1
Freestyle Chat / Re: Developing FS Expertise
« on: Feb 19, 2014, 03:50: PM »Hey Evan. Nice article. Can I post this on FSmind, with our response to it?
Go right ahead. Thanks!
News:
We have disabled posting and registrations. Feel free to browse the historic Beyond Football content. 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
Go right ahead. Thanks!
2
Freestyle Chat / Developing FS Expertise
« on: Jan 04, 2014, 09:41: AM »
While some may argue that the relentless drive to improve can take away from other desirable aspects of fs, it is indisputable that development is an important. In some respect, freestyle is about improving your ability with the ball, whether that be creative, hardcore, or your own unique style.
Predictably, there is a lot discussion within the community regarding training schedules, tips for specific tricks, and other topics associated with improvement. However, I have yet to see a rigorous and all encompassing discussion concerning the essential aspects to successful training program such that practice time is optimized. In identifying the core aspects of a successful training routine, much of what I have to say will familiar to seasoned fsers.
One way to describe the pinnacle that many fsers are trying to reach is as expertise, or another way, mastery of tricks with a ball. Expertise is presently the subject of intense scientific scrutiny, and although fs has not been explicitly studied, I think some general points can be learned from the study of other fields. Large sections of this text are taken from “Moonwalking with Einstein” by Joshua Foer, which examines memory, expertise, and the author’s path to the U.S. Memory Championship (and I highly recommend it).
One of the principle investigators in the field of expertise is Anders Ericsson. His main goals are to identify what cognitive processes distinguish the novice from the expert, and he attempts to do so by studying masters in various fields.
The classic example of his work involves the study of an undergraduate subject known as “SF” through his efforts to improve his memory. What makes this study unique is that it starts with a beginner. For several hours a week, SF sat is a chair as would try to remember numbers read to him at a rate of one per second, over and over, and with no aide from the researchers, and later try to recall the numbers that were given to him. At the outset, he could only remember seven digits. Two years or 250 hours later his memory had improved ten-fold. This overturned the idea that our memory capacities are fixed, and Ericsson believes that this change holds the key to understanding the cognitive processes underlying all forms of expertise, from that seen in waiters and violinists, to ballet dancers and crossword puzzlers.
The typical performance on this test is 7 plus or minus 2, which represents the limits of the short-term memory. Participants typically repeat the numbers over and over in their head, in what is called a phonological loop. This was the technique used initially by SF, but then something changed. He started remembering 10 digits and then eleven, and then more. He bypassed the limits of short-term memory by storing information directly in the long-term memory.
He used chunking, which decreases the number of items he had to remember by increasing their size. Though he had never been taught the method of chunking, SF figured it out on his own by applying his experience as a runner. For example, the string of digits 34924131 initially would have been near the limits of his short-term memory. When thought of as 3 minutes and 49 point 2 seconds (a near world record mile time) and 4 minutes and 13 point 1 seconds (a mile time), eight bits of information have been condensed into two bits. He found that he could apply meaning to seemingly meaningless information by applying past experience.
Over years practice experts build up a bank of experience that shapes how they perceive information. They see the world differently and notice things that novices do not, while identifying what information matters the most and what to do with it. Ultimately, experts process more information in more sophisticated ways.
While memory capacity is quite different than fs, I agree with Ericsson that the lessons gleaned from his studies of memory can be applied to disparate fields. Through these studies he has identified a common set of techniques, “secrets”, that experts across fields tend to employ, and I find it interesting that his recommendations are readily identifiable in the top fsers.
As practitioners develop in their field, they often plateau mentally at the “autonomous stage”, where the individual going through the motions without being fully engaged. Ericsson has found that experts are constantly trying to keep out of this phase, with what he calls “deliberate practice”, and they tend to do this by employing three strategies:
Focus on technique: This could be the fine movements of the body or the ball as a fser performs a trick. What movement is the most aesthetically pleasing? “What allows me to be as efficient as possible?” Here is an interview with Tobias Becs provided by SKRskillschool concerning just this topic.
Maintaining a goal oriented mindset: By assigning goals beyond current level, fsers must necessarily push themselves out of their comfort zone. “Currently I can only do one ATW, so my goal will be to get 5 by the end of the month,” or “I want to have PATW by the end of the year.” It is also important that the goals are specific.
Constant and immediate feedback: Failure is a large part of practicing fs. A beginning fser will quickly learn which techniques work and which don’t through failure, but this needs to continue as the fser develops. In real time or on video, experts set themselves apart by focusing on their failures, whereas beginners become complacent with their successes. In order to progress to an expert level, a fser must fail and learn from their mistakes.
In an effort to emphasize the importance of embracing failure, Ericsson suggests a final technique:
Watching experts perform: In order to become an expert, one must begin to think like an expert. In approaching a problem, what steps would an expert take? “I am trying to land this trick. How did they figure it out?” By doing this you directly take on the traits of an expert, and push yourself out of the autonomous stage.
In writing this article I tried to write it in a way that applies to fsers of all types and interests who want to improve. As an aside, I think that these techniques are part of the reason we see fs progressing so quickly and I hope this formalized explanation of expertise has positively contributed to the discussion of helping fsers improve. In order to optimize the usage of your time, incorporate these traits into your training, and remember that how you spend your time is more important than how much time you spend.
Thanks
EvanM
I left out a lot of material in constructing this post. If there is any interest I can write more on the topic.
My previous post "My thoughts on the state of freestyle" can be read here.
Predictably, there is a lot discussion within the community regarding training schedules, tips for specific tricks, and other topics associated with improvement. However, I have yet to see a rigorous and all encompassing discussion concerning the essential aspects to successful training program such that practice time is optimized. In identifying the core aspects of a successful training routine, much of what I have to say will familiar to seasoned fsers.
One way to describe the pinnacle that many fsers are trying to reach is as expertise, or another way, mastery of tricks with a ball. Expertise is presently the subject of intense scientific scrutiny, and although fs has not been explicitly studied, I think some general points can be learned from the study of other fields. Large sections of this text are taken from “Moonwalking with Einstein” by Joshua Foer, which examines memory, expertise, and the author’s path to the U.S. Memory Championship (and I highly recommend it).
One of the principle investigators in the field of expertise is Anders Ericsson. His main goals are to identify what cognitive processes distinguish the novice from the expert, and he attempts to do so by studying masters in various fields.
The classic example of his work involves the study of an undergraduate subject known as “SF” through his efforts to improve his memory. What makes this study unique is that it starts with a beginner. For several hours a week, SF sat is a chair as would try to remember numbers read to him at a rate of one per second, over and over, and with no aide from the researchers, and later try to recall the numbers that were given to him. At the outset, he could only remember seven digits. Two years or 250 hours later his memory had improved ten-fold. This overturned the idea that our memory capacities are fixed, and Ericsson believes that this change holds the key to understanding the cognitive processes underlying all forms of expertise, from that seen in waiters and violinists, to ballet dancers and crossword puzzlers.
The typical performance on this test is 7 plus or minus 2, which represents the limits of the short-term memory. Participants typically repeat the numbers over and over in their head, in what is called a phonological loop. This was the technique used initially by SF, but then something changed. He started remembering 10 digits and then eleven, and then more. He bypassed the limits of short-term memory by storing information directly in the long-term memory.
He used chunking, which decreases the number of items he had to remember by increasing their size. Though he had never been taught the method of chunking, SF figured it out on his own by applying his experience as a runner. For example, the string of digits 34924131 initially would have been near the limits of his short-term memory. When thought of as 3 minutes and 49 point 2 seconds (a near world record mile time) and 4 minutes and 13 point 1 seconds (a mile time), eight bits of information have been condensed into two bits. He found that he could apply meaning to seemingly meaningless information by applying past experience.
Over years practice experts build up a bank of experience that shapes how they perceive information. They see the world differently and notice things that novices do not, while identifying what information matters the most and what to do with it. Ultimately, experts process more information in more sophisticated ways.
While memory capacity is quite different than fs, I agree with Ericsson that the lessons gleaned from his studies of memory can be applied to disparate fields. Through these studies he has identified a common set of techniques, “secrets”, that experts across fields tend to employ, and I find it interesting that his recommendations are readily identifiable in the top fsers.
As practitioners develop in their field, they often plateau mentally at the “autonomous stage”, where the individual going through the motions without being fully engaged. Ericsson has found that experts are constantly trying to keep out of this phase, with what he calls “deliberate practice”, and they tend to do this by employing three strategies:
Focus on technique: This could be the fine movements of the body or the ball as a fser performs a trick. What movement is the most aesthetically pleasing? “What allows me to be as efficient as possible?” Here is an interview with Tobias Becs provided by SKRskillschool concerning just this topic.
Maintaining a goal oriented mindset: By assigning goals beyond current level, fsers must necessarily push themselves out of their comfort zone. “Currently I can only do one ATW, so my goal will be to get 5 by the end of the month,” or “I want to have PATW by the end of the year.” It is also important that the goals are specific.
Constant and immediate feedback: Failure is a large part of practicing fs. A beginning fser will quickly learn which techniques work and which don’t through failure, but this needs to continue as the fser develops. In real time or on video, experts set themselves apart by focusing on their failures, whereas beginners become complacent with their successes. In order to progress to an expert level, a fser must fail and learn from their mistakes.
In an effort to emphasize the importance of embracing failure, Ericsson suggests a final technique:
Watching experts perform: In order to become an expert, one must begin to think like an expert. In approaching a problem, what steps would an expert take? “I am trying to land this trick. How did they figure it out?” By doing this you directly take on the traits of an expert, and push yourself out of the autonomous stage.
In writing this article I tried to write it in a way that applies to fsers of all types and interests who want to improve. As an aside, I think that these techniques are part of the reason we see fs progressing so quickly and I hope this formalized explanation of expertise has positively contributed to the discussion of helping fsers improve. In order to optimize the usage of your time, incorporate these traits into your training, and remember that how you spend your time is more important than how much time you spend.
Thanks
EvanM
I left out a lot of material in constructing this post. If there is any interest I can write more on the topic.
My previous post "My thoughts on the state of freestyle" can be read here.
3
Freestyle Chat / Re: North American Freestyle Championships Announced
« on: Nov 01, 2013, 06:43: PM »hi guys ...its like this . Its for all countries in north and central america. So the guys from the caribean can compete aswell.
The guys in the middle region can actually choose between south and north america. Aslong as you dont compete in both its totally fine.
Any more guestions , i can help ....
Btw I'd love to judge if there's any need.
4
Freestyle Chat / Re: My thoughts on the state of freestyle
« on: Nov 01, 2013, 04:21: AM »Nice post, Evan. Do you want to write for BF maybe? I can post this on our homepage and create more room if you'd like.
That sounds awesome, I'd love to write more. More room would be great as well. I could send you the original text if you'd like. It was formatted better and my hyperlinks were lost in the translation.
Also, do you or anyone else have any topic suggestions? I have a few ideas, but more input is always helpful. Thanks.
5
Freestyle Chat / Re: North American Freestyle Championships Announced
« on: Nov 01, 2013, 04:13: AM »hi guys ...its like this . Its for all countries in north and central america. So the guys from the caribean can compete aswell.
The guys in the middle region can actually choose between south and north america. Aslong as you dont compete in both its totally fine.
Any more guestions , i can help ....
Any specifics? Date? Venue? Registration?
6
Freestyle Chat / My thoughts on the state of freestyle
« on: Oct 25, 2013, 11:15: AM »
I had prepared this for L2F article, which didn't get posted, so I thought I'd put it up here. Comments welcome.
With the advent of the F3 World Tour and the increasing worldwide notoriety of freestyle football (ff), questions like, “What is quality freestyle (fs)?” or even “What is freestyle football?” loom large. In my discussions with non-fsers, I find these questions difficult to answer, and I don’t think I’m alone. Those within the fs community seem to have an intuitive understanding of quality, but the introduction of specifics tends to lead to heated arguments. This is natural, as our sport, like skateboarding, figure skating, snowboarding, diving, and many others, has the challenge of turning a subjective judgment into and objective one.
A common starting point is the suggestion that fs can be broken down into two aspects, expressed by the F3 as sport and art and furthermore, that a quality fser “has the ability to perform both the art and sport of freestyle football on a consistently world class level.” However, the distinction seems to break down in the judging criterion, for the battle (sport) and routines (art), with vague and overlapping terms like, flow, style, originality, creativity, and difficulty. The Superball event in Prague, F3’s World Open, shares a similar sentiment in describing “the two definitions of Football Freestyle”, but suffers from the same indistinct criterion. In the Battle portion of the competition, judges affect a fser’s progress through a determination of “skill and level overall” and “overall performance.” The Sick Three is decided by assessing difficultly, cleanness, and style, and the Routines by evaluation of flow, creativity and style, all terms that are not easily defined. In all likelihood, actual judging is more precise, but if that is the case, competitors are being subjected to a disservice.
As I mentioned earlier, the popularity and influence of ff is continuing to grow, of which the F3 is a perfect example As this trend continues, and organizers begin to dictate what quality fs is, they will influence the direction of the sport overall. With this in mind, the imprecision of the criterion of the F3 and Superball make me uneasy. In addition, I don’t intend to say that organizers have complete control over fsers. Fs is and always will be driven by the individual. The job of organizers should be to foster the growth of the sport and individuals through the standards they impose.
The vagueness exhibited by F3 characterizes this forum and others like it through fsers that engage in argument using unclear terms. People get offended and fs suffers. It is apparent from these exchanges that many people care a great deal about fs and would be aided by some clarity. For the remainder of this article, I intent not to set up a system of judgment, but attempt to address the vagueness inherent in terms related to ff.
A consequence of the art/sport dichotomy are the hardcore and creative freestyle camps, which are often set in opposition. Throughout, I will assume that these two fashions can be interpreted as an attitudes or trick sets. The goal of hardcore, which tends to be easier to define, is to progress physically with almost obsessive repetition and practice. Aside from the mental challenges associated with these goals, the focus is on physical, athletic progression. This is represented in the trick set, which concentrates on lowers and encompasses the “obvious”, and difficult derivatives of the co, atw, and htw.
I find that a useful analogy for understanding the relationship between the two fashions is skateboarding, specifically its vert and street forms. Both involve flipping, spinning, and grabbing the board; the same basic techniques out of which routines are constructed. The two are separated by a two-story ramp, required for vert skateboarding, which facilitates more hang time, speed and faster spinning. Vert skateboarding shares the need for faster spinning, bigger tricks and more speed with hardcore freestyle.
Street skateboarding sees a much greater variety of tricks and approaches with more emphasis on individual stylishness. Creative freestyle bears similarities in that there is a greater variety of tricks, and more emphasis on technical ability. The difficulty in defining the creative style is that it tends to be a catch all for all things not hardcore. Lowers also receive the most emphasis and the styles of sitdowns, ground, uppers, etc. fit here more appropriately. Associated tricks tend to include block, flow and rake combos, though all moves/combos with variety, unexpectedness, artistic style, and imagination, tend to be associated with the creative fashion.
I have tried to show that the division in fs is much like that in skateboarding and I think we would do well to follow the lead of the extreme sports organizations like the X Games in trying to develop our sport. However, we differ in one crucial aspect: equipment. Street and vert skateboarding are naturally separated by the vert ramp, whereas in our sport a ball is the only equipment requirement, and nothing else (barring excessive use of the hands) is off limits. Therefore, hardcore and creative style will continue to butt heads and it is import to identify traits that are shared between both fashions.
I think it’s common for fsers to perceive the hardcore and creative styles to be at opposite ends of a spectrum, with the assumption that you must give up some of one to get some of the other, with most fsers somewhere in the middle. I think this is a mistake. Hardcore and creative attitudes/tricks should be on different spectra on which the style of individual fsers can be analyzed. For instance, if we treat the styles as trick sets, and hardcore as the natural derivatives of atw, htw, co, etc., a “block and flow” fser might be low on the hardcore and high on the creative spectra. What about a 4-rev trick? It seems obvious that his is hardcore trick. I would argue that a creative attitude is also required. Developing a technique to land such a trick requires the analysis of one’s movements and failures while finding creative solutions to technique and training issues. I maintain that all fsers require some of both of these characteristics and it also goes without saying that in a particular video or live performance, a fsr’s position on each of these spectra can change quickly.
Both of these fashions share other traits as well. All fsers are drawn from field football by the appeal of expressing themselves, and to express what they love about fs, be it creative, hardcore, or anything else. Precision is also important to both camps, suggesting that it is not only that something is performed, but also how it is performed. In addition I think it can be said that it is a trait seen in many of the best fsers. I identify with Ethan Altmann’s description to a sampling of Rocco’s style:
i have showed his freestyle videos to several family members and i always get the same response...they all say that it looks like he's dancing with the ball. that is what constitutes a perfect style imo, when it has so much flow and effortlessness that it could be dance.
I hope that this writing will help the fs community in the direction of progress in regard to the question of quality, as I care deeply about the future of the sport.
With the advent of the F3 World Tour and the increasing worldwide notoriety of freestyle football (ff), questions like, “What is quality freestyle (fs)?” or even “What is freestyle football?” loom large. In my discussions with non-fsers, I find these questions difficult to answer, and I don’t think I’m alone. Those within the fs community seem to have an intuitive understanding of quality, but the introduction of specifics tends to lead to heated arguments. This is natural, as our sport, like skateboarding, figure skating, snowboarding, diving, and many others, has the challenge of turning a subjective judgment into and objective one.
A common starting point is the suggestion that fs can be broken down into two aspects, expressed by the F3 as sport and art and furthermore, that a quality fser “has the ability to perform both the art and sport of freestyle football on a consistently world class level.” However, the distinction seems to break down in the judging criterion, for the battle (sport) and routines (art), with vague and overlapping terms like, flow, style, originality, creativity, and difficulty. The Superball event in Prague, F3’s World Open, shares a similar sentiment in describing “the two definitions of Football Freestyle”, but suffers from the same indistinct criterion. In the Battle portion of the competition, judges affect a fser’s progress through a determination of “skill and level overall” and “overall performance.” The Sick Three is decided by assessing difficultly, cleanness, and style, and the Routines by evaluation of flow, creativity and style, all terms that are not easily defined. In all likelihood, actual judging is more precise, but if that is the case, competitors are being subjected to a disservice.
As I mentioned earlier, the popularity and influence of ff is continuing to grow, of which the F3 is a perfect example As this trend continues, and organizers begin to dictate what quality fs is, they will influence the direction of the sport overall. With this in mind, the imprecision of the criterion of the F3 and Superball make me uneasy. In addition, I don’t intend to say that organizers have complete control over fsers. Fs is and always will be driven by the individual. The job of organizers should be to foster the growth of the sport and individuals through the standards they impose.
The vagueness exhibited by F3 characterizes this forum and others like it through fsers that engage in argument using unclear terms. People get offended and fs suffers. It is apparent from these exchanges that many people care a great deal about fs and would be aided by some clarity. For the remainder of this article, I intent not to set up a system of judgment, but attempt to address the vagueness inherent in terms related to ff.
A consequence of the art/sport dichotomy are the hardcore and creative freestyle camps, which are often set in opposition. Throughout, I will assume that these two fashions can be interpreted as an attitudes or trick sets. The goal of hardcore, which tends to be easier to define, is to progress physically with almost obsessive repetition and practice. Aside from the mental challenges associated with these goals, the focus is on physical, athletic progression. This is represented in the trick set, which concentrates on lowers and encompasses the “obvious”, and difficult derivatives of the co, atw, and htw.
I find that a useful analogy for understanding the relationship between the two fashions is skateboarding, specifically its vert and street forms. Both involve flipping, spinning, and grabbing the board; the same basic techniques out of which routines are constructed. The two are separated by a two-story ramp, required for vert skateboarding, which facilitates more hang time, speed and faster spinning. Vert skateboarding shares the need for faster spinning, bigger tricks and more speed with hardcore freestyle.
Street skateboarding sees a much greater variety of tricks and approaches with more emphasis on individual stylishness. Creative freestyle bears similarities in that there is a greater variety of tricks, and more emphasis on technical ability. The difficulty in defining the creative style is that it tends to be a catch all for all things not hardcore. Lowers also receive the most emphasis and the styles of sitdowns, ground, uppers, etc. fit here more appropriately. Associated tricks tend to include block, flow and rake combos, though all moves/combos with variety, unexpectedness, artistic style, and imagination, tend to be associated with the creative fashion.
I have tried to show that the division in fs is much like that in skateboarding and I think we would do well to follow the lead of the extreme sports organizations like the X Games in trying to develop our sport. However, we differ in one crucial aspect: equipment. Street and vert skateboarding are naturally separated by the vert ramp, whereas in our sport a ball is the only equipment requirement, and nothing else (barring excessive use of the hands) is off limits. Therefore, hardcore and creative style will continue to butt heads and it is import to identify traits that are shared between both fashions.
I think it’s common for fsers to perceive the hardcore and creative styles to be at opposite ends of a spectrum, with the assumption that you must give up some of one to get some of the other, with most fsers somewhere in the middle. I think this is a mistake. Hardcore and creative attitudes/tricks should be on different spectra on which the style of individual fsers can be analyzed. For instance, if we treat the styles as trick sets, and hardcore as the natural derivatives of atw, htw, co, etc., a “block and flow” fser might be low on the hardcore and high on the creative spectra. What about a 4-rev trick? It seems obvious that his is hardcore trick. I would argue that a creative attitude is also required. Developing a technique to land such a trick requires the analysis of one’s movements and failures while finding creative solutions to technique and training issues. I maintain that all fsers require some of both of these characteristics and it also goes without saying that in a particular video or live performance, a fsr’s position on each of these spectra can change quickly.
Both of these fashions share other traits as well. All fsers are drawn from field football by the appeal of expressing themselves, and to express what they love about fs, be it creative, hardcore, or anything else. Precision is also important to both camps, suggesting that it is not only that something is performed, but also how it is performed. In addition I think it can be said that it is a trait seen in many of the best fsers. I identify with Ethan Altmann’s description to a sampling of Rocco’s style:
i have showed his freestyle videos to several family members and i always get the same response...they all say that it looks like he's dancing with the ball. that is what constitutes a perfect style imo, when it has so much flow and effortlessness that it could be dance.
I hope that this writing will help the fs community in the direction of progress in regard to the question of quality, as I care deeply about the future of the sport.
Pages: [1]