Judging Criteria for IPF Sponsored Events
Below you will find the judging criteria for any IPF sponsored parkour competition event.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us!
This body of work is owned by The World FreeRunning Parkour Federation. Created by WFPF Manager Sam Parham, and Head Coaches Justin Sheaffer & Vinnie Coryell.
This is the judging guidelines for WFPF competition. WFPF reserve the right to update / amend these guidelines at their discretion if it is deemed beneficial to develop the system in place further.
Judges cannot have pre-conceived bias for or against an athlete for any reason.
It is important that each Judge involved in competition understands the importance of ‘staying in their lane’. This system only works, provided that the ‘Execution’ Judge, focuses only on ‘Execution’, and doesn’t try to bridge their score in relation to any other criteria being covered by other judges…
Working example 1.0:
An athlete can perform a series of incredibly difficult skills achieving a ‘9’ score for difficulty, but if he/she stumbled some of the landings with hands down, somewhat out of control, they would be docked by the ‘execution’ judge. The Difficulty Judge should still award the ‘9’ deserved for the difficult level of tricks.
- To achieve a judging criteria that is as close to objectivity and is as quantifiable as possible.
- To attempt to remove human subjectivity and qualitative results, where both realistic and feasible.
- To create a scoring system that is entirely justifiable and for the most part un-questionable.
We reject the notion of ‘creativity’ as a judging criteria – which is entirely subjective and essentially is something that every Freerunner possesses in their own way.
Definition: “Movements that are considered particularly hard to accomplish”
Each competitor begins with a score of ‘0’.
For each somersault rotation the athlete is awarded a half point. (Double rotations / twists can accumulate 1.5 points.)
Repeating movements achieves no additional score (unless for example a wall 360 is performed on opposite sides). – Judge discretion to award additional half point on any such particularly difficult move / combination.
Working Example: 2.0:
A Kong probably wouldn’t be any points. A Kong front / handspring could be a half point. A Kong Gainer could be 1 point. A Kong Gainer 360 could be 2 points.
As you can see from above, there is a level of subjectivity and judge discretion, but the same judge on difficulty throughout should cover consistency and will always be linked back to the justification of specific movements to avoid any personal athlete bias.
Definition: “The actual carry out and delivery of the movements”
Each competitor begins with Execution score of ‘10’.
For each move, the judge determines if the athlete landed controlled or not.
- Good landing (can include hands down and/or roll) = 0 deduction.
- Stumble and hand down = ½ point deduction.
- Crash and bail = 5 point deduction.
Working Example: 3.0:
If an athlete executes a double B-Twist, lands controlled and rolls. This is considered good execution and 0 points are deducted from their 10 score. However, if they land, stumble slightly and then roll, this is considered slightly out of control and as such they will be deduction the ½ point. It is possible for the landing to be heavily out of control but still be saved by a roll or use of hands, and as such the judge can award a 1 or 2 point deduction as opposed to the full ‘crash and bail’ 5 point deduction.
Definition: “Ability to adapt or be adaptable to the many different course areas and functions”
Parkour / Tricking / Breakdance etc….
Each competitor begins with a score of ‘0’.
A score of 2 points is awarded for hitting each section of the course.
Athletes should note that it is not acceptable to simple ‘touch’ or ‘pass through’ a particular area. Movements must be satisfactorily executed within each area to achieve the 2 point score.
There may be a case where a 1 point score is awarded if the athlete does something basic and simple in a particular section.
Working Example: 4.0:
If an athlete executes a series of strides across the bars, this is unlikely to count as satisfactory execution in that area. The judge may offer a 1 point score for this, but that is at their discretion. Realistically for the athlete to comfortably secure the 2 point score, they could stride to precision the bar, drop to hang position. Swing lache gainer 360 dismount.
Definition: “Consecutive movements without break in flow/movement.”
Each competitor begins with a score of ‘10’.
- 1 point deduction every time the athlete stops for a ‘noticeable’ period.
- 1/2 point additional deduction each additional second wasted at that spot.
- Note: shoe wipe / chalking of hands – judges discretion if excessive, may result in 1 or 2 point deductions also.
Ideally a judge would like to see an athlete that has planned his / her run effectively to ensure that things such as chalking of hands are done prior to the run. Equally to see a competitor spread their pacing and stamina to ensure endurance consistently throughout the allotted time period.