Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 07:36:40 -1000 From: hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) Message-Id: <1993Jun22.165243.21475@e2big.mko.dec.com> Organization: There is no organization here. Subject: Polite? Hell! I'm tired of this kind of attitude. Summary: Look, it's not your ideas, viewpoints or opinions that I object to, it's the way you choose to get your point across. Therein lies the real problem today. Steve, I thought I had posted a fairly long article in here last night, but I have yet to see it. Hopefully we won't wind up with somewhat-duplicated postings. (Amateur Alert: I'm more used to VAXnotes.) Be that as it may, perhaps I can relate some of the points I was trying to address at the time. First and foremost, there was no "sneaky innuendo" in my post to you...quite to the contrary, I assumed it was far more direct than that. The only reason I got in here in the first place was because I heard there was someone with a king-he|| attitude stomping around, and I had to check it out for myself. By golly, they were right. And that's the basis of my message to you: You have some potentially good ideas and/or you raise some interesting points. Many others in organized kiting do, too. Clearly, you have opinions on certain matters, but you're trying to ram them down our throats as being the be-all and end-all answers to the problems of judging today. In some cases you might be right; in other cases you either seem misguided or don't have the correct version of history. But in almost all of your postings I'm reading you as being stubborn and arrogant. THAT'S one of the biggest problems that we face in organized kiting today, and I know quite a few other people in this business who approach "conversations" the same way. Collectively, these people are dragging organized kiting backwards, alienating a number of good, productive people in the process. Some points: 1) Sorry that I disappointed you and your friends in L.A. by not doing any- thing "really cool." Had I known that you were standing behind me at the time...I wouldn't have done a damn thing differently. But I have to smirk at your basic premise here: You claim that the judging of artistic aspects is bound to be biased, subjective, and bound by the whims of some "exclusive clique" of judges. But when judging technical, what's "really cool?" Suppose I had popped off a "really cool" move that no one had ever seen before? The judges might've thought it was really hot, yet I might have considered it rather banal. Or, maybe it was the toughest trick I've ever done, but the judges thought it easy, stupid, or simply not appropriate. Especially when you're talking about moves that have never been seen before, you wind up in the same subjective terrain that you argue against when you talk of artistic. So go ahead and work "degree of difficulty" criteria into the rulebook. I'm sure that that will effectively stifle any new, really cool moves that no one has ever seen before, for if pilots feel that their new, hot moves aren't accounted for in the rulebook, they'll be afraid to pop them out when they're standing in front of judges. Back to L.A.: That routine has been judged as "best of the best" in all points around the country, in Japan, and has been demoed successfully both here and abroad. It has been judged by a wide audience of judges. Many judges from both coasts said it was the best they've ever seen. It was THAT routine, alone, that caused other people to call me "the top-ranked flyer in the world." (Although I'll willingly relinquish that title as being trivial, unnecessary, and artificial.) If you missed the overall point of 'Danube' in terms of artistic impression, if you were disappointed for lack of something "really cool," or if you didn't understand the subtlety, timing, and nuance of the routine, then I really think you're missing the point of a lot of good Ballet routines. I could feel sorry for you if that's really the case... (As far as the implication that a routine is no good if the flyer only does moves that can be accomplished by a first-month pilot...I can only assume that you were again highlighting 'Danube.' If so, I hope to meet you on the field some day, bucko.) 2) Yes, I crashed during "Frog" in Wildwood. I've crashed in other routines and done well, too. I think Wildwood won on an 84, so if you discount anywhere between one-half to a full-point from each judge for the crash, I had been flying in the nines up to that point...makes sense, and it felt that way to me. Too bad you didn't see that routine; it had some "really cool" stuff in it. Situations like the one I had in Wildwood have been addressed in the new version of the rulebook under the heading of "inappropriate endings," and I certainly would have suffered more for it had it been in effect. But it wasn't, I didn't, and the routine won, crash notwithstanding. Thanks, I'll take it. 3) Did you know that historically, the emphasis on artistic impression in judging started on the west coast? They had made a big deal about it in the early days of organized kiting, and worked to spread that basis for judging to other events and organizations. The current AKA/STACK rulebook did indeed grow out of the ECSKC rulebook, but what most people fail to realize is that the ECSKC rulebook was adapted from the rules developed in California. So, quite contrary to the idea that it was developed by some group of eastern-centric judges... I could sit here and pick apart your postings, such as you tend to do with the other articles I've seen here. I generally choose not to, for it's too easy to take the words, highlight them, read meaning into them where it's not entirely appropriate, and spin the conversation completely out of control. Rather, I'd like to bring you back to my basic point: It's okay to have and to relate your opinions. Most people welcome that. But you seem to be an exemplification of what I feel to be the biggest problem in organized kiting today: you have an opinion of how things should be done, and you try to convince us that it's the only way to look at things. At the same time that you're doing this, you're alienating a lot of people who have worked hard to develop the idea of organized kiting. You want to form a new organization because you feel the AKA is not the proper one to deal with such matters. What have you done to improve that organization? I haven't seen your name on any of the committee lists. I can't recall that you were ever at any of the subcommittee meetings. Matter of fact, until now, I haven't heard your name. Why not take some of your points, opinions, and arguments and funnel them through the current organization - to make it better - rather than preaching them here to an audience that, as far as I can tell, consists mainly of interested, recreational fliers? As has been mentioned before here, the AKA needs volunteers and would welcome your opinions, but it's an organization that, by its nature, needs people who can work well with other people. There are others of a your ilk in organized kiting today. There are judges who are empowered, or they have good ideas, but the timing and style of their implementation leaves a bad taste with a lot of flyers. (Witness Grand Haven in '92, Lubbock, and this year's Wildwood.) There are others whose motivations seem really questionable, and their methods are so similar. Each to themselves, they carry their banner hither and yon, thinking that their banner is THE only one to follow, not realizing that the best way to effect change is to work WITH one another. I'm simply tired of being whacked upside the head with someone's banner before they bother to find out what my opinion might be. But this whole tone of "exlusive cliques," geo-centric attitudes, and the implication that a lot of people don't know what the hell they're doing has got to be addressed in order for kiting to go anywhere. It is your attitude that you're right and everyone else is wrong that tends to perpetuate the "east-west", "Thems vs Us" feeling that most people disdain. If you want to improve the situation in organized kiting, learn how to work with others rather than against them. You have some good points; learn how to couch them in a palatable fashion. Want to improve the situation of the AKA being involved with stunt kiting, get *directly* involved to make a positive impression. Please. Bob = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 15:10:24 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: Polite? Hell! I'm tired of this kind of attitude. In article <1993Jun22.165243.21475@e2big.mko.dec.com> hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) writes: >Summary: Look, it's not your ideas, viewpoints or opinions that I object to, > it's the way you choose to get your point across. Therein lies the > real problem today. Then perhaps we can just ignore the delivery and get to the points at hand? I've got a lot of material to cover--I can't always tread lightly around everybody's feelings. Some of you out there that are more used to UseNet postings know that they tend to be a bit harsh and to the point. I've got one opinion, _you've_ got another. We disagree. That's what I'm focused on. I'm bringing forward a very contraversial subject. Feathers are going to get ruffled, but I hope we're all grown-up enough here to not take any of it personally (unfortunately, some of the actual personalities here are coincendentally used as examples--please note that it's simply that: a coincidence--I would argue exactely the same with somebody else). One other reply before I get into the Central Issue. Bob mentioned that I was not an AKA official, and am not currently working within the AKA to change things. Well, no kidding. This whole thread of posts started by somebody asking how Sport Kite Flying could become a more main stream sport. I then replied. Then people replied to my reply. Etc. It's not like I've spent a prison term writing a book about the coming revolution or something--I just started writing about this subject here on rec.kites. Admittedly, this whole rec.kites thing has gotten bigger--and perhaps I (or somebody of like opinion) will be working the ideas in the AKA in the future. Perhaps I've started something here on rec.kites that will be carried forth to more official forums. Hopefully so, but everything has to have a beginning... *!*!*!*!*!* Speaking of which! *!*!*!*!*!* The time has come. Somebody is actually going to argue about the topic at hand rather than bogging down in the details of the delivery! ****** [stuff deleted] > But I have to smirk at your basic premise here: You claim that the > judging > of artistic aspects is bound to be biased, subjective, and bound by the > whims of some "exclusive clique" of judges. > > But when judging technical, what's "really cool?" Suppose I had popped > off a "really cool" move that no one had ever seen before? The judges > might've thought it was really hot, yet I might have considered it rather > banal. Or, maybe it was the toughest trick I've ever done, but the judges > thought it easy, stupid, or simply not appropriate. Especially when > you're > talking about moves that have never been seen before, you wind up in the > same subjective terrain that you argue against when you talk of artistic. [cut off in the middle of a paragraph...] Absolutely correct. If the judges don't know what you're doing, they obviously can't give you points for it. However, there are things that can be done to counter this problem: a flyer can do the move more than once to show that it is not a mistake; a flyer can choerograph the move to the music (again, showing it is not a mistake). Judges can learn about moves; you can show somebody something like, "this is a double-axel". Compare that to the difficulty to trying to explain, "this is Art, that is Not". > So go ahead and work "degree of difficulty" criteria into the rulebook. > I'm sure that that will effectively stifle any new, really cool moves that > no one has ever seen before, for if pilots feel that their new, hot moves > aren't accounted for in the rulebook, they'll be afraid to pop them out > when they're standing in front of judges. How does "degree of difficulty" == "list of possible known moves"? I don't see why it would have to be that way. "Difficulty" can sometimes still be somewhat vague, and up to interpretation, but objective rules about moves are POSSIBLE. It's easy to tell whether or not an ice-skater pulled off a double-axel; you can usually tell (even as a spectator) whether the skater pulled the move off well, or whether he/she bobbled it a little bit. If a flyer wants to perform a move that's never been done before, he has to take things into account--i.e. what does the move look like? how dramatic is it?, etc. I know that personally I will not work very much on moves that won't look very good--even though they are real hard to do. Looks, you see, count (in competition, anyhow). If a flyer has an incredible _looking_ new move that _looks_ really hard, but is in fact fairly easy to accomplish, then he has a great advantage in the next couple of competitions (until other competitiors and judges catch on). This is a great incentive for innovation... The contrary attitude (and I'm not insinuating anything about anybody so just stay focused!) would entail a judge saying in effect, "it can't be good, because I've never seen it before". With new moves there will always be risk involved, and a degree of subjectivity--temporarily (as long as they stay *new*); but this degree will diminish more the Sport itself matures and a group of "basic" moves are defined (judges of an ice skating event would know how to judge a "quintuple axle"--even though they had never seen it before). A good addition to the Rules as they stand now would be the word "Difficulty", which, to many people's suprise IS NOT IN THE RULES FOR CHOREOGRAPHY. Currently, the "difficulty" of a routine is, by the book, not to be taken into account in a Choregraphed routine. This may seem like a very subtle change, but it exactely what the whole "art vs. technical" debate boils down to. "Difficulty", by the way, is a rather broad term (not a vague term, but a broad one). Clearly, perfectly choreographing a routine to music can be very difficult, and should be taken into account thereby. I think that weighing heavily on the technical aspects of choreography is still a good idea--especially with routines with a lot of complex/new moves. Choreography gives the routine a timed adgenda which is very important in Flying since timing can be one of the more challenging things. I have Bob Hanson's L.A. routine on tape, and routinely show it to flyers as a reference for excellent choreography. The routine is also very clean and void of mistakes--another very difficult achievement. There is a trade-off, needless to say, between, "pulling of an easy routine perfectly" and "pulling of a difficult routine somewhat sloppily". Personally, I tell people this when I talk about new moves: if you can't do them perfectly 1000f the time, leave them out of your routine until you can. I think that more focus on Difficulty and less focus on Art _in competitions_ will better the Sport of Kite Flying. This is the answer to the question, "How will Sport Kite Flying ever make it to ESPN?". -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator." -- Lisa Simpson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 11:56:10 -1000 From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Message-Id: <9306232156.AA02422@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Polite? Hell! I'm tired of this kind of attitude. steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: -] -] In article <1993Jun22.165243.21475@e2big.mko.dec.com> hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) writes: -] >Summary: Look, it's not your ideas, viewpoints or opinions that I object to, -] > it's the way you choose to get your point across. Therein lies the -] > real problem today. -] -] Then perhaps we can just ignore the delivery and get to the points at hand? -] I've got a lot of material to cover--I can't always tread lightly around -] everybody's feelings. Some of you out there that are more used to UseNet -] postings know that they tend to be a bit harsh and to the point. -] Yes, Steve, I agree that usenet postings do tend to be a bit harsh and to the point. But then again usenet started as a communication medium for technical discussion. In these situations there is usually a RIGHT answer. An individual can get away with a harsh answer when they have scientific principle to back them up. I don't see that as the case here (rec.kites). There are NO scientific principles to fall back on here -- just opinions. Most of the contributors to rec.kites are (my opinion) NOT regular usenet readers. THEY are not comfortable with the harsh approach and will not participate in discussion with someone using that approach. The first sentence in your reply to Bob says "Then perhaps we can just ignore the delivery and get to the points at hand?". Since you asked/said this as a question, I would answer it *NO* . I don't think that the majority of the rec.kite community CAN ignore the delivery. The delivery is equally as important (in a social, non technical group) as the message... IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A REAL TWO-SIDED DEBATE. ... stuff deleted ... -] -] *!*!*!*!*!* Speaking of which! *!*!*!*!*!* -] -] The time has come. Somebody is actually going to argue about the topic at -] hand rather than bogging down in the details of the delivery! -] -] ****** -] -] [stuff deleted] -] > But I have to smirk at your basic premise here: You claim that the -] > judging -] > of artistic aspects is bound to be biased, subjective, and bound by the -] > whims of some "exclusive clique" of judges. -] > -] > But when judging technical, what's "really cool?" Suppose I had popped -] > off a "really cool" move that no one had ever seen before? The judges -] > might've thought it was really hot, yet I might have considered it rather -] > banal. Or, maybe it was the toughest trick I've ever done, but the judges -] > thought it easy, stupid, or simply not appropriate. Especially when -] > you're -] > talking about moves that have never been seen before, you wind up in the -] > same subjective terrain that you argue against when you talk of artistic. -] [cut off in the middle of a paragraph...] -] -] Absolutely correct. If the judges don't know what you're doing, they -] obviously can't give you points for it. However, there are things that -] can be done to counter this problem: a flyer can do the move more than once -] to show that it is not a mistake; a flyer can choerograph the move to the -] music (again, showing it is not a mistake). Judges can learn about moves; -] you can show somebody something like, "this is a double-axel". Compare -] that to the difficulty to trying to explain, "this is Art, that is Not". -] Whether the issue be technical flying or artistic flying the judge still has to make a judgement call. I don't see a change in the rule books from artistic to technical as simplifying the judges job. (see my next posting.. Subject: technical vs artistic - a crowd reaction) -] > So go ahead and work "degree of difficulty" criteria into the rulebook. -] > I'm sure that that will effectively stifle any new, really cool moves that -] > no one has ever seen before, for if pilots feel that their new, hot moves -] > aren't accounted for in the rulebook, they'll be afraid to pop them out -] > when they're standing in front of judges. -] ...stuff deleted... -] -] If a flyer wants to perform a move that's never been done before, he has -] to take things into account--i.e. what does the move look like? how dramatic -] is it?, etc. I know that personally I will not work very much on moves that -] won't look very good--even though they are real hard to do. Looks, you see, -] count (in competition, anyhow). If a flyer has an incredible _looking_ new -] move that _looks_ really hard, but is in fact fairly easy to accomplish, then -] he has a great advantage in the next couple of competitions (until other -] competitiors and judges catch on). This is a great incentive for -] innovation... -] I agree (with both of you). It is frightening to put in a new, radical trick when you don't know how the judges are going to view it. But in order to win these days you have to push the kite to do the most it can do. This means taking risks: risk you'll crash, risk you'll succeed and the judges won't understand the difficulty, risk you'll succeed and judges will think you messed up and got out of the mess thru luck. This is all part of the stategy of competition: -how tough is my competition this weekend? -can I win without the tricks at this competition? -do I need to show the new trick today? -do I need to education the judges (while flying) that this new trick is hard? This kind of thought process improves as the flyers knowledge of his/her competitors and judges improves. This does favors the experenced flyer, but thats life! -] The contrary attitude (and I'm not insinuating anything about anybody so -] just stay focused!) would entail a judge saying in effect, "it can't be -] good, because I've never seen it before". With new moves there will always -] be risk involved, and a degree of subjectivity--temporarily (as long as -] they stay *new*); but this degree will diminish more the Sport itself -] matures and a group of "basic" moves are defined (judges of an ice skating -] event would know how to judge a "quintuple axle"--even though they had -] never seen it before). -] -] A good addition to the Rules as they stand now would be the word -] "Difficulty", which, to many people's suprise IS NOT IN THE RULES FOR -] CHOREOGRAPHY. Currently, the "difficulty" of a routine is, by the book, -] not to be taken into account in a Choregraphed routine. -] -] This may seem like a very subtle change, but it exactely what the whole -] "art vs. technical" debate boils down to. -] -] "Difficulty", by the way, is a rather broad term (not a vague term, but a -] broad one). Clearly, perfectly choreographing a routine to music can be -] very difficult, and should be taken into account thereby. I think that -] weighing heavily on the technical aspects of choreography is still a good -] idea--especially with routines with a lot of complex/new moves. Choreography -] gives the routine a timed adgenda which is very important in Flying since -] timing can be one of the more challenging things. I have Bob Hanson's L.A. -] routine on tape, and routinely show it to flyers as a reference for -] excellent choreography. The routine is also very clean and void of -] mistakes--another very difficult achievement. There is a trade-off, needless -] to say, between, "pulling of an easy routine perfectly" and "pulling of a -] difficult routine somewhat sloppily". Personally, I tell people this when -] I talk about new moves: if you can't do them perfectly 1000f the time, -] leave them out of your routine until you can. -] -] I think that more focus on Difficulty and less focus on Art _in -] competitions_ will better the Sport of Kite Flying. Didn't difficulty USED to be the rules for ballet a few years ago? Or am I thinking of pre-rule book days? Darrin [The opinions express here are MINE and not those of any organization (company, DBA, sponsor, or team) that I am OR am NOT associated with.] = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 11:56:10 -1000 From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Message-Id: <9306232156.AA02422@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: Polite? Hell! I'm tired of this kind of attitude. steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: -] -] In article <1993Jun22.165243.21475@e2big.mko.dec.com> hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) writes: -] >Summary: Look, it's not your ideas, viewpoints or opinions that I object to, -] > it's the way you choose to get your point across. Therein lies the -] > real problem today. -] -] Then perhaps we can just ignore the delivery and get to the points at hand? -] I've got a lot of material to cover--I can't always tread lightly around -] everybody's feelings. Some of you out there that are more used to UseNet -] postings know that they tend to be a bit harsh and to the point. -] Yes, Steve, I agree that usenet postings do tend to be a bit harsh and to the point. But then again usenet started as a communication medium for technical discussion. In these situations there is usually a RIGHT answer. An individual can get away with a harsh answer when they have scientific principle to back them up. I don't see that as the case here (rec.kites). There are NO scientific principles to fall back on here -- just opinions. Most of the contributors to rec.kites are (my opinion) NOT regular usenet readers. THEY are not comfortable with the harsh approach and will not participate in discussion with someone using that approach. The first sentence in your reply to Bob says "Then perhaps we can just ignore the delivery and get to the points at hand?". Since you asked/said this as a question, I would answer it *NO* . I don't think that the majority of the rec.kite community CAN ignore the delivery. The delivery is equally as important (in a social, non technical group) as the message... IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A REAL TWO-SIDED DEBATE. ... stuff deleted ... -] -] *!*!*!*!*!* Speaking of which! *!*!*!*!*!* -] -] The time has come. Somebody is actually going to argue about the topic at -] hand rather than bogging down in the details of the delivery! -] -] ****** -] -] [stuff deleted] -] > But I have to smirk at your basic premise here: You claim that the -] > judging -] > of artistic aspects is bound to be biased, subjective, and bound by the -] > whims of some "exclusive clique" of judges. -] > -] > But when judging technical, what's "really cool?" Suppose I had popped -] > off a "really cool" move that no one had ever seen before? The judges -] > might've thought it was really hot, yet I might have considered it rather -] > banal. Or, maybe it was the toughest trick I've ever done, but the judges -] > thought it easy, stupid, or simply not appropriate. Especially when -] > you're -] > talking about moves that have never been seen before, you wind up in the -] > same subjective terrain that you argue against when you talk of artistic. -] [cut off in the middle of a paragraph...] -] -] Absolutely correct. If the judges don't know what you're doing, they -] obviously can't give you points for it. However, there are things that -] can be done to counter this problem: a flyer can do the move more than once -] to show that it is not a mistake; a flyer can choerograph the move to the -] music (again, showing it is not a mistake). Judges can learn about moves; -] you can show somebody something like, "this is a double-axel". Compare -] that to the difficulty to trying to explain, "this is Art, that is Not". -] Whether the issue be technical flying or artistic flying the judge still has to make a judgement call. I don't see a change in the rule books from artistic to technical as simplifying the judges job. (see my next posting.. Subject: technical vs artistic - a crowd reaction) -] > So go ahead and work "degree of difficulty" criteria into the rulebook. -] > I'm sure that that will effectively stifle any new, really cool moves that -] > no one has ever seen before, for if pilots feel that their new, hot moves -] > aren't accounted for in the rulebook, they'll be afraid to pop them out -] > when they're standing in front of judges. -] ...stuff deleted... -] -] If a flyer wants to perform a move that's never been done before, he has -] to take things into account--i.e. what does the move look like? how dramatic -] is it?, etc. I know that personally I will not work very much on moves that -] won't look very good--even though they are real hard to do. Looks, you see, -] count (in competition, anyhow). If a flyer has an incredible _looking_ new -] move that _looks_ really hard, but is in fact fairly easy to accomplish, then -] he has a great advantage in the next couple of competitions (until other -] competitiors and judges catch on). This is a great incentive for -] innovation... -] I agree (with both of you). It is frightening to put in a new, radical trick when you don't know how the judges are going to view it. But in order to win these days you have to push the kite to do the most it can do. This means taking risks: risk you'll crash, risk you'll succeed and the judges won't understand the difficulty, risk you'll succeed and judges will think you messed up and got out of the mess thru luck. This is all part of the stategy of competition: -how tough is my competition this weekend? -can I win without the tricks at this competition? -do I need to show the new trick today? -do I need to education the judges (while flying) that this new trick is hard? This kind of thought process improves as the flyers knowledge of his/her competitors and judges improves. This does favors the experenced flyer, but thats life! -] The contrary attitude (and I'm not insinuating anything about anybody so -] just stay focused!) would entail a judge saying in effect, "it can't be -] good, because I've never seen it before". With new moves there will always -] be risk involved, and a degree of subjectivity--temporarily (as long as -] they stay *new*); but this degree will diminish more the Sport itself -] matures and a group of "basic" moves are defined (judges of an ice skating -] event would know how to judge a "quintuple axle"--even though they had -] never seen it before). -] -] A good addition to the Rules as they stand now would be the word -] "Difficulty", which, to many people's suprise IS NOT IN THE RULES FOR -] CHOREOGRAPHY. Currently, the "difficulty" of a routine is, by the book, -] not to be taken into account in a Choregraphed routine. -] -] This may seem like a very subtle change, but it exactely what the whole -] "art vs. technical" debate boils down to. -] -] "Difficulty", by the way, is a rather broad term (not a vague term, but a -] broad one). Clearly, perfectly choreographing a routine to music can be -] very difficult, and should be taken into account thereby. I think that -] weighing heavily on the technical aspects of choreography is still a good -] idea--especially with routines with a lot of complex/new moves. Choreography -] gives the routine a timed adgenda which is very important in Flying since -] timing can be one of the more challenging things. I have Bob Hanson's L.A. -] routine on tape, and routinely show it to flyers as a reference for -] excellent choreography. The routine is also very clean and void of -] mistakes--another very difficult achievement. There is a trade-off, needless -] to say, between, "pulling of an easy routine perfectly" and "pulling of a -] difficult routine somewhat sloppily". Personally, I tell people this when -] I talk about new moves: if you can't do them perfectly 1000f the time, -] leave them out of your routine until you can. -] -] I think that more focus on Difficulty and less focus on Art _in -] competitions_ will better the Sport of Kite Flying. Didn't difficulty USED to be the rules for ballet a few years ago? Or am I thinking of pre-rule book days? Darrin [The opinions express here are MINE and not those of any organization (company, DBA, sponsor, or team) that I am OR am NOT associated with.] = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =