Another box rule (discussion)

[Bill Glaze]

While I definitely like the new system of downgrading, I remember well 
my first contest season.  All that we had, at that time, was impression 
judging.  (~1955)
And, guess what?  It worked remarkably well; I can't recall ever having 
misgivings about the placement of at least the first five people; maybe 
more.
But yes, now is better, IMHO.

Bill Glaze

Rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:

> In pattern there is a hard rule that has been passed by the CB. It's 
> called the "1 pt per 15 degree " rule, and pattern judges apply the 
> rule fairly well to center maneuvers at least. Most of the top judges 
> in pattern try hard NOT to judge " by impression", but rather by the 
> Downgrade Guidelines that have been established. The downgrades are 
> often discussed at judging seminars and a handout of downgrades is 
> given to attendees. Also a list of mandatory zeroes is given to same. 
> To return back to impression judging would be to take a step backwards 
> to 20 years ago.
>  
> MattK
>  
> In a message dated 3/10/2005 1:06:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> joddino at socal.rr.com writes:
>
>     It seems to me that the guy who puts the airplane where the judges
>     can see it should score better than the guys that fly out in the
>     next county.  And it is no more difficult to judge the ends of a
>     square box than it is to judge the backline of the vee.  And who
>     doesn't judge by impression?  The rules don't specify that things
>     like roll rates, altitudes. and radii need to be the same on all
>     maneuvers but we are not impressed if they vary all over the map
>     from maneuver to maneuver.  I say forget the box but downgrade
>     like mad for someone that is out of control on positioning and
>     that includes being too high, too low, too far up wind or down
>     wind, in too close or out too far.  Amen.
>      
>     Jim O
>
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: Ron Van Putte <mailto:vanputte at cox.net>
>         To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>         Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:17 PM
>         Subject: Re: Another box rule (discussion)
>
>
>         On Mar 8, 2005, at 8:52 PM, Lance Van Nostrand wrote:
>
>             The concept of a rectangular box, instead of one that is a
>             "vee", is intriguing.  It's hard to judge, but it would
>             allow closer in flight without detriment.
>
>
>         And we could say, "Gee, now we're flying just like IMAC." I
>         think they call it a "zoneless box", or something like that
>         and they award "style points", or something like that. Just
>         what we need, no box and impression judging. Back to the dark
>         ages of judging! : (
>
>         Ron Van Putte
>
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050310/9590fb5c/attachment.html