Goals

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 26 Dec 10:56

Scott and I had a big brainstorming session and we came up with a draft set of age groups. Before we share these we wanted to share our goals that we set up that guided the creation of the age groups. We are interested in seeing other opinions and see if this committee is generally in agreement about these goals.

Comment 14 Jan 05:29

In 2014, Benoit and I were planning to initiate this Age Group discussion, but it didn't come through.

Now that I am a member of the current committee, I want to share the original goals and starting points that we came up with at the time, and that were somewhat edited after we conducted a workshop on the subject during Unicon 17.

Now I must look these up and put them here. I haven't gotten around to doing this, but I hope to be able to share here in the next few days.

Comment 18 Jan 11:37

Thanks Klaas. I look forward to seeing those goals.

For everyone else, now that the rulebook committee is winding down, I'm hoping that we can start to be more active. The reason I set up the committee in this way was to have effective and active discussions with everything. I would love to see some responses from others, even if they are just "I agree" or "I'm waiting for Klaas's goals to respond." Thanks.

Comment 19 Jan 10:22

Hi all,

thanks Scott for reminding us, that we should at least react to the posts in our group, even if we apparently do not have much time for longer responses.

@Patricia: I find some of your defined goals puzzling, e.g.
"If there more competitors of any one age range, then you have to be even better to be "good" because it's hard to make the podium, that's ok."
and
"If there are more competitors in your age group, you have to be "gooder" to be good (you have to be "better" to be the "best")"
I agree to keeping rules as simple as possible. I do not know if consistency means having the same age groups in all events (racing, freestyle, street,...)?

@ Klaas:
Thanks, I am looking forward to reading the Unicon 17 workshop goals!

:-)

Comment 19 Jan 16:52

Rosi,

Patricia and I made those goals working together. Let me try to respond to your two questions.

"If there more competitors of any one age range, then you have to be even better to be "good" because it's hard to make the podium, that's ok." 
Let me give an example: there are many more trials riders of the ages 15-25 (male, for this example) than there are of 25+ men. Let's say we have an age group that is 17-18 male with 30 riders and one that is 30+ male with 10 riders. Does this mean that we should have to split up 17-18 male into 17 male and 18 male to spread out the 30 riders? My responses to that is: not necessarily! Trials is much more popular with ages 17-18 than it is with 30+ men, so it's ok that there are more people in that age group. That's at least what this point was trying to express.

"If there are more competitors in your age group, you have to be "gooder" to be good (you have to be "better" to be the "best")"
I apologize for the imperfect english in this goal, we didn't find a way to express it any other way easily. This point is a sub-point to "The number of competitors is not necessarily relevant". Basically the point is this: let's define a "good" rider for an age group to be a rider who has a chance of making the podium. The rest of the riders in the age group, the "non-good" ones, are still important to the organizing of the race (we still want to support mediocre competitors), but not really to the age group itself. Thus if you have more competitors in an age group, the number of "good" riders does not really change. Roughly the same number of riders have a chance of making the podium, however, you now have to be a better rider in order to be "good", hence "gooder".

 

Regarding consistency, it is important to note that these points above are goals, not strict requirements, and that as a committee it is our purpose to balance these goals above (along with other goals) to come up with good rules. Often it will require a compromise between these goals to find a good solution. I also am in support for keeping rules as simple as possible. However, we may have to choose between consistency (having the same age groups in many or all events) and "fairness" (creating specific age group rules for specific competitions as they need). I hope we can come up with a good solution that is a compromise here. (Or even possibly the best of both options, with a clever solution!)

Note: I think there is an inherent difference between judged events (freestyle, flatland, street) and non-judged events (track, road, muni, trials, jumps) when it comes to the age group problem. When it comes to judges events, the number of competitors in an age group is important and as that number increases, it gets harder and harder to judge well. In non-judged events, we do not have this constraint of number of riders in an age group. This additional requirement leads me to suggest that these two styles of events will require different solutions to the age group problem.

Comment 27 Jan 04:56

Just a heads-up. I am working on compiling text from a few years ago. It is much more work than I thought but I am making progress. I'll be back soon.

Comment 28 Jan 14:53

I have compiled the text below from various sources: the proposal to IUF and various e-mails around it, the workshop invitation, the workshop powerpoint slideshow and its speaker notes, and more. I have edited this compiled text to make it one coherent story and delete duplicate statements.

It is now a mix of past and present tense, and a mix of statements and opinions from “then” and “now”. Some statements from “then” are in the present tense, but I don’t pretend that I am setting the rules or goals for the present committee. Sorry if this is sometimes confusing.

I’ll post it in several instalments, because of its length.

Comment 28 Jan 14:54

Introduction and history

As we all know, in competitive unicycling events that follow the Rulebook of the International Unicycling Federation (IUF), competition is structured based on age groups. In 2012/2013, Benoit Gonneville Damme and myself were involved in the regular Rulebook committee for the bi-annual process of rule editing. We observed that age group rules were (are) inherited from Rulebook to Rulebook. In most if not all cases, some changes are made based on what people ‘feel’ is right. While many people have an intuitive notion about why age groups are used, it appeared that the IUF has no official policy/vision on this. Apparently, it had never been clearly assessed what a system of age groups should achieve in the first place. This absence of formal objectives makes it difficult to judge the merits of (any changes in) age group systems.

Benoit and myself discussed this (mainly through e-mail) with the IUF Board, who in mid 2014 formally requested us to set up an Age Group Committee. We organised a workshop during Unicon17 in Montreal (July 2014), to gather interested members. The task of the committee was described as “to fundamentally discuss why IUF should prescribe age groups, what is to be achieved with it, and how age groups should be structured/implemented.”

Thus, with the Age Group committee we would not start from the current situation (as the other rulebook committees do), but from scratch. We would begin by asking fundamental questions about age and Age Groups, then trying to find scientifically based answers, and eventually we would base our recommendations on that.

The idea was to use IUF’s software (which we use now). But allegedly, some (technical?) issues on the side of the IUF prevented us from doing so – we waited almost a year but somehow these issues didn’t get solved. As a result, the committee never got off the ground, and in the course of 2015 Benoit and myself withdrew and ‘gave back’ our duties to IUF.

Now, more than a year later, an Age Group committee finally starts…

Comment 28 Jan 14:54

Fundamental issues / questions

The committee will start by having a fundamental discussion why we should have age groups in the first place, what we want to achieve with it. This should be the starting point for how we develop it further.

Most people may have gut feelings about "why age groups", but they may not coincide. One argument could be:
(1) Age Groups should make competition fairer. But if you think of it, it is not exactly clear what “fairer” means; it could be:
(1a) Do you want to give everyone a statistically equal chance to win a medal?
(1b) Or do you want to compensate for the fact that physical capabilities depend on age?
These two arguments may look the same, but for instance if the age distribution is uneven, they are not.
As an example, if there are relatively many 13 – 16 year olds in your event, you might want to split that group in 13-14 and 15-16, whereas if the group is smaller, you might want to keep it together. That may satisfy (1a) but not (1b); it is obviously not based on age-dependent performance.
Note that age does not only affect physical development and capabilities, but also mental development. For some unicycling disciplines, mental capability is an important parameter. Team sports such as basketball would be a good example, but it also plays a role in e.g. race tactics, or in slow race (ability to concentrate).
And let’s not forget that physical capabilities not only depend on age, but also on gender. And then again, the effect of these differences is itself dependent on discipline. For instance, I have the impression that in high jump (brute force) the statistical difference between males and females, and perhaps the age difference as well, is much greater than in the 100 m sprint or in IUF slalom (agility).

All of the above statements should not be made loosely in a hand waving fashion, but be based on scientifically proven effects. One way to approach this is through numerical analysis of (recent) Unicon results versus age and gender. This should not be the only approach, but it would be a valuable one, especially because it is specific to unicycling and its various disciplines – such knowledge is hard to come by otherwise. I think this is a big chunk of the committee’s work, after we have settled on fundamental principles.

(2) Another possible and valid, but entirely different, argument for using Age Groups (more from an organizers point of view) could be to split a very large group of competitors (sometimes more than 1000) into smaller groups - perhaps for distributing awards better, but also purely for managing the event itself.

Comment 28 Jan 14:57

Other issues / questions

• Time scale:
  Should the age group boundaries be fixed for a longer period? Or should they depend on the demography of the competitor field? My personal view, in light of the above, is that they should be fixed for a long period, and therefore be predictable from event to event. Eventually, it would be time to change them when the physical and mental development’s dependence on age would itself have changed. This is not unthinkable (e.g. children of, say, 12 years old are nowadays perhaps more developed mentally than they were 100 years ago), but it takes probably decades for such changes to become significant.
• Discipline-dependency:
  Should a single set of age group boundaries apply for all unicycling disciplines – or at least the ones that have age groups now? One argument for this is increased clarity and simplicity, but perhaps not all disciplines lend themselves to the same age groups.
• Older age brackets:
  A question that came up during the Rulebook discussions (in 2012) is: Do we want to extend the age groups to older ‘brackets’ than is currently usual? And if so, how? I think this is especially relevant in view of the trend in society towards more active participation of older people in all aspects of life, certainly including sports. Above age 20, 10-year spans seem like what is generally normal in other sports: 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 etc.
• Rules for combining age groups:
  We need to discuss the combining of age groups. On the one hand, comparing oneself to others of similar age is difficult under the current system of shifting and combining age groups. On the other hand, it doesn’t make sense to maintain a separate age bracket in an event if it has only one or a few participants. Comparing one’s performance to riders of similar age is then not possible anyway.

Comment 28 Jan 14:58

Discussions from 2014

In the second half of 2014, when Benoit and I were preparing our Age Group committee, there were also discussions about the subject of age groups going on in the regular Rulebook committees. I requested with Scott Wilton to keep specifically discussion #37 (that had been closed at the time) available for future reference, because there were some good arguments and insights there. Scott answered that “Closing a discussion does not delete it”. So I trust he can somehow make this content available to us.

Comment 28 Jan 14:58

End result

Once we’ve gone through the outlined discussions and decision-making process, the end product of the Age Group committee should be a set of recommendations ready for practical implementation, in terms of number of age groups, boundaries of age groups, joining rules of age groups, etc.

Comment 29 Jan 21:49

I have made discussion #37 from 2014 available here.

Comment 31 Jan 11:25

Thanks for posting your summary Klaas. It seems like the questions that you posted were somewhat similar to the points that Scott and I came up with. I'm curious what your opinion is on our opinion of what "fair" is?

My opinions on some of the questions you raised:

• Time Scale: I agree that it makes the most sense to create these age groups with longevity in mind. I think they should be in place for at least 5 years and then if issues have arisen they could be modified if need be. However, I think it's plausible that they be in place for longer.
• Discipline-dependency: When Scott and I were brainstorming this is also one thing that we thought about. We came up with an example of possible age groups and then tested them out for all of the disciplines that this committee is addressing (races, trials & jumps) and we found that they seem to work for all of them. This is very exciting because it keeps things totally consistent and makes everything much simpler. Of course the numbers vary between disciplines but if you come up with solid rules about combining age groups then that accounts for that difference.

As for the discussion about how a person's competition age is determined (discussion #37), I suggest that we hold off on that for now. I do think it's a conversation worth having, but I think we can create age groups that work for both ways of determining age. I don't think it effects the goals of the committee.

I would like to encourage other committee members to chime in with their opinions on these goals so that we can move forward. While the goals are very important to make sure that we are on the same page, our tedious work has yet to begin. We want to make sure that we maintain a pace in the committee that allows us to come up with a complete set of age groups ready to use before the rulebook needs to be published. It would be a shame to not finish the age groups during this committee, now that time and energy has been devoted to it. Perhaps we can aim to move to the next step of the discussion by next week.

Comment 04 Feb 06:14

You are curious about my opinion on your opinions about fair. Here goes.

>     "Fair"
>         A "good rider" (for their age) should have an equal opportunity to win (no matter their age).
>             Note: a good rider is defined as someone that has, or should have, a chance of making the
>             podium (i.e. someone that would make finals [if finals existed for that age > group in that event])
I am not sure I agree with the sentiment of equal opportunity, see below in this comment.
And even if I would, I would not say it like this. Suppose there are six riders that have (or should have) a chance to make the podium for that age group. Then not all of them should have equal chance, but the best of them should win. Therefore, I don't understand why only "good riders" are targeted with this goal. Everyone should have equal opportunity to win, also the non-good riders. But out of all riders, obviously the best should win.

>                 If there more competitors of any one age range, then you have to be even better to be "good"
>                 because it's hard to make the podium, that's ok. For example making the podium for age 20 male
>                 in trials is hard because many of the best riders are that age.
I agree. In order to win within an age group, you have to stick out above your peers. If they are generally better (your example of males aged 20), then you have to stick out above THEM.

>         The number of competitors is not necessarily relevant
>             It doesn't matter the number of competitors, it matters how good they are
But there is often no absolute measure of 'good'. There are just the results, where people within an age group can be ranked. So I would say: it matters how good someone is in relation to his age group peers.

>             For example: Muni competition with 8 comps (in age group) from Villanders vs Muni competition at NAUCC 2012 with 8 competitors
I'm not sure I understand the example. Especially because in both cases you have 8 competitors. To you mean to say that a certain age group from Villanders (Muni experts, generally) has a higher level than a similar age group at NAUCC, but in either case the best should win? I would agree to that, but how is it an example of what you wrote before?

>             If there are more competitors in your age group, you have to be "gooder" to be good (you have to be "better" to be the "best")
Is this a plea for NOT splitting an age group for the reason that it has a large number of competitors? That implies making a choice for "inherent goodness", as opposed to having an equal opportunity to win. (This comes back to my first comment.) Because if an age group has many competitors and you don't split it, that decreases everybody's chance to win.
I personally tend to make the choice for "inherent goodness". But this is one of the fundamental issues, and this committee should thoroughly discuss it. I hope the issue is clear to everyone.

>         The competitors in the youngest age group and the oldest age group should have a chance to be
>         evaluated without being combining with the next closest age group, even if there are perhaps not
>         "enough" people in their age group.
I see a tension between not splitting age groups, but still being prepared to combine age groups. On the other hand, if there are very few competitors in an age group (about or even less than the number of medals), they get a medal (almost) for free. This is 'more undesirable' to me. Hence, I don't agree with your opinion.
Having said that, I believe that we must not combine age groups for which different competition rules exist. E.g. wheelsize for 0-10 in track racing, or wheelwalk distance for the same group, makes it undesirable to combine 0-10 and 11-12, I think.

>     Consistent
>         Between events and between disciplines
I agree about "between events", if you mean by "event" Unicon, NAUCC, Nationals etc.
I'm not sure about "between disciplines". From the standpoint of simplicity, this would be good. But if the relationship between age and performance is very discipline-dependent, we might want to express that in the age group system. We cannot say this until we have researched it, but I have already hinted at possible examples.

>     Simple (easy to understand)
I would agree that the age groups system and its boundaries must be easy to understand for our competitors and organisers, and not to complicated to implement. The reasoning behind it doesn't necessarily have to be simple.

Comment 04 Feb 06:22

> Discipline-dependency: When Scott and I were brainstorming this is also one thing that we thought about.
> We came up with an example of possible age groups and then tested them out
How did you test them out? Eyeballing, or did you analyse data?

> for all of the disciplines that this committee is addressing (races, trials & jumps)
Ehmmm, have we restricted ourselves to these disciplines? Perhaps this is because other disciplines have a very different way of dealing with age, and so the age group discussion doesn't affect them anyway? I must say I haven't checked.

> As for the discussion about how a person's competition age is determined (discussion #37), I suggest
> that we hold off on that for now. I do think it's a conversation worth having, but I think we can create
> age groups that work for both ways of determining age. I don't think it effects the goals of the committee.
I agree. I had a note that discussion #37 contained a lot of thoughts and opinions on the core business of the Age Group committee.
On re-reading it, it is almost exclusively about the way to define someone's age. We'd better let this rest, for now.

Comment 09 Mar 04:54

Hello? Anybody home?