Standardising Age Groups Across Urban Disciplines
This discussion has an associated proposal but it has not been approved yet.Comments about this discussion:
Started
I have proposed this in the last rulebook committee and we were on the edge of voting on it, but didn't have enough time left, so I will try again.
I would like to change Flatland (and Street) age groups the same as Trial age groups have been changed last time.
For 2 reasons.
1) I think the age for joining adults at 15 years is a bit too low and 16 better fits the time that most riders really start to improve fast.
2) I would like to motivate very young and 'very' old riders to still compete and have a small accomplishment by having their own age groups.
So just to remind you of the current age groups in Trial:
0-9 Kids
10-15 Junior
16-34 Adult
35+ Senior
And I think the following system could work well for Flatland:
Kids and Junior basically have a combined competition. Their Prelims run separately but they have combined battles for Finals with the best riders from both groups.
Adult and Senior also have separate prelims but combined finals.
So not much changes, except young and old riders hopefully will be more motivated to join the competition if they have their 'own' competition and maybe age group award afterwards. There are a few Senior riders I would hope to see competing again. There are almost no Kids riders, but I would love to see some joining earlier in the future.
What do you people think?
Comment
Ian,
While I agree that standard age groups are good, there will be a subcommittee (soon) for Age Groups along all the disciplines. Definitely will take any discussions from here into account.
Also, I really really really dislike putting a name to an age group. What is the point?
Comment
Is the goal of that committee to standardise age groups across ALL disciplines rendering the internal age group regulations of all disciplines void?
Comment
I disagree on your proposed age groups after doing some research on performance improvement in teenage years.
According to research from other sports, teenagers reach their biggest development gap for jumping at age 14.
"In males, annual relative performance development accelerates up to the age of 13 (for running events) or 14 (for jumping events) and then gradually declines when approaching 18 years of age" Tønnessen (2015)
"relative performance development was highest at age 13–14 and declined gradually when reaching adulthood in both male and female athletes in high and long jump" Boccia (2017)
So I believe the age group should be 15+ (equal to all freestyle and racing events, and rather adjust the trials age group to match these).
Comment
And ideally the jumps events would take this on as well
Comment
Is this taking into consideration complex movements like those needed for flatland unicycling or is it mainly focussed on basic movements and strength? Physical strength is one component, but the intellectual development to master those complex movements should also be considered.
Comment
This is high level athletes of their age for high jump and long jump track events. I would argue there is technique involved in that, especially high jump over bar.
Comment
I agree with you then Marie.
0-9
10-14
15-34
35+
@Connie: the point of having names for the age groups is just that it is nice to name the category you competed in more easily.
What's the disadvantages you see?
Comment
I would like to propose these age groups even if age groups should be standardized across all disciplines.
To have it until an age group committee decided something.
I have been asked about it again at EUC by Axel as an older rider, who would love to have some more recognition to still compete at an advanced age.
Does anyone disagree with this approach?
Comment
Happy to agree on these until the age group committee decides anything.
However, it would be really good to take this forward in the general committee @Connie.
Comment
I am also in favor of these age groups.
However I wanted to add a thought - what do you guys think of adding one more age group, something around 45+ or 50+ ?
I believe this is an age group that would not start in most disciplines due to not having enough competitors, but where it would have enough, I am sure they would greatly appreciate the recognition of this age-group. This may not primarily be something for Flatland (but in Trials I know there are competitors in this age), but since we talked about standardising age-groups across all disciplines, I thought I would bring it up here, as then these could serve as an example for other disciplines. What do you think?
@Connie: in my opinion the point of naming the age groups is to make it easier to relate to them, and therefore help the communication of these events. I think people would start naming age-groups anyway if we don't, and in that case it is better if we name them appropriately. However I understand your concern, since for example in Racing there are 11 age groups, and naming them all is a difficulty, and I see your point that it would be good to keep this somewhat uniformal if we name age groups or not. However I think if we manage to standardise age-groups between all Urban disciplines, we could name them (if we agree on it).
Comment
I have never thought about it, probably because in Flatland it is not really needed but if you say it might get some older Trial riders more recognition, I'm all for it for Flatland and Street as well to keep it standardized across Urban.
What would you suggest as names then Mark?
0-9 Kids?
10-14 Junior?
15-34 Adult?
35-49 ?!
50+ Senior?!
Comment
We should look at data from previous Unicons, EUC's and NAUCC's to understand if there would be enough competitors in Urban disciplines or not - but either way I think it would be good to create this category to encourage riders at these ages to enter the comps.
What do you think about calling 35-49 Senior and 50+ Master?
In athletics they have many Masters age groups starting at 35, and it is also used in Mountain Biking for older age groups - so this is something used in other sports too.
Comment
One more thing about naming: I think we should be uniform whether we use singular or plural wording. For all group names I think singular works better than plural, so maybe instead of "Kids" it could be "Child" or something else? Though I can also be at peace with leaving it "Kids".
Comment
I like 34-49 Senior and 50+ Master.
And I also agree that singular sounds better in all groups but "Kids".
I would rather break the system and use the plural here though than name it "Child". To me that sounds very outdated and doesn't fit the vibe of the other names.
Comment
Alright, to be honest I also agree that "Kids" sounds way better and welcoming than "Child", even if it breaks (or bends) the naming system a bit.