News:




  • July 23, 2017, 08:37:02 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Nats Stunt Qualification Results  (Read 1984 times)

Offline Howard Rush

  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 5880
Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« on: July 19, 2012, 06:55:27 PM »
Here are official results from Event Director Dave Fitzgerald:
The Jive Combat Team
Making combat and stunt great again


Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1887
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2012, 07:00:15 PM »
Circle 3 : Dishing out the Big numbers !

Well done to all who qualified Top 20
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2240
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2012, 07:08:42 PM »
Circle 3 : Dishing out the Big numbers !

Well done to all who qualified Top 20

Imagine it's your first time at the Nats, and you end up in circle 3.  :'(
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline john e. holliday

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 18369
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2012, 08:04:40 PM »
I see only 5 people did not qualify in Advanced.    D>K
I was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one.
Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530

Offline Trostle

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2131
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2012, 08:13:24 PM »
I see only 5 people did not qualify in Advanced.    D>K

The possibility that this can happen leads to support the argument that perhaps only a percentage of those entered should be sent on to a qualfying round rather than a set number.  However, there needs to be an upper limit of the number of qualifiers.  For current formats, 20 is probably the absolutely max number.  But it makes little sense to qualify 20 from even a field with as many as 30.  Something for the PAMPA Nats planners to ponder in the future, particularly if there is going to be an Expert category at the Nats.

Keith

Offline Bill Little

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12812
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2012, 08:23:23 PM »
I see only 5 people did not qualify in Advanced.    D>K

SHOOT!!!  I probably missed the best chance I would ever have had to qualify!!! ;D

BIG Bear
RNMM/AMM
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

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

Trying to get by

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7558
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2012, 08:38:03 PM »
The possibility that this can happen leads to support the argument that perhaps only a percentage of those entered should be sent on to a qualfying round rather than a set number.  However, there needs to be an upper limit of the number of qualifiers.  For current formats, 20 is probably the absolutely max number.  But it makes little sense to qualify 20 from even a field with as many as 30.  Something for the PAMPA Nats planners to ponder in the future, particularly if there is going to be an Expert category at the Nats.


   Precisely my point in the other thread. This year, for instance, figure there would be 20 entrants in Expert and 22 in Open. If you still try to run 4 circles and take 50% of open, that means you would wind up taking 2.5 people from each circle. Or 3 from each, say. That makes the seeding hyper-critical. A better way to do it would be run Open on two circles and EXP/ADV on the other two, which at least reduces the "quantization" issues. Then you take the resulting 10-12 people and run Top 10 day to do a 50% cutdown. In open you could probably dispense with the Top 5 flyoff, and just have Top 10 day with the best 2 of 3 to determine the Open Championship. That will still be done before ADV/EXP Top 20 is done

   The alternative is you keep the very popular and well-established "Top 20" and then most people can skip qualifying, it will mean nothing.

   More likely, everyone will see the redundancy of running 3 divisions for 60 people total, and just get rid of Open since Expert will allow buy-and-flies and is thus more "inclusive". Mission Accomplished.

    Brett

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1887
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2012, 08:51:46 PM »
I like the current format.
If you always put limit on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. - Bruce Lee.

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline GonzoBonzo

  • GonzoBonzo
  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 127
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2012, 09:11:55 PM »
How does someone with a score in the 1000's qualify, and someone with a score in the 1100's don't?
Gonzo

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7558
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2012, 09:30:56 PM »
How does someone with a score in the 1000's qualify, and someone with a score in the 1100's don't?

   Because the absolute value of the score is not used. The 4 different groups are essentially 4 separate contests. Qualifying took the Top 5 from each group to get the Top 20. So if one circles judges are running high, and another running low, it doesn't matter as long as they get everyone in the right order in that group. 

    In stunt *there is no correct absolute score*, period. One judge might give particular flight a score of 550, another might give the same flight a 450, and they could both be absolutely correct. All that they have to do is correctly score the better flights higher the worse flights less.

    Brett

Offline GonzoBonzo

  • GonzoBonzo
  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 127
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2012, 09:45:12 PM »
Thanks Brett, that makes sense. 
Gonzo

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7558
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2012, 10:02:42 PM »
Thanks Brett, that makes sense. 

    It makes the determination of positions below 20 a little arguable, since there is no way to determine directly who flew best when they didn't fly against each other. The way it is done is to take the 2-day score (best on Wednesday and best on Thursday), and then divide it by the high score of the group they flew in. It's not bulletproof but it's probably as good as you can do with the information available. It probably tends to favor the guys in the groups with the lowest judge scoring variation, but that's impossible to distinguish between that, and merely that the competitors flew nearly the same.

   Note that any particular group flies for one set of judges on Wednesday, and the same group flies for a different set of judges on Thursday. The judges are assigned to a physical circle and stay there for both days.  The pilot groups fly two flights for one set of judges on Wednesday, and two flights for a different set of judges on Thursday. That's why you take add the best Wednesday score and the best Thursday score to get the total - one from each set of judges.

   This stuff has been hashed over for decades, anything that might look funny about it, I guarantee that there is a reason for it.

    Brett

   

Offline PJ Rowland

  • AUS - 29541 AMA - 809970
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1887
  • Melbourne - AUSTRALIA
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 11:52:55 PM »
You can call it whatever you like... The current system spits out the correct results more times than not..

To get the best Top 20 fliers together for a showdown flying 2 rounds.. Best 5 scores go to the final.

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

...

I Yearn for a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned.

Offline GonzoBonzo

  • GonzoBonzo
  • 2016 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 127
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2012, 01:11:27 AM »
Thanks for the reply guys.  I was just curious.  Stuffs all new to me.   ???
Gonzo

Online Allan Perret

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2012, 05:29:37 AM »
How many qualifiers are flying electrics ?
Allan Perret
AMA 302406
Slidell, Louisiana

Offline Joseph Patterson

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 516
  • AMA member- Supporter
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2012, 10:58:17 AM »
I know at least Walker and Hunt are on electrons from Circles 3/4. Rush at the 11 spot the same.
        Doug

Online Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2012, 11:07:59 AM »

   More likely, everyone will see the redundancy of running 3 divisions for 60 people total, and just get rid of Open since Expert will allow buy-and-flies and is thus more "inclusive". Mission Accomplished.

    Brett

You know that will never happen. If anything were to get dropped it would be Expert not Open.

Who's Mission????

Derek

Online Brett Buck

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 7558
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2012, 12:12:42 PM »
You know that will never happen. If anything were to get dropped it would be Expert not Open.

  How do I know that would never happen? Because you, me, and Randy (and numerous others) think it's a bad idea? That's not going to stop it. One "excludes" people, the other does not. Drop Expert and all those people who were flying ARFs and $5000 RTFs will be left out with "obsolete" equipment. Drop Open, nothing much changes. Oops!

   Brett

Online Derek Barry

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Nats Stunt Qualification Results
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2012, 03:47:53 AM »
  How do I know that would never happen? Because you, me, and Randy (and numerous others) think it's a bad idea? That's not going to stop it. One "excludes" people, the other does not. Drop Expert and all those people who were flying ARFs and $5000 RTFs will be left out with "obsolete" equipment. Drop Open, nothing much changes. Oops!

   Brett

How many of the top 20 or even 30 do you think will quit building, buy an ARF, and fly Expert. My guess would be very few.

I was originally against Expert at the Nats, I told Randy that I just didn't think it would draw as many people as he thought and it was pretty much a waste of time. It was not until I started getting info from my District Rep. that was quite opposite of my beliefs that I gave it more thought. I now think it is a pretty good idea. There were many people (many that I had not expected) that said that they would love to fly Expert at the Nats. These are people that are Expert pilots on the local level but know that they would not be competitive at the top 10 to top 20 level. You know this is not just about us Brett, there are many other people that would enjoy coming to the Nats and competing in a skill class that is suited to their ability. All the people that I did talk to or was told about from my district rep. build their own airplanes. The Expert event is not just a place for ARFs to compete and that is not why Randy proposed it but it does give them a place to fly. The idea is to increase turnout at the Nats.

 Who knows, if someone wins Expert a time or two they may feel that they are ready for the big leagues and move up to Open. Like I said, it is not just about us it is about anyone who wants to compete at the finest flying facility in the world at the best contest in the world. Who are we to say no, just because we think it is silly?

Derek


Tags: