Consideration of the 5A Definition
Caution:
This translation was generated by ChatGPT 4o mini and may not fully capture the nuances or context of the original text. Please verify for accuracy, especially in formal or critical contexts.
Original Article is above.
In the competitive 5A, debates often arise regarding whether certain tricks performed by players in freestyle can truly be classified as 5A. Also I have frequently been told that new tricks I created are not 5A.
When I first entered a contest in 5A, I was often told, "That's not 5A, so there's no need to do it," and at the time, I didn’t feel frustrated at all.
I accepted it, thinking of it as common sense of 5A.
However, I believe that there must be a clear problem behind the occurrence of these debates.
so I’d like to consider that while returning to the fundamental question of what 5A should be.
Here's what I see as the Main Problem:
The Ambiguity in 5A Definition
Have you ever watched a trick performed with CW and wondered, "Is that really 5A?". The reason such a question arises is because the definition of a 5A trick is ambiguous.
To reduce this ambiguity, I will treat "conceptual 5A" and "competitive 5A" are the same in this discussion.
Refer to "Freestyle Rules Summary" in WYYC, the definition of 5A is: "Tricks are based on moves which are possible because the yo-yo has counter-weight and is not attached to the hand."
I think no one can understand what kind of trick is 5A just from this statement.
The scope is so broad that it’s hard to grasp.
So we need to categorize existing tricks in a way that increases the clarity of the 5A definition.
If I categorize existing 5A tricks broadly, they might fall into the following groups:
1. String hits accompanied by CW movement
Example: Hop or Whips while moving the CW, Direction Change
2. Interaction between CW and yoyo
Example: Beesting, Meltdown
3. Structural changes made possible by CW and yoyo
Example: Dice to Green Triangle
4. Propeller, Aerial, Angel Wing, etc.
Note that Group 1 includes string hits that don’t require the CW movement, and such tricks are also included in the definition of 1A. (Personally, I’m not a big fan of these kinds of tricks.)
The detail of Group 2 includes “the movement of CW caused by the yoyo pushing the string connected to CW” and “the movement of yoyo caused by the string near CW hanging on the yoyo”.
Although some of Group 2 and 3 are similar to 3A tricks, they are expressions that ensure the uniqueness of 5A. And I think that Tech and Integral of 5A fall under (2) and (3).
If I imagine 5A tricks in a Venn diagram, it would likely look something like this:
Let’s now take a look at the 5A definition from Freestyle Rules Summary again.
According to this definition, a part of the group 1 (String hits accompanied by CW movement) are clearly not considered as 5A, because such tricks can be performed when the string is fixed to the hand (thus falling within 1A definition).
In fact, it is impossible to know if the evaluator can determine that these tricks are not 5A because it depends on personal knowledge. (The argument that the evaluator should have that knowledge is unnecessary in discussing the definition of 5A.)
Taking the above into account, isn't 5A difficult?
We have to think about the complicated definition of 5A, and there are many tricks included in the “that's not 5A, so you don't need to do it” category.
But I think it will be Absolutely Necessary to change the current situation in the future.
Solution to the ambiguity
The problem of ambiguity in 5A definition seems to be solvable without much trouble if it is limited to personal scope.
We just have to define 5A in more detail.
In other words, we just need to make sure that existing and new tricks are included in the above definition and not contained in 1A.
The concrete procedure is as follows,
Eli’s Hop while moving the CW
↓
Included in Group 1 (String hits accompanied by CW movement).
↓
included in 1A since the movement of the CW is not necessary for the Eli’s Hop.
↓
It’s NOT 5A.
I think it's not difficult to do as far as personal scope.
*Note: It is hard to say, as there may be some crazy tricks in the future that do not fit into these circles.*
On the other hand, this becomes very complicated when adapted to evaluating others.
The evaluator must have at least mastered the Eli’s hop, and must determine within a limited amount of time that the it can be done without CW.
In addition to this, judging is really tough because they have to determine the overlap of tricks.
However, since the rules state 5A is“Tricks are based on moves which are possible because the yo-yo has counter-weight and is not attached to the hand.”, I personally think it is time for a policy of not thoroughly evaluating “What can be done even if the string is attached to the hand."
Let’s think about this and don’t be fooled by the flashiness, difficulty, and familiarity of the tricks.
I want to do a lot of things that can only be done with 5A, since I am going to the trouble of installing a cumbersome CW and doing 5A that may destroy my favorite room, when I could just enjoy yoyoing with a Finger hole on my finger.
Criticism of other people's tricks is one of the funs of 5A, but one day I would like to make a freestyle consisting of pure 5A tricks only.