In this last video of the "on judging" series we want to introduce to you the trivium value system, the way it is used for Breaking in the Youth Olympic games 2018 and all of its qualifiers.
I like the intellectual breakdown , but I doubt the practical use, there is now way for a human to break a performance down in such a short amount of time. Which will probably lead to judges deciding by subjectivity being able to afterwards picking out the fitting aspects of the breakdown leading them to afterwards undermine their subjective opinion. In the end leaving maybe some very highly educated people expanding their judging ability but at the same leaving the majority of people behind. I'd personally favour the r16 system. I think this breakdown is still a very valuable contribution. Still I believe for a broader audience there needs to be a more simple explanation.
poppin dwarf thank you for your input. The Breakdown needs to be detailed to show the complexity in judging first. Working with the system is easy from the point you ingrain the criteria and can use the device intuitively. Although the OUR promises objectivity it is subjective due to the fact that one judge is assigned to one criteria. Then two judges are assigned to what appears to be one: creativity and foundation. Last flaw I see in their standard values which have never shown consistency. Standards as implied in the OUR will influence Breaking and its development in the long run, since they restrict creativity. Please watch the previous videos as well. They explain more. The OUR was great for what it was and helped immensely and I hope that Dyzee can still take care of its biggest flaws.
Amazing
do i got it right?: the foundations are rated in the creativity part? i think it would make more sense to put foundation into the physical part.
Love it!
I like the intellectual breakdown , but I doubt the practical use, there is now way for a human to break a performance down in such a short amount of time. Which will probably lead to judges deciding by subjectivity being able to afterwards picking out the fitting aspects of the breakdown leading them to afterwards undermine their subjective opinion. In the end leaving maybe some very highly educated people expanding their judging ability but at the same leaving the majority of people behind. I'd personally favour the r16 system.
I think this breakdown is still a very valuable contribution. Still I believe for a broader audience there needs to be a more simple explanation.
poppin dwarf thank you for your input. The Breakdown needs to be detailed to show the complexity in judging first. Working with the system is easy from the point you ingrain the criteria and can use the device intuitively. Although the OUR promises objectivity it is subjective due to the fact that one judge is assigned to one criteria. Then two judges are assigned to what appears to be one: creativity and foundation. Last flaw I see in their standard values which have never shown consistency. Standards as implied in the OUR will influence Breaking and its development in the long run, since they restrict creativity. Please watch the previous videos as well. They explain more. The OUR was great for what it was and helped immensely and I hope that Dyzee can still take care of its biggest flaws.