Due to the fact that so much controversy has been tossed around in Pinkbike's comments sections regarding the judging at this year’s Redbull Rampage competition, I feel the need to write this article in hopes of shedding some light on the situation. There seems to be no doubt that Kurt Sorge was the obvious winner and that Logan Bingelli and Antoine Bizet had great runs, however most of the comments suggest that Kyle Norbraten and the McCaul brothers should have been scored higher. A few things that will need to be considered before we get started:
1) I was one of four judges at the event, so what I say/write is not the view of all of the other judges or the head judge.
2) It is a judged event so there are obviously differences of opinion, to what degree I think something is hard or stylish or risky may not be to the same degree that someone else thinks is the same. If all judges agreed on everything you would only need one and not four.
3) Rampage is a very unique comp on the FMB World Tour. It was created as a true test of “big mountain freeriding” and this is the way it will always be. A major factor in big mountain riding is line choice and it weighs heavily in this event.
4) Judges' scores are tallied and averaged to give the riders a ranking. Scores determined by the early riders and their performance set up a base score from which all of the other judges' scores must be equated to determine their ranking of the riders. Yes, this can lead to issues if you do not leave room in between riders’ scores to allow for other riders to “fit in” which is sometimes why scores look “out of line.”
Last year the FMBA introduced judging clinics and judge certification in order to bring consistent and knowledgeable judges to the world tour. The association now has numerous certified judges that it uses to judge all levels of events. Only the most experienced judges can judge events like Joyride or Rampage. The judges at Rampage were:
Head Judge: Paul Rak | Paul sits on the advisory board of the FMBA and was instrumental in developing and instructing the judging clinics. He has been a judge for numerous events over the last 7 years including Joyride and Rampage. He comes from a background in World Cup Snowboard judging and has used proven judging models in order to define the criteria for the FMB World Tour. |
Tibor Simai | Tibor is a professional mountain biker from Germany with over 10 years experience. He has judged pretty much all of the major competitions in Europe including Redbull District Ride, 26 TRIX and the Qashqai series. This was his first year judging at the event and he is the first European to judge at Rampage. |
Josh Bender | Josh is one of the co-creators of the Rampage event, in the summer of 2001 he and event organizer Todd Barber scouted the original site in the Kolob Reservoir just a few minutes from where Josh was living in Virgin. He has since been a previous judge and a competitor, scoping and developing some of the biggest drops in Rampage history. Josh is also one of the current builders for the event and has put in countless hours hiking, digging and sculpting the current Rampage site. His knowledge and expertise were pivotal in deciding line difficulty scores at this year's event. |
Dave Smutok | Dave has been a pro rider for over 7 years and is currently the manager/trail boss at the Highland Mountain Bike Park. His background as a racer and as a pro freerider make him an excellent FMB World Tour judge. He is also the co-founder/organizer of the Claymore Challenge. |
Chris Lawrence | One of the original pioneering freeriders who starred along side Tippie, Simmons and Schley in Kranked I and II. Moved to the other side of the camera in 2003 to work for Freeride Entertainment and help produce the New World Disorder series. A past Canadian DH Champ, an ex-freeride pro with K2 and the only person to have judged all 7 Redbull Rampage events. |
There should be no question that the team of judges appointed for the 2012 Redbull Rampage possess the necessary qualifications to judge the biggest and most prestigious stop on the FMB World Tour. All have been certified and are quite experienced in judging at this level.
The categories for judging at Rampage are as follows;
1) Fluidity and Style
2) Air and Amplitude
3) Tricks
4) Line Choice.
As I mentioned earlier, Rampage is a very unique event on the tour and also one of the hardest to judge. Dividing the score into 4 marks out of 25 allows for a breakdown of each rider's run and their performance. Criteria
#1 deals with how fast or slow the rider travels on their line; are they charging and flowing or are they pausing and hesitant? Do they have a loose and comfortable style or do they look robotic and stiff? Category
#2 accounts for the size of the jumps or drops and if they stick the landings or come up short. Next is the amount, variety and difficulty of tricks landed as well as where they are placed within the run. Lastly and most importantly is the choice of line. In a big mountain comp this is worth 25% of your score, obviously a lot more than any other type of event on the tour.
This may hold the answer to the majority of the questions and controversy behind some of the scores that seem to be so confusing. More specifically Kyle Norbraten’s line, which, in the opinion of this judge, lacked creativity or difficulty. If he had shown more difficulty and creativity in his line and pulled the same tricks with the same fluidity and amplitude he would have added at least 5 points to his score and that would have moved him up at least 4 places. And not to say that line choice is the only way to win in this competition. Semenuk followed a similar line to Kyle's in 2008, he scored low in comparison to others in line choice, but his other marks were so high that he was able to pull off the win.
The McCauls were similar in that their runs were smooth, fluid and had some amplitude, but lacked the tricks and the line difficulty or creativity than that of some of the other riders. Cam’s line had one element that was definitely more difficult than any other rider on the mountain, but you can’t “put all your eggs in one basket.” Tyler’s line can be analyzed the same way. His trick score was average and so was his line choice mark. He was definitely fast, flowing, smooth and stylish, but that is only one of the categories on the scorecard. If we analyze Sorge’s run we can see that his line interpretation showed difficulty and creativity, he had various tricks and he displayed great fluidity and lots of amplitude.
The level of riding on the World Tour is very high and extremely competitive. Rankings are decided by fractions of points. 3 or 4 points can move you 5 places up the result sheet. Part of being a world-class competitor is knowing the game and how it’s played. I can only assume that these riders will learn from their results and if they want to improve will return to Rampage with a different strategy. Good luck to all and may the best man win.
Please feel free to ask questions in regards to this article or any other questions you have about the judging on the FMB World Tour in the comments section below and I will do my best to answer them as quickly and as accurately as possible.
In my personal opinion Scoring on Line and tricks can not be so black and white. There is a shade of grey there that I do believe the judges over looked. What I mean is that the line may have been fairly technical had it just been ridden with out any tricks, but when you add a trick into it: The line has now become even more technical in itself. I do not believe the judges looked at it in this aspect and therefore scored Kyle lower. This should have been taken into consideration because watching over Norbs' run again, it would be foolish to say his line wasn't a top 3 in technicality.
I'm sorry to rant but I also believe everything that was stated in the article was mostly known to begin with. We were all aware on how the scoring was judged. It has been stated in multiple sources and has not changed since 2001. I feel that for any understanding on our part as a community, we need every judges personal input. I realize you said you can not speak for all but to truly put this to rest, we need everyone's opinion.
What I'm getting at is, Sorge's run was bomb. But can you honestly look back at both runs and say that Sorge deserved 20+ more points than Kyle?
As previously stated.... Norbs got robbed, along with the McCauls
Certainly Nobraten's line had no tricky new lines like Semenuk's transfer gap, and was lacking slightly on the "billy goat" shenanigans going on up top. However, his line was definitely still average or above average.
In my opinion, he was one of the highest scorers on tricks, we can all agree his threes were insane! And he certainly didn't lack fluidity or style! As someone said in life behind bars "very few people can make this look like a fun place to ride.. He killed it for sure."
Finally, his air and amplitude off the wallride gap and Oakley sender put him right up there with the rest of the best.
What frustrates me is that the judges let a merely average line completely cripple a performance that was so stellar in all other areas! He blew the competition out of the water in 3/4 of the area, was middle of the road in one, and that makes him 10th of 20?
Example score:
Rider: Cam Zink
Fluidity and Style = 19
Air and Amplitude = 13.2
Tricks = 13.7
Line Choice. = 18.5
Total Run 1 score = 64.4
My only gripe, based on what I've heard from others, is that the Rampage should have an open qualifying event if it's to be on the FMB tour.
When I saw some of the other riders get scored higher I thought....wait a sec...their runs weren't that smooth as Norb's...something isn't right.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Judging a competition has a lot of factors involved. One might think one thing is easy while another person may think it's a gnarly extreme ass trick. It can be very subjective.
I will agree completely with Lunchboxlarry above. The knowledge that Norbs gained from this comp outweighs the momentary glory of winning. Norbs will come back charging twice as hard and dominate.
fluid and had some amplitude
fluid and had SOME amplitude
HAD SOME APLITUDE.
wow maybe any of the judges have never floated 18 meters....
I guess I'm just really disappointed in what Rampage has become. A week with a team of dedicated builders.. for one rider.. for one hit?? Huge pre-built wooden features with massive sponsored ads? A panel of judges that either a) sticks to the rules so tightly that a clear podium spot like Norbraten gets missed, or b) has another agenda so that a clear podium spot like Norbraten gets missed??
The sad truth is that judged events will never be totally fair and there will always be people that get robbed. This isn't the first time this has happened. IMO, the integrity of FMB is only going to slip unless the scoring methods get revised.
Huge props to all the riders, and their dedication. And props to Bender for hucking his meat in Virgin, before anybody else even cared.
When the discussion about the pre-built stunts was going on, everyone was able to agree that it's ALL big and technical. The easiest line shouldn't still give a relatively high score just because it's still hard, so you can see a lot of points being lost because of line choice.
Nobody had as difficult of lines as Sorge, Bingelli, and Bizet, other than Claw, Semenuk, and Doerfling (who no one is complaining about not being on the podium) and all three had ridiculously smooth runs with good tricks. I don't see how anyone else could have been scored higher.
Why would you risk a super gnarly line, huge transfer or huge gap when you can just do tricks. Every one of those guys can do a back flip in their sleep. So why risk it on an 80 foot gap when you can do a 30 foot back flip and get more reward?
Redbull is suppose to be about creativity, flow, speed, balls. Not about who can do the coolest looking back flip.
sorge: gnarly big mountain line to suicide to whip to straight air the oakley sender to superman to backflip.
cam mccaul: gnarly big mountain line on a ridgetop to stylish whip to double drop to really fast run in to 70'+ whip to backflip a stepdown very similar to sorge's stepdown.
Norbraten: ridgetop line to big 360 drop to another huge 360 drop (both same rotation despite what the live commentators said) to romo/doerfling/gee stepdown quarterpipe.
1st, 2nd, 3rd. IMO.
People who can, Do. People who can't, Whine on internet forums.
I apologize for making this seem like an argument, I am just expressing my opinion. I support your decision and believe the top guys deserve to be there, I just think we have different opinions on Norbs run. However, maybe I need to take the judging course and that would help me further understand.
2) Air and Amplitude
3) Tricks
4) Line Choice.
See how tricks has its own category for judging? haha... it doesn't make much sense to include that into line choice, although I'm sure it has SOME impact in that aspect, even with your imaginary scenario that never occurred. That's like saying a 15ft. drop between two rocks is more tech than a 10ft. drop between two rocks so amplitude should also be considered in line choice judging.
Just my opinion.
However, I do agree about Rampage being different to other contests, and that it takes a fairly specific rider type to compete there. For instance, there are loads of good big mountain riders that didn't get to go because the roster was full of dirt jumpers that wouldn't have been as good on that type of terrain. But the dirt jumpers HAD to go if they wanted a shot at the FMB tour, and some points, even if its not the kind of riding they enjoy.
I know not everyone would agree, but I think that it would possibly be worth having Rampage as a stand alone event, not as part of the FMB tour. Then riders would be selected on big mountain ability, rather than FMB standing, and there wouldn't be pressure on riders who didn't want to be there to ride and do well just for points. It would be more like it used to be, people competing for the glory of riding or winning Rampage. But, at the same time it would motivate Dirt jumpers to do more Big Mountain if they wanted to go to Rampage, and would possibly progress riding, bringing tricks and new ideas to big mountain for example.
Just some quick thoughts though, feel free to point out any flaws in my logic. And as a disclaimer, I'm not saying there shouldn't be Dirt Jump focused riders at rampage, i think Soderstrom, Pilgrim, Rheeder, etc were pretty epic at rampage this year, and I'd want to see them there again if they wanted to go... Also sorry for any bad spelling, couldn't be bothered doing a spell-check.
My opinion would be to do it like the 'Speed and Style' events, and the timing should replace the line choice. If done exactly like the S&S one would need much more time reduction for their Fluidity and Style, Air and Amplitude, and Tricks. However I would say go a step further and just have a set chart that all riders can go off knowing if timing is worth 25% and you get under x time form start to finish you get x amount of points.
That may be the dumbest idea ever but line choice, in this event, is just too subjective to be fair to all.
You will, if you read the comment properly, notice that I didn't say "Pilgrims RIDING was epic", I said PILGRIM was epic, small difference, but there you go.
I know he didn't ride the best out of all the people at Rampage, and obviously it's not his style, and he was never going to be the best there. But, my judgment of his time there as 'epic' is completely subjective and I would be surprised if everyone agreed. I personally feel that Pilgrim (along with a few others who struggled with the terrain) did pretty well to go out and try, knowing that its not his style, and that he was going to have trouble with the terrain, and I would imagine, knowing that he wasn't going to place well. So yeah, I think its pretty epic that he went out and tried while knowing it wasn't his thing, and that it was likely he wouldn't enjoy it, and could possibly hurt himself while trying. I know I wouldn't have done that.
But yeah, I think it says a lot of good about him as a professional rider, going to, and trying at, every event, not just the ones he thinks he could win. I'd give props to everyone who rode there, just because I couldn't and I find it impressive. I am British though, so I'm obviously biased in Pilgrims favour, so maybe everyone else sees it differently.
I also liked the idea of speed and style, it could help make the judging more formulaic, rather than guess work. If the current system was correct people wouldn't disagree with the results so much.
Again, these are only my opinions, and I wouldn't be surprised if people think that they are (or even if they are) wrong.
Regardless, I personally could care less who wins this event I just like to watch these guys ride. The ONLY thing that I was DISAPPOINTED IN was NOT SEEING GEE, CAM and BRENDAN....
Respect.
No matter if it's Rampage or the Olympic's, judging will never satisfy all.
IMO, I don't think that Cam McCaul should have won but he should have scored higher since his run was flawless and that Canyon Gap, Ouf !!! It's takes Mega upon Mega balls to attempt that. Just too bad there were not many lines heading into it.
Personally, I would rather run a frayed derailluer cable over the tip of my dick than waste time on a argueing about judging.
It's a sporting event with a judging criteria. Not a reality tv show where you decide.
Time to just deal with it
And many thank to red bull and all involved for making it happen.
Point being, "the way I see mountain biking". The judges are doing the same thing, but they are judges, judging by a template, all be it a Rampage one. Some of these judges have an amazing career behind them in mountain biking, and i would not question their love for the sport, but in order to progress, we should have the people currently competing judging. At the very least there should be a member, if not 2, of a panel of four, who is a current rider, or even a proxy judge, who is the collective voice of the competitors (so the vote is still one judge, but that score comes from the riders and is thrown in with the other judges scores).
The dejection on some of the riders faces who definately got underscored at Rampage, for me showed how the scores are pigeon holing the events to the way the judges see the sport, which is not good for progression, as they had their time in the sun. I would like to see the current crop of riders pushing the sport in the way they see it, it would be far more diverse and forward, rather than every rider being forced to impress the judges in a scoring format that rewards a certain style/line/choice/trick.
Whew, I guess it's a good thing that people ride outside of contests!
That's what contests are and if you don't like them then don't watch them and only watch edits and movies. It's a simple solution, really. Complaining about contests restricting progression (I really don't see that this is the case with Rampage seeing how much ground-breaking shit has gone down there) is like complaining about how DH racing is only about beating the clock and not about creativity or style... kinda silly.
My comment was written in reflection of this event in particular. I do watch edits more than contests, and that is where riders ply their craft and progress. However much of what they train and ride for are contests like Rampage (gotta get paid!) so their mindset next time maybe too linear, to impress after scoring so low at the last event. Then we could end up with an amazing event like Rampage with all riders pushing very similar lines. I know that's unlikely, that riding for the cameras is what most of the year is about for these guys, but they all call Rampage as the big ticket event (except Pilgrim), crazy things have gone down there, I'd like to see that continue.
Let the riders have a say.
Lunchboxlarry, thankyou for replying, you guys are doing your job, and it takes an honest and thoughtful person to open up after some the negativity you have recieved. It is also a credit to you that you are listening to what we all have to say.
1) Fluidity and Style 25%
2) Air and Amplitude 25%
3) Tricks 25%
4) Line Choice. 25%
Well damn, we could never have come up with somthing as complicated as that!
www.pinkbike.com/u/Lunchboxlarry/blog/Who-be-the-Judge.html
Oh yes and as a personal opinion ALL judges should have Rampage experience that is scoping/building lines, plus good knowledge and awareness of that type of environment since this is claimed to be a very unique event (to which I agree). Doesn't matter if the person has judged in Europe, Africa, Asia, Middle East, etc...
Freeride and freestyle are two different styles of riding. FMB should be called freestyle not freeride...nothing freeride about dirt jumping and hitting ramps doing tricks...at least not what I consider 'freeriding'. So what they really mean for the Rampage is....pick the biggest line you can ride and backflip all the way down. Oh wait that would have been similar to Norbs run. Think it's obvious they do not know what the Rampage is about anymore by their judging. Is it a Big Mountain Contest, or is it a flipstyle contest on the big mountains? Pick one and figure it out. Ideally they should take it off the FMB tour and go back to what it was originally, just an event on it's own. Most of the bad ass riders do not even compete in the FMB tour, it's retarded.
The key to all of this seems to be that people are fundamentally not understanding the spirit or intent of the competition. The judge explained that within the scope of the rules, Norbraten didn't do as well as some of the other riders. You may like his run better than others, but within the scope of the rules, as defined, he didn't do as well on 1/4 of what was judged. I think his run was pretty amazing, but after reading the explanation from the judge, I can understand why it played out like it did.
It's like everybody went to the synchronized swimming competition and is now complaining that the high diver didn't score as well as he should have.
@dirk -
I get what you're saying, completely! They set forth rules, and within them, they scored as best they saw fit.
I respect that... And I'm not sure why more people don't, but I think I may have it pinned down, at least on my end...
I do not like how the evolution of the event has progressed, in some sense of the way they mix the judging categories, and other little nuanced functions of the whole.
Frankly, this shouldn't be part of the FRWS, and as long as it is, there will be this kind of issue...
FOR MY PART, those reasons (without all the detail as to why I think that way) are why I believe that this wasn't all it could have been.
WITHIN the bounds they set, it's all good.
Two sides to the same coin. Maybe that's why some are actually upset.
Also: Norbs got robbed
Did he deserve to win. Yes. Was he 20 points better than some of the other guys. HELL NO.
There is an imbalance to this.
Maybe the low score/high score need to get tossed out. Maybe you have one judge for each discipline and then a wild card judge that does them all.
This has been a problem with red bull for a long time. It used to be that if you picked a line that the judges couldn't really see you got screwed. That cost a couple guys wins or at least podiums. Now you guys can see but you're locked in on one one thing.
It's like watching a half pipe comp where you can tell the judges are locked in on how huge you're going and not paying attention to the difficulty of the tricks.
So man up. Admit you need to make improvements and made some mistakes. Improve on it. I don't need another redbull oakley commercial. I want to see people ride and the set up from this year really just ruined it.
Aside from an all out win, which we agree he did not deserve, there is nothing that could be better for Norbs' career as a rider than how it has worked out. Nobody'd be talking about him all day, day after day if he'd gotten a few more points and got 5th. But due to the judging and how well he rode his line, everyone is talking about Norbs, which raises everyone's awareness of him and his riding.. and EVERYONE will be watching his lines closer in the future in this and everything else he participates in. Great rider, always seems to have a great attitude and stoked for him and stoked to see where he takes it in the future! A 5th place finish would be a 5th place finish, but being the guy who got 10th, who days/weeks/month later everyone is still talking about is priceless!! I would bet more people have gone back to watch his lines based on this controversy than any other run, except maybe Sorge's win.
Doesn't doing 2 360s make a line substantially more gnar? NORBS WAS ROBBED
When people compete in competition its to see who's best, but without spectators to witness this, no body cares and it doesn't matter who wins, with this in mind surely a category such as 'visual impact, showmanship and flair' or something along that line should be incorporated, being awarded for winning the fans over and doing something extraordinary or having a memorable run, such as Cam McCauls big gap, Norbraten's 360's or T-Mac sending massive step downs all the way or Kyle Straight hitting the biggest jump in the event...
This years Rampage was judged too much like a slopestyle event, with riders who tricked jumps from top to bottom scoring much higher than riders who had unique (T-Mac) or big-banger (C-Mac) runs, too much emphasis on the slopestyle ideology of tricking every jump, this lead to most riders going down the middle and hitting the Oakley sender... which was the complete opposite judging of the last Rampage where Zink won with a completely average run all-bar one impressive banger stunt off of the nicely manicured Oakley sender. More points should be awarded for building up to a feature, having an impressive run and doing something big AND technical like a more natural drop or gap such as Semenuks transfer-drop or what would have been Brendog's canyon gap, points should be reduced for hitting the non-technical man made stuff without tricking, afterall it IS a big mountain event and riding north shore style verandas isn't very difficult, just ballsy!
.... oh and get rid of that pitiful quarter pipe next year!!!
Why the build the thing in the first place?
Rampage is a event no matter what super skills you have you need to be able to stitch a constitent run together while ticking all the boxes.
I guess it's who's can stay consistent, extra creative and have something out the ordinary.
I'm saying, if you just stick to what you know it's unlikely you'll get a win.
Comfort zones defiantly get pushed and who cracks the whip on the hill and takes control of everything wins.
I think there should be a judge for
The six things judges want to see not four.
Make line %50 and %10 for the others, this would make your line choice crutial for the win.
It would have been better if you came out and said... we screwed up. We're sorry. This is hard. We'll make some corrections/adjustments for the future.
Instead you come out trying to blow a bunch of smoke and say... we're the professionals. We know what's best.
Sorry but EVERYONE knows the score here. Several guys got screwed.
I have no special knowledge and quite frankly would crack under the pressure of judging an event like this, so thank you to the judges for doing your best, but improvements to the entire judging format could be made.
It makes sense to have Josh Bender being the line difficulty judge.
However what confused me was,
"Lastly and most importantly is the choice of line. In a big mountain comp this is worth 25% of your score"
In a comp with 4 judging categories 25% of the score is an equal amount? So his explaination of Norbs line 'difficulty' and 'creativity' had equal weighting to his 'tricks'!
Norbs and Mccauls Robbed!
Being AT rampage and seeing it with your own 2 eyes vs watching it through the monitor isn't the same.
What did you just say about Kyle's two threes?!? 2010 was WON because of one 360! Nothing else spectacular but one massive 3. Yet here you are saying that's not what big mountain riding or rampage is about, so again, why did Kyle do so poorly..?
When past winners are saying your wrong, maybe it's time to face the facts and not just keep saying everyone else just doesn't get it.
I am of the opinion that tricking the ridge line in the high winds equalled the technicality of the steeper more tech lines that were down drainages and sheltered from the wind.
It is only an opinion but I don't think the judges factored the difficulty of doing a huge trick in high winds enough.
Regardless it is ALL subjective...hopefully the judges will learn as well as the riders going forward what factors such as wind should affect the judging criteria.
Just glad it is a annual event now!
I personally believe Norbs should have had a higher score, he did the tricks over original features on his own line; in addition to their technical difficulty. However, I don't think particularly it would have done much, just moved him up a few points maybe into the 5th or 6th spot, same goes for the McCauls, they should have had a couple extra points on their scores each.
Can anyone explain why Vanderham scored so highly, I really didn't take anything away from his run, it seemed very blend-in.
And as for fairness, let's use me as an example:
My favorite rider DIDN'T EVEN RIDE, so sure, I could have done EXACTLY what I needed to, and even then, I don't award points for crashes and repeated tricks.
Simple.
Personally, I know that I am capable. You have no way to determine if I'm not, nor does commenting on "my next invite to judge" determine whither or not it is actually POSSIBLE for a mountain biking "layman" to do the same task these judges were assigned.
They were asked to judge fairly. They did so IN THEIR EYES.
We (many PB users, myself included) do not think that the judging was correct.
Which side gets the most publicity and voice? the judges, simply for the fact that the contest winners were awarded and lauded for those scores.
Which side is right? honestly... Only a combination would be close to 100%, and even then, personal opinion taints that!
We are commenting on what we PERCEIVE to be bad or incorrect judgement.
Finally, I'm sure I'll never judge anything in mountain biking, big or small, but that does NOT hamper my ability to comment, nor does it remand my RIGHT to do so as well.
You people want to stir up controversy and somehow come out sort-of-but-not-quite on the side of the judges, go ahead.
Don't expect the rest of us to stay silent with aggressive, attacking comments like yours and others similar...
Arrogance gets you no where, while reason moves us forward!
Lunchboxlarry: not because of the difficulty, there Semenuk's or Berrecloth's would take it, but almost nobody else took it, so it's original. Sure, it was "easier" (if that exists at Rampage) than e.g. Vanderham's, but he did execute it with higher speed and fluidity. which should count, was different than most and he stomped two 360s, I think that should've guaranteed a higher end result. Probably not podium, but top 5 I think so.
And again, Semenuk (his words not mine about Norbraten's second run "he better get like 10 more points now"), Lacondeguy, Cam McCaul, Söderström and Schley seem to agree with me, so I can't be saying so much nonsense, it's not me "TV judging" where I don't see it as it is in reality.
To MTBIKER189 nobody did anything great off the icon sender they all just dropped it. Only one guy did a drop into the Icon sender then dropped it itself which was pretty cool. Mike Hopkins run would have been pretty dang awesome also if he didnt go so big and crash :/
Freeriding/slopestyle is actually a very small community, and most of it seems to be on pinkbike.
And as to my own achievements question... I've never really cared for racing or competitions. I used to race regional XC events at the sport/expert levels in the early 90s but every spring/summer/fall weekend for about three or four years I was doing 5 to 8 hour epic group rides that today would be considered Trail/AM and even freeride category stuff. Those rides were on some of the best technical trails in the northeast including doing some rather steep slope drops and roll ins and included amongst the regular riders attending were several national and international DH champions and racers and while I was often at the rear of the group due to fitness differences, I almost never actually cheater/easy-lined/walked sections to avoid trying to ride the ones the champs were using.
It's been a while now & I can't remember the runs as well as before, but you guys give higher scores for riskier moves up top. Bingelli's flip up top was just on a double that wasn't big or gnarly. Cam flipped a big blind stepdown. A crash is a crash. Doesn't matter where it happens. If you guys knew what you were doing you wouldn't be scoring that way because a crash on a run is a blown run. Cam also hit the one thing on course that no one else did. I think there was just an expectation that he was gonna throw something large over that canyon & then you shit on him for it when you didn't get what you wanted. Here's another question: If you can't win with all eggs in one basket, then why did Zink?
Judging needs to be as objective as possible. It's why you have criteria to follow in the first place. I know it's hard to eliminate the grey, I know it's hard to remember every run & I know it's hard to examine every detail in such short time, but the more objective your criteria is to begin with, the less your own opinion is likely to screw competitors over.
Maybe you should try letting the audience judge it, or have half by the "pros" & the other half done by the audience & add them together. Doesn't one of those goofy talent shows do that, where you can vote online or with your phone?
Also, pointing out that it was intended to e "like big mountain skiing" and that "Slope-style came along more recently..." is just a cop out. The sport has evolved, clearly your judging hasn't.
Hell maybe Bender was just mad cause people were landing things he's been trying to ride for 15 years and gave them low marks... They should have had Robby Burdon judging, he's got more "big line" skill and runs under his belt then all the judges put together. The Little pogo-stick has been doing "Rampage-ish" stuff since before Rampage existed.
Kyle put down a sick run early in the contest and seems he was scored low in anticipation of much better runs and then repeated the same sick run but a smoother and was still scored low. In order for the judges to correct themselves they would be creating a big odd gap in scores between the two similar runs. If thats not why the judging needs to be updated. opposite threes in on run. who else even stuck a three? i dont think Darren even did!
But the event is over, and it is true with judging it is very objective.
oh and Norbs got robbed.
Period!!
Get a group of Pros to be Judges to and mix the two judges points.
But do the current Judges dare that ?
If you're going to include many riders' abilities to do those maneuvers, but COMPLETELY IGNORE other riders who are wickedly smooth and fluid, then make "Tricks" part of "Style" and separate it from "Fluidity".
Tricking down that crazy-ass mountain should not be mandatory, and frankly, if someone is smooth like fresh glacial spring water going down their technically demanding run, that's FAR more important than throwing down a "move", as it were.
Oh, and in reference to the four backflips, they weren't very "smooth", IMO.
Is that not acceptable?
"Tricks & Style"
"Line Choice & Creativity"
"Amplitude & Air"
"Fluidity & Performance"
That makes a hell of a lot more sense, given that guys like Gee go there to win. If tricks are not just integral, but required, that's gonna make his day harder, isn't it?
If, as the judges say, that a standout run must have all parts, why the HELL do they invite riders who don't have ONE WHOLE CATEGORY in their bag?
he did backflip that stepdown, that was pretty insane since he nailed it perfectly.
(i was hoping for it too)
If they thought they judged properly they would not feel the need to make excuses.
Never heard of judges feeling a reason to 'explain' themselves unless they messed up...
Hence the reason that this explanation is probably an excuse.
Basically I am arguing that the judges by acknowledging a mistake by responding to criticism with an explanation.
The judging could have been better ==> experience != good judge
Since kyle's run seems like such a hot button I'll offer up a critique of it from the actual judging criteria.
Big tricks and style on the second halfI his run gets big score.
Riding the basic ridge line that has been done a hundred times prior for the first half of his run with no tricks and no unique line choice whatsoever cuts his score in half.
He did half a banger run and half of what at this level was basic.
The rampage finals venue was essentially two ridge lines on the left and right and a bowl down the middle. That bowl off the start is so steep an gnarly and still funnels into the same bottom section that just about everyone could ride from the ridges.
If you didn't go down that from face you had to have something pretty mind blowing lower down to make up for lack of line choice and big mountain riding.
Notice the guys who did well all came down that face and the guys you wish had done well wasted half their runs riding the ridges and then had sick lines down at the bottom (the only part many of you seem to remember)
Taking risks at the bottom never gets the same score as taking risk at the beginning or the whole time.
Big mountain flow, line choice, creativity, amplitude and tricks all combined into a score.
Ask your self, did the runs of Kyle, Tyler and Cam have all of that covers top to bottom? Nope
Did the top 4 have thatcovered top to bottom ? Yes
For example Surge had dropped a clif and thrown a suicide no hander down the gnarly front face all before Kyle, Cam, and Tyler were still riding the ridge lines on their runs.
I think a lot of people even the competitors lost site of ALL criteria being judged.
Cheers
That's my opinion...
1) Fluidity and Style: 1st T McCaul - 2nd Bizet - 3rd Binghelli
2) Air and Amplitude: 1st C McCaul - 2nd Bizet - 3rd Binghelli
3) Tricks: 1st Bizet - 2nd Andreu - 3rd Sorge
4) Line Choice: 1st Bizet - 2nd T Mccaul - 3rd C McCaul
you read it right?