We're not starting that again, was: Re: adding complexity to Sportsman

[Bob Pastorello]

Differences of opinion is what makes this a "society".
But it does NOT mean that topics are "dead" because folks disagree.  WE may not know how many lurkers don't want to engage in public discourse.  Or how many have gone underground to work changes that they desire.

At least I'm out here, thumping the drum.
And I will continue to do so.

Bob Pastorello
NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:07 AM
  Subject: We're not starting that again, was: Re: adding complexity to Sportsman


  I respectfully disagree. Complexity of Masters bears little resemblence to that in Sportsman. The two are mutually exclusive events and arguing the semantics or politics of that, is counterproductive. 

  Sportsman complexity is fine as is. So is Masters, as is. 

  Earlier talk suggested to add something akin to a Finals schedule series for Masters Nats competition, different than the same ol' sequence, as a means to spark more interest. That's a decision the Masters community may want to make. If it wishes to  make the schedule more complex, great. I see nothing wrong with the challenge of more complex maneuvers. If the community  wishes to keep the status quo, hey that's fine too. 

  Question in my mind is why is it that at Nats Finals, one is hard pressed to see spectators at the Masters site? Forget about spectators for a moment, I had a heck of a time filling 3 of 5 judges chairs. I know I personally asked about 2 dozen folks, and Don asked a bunch also. Every one wants to observe F3A and witness history, I suppose. 

  If the event crowns a National Champ, would the event be better attended/spectated if it were more entertaining/interesting? That's essentially the question on the floor. 

  MattK

  In a message dated 1/9/2005 5:45:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, rcaerobob at cox.net writes:
    And this issue is EXACTLY why the "progression of classes" needs to be managed, and (caps by intent)

    WE MUST STOP ESCALATING THE OVERALL COMPLEXITY OF SEQUENCES TO KEEP UP WITH CHANGES IN FAI !!!!!  The "trickle down" of FAI difficulty drives Masters.  Then that drives Advanced, then it drives Intermediate changes, and finally Sportsman, where we lose potential entrants because it overwhelms them.

    There are people who monitor this list who I have been coaching.  If they chime in, they will tell you of the difficulty in "finesse" needed to be really competent NOW in Sportsman, and even moreso when they moved to Intermediate.
        I am NOT one of those "disconnected" Masters pilot guys.....I "know" what's going on in other classes, and we better address it as a society.  Soon.

    As a rule-proposing body, the NSRCA has the responsibility, as a society, to Stop the Madness.
        Masters does NOT have to be "nearly FAI".  Obvious reason;  someone wants that complexity, let 'em FLY FAI.
        Advanced would not be such a huge jump from Intermediate IF it wasn't the stepping stone to a less-complex Masters.
        Intermediate would not have to be so tough of a jump from Sportsman.

    Changing our very philosophy of the game is what it will take, men.  You may disagree, but you cannot deny what pitifully-small data points we have paint a picture of the "graying" of the game.
        Yes - there are LOTS of reasons we don't have the 'seed pipe' we used to (competing RC venues, time, money, etc.), but my point is, and HAS BEEN, that we do NOT HAVE TO MAKE THE GAME *HARDER* to make it challenging for Masters' pilots!!!!

    Bob Pastorello
    NSRCA 199  AMA 46373
    rcaerobob at cox.net
    www.rcaerobats.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050109/8beee5b6/attachment.html