Write down your collected Feedback here.
Levels:
http://iufinc.org/files/levels/Skill_Le ... 100727.pdf
http://iufinc.org/files/levels/Skill_Le ... 727-de.pdf (German)
Board
Feedback II for Skill Level Prototype E
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Thomas Gossmann
Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:42 pm
Thomas Gossmann
Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:55 pm
Collected Feedback:
I like this one because it is so open, and people are able to develop the skills they want to. I do wonder if some of the directions ought to have more packages (e.g. riding) but I can see the value in consistency. It does also seem reasonable to add extra packages, especially in areas where there are “standard” events at UNICON – so things like hockey and jumping (or perhaps both high jumping and long jumping) might be included for example. I think the “race” direction probably ought to be “speed” rather than race, since some clubs won’t have regular access to a track for racing, but could still measure out the required distance and time people riding it. Times achieved in an actual race could of course still be counted towards this direction though.
Some things probably need to be specified a lot more. For example, if “race” was changed to “speed” (or even if it wasn’t) there needs to be some specification about the size of wheel and cranks used. Other skills probably also need to specify the type of unicycle as well – shooting a basket while riding a 24” wheel takes a certain level of skill but if the unicycle isn’t specified then people could manage this while riding a giraffe, which lowers the difficulty quite a lot!
I do also worry a bit about how a person might feel if they are level 1 and come across other riders within their club who are level 70 or so. This might be a bit off-putting for newer riders, especially if they take up unicycling at a more advanced age (like me) when it tends to take longer to learn new skills. But overall I quite like this system and could see it working out well, as long as the individual directions and packages are well-though through.
I like this one because it is so open, and people are able to develop the skills they want to. I do wonder if some of the directions ought to have more packages (e.g. riding) but I can see the value in consistency. It does also seem reasonable to add extra packages, especially in areas where there are “standard” events at UNICON – so things like hockey and jumping (or perhaps both high jumping and long jumping) might be included for example. I think the “race” direction probably ought to be “speed” rather than race, since some clubs won’t have regular access to a track for racing, but could still measure out the required distance and time people riding it. Times achieved in an actual race could of course still be counted towards this direction though.
Some things probably need to be specified a lot more. For example, if “race” was changed to “speed” (or even if it wasn’t) there needs to be some specification about the size of wheel and cranks used. Other skills probably also need to specify the type of unicycle as well – shooting a basket while riding a 24” wheel takes a certain level of skill but if the unicycle isn’t specified then people could manage this while riding a giraffe, which lowers the difficulty quite a lot!
I do also worry a bit about how a person might feel if they are level 1 and come across other riders within their club who are level 70 or so. This might be a bit off-putting for newer riders, especially if they take up unicycling at a more advanced age (like me) when it tends to take longer to learn new skills. But overall I quite like this system and could see it working out well, as long as the individual directions and packages are well-though through.
Thomas Gossmann
Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:58 pm
Collected Feedback:
In General:
1) I think I could live with every kind of modell, but not with the contents of each. Shouldn't the average learning order of kids for skills adhered? Experienced Trainers should exclusively fall a descision here. Once there is a final model I will bring in my experience once again.
2) It should be assured, that a reasonable duration of the skill is required in its execution. 10x idling or 10meters riding should be ok for measuring a mastered skill. It is something less in StdSkill and Freestyle (competition). Everything additionally is disturbing for the audience and testers during a skill level test execution, time consuming and reduces attractivity for every participant.
3) Each level should consist of a reasonable and comparable amount. In bavaria, there are two skill level tests per year of all clubs. There is no kid reaching out for a skill level test, because of only two skills. Even though, advanced riders would laugh about such ridiculous tests.
4) There should be thinking about transitions from and to normal riding (as it is now), which in my opinion, is really important to educate kids in good Freestyle. Exceptions for those tricks, that are technically without a transition in the first level and add the transition in the next level, like for drag-seat. Those should stay exceptional. Tricks with partners are a no go and are impossible to test individuals.
Prototype E:
Interessting. Individual, but testable with groups.
The problem, obviously is: Not every type of tricks consists of all difficulties. Gliding or standup doesn't exist for beginners, accept the gaps. A package should hold the same amount of tricks in average and at least three.
Package for hopping is missing.
Riding: Once there is idling, 1ft idling should follow, because it is technically dependent. It is wrong on 1ft, because whoever can ride 1ft isn't able to idle 1ft or vice versa. Stairs are not good for freestyle unis. And because not everybody can afford a trials, strike this one out.
WW: 10m ww resp. ww 1ft are enough! Tricks for profi are limited. At the same level would probably be handwalk or other kosh-ww-bwd variations, even ww 1ft ext would be possible.
Race: If sb. could do 400m in 1:05, 800m in 3min looks ridiculous.
Seat out: 10m are enough
Gliding: Standgliding belongs here, it is technically more similar to gliding than standwalk. Gliding with partner should be excluded because it is dependant on the partner if this works out or not. Tricks should be done alone. There are tricks that didn't make it to the beginners and testing is done on individuals.
Stand up: no partners, really. A stand-up beginner could possibly be: Stand up and down while touching wall. Tricks on the wall are equal to everybody but at the same time look odd for me in a test. 10m are enough here, too. Standwalk is not a trick for far distances.
Mounts: Jump mount is for beginners!!! Definitely not on the same level with kick up.
1ft: without idling, add 1ft ext for the beginners instead. Cross-over is definitely easier than side ride. Side ride to special? There are other 1ft variations: sif-1ft, seat-on-side-1ft
In General:
1) I think I could live with every kind of modell, but not with the contents of each. Shouldn't the average learning order of kids for skills adhered? Experienced Trainers should exclusively fall a descision here. Once there is a final model I will bring in my experience once again.
2) It should be assured, that a reasonable duration of the skill is required in its execution. 10x idling or 10meters riding should be ok for measuring a mastered skill. It is something less in StdSkill and Freestyle (competition). Everything additionally is disturbing for the audience and testers during a skill level test execution, time consuming and reduces attractivity for every participant.
3) Each level should consist of a reasonable and comparable amount. In bavaria, there are two skill level tests per year of all clubs. There is no kid reaching out for a skill level test, because of only two skills. Even though, advanced riders would laugh about such ridiculous tests.
4) There should be thinking about transitions from and to normal riding (as it is now), which in my opinion, is really important to educate kids in good Freestyle. Exceptions for those tricks, that are technically without a transition in the first level and add the transition in the next level, like for drag-seat. Those should stay exceptional. Tricks with partners are a no go and are impossible to test individuals.
Prototype E:
Interessting. Individual, but testable with groups.
The problem, obviously is: Not every type of tricks consists of all difficulties. Gliding or standup doesn't exist for beginners, accept the gaps. A package should hold the same amount of tricks in average and at least three.
Package for hopping is missing.
Riding: Once there is idling, 1ft idling should follow, because it is technically dependent. It is wrong on 1ft, because whoever can ride 1ft isn't able to idle 1ft or vice versa. Stairs are not good for freestyle unis. And because not everybody can afford a trials, strike this one out.
WW: 10m ww resp. ww 1ft are enough! Tricks for profi are limited. At the same level would probably be handwalk or other kosh-ww-bwd variations, even ww 1ft ext would be possible.
Race: If sb. could do 400m in 1:05, 800m in 3min looks ridiculous.
Seat out: 10m are enough
Gliding: Standgliding belongs here, it is technically more similar to gliding than standwalk. Gliding with partner should be excluded because it is dependant on the partner if this works out or not. Tricks should be done alone. There are tricks that didn't make it to the beginners and testing is done on individuals.
Stand up: no partners, really. A stand-up beginner could possibly be: Stand up and down while touching wall. Tricks on the wall are equal to everybody but at the same time look odd for me in a test. 10m are enough here, too. Standwalk is not a trick for far distances.
Mounts: Jump mount is for beginners!!! Definitely not on the same level with kick up.
1ft: without idling, add 1ft ext for the beginners instead. Cross-over is definitely easier than side ride. Side ride to special? There are other 1ft variations: sif-1ft, seat-on-side-1ft
Thomas Gossmann
Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:45 pm
The Skill Level Feedback thread from the RSU forums is really interessting, you really should read through it, there is a lot of stuff in it: http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85329
Thomas Gossmann
Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:08 pm
What do you like the most about this prototype? Explain why!
System E is a bit different from the other systems, but basically interesting. It makes it possible to specialize and get a good level in one package only – or to gain levels by "collecting" basic levels in different directions. This makes it more broad (allround) than any of the other systems, that are more freestyle- or street/flat-specific. It will also be possible for riders with different directions to have a common evaluation system, where one direction is not "better" than others.
It seems that the system easily can be changed later just by putting one or more packages on.
----
The choice which package is next
----
The flexibility for the rider
----
I like the Individuality for each rider
----
I like the idea
System E is a bit different from the other systems, but basically interesting. It makes it possible to specialize and get a good level in one package only – or to gain levels by "collecting" basic levels in different directions. This makes it more broad (allround) than any of the other systems, that are more freestyle- or street/flat-specific. It will also be possible for riders with different directions to have a common evaluation system, where one direction is not "better" than others.
It seems that the system easily can be changed later just by putting one or more packages on.
----
The choice which package is next
----
The flexibility for the rider
----
I like the Individuality for each rider
----
I like the idea
Thomas Gossmann
Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:13 pm
What do you dislike the most about this prototype? Explain why!
Have you considered to make an age differentiation in the racing direction? That would be nice to us elderly people!
----
too complicated
----
the examples in this prototype are extremly unlogical, there must be something wrong
----
How do I need to proceed? Do I need to continue with intermediate and profi or could I start with a beginner of another package?
When are three levels reached?
----
Skills are separated into packages and directions
Have you considered to make an age differentiation in the racing direction? That would be nice to us elderly people!
----
too complicated
----
the examples in this prototype are extremly unlogical, there must be something wrong
----
How do I need to proceed? Do I need to continue with intermediate and profi or could I start with a beginner of another package?
When are three levels reached?
----
Skills are separated into packages and directions
Thomas Gossmann
Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:21 pm
In case this would be the final prototype and try to imagine, you need to work with this one. How do you feel working with this prototype? Tell us about possible edges.
I think I could live with this system, although I will only use few of the packages on the basic level.
System A is still my favorite, but system E is a clear number two.
----
relative good
----
Once the system is described properly, the bugs are fixed, you could use it. It respects the individual preferences and respects the learning order of each field.
-----
Yaay!
----
I don't know how to reach a specific level. I would prefer a clear list with exercises from each field.
I think I could live with this system, although I will only use few of the packages on the basic level.
System A is still my favorite, but system E is a clear number two.
----
relative good
----
Once the system is described properly, the bugs are fixed, you could use it. It respects the individual preferences and respects the learning order of each field.
-----
Yaay!
----
I don't know how to reach a specific level. I would prefer a clear list with exercises from each field.
7 posts
• Page 1 of 1