Can Someone Please Explain How Wiggy Lost?

[ishy]

It's all about what the observer sees from the position they are standing, not what the spectator or rider sees from another vantage point, or video watched many times hours later at home.

Also think about trying to watch the top riders through the section with other riders distracting you kicking stones and asking why they got this or that score.

Maybe at top level they shouldn't have observers just camera men to film every section, then all the riders meet at the end of the day and score each ride off the film.

[spudsdad]

Thorpey got that right to the letter to the no stop rules, but it was as dull as ditch water to watch it. If that's the future of trials for the top boys then game over!

actualy found the videos interesting to watch, much better than watching someone bouncing around on the spot

must be gettng old !!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 21, 2012 by spudsdad

[steveo]

But then if Alexz's was a five so was connor and Fry?

Then to be uber strict dan at 25secs stops for a nano too?

Would have to agree with that on the first two lads.

To have the result determined on this one section really is frustrating for the riding skills these boys have, could the other sections have been nipped up in areas that would have made it more than a one section Trial ?

[dadof2]

I was actually joking when I suggested marking on style. Its 36 & 1/2 years since I first observed. It was a 2 lap open to centre trial with about 120 riders and I was marking two sections with just over a bike lengths rest between the ends of the first and the begins of the second. On that day thefore I gave 480 scores (less a few retirements. All riders (novice, intermediate & expert) tackled the same route. Only about 6 times did riders ask for scores, all where there was some near judgement made. The only time I had an issue was when a mate of the potential winner shouted "what was that" after the potential winner had struggled (and failed briefly and intermittently) to keep the bike moving out up a muddy rut out of the river. I shouted back (across the gulley) 5 at which point the mate started to argue. I said it does not matter anyway he fived lower down on the step. At this point the potential winner nodded his head in acknowledgement and rode off.

I observed the same open to centre trial (different section) recently. This section was a climb up a rubble filled gulley with different entry points for different categories of rider. There was just over 80 riders doing 2 laps.(so say 160+ scores) I was probably asked for scores in 20 to 30 % of the attemps, about 10 cases of mild disagreement and 2 or 3 cases, what ~I would call pretty displeased rider disagreement.

Both trials under no stop rules. The difference - back in the 1970 pretty well all stops were strictly and correctly penalised with a 5 and the riders were used to it. Now far to many seem to think there is some "sort of stop" that should not be penalised. My own view is that a clear stop or momentary drop back with a foot down is a 5 but a slight hetitation with feet up such as Fry at the bottom of the bank or Wiggy bouncing up and down at the top should be a 0.

Cheers

[pete_scorpa3]

Over the last 30 years people have changed, (I'm sure no one over the age of 30 needs me to point this out) but we don't have loosers any more, we just have runners-up.

This may, or may not be a good thing, but it does meant that many people are not used to loosing. We are also allowed to question authority much more, authority has to be accountable (agian this may or may not be a good thing)so it's to be expected that riders will at least ask about their score.

I'm not making excuses, but it is a sign or the times, we're all (young and old) different to how we were 30 years ago.

I observe a few times a year (and am a clerk of the course a few too) it can be frustrating when a rider questions a score, but providing they don't argue with my descision, personally I have no problem with that. I will tell them why they scored what they did. No problem, straight after the attempt, I should be able to.

If they question their score later in the event, they may not get an answer,as you can't remember every ride.

Pete

[chewy]

Over the last 30 years people have changed, (I'm sure no one over the age of 30 needs me to point this out) but we don't have loosers any more, we just have runners-up.

This may, or may not be a good thing, but it does meant that many people are not used to loosing. We are also allowed to question authority much more, authority has to be accountable (agian this may or may not be a good thing)so it's to be expected that riders will at least ask about their score.

I'm not making excuses, but it is a sign or the times, we're all (young and old) different to how we were 30 years ago.

I observe a few times a year (and am a clerk of the course a few too) it can be frustrating when a rider questions a score, but providing they don't argue with my descision, personally I have no problem with that. I will tell them why they scored what they did. No problem, straight after the attempt, I should be able to.

If they question their score later in the event, they may not get an answer,as you can't remember every ride.

Pete

A big change also is the digital world,,..it seems only politicians,bankers and big earners are allowed to have Grey areas, the rest of us particularly youngsters expect PNP decisions.

[baldilocks]

This thread seems to have moved on from the original topic.

there have been some comments about the section being boring to watch,I rode the wallace once, apart from Seymours arena that looks like a fairly typical wallace section. Not being critical here but thats the terrain in the area.

I'd like to point out two things about the section and how good it is to watch.

1. Trials even at S3 Champs level isnt really a spectator sport, it never has been. The SSDT has a one off atmosphere, the Scott has the time element but generally watching trials below champ level is pretty dull for me and I love trials. The point is though we need more competitors not necessarily more spectators which brings me to point number 2.

2. Depending on the observer that section took 5s off some of the best riders in the country, there was no kicker, no minder attached to a rope, no third gear splat up some cliff. The point is most of us could attempt that section with no risk of injury but it was hard enough to take marks off most of the entry. This is exactly the reason why I think we need no stop, the videos demonstrate how difficult it is to ride no stop therefore reducing the section severity required and allowing more to compete.

We should also bear in mind that the event is for the S3 championship competitors, it may appear to easy for some but I think the championship is aimed at a broader cross section of rider. People such as Alex and Ross Danby are really guests at the event as they are too good for the S3 championship, maybe though a couple of harder sections wouldnt have been a bad thing.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Baldilocks

[old trials fanatic]

It' also the attitude' amongst some lets say younger people although i can think of at least four over 50's too' that it doesnt matter how you win but that you win so it's ok to argue or try to influence or intimidate to achieve that win. Not saying that was the case in this instance because i am posative it wasnt but i have seen it at other trials and it's prevalent in football and many other sports and it's not sporting behaviour as i was taught it.

Also as someone else so rightly pointed out earlier on this thread it will take a long time to re educate riders who are used to stopping and sorting themselves out to realise a stop is a stop as in no forward motion = 5.

Question "Please explain how wiggy lost?" simple he didnt make as good a job of riding this section as some others did. Dan Thorpes ride left no doubt it was a clean if wiggy had done the same i am sure he would have had a clean too.

[old trials fanatic]

This thread seems to have moved on from the original topic.

there have been some comments about the section being boring to watch,I rode the wallace once, apart from Seymours arena that looks like a fairly typical wallace section. Not being critical here but thats the terrain in the area.

I'd like to point out two things about the section and how good it is to watch.

1. Trials even at S3 Champs level isnt really a spectator sport, it never has been. The SSDT has a one off atmosphere, the Scott has the time element but generally watching trials below champ level is pretty dull for me and I love trials. The point is though we need more competitors not necessarily more spectators which brings me to point number 2.

2. Depending on the observer that section took 5s off some of the best riders in the country, there was no kicker, no minder attached to a rope, no third gear splat up some cliff. The point is most of us could attempt that section with no risk of injury but it was hard enough to take marks off most of the entry. This is exactly the reason why I think we need no stop, the videos demonstrate how difficult it is to ride no stop therefore reducing the section severity required and allowing more to compete.

We should also bear in mind that the event is for the S3 championship competitors, it may appear to easy for some but I think the championship is aimed at a broader cross section of rider. People such as Alex and Ross Danby are really guests at the event as they are too good for the S3 championship, maybe though a couple of harder sections wouldnt have been a bad thing.

Agreed Trials isnt about spectators who after all dont contribute anything to the event. It's a participant sport.

Perhaps some of the top riders need to practice some proper sections now not just BIG BIG rocks and splats. Perhaps they are missing their minders telling them what to do next?

[cabby]

but generally watching trials below champ level is pretty dull for me and I love trials.

Hallelujah !!

I said that in a post fairly recently and some erse dived in and said otherwise.

http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/topic/39893-interested-will-it-grow-to-be-a-hobby/

Edited February 22, 2012 by Thedbf

[telecat]

Agreed Trials isnt about spectators who after all dont contribute anything to the event. It's a participant sport.

Perhaps some of the top riders need to practice some proper sections now not just BIG BIG rocks and splats. Perhaps they are missing their minders telling them what to do next?

Looking at the lack of marks dropped I'd say the sections were too easy and not "proper" sections. The trial then comes down to who is fittest and can concentrate best. As for Minders I don't remember them being in the S3 at all maybe you remember them back in the distant past??

[baldilocks]

No the point i'm making is that section doesnt need a minder. There will have been plenty minding in the past, certainly had others catching for me before and ive done it for others when requested in s3 rounds. Nobody needs a catcher for the secyion in the video though.

[jordi]

This thread seems to have moved on from the original topic.

there have been some comments about the section being boring to watch,I rode the wallace once, apart from Seymours arena that looks like a fairly typical wallace section. Not being critical here but thats the terrain in the area.

I'd like to point out two things about the section and how good it is to watch.

1. Trials even at S3 Champs level isnt really a spectator sport, it never has been. The SSDT has a one off atmosphere, the Scott has the time element but generally watching trials below champ level is pretty dull for me and I love trials. The point is though we need more competitors not necessarily more spectators which brings me to point number 2.

2. Depending on the observer that section took 5s off some of the best riders in the country, there was no kicker, no minder attached to a rope, no third gear splat up some cliff. The point is most of us could attempt that section with no risk of injury but it was hard enough to take marks off most of the entry. This is exactly the reason why I think we need no stop, the videos demonstrate how difficult it is to ride no stop therefore reducing the section severity required and allowing more to compete.

We should also bear in mind that the event is for the S3 championship competitors, it may appear to easy for some but I think the championship is aimed at a broader cross section of rider. People such as Alex and Ross Danby are really guests at the event as they are too good for the S3 championship, maybe though a couple of harder sections wouldnt have been a bad thing.

Well said

[johnnyboxer]

This thread seems to have moved on from the original topic.

there have been some comments about the section being boring to watch,I rode the wallace once, apart from Seymours arena that looks like a fairly typical wallace section. Not being critical here but thats the terrain in the area.

I'd like to point out two things about the section and how good it is to watch.

1. Trials even at S3 Champs level isnt really a spectator sport, it never has been. The SSDT has a one off atmosphere, the Scott has the time element but generally watching trials below champ level is pretty dull for me and I love trials. The point is though we need more competitors not necessarily more spectators which brings me to point number 2.

2. Depending on the observer that section took 5s off some of the best riders in the country, there was no kicker, no minder attached to a rope, no third gear splat up some cliff. The point is most of us could attempt that section with no risk of injury but it was hard enough to take marks off most of the entry. This is exactly the reason why I think we need no stop, the videos demonstrate how difficult it is to ride no stop therefore reducing the section severity required and allowing more to compete.

We should also bear in mind that the event is for the S3 championship competitors, it may appear to easy for some but I think the championship is aimed at a broader cross section of rider. People such as Alex and Ross Danby are really guests at the event as they are too good for the S3 championship, maybe though a couple of harder sections wouldnt have been a bad thing.

Great words

[atomant]

Agreed Trials isnt about spectators who after all dont contribute anything to the event. It's a participant sport.

Perhaps some of the top riders need to practice some proper sections now not just BIG BIG rocks and splats. Perhaps they are missing their minders telling them what to do next?

Yes and as a participation sport, the riders at what ever level need to be challenged. I know these guys want to be in a position where if they drop some marks there will be somewhere where they think they can get it back. It seems the whole trial rested on this one section so no wonder there was some angst with the riders when the observation wasn't deemed consistent.