I suggest we don't call the new ISSA rules "Rules", but rather guidelines. Rules can only be defined by those who organize events and they should be free to choose their own rules.
The best that the new ISSA can do is to suggest guidelines for slalom races. If race organizers choose to adopt them, they'll be true rules for this occasion.
Part of the reason why the ISSA rules evolved the way they did in the 1990's was that we were trying to achieve what is today known as "Cyberslalom" by setting a number of "rules" on how the course should be. We wanted to accomplish comparable courses (only in straight) so that we would know from year to year if we improved.
Your thoughts?
/Jani
The new ISSA - guidelines not rules
Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele
-
Jani Soderhall
- ISSA President 2011-2024
- Posts: 4634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: Sweden, lives in France
- Contact:
-
Vlad Popov
- Moscow-Washington
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:00 am
- Location: Moscow, Russia
- Contact:
One slalom competition is ran with a 1-cone-down=DQ rule, another competition uses a 6-cones-down = no-time-penalty rule, yet another comp has a different #of cones DQ/time penalty ratios. It's a mess.
Maybe the new ISSA guidelines can specify a range of time penalties and # or cone DQs?
It is up to the race organizers to use the guildlines.
It is up to the racers to choose the races.
Maybe the new ISSA guidelines can specify a range of time penalties and # or cone DQs?
It is up to the race organizers to use the guildlines.
It is up to the racers to choose the races.
-
Steve Collins
- Harbor Skateboard Racing
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
COURSE/RACE RATING SYSTEM
I'm thinking that the ISSA could try to compile various characterizations of race types, to offer a kind a standard of comparison.
Think of a biaxial graph. The "difficulty" axis runs from "FLAT/STRAIGHT/LOOSE" at one end to "STEEP/TECHNICAL/TIGHT" at the other. The intersecting "penalty" axis runs from "NO PENALTIES" to "SEVERE PENALTIES". The first axis would have a number value and the other a letter value. The extremes would be difficult/severe vs. easy/forgiving. If well done, every course could find it's place on this 2D graph (at least in theory). This is just a suggestion. If it's something that others would want to pursue, then the axes should probably be defined by those with the most race experience. This way we get standardization without having to end up limiting race types. Newcomers would look for 2B races while the Simon Levenes and Steve Evans' won't even show up unless the ratings are 8R or above.
Just a thought.
Think of a biaxial graph. The "difficulty" axis runs from "FLAT/STRAIGHT/LOOSE" at one end to "STEEP/TECHNICAL/TIGHT" at the other. The intersecting "penalty" axis runs from "NO PENALTIES" to "SEVERE PENALTIES". The first axis would have a number value and the other a letter value. The extremes would be difficult/severe vs. easy/forgiving. If well done, every course could find it's place on this 2D graph (at least in theory). This is just a suggestion. If it's something that others would want to pursue, then the axes should probably be defined by those with the most race experience. This way we get standardization without having to end up limiting race types. Newcomers would look for 2B races while the Simon Levenes and Steve Evans' won't even show up unless the ratings are 8R or above.
Just a thought.