[NSRCA-discussion] StirringuptheMasters2009Sequencediscussionagain...

Tue Aug 14 19:44:56 AKDT 2007

Earl,

I had written a long e-mail responding to you, but realized it was too long it would be better if I just summed it up:

A lot of what I said was said to stir up a little discussion. I do however feel AMA pattern should remain its own entity. I think deciding to move up to F3A competition should be a decision that every pilot can make on his/her own and not be a forced progression. While the progression system isn't perfect, it's better than nothing. I think more work could be done to make the difficulty progression more uniform (Intermediate to Advanced right now isn't as much of a step as I think it should be), but I don't think the difficulty of the Masters sequence should in any way be influenced by the difficulty of the F3A P sequence.

Matt
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Earl Haury 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:18 AM
  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 Nostrand 
    To: NSRCA Mailing List 
    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 
      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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    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/20070815/84b099ee/attachment.html 