Well, we lucked out with the weather all week, so combat got hit by a thunderstorm during the first match of the 4th round.  It probably didn't change the results drastically.  Louis Lopez had a bunch of cuts so the the rest field would have been fighting for second place.  Probably the neatest match was between Frank Pisz and Phil Cartier.  Frank has been out of combat for more years than half the flyers have been flying.  He won the NATS once in the 50's.  At 80+ he said he tended to get a bit dizzy but they managed three cuts a piece.  Frank did fall down but used the old flying skills to keep it out of the ground and Phil managed to keep the lines untangled.  Frank had a great time and Phil managed to get out of the gutter.  12 flyers took to the air.  Scores were kind of dismal but most of the matches were decided in the air with just a couple of midairs.

1st  Louis Lopez
2nd Dan Banjock
3rd Roy Glenn
4th Phil Cartier
5th Brad LaPointe

Phil C

Well, we lucked out with the weather all week, so combat got hit by a thunderstorm during the first match of the 4th round.  It probably didn't change the results drastically.  Louis Lopez had a bunch of cuts so the rest of the field would have been fighting for second place...

This highlights a shortcoming of the "points" system, where theoretically the contest winner can even loose a match but still win the contest as long as he accumulates more total points than an undefeated contestant.  That apparently wasn't the case at Brodak's this year, but it can happen in this system. If an experienced, talented flyer flies against a beginner and scores, say, four cuts before the beginner crashes, why should this be a more worthy victory than a hard-fought match between two experienced, talented flyers that go at it for five minutes with only one cut achieved by the winner?

Many years ago, I used to play competitive chess (don't laugh, I had a USCF Master rating and once tied for 4th in the US Open). A typical weekend tournament lasted five rounds, and everybody played five rounds. Winners were paired against winners, losers against losers. If at the end of the fifth round a tie for first place existed between two or more contestants, the wins/losses of their respective opponents were tallied and that was used to determine the tie breaks for 1st, 2nd and (if needed) 3rd places. It made sense; the contestant who played against the highest-scoring (and therefore toughest) opponents would have the best tie-breaks.

The "points" system can reward one for flying against weaker opponents (you get more cuts), while penalizing one who flies against stronger opponents (you get less cuts). There is also potential for "gaming-the-system" (hey buddy, hold it there so I can get another cut, etc.). I am not accusing anyone here, only pointing out shortcomings in the system.

Leaving double or triple elimination contests aside for this discussion (I like that system, it produces clear winners), I would propose this:

Everybody flies four rounds, winners paired vs. winners and losers vs. losers. A match win equals one point, and a loss is zero. After four rounds if there is a tie and no clear 1st, 2nd and 3rd place use the tie-break system I mentioned above.

No cumulative "points".

Chad Hill

You can also add in the rule that matches flyers by score in rounds 2-4, with the highest scoring flyers going first(no sandbagging).  The result generally has been as many as half the flyers within reach of placing, or even getting first at the end of the third round.  This time Louis was comfortably out of reach, it was just that everybody else was flying pretty poorly.  But the spread between 2-6 was less than 200pts.  Flying the 4th round(rained out) could easily completely mixed up those placings.  A midair or a 700+ point match could have put any of them in second.

Unlike chess or multi elim combat where luck plays a small role, here the aim is to get the best flying out of everybody and more matches for everybody.  Luck of the draw has little effect, mostly it is flying mistakes that knock people down.

Of course Paul thinks it's simple to get 4  799 pt matches. Hah!  Flying level and trading cuts between two good flyers would fall under "unsportsmanlike" conduct.  We've never run a contest in this format where anybody even came close to getting 12 cuts in four rounds.

Chad, Howard Shenton also ran scores for this contest using a system similar to what you suggested.  It didn't make a significant difference, just changed a couple of lower places.

As far as double and triple elim, we went to that when the number of contestants started to dwindle, it wasn't done to get a clear winner.  Single elim does that just fine.  Double and triple elim just makes it harder and harder for a bit of luck to enter in and allows pilots to screw up once or twice and still have a shot at winning.  It's not as good as single elim in ensuring that the best pilot wins, too many people get second chances.  Ask Riley Wooten about what made him so successful.

I don't say it's easy to get near-800 every time, but generally one or two people get close thereby leaving everybody else in the dust.   The real screw job happens when your opponent checks the turf and does the chicken on the floor, limiting you to 499 for the match.  Or worse yet, makes contact and limits you to 299.  Of course in that case it's your fault for letting him hit you.

I'm not knocking it.  Just don't take winning too serious.

How come the winners never complain about how a contest is run?