Introduction: Snowboard Big Air (SBA) is a judged sport evaluated on overall impression based on execution, difficulty, amplitude, variety, and progression. The specific perspectives judges use to evaluate performances and their contribution to scoring outcomes remain unclear. In this study, we investigated perspectives influencing judge evaluations in SBA. Methods: This study had a sequential exploratory mixed method design including (1) interview survey, (2) qualitative analysis and evaluation item generation, (3) capturing tricks, (4) evaluation survey, and (5) statistical analysis. Seven female athletes performed backside 900 and free trials, recorded from three video angles. Seven judges scored each trial by over and indicated their reasoning using 25 evaluation items derived from three expert judge interviews plus an "others" category. Spearman's coefficient analysis was conducted between T-scores of the overall scores and each evaluation point. Moreover, stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to identify significant T-score predictors. Results: Correlation and regression analyses between scores and evaluation items identified 12 items significantly related to scores (|?| = 0.54-0.93, p < 0.05, R² = 0.63, p < 0.01). Positive items showed stronger correlations than negative items. High jumps, stable posture control, firm grabs, and smooth landings emerged as primary score predictors, whereas unstable or failed landings negatively influenced scores. Discussion: SBA scoring is a dual system: although primarily additive based on key performance factors, it also incorporates subjective, experience-driven perspectives that elude predefined metrics. This synthesis of quantifiable performance and qualitative expertise characterizes the judging process as well as underlies the inherent complexity and appeal of competitive snowboarding.
© Copyright 2026 Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. Frontiers Media. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.