Lance Winslow:
… While watching the 2012 Olympics in London on NBC I was wowed by the performance of the US and Chinese athletes in diving and gymnastics, along with the freeze frame shots of the dives, vaults, and floor exercises. It occurred to me that we could easily design a computerized robotic coach which would analyze, judge, and grade not only events, but also work as a coach in practice offering strategic advice to help the athletes better themselves, and I hate to say it, but the robotic system I am envisioning would be even better than the human eye, or a human coach. Let’s talk. …
The author Lance Winslow, like most ezine @rticle blabbers, has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about.
How could he? That’s Lance’s 27,111th ezine article.
He writes them for a few pennies each.
I won’t link to that nonsense.
16 comments ↓
I gotta say, back when I was coaching I always thought that we should move to replace judges with computers. Microsoft’s kinect system tracks body movement pretty well, and with some refinement could apply any code of points you wanted. The movements are too quick for humans to judge accurately.
As for a coach… I’m drawing a blank on how you do that. Using technology where it can help is great, but replacing a coach? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Coach Rick, I think you’re just butthurt that somebody suggests a computer can do your job.
I’d call this science fiction right now as far as computers doing this on their own but I don’t think the idea is crap. Afterall, science fiction has led to science fact often enough already. Truthfully, this may be much closer than we think to being science fact. There already exists programs that track human movement so we just need to add a program that turns those movements into variables or whatever and work from there.
If computers judged the olympics, Zou Kai would never get a medal on high bar…ever.
I’m sure the corrupt FIG would get a bribe function added to the judging program so that Zou Kai could still get a medal when China pays them enough.
Method:
Video overlay – input from 3-15 high def cameras at key points for visual accuity.
Program specific body motions and what is considered “perfect” motion.
List common problems, at key points, which will be diagnosed against the “perfect” motion. This will be the “coach” – logic would be similar to “if points x, y, z are out of line, then fix using a, b, c”.
Juding will be done in a similar fashion, however the exercise would have to be “pre-programmed” or a list of elements would need to be available and retrieved in real time, which may prove difficult for current computing power.
The human “coach” element would be slowly phased into a managerial position, much like doctors are being phased out, and a program could be developed for individual athletes based on strengths and weaknesses which can be finitely assessed based on strength assessment, body control, and endurance.
However, nothing could really ever replace a good spotter who uses proper developments.
It is “possible.” It is also very highly unlikely. It would defeat the purpose of sport and the human element, and it would be very very depressing as most humans would never live up to the “perfect” model, and it would be detrimental to the sport.
However, the above system could be used to enhance a coaches understanding of human motion, as well as give quick reference to individual short comings and strength requirements for certain activities.
In reality – it would simply be a gigantic data dump that would be forever changing, and be just as subject to failure as a human because it would be just as fallable as the programmer who programs it – that is, “perfect” would still be subject to a “panel” and that panel may, in fact, be wrong.
Then there is the problem of innovation, creativity, and differentiation – there is a reason certain people do things better than others, and it’s the minor “imperfections” that give style and pose.
I have to agree with Rick in this case. Perfection is purely subjective and relative to the opinions of others much like mediocracy. That is what makes artistic gymnastics unique. There are always going to be different ways to develop a skill set, and the humanistic side of things are what provides the artistic side to the sport. Using computers is simply another tool to develop those skill sets. By eliminating the human coaching factor gymnastics would no longer be artistic, it would simply be a pattern or an algorithm.
Just because something is possible, doesn’t mean we should impliment it.
There are so many things a coach can do that a robot can’t, mainly assess and nurture the mental state of an athlete. Many high-level athletes begin critical training as children. I doubt a robot spitting out statistics would be much help. It also can’t run to help a child who has fallen, nor could it motivate that child to get back up and try again.
Well, if the imperfections give someone style, Zou Kai is stiil The Man.
A computer could probably be used for judgeing. As the emotions I feel as a result of watching gymnastics come from within me, no computer can ever take them away.
That said, computers can go haywire. Using computers as judges would replace one set of problems with another.
Computers could aid in coaching, but I don’t think those can replace humans. Computers don’t learn like humans, and how would a computer mentor an athlete, motivate one who wants to give up, or help one learn to get along with others?
You consider low, piked, messy legs and flex feet to be style?? Most would consider that just bad technique. I prefer style to be like Leyva’s layout kovacs – arms out to the side, or the way Nemov lifts his head up on scissors, or the way some gymnasts float through skills. What Zou Kai does is just bad gymnastics.
A computer judging Zou Kai’s high bar would probably crap out because it would get overloaded with too many deductions and just wouldn’t be able to handle it.
Well, it was somebody else here that said that minor imperfections “give style”, and this isn’t the first time I’ve heard that one. Well, Zou’s are a little more than minor. One thing a computer would not do to him is find more deductions because it thought he had a “boring” routine compared to some other people’s. It’s not like he doesn’t have any, but I’m just sayin’.
I wonder how much real research has been done on either of the topics mentioned in the article Rick posted?
The FIG is probably already working on a computer system that instantly morph’s the code of points to justify giving the gold medal to the highest bidder.
The judging would be relatively simple. You don’t need a ton of cameras. You only need two or three with an improved version of Microsoft Kinect. The system would map the structure and position of the athlete’s body. Deductions in most cases would be easy to identify and measure because the computer would know the exact degree of knee bend, leg separation, etc.
The opportunities to improve the sport would be immense. We could know exactly how Gabby’s tkatchev’s height compares to the best in the world and the same with McKayla’s vault.
On TV, NBC’s computers could, in real time, display the accumulating difficulty and execution scores. And in instant replays the video could pause and highlight the space between knees with a graphic displaying something like 7.5 degrees separation. This could be great for explaining where one athlete came out ahead. The funny thing is that our sport is tailor made for computer judging because of the way codes of points are written.
How cool would it be to be watching the Olympics and be able to learn that a gymnast just did the most flawlessly executed Kolman on record, or the highest double layout the world has yet seen?
But coaching is different. A lot of the time, a coach’s work is looking children in the eye. It’s understanding moods, frustrations, or excitement. A good coach has to think creatively about how to help gymnasts solve problems and understand when to take progressive, increasingly risky steps in a gymnast’s education.
How would a computer build a trusting relationship with a seven year old? How would it tell a joke or laugh at a student’s joke or explain to a parent that her daughter’s non-medalling routine was the best she’d ever done.
No, coaching is about people, and coaches can use increasingly complex technology to aid their work. But a computer that can replace a coach is a long way off. I won’t say it can’t or won’t happen, because I firmly believe that everyone’s job is in danger from robots. But a computer that can effectively coach is in effect a person. Then we have a whole host of other problems.
I agree with JS. The judging seems a lot more doable than the coaching. Coaches could definitely use the judging program as an aid though.
I’m looking forward to the day when the judging is mostly computer based. But it will be a long, long time before a computer mostly replaces the coach.
4 years later and people still can’t let this zou kai/corrupt chinese officials business go. get over it. you don’t like his gymnastics and that’s your opinion. You talk about style and form deductions like he is the only one in the world. For everytime kai flexes his feet levya bends his arms on a tap they miss handstands equally. for every style point you think he gets for putting his arms out on his layed out kovacs I think kai gets it when he smoothly taps from a rybalk into his winkler.
Leave a Comment