Golden States Results?

[Tim Wescott]

Further comments posted in this perfectly pertinent thread instead of here, in a probably-vain attempt to put the rules discussion under a banner of -- rules discussions.

[MikeyPratt]

Hi Brett,
It took many phone calls from Rollie, Jack, and a few others just to get me to even drop to Advance at the Nat’s in the first place, but now that it's here, it works quite well for the most part, but it needs a little fine tuning.

I've been to contests where getting over a 525 score was almost impossible in Expert.  A flat score of 575 is not realistic with some judges.  I really think the world of the judges that work these contest, for there hard work and keep doing it year after year (I know I've helped judging at six Nat’s)  I've also run and helped a number of Stunt Clinics while helping trim their models and helping set up and/or run their engines.  Lots of work but really fun and rewarding when you see pilots start doing (or attempting) some of things you suggested (I'll help anyone that asks for help).  I also think there are many more people like me that would do the same.

Man I hate to say this, but I agree with Howard.  Take the contest results and match them to the number of flyers you flew against and the scores and when this was done (year).

Later,
Mikey

[Brett Buck]

Hi Brett,
It took many phone calls from Rollie, Jack, and a few others just to get me to even drop to Advance at the Nat’s in the first place, but now that it's here, it works quite well for the most part, but it needs a little fine tuning.

I've been to contests where getting over a 525 score was almost impossible in Expert.  A flat score of 575 is not realistic with some judges.

      Agreed, and no system that relies on the raw score can work. I have won Golden State 4 times now with roughly equal-quality flights, and even there, they ranged from 540s to 603.3. The raw score means nothing by itself. The NATs is the perfect place to remove all these artificial distinctions and just let the scores decide, i.e. the heat method. It completely obviates the need to decide what class someone belongs in, you just divide the field by how they fly in qualifying and everybody knows exactly where the stack up against everyone else. I was just toying with it as a thought experiment, but it would still be a far better alternative than trying to use skill classes and then have endless arguments about trophy grabbers and "sandbaggers".

   I would suggest the system in FAI, since it solves the issue there, too, but the FAI is a completely lost cause, the people involved are more invested in stopping change than they are in getting the right answer, and they completely misunderstood how a proper contest is run.  They are still diddling with irrelevant details of how to enter the 4-leaf while they leave the big problems completely unsolved.

     I suggested changing the ranges (or renaming the classes) as a strictly cosmetic feature to cover up the fact that it makes people go "backwards" in the skill class system, once, to reset the system.  I don't care for Howard's concept/solution because it would wind up as a complex mathematical fix to something that is not fundamentally a math problem.  It's a psychology problem.

    In any case, if the only issue is "who goes where", you could just have a "class control board" made of up experienced fliers simply decree it. You can tell the differences in a few minutes of watching and talking to people. But then you are going to have to issue bulletproof vests to everyone involved.

   Ted's point (as I noted above) was the most insightful - we probably should have thought of a less-arbitrary way to put people in skill classes before we made them official. And even now, we don't have any good solutions.

    Brett

[Scott Richlen]

Considering how hard it is to make "change" happen, I suppose most of this discussion is speculative; so why not take it to its endpoint?

Since the main classes are Expert and Advanced, rename them Class II and Class I.  Fly them together and make awards based on the scoring deflection point.

Get rid of Intermediate and rename Beginner as Introductory.

Create 3 new categories:
- Pylon Stunt: controlled from outside of the circle by an RC unit.  This would be for our older members who have vertigo problems brought on by medicine or age and for all of our new members coming over from RC after AMA finally and completely wrecks RC with their FPV Quadcopter fixation
- Formation Stunt: for two or more planes flying original patterns in formation
- Builders Stunt: flying the stunt pattern with original designs with half the score based on originality/craftsmanship/finish

There you go: problem solved!

 

[Ted Fancher]

Further comments posted in this perfectly pertinent thread instead of here, in a probably-vain attempt to put the rules discussion under a banner of -- rules discussions.

Tim,

Understand totally why you've posted this and...I guess...moving this thread is a logical suggestion. 

However, the response to this discussion would take up no more space in the "Rules" pages than it does here and--from an historical perspective--would likely take up less since the multiple and distinct "other" sections routinely get only a fraction of the reads and responses as those in the "Open" section.  The exposure to more readers (check out the numbers of posts/participants in the Rules section, for instance) has a significant affect on the breadth of participation.

Maybe Sparky could consider "moving" obvious discussion to the specific section after participation has petered out...sort of akin to your suggestion...but as long as interest and response remain high keep it in the Open section to encourage activity.

Just a thought.

Ted

[Ken Culbertson]

...the FAI is a completely lost cause, the people involved are more invested in stopping change than they are in getting the right answer, and they completely misunderstood how a proper contest is run.  They are still diddling with irrelevant details of how to enter the 4-leaf while they leave the big problems completely unsolved.
    Brett

Brett:
We may be no different than the FAI in our inability to fix things at home.  Sometimes you just have to deal with the reality that some things cannot/won't be fixed and it is better to "tweak" than it is to try and replace.  This is partially because one mans fixed is what another would call broken.  I think there would be enough support for your one time Amnesty proposal to make that "tweak".  It is a good idea and I would add some kind of "petition" process for making a backward move in the future but, changing the total structure is probably a non-starter.  I also feel that this is probably not much of an issue with the majority of fliers.

I think the same process may be in play with the FAI.  If we cannot succeed in changing the structure which does seem politically out of range,  then why not spend our energy on things we have a chance of changing?  Rewriting the maneuver definitions to match an image drawn on a sphere that can be flown as drawn seems like a worthwhile persuit. 

Ken

[Brett Buck]

We may be no different than the FAI in our inability to fix things at home.

    We are radically different, in that other modelers and people who are involved with stunt are the ones that decide what to do. The FAI is pretty much the opposite.

 

Sometimes you just have to deal with the reality that some things cannot/won't be fixed and it is better to "tweak" than it is to try and replace.  This is partially because one mans fixed is what another would call broken.  I think there would be enough support for your one time Amnesty proposal to make that "tweak".  It is a good idea and I would add some kind of "petition" process for making a backward move in the future but, changing the total structure is probably a non-starter.  I also feel that this is probably not much of an issue with the majority of fliers.

     I am not why you are saying changing the structure is a "non-starter". We have made far more radical changes in the past. I think if we can agree on the nature of the problem, and a solution, I am sure that we can change it.

       I am not quite willing to just throw up my hands and say nothing can be done. It may be that we need to get to an even more fundamental point, specifically, why do we have skill classes in the first place?  If it is not to provide meaningful competition and rewards at different levels of development, then what exactly is the intent? If the point *was* to provide meaninful competition at all levels, then to me it is clearly not working very well, because we have, effectively, two classes with wild variation from top to bottom, and have for a very long time. And I can't see the value of sending guys with sometimes very little experience, as little as one pretty good season, into head-to-head competition with David/Paul/Brett/Orestes/Ted/Doug/Derek/Bill/Chris/Howard etc. and saying "good luck!". And then having them drift away after a few years.

      Brett

[Brett Buck]

Considering how hard it is to make "change" happen, I suppose most of this discussion is speculative; so why not take it to its endpoint?

Since the main classes are Expert and Advanced, rename them Class II and Class I.  Fly them together and make awards based on the scoring deflection point.

Get rid of Intermediate and rename Beginner as Introductory.

  That is effectively a combination of two different concepts from a previous post. The "partial pattern points" as per the old WAM makes sense if you are going to have "Introductory" class. There are probably a few WAM guys who are laughing and saying "we told you so!" because that makes it almost exactly like WAM Expert/Advanced/Beginner (they didn't have an intermediate, and now we wouldn't either).

   I am also going to give more thought to running the contest in heats. I wasn't really serious when I "suggested" it a few years ago, but the more I think about it, the more I like it, and the logistics problems can be solved for large enough contests.

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

If the point *was* to provide meaninful competition at all levels, then to me it is clearly not working very well, because we have, effectively, two classes with wild variation from top to bottom, and have for a very long time.

Could this be only how things have settled out on the west coast in the last few years?  Maybe it's temporary or local. 

[Scott Richlen]

At our local contest we are starting to push the idea of the Beginner category as a "Fun Fly".  We have a lot of members who do not compete and I suspect they do not want to crash their plane attempting to do a horizontal eight (or other maneuver).

We may be dis-incentivizing contest entry by expecting (or pushing) people to move up the ladder.  There are a lot of people who will never be able to do a competitive pattern at the Expert level and are happy to stay at Intermediate or Advanced.  Unfortunately they then get accused of sand-bagging or trophy-hunting.  But many of us have plateaued and where we are at is as far as we will ever develop (or maybe we have hit the point where increasing amounts of practice yield a decreasing (or no) amount of improvement.)

This wouldn't be the case if we had scads of teen-agers showing up at the contests.  But that is not where we are at as a hobby.

The one problem I see with running "heats" is that someone who is a trophy hunter might sandbag to get into a lower category or someone might not feel the need to put in his best effort since he'd then be in a lower category (assuming you would use the heats to divide up the competitors into Advanced and Expert (or their equivalents.)

[Ken Culbertson]

The one problem I see with running "heats" is that someone who is a trophy hunter might sandbag to get into a lower category or someone might not feel the need to put in his best effort since he'd then be in a lower category (assuming you would use the heats to divide up the competitors into Advanced and Expert (or their equivalents.)

No matter what system you have, somebody is going to try and "game" it.  I see a different problem with this that is probably only relevant to those areas with a smaller number of fliers and not enough "retired" fliers and that is judges.  With the current setup you can get judges from Advanced to judge Expert and visa versa so everybody gets to fly.  By combining them the judges can't fly except maybe in classic or profile.  In the larger markets this probably is not an issue due to the number of qualified people who are not flying for one reason or another.  This also presents a problem with sites where more than one circle is being judged at the same time.  In a Texas summer on an asphalt circle it gets mighty hot by noon.  Afternoon flying is nearly impossible.  We fly Expert on one circle and everybody else on the other.  With any luck we are done by 1:00.  Combining Advanced and Expert would force us to use one circle and would not work.  However, if the weather conditions are right and the entries low we fly the classes combined in front of the same judges which I think is great.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Could this be only how things have settled out on the west coast in the last few years?  Maybe it's temporary or local.

   It's not the last few years. Ted and I first had this conversation in the early 2000s, when several people locally got to expert and then just drifted away from the event, since it seemed impossible to make any more progress. I still see it happening, and I can see several people at high risk for it now.

   It may be local/regional, as you note, you and Chris with Paul's assistance/guidance and a hell of a lot of your own efforts, managed to go from "extremely good" to  "into the mix for winning the Nationals". David and I got the same way with Ted's assistance, and each other to duke it out with (and in David's case, maniacal competitive nature). A lot of other guys have gotten very much better very quickly because they had lots of genuine nationals-class assistance.

    Those that listened, and applied themselves, blew through Intermediate and Advanced very quickly, then got to Expert, and then hung up because of various reasons, and can't really hope to compete at the highest level because, I think, they just aren't willing or able to form their lives around it, like most of the rest of us have (at one point or another).

      There are other people doing the same elsewhere, but if you *don't* have a Paul Walker or Ted Fancher around, then you hang up earlier in the process and don't have a lot of push. You might make it do Expert, but the upward pressure from Beginner and Intermediate doesn't have much effect, and you don't have a dominating array of guys who keep you out of the trophies forever.

   Of course, also as noted above, some people don't care about this, and will enter the highest class regardless, and that's fine, and they don't need or want any help from the event to get out of it. But I sure see a lot of people who seem to, and when it becomes obvious that a different level of commitment is required to even get a 3rd place trophy, they say, gee, I guess I can find something else to do on Sunday.

      I am not going to force any changes down anyone's throat (even if I could), I am tossing out the analysis and potential solutions to see if anyone else sees it the same way. As with the other thread (that our arbiter of thread management linked above), not a lot of people seem to see the problem, in which case, no solution is required.

     Brett

[Tim Wescott]

   It's not the last few years. Ted and I first had this conversation in the early 2000s, when several people locally got to expert and then just drifted away from the event, since it seemed impossible to make any more progress. I still see it happening, and I can see several people at high risk for it now.

If that's really what you're trying to solve, I'm not sure it can be done, or at least not by jiggering the categories around.  I knew when I started eight years ago that I'd get into Expert and hit the slow part of the exponential rise in scores that's inevitable in our event. It's happening now -- I'm in the refinement stage, and I'm now having to consciously keep myself interested (having someone in Portland willing to show up at Delta Park at 8:00 AM on Wednesday mornings to coach would help -- hint, hint).  It's going to be a good long while before I can hit the next threshold for me, which is to pack the car for the Nats with at least a hope of getting into the top 20.

Part of the disappointment may be due to one of your other hobby horses, which I haven't seen you ride for a while: going to the Nationals costs a LOT, just in travel expenses.  I can sneak airplane building expenses into the budget because they come bit-by-bit (particularly if I take what lumps come along with flying in Expert with a muffled 46LA).  But until my wife finishes her degree and we become a two-income household for the first time since the kids were born, I can't even fit the gas to go to the Nationals into the budget, much less housing and what not.  I'm sure I'm not the only one -- and I'm probably not the only one who could go (or at least convince myself I could go) if the Nats came within striking distance of me from time to time.

[Scott Richlen]

I see some of the issue being: do you fly stunt because you genuinely like it (and therefore you also compete)....or....do you compete in stunt because you really want (need) to win.  For example, I know people who really don't like to build but force themselves to, since they know they have to if they are to fly at the Nats.

Whether I come in first or last, I still like building and flying.  I compete because it helps me fly better - and the better I fly, the more I like it.

I think that the problem occurs for the folks who are so focused on competing AND WINNING that they lose sight of the fact that at its core this hobby is actually about BUiLDING and FLYING.  I have no idea how to help the folks for whom winning is everything.  In my opinion that is the path that Casales and Windy went down.  When the trophies stop or the trophy is not to be obtained, that's when they look elsewhere (better known as burning out.)  I hate to lose them, but I can't change their internal goals. 

[Ken Culbertson]

I see some of the issue being: do you fly stunt because you genuinely like it (and therefore you also compete)....or....do you compete in stunt because you really want (need) to win.  For example, I know people who really don't like to build but force themselves to, since they know they have to if they are to fly at the Nats.

Whether I come in first or last, I still like building and flying.  I compete because it helps me fly better - and the better I fly, the more I like it.

I think that the problem occurs for the folks who are so focused on competing AND WINNING that they lose sight of the fact that at its core this hobby is actually about BUiLDING and FLYING.  I have no idea how to help the folks for whom winning is everything.  In my opinion that is the path that Casales and Windy went down.  When the trophies stop or the trophy is not to be obtained, that's when they look elsewhere (better known as burning out.)  I hate to lose them, but I can't change their internal goals.

Give the man a Cigar!

Ken

[Brett Buck]

I think that the problem occurs for the folks who are so focused on competing AND WINNING that they lose sight of the fact that at its core this hobby is actually about BUiLDING and FLYING.  I have no idea how to help the folks for whom winning is everything.  In my opinion that is the path that Casales and Windy went down.  When the trophies stop or the trophy is not to be obtained, that's when they look elsewhere (better known as burning out.)  I hate to lose them, but I can't change their internal goals.

    You are making an argument, effectively, that we don't need/shouldn't have skill classes.

      Brett

[Scott Richlen]

You are making an argument, effectively, that we don't need/shouldn't have skill classes.

I don't think I am, or at least, I didn't attend to.  I actually think that skill classes are fine, since they allow you to fly in competition with your peers.

And I also think that competition is a good thing since it encourages you to improve.  I like to fly: the better I fly, the more I like it: if I compete, I practice to fly better: re-loop.

The problem is not the competition or the classes.  The problem is "winning is everything, or the only thing."

[Brett Buck]

I don't think I am, or at least, I didn't attend to.  I actually think that skill classes are fine, since they allow you to fly in competition with your peers.

And I also think that competition is a good thing since it encourages you to improve.  I like to fly: the better I fly, the more I like it: if I compete, I practice to fly better: re-loop.

The problem is not the competition or the classes.  The problem is "winning is everything, or the only thing."

   So, if winning is not important, why do you need skill classes?  All skill classes do it break up the field so you can compete with your near-peers for a meaningful trophy/result.  You could just as easily just try to beat your buddy, and not worry about whether you were fighting over 15th place.

   I am not trying to argue with you, I want to understand your reasoning...

     Brett

[Steve Helmick]

Having seen the results of "buddy vs. buddy" competition in several events, both FF & CL, it appears to be a good way to place mid-pack and never progress to the top. I'd suggest avoiding that thinking.    Steve

[Howard Rush]

Having seen the results of "buddy vs. buddy" competition in several events, both FF & CL, it appears to be a good way to place mid-pack and never progress to the top. I'd suggest avoiding that thinking.    Steve

Depends on who your buddy is.

[Scott Richlen]

So, if winning is not important

Brett:
I am not saying that winning is not important.  I am saying that building and flying are primary.  Competing to win is the incentive to improving your building and flying.  Winning is important in that it supports your betterment in the hobby of building and flying.  When winning becomes the sole focus of your activity and if you don't win, you put yourself into the situation of asking yourself: "why compete at all?"

So, it is important to recognize the purpose of winning: it is the feedback that tells you that you are competing well.  This tells you that your building and flying skills are improving.  I want to improve my building and flying skills continuously as I know that that improves my enjoyment of the hobby.

So, two things:

1) People who are perfectly happy with where they are hobby-wise (building and flying) might not compete at all unless they just enjoy competition for competition's sake.  But if they substitute winning as their enjoyment and then do not win, well....

2) People who really enjoy the hobby, will probably enjoy it even more as they get better at it (building and flying).  At least that is my point of view.  And, for  me, competition helps my skills improve.  But, if I have to win to gain enjoyment, I create a disincentive for myself.  Winning is important as an incentive to your competition, so it is important.  But it is something that should be viewed in perspective as supportive to the hobby of building and flying model airplanes.

[Ken Culbertson]

Brett:
I am not saying that winning is not important.  I am saying that building and flying are primary.  Competing to win is the incentive to improving your building and flying.  Winning is important in that it supports your betterment in the hobby of building and flying.  When winning becomes the sole focus of your activity and if you don't win, you put yourself into the situation of asking yourself: "why compete at all?"

So, it is important to recognize the purpose of winning: it is the feedback that tells you that you are competing well.  This tells you that your building and flying skills are improving.  I want to improve my building and flying skills continuously as I know that that improves my enjoyment of the hobby.

So, two things:

1) People who are perfectly happy with where they are hobby-wise (building and flying) might not compete at all unless they just enjoy competition for competition's sake.  But if they substitute winning as their enjoyment and then do not win, well....

2) People who really enjoy the hobby, will probably enjoy it even more as they get better at it (building and flying).  At least that is my point of view.  And, for  me, competition helps my skills improve.  But, if I have to win to gain enjoyment, I create a disincentive for myself.  Winning is important as an incentive to your competition, so it is important.  But it is something that should be viewed in perspective as supportive to the hobby of building and flying model airplanes.

Scott - your comments fit my perspective to the sport 100%.  I will add one thought and that is that the definition of "winning" may not always be placing 1st.  When I compete, and that is as often as possible, I always place 1st or 2nd because the only person I am competing against is me.  I have realized that I will probably never get back to the level I flew at in the 70's and 80's so I have refocused on simply getting better each time out.  It is working, I am having a blast.  I wish more of the top fliers who are aging would continue to compete but I do think that not winning is a real downer to them.  I don't care what sport it is, once you have been ranked #1 it is really hard to compete knowing that you are unlikely to win.  I don't have an answer for that one.

I know it varies from person to person but my observations and personal experience tells me that you start losing your reflexes in your 60's.  You may still be better than the younger fliers on any given flight but you just can't hit 10 out of 10 like you used to.  It is perfectly natural to not want to put in the effort that winning takes when you know deep in your heart that you won't.  We need to find a way to make competition fun again for our aging champions.

Ken

[Scott Richlen]

I will add one thought and that is that the definition of "winning" may not always be placing 1st.

Good point!  For some of us, "winning" is when we do better than we expected (as you say, competing with ourselves), while some of us also see it as when we manage to out-score one of our peers.  I am always chasing Joe Adamusko, John Saunders,and Tim Stagg - very rarely I'll out-score one of them.  For me, that's a big win!  But when I don't, that's okay because these guys are great guys to fly with, win or lose.

[Brett Buck]

Good point!  For some of us, "winning" is when we do better than we expected (as you say, competing with ourselves), while some of us also see it as when we manage to out-score one of our peers.  I am always chasing Joe Adamusko, John Saunders,and Tim Stagg - very rarely I'll out-score one of them.  For me, that's a big win!  But when I don't, that's okay because these guys are great guys to fly with, win or lose.

    My point above was that you don't need the skill classes to achieve any of this. If they disappeared tomorrow, you could do the same thing in Open.

   By the way, in no sense do I disagree with you about the point of it all (building, flying, and largely competing against yourself and your peers), but we appear to have a mostly-broken skill class system, and so far I haven't seen anyone make any good argument for keeping them at all. I was trying to fix them somehow, maybe a better fix is to delete them and forget about it, and say we have moved on - skill classes might be an artifact of the 70's/80's where it took people years to make progress, instead of months or weeks or days.

   I am not going to attempt to force anything on anyone, but if it has all just become a pointless ritual, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to continue.

      Brett

[Scott Richlen]

Brett:

Remember that you are flying in Expert.  The real question is what the people flying in Intermediate and Advanced think.  At many contests back here the largest number of entries is in Advanced.  And there are always a large number of Intermediate entries at Brodaks.

Maybe the question to be asked is "how can the number of Intermediate and Advanced entries be raised?"

[Ken Culbertson]

    My point above was that you don't need the skill classes to achieve any of this. If they disappeared tomorrow, you could do the same thing in Open.

   By the way, in no sense do I disagree with you about the point of it all (building, flying, and largely competing against yourself and your peers), but we appear to have a mostly-broken skill class system, and so far I haven't seen anyone make any good argument for keeping them at all. I was trying to fix them somehow, maybe a better fix is to delete them and forget about it, and say we have moved on - skill classes might be an artifact of the 70's/80's where it took people years to make progress, instead of months or weeks or days.

   I am not going to attempt to force anything on anyone, but if it has all just become a pointless ritual, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to continue.

      Brett

You may be completely correct as far as I am concerned.  It would not matter one bit to me if they did away with them entirely but I am not sure that going back to the AMA JSO would not be just as negative as leaving things as they are. Around here the classes are more about logistics. If we fly Intermediate with Advanced it gives us two groups flying at the same time on different circles and we are out by 1:00pm.(tires start melting on our asphalt circles about 2:00 )   With JSO we are forced onto one circle all day. 

Scott has a point that perhaps this is not an issue the Experts should decide.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Brett:

Remember that you are flying in Expert.  The real question is what the people flying in Intermediate and Advanced think.  At many contests back here the largest number of entries is in Advanced.  And there are always a large number of Intermediate entries at Brodaks.

Maybe the question to be asked is "how can the number of Intermediate and Advanced entries be raised?"

   This has nothing to do with trying to fix or in any way influence "expert". I suppose I am trying to figure out how to raise Advanced and Intermediate entries and the solution is to redefine them so they have some utility, particularly, Intermediate, by removing the upward pressure that pushes people along too quickly.

   Of course, I am trying to elicit comment from people who fly the events (which is why I am asking) but I also have a long enough view to see how it used to work, and how it works now, for comparison.

    We rarely have anyone in Beginner and only a few in Intermediate, because people tend to blow through beginner in a weekend and Intermediate in a few contests. So everyone packs up in Expert and Advanced. I look at other contest results in SN and see something very similar.

   I think the reason it might not be the same everywhere is pretty obvious, but I don't think kicking that hornet's nest is likely to result in any positive movement.

  I can see that people are getting wound up, so I will drop it as a public topic.

     Brett

[Scott Richlen]

Brett:

by removing the upward pressure that pushes people along too quickly.

I think that this issue is important and by bringing it up I think that you have done a service to the community.  There needs to be a wide-spread recognition of some of the issues you brought up.  I have heard people complaining about others "sand-bagging".  But I don't think it is justified.  The people accused of "sand-bagging" have simply recognized that they have plateaued and moving up to the next level simply adds a bottom-holder to the next level and actually reduces the competitiveness of their current level.  On the other hand, there will always be the "sky-rockets" who are continuing to improve and rapidly move through the levels.  Then there are the rest of us....

[Ken Culbertson]

Brett:

I think that this issue is important and by bringing it up I think that you have done a service to the community.  There needs to be a wide-spread recognition of some of the issues you brought up.  I have heard people complaining about others "sand-bagging".  But I don't think it is justified.  The people accused of "sand-bagging" have simply recognized that they have plateaued and moving up to the next level simply adds a bottom-holder to the next level and actually reduces the competitiveness of their current level.  On the other hand, there will always be the "sky-rockets" who are continuing to improve and rapidly move through the levels.  Then there are the rest of us....

If you didn't comment on this thread way back when it was actually about Golden State, you probably don't even know it is being discussed.  I think it deserves a topic of it's own with a title intended to get beginners through lower advanced to get involved.  Sometimes the best way to find out what people want is to simply ask them.

Ken

[Scott Richlen]

Yes, that would be better then just you, me, and Brett goingback and forth...

[john e. holliday]

I think skill classes are good for some areas of this great country of ours.   Our last contest in the Topeka KANSAS area had enough entries in Expert(3) to give the awards away.   Advanced had 5 entries in which I placed 3rd after the gentleman that should have done better had a plane crash first round.  Intermediate I think had 3 entries and no beginners.   Maybe the skill classes should go by the years, like one year of winning in a class and then move up next year unless you like collecting dust collectors.   Of course I'm guilty in when helping a fellow pilot learning the pattern I coached him through the 4 leaf clover.  He stated he was going to enter beginner and I told him he was past beginner.  Needless to say he proceeded to take first in Intermediate.   I my self moved up to Advance as there were so few entries and my scores were stagnant at that point.   Maybe like one contest I seen listed this year was free entry for beginners.  The age class is good for the NATS competition for the Walker Cup unless the people that keep winning it think is time to retire it.  Maybe have a 600 class for those that top the 600 every so often  I remember flying Intermediate at the NATS in which the top 3 would post scores that was comparable to the Advance class.   But this is my 1 cent worth as I fly for fun, even in competition.

[Shorts,David]

HI, I'm more or less new here, but
1. yes Jerry, I did a write up for SN. 
2. someone mentioned changing beginner and maybe intermediate into a fun fly class.  That may get more competition or at least competitors into the stunt events.
3. Most of us are competing for joy and challenge rather than awards, but...
4. Maybe at big events go to fifth place expert rather than top three.  At golden state it would still be the same usual suspects, but at some other events it would open the door for that one guy who is almost good enough.  Just a different possible remedy for an incurable dilemma.   
David S