[NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
Chris Moon
cjm767driver at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 4 07:56:01 AKDT 2006
If we are to read the judging guide and go by the start with 10 and
deduct 1 point per 15 degrees guide like it says, then where is the S&G
downgrade or upgrade? There is no guidance by the guide. This has
always bothered me since it is a criteria that has no "guidance". It is
supposed to be there in order to get a 10, but the guide already say to
start with 10 and deduct 1 per 15 degrees etc. It sounds like its a
purely subjective criteria with no set value either up or down. But the
truth of this whole discussion is that judging is a subjective issue and
we can only offer guidance and specific criteria for some but not all of
the factors involved.
So, we can fix this simply by getting together a few million dollars,
create a system with transponders on each plane and some sort of laser
grid 3-dimensional computer path generator on the ground. The computer
will compare the plane's track with the optimal version in it's
programming and produce a score based on the degree to which your flight
matches the optimal track in the computer. Simple, and no human judges
needed :)
Or, we can keep hammering away to continually improve the accuracy of
the humans (us) in our current system.
Chris
PS- Please take a moment to thank Don Ramsey for all he does for us. Our
judging may not be perfect yet , but its waaaaay better than it used to be.
DaveL322 at comcast.net wrote:
> Georgie is right that the subconscious element is one we can not
> control, and it manifests itself in several ways in our sport. The
> best remedy for it is awareness, education, training, practice.
> Particuarly relevant is the distinction between S+G and mushy and
> vague as Pappas pointed out.
>
> I think Lance has a good perspective - essentially, S+G is a
> tool/resource of the pilot that can be used to present a technically
> perfect maneuver - and that is exactly what the top pilots do - do not
> confess errors - if you screw up, screw up smoothly, etc.
>
> So in practice, S+G exists as a tool used by the pilots, and is a
> subjective (and largely subconscious) element which affects judges
> scores. I don't see the need to list it as a specific judging
> criteria, opening the door for a more subjective scoring of the event.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> Even if the S&G criteria were removed from the rulebook, it would
> remain in the subconcious. There is just something in the depths
> of the human psyche that cries out for a way to award the
> performance accomplished with polish in a way that separates it
> from the one executed with mediocrity. That has to be IMPRESSION
> guys..........I think.................
> G.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Lance Van Nostrand <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:07 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
>
> I'm a ditto head to Dave on this one. I can't imagine a
> situation where someone could fly perfect precision - I mean
> really perfect with all lines straight, radiuses matched, etc
> that should not get scored all 10s. How would the pattern be
> flown differently to introduct S&G and maintain 10s? Should a
> very smooth and graceful sequence flown with a bunch of 9.5
> precision scores (actual defects that cause a .5 point
> downgrade) be given 10s? If we were to eliminate S&G and have
> only downgrades for precision errors then judges must
> interpret S&G critically in that S&G flair can hurt but not
> help a manuver. truth is, pilots will use S&G to mask
> precision errors, or to mask difficult timing and centering
> issues. I watch pilots much better than me get away with
> murder but do it so purposefully and smooth that judges don't
> seem to even see it.
>
> Eliminating S&G from the judging criteria would not eliminate
> S&G from flying nor from judging, but it would weaken it as a
> reason to downgrade. If all you can say is that the manuver
> seemed technically correct but there was "something" wrong,
> then what you are really saying is that it was not technically
> correct and you saw the downgrade but you just can't put your
> finger on it in your conscious mind. I would be OK with
> admitting that was my limitation as a human judge and I will
> not penalize the pilot for it.
>
> --Lance
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* DaveL322 at comcast.net <mailto:DaveL322 at comcast.net>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision
> judging?
>
> 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 <mailto: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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Impression or precision judging?
> From:
> "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 4 Oct 2006 03:08:44 +0000
> To:
> "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> To:
> "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061004/bd959ec8/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list