stunthanger.com
News:
   
 
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. October 25, 2014, 07:22:55 AM


Login with username, password and session length



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Walker Cup.....  (Read 10368 times)
Howard Rush
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 4706



« Reply #100 on: July 26, 2012, 06:13:21 PM »

Gee Howard, what are you looking for?   The proposal as submitted to the PAMPA EC is posted at the beginning of this section.  In case you missed it, this matter was discussed by the PAMPA EC at their annual Nats meetig and they approved it by a vote of 10 to 1.  Except for a few vocal naysayers on this forum,  some individuals and the PAMPA EC apparently recognize some merit to the idea.  Granted, there will have to be some adjustments to the very clever computer programs that have been generated to support the current Nats process.  I would like to think that the very clever guru (which I am not) who generated those very clever computer programs would be able to adjust the programs that in reality makes a subdivsion of a group of fliers with judge assignments and another scoreboard.  

I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  
Logged

Impacts zijn oranje,
Noblers zijn blauw.
Het Jive Combat Team
Vliegt beter als jou.

PJ Rowland
AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 36
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 1826


Melbourne - AUSTRALIA


« Reply #101 on: July 26, 2012, 07:12:48 PM »

" I still have your can of No Touch.  I meant to get it back to you before we left " - Doug Moon




Did you have to hand back the can of WhipA$$ also ?

or is it still all over Circle # 3 ? Cool

Logged

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
Trostle
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1728


« Reply #102 on: July 26, 2012, 07:23:32 PM »

I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  

Tell me something Howard.  Is there any amount of justification, polls, details that would convince you that this might really be a good idea?

Is there seeding in Advanced?  If not, why not?  If there is, why not use the same method for Expert?  Sure, there will be some uncertainty with certain individual pilots, but a "reasonable" spreading of talent should not be too much of a stretch for certain experienced administrators and gurus.  There has nothing yet been set in concrete regarding the ten and ten profile.  Given the expected entries, that would be an initial starting point for start planning  and establishing the number of finalists in the two events.  Over time, that could certainly be refined with some sort of sliding scale just as the number of finalists in the 60's Nats (pre-PAMPA) were sort of determined on the go based on total entry and number of circles that filled up.  It certainly was not a constant number from year to year.  There has been no poll.  Neither was there a poll when we initiated Skill classes at the Nats.  We (PAMPA) did it because a few people thought it was a good idea.    The format was not fixed when we started that.  It got refined as we went along.  Why is it so difficult for you to see that this might be a good idea.  If it turns out to be not such a good idea for whatever reason or reasons, then fine, it can be scrapped, but the Open event will not be tarnished in anyway because we tried to include Expert at the Nats.
Logged
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: July 26, 2012, 07:31:28 PM »

I am looking for the thought that went into this.  After challenging you to produce details, I still don't see them.  For example, how will you do seeding?  How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?  I think this is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, and the arguments and abuse haven't convinced me to put work into implementing it.  

Hi Howard

I can answer those questions: I thought this out for a long time and asked over 160 flyers, EDs and others, what they thought,
I also know of at least 15 people that would have flown this class had they been able and had the choice, which they did NOT.
I am the one that decided on putting 10 and 10 in the initial proposal so that we would have the same number of flyers and flights on Friday that we have now,  (40) and it would NOT be any extra burden on the judges, or the tabulators, also with the Advance number decreasing, and Expert being new, 10 is a good number, All the pilots will still get 2 days flying and will get their placing.
 This is fluid and is not carved in stone, If the ED wants to have more, he could, this was just a basic way that it can be done and accommodate what I was hearing from many sources, including Previous EDs.
The proposal was NOT poorly thought out, or brought forward as you say.
 You just did not have that information.
In regards to the seeding, as with any new event if there is any problem the ED of the NATs should have the power to tweak the seeding system until the people there have a history to seed them by. The only problem I see with seeding Expert, is the same one we would have with Advanced or OPEN if we got in a number of pilots that had no history at the US NATs.  
Some of the people that fly Expert will most likely have a history, And what do you do if someone like..for example Al Rabe came and signed up to fly the NATs, he would Not be seeded because he has  no history with the system we are using now.
In addition to the Q&A session at the PAMPA meeting, The EC Dist, director has previously polled their districts for what the membership wanted, or at least that was what they were to do, I cannot speak for all of them, but I know for a fact that many of the Directors did just that.

Randy
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 10:00:25 PM by RandySmith » Logged
PJ Rowland
AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 36
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 1826


Melbourne - AUSTRALIA


« Reply #104 on: July 26, 2012, 08:06:52 PM »

I think its a great idea.

Logged

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #105 on: July 26, 2012, 09:30:06 PM »

Brett,

We have had this discussion before.  You have made your point several times here, so I am going to respond.  I cannot understand your belief that adding Expert to the Nats schedule will in any way threaten the Open event.  As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested, at least in the forseeable future as it has been for the past 50+ years.  Now what happens when the current generations of stunt fliers are long gone, what happens to this event will be in the hands of those who inherit this magnificent event from us.  I cannot see in any way that having Expert on the Nats scheudle will diminish the importance of the Walker Cup.

Now, if we loose the BOM rule in the future, then what we do with the Walker Cup will be an entirely different question.  On this point, there are no proposals in this rules change cycle to eliminate the BOM rule.  There are some proposals to change it, but not to eliminate it.  So we will have some form of a BOM rule, if not the same one, for at least the next 2 1/2 years.

Keith

Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

While I mostly held my comments as I sat in for Jim Hoffman and voted his "District X aye" to the proposal I couldn't help wondering what the proponents of the change were thinking when they championed the idea as "necessary to increase participation at the nats" and then cited the loss in participation in recent years as proof.  What I couldn't understand is that when they talked "numbers of lost participation" the vast majority of the reduction in recent years has been in the Advanced (skill class!) event.  They cited only 25 entries last year and I couldn't help but notice that, this year, while Open continued to attract mid 40s participants, all but three Advanced entrants "qualified" for the Advanced "TOP 20" finals!!!!  If skill classes are the supposed savior of participation why has "open" remained comparatively healthy while the "prototype" of the acclaimed Expert event (Advanced) has lost a large percentage of its previous participants?Huh  The  arguments in favor of the proposal astounded me in their mutually illogical advocacy.

What the heck.  They're only toys for grey haired boys.  What difference will it make.  Proliferate away and join the ranks of speed, racing, combat and carrier...although the word "ranks" seems hollow in light of the vacant parking lots around their sites this year.  LIke the rest of America we're going to pave the road to CLPA perdition by dumbing the event down to its lowest common denominator.  Has anybody noticed how Doug Moon's realization of the inherent specialness of the event as originally structured has driven him to excel and proudly earn a place on our small community's symbol of stunt excellence?  Something deep down inside of him realized that the Walker Trophy was special and winning it would take a special effort by a special man.  Now that he's done that "something special" better than those who shared that passion he is unlikely to applaud a pretender to the spots below him on the base of that trophy.

I give Open two or three rules cycles at best and then they'll be giving the cup to one of the remaining handful of guys with the big credit cards and zero knowledge of or respect for the efforts of those names that preceded his/her own.  I'd also be willing to bet he/she'll have to beat a lot fewer competitors to "earn" that place.

One might ask what makes me so positive about the ultimately deleterious effects of attempting to buy participation at any cost.  It's really pretty personal.  I once ate, lived and breathed stunt yet, now,  just the debate has turned that 50+ year passion into a passing interest I engage in when there is nothing good on TV.

Ted

Logged
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 26, 2012, 09:40:36 PM »

""Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me."


Hi Ted

Keith was addressing ...rule change cycle with rules...  The Expert proposal  was NOT  a rule issue, and had nothing to do with any rule change, or the rule cycle Keith was speaking of.
My addressing the EC about this proposal had nothing to do with rules, either changing or adding new one. The Expert proposal need  NO rule change.
Apples and oranges my friend.

Our average age in PAMPA is a little over 70 years old, if we go away from old age, it wll make no difference what goes on as I am afraid when that happens this event will be  dead!
I am not willing to go without trying to help increase our numbers, and would encourage others to suggest way to go about this too.
Regards
Randy
Logged
Matt Colan
N-756355
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 20
Location: Daytona Beach, FL and Swanton, VT
Posts: 2772



Matthew Colan mcolan94 flycl756355
« Reply #107 on: July 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM »

For what it's worth, if we went to the NATS next year and depending on whether or not I'm old enough to fly in open, I'd enter in expert.

I think we will see the top guys in advanced move into expert since most of them probably are expert at the local level.  Then, if the stars are alligned right, the guys who are truly advanced will see they have a shot at winning the advanced trophy rather than an expert who didn't feel he was good enough to fly in open.

It might also be too much of a financial commitment to attend the NATS for some..
Logged

Matt

"An adventure isn't an adventure if you know where you're going" Windy Urtnowski

"Courage is doing what you are afraid to do.  There can be no courage unless you're scared." Eddie Rickenbacker

Defintion of Sarcasm:  Sarcasm (n.) - the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it.
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #108 on: July 26, 2012, 09:50:01 PM »

What the hell are you playing at?  No, no, no, a thousand times no! Open is Open and the Walker Cup goes to the Open winner.  Your backdoor sarcasm about awarding the Walker Cup to the Expert winner, knowing full well that such a decree would bring on the demand to retire the Walker Cup from the likes of Ted and a host of other Cup winners, is completely uncalled for.  Nothing is more infuriating to somebody who would like their shot at winning the Open Championship than the thinly veiled threats of taking the prize and going home and the hell with everybody else.

If you want to really kill stunt, keep making retarded suggestions like replacing Open with Expert.  Eventually, somebody at AMA will think your sarcastic remarks are real and actually believe thats what you want.  Then when Ted places the Cup in a dusty case in the museum, you can watch Stunt fall on its face.

NONE of these imagined evils will happen if you and the rest of the Open class flyers remain vigilant and say "no" to any attempt to merge Open and Expert.

Hmmmm, Howard.  I think you net snared one!

Ted
Logged
Howard Rush
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 4706



« Reply #109 on: July 26, 2012, 09:55:30 PM »

Tell me something Howard.  Is there any amount of justification, polls, details that would convince you that this might really be a good idea?

Yes is the answer, but no amount of arm-waving bluster.  I was afraid when I wrote it that I wasn't writing clearly when I asked, "How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?"  That probably should have been one sentence.  I also left out some steps that I thought were obvious.  Here's what I was thinking and what I meant by a poll: Sometimes an event doesn't get many more than 20 entrants.  This time, for example, there were 25 in Advanced, 23 of whom flew.  Some circles had five guys on them, all of whom qualified.  I proposed to recent EDs having a finals cutoff based on number of entries, but they elected to stick with 20-- not a bad decision based on years of attendance numbers.  I would think that your estimate of attendance in either Advanced or Expert next year would have a high probability of being less than ten, so you should either: a) conduct a poll to see how many will attend each event if you are going to set a hard number, or b) publish in advance a formula for how many contestants go to the finals based on entry.  Pulling numbers out of your - um - intuition is easy, but you could be having a bunch of people renting hotels from Tuesday through Thursday for no particular reason.  Not doing the planning and just waiting to see what happens seems kinda irresponsible.  

Is there seeding in Advanced?  If not, why not?  If there is, why not use the same method for Expert?  

I rest my case.  

Do a search on Nats Seeding either here or SSW to get our annual explanation of how its done.  Then come up with a process for seeding Expert.  How will you weigh Expert placings for seeding after the first Expert Nats?  Will you chuck Advanced and Expert together or seed them separately?  How will you balance circles?  
Logged

Impacts zijn oranje,
Noblers zijn blauw.
Het Jive Combat Team
Vliegt beter als jou.
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: July 26, 2012, 10:04:57 PM »

Yes is the answer, but no amount of arm-waving bluster.  I was afraid when I wrote it that I wasn't writing clearly when I asked, "How did you settle on ten and ten, rather than a flexible finals cutoff?  Did you conduct a poll to determine who'd fly which event?"  That probably should have been one sentence.  I also left out some steps that I thought were obvious.  Here's what I was thinking and what I meant by a poll: Sometimes an event doesn't get many more than 20 entrants.  This time, for example, there were 25 in Advanced, 23 of whom flew.  Some circles had five guys on them, all of whom qualified.  I proposed to recent EDs having a finals cutoff based on number of entries, but they elected to stick with 20-- not a bad decision based on years of attendance numbers.  I would think that your estimate of attendance in either Advanced or Expert next year would have a high probability of being less than ten, so you should either: a) conduct a poll to see how many will attend each event if you are going to set a hard number, or b) publish in advance a formula for how many contestants go to the finals based on entry.  Pulling numbers out of your - um - intuition is easy, but you could be having a bunch of people renting hotels from Tuesday through Thursday for no particular reason.  Not doing the planning and just waiting to see what happens seems kinda irresponsible.  

I rest my case.  

Do a search on Nats Seeding either here or SSW to get our annual explanation of how its done.  Then come up with a process for seeding Expert.  How will you weigh Expert placings for seeding after the first Expert Nats?  Will you chuck Advanced and Expert together or seed them separately?  How will you balance circles?  

Howard  
as I stated earlier, the was NO planning pulled out of neather regions, to say that is flat WRONG, I explained how this was done

I also have explained how and why the seeding and qualifying number are what they are and why those were included in the proposal.
It would help if you would stop putting out misinformation, just because you didn't know this doesn't mean it was not done, discussed, thought about carefully, and people polled.

If you had bothered to get the correct information you would also see that the hotel reservations you are worried about and people not needing them because the will not fly through Thursday is also  FLAT WRONG. There is no change in qualifying days and pilots will still fly for 2 days at least, as they do now.

Randy
Logged
Howard Rush
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 4706



« Reply #111 on: July 26, 2012, 10:16:39 PM »

In regards to the seeding, as with any new event if there is any problem the ED of the NATs should have the power to tweak the seeding system until the people there have a history to seed them by. The only problem I see with seeding Expert, is the same one we would have with Advanced or OPEN if we got in a number of pilots that had no history at the US NATs.  
Some of the people that fly Expert will most likely have a history, And what do you do if someone like..for example Al Rabe came and signed up to fly the NATs, he would Not be seeded because he has  no history with the system we are using now.

Seeding doesn't matter much, but if you start getting arbitrary with it, people holler.  If you don't like Paul's formula, just write a new one and populate it with data.  
Logged

Impacts zijn oranje,
Noblers zijn blauw.
Het Jive Combat Team
Vliegt beter als jou.
Robert Storick
Owner
Administrator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
**
Online Online

Age: N/A
Location: Saint Louis ,Mo
Posts: 10183


The finish starts with the first piece of wood cut


stunthangar stunthangar StuntHangar http://lnkd.in/vv9S2T sparky12366
WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 26, 2012, 10:18:09 PM »

To increase participation at the NATS we need to lobby for lower fuel prices. Attrition and high costs to travel are the biggest factors in NATS entry's.
Logged

AMA 12366
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: July 26, 2012, 10:20:18 PM »

Seeding doesn't matter much, but if you start getting arbitrary with it, people holler.  If you don't like Paul's formula, just write a new one and populate it with data.  

Howard

I agree with that ,and your right, I like the seeding system that is in yours and Paul's seeding program, If this works with the pilots that show up, great, but if not it will need to be the E.D.s call on how to do it fairly, and if you get some total unknowns I do not see how they can possibly be seeded, Just as they could not be seeded in OPEN now.

Randy
Logged
Randy Cuberly
Server Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 74
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1562



« Reply #114 on: July 26, 2012, 10:20:58 PM »

Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

While I mostly held my comments as I sat in for Jim Hoffman and voted his "District X aye" to the proposal I couldn't help wondering what the proponents of the change were thinking when they championed the idea as "necessary to increase participation at the nats" and then cited the loss in participation in recent years as proof.  What I couldn't understand is that when they talked "numbers of lost participation" the vast majority of the reduction in recent years has been in the Advanced (skill class!) event.  They cited only 25 entries last year and I couldn't help but notice that, this year, while Open continued to attract mid 40s participants, all but three Advanced entrants "qualified" for the Advanced "TOP 20" finals!!!!  If skill classes are the supposed savior of participation why has "open" remained comparatively healthy while the "prototype" of the acclaimed Expert event (Advanced) has lost a large percentage of its previous participants?Huh  The  arguments in favor of the proposal astounded me in their mutually illogical advocacy.

What the heck.  They're only toys for grey haired boys.  What difference will it make.  Proliferate away and join the ranks of speed, racing, combat and carrier...although the word "ranks" seems hollow in light of the vacant parking lots around their sites this year.  LIke the rest of America we're going to pave the road to CLPA perdition by dumbing the event down to its lowest common denominator.  Has anybody noticed how Doug Moon's realization of the inherent specialness of the event as originally structured has driven him to excel and proudly earn a place on our small community's symbol of stunt excellence?  Something deep down inside of him realized that the Walker Trophy was special and winning it would take a special effort by a special man.  Now that he's done that "something special" better than those who shared that passion he is unlikely to applaud a pretender to the spots below him on the base of that trophy.

I give Open two or three rules cycles at best and then they'll be giving the cup to one of the remaining handful of guys with the big credit cards and zero knowledge of or respect for the efforts of those names that preceded his/her own.  I'd also be willing to bet he/she'll have to beat a lot fewer competitors to "earn" that place.

One might ask what makes me so positive about the ultimately deleterious effects of attempting to buy participation at any cost.  It's really pretty personal.  I once ate, lived and breathed stunt yet, now,  just the debate has turned that 50+ year passion into a passing interest I engage in when there is nothing good on TV.

Ted



Just from what I read on the forums it seems that most of the opposition to the "Expert" class seems to come from what I would call "Masters".  Most seem to be past Walker Cup winners.
While emotionally I can understand that these folks would be a little arrogant about any potential to dumb down recognition of the Walker Cup.   I don't, after reading the objections and prophesies of doom, understand why anyone would think that a new "underling class" would have any effect on the 10 or 12 folks with enough applied talent to actually have any chance at flying for the cup let alone winning it.
I'm not trying to promote anything, but do think there must be some other folks out there like me that fly Expert in local events with scores typically in the 530's to 540's on a good day (which by the way does not win, place, or show in anything here in Tucson) and do not attend the Nationals to compete because of personal feelings that they certainly have no prayer of qualifying for the Walker Cup and do not wish to travel thousands of miles to finish 30th.
I can only really speak for myself but I am thrilled that there will be an Expert class and I intend to attend the next Nationals (for the first time in over 25 years) with hopes of at least making a descent showing in the Expert class...That's what I consider myself and have been flying for 30+years.  I make no pretense about being able to compete with the Fitzgeralds, Walkers, Moons, Hunts or the dozen or so folks that consistently finish in the upper ranks through talent and lots of hard work.
When the "new"wears off this new class it may die, as some new things often do.  However it is my considered opinion that it and folks like me deserve an honest shot at making it work.

I sincerely wish to thank all those folks who worked hard at securing this new class.

Randy Cuberly

 
Logged

Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ
Howard Rush
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 4706



« Reply #115 on: July 26, 2012, 10:45:16 PM »

Howard  
as I stated earlier, the was NO planning pulled out of neather regions, to say that is flat WRONG, I explained how this was done

I also have explained how and why the seeding and qualifying number are what they are and why those were included in the proposal.
It would help if you would stop putting out misinformation, just because you didn't know this doesn't mean it was not done, discussed, thought about carefully, and people polled.

If you had bothered to get the correct information you would also see that the hotel reservations you are worried about and people not needing them because the will not fly through Thursday is also  FLAT WRONG. There is no change in qualifying days and pilots will still fly for 2 days at least, as they do now.

Randy

I must have missed the seeding part of the proposal, but since Keith doesn't know that Advanced qualifications circles are seeded, I presume not much was there.

So if eight guys show up for Expert, you'll have them go through the motions for two days to qualify for the eight-person finals and have the judges stand out in the sun and watch them.  Alternately, you could just arbitrarily pick a number to take to the finals and announce it on the spot, but, as with seeding, there are perils with being arbitrary even if your intentions are pure.

I stand by what I wrote.  Although I wasn't among the 160 authorities you consulted, I am familiar with the mechanics of operating the last few Nats.  I don't see the level of detail needed for that process.  

(Edited for meaning)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 11:25:30 PM by Howard Rush » Logged

Impacts zijn oranje,
Noblers zijn blauw.
Het Jive Combat Team
Vliegt beter als jou.
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #116 on: July 26, 2012, 10:46:29 PM »

Just from what I read on the forums it seems that most of the opposition to the "Expert" class seems to come from what I would call "Masters".  Most seem to be past Walker Cup winners.
While emotionally I can understand that these folks would be a little arrogant about any potential to dumb down recognition of the Walker Cup.   I don't, after reading the objections and prophesies of doom, understand why anyone would think that a new "underling class" would have any effect on the 10 or 12 folks with enough applied talent to actually have any chance at flying for the cup let alone winning it.
I'm not trying to promote anything, but do think there must be some other folks out there like me that fly Expert in local events with scores typically in the 530's to 540's on a good day (which by the way does not win, place, or show in anything here in Tucson) and do not attend the Nationals to compete because of personal feelings that they certainly have no prayer of qualifying for the Walker Cup and do not wish to travel thousands of miles to finish 30th.
I can only really speak for myself but I am thrilled that there will be an Expert class and I intend to attend the next Nationals (for the first time in over 25 years) with hopes of at least making a descent showing in the Expert class...That's what I consider myself and have been flying for 30+years.  I make no pretense about being able to compete with the Fitzgeralds, Walkers, Moons, Hunts or the dozen or so folks that consistently finish in the upper ranks through talent and lots of hard work.
When the "new"wears off this new class it may die, as some new things often do.  However it is my considered opinion that it and folks like me deserve an honest shot at making it work.

I sincerely wish to thank all those folks who worked hard at securing this new class.

Randy Cuberly

 

Hi Randy,

A well stated argument.  I wonder, however, if you would have been willing to drive, say, only five hundred miles to compete in Open if that were an option?

FWIW, my feelilng is that the problem with participation at the Nats is more a matter of propinquity than of holding "one class per contestant".  We've got an ocean of fine fliers on the West Coast, many of whom bit the bullet for a number of years but who now are simply worn out by the effort and, not unlike you, are in need of an "incentive" to justify the time and cost to compete.  I'm curious how many years you would drive 2000 miles to participate if you came in  20th in Expert the first few times?  Would you make the effort more often to finish 20th after only a few hundred miles of drive?  Which has prevented you from participating in the past?  Too few classes?... or too much time, expense and effort?  AMA made a financially driven choice all those years ago with their fingers crossed that modelers would be willing to bite the bullet to participate.  For a while they did but a variety of circumstances have, at least for the present, dulled their willingness to do so and the Nats this year seemed to me like a vast wasteland (although stunt alone maintained a large albeit diminished presence).

I simply fear lest we throw out the baby with the bath water in our attempts to "fix" the participation problem.  Have a good time at the Nats next year.  I hope you do well and become engaged enough to continue to undertake the journey.

Ted
Logged
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #117 on: July 26, 2012, 10:49:06 PM »

To increase participation at the NATS we need to lobby for lower fuel prices. Attrition and high costs to travel are the biggest factors in NATS entry's.

Bingo, Sparky!
Logged
Trostle
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1728


« Reply #118 on: July 27, 2012, 12:05:47 AM »

Hi Keith,

Ergo, there will be no effect on the Walker Cup for at least 2 1/2 years.  Sort of makes your "As long as the Walker Cup is the ultimate prize, there will be an Open event at the Nats and it will be as meaningful and  hotly contested..." assurance sound a bit hollow.  Also a lot different from Randy's "no effect" on 322 declaration to me.

(Clip)

Ted

Ted,  

Obviously, I did not make mayself clear regarding the current BOM rule, the current BOM rule change proposals, this Expert at the Nats proposal, and then I further obfuscated the matter by talking about the Walker Cup and what might happen if the BOM rule is ever removed from our CLPA rulebook.  It is clear that you did not understand what I was trying to say.

I think it best to explain to you that there have been several rules change proposals in this rules change cycle regarding the BOM rule that applies to our CLPA event.  Several of those proposals were not approved for any further consideration.  Two other proposals were approved for further consideration and there has been a cross proposal submitted for each of those two basic proposal for further consideration by the Contest Board during their Interim Vote procedure next month.  These proposals and their cross proposals retain a BOM rule tailored for our CLPA event rather than the dated rule (from the 50's) that currently applies to CLPA found in the AMA General rules.  The Contest Board will choose one of these proposals or will vote each of them out in the mid-August Interim vote.  Whatever the outcome of that vote, and then if one proposal survives the interim vote, there will be a final vote in September.  There will either be a change to our BOM rule which will be included in the CLPA rulebook or we will continue with the current AMA General BOM rule.  Either way, there will still be a BOM rule for our CLPA event.  Therefore, we will have a BOM requirement for at least the next 2 1/2 years which puts us at the end of the next rules change cycle.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with adding the Expert event at the Nats or anticipating that the Expert event at the nats will somehow jeopardize the current or any future CLPA BOM rule.  Somehow you seem to have confused this with the Expert at the Nats proposal.  I guess that is my fault because I was writing about both subjects in the same post.

Now, and I do not want to sound like I am speaking for you, but I think that you and I agree that, sometime in the future, IF the BOM requirement is eliminated completely from our CLPA rulebook, then the matter of the Walker Cup completely changes in character.  If there is no BOM, then the Walker Cup would no longer represent the model airplane stunt event as it has for the past 60 plus years where it has been required that the model be BOM compliant.  If that happens, the Walker Cup should be retired to the AMA museum and it will be up to the PAMPA leadership, if there still is a PAMPA at that time, to initiate whatever new tradition they see fit to do.  

(Is it possible that the BOM rule could be eliminated?  Absolutely!!  I do not have to remind you that there is a very vocal minority that has been trying to eliminate the CLPA BOM rule for years.  Until this change cycle, there have been proposals to eliminate the CLPA BOM for at least the past 12 to 16 years.  Obviously, these have all failed.  But for now, we have a BOM rule of some kind for the next 2 1/2 years.)

Some people are trying to build an argument that having Expert at the Nats will somehow hasten the demise of the BOM rule.  To the contrary, I believe that having Expert at the Nats will enhance the arguments to retain the BOM rule.  The Walker Cup will be preserved for the National Stunt Champion using the time honored BOM requirement as a prerequisite to enter Event 322 as it always has been.  Then, for those who want to compete on a Nationals stage, but to compete with others that are at their local skill level of Expert or choose to compete with a non-BOM model, there is the Expert skill level event at the Nats to do so.  Yes, there are those who profess to prefer to fly against others with their local level Expert capability than to lock horns with say the top 15 to 25 fliers in the country.  This is evidently a difficult concept to grasp or understand for at least a handful of those in that upper echelon of 15 to 25 top fliers in the country.

It is those same people who believe (I know some do and I used to be in that camp -- as PAMPA President at the time and a recent Nats ED, I was strongly against adding skill classes to the Nats schedule) that the sole purpose of the Nats is to determine the National Stunt Champion and that all of the other activities are superfluous.  Our National Stunt event is much more than that as evidenced by the continued support it gets by stunt fliers of all capabilities and by a multitude of volunteers to help run this tremendous event that takes a week to play out.  

There, I got on my soapbox and probably further confused the whole matter.  All I can ask is that you try not to intentionally misquote and misrepresent what I am trying to say.

I am really sorry that the event no longer holds the allure for you that it once did.  In the early 90's, you are the one who brought me back into this event.

Keith
Logged
Trostle
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1728


« Reply #119 on: July 27, 2012, 01:05:46 AM »

I must have missed the seeding part of the proposal, but since Keith doesn't know that Advanced qualifications circles are seeded, I presume not much was there.

(Clip) 

(Edited for meaning)

Gee whiz Howard,

I thought we had put this petty stuff behind us.  It does get a bit tedious.

I will try to speak slooowly and  be MORE CLEAR.  When I asked about the Advanced seeding process, it was in response to your question about Expert seeding at the Nats.  I was asking you if there was a seeding process for Advanced at the Nats.  And of course there is.  The procedure that Paul implemented with your help has been a big plus for people to understand the process and I think that you and Paul are to be commended for it.  What I could not understand is why you even asked the question because why would the seeding process for an Expert event at the Nats be any different than your seeding process for the Advanced event?  And before you say it; yes, I was not clear in what I wrote.  But the question still remains, why would you, of all people ask such a question when you have already devised a system that works as well as could be expected with the anticipated unknowns on the entry list?  I write this as a compliment and would hope that you take it as such and also hope that there is not a trite response. 

Keith
Logged
PJ Rowland
AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 36
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 1826


Melbourne - AUSTRALIA


« Reply #120 on: July 27, 2012, 01:08:13 AM »

The fact that the average age is 70 + according to Ted was Interesting. I cannot see the history of Stunt being altered in any period of time with the addition of Expert.

If you look to the future who are the guys whom will probably still be doing this in 20 years ?

Id like to say the current guys : Derek Barry, Ryan, Matt - Throw myself into that mix - we respect the event too much to see it diluted for future Buy to Fly idea's. I think give yourselves credit for instilling such respect for our forefathers that to be put along side the Names of a Ted Fancher or a Doug Moon and how they did it is something we all aspire to.

My outlook of I must build it - I must fly it - I must win it is stronger today that it's ever been - I was only talking to Matt Colan a few days ago who said his goal is to get to a Front row level of building - fit and finish. Look at Derek winning the concourse. I cannot speak for my age grouped peers, but I cannot see a time where I PERSONALLy would vote out an Open contest with strict adherance to BOM. The only reason for this is : Like Doug Moon when I win I want to be able to look at myself and say - I DID IT alongside every other name on the trophy.

No matter how much jumping up and down an RTFer wants - History is just that and cannot be changed. Ted flew for 50 years I will still be doing it in another 20 years, and I'm not alone.


Wimbledon will always be played on grass - Open will always be a BOM contest for the Walker Cup.


Fuel Prices ? How about an airline ticket Huh If your REALLY keen to compete for the Walker cup, you make it happen.

If I was able to get time off this year from work I would have attended, I will be back in 2013 to fly in open with a take apart model I built and I will continue to regularly attend until I win it.



« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 01:29:31 AM by PJ Rowland » Logged

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
Randy Cuberly
Server Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 74
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1562



« Reply #121 on: July 27, 2012, 01:34:14 AM »

Hi Randy,

A well stated argument.  I wonder, however, if you would have been willing to drive, say, only five hundred miles to compete in Open if that were an option?

FWIW, my feelilng is that the problem with participation at the Nats is more a matter of propinquity than of holding "one class per contestant".  We've got an ocean of fine fliers on the West Coast, many of whom bit the bullet for a number of years but who now are simply worn out by the effort and, not unlike you, are in need of an "incentive" to justify the time and cost to compete.  I'm curious how many years you would drive 2000 miles to participate if you came in  20th in Expert the first few times?  Would you make the effort more often to finish 20th after only a few hundred miles of drive?  Which has prevented you from participating in the past?  Too few classes?... or too much time, expense and effort?  AMA made a financially driven choice all those years ago with their fingers crossed that modelers would be willing to bite the bullet to participate.  For a while they did but a variety of circumstances have, at least for the present, dulled their willingness to do so and the Nats this year seemed to me like a vast wasteland (although stunt alone maintained a large albeit diminished presence).

I simply fear lest we throw out the baby with the bath water in our attempts to "fix" the participation problem.  Have a good time at the Nats next year.  I hope you do well and become engaged enough to continue to undertake the journey.

Ted

Hi Ted,
Your question of going to the Nationals to fly Open if it was only a 500 mile drive really goes to the heart of the problem and the answer is YES!
I also did not mean to imply that my inability to win the Walker cup was my only reason for not attending the NAT's during all that time.  Work travel and some health problems (that do not exist now) were primary reasons for a long time.
The travel and expense is certainly a current reason, especially since now being 71 years old makes the likelihood of being able to apply myself to the extent that I could actually be more competitive than I am right now (which obviously is not competitive enough) unlikely.
I do occassionally travel approximately that 500 miles to go to California to compete and and find it very satisfying.  But the time and effort to do that  cannot compare with a 2000 mile 10 day or so long trip to the nationals either in time or financial commitments.
I will make that commitment at least once and will build and practice between now and then to be as competitive as possible just to see how I would stack up against other "Experts".  I certainly know how I would stack up against the REAL guys.  Several of them come to VSC every year...

Randy Cuberly

Logged

Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ
Howard Rush
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 4706



« Reply #122 on: July 27, 2012, 06:30:47 AM »

Gee whiz Howard,

I thought we had put this petty stuff behind us.  It does get a bit tedious.

I will try to speak slooowly and  be MORE CLEAR.  When I asked about the Advanced seeding process, it was in response to your question about Expert seeding at the Nats.  I was asking you if there was a seeding process for Advanced at the Nats.  And of course there is.  The procedure that Paul implemented with your help has been a big plus for people to understand the process and I think that you and Paul are to be commended for it.  What I could not understand is why you even asked the question because why would the seeding process for an Expert event at the Nats be any different than your seeding process for the Advanced event?  And before you say it; yes, I was not clear in what I wrote.  But the question still remains, why would you, of all people ask such a question when you have already devised a system that works as well as could be expected with the anticipated unknowns on the entry list?  I write this as a compliment and would hope that you take it as such and also hope that there is not a trite response.

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for speaking slooowly so even I can understand.  Your asking whether there is seeding in Advanced indicated clearly to me that you did not know how the present Nats works, which would be a prerequisite to putting into your proposal how you would integrate Expert.   If you look at it, you will see that there are different ways of doing it. 
Logged

Impacts zijn oranje,
Noblers zijn blauw.
Het Jive Combat Team
Vliegt beter als jou.
Dennis Moritz
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


« Reply #123 on: July 27, 2012, 06:51:57 AM »

People don't build things today. Also the fascination of flight, much less, does not animate youth. For instance, it is almost impossible for the backyard hacker to work on a new car. In the fifties when this hobby was everywhere in the USA, craftsmanship, working with our hands, people commonly did that. Barely had the TV distraction, back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. More than that. It doesn't assist the discovery of the pleasures that is our hobby. It pulls attention elsewhere. How do we fight forces like that? It's the culture. Our moment in human history. Not conducive to control line building and flying. So. Expert class. Provides a venue for those who wish to fly, but do not build. Are we cutting the baby in half, as in the Solomon parable? Or are we creating a situation where half of a hobby can survive, so that we'll have a bit more left. Really. Far as I can tell. Who knows. About the usefulness of the "Expert" approach.
Logged
Dennis Moritz
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


« Reply #124 on: July 27, 2012, 07:01:39 AM »

Nice to see that there are so many old coots willing to "rage against the dying of the light." Meet you next year at the Dairy Queen, Muncie IN. I hope.
Logged
Dennis Moritz
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


« Reply #125 on: July 27, 2012, 07:06:03 AM »

On the positive side, I have periodically thought, if it wasn't for internet this hobby would have been medically judged dead years ago. No efficient way to keep in touch with our fellow modelers. Economically a dead end to make CL essential stuff.
Logged
Doug Moon
2014 Supporters
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568



« Reply #126 on: July 27, 2012, 08:02:34 AM »

People don't build things today. Also the fascination of flight, much less, does not animate youth. For instance, it is almost impossible for the backyard hacker to work on a new car. In the fifties when this hobby was everywhere in the USA, craftsmanship, working with our hands, people commonly did that. Barely had the TV distraction, back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. More than that. It doesn't assist the discovery of the pleasures that is our hobby. It pulls attention elsewhere. How do we fight forces like that? It's the culture. Our moment in human history. Not conducive to control line building and flying. So. Expert class. Provides a venue for those who wish to fly, but do not build. Are we cutting the baby in half, as in the Solomon parable? Or are we creating a situation where half of a hobby can survive, so that we'll have a bit more left. Really. Far as I can tell. Who knows. About the usefulness of the "Expert" approach.

There must be a nail close by, because you are smashing it on the head with your giant hammer!!

Good post.
Logged

Doug Moon
AMA 496454
Dougmoon12@yahoo.com
PJ Rowland
AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
2012 Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 36
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 1826


Melbourne - AUSTRALIA


« Reply #127 on: July 27, 2012, 08:27:03 AM »

" , back then. Now a days the cyber reality(?) has captivated youth. Look at us, even, reading these screes, debating in this, what the heck is this place. The pleasure of cutting, shaping and gluing balsa, painting, constructing something that flies, something that we can control and perfect how we fly, even the general fascination of making models-- the current culture does not support activities like that. "


Well in all fairness Its too dangerous.

The Pleasure of cutting ?
Cant do that anymore Johnny might Cut himself with the Knife and sue the blade manufacture.
shaping ? - Cant do that, might get dust in Johnny's lungs and he can get Cancer.
gluing balsa ? - Have you read those warnings ? May glue eyes shut - Cant do that Johnny might glue his eyes shut.
painting  ? - Cant paint - Dont you know all the paints we use are deadly ? Just ask Howard.
Something that flies ? - Cant do that either - Johnny might hit someone and get sued.  
Something that we can control ? - Its not Politically correct to "control" anything.

I wanted to go electric just so I could reduce my carbon footprint, then I realized I could stick a fork into the power socket..


"Back in the day" things were just different ( being serious for a moment ) I remember every summer if I didnt stub my big toe, break an arm, break someone elses arm or scrape my knees , then I was'nt being a kid and having fun.

Much of my rhetoric was tongue in cheek but there is a sad under-lying reality of my actual point.


 
Logged

If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.” - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.
john e. holliday
2014 Supporters
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 72
Location: Shawnee, KANSAS 66203-2379
Posts: 14814



« Reply #128 on: July 27, 2012, 09:22:38 AM »

And you also keep buildingthose gorgeous planes to compete in Open with.    Hoff
Logged

We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

We are never too old to learn something stupid.

Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #129 on: July 27, 2012, 11:16:54 AM »

Hmmm.  Maybe I'm tilting at semantics. 

Maybe it's the EC's decision to attach the word "Expert" to a "subordinate" event that will "never replace 322" that has me scratching my head. 

Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"? 

I'm uncomfortable using the word "Gods" to describe those who fly Open so maybe, to make the distinction clear in the Nationals categories, we should use the phrase "sub-expert" or "Expert-minus" or “(small ‘e’) expert” to logically identify the acceptable performance level of entries in the new event.

Just kidding about the choice of words but still scratching my head over how we can have an event for some pilots that is allegedly superior in performance to Expert?Huh?

Of course, on the other hand, it would make it easier for fliers from other than the mid-west to compete in Muncie every year.  Out here on the forsaken Left Coast we could ship one Yatsenko to Muncie and then Paul and Howard and Bruce and David and Brett and Ted and Whitely and Jimby and PTG and Bart and Keith and Randy and Lou and John and a dozen other quality fliers from the West Coast could take turns flying the airplane after a relaxing flight into Indy on the big jets. 

There’d also be a lot more room in the pits! 

We couldn’t fly in Open with the Yansenko but…what the heck…all but two of those named plus the “dozen or so others” don’t fly at the Nats now for reasons having nothing to do with the event’s “competitive format”.

There, I’ve named 13 (if I counted correctly) real people that could profit from the event.  Maybe I’ll change my opinion and buy a ticket!  Who’s going to order the Yatsenko???  Can we submit a suggestion to the EC to eliminate Open and award the Walker Cup (still can’t get used to “trophy”) to the winner of the “expert (small 'e') event for icing on our joint mission?

Ted

p.s. Please don’t be offended by the above.  Its “style” is altogether too emotive and tongue in cheek but the reality underlying the hyperbole is, nonetheless, “real”.
Logged
Steve Fitton
Server Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 46
Posts: 1772


« Reply #130 on: July 27, 2012, 11:28:14 AM »

Ted,

  Why did you save your eloquence for the forums, and not for the EC meeting where perhaps it might have made a difference?

Steve
Logged

Steve
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #131 on: July 27, 2012, 11:36:39 AM »

""Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"?  "

I would say, along with many other that it is a great place to find "Masters"  Open is the Master Class of our event.

nuff said

Randy
Logged
Dave_Trible
2014 Supporters
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Online Online

Age: 59
Location: Overland Park, Ks. K.C. Metro area
Posts: 2279



« Reply #132 on: July 27, 2012, 11:50:25 AM »

"Democracy is the worst system there is-except for everything else".  This thread was the first I for one ever saw or heard of this.  Was it ever presented in some forum to be understood and debated BEFORE a vote in the formerly-smoke filled room?

Dave
Logged

Supporting IC makers while I still can
proparc
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Round Rock,Texas
Posts: 1943


« Reply #133 on: July 27, 2012, 12:02:37 PM »

""Isn't Open the logical "url" for locating the "Experts"?  "

I would say, along with many other that it is a great place to find "Masters"  Open is the Master Class of our event.

nuff said

Randy

Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a name change.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 01:16:28 PM by proparc » Logged

Milton "Proparc" Graham
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #134 on: July 27, 2012, 12:12:21 PM »

Ted,

  Why did you save your eloquence for the forums, and not for the EC meeting where perhaps it might have made a difference?

Steve

Very simple, Steve.  I was asked to sit in at the EC meeting as a favor to the District X Director who was unable to attend.  He advised that his polling of the membership in his district was overwhelmingly in favor and I agreed to vote as directed despite my personal disagreement with the concept.  I abided by that pledge and did as Jim asked.  It was evident from the beginning that my point of view was in a distinct minority which further convinced my it would have been out of place to express thoughts contrary to those of the elected Director.

I feel under no such ethical restriction when discussing the matter in on-line forums and, as a result, feel free to address possible unintended consequences of the EC's decision from my point of view.  The good news is that the decision is not cast in concrete and could be amended or eliminated if my concerns prove to be valid.  If not, however, I'll be smart enough to keep my mouth shut about it rather than expose myself to the predictable "we told you so responses"!!!  

Plus, quite frankly, I enjoy the give and take and, in particular, advocating a point of view.

Ted
Logged
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #135 on: July 27, 2012, 12:21:44 PM »

Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a mane change.

Just curious.  Are  RC Masters required to build their own airplanes?  Do many of them do so?

Ted
Logged
John Lindberg
Trade Count: (0)
Lieutenant
***
Offline Offline

Age: 65
Location: Albequerque, New Mexico
Posts: 114


« Reply #136 on: July 27, 2012, 12:30:57 PM »

I flew (or attempted to) R/C Pattern for about 10 years, just got too expensive. Most of the higher classes fly ready made planes, which can run $5000.00 (or more) per plane, and a competitive flyer needs two or more planes.. As far as I know, there is no BOM rule, never has been in R/C Pattern. Masters has a set slate of manuevers to fly, FAI changes from contest to contest and that makes it real HARD! Are you burnt out, Ted?
Logged
Bill Little
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 63
Location: Aberdeen, NC 28315-2538
Posts: 12336


Second in COMMAND


« Reply #137 on: July 27, 2012, 12:34:38 PM »

Hi Ted,

I respect your position in our event and I feel sure that you understand that simply saying "Expert" doesn't always mean the very best of those in our event.  We all attend local contests and there is always an Expert class.  But the Expert class at a local meet contains several pilots who will never make the top 20 at the NATS in Open.  But they fly Expert because they have grown out of the local Advanced class.
 
I am sure that you are aware of the actual location you live in, the fact of so many Walker Trophy winners who live in the general location and that they do appear at the "local" contests.  We do not have that luxury.  I say "luxury" because if we did, the overall level of competition would rise, for sure.  Competitors get better by competing against those who are better than they are.  We do have Derek Barry at most of our meets.  Derek has shown that he is of that NATS level of competitiveness.  Randy Smith, Steve Fitton, and Tom Dixon will occasionally fly, but it is not the same as having You, Brett, David, Paul,  Alfadawg, Howard, and several others, who are of that level, or even a higher level.

I have said it before, there is a Masters Class, but it is just not officially recognized by PAMPA and the AMA.  You see it exposed as the Top 20 in Open at the NATS.

The addition of Expert at the NATS will cause me to be a bit more excited about making a trip, spending a week on asphalt that feels like it is 2000* C., and spending a ton of money to compete.  I would now be in the Advanced class.  It is more appealing to me because I know that the local Experts now have a class for them to compete in, and they will not be in Advanced.  I have been competing in some form of activity since I was 6 years old.  I do believe in competing against the best, and have done so in the past.  But at my present age and condition I fully realize that entering Open at the NATS would be a tremendous waste of my time and money.

Do we need to give a trophy to everyone? NO  But adding Expert to the NATS program has the very real potential of adding participants to our event, and that is only a good thing.  Open will only disappear when there is no longer any one flying CLPA.

Bill
Logged

Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! Grin )

Trying to get by
Ted Fancher
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #138 on: July 27, 2012, 12:39:25 PM »

I flew (or attempted to) R/C Pattern for about 10 years, just got too expensive. Most of the higher classes fly ready made planes, which can run $5000.00 (or more) per plane, and a competitive flyer needs two or more planes.. As far as I know, there is no BOM rule, never has been in R/C Pattern. Masters has a set slate of manuevers to fly, FAI changes from contest to contest and that makes it real HARD! Are you burnt out, Ted?

Hi John.  When I first started flying in contests back in 1957 I was under the impression that all events required the BOM.  We signed a form saying we complied with the requirement.  My first exposure to pattern fliers (Doc Ralph Brookes from my area in Washington state was a National Champion in the event when I was young, for instance) left me with the distinct impression that BOM was a requirement.  Could be wrong, however.  I know there used to be a lot of RC Pattern construction articles published in the magazines.  Pretty much, nowadays, any articles seem to be flight tests of RTFs and ARFs.

Burnt out?  probably  Sad

Ted
Logged
Chris McMillin
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 55
Location: Pacific Palisades California
Posts: 1280


AMA 32529


« Reply #139 on: July 27, 2012, 12:42:57 PM »

Expert sounds like a great idea.
Some people that could not make the journey before might now be able to justify the trip to the Nats.

An airline ticket on a reliable discount carrier with high frequency, a model waiting at the site, and just the rental car and hotel costs for the minimum days required for the contest, a benefit may be seen by this new event for certain people.

BOM is cool and all, but it does make a difference in who is competing. Cost and time wise. This might be a perfect solution.

Thanks Keith and Randy for your persistence on this thread!

Chris...

Logged
Chris McMillin
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 55
Location: Pacific Palisades California
Posts: 1280


AMA 32529


« Reply #140 on: July 27, 2012, 01:33:01 PM »

Even though Bill little is right, (he is always right), the name Open, better denotes the age category, I still think it should be called Masters. Masters sounds more prestigious. Especially now that we have Expert, Masters really signifies the elite class-the end game-the final rung on the ladder.

Our RC pattern friends, (I sincerely hope you look on them as friends) have Intermediate, Advanced, Masters and F3A. Masters is so hotly contested because; the title Masters Champion in Pattern is so prestigious.

If Doug Moon was at an RC Field with Tony Frankowiak, Tony could tell Doug that he is the current Masters Champion in RC Pattern. And, Doug could reply in kind, “well, I’m the current Masters Champion in Control Line stunt. To me, it smacks of equal footing and status.

We don’t fly for money or endorsements like other sports, at the very least, we should try to make changes that enhance the desirability of the event, even if it is just a mane change.



Milt and Ted,
Pattern is now skill classes and FAI, (I don't know why they insist on an FAI max weight limit in the AMA skill classes, it drives the price up...). Hence, no BOM, though several guys do build there own, some cool bipes and some low cost balsa kits available were seen this year. Price craziness of ARF's is being worked on by two available and one soon to come, budget 2M designs which are very competitive for a sixth of the price of some of the others and electric component prices have come way down, too.
Chris...
Logged
John Lindberg
Trade Count: (0)
Lieutenant
***
Offline Offline

Age: 65
Location: Albequerque, New Mexico
Posts: 114


« Reply #141 on: July 27, 2012, 02:22:37 PM »

Hi, Ted, I remember Dr. Brooks, one of the pioneers of Pattern. The last contest I went to, the fellow that used to write the column  (Pattern) for Model Aviation had a turn-key Pattern plane for sale for $3500, which is reasonable for a used plane. I used to buy used stuff mainly, the guys wanted the latest "hot set-up" no BOM wherever I went. Central Hobbies sells the basic air-frames, think they start out around $2500.00. Keep the comments coming, Ted, I enjoy them. One can pretty much count on humans beings to find the lowest common denominator, which, would seem to be the case here.  Hoff 
Logged
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #142 on: July 27, 2012, 02:36:10 PM »

"Democracy is the worst system there is-except for everything else".  This thread was the first I for one ever saw or heard of this.  Was it ever presented in some forum to be understood and debated BEFORE a vote in the formerly-smoke filled room?

Dave

Hi Dave

Are you a PAMPA member?  This was NOT railroaded through as someone stated earlier, It was presented to the competition committee, approved 100%, then it was sent to to EC of PAMPA , the EC members then polled their people in their district to find out what they wanted. It was  then discussed again between the EC , and then finally discussed at the EC meeting in Muncie and voted on after a lengthy Q&A session which I attended and provided answers for.

One of the EC reps can also tell you how this process works

Regards
Randy
Logged
Shawn Lenci
2014 Supporters
Trade Count: (0)
Lieutenant
*
Offline Offline

Age: 47
Location: Escalon, California
Posts: 96


« Reply #143 on: July 27, 2012, 03:46:06 PM »

Hmmm.  Maybe I'm tilting at semantics. 

Of course, on the other hand, it would make it easier for fliers from other than the mid-west to compete in Muncie every year.  Out here on the forsaken Left Coast we could ship one Yatsenko to Muncie and then Paul and Howard and Bruce and David and Brett and Ted and Whitely and Jimby and PTG and Bart and Keith and Randy and Lou and John and a dozen other quality fliers from the West Coast could take turns flying the airplane after a relaxing flight into Indy on the big jets. 

There’d also be a lot more room in the pits! 

We couldn’t fly in Open with the Yansenko but…what the heck…all but two of those named plus the “dozen or so others” don’t fly at the Nats now for reasons having nothing to do with the event’s “competitive format”.

There, I’ve named 13 (if I counted correctly) real people that could profit from the event.  Maybe I’ll change my opinion and buy a ticket!  Who’s going to order the Yatsenko???  Can we submit a suggestion to the EC to eliminate Open and award the Walker Cup (still can’t get used to “trophy”) to the winner of the “expert (small 'e') event for icing on our joint mission?

Ted

p.s. Please don’t be offended by the above.  Its “style” is altogether too emotive and tongue in cheek but the reality underlying the hyperbole is, nonetheless, “real”.


Ted,

If you can get all 13 fliers you mentioned to commit to signing up for "Expert" in 2013 and attending, I would like to sponsor the Yatsenko Shark for the contest.  Grin  I'd end up with one well trimmed out model that had been flown by all my heroes.  I would also like to sponsor the trophy for the event.  We can leave the "Walker Cup" in Open and have the "Walker Trophy" for Expert.  See photo below!

Shawn

By the way that trophy in the photo is a really cool trophy.  It is from the 1949 Third International Plymouth Model Airplane Contest in Detroit.  The plate below says 2nd Place Open Division Gas Powered Control Line Stunt.  My High School friends found it in a Good Will Store in Modesto CA about 25 years ago and bought it for me as I flew model airplanes.  It is a treasure in my shop!




* IMG_1201.JPG (278.09 KB, 1024x768 - viewed 82 times.)
Logged

AMA 97686
Bill Little
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 63
Location: Aberdeen, NC 28315-2538
Posts: 12336


Second in COMMAND


« Reply #144 on: July 27, 2012, 03:49:55 PM »

Hi Shawn,

Actually the award given to the overall winner of Jr., Sr., and Open at the NATS is the Walker Trophy.

The Walker Cup is an award given by the FAI in the World Champs.

You'll have to come up with something different for Expert! Layingdown Layingdown

Bill
Logged

Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! Grin )

Trying to get by
Shawn Lenci
2014 Supporters
Trade Count: (0)
Lieutenant
*
Offline Offline

Age: 47
Location: Escalon, California
Posts: 96


« Reply #145 on: July 27, 2012, 03:55:17 PM »

Sorry...My Bad! Grin

Shawn
Logged

AMA 97686
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #146 on: July 27, 2012, 04:05:11 PM »

Sorry...My Bad! Grin

Shawn

Don't worry  everyone has called it the walker Cup here for decades......  Grin
I have even heard it called the Walker Cup Trophy

Randy
Logged
Bill Little
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 63
Location: Aberdeen, NC 28315-2538
Posts: 12336


Second in COMMAND


« Reply #147 on: July 27, 2012, 04:17:24 PM »

I was corrected (in a very polite way) by Mr. Robin Hunt who has won both. Grin

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Logged

Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! Grin )

Trying to get by
Crist Rigotti
Server Supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2268


Electric - The future of Old Time Stunt


« Reply #148 on: July 27, 2012, 04:19:06 PM »

I would think that the Expert winner would be booted to Open and the Advanced winner booted to Expert.  This would also include the rule that any one person can only place in the top 5 of Advanced 3 times then will be booted so the same thing would apply to Expert?
Logged

Crist
AMA 482497
Waxahachie, TX
Electric - The Future of Old Time Stunt
RandySmith
Moderator
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 62
Posts: 11679


Welcome to the Stunt Hanger.


WWW
« Reply #149 on: July 27, 2012, 04:36:09 PM »

I would think that the Expert winner would be booted to Open and the Advanced winner booted to Expert.  This would also include the rule that any one person can only place in the top 5 of Advanced 3 times then will be booted so the same thing would apply to Expert?

Hi Crist

No, Expert is the Top of the PAMPA Skill class events, so one can fly there as much as they want,  however with most pilots being so competitive I would think they would move to OPEN as soon as they won. That would be up to them

You do not see the Expert winners at regional contest being not allowed to fly after they win.

Randy
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM