[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?

[DaveL322 at comcast.net]

Technically perfect is well understood and can be objectively assessed.  Specific judging criteria and downgrades are well defined/documented in our judges guide.  Yes, gray areas do exist in which it is difficult to extract an exact point value downgrade from the rulebook, but guidance/basis is there, and it is the job of a judge to make judgements (and in my experience 90% of the time the answer to the gray areas is apply 1 point per 15 degrees).

Smooth and graceful (S+G) is subjective, and to date has never had a point value or downgrades associated with it.  The S+G criteria allows an impression judge to score a technically flawed maneuver higher than a technically perfect maneuver.

Should a sequence that is flown technically perfect be awarded the highest score?  

Should it be possible to outscore a technically perfect sequence with a technically flawed one that is "more smooth" or "more graceful"?

I don't think we should include (S+G) or pursue (Impression score) criteria which are ill-defined or purely subjective - pattern is about precision aerobatics which can be (is) well defined, and is a thing of beauty (to the select few that appreciate it) without the need for S+G, style, or impression points.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net




-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com> 

 
I’d love to hear some feedback to the following: (or maybe not, but it might help my understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish in our judging/flyingJ)
 
Question:
Isn’t clinical precision flying the only way to attempt to remove impression judging?  Shouldn’t the sequence itself if flown to precision “be” the art form?
 
Example 1: 
I saw one pilot fly the FAI sequence at our contest last June…. To me his flying was clinically precise without any “Style” of his own.  I mean that very much as a compliment.  The roll rates and radiuses and speeds to me were very consistent….his timing and flight line control were very “Clinically precise”  It struck me at that if a computer GPS link could have been flown with an autopilot laying out the perfectly executed sequence he would have been close.  The nearly perfect geometry of the sequence spoke for itself.
 
Example 2:
An example of impression that I can think of would be some of the point rolls that I used to see in the 70’s….the ones that kind of slip & lock into each point (exaggerated lock in), but I could not score them better than points that merely stop where they are supposed to with minimum fanfare…..could I? (In fact since one could argue that the roll rate changes to get that effect it could be downgraded more…..)  But I like it, its an individual preference, but to the letter of the law its incorrect.
 
Maybe we should judge by technical merit and each judge give an overall “Impression” rating someplace on the scoresheet???
 
(Wow I spent all this time trying to think of how to word this….Gee do I hit the send button…….??????  I hope this strikes a positive chord somewhere…okay my motive is to learn so I’ll send it.)
Chris White
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/509337a7/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:54:32 +0000
Size: 713
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061003/509337a7/attachment-0001.mht