UPSB v3
Tricks & Combos / [topic][1.26.1.1] Mapping Difficulty Within a Combo
Relative Difficulty Variation Over Time
-
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 09:23:24
Ok, so the purpose of this project is to A. map the relative difficulty of a combo as time elapses, and B. show how much the difficulty varies within said combo.
Here's a small example of what I've done so far. You're seeing 2 graphs: Spinnerpeem and Supawit's combos from Semis of WT09
Reading the graph:
The x-axis represents time, and the y-axis represents realative difficulty. This means that as you move right to left along a graph, the line will map out the difficulty of the given combo.
y=1 represents the "average" difficulty OF THAT COMBO. Thus, any variation from y=1 represents points of the combo that're harder/easier than the rest.
In the graphs above, we see that while Spinner and Supa vary difficulties, and end with the hardest part of their combos, Supa has a more consistant difficulty, while Spinner's difficulty spikes in several places. Which is better? Neither, just different.
NOTE: This does NOT compare difficulties between two combos. I could do a charge for 30 seconds, and it'd be a flat line at y=1, or you could do the most difficult combo ever seen by human eyes, and it'd be a flat line at y=1. ALL this does is show relatively difficult points in a given combo.
Applications: Now aside from just being interesting, this knowledge could turn out pretty useful. Along with each combo, I'm recording Spinner, Board, Pen Type, and Year Recorded. This information along with the graphs could show us interesting trends; ie, people from thpsc all have the hardest part of the combo at the end, or, in 07 people started with hardest part, or, supawit over time shifted the difficulty towards the end of his combos, or people with lighter pens have less difficulty variation.
If nothing else, this gives us self-enlightenment. I can realize "ok, I'm a member of UPSB spinning a comssa, people in this situation usually do _____, I'm going to do something different."
How you can help:
1. Suggest more categories I can compare (other than Pen Type, board, etc)
2. Suggest more applications for this.
3. Help me map difficulties of combos. To do this, break a given combo into 5 sections of equal length. Then assign each section a "relative difficulty" score. This means that if it's twice as hard as the "average difficulty" of the combo, it gets a 2.0. If it's slightly less difficult, maybe a .8. Record these numbers along with the info I gave above (Board, etc), and give it all to me (Posting it here would be fine). I need VARIED combos, meaning from different years, boards, spinners, etc.
Anyway, here's to a long-lasting and fruitful project. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 19:17:17
nice work strat!
1) You talk about 1 as being the average difficulty. I think mathematically speaking, the integral of your line, with line 1 as origin, should be 0. If possible, you should be able to adjust the "height" of your graph to match that equality if you want to make the actual values you assign more meaningful, but just the shape gives a lot of information.
2) Spinnerpeem is often criticized for poor structure. we often say that his combo is just one big finish with filler before it. the graph does reflect that. The higher variance/fluctuation shows that his finish overshadows everything else.
3) I would like to see more videos, maybe even have a spinner evaluate his own combo. For instance, Minwoo or Eriror. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 20:47:16
I really like the work you're doing, but one thing that is really standing out to me is how you're deciding what is difficult. Sure we all have a general idea of something that's difficult, but since we're all different spinners, the only way to decide what really is the most difficult, is to ask that spinner themselves.
This is where the project is flawed, just Spinnerpeem for example, I would argue that he spends most of his time practicing and developing his finishers and power tricks, which is what we (the audience) deem the most difficult. However if you watch the videos of things like Peem spinning live, he pulls of these incredible tricks with ease, and he's extremely consistent. It's possible that all these tricks we see as incredibly difficult are actually quite easy for him, it's just a matter of what he lands, and I'm pretty sure Fratleym said something along these lines after watching a video of peem spinning live.
There's just no real way to tell what is the most difficult, or what is the easiest with out going to that spinner directly. Sure you can make inferences but you can also be way off. -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 21:41:53
perhaps the focus should shift to "impressiveness", "flashiness", "combo highlights": in other words, what is the intent of the spinner, what passages of the combo does he deem the most important and most impressive
because in the end, what we want is to analyze how structure affects the beauty of the combo (since our goal is to make good pen spinning videos) -
Date: Fri, Jan 8 2010 23:46:53QUOTE (sangara @ Jan 8 2010, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is where the project is flawed, just Spinnerpeem for example, I would argue that he spends most of his time practicing and developing his finishers and power tricks, which is what we (the audience) deem the most difficult.
Right, and the fact that he had to spend sooo much time practicing and perfecting them means they're more difficult. Yes, maybe they're easy to pull off now, but overall they were more difficult to get to the point that they are.
Like Zombo says, it's not meant to be personalized. It's not "which parts did Supawit think were the hardest," it's which parts have the more "difficult" tricks. I think that most of the time this is clearly defined.
When/if this is released, I'll explain that in more detail. I guess if the overwhelming majority of people think it should be changed, we can think of another name, but really what I've been judging when doing the combos so far ... If we change the name my analysis wouldn't be accurate anymore ...
@Zombo, I've got about 5 combos done so far, I'll post a more refined release (in the RD) at the end of this weekend, with maybe 10 or so.
Also, as far as the mathematical accuracy, the problem is I'm not analyzing the combo at every point, meaning you can't do a full integral (sum over all x, or time) of the difficulty, because I'm only analyzing it over 5 blocks. So if you do a simple sum, it does average to "0" (or one, because I decided to avoid negative numbers so as to not offend anyone by saying part of their combo has negative difficulty lol) So that's not necessarily graphically accurate (it should technically be a piece-wise function), but I found this more visually appealing and intuitive. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 03:18:08QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Right, and the fact that he had to spend sooo much time practicing and perfecting them means they're more difficult. Yes, maybe they're easy to pull off now, but overall they were more difficult to get to the point that they are.
Right they're difficult, but difficult to who, difficult for you? Difficult for a new spinner? Difficult for the average spinner? Here I'll give you another example let's say I make a combo. In this combo I have the following tricks and hybrids:
Spider Spin 2.0
Inverse Shadow Reverse 12-23 ~> Inverse Neobak 23-23
Inverse Sonic 23-12 ~> Indexaround 13-13 ~> Sonic Clip Reverse 13 .5 -> Pass Reverse 13-34
Twisted Sonic Triple Bust
Fl TA x5
So what would you rate these as in your difficulty scale? I gave you five so you could work in the same intervals, also they would appear in the combo as listed, so starting with the Spider Spin, ending with the FL TA's. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 03:21:37
we understand that it's very rough work and not exactly scientific, we just want an idea of the shape of graphs not exact measurement. overall impression is maybe a better measure
-
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 03:24:11QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 8 2010, 07:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>we understand that it's very rough work and not exactly scientific, we just want an idea of the shape of graphs not exact measurement. overall impression is maybe a better measure
Right, but the point is, Penspinning is not science, it's an art, but you're treating it as though it were. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 03:36:24
Ok, we get it, you're not interested, so stop posting in the topic. This is a project we're working on, if you don't want to work on it, don't.
QUOTESpider Spin 2.0
Inverse Shadow Reverse 12-23 ~> Inverse Neobak 23-23
Inverse Sonic 23-12 ~> Indexaround 13-13 ~> Sonic Clip Reverse 13 .5 -> Pass Reverse 13-34
Twisted Sonic Triple Bust
Fl TA x5
For this there would be very litle variation between the 5 sections, clearly. So it would be a relatively flat line. YOU YOURSELF purposefully picked tricks that you think are simlar in difficulty to throw us off, but in doing so you proved our point. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 03:51:10QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ok, we get it, you're not interested, so stop posting in the topic. This is a project we're working on, if you don't want to work on it, don't.
Actually I'm very interested in this topic, that's why I'm posting here.QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For this there would be very litle variation between the 5 sections, clearly. So it would be a relatively flat line. YOU YOURSELF purposefully picked tricks that you think are simlar in difficulty to throw us off, but in doing so you proved our point.
For me, there is a very big distinction in these tricks. Just in case you would question whether I am being true or not to what I'm saying I prepared a little image just to reinforce my point:
Spoiler:
This was more just in case you actually went along with the exercise and then claimed that I just made up what I thought was more or less difficult to directly counter your list. I don't see why you're not open to criticism, and if you're not open to criticism it's beyond me why you posted in a public forum.
-
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:02:29
I'm fine with constructive criticism, but
QUOTE"Right, but the point is, Penspinning is not science, it's an art, but you're treating it as though it were"isn't criticism, it's saying "what you're doing is inherently wrong." And if you believe that, then you're wasting your time in this thread. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:16:17QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 08:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm fine with constructive criticism, but isn't criticism, it's saying "what you're doing is inherently wrong." And if you believe that, then you're wasting your time in this thread.
Actually that's the very definition of criticism, I never said it was constructive criticism. I'm not quite in tune with the whole idea of "constructive" criticism, to me criticism is criticism, you just choose to take it as harsh as you did.
I was hoping that you would see what you're doing is taking one perspective on a single combo, which in something as subjective as penspinning, it's just not a feasible way to go about doing things. If you do continue with the project the way it is, you will probably run into more people like me, in fact I'm sure of it because these are the spinners I talk to. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:23:45
Ok that's fine, they can ignore it then. This is for those who are open-minded to the scientific process. As for you, instead of pointing out the obvious (that I'm trying to quantify intangibles), why don't you suggest a remidy?
EDIT: Ok, I'll go into further detail about why this is the way I'm doing it.
1)EVERY aspect of PS is subjective. tbh, relative difficulty is about the least subjective thing about it. It's more tangible than "style" or "smooth" etc.
2) This is trying to show difficulty VARIATION, meaning yes, if I saw the tricks you listed above, I wouldn't be 100% on how to rank them. I'd do it to the best of my knowledge. HOWEVER, I would be sure that the difficutly varies MUCH less tha that of Spinnerpeem, or even Supawit, who both had 5-second sections of thir combos that were charge+pass+around tricks. Meaning the line would be flatter, so it's still comparable, REGARDLESS of how I rank the difficulty of those 5 minicombos.
Even if this is entirely useless to the entire penspinning community, I'm going to do it. This is how I interact with pen spinning. I'm no good at it, so I do stuff like this instead. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:28:33
we are still in the preliminary stages
what we're doing right now is not deep nor does it intend to be
we are trying things out, maybe in order to provide examples for people to do more rigorous testing later on.
i dont think strat ever claimed that his graphs or his methodology was the DEFINITIVe way to do it, it is simply one interpretation.
we are not at the level where we can even begin to start tackling problems like the definition of difficulty, and the scales we're using -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:42:15QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 08:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Even if this is entirely useless to the entire penspinning community, I'm going to do it. This is how I interact with pen spinning. I'm no good at it, so I do stuff like this instead.
That being said, if you want to do something similar, be my guest, but I"m not going to stop working on this.
The reason why I'm handing out so much of this criticism is because I am genuinely interested in this topic. All I'm doing is showing you an aspect of this that I feel is not only important to the topic, but I also feel you're not touching on. But why would I start something else when I feel we could collaborate and have an open discussion about it. I figured this is what the RD is for.QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 8 2010, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>we are still in the preliminary stages
>right, that's why I'm posting
what we're doing right now is not deep nor does it intend to be
we are trying things out, maybe in order to provide examples for people to do more rigorous testing later on.
i dont think strat ever claimed that his graphs or his methodology was the DEFINITIVe way to do it, it is simply one interpretation.
> I don't think I ever claimed that he claimed that
we are not at the level where we can even begin to start tackling problems like the definition of difficulty, and the scales we're using
>yet that seems to be the whole point, is to determine difficulty relative to other tricks in the combos, so if we're not ready to tackle problems pertaining to this subject, then where are we supposed to start?
I know I can be harsh in my words, but where you got this distorted reality that I want you to stop the project is confusing to me, I was just pointing out where I thought you were wrong because I felt it was a valid point. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:44:58
well like i first wrote
are we even graphing difficulty? is that really what we want to look out?
I think the idea is to graph the "intensity" of the combo, its to graph the structure of the combo and how it enhances the appearance of the combo.
so actually I don't think we should be looking at difficulty but overall appearance, impressiveness, etc... as I explained earlier.
another one we could later is speed over time as well. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:46:28
Ok, the point is, you're not being proactive in the slightest. Pointing out that dfficulty is subjective isn't news to us. So please, again, if you have SUGGESTIONS, i'm always all ears. But pointless criticism (non-constructive, regardless of whether you 'believe in it' or whatever) isn't helpful.
-
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:54:22QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 08:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ok, the point is, you're not being proactive in the slightest. Pointing out that dfficulty is subjective isn't news to us. So please, again, if you have SUGGESTIONS, i'm always all ears. But pointless criticism (non-constructive, regardless of whether you 'believe in it' or whatever) isn't helpful.
Well it turned into pointless criticism because we both decided to go off into a tangent, but regardless I still did suggest that the only way to get an accurate read on relative difficulty is to go to the spinner directly.
And since where in the department of suggestions, I think there should probably be a pen variable too. I don't know how we could research that initially but we could probably figure it out. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 04:59:11QUOTE (sangara @ Jan 8 2010, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well it turned into pointless criticism because we both decided to go off into a tangent, but regardless I still did suggest that the only way to get an accurate read on relative difficulty is to go to the spinner directly.
And since where in the department of suggestions, I think there should probably be a pen variable too. I don't know how we could research that initially but we could probably figure it out.
yes, thats what i suggested earlier by saying that we should ask minwoo or eriror to graph their own combos...
however I'm not sure that's actually the best information. what's the point of knowing that a trick is difficult for the guy doing it? what should matter is how impressive the trick is for the audience, because our goal as pen spinners is to make beautiful pen spinning, not the hardest pen spinning. so if a spinner were to graph his own combo, it shouldn't be about how hard it actually is, but how impressive the spinner thought this was going to be when viewed from the audience perspective.
we should look at the intention of the spinner on how he wanted to be perceived.QUOTEI think there should probably be a pen variable too
unless im misunderstanding, i dont see how thats relevant. pen spinners typically do a combo with the same pen throughout, so it doesn't affect relative difficulty. it does affect how certain types of tricks become more difficult, but thats at a higher level than we need to consdier right now. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 05:02:15QUOTE (sangara @ Jan 8 2010, 11:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Well it turned into pointless criticism because we both decided to go off into a tangent, but regardless I still did suggest that the only way to get an accurate read on relative difficulty is to go to the spinner directly.
This is a possibility, but A. makes the project virtually impossible, as the goal isto get as many vids as we can, and B. I still say we go by general communal standards. I can't reverse charge or rev pass. Like, hardly at all. So if you asked me about my combo, I'd say the reverse charge+reverse pass part of my combo is harder than the cont midbak 1.5's. And that just wouldn't be consistant or even make sense really when we're analyzing the graphs.
Maybe zombo is right when "difficulty" is a misleading word, possiby intensity works better, because it's basically undefined within the confines of Penspinning, so it'd be hard for someone to tell us we're wrong.QUOTEAnd since where in the department of suggestions, I think there should probably be a pen variable too. I don't know how we could research that initially but we could probably figure it out.
What do you mean? Like a third axis? I don't think pen matters unless it changes within the combo, because the whole point of the project is to compare points of the combo to itself. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 05:24:11QUOTE (Zombo @ Jan 8 2010, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>unless im misunderstanding, i dont see how thats relevant. pen spinners typically do a combo with the same pen throughout, so it doesn't affect relative difficulty. it does affect how certain types of tricks become more difficult, but thats at a higher level than we need to consdier right now.
Maybe it is, but in my experience certain tricks are harder with certain pens relative to other tricks. Then if we're going off the impressive factor there are also tricks that are more impressive compared to other tricks with certain pens. Like for example when I tried spinning a Buster CYL I found it harder to do certain infinity tricks, so to me doing some infinities with a CYL would be relatively more impressive than some around variations, which said spinner could say that they are equally as difficult to them.QUOTE (strat1227 @ Jan 8 2010, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What do you mean? Like a third axis? I don't think pen matters unless it changes within the combo, because the whole point of the project is to compare points of the combo to itself.
I think more of like a modifier, or a disclaimer before a combo to be used on the graph (I'm gonna have to actually do this instead of just trying to explain in words).
I think Zombo is on the right track how we should be focusing on impressiveness more. It seems like to me we would have to have a group of spinners and have a double blind test, well as blind as we could make it, considering most people can tell who the spinner is just by watching the video. Set this group up with like 4 different videos and have them develop their own graphs, after explaining the goal of course, and then at the end take an average of all the graphs and then compare that to the spinner's graph. Then we could probably come up with an index number to see how well that spinner portrayed their ideas into a combo into a blind group. -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 05:29:15
I think the better solution would be to keep track of the pen used for each graph we make, so that when we do comparison between graphs, we take it into account.
ultimately we should be able to answer this question:
"For a spinner with style X and using pen Y, what are the preferred combo structures in regards to impressiveness?" or "What are the effects of using combo structure Z for a spinner with style X and pen Y"
but instead of saying combo structure we need a name for the shape of the graph... -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 05:36:06
hmm well, don't read this as petty like "if i can't have it my way then i quit", but it seems like you guys are going in a different direction entirely than i thought the purpose of the project was, so for now i'm at the very least going to stop working analyzing combos in the method that i was, because it's looking more and more like what i'm doing isn't what's going to end up happening, so i'm not going to waste the time
once we decide how we want to do things i'll gladly begin work again -
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 18:39:30
Ehm, yeah... I'm willing to make such a graph for myself, but I'm not 100% sure how. What exactly do you want me to graph, my own vision of the difficulty of parts combo compared to others? I'll pretty much go with my own consistancy here, though. And what program are you using to make such graphs? >_>;
EDIT: Of course, I should read the whole topic before posting the next time.
-
Date: Sat, Jan 9 2010 20:51:16
Eriror, if you want to do some combos, you can just send me your numbers and I'll make the graphs for you.
Break it down into 5 equally-lengthed sections, then rate each section (like 1.0 for average, above or below that for harder or easier than average for hat combo) -
Date: Sun, Jan 10 2010 03:31:49QUOTE (Erirornal Kraione @ Jan 9 2010, 01:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ehm, yeah... I'm willing to make such a graph for myself, but I'm not 100% sure how. What exactly do you want me to graph, my own vision of the difficulty of parts combo compared to others? I'll pretty much go with my own consistancy here, though. And what program are you using to make such graphs? >_>;
EDIT: Of course, I should read the whole topic before posting the next time.
not the difficulty, but what rather which parts you consider most impressive to the audience. -
Date: Sun, Jan 10 2010 18:43:24
This is a little off tangent, but instead of mapping difficulty on a graph, how about something that's even more concrete: variety? At least this is a starting point. I think that a graph can accurately map out the variety of a combo and gives even more concrete evidence in judging. Unfortunately, I don't see this being EASILY applicable to things like tempo, smoothness, of even difficulty for that matter.
Like sangara said, it's very difficult to map the difficulty of a combo. Perhaps there's a way to somehow correlate the variety with difficulty/intensity to make a somewhat more concrete analysis?
I'm a little confused about "relative" difficulty? The notion of relativity and having a base line of 1 (or 0) seems a little contradictory, but nevertheless I think it's a very interesting idea! My question is, what is the difficulty relative to? To the general consensus of what's deemed difficult? Or relative to the individual spinner? Or relative to the experience of the person making the graph?
As for graphing intensity, how exactly could that be done? I could be wrong, but somehow I get the feeling that the word "intensity" is just a substitution for "difficulty." -
Date: Sun, Jan 10 2010 19:04:56QUOTE (Eso @ Jan 10 2010, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is a little off tangent, but instead of mapping difficulty on a graph, how about something that's even more concrete: variety? At least this is a starting point. I think that a graph can accurately map out the variety of a combo and gives even more concrete evidence in judging. Unfortunately, I don't see this being EASILY applicable to things like tempo, smoothness, of even difficulty for that matter.
i dont see how mapping variety gives more insight for judging, since it does not compare the combo to any other combo.QUOTEI'm a little confused about "relative" difficulty? The notion of relativity and having a base line of 1 (or 0) seems a little contradictory, but nevertheless I think it's a very interesting idea! My question is, what is the difficulty relative to? To the general consensus of what's deemed difficult? Or relative to the individual spinner? Or relative to the experience of the person making the graph?
its relative to the combo itself as strat explained: NOTE: This does NOT compare difficulties between two combos. I could do a charge for 30 seconds, and it'd be a flat line at y=1, or you could do the most difficult combo ever seen by human eyes, and it'd be a flat line at y=1. ALL this does is show relatively difficult points in a given combo.QUOTEAs for graphing intensity, how exactly could that be done? I could be wrong, but somehow I get the feeling that the word "intensity" is just a substitution for "difficulty."
i can see two analysis performed at the level of flashiness, noticeability:
1- from the point of view of the combo creator: when making his combo, the creator probably has a good idea of what he's doing and why he's doing it. his graph shows his intention, what he thinks people see when they watch his video
2- from the of view of the public: this is sangara's group experiment: this is what ACTUALLY happens, how the combo is perceived in reality.
by graphing both we can see how spinners think when they make their combos, and what works best with the public -
Date: Wed, Jan 13 2010 04:43:13
If you did this for other things just as speed changes throughout a combo or even the amount of arounds/spins the pen does (finishers like busts/multiple TAs would be the climax of that), you could attempt to define a certain style. You could put combos into different style categories, which eventually allows you to come up with defined styles of ps.
Also.. a pie chart that contains the different tricks of the combo would be nice to see. Arounds would be one piece, the twisted sonics, backarounds, swivels, aerials, etc. Would be interesting to see Minwoo's WT 09 final combo vs peem's final combo mapped out that way. -
Date: Sun, Jan 17 2010 16:08:27
Right, so, as I figured. Everybody has better ideas, but nobody wants to do anything. We can talk about ideal, double-blind test studies and scientific method till we're fucking blue in the face, but the fact is, nobody is going to do all that work for something stupid like this.
So, if it's all fine and dandy with everyone, I'm going to continue my work. -
Date: Sun, Jan 17 2010 16:17:49
of course, i never said it was wrong, i like ppl who get their feet wet
