stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Gerald Arana on October 23, 2018, 07:44:43 AM
-
Is anybody going to write a report on the contest? Mike? Howard?
I left early because I cut my heel on a broken fingernail (False, No not mine!) in the shower Sunday morning.......damn! HB~>
Cheers, Jerry
-
I was looking for an excuse not to show up and be humiliated Sunday, but one can only use the old false-fingernail-in-the-shower story so many times.
-
I was looking for an excuse not to show up and be humiliated Sunday, but one can only use the old false-fingernail-in-the-shower story so many times.
LL~ LL~ LL~ Good one Howard!
Jerry
-
I was looking for an excuse not to show up and be humiliated Sunday, but one can only use the old false-fingernail-in-the-shower story so many times.
On the other hand, you didn't answer the question, either. I am curious who won, too.
Brett
-
Here are the results. - Corrected
Old Time Stunt
1.) Jim Hoffman 299 316
2.) Bob Whitely 303.75 314.5
3.) Lou Wolgast 287.75 306
4.) Jim Aron 290 301.75
5.) John Wright 272 286.5
6.) Ray Firkins 192.75 283.25
Classic Stunt
1.) Bob Whitely 563 589
2.) Lou Wolgast 580.5 575
3.) Ray Firkins 566 566
4.) Dennis Nunes 549 562.5
5.) Mike Haverly 553 560
6.) Warren Tiahrt 550.5 550.5
7.) Jim Aron 547.5 547.5
8.) Jim Rhoades 537.5 542.5
9.) David Riggs 520 536.5
10.) Lanny Shorts 512.5 524
11.) Jerry Silver 512 357
12.) Gary Gingerich 456 504.5
13.) Mark Wasnick 468.5 496.5
14.) Mike Massey 493 487
15.) Pete Cunha 454 Pass
16.) Fred Staley 453 443.5
17.) Bill Ervin 136 427.5
18.) Jerry Arana 309 Pass
Beginner
1.) Henry Feistel 98.5 98.5
Intermediate
1.) David Shorts 403 413
2.) Eliot Scott 401.5 358
3.) Joe Hoppa 390 347
4.) Charles Jenks 366.5 200
Advanced
1.) Dennis Nunes 515 521
2.) Gary Gingerich 494.5 504.5
3.) Walter Hicks 500.5 Pass
4.) Steven MacBride 494.5 495
5.) Bob Duncan 464.5 491.5
6.) Mike Massey 491 489.5
7.) David Riggs 486.5 490
8.) Charles Carter 418 485
9.) Brian Massey 483.5 Pass
10.) Fred Staley 467 480.5
11.) Larry Wong 476 443
12.) Mike Scholtes 467 459
Expert
1.) David Fitzgerald 605 610
2.) Chris Cox 597.4 610
3.) Paul Walker 606 608.5
4.) Howard Rush 596.5 607.5
5.) Bob Whitely 574.5 570
6.) Jim Aron 562.5 573.5 - Corrected
7.) Jim Hoffman 562 573.5 - Corrected
8.) Alan Resinger 567.5 572.5
9.) Kestas Dvarvydis 570 571.5
10.) Steve Harris 549 569
10.) Lou Wolgast 549 569
12.) Ray Firkins 557 562
13.) John Wright 559.5 560.5
14.) Scott Dinger 537.5 558.5
15.) Jim Rhoades 537 557.5
16.) Paul Pomposo 549 554.5
17.) Mike Haverly 551 542
18.) Warren Tiahrt 547 540
19.) Richard Walbridge 533.5 547
20.) Bill Ervin 544 546.5
21.) Brian Moore 545.5 539
22.) Marshall Palmer 540.5 541.5
23.) Bob Swan 518 533.5
24.) Mark Wasnick 515.5 510.5
25.) Lanny Shorts 496 Pass
Dennis
-
Is anybody going to write a report on the contest? Mike? Howard?
I left early because I cut my heel on a broken fingernail (False, No not mine!) in the shower Sunday morning.......damn! HB~>
Cheers, Jerry
24 Expert entries? and 1 point from 1 judge decided it? At this rate Muncie will be a warm up for Golden State!
Congrats to all - Ken
-
24 Expert entries? and 1 point from 1 judge decided it? At this rate Muncie will be a warm up for Golden State!
Congrats to all - Ken
Heck 18 in Classic impresses me! And only 4 in advanced?!?!?! Wow lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
And only 4 in advanced?!?!?! Wow lol
Or possibly 4 in Intermediate
-
Heck 18 in Classic impresses me! And only 4 in advanced?!?!?! Wow lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
25 in Expert, 12 in Advanced, 4 in Intermediate, 1 Beginner, 18 in Classic and 6 in OTS is what I got, merely from looking at the results. That contest in Indiana is a great warmup for Golden State! D>K Steve
-
25 in Expert, 12 in Advanced, 4 in Intermediate, 1 Beginner, 18 in Classic and 6 in OTS is what I got, merely from looking at the results. That contest in Indiana is a great warmup for Golden State! D>K Steve
That's a great turnout, I think that total is more than all the C/L flyers in my entire state.
-
25 in Expert, 12 in Advanced, 4 in Intermediate, 1 Beginner, 18 in Classic and 6 in OTS is what I got, merely from looking at the results. That contest in Indiana is a great warmup for Golden State! D>K Steve
Too much beer lol. I read that wrong lol
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
25 in Expert, 12 in Advanced, 4 in Intermediate, 1 Beginner, 18 in Classic and 6 in OTS is what I got, merely from looking at the results. That contest in Indiana is a great warmup for Golden State! D>K Steve
This sort of thing is why I wanted to either change the recommended score ranges as "cover" for an amnesty to let people go backwards. This is absolutely representative of the sort of distribution we get regularly, almost no one in beginner or intermediate, and heavily stacked in expert. It was *95 points* from top to bottom in Expert. Look at the distribution, see anything that stands out? This is with no Ted, and I only took pictures:
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/golden-states-results/?action=dlattach;attach=291667;image)
Brett
-
And for the record, that one "beginner" was a lad of about 10 years who flew a Ringmaster with confidence and skill, dead level laps upright and inverted, good round loops at the right size, and a darned good landing. Watch out as he progresses up the ladder! (He could be older but not more than early teens.) He won a nice kit at the banquet raffle (courtesy of Joe Hoppa) and will have a more capable model in the air soon.
-
I guess I don't understand things, because my basic math tells me Paul's two flights (3rd place) added up higher than Chris Cox's two flights (2nd)
-
I guess I don't understand things, because my basic math tells me Paul's two flights (3rd place) added up higher than Chris Cox's two flights (2nd)
Your contest score is the higher of your two flight scores. The lesser score is only used to break a tie (which is why David Fitzgerald won).
-
Your contest score is the higher of your two flight scores. The lesser score is only used to break a tie (which is why David Fitzgerald won).
Well, that doth explain a great deal....LOL!
Gary
-
It really does seem as though there is a need for one more skill level. There wouldn't be many in the new level but it would give a lot of experts a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
-
It really does seem as though there is a need for one more skill level. There wouldn't be many in the new level but it would give a lot of experts a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
This has been discussed for years. FCM does this for their August contest. They can weigh in on its value.
However, I would suggest that the Experts that need a reason to get up in the morning should consider getting up to do more practice. I see way to many "Experts" just show up on contest day without much practice. Hard to compete with guys who practice regularly. The guys who won this GSSC have been flying the same plane all year and putting practice in on a regular basis. Me, I flew my Predator for the first time in competition in many years. Flew in a contest 2 weeks earlier, then hurt my back, and couldn't fly it. Finally 2 days before leaving I flew it again, and then fiddled with props. None the less, It flew VERY well, and my only excuse was my lack of time on that plane. Point here is that you need regular practice on the same plane to do well in competition. This is even more important for someone who is trying to knock off one of the top Experts.
The class system was put in place to give people a chance to fly against others of similar skills. Expert was the TOP skill level. It requires a top level of committment to continue to do well it in. If one is not willing to put in a top effort, one should not wish for an Expert trophy that rewards less effort.
If people want to compare their placings versus "like" skill, do what Howard Rush USED to do....he was the best of the JV! (But not any more!!!). Compare yourselves relative to orhers who put in the same work.
(Maybe the experts could chip in before a contest (GSSC for example) and make a JV champion trophy to present to that expert! đ)
My vote, no more classes. We don't have a big enough base to support another class.
-
It really does seem as though there is a need for one more skill level. There wouldn't be many in the new level but it would give a lot of experts a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
My vote, no more classes. We don't have a big enough base to support another class.
I'm not sure if you mean "do away with any classes" or just "please don't add more classes" -- I'm certainly with you on the don't add more.
I moved from Advanced to Expert after I had won Advanced just once or twice (I think once), and had broken 500 once or twice. I knew, when I chose to move from Advanced to Expert, that I could have stayed in Advanced, possibly for two more years. I also had a reasonable suspicion (which was borne out by events) that just being in Expert would pull my abilities and scores higher. So I took my last Advanced trophy, and before I put it on the shelf I kissed it goodby, knowing that I wouldn't be getting any more trophies in skill class for a good long while, if ever.
So why move up? Because I'm not there for the trophies -- I'm there to get better, and to measure myself against the best. Howard Rush would have had me move to Expert as soon as I was past the point of tripping over other people's lines. And if I do want a chance at a trophy, I can dust off my Profile plane and enter that event.
I probably score too well to do it right now, but if someone is toward the bottom of Expert, and is stuck there because of lack of inherent ability, or because they don't practice enough, they can always petition the CD to move down to Advanced. Ditto someone in the bottom third of Advanced who wants to move down to Intermediate. I don't know how well it would work right now, but Brett Buck has a proposal to realign the suggested scores, so that the suggested score to bump out of Advanced is 550, rather than the current 500. The relevant rule is:
At a contestantâs first contest, he/she may enter any class at his/her
option; however, once committed to a class may only move to a
class of higher skill proficiency. Exception: A contestant may
move to lower class with written permission of a Contest Director
(CD) familiar with CL Precision Aerobatics.
The rules suggest that the CD should be pretty hard-ass about it (my wording, not the rule book's), but in my opinion if you're only rarely bumping over 500, and regularly scoring below it, then a CD should let you move down to Advanced -- and there should be no shame in it. Ditto for moving down from Advanced with a score that rarely breaks 400.
-
My vote, no more classes. We don't have a big enough base to support another class.
I much prefer the idea of an "amnesty" to let people shuffle themselves back into the appropriate categories. But, you want to make some "cover" for that, because you want people to not have to think they are were experts and are now advanced, or tell people. That would be the only reason to add an additional class.
I would also note that when they put in the Midwest beginner pattern as beginner, it effectively went from 4 classes to 3. People blow through the current beginner contest in a weekend, move up into Intermediate, and if they can fly about 3 times in a row without crashing or overrunning, they get pressured into Advanced, that stick everybody else with pressure to move up to Expert, and you get the distribution above.
To me, it is clear that the skill class system, at least around here, is not working the way it was intended. The alternative would be to combine beginner and intermediate and then have everyone fly the full pattern.
Brett
-
I would also note that when they put in the Midwest beginner pattern as beginner, it effectively went from 4 classes to 3. People blow through the current beginner contest in a weekend, move up into Intermediate, and if they can fly about 3 times in a row without crashing or overrunning, they get pressured into Advanced, that stick everybody else with pressure to move up to Expert, and you get the distribution above.
To me, it is clear that the skill class system, at least around here, is not working the way it was intended. The alternative would be to combine beginner and intermediate and then have everyone fly the full pattern.
I would agree with you, however I know of too many people who have been afraid to enter Beginner because they couldn't do the whole thing. Granted, some of that is just standing frozen on the edge of the pool afraid to even stick a toe in, but some is genuinely feeling that you can't start unless you can win the first time out. I do believe that Beginner helps to overcome that impulse.
I flew in Beginner for -- if I recall correctly -- a whole year. I don't think I flew a single contest where I didn't come home with a broken airplane (I can't remember if I ever come home with two -- I think I did). It certainly wasn't something to blow through in a weekend, and I was flying in Expert just five years later (although by your proposed thresholds I wouldn't have moved up to Expert until this year).
So I kind of like having an event that gives a place for people to fly who can't or won't go inverted. Maybe we should scale the recommended move-up score to match the maneuver count in Beginner.
-
WOW!!!!!
Take a look at the top four in expert. 2 1/2 points separating the top four!
And thatâs without Brett and Ted competing.
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
-
My vote, no more classes. We don't have a big enough base to support another class.
In our area we do not have enough base to support the classes we have now.
I also do not see any way that the skill classes can depend entirely on scores. There is so much difference in scoring from place to place that an absolute score requirement won't work. I played competitive tennis in Dallas when I was in my 30's. We had monthly tournaments and three "skill" classes. When you joined you entered at the lowest level. You moved up (not by choice) when you won your level or made the finals twice. A more appropriate comparison would be figure skating. I don't know how they do it now but when my daughter competed they had proficiency tests you passed in front of judges to move up. My point is that we have a system that works except in a few areas where participation is way over the national average. See below.
Ken
-
My vote, no more classes. We don't have a big enough base to support another class.
I don't know that I would support more classes.
Looking at the scores from the event-- four guys are 25-30 points ahead of about a dozen guys. I must assume that guys getting 575 points are scoring 38 points in all but six tricks which indicates that those six tricks are about five points below the guys on the podium. I also think that gaining those five is very difficult and it must be a touch depressing knowing what will be necessary to get them.
When my kid brother got booted from Advanced into Expert I mentioned that his days of trophies were over for a while. He chuckled and said 'oh yeah".
-
Hi Guy's,
This is a tuff one and even tougher on your ego. Let's say a you have won a bunch of Advance trophies because of your scores, something might be wrong. If you haven't won at least one or placed 3rd at a really big contest (Natâs or a AAA) there is no reason to move to Expert.
Scores are all over the place at most local contests, but the Natâs and AAA contests like the GSSC you will get a good idea about your placing with the big boys. Not trying to run anyone down but if your not within 50 to 100 points of them, that should tell you something. They do fly very well and you need to work harder to increase your scores period. After a three year layoff from compition I'm not sure I could be in the running anymore even in Advance (I placed 3rd and 1st in Advance at the Natâs and placed in the top twenty a number of times).
Later,
Mikey
-
.....but if your not within 50 to 100 points of them, that should tell you something.
You might be onto something here. I don't know what the spread should be but it can be expressed as a %. Compare Dallas and Tulsa for example. Mid 500's win in Dallas, Low 600's in Tulsa. Same fliers, same quality of flying and the right people win. Points are relative to the weather and who is judging and don't work as a standard but distance from the top...maybe.
Ken
-
Based on the pilots around here I think it's inevitable that choosing a dividing line between Advanced and Expert is going to be difficult. We have three or four world-class guys, depending on how you count, and they almost always fill the top three or four places. Then we have guys that are good enough to sometimes make top 20 at the Nats, then we have everyone else. Unless you're going to restrict Expert to those three or four world-class guys, the rest of us just aren't going to see much hardware. Personally, I haven't hit my ceiling yet, so I don't want to feel like I'm getting booted back down to Advanced -- but I'm not going to be good enough for top 20 day at the Nats any time soon, so I'm not going to be winning locally.
-
You might be onto something here. I don't know what the spread should be but it can be expressed as a %. Compare Dallas and Tulsa for example. Mid 500's win in Dallas, Low 600's in Tulsa. Same fliers, same quality of flying and the right people win. Points are relative to the weather and who is judging and don't don't work as a standard but distance from the top...maybe.
The plot above looks almost the same if you scale the average score down to average 525 - the discontinuity looks the same. I agree the raw number means nothing, but shape of the curve definitely does illustrate the point. The existing 500/400/300 break points really don't work as intended (and didn't really work when they were used in a mandatory system in WAM, either).
The take-away from this is that there is a huge gap, but another observation is to look at the slope of the line. If you took out David/Chris/Paul/Howard, the competition would have been just as close. The slope of the line for the Top 4 and the 5-20 are about the same and then smoothly falls away. In fact, it's amazing how little "noise" is present (and the big dropoff at the end is an aberration, due to equipment issues, which usually happens but does't represent even competition).
My point to all this is that the point of having skill classes appears to be to provide good competition with meaningful results at all skill levels. What we have currently are two nearly unused classes, with very few entries, everyone packed into Advanced and Expert, and then inside those classes, a few huge discrepancies in the apparent quality of flight. I want to somehow figure a way to redistribute people into classes to restore the utility.
Paul is undoubtedly right, but this point also illustrates the difference between people who adopt stunt as a lifetsyle VS, people who are really good at it but do it as a less die-hard manner (and less compromise of the rest of their lives - and make no mistake, you have to almost build your life around stunt to get to the level Paul is talking about, and there *are* compromises made to do that). I think that the point of having skill classes is to provide some separation between the levels of competition.
Also - I haven't heard anyone complaining about how they came out in these circumstances. What I have seen, however, is people who are really good stunt fliers rapidly move through the classes to Expert, and then hang up at the lower-middle of the class, and not know how or be willing to do what it takes to win - and then just drift away, because they can't or won't make the necessary compromises to compete on the next level. We have to be able to figure something out on that, surely.
Brett
-
This is what many of the posts above are alluding to, they are all right in there thinking and feelings. I don't think we need another Skill class but a rethinking on how and when to move up would be a great idea.
I've been thinking about this for a long time, (at the âBig Contests) it might be a good idea to have a qualifying flight (Just like the Natâs) to see where you are ranked. For example, after the first round you can make up a % of the top flyers and restrict the entry's into expert class (I know, what if they had a bad engine run). Most of the flyers had better have there stuff together and put in a good flight, after all we are talking about Expert PA pilots.
Years ago Dick Byron come up with a ranking system that really wasn't a bad idea. He was put down by so many people about this idea it wasn't funny at all. Granted, it was a lot of work and required constant work and mostly submitting timely contest scores to do all of this correctly. But Dick was willing to do this and set it up.
Having said that, I think a qualifying flight would work at the Bigger Contests and provide a more realistic ranking of the pilots that put in the time to fly the Expert Skill Class. âJust Food for thoughtâ.
Later,
Mikey
-
You would think a guy/gal would move up to a higher class after winning at that contest four years in a row. But Expert is the top and no place to go. I still remember a gentleman that would mess up a pattern so he wouldn't have to move up from Intermediate. I think I do that in Advance with out thinking about it. H^^
-
Years ago Dick Byron come up with a ranking system that really wasn't a bad idea. He was put down by so many people about this idea it wasn't funny at all. Granted, it was a lot of work and required constant work and mostly submitting timely contest scores to do all of this correctly. But Dick was willing to do this and set it up.
Mikey
Dick's system took the top 10 reported lifetime scores and averaged them. This did not result in a ranking of who is better than who, it took a sample at who flew at the most contests in the Southwest US (Arizona and LA), and now Northern California and Oregon and got a lot of high scores. At last indication, I was nearly unassailable in 1st place with David and Paul behind. At least 5 of my 10 scores were above 600, and since he stopped, I have had enough more that my average would be well over 600 (probably David and maybe Paul, too). Billy Werwage was 15th or something. No one thinks that I am lifetime better than Billy, or David or Paul for that matter. Gieseke was in the 20s or 30's, I think, behind a lot of advanced fliers.
I understood what he was trying to do, but if you looked at the list, is just didn't work. I had most of his data (since he published it) and it was a lot of effort, but it didn't rank the competitors and you couldn't use it the way you want to. Ironically, it may have shown more-or-less what the graph above shows, but that's because this is the region that caused the screwy #1 placing in the first place.
Any system using the raw scores is doomed from the "high judge/low judge" effect. What was needed was some sort of way to normalize the effect that a particular 500 point flight in the midwest might get a 575 at the Northwest regionals, for the same quality of flight. No one is arguing too much about the individual results of particular contests, but the point ranges are wildly mismatched when you look at it across the country. Not that the flights that get 600 are dog flights - this is David, Chris, Paul, and Howard we are talking about - but you might get exactly the same results with David and Chris scoring 525 somewhere else.
This is also the fundamental flaw with the existing PAMPA "score ranges", and the WAM system where they originated. Ted has made the point that we shouldn't have made Skill Class Aerobatics official without some at least a reasonably defensible method better than just counting on raw scores, when everyone is not competing against the same judges. But here we are, with everyone stacking up in Expert and most of the participants having no chance to ever finish in the money again.
Brett
-
This is what many of the posts above are alluding to, they are all right in there thinking and feelings. I don't think we need another Skill class but a rethinking on how and when to move up would be a great idea.
I've been thinking about this for a long time, (at the âBig Contests) it might be a good idea to have a qualifying flight (Just like the Natâs) to see where you are ranked. For example, after the first round you you can make up a % of the top flyers and restrict the entry's into expert class (I know, what if they had a bad engine run). Most of the flyers had better have there stuff together and put in a good flight, after all we are talking about Expert PA pilots.
Years ago Dick Byron come up with a ranking system that really wasn't a bad idea. He was put down by so many people about this idea it wasn't funny at all. Granted, it was a lot of work and required constant work and mostly submitting timely contest scores to do all of this correctly. But Dick was willing to do this and set it up.
Having said that, I think a qualifying flight would work at the Bigger Contests and provide a more realistic ranking of the pilots that put in the time to fly the Expert Skill Class. âJust Food for thoughtâ.
Later,
Mikey
I think that most of us that are hashing out this issue have long passed the point where collecting trophies is why we do it. My last "win" was 51 years ago in 1967 a year before I was invited to see the world and well before the skill classes were adopted. When my adventures "across the pond" ended I landed in a city that was blessed with world and national champions. Winning was not an option.
There is a huge difference in wanting to win and needing to win and we are all different. Making the top 20 as #20 at the NATS would mean more to me than winning Advanced and I will still fly every chance I get if can't even get to another NATS. In my mind I have had an extremely successful season this year going from last place with a 395 on my 3rd pattern since I returned to next to last with a 435 a month later to third from last with a 498 this fall where the top scores from some top fliers were in the 550's. That was winning to me. To the next guy that would be the epitome of losing.
How are we going to structure a system that serves both? I don't think we can. Using winning to move up might mean that you were the only one to get your engine started at some of our smaller contests and placing 4th might mean you beat 15 others somewhere else.
Personally, I think we have an imperfect system that may just be the best one as is. I do like the idea of a periodic amnesty to let the lower end of each bracket move down if THEY so desire but with some safeguards if they would immediately be the top dog in that bracket. There rightfully should be some overlap at the fringes. I am not so keen on dropping back to Advanced just because you're beginning view 60 degrees as "close enough" to overhead or not having to add extra fuel to give you time to get out to the handle so the engine doesn't quit in the clover is a good day.
Expert to me is more than just a score, it represents mastery of the sport and there are many of us who have mastered the sport but can no longer perform as we did and most likely never will again. A separate class is asking too much but maybe a separate award to recognize the top "old fart" in the draw....maybe a T-Shirt.
Ken
I posted this before I read Bret's comments. As usual he has nailed it. I did rethink one word that I used above - "Master". I meant that relatively, no one has yet to "Master" Stunt to perfection and I doubt anyone ever will.
-
Hi Brett,
Yes I know Dick's system was full of holes but it might have worked with more tweaking and more contest scores to normalize the standing. You might be right that it would still show the same and/or close to your graph. Now how do we fix this and normalize the standings all over the country so pilots know when it is time to move up?
There seems that there is no firm set policy for this. Would raising the Expert score to 525 or 550 really help much or at all? Not trying to argue with you or anyone else but it would be nice to have a firm rule or policy to follow?
Later,
Mikey
-
There seems that there is no firm set policy for this. Would raising the Expert score to 525 or 550 really help much or at all? Not trying to argue with you or anyone else but it would be nice to have a firm rule or policy to follow?
That was my original idea - but only as "cover" because I wanted to have an excuse to allow people to go backwards into the redefined classes. What I found, to my amazement, that almost no one knew that the break points were even in the rule book at all, and those who did, figured it caused the judges to attempt to bracket the scores based on the class. Just changing it to a higher number would really mean almost nothing aside from giving people who went from Expert to Advanced some excuse/explanation - "well, I was really an expert flier, but they redefined it, so this is where I ended up" rather than having to admit that they were uncompetitive otherwise.
The alternative was to create a "Masters" class. All that does is shift the classes up one, Beginner can stay the same (so a bunch of people in Illinois don't get mad at me for deleting their brainchild), it already has no or almost no entrants so the fact that it exists doesn't really affect anything. Intermediate is like beginner used to be when it was the full pattern. Current Experts can stay where they are, no explanations required, Advanced fliers stay where they are, David and I can duke it out in Masters every other weekend like normal (and it's OK if there aren't any trophies bought for it...).
Yet another alternative was to adopt the old WAM rule for the new Beginner and get rid of Intermediate - do the full pattern, you get 25 pattern points, if you do the maneuvers you elect to do or the Midwest Beginner pattern, and you get 15 pattern points. That gets rid of beginner and combines the two least-attended classes with some way to reward people for the effort of attempting everything. So Masters, Expert, Advanced, WAM Beginner - no new classes, minor rules change, we don't have to argue about scores.
I am sure there are other variants on this theme that don't require something mathematically unsupportable. The score ranges give the illusion of objectivity, but unless you do something to even out the scoring from place to place, it's just an illusion.
Brett
-
I am one of the guys who scores well at GSSC and am part of the 2nd tier group of Expert at GSSC.
I prefer to stay in Expert for several reasons.
1) I want to see how I rank w/ the top tier guys
2) I want to bang heads with my peers in the 2nd tier (the results clearly show who they are)
3) I DO NOT care about yet another trophy to put in a box.
The demographics of our event have resulted in a significant group of skilled stunt flyers who canât/wonât do what it takes to win at GSSC. I can live with that.
Jim Hoffman
BTW the score list is wrong, Jim Aron and I tied on our hi score and he beat me by half a point on the other flight
-
The demographics of our event have resulted in a significant group of skilled stunt flyers who canât/wonât do what it takes to win at GSSC. I can live with that.
It would still be optional/voluntary, so you could elect to enter Masters if you wanted (that was what was wrong with Peabody's version from 25 years ago). And, you and Jim, etc, weren't the guys I was thinking of, particularly. I would never make anyone who wanted to have a go at the brass ring be excluded.
I decline to give examples because I think the principle is more important than the details.
Brett
-
WOW!!!!!
Take a look at the top four in expert. 2 1/2 points separating the top four!
And thatâs without Brett and Ted competing.
Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Behold that three of those four are either students of Paul Walker or Paul Walker himself.
-
And now back to the diversion.
Perhaps a metric of how people are ranked in each contest, rather than scores, could improve Byron's system and the skill class scheme. That's what we do for Nats finals judge selection and for Nats seeding. Better yet, keep track of whom each person beats, weighting how recently the beating takes place. Nobody's going to collect any data, though.
One beef I have with skill classes is their names. I fly in the Expert class, but I'm no expert. Also, I see people flying Beginner who have been flying for 50 years. Just assign numbers to the classes.
-
And now back to the diversion.
Perhaps a metric of how people are ranked in each contest, rather than scores, could improve Byron's system and the skill class scheme. That's what we do for Nats finals judge selection and for Nats seeding. Better yet, keep track of whom each person beats, weighting how recently the beating takes place. Nobody's going to collect any data, though.
One beef I have with skill classes is their names. I fly in the Expert class, but I'm no expert. Also, I see people flying Beginner who have been flying for 50 years. Just assign numbers to the classes.
That is a good idea if the reporting is timely and consistent. Now instead of points we could argue about the ranking algorithm. I wrote a system that did this once. It was for a bookie.
How do you handle the 550+ flier that only competes locally and never gets the chance to fly against a top 10? I don't think there is a perfect system and changing it all the time only creates a new set of problems and inequities. Do Brett's one time amnesty and move on.
Ken
-
Hey I wanted to be there and fly with all you Guy's, but Jim Hoffman wouldn't let me fly his OTS model. He still pissed at me for letting me fly it last time lol.
Later,
Mikey
-
How do you handle the 550+ flier that only competes locally and never gets the chance to fly against a top 10?
I'm pretty sure that most locales have pilots in the top 10, or who at least go to the Nats. So if your local ace regularly beats someone who regularly comes in 25th in the qualifying rounds at the Nats, and regularly gets beaten by someone who generally comes in around 10th in qualifying, then at that point you can look at relative scores, do some ciphering, and probably know how he'd do when he does show up at the Nats.
(We have one guy who flies strictly locally, and flies pretty darned good -- I'm fairly sure he'd make it into the top 20 with ease, although he'd have to up his game a bit to make it into the top 5).
-
I'm pretty sure that most locales have pilots in the top 10, or who at least go to the Nats. So if your local ace regularly beats someone who regularly comes in 25th in the qualifying rounds at the Nats, and regularly gets beaten by someone who generally comes in around 10th in qualifying, then at that point you can look at relative scores, do some ciphering, and probably know how he'd do when he does show up at the Nats.
(We have one guy who flies strictly locally, and flies pretty darned good -- I'm fairly sure he'd make it into the top 20 with ease, although he'd have to up his game a bit to make it into the top 5).
A lot of sports use a national ranking system of some sort. It only really works if you have a lot of participation and the top contenders compete frequently against each other. We are fragmented. There are maybe 5 Nats quality fliers in Dallas right now that are still active. 6 if I get my act back together. That is a pretty small number but it is still big compared to most places.
Ken
-
Mike -
I remember that weekend. Fun road trip to LA. I still have that airplane and you are always welcome to take a run at me with it. BTW, I've loaned it to other talented stunt flyers, but you are the only one to beat me with it.
Come to VSC and fly it again.
Jim Hoffman
-
A lot of sports use a national ranking system of some sort. It only really works if you have a lot of participation and the top contenders compete frequently against each other. We are fragmented. There are maybe 5 Nats quality fliers in Dallas right now that are still active. 6 if I get my act back together. That is a pretty small number but it is still big compared to most places.
Ken
District 8 is full of Top 20 pilots :):) gimmie 2 more years and i can be added to the list 
( that was a joke)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
A lot of sports use a national ranking system of some sort. It only really works if you have a lot of participation and the top contenders compete frequently against each other. We are fragmented. There are maybe 5 Nats quality fliers in Dallas right now that are still active. 6 if I get my act back together. That is a pretty small number but it is still big compared to most places.
Ken
That actually raises a different, interesting point -- if you're in an area where there's no one showing up at local contests who have a chance at making the top 20 ever, should you have no pilots in Expert with everyone else in Intermediate or Advanced? Or worse, one guy in Expert while all the lower-ranked pilots are having the fun?
-
Hmmmm? Sounds like maybe the old Junior, Senior, Open classes based on the calendar rather than a couple hundred different judges' opinions over the country's surface wasn't such a bad idea after all.
After all, there is much less basis for argument over the outcome of a contest where the only measure of the pilots' skills were the result of the same judges' opinions as to his/her performance on the day of the meet based otherwise only on the recognition of their dates of birth.
Ted
-
Hmmmm? Sounds like maybe the old Junior, Senior, Open classes based on the calendar rather than a couple hundred different judges' opinions over the country's surface wasn't such a bad idea after all.
After all, there is much less basis for argument over the outcome of a contest where the only measure of the pilots' skills were the result of the same judges' opinions as to his/her performance on the day of the meet based otherwise only on the recognition of their dates of birth.
Ted
Are you actually Captain Obvious? It did work. However, that transition from Seinor to Open was brutal.
Ken
-
Hmmmm? Sounds like maybe the old Junior, Senior, Open classes based on the calendar rather than a couple hundred different judges' opinions over the country's surface wasn't such a bad idea after all.
After all, there is much less basis for argument over the outcome of a contest where the only measure of the pilots' skills were the result of the same judges' opinions as to his/her performance on the day of the meet based otherwise only on the recognition of their dates of birth.
For the Nationals, I agree with you, naturally, and I think it was a very big mistake to change from "Open Sportsman" as Dave Cook had it, to the official "Advanced" class at the NATs. It was even bigger mistake to have Expert, which had the apparent net effect of removing about 20 participants on average - as the people who flew Expert were from Advanced, and when Expert went away, those people did not come back. Getting rid of Open and replacing it with Expert (as I incorrectly expected to happen, when one of the two inevitably had to go) lets in the parasites trying to sell RTF and custom-built models to turn it into FAI Junior.
But I can see multiple problems trying to JSO at local contests. One example - if you do JSO at Golden State, say, you wind up with 41 entrants in Open, 0 in Senior, and 1 in Junior. Try to do it all on Sunday, and that is *82* flights the judges have to look at. So you might want to do is split the field, run a single round of 41 on Saturday, a single round of 41 on Sunday, and both flights have to count. That starts having the same issue as a WC, with rounds lasting 6-7-8 hours, and if you get the "hard" circle on a day with bad weather, you are dead, you are in great danger of wild ballooning, so the draw matters, etc. You have to have 4 completely dedicated judges, no contestants judging other classes, since there aren't any.
The NATs addresses all these issues acceptably well, by requiring large numbers of dedicated judges, 4 circles, and 4 days of actual competition. Note that the size of the Open field at the NATs is usually about 40 entrants, too.
That's just the logistics issue - putting everyone in Open also makes the effect I am trying to cure worse, or much worse. Now, our former Beginner entrants are pitted against David/Paul/Chris every other weekend, and the chance of meaningful competition is distant at best. If everyone is OK with that, then why do we have skill classes at all? I still think it is a good idea to have intermediate levels of achievement and reward making a different at a local level. I am trying to figure out a way to restore that to a working system, which I think it was in the 70's-80's. It appears to be largely non-functional now - very soon we are going to have a few guys who could only marginally get through a pattern in March (whom I again decline to name) be pitted against double-digit NATs and large regional contest winners with decades of experience due to being pressured to enter Expert.
I think there are about three big factors that have caused this- first, Midwest Beginner Pattern replaced PAMPA Beginner. With all due respect to the late (and unquestionably great) Bill Zimmer and crew, the effect was to create a class for one or two people a contest, and compressing it from 4 to 3. It probably solved the original purpose, but now Intermediate looks an awful lot like the former Beginner, Advanced looks like the old Intermediate, and it pushed a lot of people who would formerly been good Advanced fliers into Expert which is the issue at hand.
Second - widespread availability of unlimited and easy-to-use engine/propulsion packages. Everybody's engine almost always runs pretty well, and always puts out far more than sufficient power. This reduced the amount of experience and "craft" required to get an acceptable run - literally anyone with $400 or so is set. This is radically different from most of the history of stunt (and why I get so frustrated when people keep trying to do it the old way, and going out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot). You can fly in wind you can barely stand up in - also reducing the skill required to develop before getting "pretty good" at stunt.
Third - same thing with expert assistance - always available at any level at any time of day, and direct access to National and World champions who will tell you exactly what they do, why they do it, and how to do it in any amount of detail possible.
This makes it vastly, vastly easier to get to the level of "pretty good" stunt flier, i.e. consistently recognizable shapes, acceptable sizes, and acceptable quality flights in even rough conditions. Those alone shove the new flier into at least Advanced, because Beginner is generally a one-time experience, and Intermediate is usually won by the guy who doesn't run out of gas and remembers all the tricks. Do that 2-3 times in a row, and you are peer-pressured to Advanced, get a few months of practice and good help, and you are winning Advanced, too, and then you get pressured into Expert - with as little as a single season of experience. I was pretty sharp, had good help and it took me around 10 years to do that, now we have people blowing through in a season or two. And then they are going up against the "stunt as a life choice" types forever.
I still think that using skill classes at the local level should be examined for utility, and I can't see going to JSO just from the standpoint of logistics, not to mention the effect I am discussing getting much worse.
I have another alternative (run everyone in one class, in heats, and let the scores sort it out), but that has some logistical issues, too.
Brett
-
That actually raises a different, interesting point -- if you're in an area where there's no one showing up at local contests who have a chance at making the top 20 ever, should you have no pilots in Expert with everyone else in Intermediate or Advanced? Or worse, one guy in Expert while all the lower-ranked pilots are having the fun?
I'd say that one guy in Expert should stand down and coach, trim, coach, trim, and encourage the heck out of those guys and gals in Intermediate and Advanced. Just seems logical, right? y1 Steve
-
One way to smooth the curve is to require everyone above the deflection point (around 575 looks like) to fly with the opposite hand.
Also, the real cause is that you have an abundance of people who have done this a long time. Little wonder it is getting stacked up! (So maybe make trophy awards based on the deflection points?)
Figure out how to increase the Intermediate and Beginner entries and then everything looks to be back in proportion. ;D
-
Further comments posted in this perfectly pertinent thread (https://stunthanger.com/smf/rules-discussions/potential-rule-change-skill-class-score-ranges/msg536773/#new) instead of here, in a probably-vain attempt to put the rules discussion under a banner of -- rules discussions.
-
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 Natâs 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 Natâs) 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
-
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 Natâs 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
-
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!
;D
-
Further comments posted in this perfectly pertinent thread (https://stunthanger.com/smf/rules-discussions/potential-rule-change-skill-class-score-ranges/msg536773/#new) 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
-
...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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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."
-
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
-
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. :X Steve
-
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. :X Steve
Depends on who your buddy is.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?"
-
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:
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
-
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....
-
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
-
Yes, that would be better then just you, me, and Brett goingback and forth... ;)
-
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.
-
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