Nats Stunt Seeding Update

[Howard Rush]

Awhile back, I posted the Nats stunt seeding from Paul Walker's official 2009 Nats seeding spreadsheet.  I forgot to include the Advanced scores for people who had not transitioned to Open by 2008.  Here is an updated list with those guys included:
 
1           Dave Fitzgerald
2           Paul Walker
3           Brett Buck
4           Orestes Hernandez
5           Ted Fancher
6           Frank McMillan
7           Richard Oliver
8           Derek Barry
9           Winfred Urtnowski
10           Randy Smith
11           William Rich
12           Howard Rush
13           Bill Werwage
14           Matthew Neumann
15           Dan Banjock
16           Alberto Haber
17           Kenny Stevens
18           Mike Palko
19           Germanico Becerril
20           Richard Giacobone
21           Bob Hunt
22           Josias Delgado
23           Kenton Tysor
24           R Steven Moon
25           Phillip Nickles
26           Bob Gieseke
27           Masaru Hiki
28           Todd Lee
29           Eric Taylor
30           Michael McHenry
31           Dale Gleason
32           Kaz Minato
33           Allen Goff
34           Roger Wildman
35           Mike Greb
36           Adrian Dominguez
37           Bene Rodrigues
38           Gordan Delaney
39           Paul Lagan
40           Curt Contrata
41           Christopher Rud
42           Bud Wieder
43           Steve Millet
44           Bill Suarez
45           Doug Moon
46           Mike Schmitt
47           Louis Rankin
48           Mark Hughes
49           Frank Williams
50           Robert McDonald
51           Dennis Vander Kuur
52           Scott Reynolds
53           Konstatin Bajaikine
54           Paulo Gomes
55           Bob Whitely
56           John Paris
57           Enrique Diez
58           Yurii Yatsenko
59           Oki Minato
60           Andrii Yatsenko
61           Traian Dorin Morosanu
62           Ryan Young
63           Darrell Harvin
64           Francisco Fontenelle
65           D. Gresens
66           Kevin Stewart
67           Alex Schrek
68           John Benzing
69           Bob Dixon
70           Robert Gruber
71           George Mitchell
72           Dale Barry
73           Curtis Comer
74           Igor Burger
75           R Zancaner
76           Jeff Anderson
77           Roy Trantham
78           K. Barnes
79           Owen Richards
80           Jose Modesto
81           Bill Rutherford
82           John Sunderland
83           Chris Cox
84           Uwe Degner
85           Jim Aron
86           Larry Draughn
87           L Jardim
88           Pete Peterson
89           Bruce Perry
90           Larry Lindburg
91           Brad Walker
92           Mike Scott
93           John Garrett
94           Carl Lovins
95           Marshall Busby
96           Scott Dinger
97           Henk DeJong
98           Steve Starr
99           Wesley Eakin
100           Crist Rigotti
101           Noel Drindak
102           Walter Brownell
103           Matsuro Yokoyama
104           J Kemp
105           Paul Winter
106           James Pollock
107           Dee Rice
108           Ronnie Thompson
109           A Mazzarino
110           Jim Rhoades
111           David Midgley
112           Watt Moore
113           Gary Hajek
114           Don Melanson
115           M Rodriguez
116           R Lesley Byrd
117           P. T.  Granderson
118           Brian Kieffer
119           J Kempen
120           Curtis Nixon
121           Andre Tozim
122           James Lee
123           Bill Byles
124           Dave Hemstrought
125           Keith Trostle
126           Kirk Mullinex
127           Dennis Choate
128           P Jodas
129           Allen Brickhaus
130           Gerald Phelps
131           John Simpson
132           John D'Ottavio
133           Gene Martine
134           Don Hutchinson
135           H Kiyomoto
136           R Howard

The seeding formula is based on Nats placing for the last 10 years. US team members are included, ranked the same as Nats winners. Paul's spreadsheet is the official word, but here is my unofficial understanding of how it works:

For the top 20 in Open for the last ten years, Paul assigns 20 points for first place, 19 for second, and so on. US Team members who were out of town for the WC get 20 points each. Scores get multiplied by 10 for 2008, 9 for 2007, and so on. Advanced scores are then multiplied by .5. Orestes's score includes both his Open and Advanced placings, for example. Top score is seeded #1. Guys who haven't placed in the top 20 in either Advanced or Open are unseeded. Their assignment to one of the four groups for qualifying rounds is done by random draw.

Comments on the method should go to Paul, as should corrections. I put the seeding into the Nats stunt tabulation program.  I'll forward copies of the seeding spreadsheet to anybody who wants it. Likewise, I'll send the tabulation program to anybody who wants it.

[john e. holliday]

Wouldn't it be great to see all those people enter the NATS.  I know some are probably not with us any more.  DOC Holliday

[Howard Rush]

That's what I was thinking.

[Chuck Feldman]

Howard,
 
No doubt this is a lot of work. So thanks to those who have done it.  I wonder why it is necessary though. There is no seeding at the VSC and their contest is very well run and it is the biggest contest. If the Nat's was to be run the same way then won't that be better?

[Bob Whitely]

The answer is quick and easy. The Nat's uses a quarter final, semi final and finals format.  Each final reduces the number of contestants down to final day.

At the VSC, which is really just a great get-together with a lot of fine folks that just happened to bring some planes with them, everyone flies every day, every flight, every round.  When someone travels thousands of miles from other countries it is only right and proper that they be able to fly the same amount as everyone else.

See? Simple!  RJ

[Howard Rush]

Yep, that's the reason.  In the qualifying rounds, the contestants are split into four groups. The best five from each group advance to the semifinals for Open, or the finals for Advanced.  Hence the seeding, which distributes the fliers' abilities as uniformly as possible, although we probably overdo it.  Both Advanced and Open guys are in each of the four groups.  The Advanced guys fly first in each round, then the Open guys fly.  That way, every flight of each group happens in a short time interval, minimizing the variation of weather and judging with time.  I guess the guys who run the Nats figure this is fairer than having longer rounds with more contestants per round.  This seems reasonable to me, but it took me awhile to understand. 

[john e. holliday]

I see nobody has given you the thanks you guys/gals do for making the NATS run as smooth as they do.  DOC Holliday

[Chuck Feldman]

Howard,
I made myself a little sketch to display, for me what happens at the Nat's. I used it to get an impression of how it works. This is what I see.

First day would be four circles 25 fliers per. The fliers that are seeded would be assigned over the four circles(could be all of them). Of these I would assume that there would be way more than 5 seeds. But nevertheless I really cannot see how the 5 who advanced would be a flier who is not seeded. I also see that a person (non seeded) could actually have a higher score than a seeded flier on a different circle and not get to advance. That would be like it is in the NFL. In the final analysis it looks to me like if you go to the Nat's and you fly day one. Then it is over. Odds of advancing are not in your favor because the seeding format is in place. If the flying was done without seeding then the odds are the same for everyone. The seeding process protects the seasoned fliers and gives them the best possible odds of advancing. These are the people who are very skilled and who are the powers to be in the Stunt community.  They will never change it.

I really think a better system should be used. Like giving the top ten from last year a bye on the first round.
Then they could be seeded into the semi's.

I still think the VSC system is the best way to go and everyone is giving an equal opportunity. As for Bob's comment that the VSC is just a big party. Yes it is but winning or doing well is just as important. In fact I think the VSC reflects the way the Nat's where before all the tech-no mumbojumbo got into it.  It was once a big Gala!

It is nice that we have this format to talk about these things.

[john e. holliday]

In the past even with the seeding in which some people have moved to the semi's without too much trouble.  But, can you imagine if during the drawing like they used to do if the previous years top ten wound up on the same circle?   The seeding system has been used for quite a few years now and see no reason to change it.  DOC Holliday

[Howard Rush]

Chuck,

The best five performers of each of the four groups advance to the top 20.  If an unseeded flyer is one of those five, he will advance to the top 20.  Watch Robert Storick at this year's Nats, for example. 

The guy who is currently running the Nats is open-minded about changes, but my experience is that you will need to prove to him that you have a better way.  Arm waving won't work.  If the change requires some work, e.g. recruiting and training judges, you should be prepared to do it. 

To augment your diagram, I sent you the Nats tabulation program I'm working on.  You can also search SSW for the seeding simulation I did awhile back.  It was crude, and it will be easy to improve, but it should give you a head start in demonstrating any improvement you propose.   

[Brett Buck]

First day would be four circles 25 fliers per. The fliers that are seeded would be assigned over the four circles(could be all of them). Of these I would assume that there would be way more than 5 seeds. But nevertheless I really cannot see how the 5 who advanced would be a flier who is not seeded. I also see that a person (non seeded) could actually have a higher score than a seeded flier on a different circle and not get to advance. That would be like it is in the NFL. In the final analysis it looks to me like if you go to the Nat's and you fly day one. Then it is over. Odds of advancing are not in your favor because the seeding format is in place. If the flying was done without seeding then the odds are the same for everyone. The seeding process protects the seasoned fliers and gives them the best possible odds of advancing. These are the people who are very skilled and who are the powers to be in the Stunt community.  They will never change it.

    Nonsense.

     It's 4 separate contests. All that seeding does is make sure that all the hotshots don't wind up in the *same* contest, making the contests as evenly loaded as possible.  It has no effect on who flies, how they fly relative to another pilot in their contest, or what their score is relative to the other people in their contest. If someone unseeded flies better than David Fitzgerald every time, David gets beat.

    What would happen if you didn't seed the contests and just randomly placed everyone? At some point, you would wind up with 1-20 all in the same contest. You are #21. How does that work out for you?  #22 is in one of the other contests, and cruises through, #21 has to try to beat 7 former champions, #22 has to try to beat a bunch of (mostly) non-qualifiers.  Do that, and I guarantee that there would be a revolution. And when we did that, we ended up with endless carping about getting on "the hard circle" every year.

     Seeding reduces this complaint, and otherwise has essentially *no* effect. If you are unseeded but capable of competing with the "usual suspects" you make it, without having to concern yourself with the vagaries of random draws. That's ALL it does.

     The difficulty at the NATS is indeed very high, and its very tough to qualify. That's not because of the contest format - it's because of the high skill level required to compete. If you are good enough to compete, the contest format is intended to MAXIMIZE the chance of your success by removing to the extent possible random luck.

     Brett

p.s. and specifically  But nevertheless I really cannot see how the 5 who advanced would be a flier who is not seeded. I also see that a person (non seeded) could actually have a higher score than a seeded flier on a different circle and not get to advance.

     The numerical value of a score *is completely meaningless* unless they are all from the same set of judges. The only thing that matters is the *ranking* of the fliers in the contest. It's not like the NFL because the NFL has *objective* standards for each thing. Stunt is inherently *subjective* and while I think the judges tend to do a very good job ranking the fliers, it's not their goal or important that they all come up with the same numerical score for a given flight. So many times the average score from one set of judges might be higher than the average score from another set of judges, sometimes by A LOT. The reason the contest is set up as 4 separate contests is to address exactly this issue.

    In your contest, you fly two flights for one set of judges, and two flights for a different set - but everybody in your contest flies for THE SAME judges. That way, you don't try to compares scores from different sets of judges, thus *washing out* the high circle/low circle issue for that contest. So the absolute scoring difference between circles makes no difference in the outcome, i.e. determining who advances. So while it is entirely possible that one person might get a higher numerical score and not advance, the contest is not with the people in the other 3 contests, you have to finish in the top 5 *in your contest*, it doesn't matter who does what in the other contests. Now do you see why it it is better to seed it than not?

[Chuck Feldman]

Brett,

I did not intend to draw the attention of the elite fliers such as yourself. I hope to just settle back now and continue to enjoy flying.
I probably shouldn't have written into this post. I just thought there is a better way. I still do. we don't all hear the same drum beat. So I am differrent. An example of the difference is that I think there should be no appearance points. This because the scores are so tight that the difference in the appearance points can decide the winner. Its OK leave it that way but I just don't think it should be. Please do not write me about this it is only my opinion. Your all my friends even if I do not know you personally. LOL Sometimes you speak out and regret it.

Chuck

[Mike Keville]

Nats...VSC...there's no comparison.  Never was meant to be.  Yes, the VSC is the largest "Stunt-only" gathering, but in all honesty it is merely a Fun Fly...a "celebration" of sorts...and was never meant to be anything else.

The Nats, on the other hand, is some serious sh#t.  I know.  I've judged at the previous three, and definitely know the difference.

 

[billbyles]

Brett,

I did not intend to draw the attention of the elite fliers such as yourself. I hope to just settle back now and continue to enjoy flying.
I probably shouldn't have written into this post. I just thought there is a better way. I still do. we don't all hear the same drum beat. So I am differrent. An example of the difference is that I think there should be no appearance points.

This because the scores are so tight that the difference in the appearance points can decide the winner.

<Exactly as it was designed to be...it is a modeler's event, not just a flying event.>

[dale gleason]

When, and if, all, or any, of the flying scores are tied, the flyer/builder with the most appearance points breaks the tie. He wins. That's why he spent all those hours, days, months, years,  building such a fine airplane. His is a multi-faceted talent. It's in the AMA Competition Regulations. It's what we do, here in the USA.       dg

[Brett Buck]

Brett,

I did not intend to draw the attention of the elite fliers such as yourself. I hope to just settle back now and continue to enjoy flying.
I probably shouldn't have written into this post. I just thought there is a better way. I still do. we don't all hear the same drum beat. So I am differrent. An example of the difference is that I think there should be no appearance points. This because the scores are so tight that the difference in the appearance points can decide the winner. Its OK leave it that way but I just don't think it should be. Please do not write me about this it is only my opinion. Your all my friends even if I do not know you personally. LOL Sometimes you speak out and regret it.

   There's no need to regret anything, and I certainly have no issue with you having an opinion about it. But I think it's wrong for pretty clear reasons.   And I repeat  - no one is *elite* in this business. Anybody who goes around acting superior because they fly model airplanes slightly better than someone else is not dealing with reality! 

    There is a sensitivity to NATs procedures comments, so forgive me for that. There are those (not you, of course) who have made it their life's work to send nasty messages and make snide comments about the "rigged" NATs and how crooked everyone involved in it is. This is so wrong - both factually incorrect, and morally reprehensible  - that we are all pre-loaded to think the worst.

   There's nothing the top fliers want more than a fair contest for everyone. If I thought I was getting an undue benefit (beyond the "rub of the green") I would be the first guy to try to change it. And you could call it self-interest, because if random luck favored me this year, it might shaft me the next time! I would much prefer an even playing field, because I figure that helps me. And I know the other top guys feel the same way.

     The people running the contest (ED Paul Walker, World and 10-time Nats champ) have no particular reason or interest to do anything other than what is the most fair and even. And the NATS format and processes have developed over the years to address the inequities. The seeding is one of MANY ways that has been developed over decades to address the legitimate complaints and observations from the pilots. First, no one was seeded, and there were "hard" and "easy" circles (in the eye of the beholder, of course) and people complained bitterly. Then, they manually seeded people between circles to try to even it out. A lot fewer people complained because it took out some of the randomness of the circle selection. Eventually, even the critics admitted that the goal was a good one. Now, Paul and Howard have come up with a completely *automatic* way of doing it, taking out any possible accusation of bias. Same with the judge selection. So I think if you were in it a few times, and saw how it works, I think you would get the advantages.

       I also disagree pretty strenuously about the appearance points, too. The event has *always* and in my opinion *should be* about the competing with airplanes you build yourself. It has never been simply about flying, and I don't think it should be. That limits the event too much. You observation about the effect of appearance points is accurate. I would guess that most of the time, on Top 20 day and the Open flyoff, appearance points are about on a par with flying points - that is, the differences in the flight scores and the differences of the appearance scores are of the same order of magnitude. I think that's a feature, not a flaw

    I have been on the short end of it several times - I would have made the flyoff in 2001 and 2002 with 3 more appearance points. I could complain, but I knew what the rules were going in, and there was an easy solution to correct it - make a better airplane! The guys who made it did what they needed to in the workshop AND the circle, and I just didn't. That's my fault, not the rules. And I just got done spending two weeks doing some refinishing on my 18-point airplane from last year, because I thought there were some flaws that were going to burn me on Thursday and Friday.

    There's an arguable point to be made either way but I am firmly in the "keep the BOM" camp. I don't think there are any new arguments, so anything I could say about it is already said

     Brett

[Chuck Feldman]

Brett,

Your responce is very nice. I like the personal parts that you included. The expression from the top is something that I do not get. So thank you for putting your experiences on it. There is no perfect solution to our events procedures and or customs. It may well be as good as it will ever be. That is due to the work done by other than myself. So let me close this. I do appreciate you responce.

Chuck

[peabody]

While I am a fan of drawing for position rather than seeding, I am in agreement with Brett....there are actually four two day contests that determine the "Top Twenty".
Then all remaining standing are re-racked for a single day event. The top five Open flyers are re-racked again to determine the flyer for the Walker Cup, which is yet another contest between the Open winner, and the winners of Junior and Senior. Nats week has plenty of contests and drama...

[Howard Rush]

Seeding smears people over the four groups, but doesn't determine the flight order.  Flight order is determined by random draw.   Which group flies on which circle is also determined by random draw.    Is that what you meant by "drawing for position"? 

[Howard Rush]

While I am a fan of drawing for position rather than seeding, I am in agreement with Brett....there are actually four two day contests that determine the "Top Twenty".
Then all remaining standing are re-racked for a single day event. The top five Open flyers are re-racked again to determine the flyer for the Walker Cup, which is yet another contest between the Open winner, and the winners of Junior and Senior. Nats week has plenty of contests and drama...

And the character of each of these contests is a bit different.  For the qualification flights, you have two chances to make one good flight each day.  For the finals, it's the best two of three.  In the semifinals, though, you fly two flights, both of which count.  I have seen that affect the choice of glow plug, fuel, and prop, to go for consistency at the expense of expected value of score.  The finals is an interesting experience, with its own rituals.  It's kinda like flying first class and getting to wait in the fancy lounge in the airport.

[Brett Buck]

In the semifinals, though, you fly two flights, both of which count.  I have seen that affect the choice of glow plug, fuel, and prop, to go for consistency at the expense of expected value of score. 

    I've never done anything like that, but Top 20 day can really mess with your head. That's when the rubber really meets the road for the contenders, and you see more screwups and silly mistakes then than the rest of the week combined. Usually, that's when you see the best flying as well.

   But the flyoff is indeed a singular experience. It's the one contest that really matters, and its the only thing going on. You are the center of attention for just about anybody who cares about the event. If you let it get to you, you are sunk and you get to think about it for the next year - when you may or may not get another chance.

     Brett

   

[john e. holliday]

Yeah, I remember a good friend of mine that did that at the first Chickopee NATS.  Seems he put up a practice flight and it didn't feel right.  By the time he was up to fly it was all out of wack.   I seen him from the racing circle as he deck the plane doing the horizontal eight.  Sure wish I could have gotten a hold of him before the practice flight.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday