ISSA - International Slalom Skateboarding Association

In defense of Jacks Differential timing. There is a benefit. in theory you only need a single timing system. But you have to tell the timing system to deactivate one lane and activate the other once the finish in the first lane is triggered.

In the event of a really close finish... like 1/100th of a second close...I'm not sure I would want to rely on the differential to switch.

But if you had the switcher and it was super fast...you could say that the differential might be more accurate than two indenpendent timing systems. If one timer closed slower than the other...well that wouldn't be accurate.

I know courses are rarely identical to the 1/100th of a second so that's kind of moot...until you combine the times.

Wesley Tucker Posted: 13 Jan 2006 11:20 Post subject: "New" Dual Racing Format? Who Are You Kiddin'?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack think's he's joking, but that's EXACTLY the way we raced in the South 25 years ago.

What jack said was also done ins the ASPO series in California in a couple of the events. I took FOREVER!!!

Jack think's he's joking, but that's EXACTLY the way we raced in the South 25 years ago.

We had no timing systems. It was strictly by eyeball with two designated "referees" or "judges" calling the starts and calling the finish. We didn't qualify, we were placed in a bracket with another racer and went on "Go!" The winner advanced and the loser went to a loser's bracket.

We had no cone penalty, just a DQ if you went out of the course or knocked over a predetermined number of cones. (Usually 10% of the course plus 1.) Sure, there was criddling, but there was never any sandbagging. You had to race each and every heat to make sure you advanced.

Once we got to the finals, there were two skaters who had survived BUT one of the two already had a loss. In order to win, the racer who went through the brackets clean still had the chance for double elimination, so that skater had to lose TWICE. It was sudden death for the guy with one loss.

I must have attended 30 races between 1976 and 1980 with that kind of format. Never any complaint, an occassional argument about a judge's call, but for the most part we were thrilled to be racing and finding the fastest guy on the day.

And getting two grown ups to volunteer to referee the starts and finishes was a lot cheaper than finding an accurate dual lane timing system!

Jack Smith wrote:I have come up ith a new dual racing format that will allow us to give every racer a proper placing.

Qualifying and seeding will be as usual.

First round - The higher seed will get lane choice. The racers will take only one run. Winner advances. Loser goes to the losers bracket.

Both the winner and loser brackets will continue racing in the single run format, with the higher qualifier always having lane choice. Racing will continue until every racer has been placed.

Why this method? It puts a premium on qualifying fast, as your qualifying time will be used all the way through the bracketing to secure lane choice. By only allowing one race per heat we will have enough time be able to use the double elimination format. Timing will be as usual, elapsed time plus cones, lower time advances.

So there you have it...
Qualifying times have great weight.
Absolute times will be readily available.

Now before you rip the system apart, there is one very important thing you must keep in mind...I'm kidding.

that was good jack, glad I read the last line!

I have come up ith a new dual racing format that will allow us to give every racer a proper placing.

Qualifying and seeding will be as usual.

First round - The higher seed will get lane choice. The racers will take only one run. Winner advances. Loser goes to the losers bracket.

Both the winner and loser brackets will continue racing in the single run format, with the higher qualifier always having lane choice. Racing will continue until every racer has been placed.

Why this method? It puts a premium on qualifying fast, as your qualifying time will be used all the way through the bracketing to secure lane choice. By only allowing one race per heat we will have enough time be able to use the double elimination format. Timing will be as usual, elapsed time plus cones, lower time advances.

So there you have it...
Qualifying times have great weight.
Absolute times will be readily available.

Now before you rip the system apart, there is one very important thing you must keep in mind...I'm kidding.

Jack, thanks for the info about how other sports handle the placing of losers of head-to-head races. And thanks for offering to look into whether the actual times were recorded at Morro.

It's probably just me, but I don't need to look at my times and compare them with racers who I didn't race. All that matters to me, is knowing that in a specific heat I wasn't fast enough.

Also, can you really compare your time with someone from another heat? For example, Kenny Mollica wouldn't need to go all out to beat me, however I would go all out trying to beat him. He would go just fast enough to beat me. So, how do you compare your time to his, or even to mine?

Point taken. And actually, like you, I'd mainly be interested in knowing how I fared against the people I raced (e.g., Keith Hollien in the TS).

But there's also a bigger picture here. In any sport, indeed in almost any activity, if you want to improve, you first have to imagine yourself improving. And even though it may be beyond your reach at this moment in time, that doesn't mean it's not helpful to PICTURE yourself doing better in the future.

There's wishful thinking, there's second-guessing, and there's excuse-making ("would have, could have, should have"). That's not what I'm talking about. And I'm not talking about those various "Ifs" you listed. I'm talking about taking all that weird, untapped sensory data I took so much time to describe above, and applying it to imagine a different possible outcome in the future. I know that Kenny Mollica probably wasn't going all out to beat his first- or second-round opponent, but if I'm paying attention, I also know how much difference there was between that effort and his best effort. And maybe then I can compare that to my experience in that same round (including my time), and to my own past experience of racing him (again, ideally combined with some video of it), and I can make an educated guess as to what I can do to narrow that gap. Then I can imagine what specific steps to take.

I can remember myself a couple of years ago, watching guys like WesE and Troy Smart, who had WAYYYY better technique than I did, and thinking, "I don't look like that; I don't feel like that; I must not be as fast as that." And at the time, that was correct. I didn't look like that, and I wasn't as fast as they were. But when I began to compare my times to theirs in races that we attended (again, together with some good video footage), I began to realize, "Hey, I'm not THAT far off from their times. If I start to work on the specific things they SEEM to do better than I do, maybe, just maybe, I can catch up to them. Maybe I have more potential than I thought I did." Even if I didn't race against them myself, at least I had some idea of whether I was even in the same ballpark as they were, time-wise. It didn't change the outcome of any races I lost (or won), but it might have helped change the outcome of future races I was in. I often think it did, anyway. It's not about the past, it's about the future.

I know you're kind of just kidding about the Monday morning quarterback thing. Like you, I get it. But I know you also are savvy enough about things like visualization to understand why even a sound ass-whuppin' can be very influential--if you use it correctly. Isn't there even a study of how visualization without practice improved free-throw performance nearly as much as practice did?

Likewise there is some value to replaying races in your imagination. The more information you have at your disposal, the more possibilities you can consider--or eliminate. And I have found that knowing people's "absolute" times is one of those elements. It may seem irrelevant or trivial at first glance, and it may not work for everyone, but it has worked and does work for me.

Hi Wes,

At the 2005 Worlds, the first racer across the finish line started the clock, the trailing racer stopped the clock. The differential was then flashed on an electronic scoreboard at both the top and bottom of the course. This was a "raw differential" as cone penalties hadn't been applied.

I do think we were able to capture the "absolute times", as I posted earlier, I am checking into it with Chris and Gary.

Jonathan,

I believe you asked earlier about other sports and how they handle "equal placings". In any head to head event such as skiing or mountain bike racing where the differential is timed, the equal placing system is used.

I also know it's used in the non-timed sport of surfing.

Wesley Tucker wrote:I'm confused.

I'm not complaining, just asking how the Worlds were different than every other timekeeping method I've seen at races.

At the last World Championships, Jack hired a sports timing company to do the timing. I believe they used a system that we haven't seen before (not Chronocone, not Trackmate, not Exsettex). It could be that the system only did record the time differential and not the absolute time.....

For all I know, it could also have only used CONE DIFFERENTIAL in head-to-head racing, rather than the actual # of cones. (Which would be consistent with Jack's desire to only determine who was faster of the 2 racers in the given heat.)

Cone differential, time differential, and DQ are all you really would need to know to determine who advances and who gets "Equal Nth" place in pure head-to-head racing.

I'm confused.

Every spreadsheet program I've seen for race management demands the actual (raw) time of each racer. This data is inputted manually (or directly from the timer into the computer) then the number of cones are also recorded. The beauty of the spreadsheet is it takes the raw time, adds the time according to the number of cones and then gives an adjusted time.

Actual time + Cone penalty per cone = adjusted time.

Then after two runs (red lane/white lane) another calculation adds the two times and advances the smaller number of the two runs (fastest time advances.)

So, why would the actual times not be available? Did Jack's timekeeper somehow ignore the actual times and only recognize the adjust times? Did someone come along and wipe out the spreadsheets only to save the final placings?

I'm not complaining, just asking how the Worlds were different than every other timekeeping method I've seen at races.

Maybe if your times meant something all the way thru you'd go a little faster while knocking somebody out in case someone in your heat runs a faster time then you and it cost you a couple of places.

Jonathan, Marty

I believe we did capture the elapsed “absolute” times. I'll have to check with Chris, the fellow I hired to do the timing. Fluitt might have them also.

Jonathan, I am aware of all the reasons you listed regarding racers wanting to know all their times. Would of, could of, should of...Monday morning quarterback. I get it.

"If I would have changed wheels, trucks, decks".
"If I would have worn lycra".
"If my start would have been better".
"If I wouldn't have hit so many cones".
"If I wasn't hungover".

If is a big word, if your aunt had balls, she would be your uncle.

It's probably just me, but I don't need to look at my times and compare them with racers who I didn't race. All that matters to me, is knowing that in a specific heat I wasn't fast enough.

Also, can you really compare your time with someone from another heat? For example, Kenny Mollica wouldn't need to go all out to beat me, however I would go all out trying to beat him. He would go just fast enough to beat me. So, how do you compare your time to his, or even to mine?

If Chris or Gary can get me the data, I will post it.

Yeah....What he said......

quite eloquently I might add.....

This was prompted partly by the discussion on viewtopic.php?p=33514

Question for Jack Smith: At races like the 2005 Worlds, did the software actually record the “absolute” times, or did it ONLY record the differences? Here’s why I ask.

Regardless of what placing system a race organizer uses, I still like the idea of being ABLE to know your actual times (instead of just the difference by which you won or lost). And I’ve gotten great enjoyment out of comparing my times in head-to-head racing with those of other racers in the same bracket (and even in other brackets).

Why? Because when you go to a race (or at least when I go to a race), you remember all kinds of information about how you did—at least for a while. You remember which runs were good, which were lousy, which ones were fantastic. You likely remember who you raced, of course, but you also likely remember who else was looking fast, and you likely have some idea of HOW fast they looked, and maybe even some ideas WHY they looked so fast. Maybe, like me, you sometimes underestimate your ability to run with the big guys. Having those “absolute” times available after the race—like when Dan Gesmer sends out the PDFs to the participants—can be one more piece of the puzzle, for those like me who are into that sort of thing.

Even though you may not have raced against Maurus Strobel or Jason Mitchell at that particular race, it can be very entertaining to try to imagine what more you might have to do to get closer to his time in the future. Would an equipment upgrade help? (If so, how much?) Or is it a matter of technique? (Combined with good race footage, you can learn A LOT about how to improve your times.) Or did you make a mental error or simply hold back too much or charge too hard and hit cones? If you really enjoy your racing, all of these things can matter. And I think that having more measurable information is better than having less.

So for partly selfish reasons, I'm asking whether you recorded the "absolute" times at Morro Bay, and if not, I'm asking you (and other race organizers) to try to find a way to record them at future races and distribute them afterwards, even if you don't actually use them on race day.