judges have watched enough All Star to know what's "average" and what is above and beyond.

 

[cheercurl]

"Too many coaches are asking for paint by number instead of a blank canvas. Unless you are a true artist, anyone will do a better job with a paint by number system. It tells you what color to use, where to put the color and what the picture will look like in the end before you ever get started."

I don't believe coaches are asking for a paint by number. If a team goes out there, has a jam packed skilled routine, and hits clean, and then another goes out and takes out a few skills but, has awesome audience appeal with choreography and motions, and hits clean, coaches, and everyone else, wants to know which one is going to win. That isn't paint by number, it's defining what is more important, increasing skill difficulty or audience appeal. I appreciate both but, I still want to know what the judges are going to prefer. Sorry they are so large but, which painting do you prefer? The top went for 79.7 million, the bottom went for 80 million. Even those that appreciate art want to know what made that painting more valuable.

I actually think this is kind of a brilliant thought...I am surprised you didn't get more shimmies. I would want to know which will be weighted more. If I am a mega gym with tons of talent I am sure I strive and can often attain both. A non-mega gym with less "across the board talent" would be wise to know the answer to this. Take things out and achieve clean, creative and WOW but slightly less difficult or cram it with difficulty and hope it hits.

 

[5-6-7-8]

I actually think this is kind of a brilliant thought...I am surprised you didn't get more shimmies. I would want to know which will be weighted more. If I am a mega gym with tons of talent I am sure I strive and can often attain both. A non-mega gym with less "across the board talent" would be wise to know the answer to this. Take things out and achieve clean, creative and WOW but slightly less difficult or cram it with difficulty and hope it hits.

I agree, I wished I could shimmy that post more than once.

 

[King]

In this case it would mean everyone on the team doing the skill once. It is just a benchmark. It would NOT mean that a squad had to attempt full squad anything. All it means is that the judge would compare the difficulty of what you actually performed to that hypothetical standard. Is what they did harder than squad doubles? Higher score.

I'm not necessarily arguing that "full squad doubles" should be an 8 - or even that run tumbling difficulty should be worth 10 points. Those are just examples. I am just pointing out the concept of having pre-defined scores for a specific group of skills that is used as a measuring-stick for the difficulty in the routine. This would help reduce the drift in scores due to performance order & it would still "allow judges to judge" in the way that I believe Les means it. (I don't agree with the way he presented that particular point, but skipping that for now.)

Execution is a different animal, although something like giving a 5 out of 10 for "average or typical execution for a team in this age group" would be possible as well. (don't get caught up in the actual scores or ranges I'm using - just example.)

Dance, choreo, routine flow, formations, etc could be judged the traditional way.

One of the things I have always thought about is that not every skill should be judged the same way. Jumps and Baskets are, in general, execution skills. There isn't all that much more new going on (there are some cool iterations, but not much different). Doing the skills for that level should get you a 'score' and then the rest is about how well you do them. Any new innovative things could always be reflected in stunt creativity.

Pyramids and stunts obviously have the most variables. Those I would err more on giving a higher percentage of points to the skills and combos and less to execution.

Tumbling is the best mixture of both. The difficulty and number get a certain percentage and then execution gets a percentage.

The code of points people always talk about they always use pyramids and stunts as the reason it wont work. You remove those two things and have a COP for the others and it could work.

Last, creativity and innovation can be a category still and that is a place to get points. Creativity doesn't have to dominate the whole scoresheet to encourage innovation and originality. If there is enough of a point advantage to focus on being creative coaches will do it.

 

[BlueCat]

Could this be accomplished by giving technique a higher point value? In the past, technique has only been worth 1 pt, so if I'm a coach, I'm going to sacrifice technique to put out a more difficult skill, knowing I'm only going to be, at the most, 1 pt. behind in that category. We are seeing more and more fast paced, difficult stunts/tumbling but, now the complaint is "sloppiness", "under rotated" and "too much going on". It's difficult to increase the creativity and get the showmanship/cleanliness I believe we are all wanting to see, when these athletes are putting every ounce of their energy into hitting more difficult skills but, often, end up looking sloppy and exhausted in the process.

IMO, the "KISS" (keep it simple stupid) strategy would be the smartest. If judges are wanting to see difficulty, technique, and creativity, then weigh them equally, 5 pts. each, no matter the level, on stunts, tumbling, jumps, pyramid, and dance. It's consistent and it's an easy score sheet to teach. 1=Poor, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Very Good, 5=Outstanding I truly believe most of these judges have watched enough All Star to know what's "average" and what is above and beyond.

The "on paper" range of a category isn't what really gives it weight. How much that range is actually used (more specifically HOW those scores deviate from team to team) is what determines how much that category affects the results. If there is a 10 point range, but 90%+ of the teams are within a point or two of each other in that category, then it isn't having as big an impact as 5 point category that regularly sees 3-4 point spreads.

We saw a pretty stark example of that this weekend in one of our divisions. A fantastic team went first and got an "average" score for jumps. (Judges have to leave room for other teams to potentially beat that score.) The following teams all scored lower than them in jumps and received (correctly) lower jump scores. This effectively compressed the jump range as the scores went from the middle of the range down. Had a more-typical-jumping team gone first, the judges would have had the full range to work with, which could make jumps have a bigger effect on the results. You could argue that the weighting of categories is determined in part by the order of teams, which surely is not an intended result of comparative scoring.

 

[kickdblcj]

I know I am going to get a lot of crap for this, but this right here is why I personally believe cheering isn't a sport... Are we athletes? Definitely. I can say that over 90% of gyms hire a choreographer for their routines, and basically they are the ones to "paint the blank canvas" which then falls to, who can pay the best choreographer for their "painting" will end up getting a better performance score (not necessarily execution and difficulty). But with the worlds scoresheet so subjective at the moment, I think cheering shouldn't be called a sport, due to who can pay the better choreographer. Don't get me wrong, the rubric does a good job of telling you the ranges, but then after that and execution, its extremely subjective...

USASF Issues Response to Scoresheet Challenges - CHEERdaily.com

Money doesnt make you successful.... Hence Trinity....

 

[Official OWECheer]

Money doesnt make you successful.... Hence Trinity....

Success requires more than money, but money helps. A LOT.