[NSRCA-discussion] StirringuptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Tue Aug 14 04:36:45 AKDT 2007

Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!

Well put Earl.

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:19 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]StirringuptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Matt, Lance, et al

No way am I advocating adding a class! 

My point is that by considering Masters the destination class we've chosen
to raise the bar for that class to near F3A to prevent boredom for those
who've reached the "destination" and, in effect, reduced the classes
available for developmental progression. If F3A were the destination class
(as it was at one time) the Masters sequence could establish a stable median
difficulty level between Advanced and F3A. I'm just offering an idea based
on something that worked and was abandoned, for something that may not be
working as well.

I suppose that the progression sequences and advancement criteria need to
really be based on the underlying motivation to compete. If one's intent is
to collect plaques at any cost - then our advancement system is paramount -
force the sandbaggers up to their level of incompetence (and then out).
Doesn't seem to be beneficial to pattern! If one's intent is to limit the
challenge to comfortable level where one can win regularly - forget about
advancement and progression, just allow each class to stand alone with
whatever rules each class wants (until folks get bored and quit). Doesn't
seem very cohesive to me - might as well fly 3D! Seems that if one's
motivation is to enjoy a flying challenge, improve one's skills at the game,
and compete against one's peers, we only need a reasonable progression of
difficulty in the sequences with an ultimate destination which may be
different each individual (folks stick around for the comradery or the
competition). This is where I'd like our pattern program to be!

I like the idea of advancement basis a percentage of national performance.
It might be even more interesting if a persons class could move up or down
each year! Think about it - not only would good flying require a move up,
but that performance would need be maintained (and one isn't "stuck with it"
if circumstances prevent that). Of course this would mean the NSRCA would
have to administer the program and CD's would need to submit data. Hmmm, any
bets on how well this would work? 

I've competed in other venues that used something like this - your % of
local score after some number of rounds / events is compared to the national
average, a position above a "standard" window results in immediate move up -
while a position below results in an immediate move down. The number of
events / rounds is large enough to offset variety in judging, conditions,
etc. The system I'm familiar with makes no exception for making a move
immediately before the National event - there is definitely care exercised
to avoid this! Interestingly, some competitors work hard to earn the top
classification and then quit so as to maintain the "bragging rights" of that
prestigious position without having to work to maintain it. 

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lance Van <mailto:patterndude at tx.rr.com>  Nostrand 

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:02 PM

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
StirringuptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

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 <mailto:ejhaury at comcast.net>  

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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 <mailto:twtaylor at ftc-i.net>  

To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

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.)  :-)

  _____  

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
<http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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/20070814/65898b3c/attachment-0001.html 