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

[Joe Lachowski]

Why do we want to make it more interesting from a spectator standpoint?   
AMA Pattern by its nature is not a "spectator" sport. I for one do not want 
to get in the IMAC trap with pattern.

>From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: We're not starting that again, was: Re: adding complexity to 
>Sportsman
>Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:07:02 EST
>
>
>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_ (mailto:rcaerobob at cox.net)
>_www.rcaerobats.net_ (http://www.rcaerobats.net/)
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:  _Rcmaster199 at aol.com_ (mailto:Rcmaster199 at aol.com)
>To: _discussion at nsrca.org_ (mailto:discussion at nsrca.org)
>Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 1:23  AM
>Subject: Re: adding interest and  complexity to Sportsman ... again and 
>again
>and
>
>
>
>Sportsman needs to be maintained as the entry class to Pattern events  and
>overcomplicating it will not be a step in the right direction. I feel  same 
>as
>Steve that it's about right in complexity. I would add that  it should 
>remain
>unchanged for a consiiderable amount of time (pick a  period--10 years is a
>nice round number)
>
>Rationale for long time period before changes (if  ever): Pilots seldom 
>stay
>in the class more than two years so the  ones that move on, see a fresh
>schedule regardless. The ones that drop,  well, it makes little difference 
>to them.
>It would serve virtually no  purpose to change this schedule
>
>Rationale for keeping the sequence "simple": A friend  of mine has tried to
>get into pattern competition for a couple years now. He  is a very good 
>sport
>flier, can 3D his 1/3 scale aerobats just fine and  knows some construction
>technique, engine maintenance and radio  diagnostics already.
>
>But the demands of pattern planes are different and he has had to  overcome
>several issues.  After a couple of years of frustration  and perseverence, 
>he
>has started to practice in earnest. He has  commented to me how difficult 
>the
>"simple" Sportsman schedule is. I admire  his perseverence; most would have
>quit.
>
>Point is, many Sportsmen face alot issues with  fundamentals that the other
>classes have learned to overcome.  Their learning curve is vertical 
>already.
>Lets leave the complicated stuff  for the higher classes. The Sportsmen who 
>move
>on, will see that soon  enough.
>
>MattK
>
>
>
>
>
>


=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.