Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 12:16:40 -1000 From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Message-Id: <9306232216.AA02469@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction This is a solicitation for your personal experiences. After we have a body of evidence/experience to work with we can draw some conclusions. It seems to me that (when I get compliments on my ballet) FLYERS compliment the technical aspects of the routine and that NON-FLYERS (i.e. Joe Q public) compliment the grace, beauty, and emotional aspects of the routine. This would lend me to believe that in order to make competitive kite ballet more appealing to the masses we should give more weight to the grace, beauty, and emotional apects of the routine. MY problems with this conclusion is: (a) I don't like the narrow focus of the idea, (b) I don't know if MY experiences (i.e. who complimented me on what) are the norm. So, all you other flyers who have had folks compliment you on your flying (don't be shy), can you break the compliments down into flyer & non-flyer categories and lets us know? Darrin P.S. Ron, Marty, Steve, Bob... you are REQUIRED to answer! [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: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 09:35:48 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article <9306232216.AA02469@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) writes: > >This is a solicitation for your personal experiences. >After we have a body of evidence/experience to work >with we can draw some conclusions. > >It seems to me that (when I get compliments on my >ballet) FLYERS compliment the technical aspects of >the routine and that NON-FLYERS (i.e. Joe Q public) >compliment the grace, beauty, and emotional aspects >of the routine. > >This would lend me to believe that in order to make >competitive kite ballet more appealing to the masses >we should give more weight to the grace, beauty, and >emotional apects of the routine. MY problems with >this conclusion is: > (a) I don't like the narrow focus of the idea, > (b) I don't know if MY experiences (i.e. who > complimented me on what) are the norm. Your experiences are from the Team (Air Art). Team flying has a couple of important differences from Individual flying: 1. Although it is not different in the rulebook, the "implicit" Difficulty score is much more present in Team routines than in most Individual competitions. 2. Team flying by nature is much more _difficult_ (there's that word again). As I mentioned before, timing is one of the more difficult things to do in flying, which is why it's so great to fly competitions to music. In Team flying, it's an order of magintude harder than Individual. 3. Individual flying is much more, well, individual. You've got to rely on the moves of _one_ kite to make an impresssion. This is a different set of problems--(I'll need a little more time to formulate this one... I'll get back to this...) 4. Related to above, the mental discipline of team flying is different--individuals don't need to work with three other people, they just fly a routine that might be somewhat different everytime they fly it. What this means is that teams are not usually pushing the envelope of difficult _moves_ because there's so much more difficulty involved in simply timing moves to the music (which in turn get the emotional response). As far as flyers and non-flyers go, keep in mind that if something looks hard to a non-flyer, and it's done well to music, it will invoke an emotional response. The non-flyer is obviously not going to say, "nice downward weave, Darrin"--they just say, "hey, that was way cool, dude" (I'm preparing you for Manhatten Beach...). Then there's what _you_ (Air Art) fly: Air Art's routine is not as technically rich as, say, High Performance's. Air Art, however, flys with much more consistency and "cleanliness". When I last saw HP fly, they tried to do a lot of things, but the routine looked kind of sloppy. (This is as of last year, so forgive me if my information is not up to date). HP's routine was not as well choreographed, either--again, making the routine not as technically difficult as Air Art's. Hence, the HP guys will get compliments on thier "cool moves" that they (tried to) put into their routine. Air Art will get compliments about a "cool looking routine overall". Also note that to spectators, the music will often help define what moves are real hard: when the music comes to a "finally" kind of movement, the move the team does to this has a termendous focus on it--if the music is simply in the middle of something, and the team does something really hard, it doesn't get as much attention _because of the music_. Air Art, for instance, puts a lot of "musical emphasis" on their "starburst" manuver--which is probably one of thier harder moves to get right. HP did a great emphasis on downward thread-and-burst when I last saw them, but this move was by no means the most difficult move they performed--but it's overall effect was the most dramatic. ****** Another point that might be more relavent to Individual flying, is the fact that, although the end goal is to please the crowd, this often can't always be looked at as a primary goal. The reason for this is that you've got to remember who's doing the flying. I've said all along here that I have a great fear of very good competitive flyers being discouraged from competition, and I want to encourage good flyers to come up and try to win. You really need to keep the flyer in mind when you go to make rules. In this sense, the "crowd appeal" needs to be secondary--for its own sake. Great flyers will make the sport grow and appeal to the masses. We've got to make sure that we encourage them... -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 13:57:50 -1000 From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Message-Id: <9306242357.AA03274@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: -] -] In article <9306232216.AA02469@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) writes: -] > -] >It seems to me that (when I get compliments on my -] >ballet) FLYERS compliment the technical aspects of -] >the routine and that NON-FLYERS (i.e. Joe Q public) -] >compliment the grace, beauty, and emotional aspects -] >of the routine. -] Opps! I should have qualified the above a little better... -] Your experiences are from the Team (Air Art). Team flying has a couple -] of important differences from Individual flying: -] When I wrote this I was thinking of my experience as an individual ballet flyer. What I said is the feedback I have gotten from my INDIVIDUAL routines. I was not including the team ballet comments because of the exact issues you mention below. When I flew flexifoils (and did not do the obvious tricks) I always scored well with the judges and the spectators. When I stated doing the tricks, I noticed that the audience seemed to shrink. What I mean by this is that it seemed like ONLY the flyers appreciated what I was doing, not the public. -] 1. Although it is not different in the rulebook, the "implicit" -] Difficulty score is much more present in Team routines than in -] most Individual competitions. -] -] 2. Team flying by nature is much more _difficult_ (there's that -] word again). As I mentioned before, timing is one of the -] more difficult things to do in flying, which is why it's so -] great to fly competitions to music. In Team flying, it's an -] order of magintude harder than Individual. -] -] 3. Individual flying is much more, well, individual. You've got -] to rely on the moves of _one_ kite to make an impresssion. This -] is a different set of problems--(I'll need a little more time to -] formulate this one... I'll get back to this...) -] -] 4. Related to above, the mental discipline of team flying is -] different--individuals don't need to work with three other -] people, they just fly a routine that might be somewhat -] different everytime they fly it. -] I've said enough for now. Darrin = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 17:46:27 -1000 From: alfa@werple.apana.org.au (Glenn Durden) Message-Id: <20dsej$le0@werple.apana.org.au> Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) writes: >It seems to me that (when I get compliments on my >ballet) FLYERS compliment the technical aspects of >the routine and that NON-FLYERS (i.e. Joe Q public) >compliment the grace, beauty, and emotional aspects >of the routine. I'm led to believe there is a similar thing with violin players. There are bits of music which sound easy, but in fact are quite difficult to play (the people-who-know can appreciate)... and there are bits of music which sound really really difficult, but in fact are quite simple. (the public can appreciate) I guess it comes down to being able to tailor your display to either the public, or the fellow flyers, depending on the situation. ie: you should be able to fly 'technical' and 'grace'. :-) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 07:17:59 -1000 From: reich@cod.nosc.mil (Ronald S. Reich) Message-Id: <9306281717.AA09746@cod.nosc.mil> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 22:16:40 GMT From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Subject: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction >P.S. Ron, Marty, Steve, Bob... you are REQUIRED to answer! O.K. as time permits. When I first saw controllable kites flying it was a team performance. I was intrigued by the synchronization and felt a calling to do the same. My first objective was to master the control of the kite. My Second objective was to link stunts together in the form of a flowing routine. My Third objective was to win competitions. Each of these objectives came in sequence at about 3 month intervals. After I flew my Superman/Lowis Lane routine at the 1986 Grand Nationals, I was approached by several adult couples that had tears in their eyes. They wanted to thank me for giving them an emotional experience they never expected to get while watching a kite fly. That was when I decided that that would be my true objective. During my career as a competitive flyer, I would use the precision events to maintain my status in the ranks. In 1989 I began to use the Ballet event to experiment and fly from my heart. Examples of these Ballet routines included; "Battlestar Galactica" routine which I took on as a personal challenge because I had seen others try to fly to that music and at the time thought that the music was not appropriate for individuals. I was wrong. I generated a very successful routine which became part of my award winning year. Lee Greenwoods, "God Bless The USA" I performed as a tribute to the men fighting overseas. I developed and dedicated a special routine in memory of Chris Batdorff. I flew to Disney's "Zip-e-dee Doo Dah" for the children spectators in hopes that they would feel encouraged to fly controllable kites. Each of these routines I did without concern for what the judges were looking for. They all usually placed 2nd or 3rd. None had what I would consider high degree of difficulty elements. All of them were very well synchronized to the music. To be a top level competitor year after year is a very difficult thing. I have a room full of trophies and boxes and boxes of other trophies but the rewards I hold most dear to me are the ones that I hold in my heart. They are the memories of the people that I have met. Therefore, I would have to say that the most important part of performing with a controllable kite is how it makes you feel first and then how it makes other people feel and then how it makes other kite flyers feel and then how it makes the judges feel, all in that order. If you make everybody feel good then the judges scores will be sufficient for you to get trophies to put into your kite room. Working hard on the Book, Ron Reich = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 01:49:36 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In <9306281717.AA09746@cod.nosc.mil> reich@cod.nosc.mil (Ronald S. Reich) writes: > Each of these routines I did without concern for what the >judges were looking for. They all usually placed 2nd or 3rd. >None had what I would consider high degree of difficulty >elements. All of them were very well synchronized to the music. Excuse my ignorance (again) Ron, but how do you go about putting together such a routine and how do you practice it? Is it a matter of hanging a walkman on your head and building up a program by playing the same piece repeatedly while trying to fit different maneuvers together to match it? BTW, I've been practicing those drills you mentioned a while back and the improvement in my precision is noticable. Sure do appreciate the tips. ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:36:00 -1000 From: reich@cod.nosc.mil (Ronald S. Reich) Message-Id: <9306292136.AA07657@cod.nosc.mil> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re:: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 11:49:36 GMT From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction >> Each of these routines I did without concern for what the >>judges were looking for. They all usually placed 2nd or 3rd. >>None had what I would consider high degree of difficulty >>elements. All of them were very well synchronized to the music. >Excuse my ignorance (again) Ron, but how do you go about putting together >such a routine and how do you practice it? Is it a matter of hanging a >walkman on your head and building up a program by playing the same piece >repeatedly while trying to fit different maneuvers together to match it? What you guess here is only a small part of the overall proceedure. I think the hardest part is selecting the appropriate music. I think it is an insult to the original composer and recording artist to just use small segments of their artistic work in order to get passages that will allow you to put in your hot stuff. I like to think of my choreography as an artistic interpretation of another artists work. I make a tape of the music which repeats the song over and over throughout the entire tape. I then listen to it about 50 times before even trying to fly to it. Next, I jot down some diagrams for the easy areas and then go try to fly them. If I'm doing the choreography for someone else the process even gets more involved. I recently finished a new piece for the Eastern League Pairs Champions. Team Wind Swept. I've been doing their routines for about 3 years now and they have been very successfull. I'm currently working with Marty Sasaki to select music for his 4 person team routine. I usually put in about 100 to 200 hours to choreograph a piece of music that will precent what I thought the original composer was trying to say with his work. I am also currently planning to release my first instructionary book about the precision aspects of flying controllable kites. The second book will be on flying controllable kites to music and include a detailed description of the approach that I use to choreograph routines. >BTW, I've been practicing those drills you mentioned a while back and the >improvement in my precision is noticable. Sure do appreciate the tips. I'm glad to hear that. I appreciate the feedback. Just trying to meet a deadline Ron Reich = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 06:57:13 -1000 From: sasaki@das.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki) Message-Id: <1993Jul9.165858.13863@das.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Darrin originally asked for experiences rather than philosophy. I've decided to do both. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hank Manseau and I were flying in experienced pairs at the 1991 Boston Area Stunt Kite Championships. Hank flew a 12 kite train of Dyna-kites (a diamond stunter with tails), while I flew a small dart. We flew to Gliere's "Russian Sailor's Dance". The routine was pretty ragged, we didn't have much time to practice, but we did a few things in time with the music. I made a mistake at the very end of the routine, which Hank turned to our advantage. I turned up too soon and crashed into the stack. Hank managed to hold both kites up until the final beat and lowered the stack, with my kite caught in it, at exactly the right time. After we finished, we got the loudest and longest round of applause of the entire event. Everywhere I went people were congratulating me on a job well done. Joanne, my patient SO, was being asked whether she knew me. These people were not flyers and they loved the routine. The judges gave us a fair score, but we finished in last place. The routine had decent choreography, but sloppy execution, and marginally interesting content. I think that the contrast between the two kites made the biggest difference with the crowd. ---------------------------------------------------------------- When I explain stunt kite flying to someone who isn't familiar with it I often show the Flight Squadron's "Battle Hymn of the Republic" routine as an example of team ballet flying. The recording that I show was made at Wildwood. The routine is technically demanding with spacing and timing critical to the overall effect. Several of the team turns, the speed control moves, and the refueling were (and still are) technically difficult and innovative. Almost no one notices these things The routine never fails to draw interest from people, many watch with their mouths open in wonderment. These folks have never seen a stunt kite and they are reacting entirely emotionally to the routine. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I was one of those who collected bugs in my mouth when I first saw Ron Reich fly his Loise Lane/Superman routine. It was either at the Black Ships Festival or the AKA Nationals, both held at Brenton Point State Park, Newport, RI. Again, the routine was difficult and innovative, flying two kites at a time was something that few had thought about and fewer still had actually done. The large crowd had a small number of flyers, but everyone was impressed, many with tears in their eyes. I've never seen a precision routine bring tears to anyone's eyes (except maybe the team captain as he watches the kites fall to the ground in an unplanned heap). ---------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know how many times I've been out flying, doing all sorts of technical things, snap stalls, landings, edge launches, dog stake flying, etc., only to be upstaged by someone flying really simple loops and ground passes with a train of kites with tails. ---------------------------------------------------------------- As a final example, let me point out a trend in innovative flying. The Innovative event was created to allow competition in an areas of flying that had been disallowed in other competition events. Multiple kites, banners, props, ground stakes, etc. were allowed. The only things not allowed were pyrotechnics and things that the judges or event organizers felt were dangerous. A new event "Freestyle" has recently been created. Why? Because innovative was boring and it took a long time to judge. Freestyle was created with an emphasis on entertainment value, not techical innovation. It hasn't had much exposure yet, the event was created last year, but the general impression is that the public likes Freestyle quite a bit. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philosophy time: I'm going to use "we" as a general term for the stunt kite community here. Please remember that this is general, and not aimed at any group or person. In order to get the general public interested in stunt kites, their imagination must be captured and it must be held. They have no scale to judge difficulty and innovation by. We have no time to educate them. Once we have their attention, then we can educate them, not the other way around. Kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. One of the things that we keep telling people is that anyone can do this. We tell them that the average person can excel at flying. I think that most people know that to be good, they must practice, but you don't have to be born with certain natural abilities. You don't have to be a Michael Jordan type to fly kites. And anyone can excel. There are several folks on the competitive circuit that have more or less severe physical disabilities and they manage to do well. So, we can't really "WOW!" them with our athleticism, or with the technical difficulty in flying certain stunts. If we want to, we can impress them with the money that we spend, but this is rather stupid (my opinion of course). What can we do to draw them in? We entertain them by drawing them in emotionally. We attract them by the beauty, or the comedy, or the drama of our kites in the sky. This can be done. It has been done by many flyers who end up winning contests as well. The goals of appealing to the public and winning contests needn't be at odds at all. Once we have them, we can change our tactics, because once they are in, they will spend the time to learn what we have already learned, that these stunt kites are interesting things and that flying is something interesting to do. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marty Sasaki Harvard University Sasaki Kite Fabrications sasaki@noc.harvard.edu Network Services Division 26 Green Street 617-496-4320 10 Ware Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Cambridge, MA 02138-4002 phone/fax: 617-522-8546 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 12:10:38 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article <1993Jul9.165858.13863@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 (Marty Sasaki) writes: [first half of article deleted] >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Philosophy time: > >I'm going to use "we" as a general term for the stunt kite community >here. Please remember that this is general, and not aimed at any group >or person. > >In order to get the general public interested in stunt kites, their >imagination must be captured and it must be held. They have no scale to >judge difficulty and innovation by. We have no time to educate them. >Once we have their attention, then we can educate them, not the other >way around. I've never ice skated in my life, but I can tell that a double-axel is harder to do than a simple loopty-loop. I can extend this example to almost any other sport. Just because people aren't flyers doesn't mean they are STUPID. Clearly, some moves are rather subtle and are clearly very hard for the non-fliers to catch. Many other moves, however, are obvious as to their difficulty. Also, the sport growing would help a lot, but then there's this very progressive idea spoken by a very widely known individual in the flying community: > >Kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. [...] This really says it all... Just a note--a quiz: what are the names of the top two nationally ranked team's sponsors: 1. Specrta _____ 2. UP ______ That's right, Sports--as in athletic endeavours. >[...] One of the >things that we keep telling people is that anyone can do this. We tell >them that the average person can excel at flying. I think that most >people know that to be good, they must practice, but you don't have to >be born with certain natural abilities. You don't have to be a Michael >Jordan type to fly kites. You don't have to be Michael Jordan to play basketball, either. You do, however, if you want to be the best in the world, and get paid millions of dollars. Anybody can play basketball, but there are only a few Michael Jordans in the world. Further, I think that Michael Joran himself has served only to *encourage* people to play basketball, not discourage them. >[more stuff deleted] > >[...] >The goals of appealing to the public and winning >contests needn't be at odds at all. Absolutely. People love to watch great atheletes. Wheel-chair basketball league players love to watch Michael Jordan play--even though they know they could never be that good. They love the player and they love thier sport. Is this so hard to understand? -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1993 10:05:32 -1000 From: salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne) Message-Id: <1993Jul10.200532.7799@nic.funet.fi> Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >Absolutely. People love to watch great atheletes. Wheel-chair basketball >league players love to watch Michael Jordan play--even though they know >they could never be that good. They love the player and they love thier >sport. >Is this so hard to understand? Yes it is. Please explain how wheel-chair kite fliers relate to Michael Jordan? Smooth Winds Simo.Salanne@csc.fi = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 02:08:26 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >> >>Kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. [...] >This really says it all... >Just a note--a quiz: what are the names of the top two nationally ranked >team's sponsors: > 1. Specrta _____ > 2. UP ______ >That's right, Sports--as in athletic endeavours. Uhm.... the words athletic and sports are not equivalent in any way shape or form. Any dictionary will illustrate this. Again, you're stretching these meanings in an attempt to suggest that Marti is saying something he is not. Heck, the "sport" of model airplane aerobatics has the participant firmly planted on the ground motionless, excepting his fingers. He's not an athlete but he is participating in a sport. The same can be said for precision marksmanship where the person is generally laying down while participating. >Is this so hard to understand? I don't think "understanding" is at issue here. ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 06:39:29 -1000 From: ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) Message-Id: Organization: MIT/LCS Spoken Language Systems Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: Or we can change the original perception. Rollerblade, Inc., changed the perception of "Roller Skating", from, "a thing kids do in rinks and weird grown-ups do at Venice Beach", to, "the new Yuppie sensation that anybody can do and everybody's doing". This kind of change in perception doesn't occur overnight, and it's not easy. This is the answer to the Original Question--how to make Sport Kites more like Rollerblades. Sport Kite flying is an incredibly fun and intense activity. It's easy to get into, relatively inexpensive, and limitless in its possibilities. Currenty, when I tell people that I'm going to "go kite flying", they don't understand any of these things. We need to find every means possible to get this message across-- but it needs to be _this_ message, not, "yea, it's the activity you did with a grocery store kite when you where 9 years old, but a little different". I find it interesting that you put rollerblading up as an example. As far as I can tell, the success of rollerblading has nothing to do with competition, degree of difficulty, or coverage on ESPN. It doesn't even have "sport" in it's name ;-) Come to think of it, I don't really remember being bombarded with rollerblade commercials on TV either. I think it was more of a case of people seeing others rollerblading and having fun. Then, they wanted to do it too. Also, there were places where you could rent rollerblades to try them out without spending a lot of money. So, I don't think the answer to making stunt kites more popular is rule changes. It is more of exposure in public places such as parks and beaches. I got into stunt kites by seeing others on the beach having a great time. And, back to the rollerblading example, while I was on Nantucket this spring, I was able to rent a kite (Fire Dart) for the afternoon for around $10. That way I could see if these kites were worth the fairly large price tags: GREAT IDEA! So, I got interested stunt kites without ever seeing competition, or particularly difficult moves. I was inspired more by seeing ordinary people out flying and not the Michael Jordans of the sport. Of course, this is all just IMHO. -- Lee Hetherington ilh@lcs.mit.edu = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 08:23:31 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) writes: >In steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: > >>> >>>Kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. [...] > >>This really says it all... > >>Just a note--a quiz: what are the names of the top two nationally ranked >>team's sponsors: > >> 1. Specrta _____ >> 2. UP ______ > >>That's right, Sports--as in athletic endeavours. > > >Uhm.... the words athletic and sports are not equivalent in any way >shape or form. Any dictionary will illustrate this. Again, you're >stretching these meanings in an attempt to suggest that Marti is saying >something he is not. Heck, the "sport" of model airplane aerobatics >has the participant firmly planted on the ground motionless, excepting >his fingers. He's not an athlete but he is participating in a sport. >The same can be said for precision marksmanship where the person is >generally laying down while participating. Well, I got out my dictionary (not a very good one: Webster's new Collegiate) and looked up "Sport" and didn't find anything less vague than, "source of diversion", etc. "Athletic" -> "Athlete" gave me, "one who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina". I think the very intense (physically and mentally) nature of competitive Sport Kite Flying qualifies it as an "athletic endevour" (just watch some competitors as they leave the competition field sometime. "Strength, agility, and stamina" are definately things you need to accomplish a winning routine in Sport Kite Flying (a certain kind of strength, more "dexterity" than agility, and enough stamina to run through a several minute routine). As for definitions, remember my broader context here: I'm using the word "Sport" to differentiate from "Art Form". My argument here has been that we should focus on what people think of as a "Sport"--something you work to get better and better at, etc. This is opposed to an "Art Form"--something that you "just do". Now I know that this might not be a good word to use all the time, I just can't think of a better one right now... Perhaps we should ask ESPN what the 'S' _really_ stands for :-). -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 06:57:29 -1000 From: sasaki@das.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki) Message-Id: <1993Jul12.165729.5593@das.harvard.edu> Organization: Harvard OIT Network Services Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >In article <1993Jul9.165858.13863@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 >(Marty Sasaki) writes: > >[first half of article deleted] I wish someone would comment on the first half of my article. Why? Because it is my impression of crowd (non kite flyers) reaction. Is there something wrong with this impression? Is it atypical? If it is a typical reaction, then all of this debate about whether stunt kiting is a sport, and whether difficulty should be part of the rules, and the role of music with kite flying is completely moot, if the goal is to get the public's attention. This is not to say that technical content is not important, as Steve has said before, a difficult move at the right time and lead to an exciting performance, but that emphasis on technical content isn't interesting. >I've never ice skated in my life, but I can tell that a double-axel is >harder to do than a simple loopty-loop. I can extend this example to >almost any other sport. Just because people aren't flyers doesn't mean >they are STUPID. Clearly, some moves are rather subtle and are clearly >very hard for the non-fliers to catch. Many other moves, however, are >obvious as to their difficulty. Who cares about the difficulty? As I stated in one of my examples, people can sit and watch someone fly a train of kites with tails for hours. They will be entertained and excited. >Also, the sport growing would help a lot, but then there's this very >progressive idea spoken by a very widely known individual in the flying >community: >> >>Kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. [...] > >This really says it all... Thanks for the side swipe Steve. I really appreciate the courtesy that you have shown for me and others on this group. >Just a note--a quiz: what are the names of the top two nationally ranked >team's sponsors: > > 1. Specrta _____ > 2. UP ______ > >That's right, Sports--as in athletic endeavours. As I've said before, just because you call something a sport doesn't mean that it is a sport. Further, If I was trying to be argumentative, I could contend that the "Sports" in "UP Sports" refers to their hang gliders and sail boards and not their kites. >>[...] One of the >>things that we keep telling people is that anyone can do this. We tell >>them that the average person can excel at flying. I think that most >>people know that to be good, they must practice, but you don't have to >>be born with certain natural abilities. You don't have to be a Michael >>Jordan type to fly kites. > >You don't have to be Michael Jordan to play basketball, either. You do, >however, if you want to be the best in the world, and get paid millions >of dollars. What I was trying to say, and I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, is that to the general public, and to many folks involved in the activity, stunt kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. I believe that this is the perception, not the fact. If this is the perception, then we can't really use the traditional lures that go with more athletic activities to get people interested in kites. We have to use something else. >>The goals of appealing to the public and winning >>contests needn't be at odds at all. > >Absolutely. People love to watch great atheletes. Wheel-chair basketball >league players love to watch Michael Jordan play--even though they know >they could never be that good. They love the player and they love thier >sport. > >Is this so hard to understand? I understand this completely. I'm a flyer and I enjoy watching precision. Yes, I'm one of those weird folks who get excited while watching people fly compusory moves as well as their freestyle stuff. Look at it another way though. I find Golf increadibly boring. I can get excited about golf for the 60 seconds or so that it occupies the sports section of the local news, but no more. I don't doubt that Golf is difficult and I know many golfers who will watch golf for hours on TV. The same is true for tennis, although I'm on the other side. I play tennis, enjoy watching it immensely, but know lots of people who enjoy sports who are bored out of their minds. I believe that the goal is to draw the general public into kite activities. In order to do this, we have to figure out what we can do to get them interested and "excited" (I really like that word, thanks Steve). I believe that changing the rules to include the word "difficult", removing "emotion" from judging, and calling this activity a "sport" will do nothing to draw the general public. Things that play up the emotion and the excitement are what will make kiting more interesting to the general public. Now we don't have to get the general public involved, many activities don't have that as their goal. As an example RC airplane precision aerobatic competitions don't care about spectators that much. The competition is high, and the competitors spend lots of time and money perfecting their skills. -- Marty Sasaki Harvard University Sasaki Kite Fabrications sasaki@noc.harvard.edu Network Services Division 26 Green Street 617-496-4320 10 Ware Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Cambridge, MA 02138-4002 phone/fax: 617-522-8546 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 09:05:41 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article <1993Jul12.165729.5593@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 (Marty Sasaki) writes: >In article steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >>In article <1993Jul9.165858.13863@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 >>(Marty Sasaki) writes: >> > >Who cares about the difficulty? As I stated in one of my examples, >people can sit and watch someone fly a train of kites with tails for >hours. They will be entertained and excited. It won't make it to ESPN, I promise you. (Remember that this is how this thread started...). >> >>That's right, Sports--as in athletic endeavours. > >As I've said before, just because you call something a sport doesn't >mean that it is a sport. Further, If I was trying to be argumentative, >I could contend that the "Sports" in "UP Sports" refers to their hang >gliders and sail boards and not their kites. UP has an interesting angle on the Sport Kite industry: they sell clothes. As near as I can tell, UP is selling a "look"--a "sporting", "cool", "outdoors in the wind" kind of look. Kites, Hang Gliders and Sail Boards are part of this "look" (this is not to say that they are not vigorously in these businesses too). UP knows that there are a whole lot more people that will buy "Air Jordan" shoes than will buy "Air Mozart" shoes. I think that they looked at Sport Kites and decided that this would be another business-- along side their Hang Gliders and Sail Boards--that would fit into the "UP Look". This is my theory, anyhow. The beginning of this thread asked the question, "how do we make this sport one that a lot of people will pay attention to?". I contend that treating it like a Sport (Athletic Activity) is the first step... > >>>[...] One of the >>>things that we keep telling people is that anyone can do this. We tell >>>them that the average person can excel at flying. I think that most >>>people know that to be good, they must practice, but you don't have to >>>be born with certain natural abilities. You don't have to be a Michael >>>Jordan type to fly kites. >> >>You don't have to be Michael Jordan to play basketball, either. You do, >>however, if you want to be the best in the world, and get paid millions >>of dollars. > >What I was trying to say, and I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, >is that to the general public, and to many folks involved in the >activity, stunt kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. >I believe that this is the perception, not the fact. > >If this is the perception, then we can't really use the traditional >lures that go with more athletic activities to get people interested >in kites. We have to use something else. Or we can change the original perception. Rollerblade, Inc., changed the perception of "Roller Skating", from, "a thing kids do in rinks and weird grown-ups do at Venice Beach", to, "the new Yuppie sensation that anybody can do and everybody's doing". This kind of change in perception doesn't occur overnight, and it's not easy. This is the answer to the Original Question--how to make Sport Kites more like Rollerblades. Sport Kite flying is an incredibly fun and intense activity. It's easy to get into, relatively inexpensive, and limitless in its possibilities. Currenty, when I tell people that I'm going to "go kite flying", they don't understand any of these things. We need to find every means possible to get this message across-- but it needs to be _this_ message, not, "yea, it's the activity you did with a grocery store kite when you where 9 years old, but a little different". >I believe that the goal is to draw the general public into kite >activities. [...] Well, as I mentioned before, this has to be a _secondary_ goal--secondary to the flyers. Without great flyers, there won't be any public interest. This year's UP event was an example: two great teams that were there last year: Flight Squadron and High Performance were not there this year. It really threw a bit of cold water on the whole event by only having only four teams there competing. You've got to pay close attention to the competitors--they are your lifeblood: this is especially true in the beginning of a sport. >[...] In order to do this, we have to figure out what we can do >to get them interested and "excited" (I really like that word, thanks >Steve). [...] Not my word really... >I believe that changing the rules to include the word >"difficult", removing "emotion" from judging, and calling this >activity a "sport" will do nothing to draw the general public. [...] And I believe the opposite. -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:38:08 -1000 From: Darrin.Skinner@ebay.sun.com (Darrin Skinner) Message-Id: <9307122238.AA15594@stuntkite.EBay.Sun.COM> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From darrin Mon Jul 12 15:36:21 1993 Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Content-Length: 1406 -] From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) -] Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction -] In article <1993Jul12.165729.5593@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 (Marty Sasaki) writes: -] >In article steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: -] >>In article <1993Jul9.165858.13863@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 -] >>(Marty Sasaki) writes: -] >> -] > -] >Who cares about the difficulty? As I stated in one of my examples, -] >people can sit and watch someone fly a train of kites with tails for -] >hours. They will be entertained and excited. -] -] It won't make it to ESPN, I promise you. (Remember that this is how this -] thread started...). -] -] _______ -] Steve Thomas -] steveth@netcom.com -] Yes I do remember how this thread started! It started by a request from me for peoples EXPERIENCES with crowd reactions to their flying. The original email was worded to ask for ONLY experiences and NOT opinions. I was trying to take a survey of experiences. In re-reading the last 22 postings with subjects relating to "technical/artistic vs artistic/technical" I see that with about the 3rd reply, the very argument that I was attempting to gather EXPERIENCES about, was restarted under MY SUBJECT. So, if you want to argue... create your own subject and leave MINE ALONE!!! ... I feel better now... sorry to all you not involved in this... Darrin ----- End Included Message ----- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:47:07 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article ilh@lcs.mit.edu writes: >In article >steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: > > Or we can change the original perception. Rollerblade, Inc., > changed the perception of "Roller Skating", from, "a thing kids do > in rinks and weird grown-ups do at Venice Beach", to, "the new > Yuppie sensation that anybody can do and everybody's doing". This > kind of change in perception doesn't occur overnight, and it's not > easy. This is the answer to the Original Question--how to make > Sport Kites more like Rollerblades. Sport Kite flying is an > incredibly fun and intense activity. It's easy to get into, > relatively inexpensive, and limitless in its possibilities. > Currenty, when I tell people that I'm going to "go kite flying", > they don't understand any of these things. We need to find every > means possible to get this message across-- but it needs to be > _this_ message, not, "yea, it's the activity you did with a grocery > store kite when you where 9 years old, but a little different". > >I find it interesting that you put rollerblading up as an example. As >far as I can tell, the success of rollerblading has nothing to do with >competition, degree of difficulty, or coverage on ESPN. It doesn't >even have "sport" in it's name ;-) Come to think of it, I don't really >remember being bombarded with rollerblade commercials on TV either. I >think it was more of a case of people seeing others rollerblading and >having fun. Then, they wanted to do it too. Also, there were places >where you could rent rollerblades to try them out without spending a >lot of money. Correct: what YOU saw was the _effect_ of Rollerblade's careful cultivation of a core group of skaters. There *are* a lot of very intense, "hard-core" Rollerbladers out there that made the sport what it is today. These are the people that got the sport off the ground--after it got off the ground, there was somebody selling Rollerblades on every corner of the US--which is how YOU (and I, for that matter) got exposed to Rollerblades. I don't really want to go into real technical arguments here about product marketing, but to make a long story short, Rollerblade did a brilliant job of promoting its own sport, and it used competitions--and competitively minded people-- to do it (along with other things too, obviously). Rollerblading was just an example, though. I think Sport Kite Flying will be very different--a somewhat different audience, for one. > >So, I don't think the answer to making stunt kites more popular is >rule changes. It is more of exposure in public places such as parks >and beaches. I got into stunt kites by seeing others on the beach >having a great time. [...] There was a time when only a very small portion of the population thought that Rollerblading was actually something FUN to do. You can't put the cart before the horse here... >And, back to the rollerblading example, while I >was on Nantucket this spring, I was able to rent a kite (Fire Dart) >for the afternoon for around $10. That way I could see if these kites >were worth the fairly large price tags: GREAT IDEA! Yes, an excellent idea. I wish more stores would do this... > So, I got >interested stunt kites without ever seeing competition, or >particularly difficult moves. I was inspired more by seeing ordinary >people out flying and not the Michael Jordans of the sport. > There will always be the "word-of-mouth" style of promotion, and it can be pretty effective. When you start talking about "mass marketing", "ESPN", etc., word-of-mouth gets rather limiting (and/or it takes a lifetime...). >Of course, this is all just IMHO. > Thanks for your input--it was getting pretty boring in here just listening to myself and about two other guys banter about.. -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Hokey weapons and worn out legends are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." -- Hans Solo = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 22:50:15 -1000 From: ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) Message-Id: Organization: MIT/LCS Spoken Language Systems Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) writes: Possibly issues are being cluttered here by a discussion of two concepts, the first being that we should change the perception of kiting to be "sport-like" and secondly that rule changes should be made to cause judging to become more objective. One does not necessarily beget the other does it? Exactly. Steve seems to be arguing for both fairer competitions and more crowd appeal/press coverage (leading to popularity). The two goals are both worthy goals, but they are not one and the same, and we should probably discuss them separately. Fairer competitions may very well produce less interesting (emotional and artistic) routines, yet the spectators might not enjoy them as much. More interesting routines may be more difficult to judge objectively, yet may be the real crowd pleasers. Which is more important? Don't we already have both types of competition (precision and ballet) now to cater to both camps? -- Lee Hetherington ilh@lcs.mit.edu = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 01:51:52 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) writes: >I find it interesting that you put rollerblading up as an example. As >far as I can tell, the success of rollerblading has nothing to do with >competition, degree of difficulty, or coverage on ESPN. It doesn't >even have "sport" in it's name ;-) Come to think of it, I don't really >remember being bombarded with rollerblade commercials on TV either. I >think it was more of a case of people seeing others rollerblading and >having fun. Then, they wanted to do it too. Also, there were places >where you could rent rollerblades to try them out without spending a >lot of money. Boy...do I agree with this. We've now got at least 6 people in my small town flying their own stunt kites largely because I said, "Here, wanna try it?" Nothing fancy, nothing smart... just plain old 'you can do it and it's fun'. Frankly, I think kiting could be the number one news item, sales phenomenon, and anything else that sounds good about the kiting world growing EXCEPT, those producing them are small companies without the advertising budgets of those who've generated dinosaur-mania. Whether that sort of interest is desirable is yet another matter for debate I suppose. ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 04:54:46 -1000 From: hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) Message-Id: <1993Jul13.140323.13757@e2big.mko.dec.com> Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article , ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) writes... >I find it interesting that you put rollerblading up as an example. As Throughout, I think that Lee makes some very, very good points. I'm also an avid Rollerblader, and I got into it by seeing others having a good time. To this day, after over three years of Rollerblading, I have yet to see someone who is really good (i.e., the Michael Jordans of Rollerblading.) I never quite bothered to go to a competition, rally, or whatever they call it. >So, I don't think the answer to making stunt kites more popular is >rule changes. It is more of exposure in public places such as parks >and beaches. I got into stunt kites by seeing others on the beach >having a great time. And, back to the rollerblading example, while I >was on Nantucket this spring, I was able to rent a kite (Fire Dart) >for the afternoon for around $10. That way I could see if these kites >were worth the fairly large price tags: GREAT IDEA! So, I got >interested stunt kites without ever seeing competition, or >particularly difficult moves. My first exposure to stunt kiting was seeing a stack of Trlby's on the beach while on a business trip. My first Trbly was bought out of a novelty store. I went to an actual kite store for my first Flexi, and didn't see a competition until I had been flying for three years already, and by that time, I had managed to turn several people on to the sport. >I was inspired more by seeing ordinary >people out flying and not the Michael Jordans of the sport. Hear, hear. >Of course, this is all just IMHO. YHO counts. /bob/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 02:14:52 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >> >>Uhm.... the words athletic and sports are not equivalent in any way >>shape or form. Any dictionary will illustrate this. Again, you're >Well, I got out my dictionary (not a very good one: Webster's new Collegiate) >and looked up "Sport" and didn't find anything less vague than, "source of >diversion", etc. "Athletic" -> "Athlete" gave me, "one who is trained or >skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, >or stamina". I think the very intense (physically and mentally) nature of I think you've made my point exactly. Thanks :-) The term "sport" is not as precise as this entire debate has branded it. In fact, I'd further suggest that the connotation being used here, for better or worse, is a US connotation, not an International one. The very need to call something a sport to legitimize it smacks of American thought. Nothing wrong with this mind you but it is, I think important to understand this regardless of which side of this debate we are on. It's probably for that reason that the definition of sport is so vague in Mr. Webster's mind. >competitive Sport Kite Flying qualifies it as an "athletic endevour" (just >watch some competitors as they leave the competition field sometime. >"Strength, agility, and stamina" are definately things you need to accomplish >a winning routine in Sport Kite Flying (a certain kind of strength, more >"dexterity" than agility, and enough stamina to run through a several >minute routine). I know, from my time in competitive archery, what you're saying here. At the same time, I wouldn't put much money on the kiteflyers or archers if we stuck them into one of those Superstar competitions and asked them to compete with football players, basketball players in games of strength and/or speed. Does this mean they are or are not athletes? Kinda depends on your definition and I agree with Marti; the public wouldn't view them as athletes. >As for definitions, remember my broader context here: I'm using the word >"Sport" to differentiate from "Art Form". My argument here has been that we You're right and this should be kept in mind. On the other hand, much of your early writings suggested that "sport" was important to getting things on TV and in the public mind. If true, why is ice skating to music so popular on TV and yet watching those same skaters cutting figures (very difficult) is rarely, if ever covered? When was the last time you saw an archery meet covered on TV. A standard indoor archery round requires the top archers to put 45 into a 1.5" bulls-eye at 20 yards. Missing it more than twice means you don't stand a prayer in hell of winning. You don't get much more precise than that. You don't place the human mind and physiology in much more of a demanding position. Archers, when finished just want to lay down. So why, if precision is important to viewers, are these things not on TV? Cuz they're boring to watch, that's why. No drama until the end. No spontaneity. No emotion to cling to. No beauty to see. And each and every step to add such things would make judging more and more subjective and the viewer more and more happy. This is the dichotomy and the crux of the issue. >should focus on what people think of as a "Sport"--something you work to >get better and better at, etc. This is opposed to an "Art Form"--something >that you "just do". Now I know that this might not be a good word to use >all the time, I just can't think of a better one right now... I can live with that definition. Seems hard, however, to determine what that is. More important, this doesn't seem to be the issue at all in your mind. If we call what you'd like to see in competitions type A and what is currently type B the argument would remain wouldn't it? Then the public and its perceptions of where Michael Jordan fits into the scheme of things wouldn't be relevant, right? Possibly issues are being cluttered here by a discussion of two concepts, the first being that we should change the perception of kiting to be "sport-like" and secondly that rule changes should be made to cause judging to become more objective. One does not necessarily beget the other does it? >Perhaps we should ask ESPN what the 'S' _really_ stands for :-). Stands for Sports and thus, I guess, we can use their programming to define the term (presuming it is what "people think of as a _Sport_"). This would exclude virtually all of the things discussed here :-) ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 04:37:35 -1000 From: hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) Message-Id: <1993Jul13.134946.13242@e2big.mko.dec.com> Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Broad, sweeping generalization alert!!! Steve Thomas writes: >Well, I got out my dictionary (not a very good one: Webster's new Collegiate) ... >I think the very intense (physically and mentally) nature of >competitive Sport Kite Flying qualifies it as an "athletic endevour" (just >watch some competitors as they leave the competition field sometime. ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Yes, if there was little to no wind and they had to run around a lot. There are just as many times where a competitor moves within just a small area, expending very little effort. >"Strength, agility, and stamina" are definately things you need to accomplish >a winning routine in Sport Kite Flying (a certain kind of strength, more >"dexterity" than agility, and enough stamina to run through a several >minute routine). Not necessarily...at all. You don't *definately* (sp) need "strength, agility, and stamina" to accomplish a winning routine. What if someone flies a smaller, pull-less kite? They wouldn't need all that much strength. Replace, perhaps, the term "agility" with "hand-to-eye" coordination; "stamina" required could be a lot or a little. As many times as I've come off the field huffing and puffing, I've also come off the field calm and dry. And in many respects, the degree of "sport," as you put it, depends very much on the level of energy that someone chooses to expend. To use your example, Michael Jordan plays a sport, and certainly his efforts require strength, agility, and stamina. Is it as much of a sport if I sit in the chair in my driveway, suckin' down a beer, occasionally flipping a basketball in some general direction of the net? "Source of diversion" doesn't seem so vague after all. ;^) Bob = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 02:27:31 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: >Correct: what YOU saw was the _effect_ of Rollerblade's careful cultivation >of a core group of skaters. There *are* a lot of very intense, "hard-core" >Rollerbladers out there that made the sport what it is today. These are >the people that got the sport off the ground--after it got off the ground, >there was somebody selling Rollerblades on every corner of the US--which is >how YOU (and I, for that matter) got exposed to Rollerblades. I don't really >want to go into real technical arguments here about product marketing, but >to make a long story short, Rollerblade did a brilliant job of promoting >its own sport, and it used competitions--and competitively minded people-- >to do it (along with other things too, obviously). Do you have any evidence to support this Steve? Sounds like revisionist history to me. It's something akin to saying that those few people in the world who have built model dinosaurs are responsible for the fact that I now get them when I order my Big Mac. Yes, they existed but to suggest they had anything to do with the current dinosaurs are everywhere syndrome is stretching it. I think the same can be said for rollerblading. In fact, rollerblading competitions didn't hit TV until every kid on the block was zipping past my house at mach speed. >>So, I don't think the answer to making stunt kites more popular is >>rule changes. It is more of exposure in public places such as parks >>and beaches. I got into stunt kites by seeing others on the beach >>having a great time. [...] >There was a time when only a very small portion of the population thought >that Rollerblading was actually something FUN to do. You can't put the cart >before the horse here... You've decided which is the cart and what is the horse here. Why are you so sure you're correct? Besides, what has the effect of competition rules had on the popularity of rollerblading which, I believe, is the raison d'etre of this discussion? >>was on Nantucket this spring, I was able to rent a kite (Fire Dart) >>for the afternoon for around $10. That way I could see if these kites >>were worth the fairly large price tags: GREAT IDEA! >Yes, an excellent idea. I wish more stores would do this... Agreed... this is how kiting will grow. Whether we like it or not, more people will get into kiting with cheap super-kite knock-offs than by buying a first class product. Rollerblading is good, once again, as an example of this. >There will always be the "word-of-mouth" style of promotion, and it can be >pretty effective. When you start talking about "mass marketing", "ESPN", >etc., word-of-mouth gets rather limiting (and/or it takes a lifetime...). Minor "sports" have always been covered primarily because of the numbers of people doing that activity quite outside of competition. It provides the audience. ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 01:43:48 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In <1993Jul12.165729.5593@das.harvard.edu> sasaki@netop3 (Marty Sasaki) writes: >I wish someone would comment on the first half of my article. Why? >Because it is my impression of crowd (non kite flyers) reaction. Is >there something wrong with this impression? Is it atypical? If it is a Seemed to me that you made the point so clearly that little discussion could result. It's also undeniable that such things happen and that they are good things. >What I was trying to say, and I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, >is that to the general public, and to many folks involved in the >activity, stunt kite flying is *obviously* not an athletic endeavour. >I believe that this is the perception, not the fact. >If this is the perception, then we can't really use the traditional >lures that go with more athletic activities to get people interested >in kites. We have to use something else. I guess I'd take issue that it's only a perception. Obviously intense concentration is involved. A case could be made that precise muscle movements are required. But to start talking in terms of being an athlete in the sense that Michael Jordan is an athlete is absurd and, in fact, one of the benefits of stunt kiting; you don't have to be superman to fly kites. >I believe that the goal is to draw the general public into kite >activities. In order to do this, we have to figure out what we can do I still think this is one of the fundamental differences between those debating here. Steve is addressing the issue with the idea that the AKA, stunt kite rules, and everything else involved in this debate is for the contest participants. He believes that contests, whatever kind, should be objectively assessed. An admirable goal indeed, though it would exclude many formal competitions in many forums. Your view, that the observers, not the participants, are the important parameter in determining how such contests function is quite different. >Now we don't have to get the general public involved, many activities >don't have that as their goal. As an example RC airplane precision >aerobatic competitions don't care about spectators that much. The This is interesting and "getting the public involved" is something that is discussed regularly. The problem is, however, EVERYTHING is directed at making precision something that can be objectively judged by providing fixed programs for the pilots to fly. It's easier to compare apples to apples than apples to oranges. It's also about as interesting as watching paint dry (Grin). On the other hand, one of our 'heros' was in town recently putting on a free-form flying demonstration. There was our "athlete". All 150lbs of his skinny little body standing absolutely still, while wiggling his fingers over a box. He was showing us some of the best performance the world could offer in our "sport". We were in awe. Somehow I think I would have been even if we still called it a "hobby". Cheers --- Larry = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 10:33:14 -1000 From: hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) Message-Id: <1993Jul13.193411.626@e2big.mko.dec.com> Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In article , lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) writes... > >Sounds good to me; can I play? > Sure, Larry, all are welcome. But we take turns gettin' out of the chair for another round! Distribution of labor, eh? /bob/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 06:15:06 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In <1993Jul13.134946.13242@e2big.mko.dec.com> hanson@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Bob Hanson) writes: >agility, and stamina. Is it as much of a sport if I sit in the chair in my >driveway, suckin' down a beer, occasionally flipping a basketball in some >general direction of the net? Sounds good to me; can I play? ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1993 06:12:34 -1000 From: lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca (Larry Marshall) Message-Id: Organization: Forestry Canada - Petawawa National Forestry Institute Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction In ilh@lcs.mit.edu (Lee Hetherington) writes: >should probably discuss them separately. Fairer competitions may very >well produce less interesting (emotional and artistic) routines, yet >the spectators might not enjoy them as much. More interesting >routines may be more difficult to judge objectively, yet may be the >real crowd pleasers. Which is more important? Don't we already have >both types of competition (precision and ballet) now to cater to both >camps? I can't address your last statement except for what I've read here. It sounds, to me, however, that both types of competitions exist but Steve's comments suggest that possibly they do not. As for which is more important, fair contests vs crowd pleasers I think that's akin to asking what's the best food, spinach or an orange. Possibly the root of the problem is the fact that both things are being done, or attempted, simultaneously. Maybe that's not such a good idea. Maybe competitions should be starchy, don't go unless you're a diehard, sorts of affairs whereas demonstrations at kite festivals are where the "SHOW" is performed. Don't know about this and/or whether you could get the same caliber of flyers to show up at the later. ---------- Larry Marshall lmarshal@pnfi.forestry.ca Forestry Canada (613) 589-2880 Petawawa National Forestry Institute (613) 589-2275 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 13:48:47 -1000 From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) Message-Id: <22260v$1ab@pogo.wv.tek.com> Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR, USA Subject: Re: technical vs artistic -- a crowd reaction Steve Thomas recently made a statement that I can't really agree with. In regard to the savy of onlookers, Steve says: > I've never ice skated in my life, but I can tell that a double-axle is > harder to do than a simple loopty-loop. I can extend this example to > almost any other sport. Just because people aren't flyers doesn't mean > they are STUPID. Clearly, some moves are rather subtle and are clearly > very hard for the non-fliers to catch. Many other moves, however, are > obvious as to their difficulty. I don't think that onlookers are stupid, but on the other hand ignorance can make a difference. For instance, on the 4th of July weekend, I was flying my new Tracer (thanks for the recommendation Jeff). I was practicing the downwind-nose-launch in a strong wind (although I still can't quite do it without touching a wingtip), and also a new move I just found with the Tracer (I do a tip stand at the edge of the window, and then roll the kite downwind, across the ground and finally into downwind launch). Because I was always putting the kite on the ground and either putting it on its nose, or rolling it across its nose, it apparently looked to some onlookers as if I was having trouble, and in fact one came over and noted that I was "having trouble keeping it in the air." I mentioned that I was practicing (though I'm not sure he believed me at that moment), and asked him what he thought of the kites. He said that he thought they were beautiful, and noted his admiration for a particular Tori Tako flier who was doing loops, figure 8's and ground passes. A little while later that Tori Tako flyer came over and asked me "How the hell are you taking off from a nose down position?" It turns out that he'd been flying completely on his own for about a year, and all he could really do were basic moves like loops, figure 8's and ground passes. Further, he did whatever he could to avoid landing nose down, as he could never recover and get it back in the air. Now because he did basically know easy moves from hard moves, He thought the nose launch was "incredible," while the non-flier wasn't impressed at all. So here is a good example of a non-flier being impressed by pretty basic, beginner moves, and not being at all impressed by intermediate difficulty moves, while a beginning kiter definitely knew the difference. The problem is that the non-kiter had no frame of reference. He had no idea of the capabilities of a kite, so he was judging everything on the scale of smoothness, fluidity, and keeping the kite in the air. Another example is the Revolution, which has even less context for most people. If I bust my butt to perfect an inverted slide across the ground at a constant 1 ft, or a really steady, precise, backwards ground sweep, the non-kiters watching are not all that impressed (as far as they are concerned they see the delta kites make *basically* the same moves all the time, and of course they are wrong). The move that I've found really impresses most non-kiters is to take the Rev to the top of the window, aim it at the ground at top speed, slam on the brakes about 3 ft off the ground, and hover. This move, which is probably one of the easiest things to do with a Rev, is pretty much guaranteed to get their attention (its dramatic and, for them, unexpected). I learned when I started flying the Rev, that if I wanted to be left alone with my Rev, then all I had to do was practice hard precise moves (non-3d), and if I wanted quick attention, I should race at the ground, stop and hover. In other words, non-kiters didn't have a clue as to the relative difficulty of moves done with a Rev. Now Steve mentions other sports: > I've never ice skated in my life, but I can tell that a double-axle is > harder to do than a simple loopty-loop. I can extend this example to > almost any other sport. Just because people aren't flyers doesn't mean > they are STUPID. Clearly, some moves are rather subtle and are clearly > very hard for the non-fliers to catch. Many other moves, however, are > obvious as to their difficulty. and > You don't have to be Michael Jordan to play basketball, either. You do, > however, if you want to be the best in the world, and get paid millions > of dollars. The problem here though, as you point out, is that people have some context. Most people have experience with running, jumping, evading and throwing at a target (in some sport or another), so they realize how hard and how exceptional it is to jump 3 feet in the air, evade a defender, and make a 30 ft jump shot. The same goes for gymnastics, baseball, soccer, and archery etc. The people have some context with which to judge. In kite flying too, there is some of that same sort of context. For instance, even the completely naive can appreciate "object" flying, because it involves a target which must be touched, and accuracy is a something people understand. Sometimes though context is not present. For instance many people lack context with ice skating. Now I understand fluidity and grace, and I understand that jumping in that air is more difficult that staying on the ice (hell, I have a hard enough time on ice even without jumping). I can also easily understand that adding spins while you jump is more difficult that spinning just once, or not at all. I can even basically understand why jumping while going forward (ie: an axle) is more difficult than jumping while going backwards. The problem is, that I just do not have the context to judge the differences between a toe loop, a sowcow (sp?) and the rest of the jumps that take off while traveling backwards, or even why one is more difficult than another. Heck, I can't even remember *which* is more difficult. To me, a triple-spin-jump is pretty much a triple-spin-jump (spinning while jumping is something for which I have context). So when someone does a solid triple sowcow, and gets beaten because someone else does a shaky triple toe loop (assuming that the toe loop is more difficult), I must admit that I shrug my shoulders, leave it to the judges, and and admit that I personally was more thrilled by the simpler move. The same sort of thing goes for kites. If someone doesn't have the context to realize the relative difficulty of kite moves (and most people really have no context to what is difficult with a kite), then they will probably judge by smoothness, fluidity, speed and what they *perceive* as complex or dramatic moves. In this case, a less than fluid, incredibly difficult move, will not impress as much as a fluid simple move, and that incredibly difficult move, even if done with fluidity, may well not be perceived as any more impressive than a fluid, simple move. By the way, please note that I am not arguing whether rules should be changed to reflect the difficulty of a maneuver, but simply pointing out that, in my experience, one should not expect a not non-kiters to have the necessary savy to tell a difficult move from an easy one, or to be more impressed by a more difficult move. Later, Dave Butler Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: What more could you ask of life? Aviation combined all the elements I loved... I began to feel that I lived on a higher plane than the skeptics of the ground; one that was richer because of its very association with the elements of danger they dreaded, because it was freer of the earth to which they were bound. In flying I tasted the wine of the gods of which they could know nothing... Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =