[NSRCA-discussion] Stirring uptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...
Lance Van Nostrand
patterndude at tx.rr.com
Mon Aug 13 20:04:52 AKDT 2007
Earl,
I agree. It was just the last rules cycle that we voted for and instituted the 4 year window to address this. For years before that, you could accumulate points and theoretically be forced up - leading to obvious rule bending and counter productive arguments. Now we have something better but it can be improved. I encourage anyone here to write a proposal, maybe get some feedback from this list and your other flying friends, and submit it. There is a rules cycle in progress. In our district points in D6 we limit the points one can get at the Nats because there are so many competitors, but D6 contests often have very large turnouts so I agree that some sort of limit on points per contest, or a max # contests that can be used, or a shorter window might be worth thinking about.
I'm not so keen on adding a class. I believe that Sportsman is a "real" class and we have 3 stepping stones to Masters. It wasn't long ago I was in sportsman and my first year I was only dabbling and I really sucked. When I started to try harder I still needed the next season in Sportsman to learn enough basics before flying a whole sequence without a box exit.
Adding a class would mean 6 classes and 18 trophies. We already have 15 trophies per contest and that means over half the entrants take home wood. A lot of contests have between 16 and 20 people and some classes only have 3 or less competitors. It's also hard to fill judge seats as it is. The current # of steps is, IMO, adequate when considering the logistical issues. This is a statement of being practical. If I were to be emotional i would say that it is always great to see the guy beating you move up so maybe we should have even more classes <G>. As we all know, in other countries there is only FAI so all of our stepping stones are better than others get. If we can improve the advancement rules and be able to refresh the sequences for other destination classes (Advanced) on the 2 year cycle we'd provide the challenge and newness to prevent people from being forced up or moving on due to boredom. If we have energy on this topic, this is abetter focus for it.
--Lance
----- Original Message -----
From: Earl Haury
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring uptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...
Buddy
What TW & I are suggesting is that a fix for the large step between Advanced and Masters seems appropriate and are offering one possible solution. Along with that, I agree with you and Glen that there may need to be some adjustment to the points system.
Consider that the point system for advancement addresses the primary issue of forcing advancement upon someone who has been successful so as to provide "room at the top" for other competitors. A failing with this is that it assumes folks won't move voluntarily - most do, and often ill advised due to boredom in a specific class. Unfortunately, the system assumes everyone will eventually need to move up. That's obviously not always the case and some are faced with moving up or quitting - not a good choice! The ability to drop off points 4 years back helps the GOB - but possibly not in areas with lots of contests with large numbers of competitors. Maybe a limit on the number of points acquired in any one contest would help?
So - the conversation is twofold, progression of difficulty within the classes being one topic and progression of competitors within the classes the other.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: twtaylor
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up theMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...
Hi Buddy
I understand your point and I agree. Given the rules, as they are now, progression is a given. We can lobby to replace the advancement rules easily enough. My point was to make FAI a destination class as imho it should be. Not taking anything away from the Master Pilots but the guy that can fly and win Masters can fly and win in FAI. Seems to me we have two nearly identical classes and for what reason? What goal are we trying to achieve doing this? The goal of the entire sport is to advance a flier from beginner to at least national/regional contender, no? I understand the GOB deal. What we did way back when was to really make FAI the top class, renamed Expert to Masters and called it an evening. Do I think Arch or Glenn could make the finals in FAI at our Nats? You dang skippy I do. Can I win an FAI contests locally? Probably not this year but maybe next. IMHO The reason we see such a large turn out in Masters and not FAI is because many don't want to fly against QQ and Chip and The Animal. Here's one to ponder.
Jason goes to the worlds and wins the whole thing and makes us proud as we can be. Guess what?
IIRC the current rules allow Jason to fly masters, oh wait, If memory serves me Jason didn't point out of Advance he jumped straight from Advance to FAI. He could win the worlds then come home and fly his next contest in Advance. Wouldn't that cause a stir! I know he won't but he could. Back when I was flying Expert Turn Around and won pretty much every contest I entered, Kirk Grey decided to bring me down a peg or two,(Well actually 10 or so) at a contest in NC he dropped back from FAI to Expert. Taught me a great lesson he did. (Said in my best Yoda voice.) J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of BUDDYonRC at aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:20 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Stirring up the Masters2009Sequencediscussionagain...
TW
You have missed the point. If you make FAI a destination class and apply the progression rule it will definitely be a force which will in my opinion reduce our ranks.
I don't think you understood my analysis of the location of the problem which is entirely my opinion.
I think like Glen Watson that progression should be based on ability to perform not on a series of events which in some cases have nothing to do with ability or performance.
When we force advancement on a person who is not ready to move up due to what ever the case may be we are doing him an injustice and cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Be real we have the Pro's and those with similar ability who aspire to join that group and possibly be a world champion and push products for the Hobby Industry
Then we have the majority, the Good Old Boys which is most of us who buy the stuff that the Pro group is pushing.
The Good Old Boys just want to compete with each other progress according to our ability, drink a few cool ones and generally enjoy our sport.
The Top GOB is the one who wins Masters at the Nat's
A GOB can jump the fence if he wants to and be a WC want to be and if he doesn't like the territory we will let him be a GOB again
But with today's rules GOB's move up when the rules tell them to and that's where some of our problems lie.
I don't know how to express my opinion any simpler than that.
Buddy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070814/3caa806f/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list