[NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]

[John Gayer]

The option system I proposed addresses this. The only requirement when 
you point out is that you _try _the next class. This could be for a 
year, two contests, whatever we decide to propose. If it's too 
intense/difficult/time consuming  in the next class, drop back. I find 
it unlikely that this would be abused and peer pressure should take care 
of any that are purely camped for trophies.
I see absolutely no reason not to include Masters in this 
advancement/option scheme. Come on guys, try F3A, you might actually 
like it.

John

Mark Atwood wrote:

>I think this really only speaks to not being forced to move up.  Period.
>Del is making the point that it has to stay "fun" for more than just the top
>guys.
>
>We have a number in our district that have "Fun" being a casual
>competitor...I'll bet most districts do. They ALL fly masters.  Why?
>Because they can camp there.  They are serious enough, or have time enough,
>or talent enough to have fun at that level.  Most can win a round here and
>there, some win regularly, some don't , all have fun.
>
>The problem is that we don't have the same group for Advanced.  Those that
>have a little less time, a little less talent, etc.  They have fun until
>they point out...and then someone pushes them to Masters where they really
>don't belong and they quit.  Can't move back, and don't have fun bringing up
>the bottom ALWAYS in masters.
>
>Same is true of Intemediate. There are those that would stay there happily
>until pattern retirement.  They'd win some, lose some, watch others pass
>them by, but at no time are they comfortable flying advanced.  Etc etc etc.
>
>We've beat this to death.  Unfortunately someone out there is scared of the
>almight "Sandbagger" that's going to suck up allll the valuable hardware in
>a lower class because they suck to much to beat them.  THAT person is the
>one we should not be catering too...
>
>-Mark
>
>
>On 8/23/07 4:23 PM, "seefo at san.rr.com" <seefo at san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What exactly is a casual competitor?
>>
>>I'm being serious here. Someone who doesn't put in the time necessary
>>to be at their best cannot expect to win contests, and you certainly
>>cannot change the sport so these people CAN win. Most of us have other
>>things to do that take up our time. That's life. I can't practice every
>>day, but at the same time, I don't expect Quique, Andrew, or Jason, or
>>anyone else to make concessions to me because they can and do put in
>>the time.
>>
>>A person who cannot devote the time necessary to be at the top of their
>>game, should have enough character and intelligence to accept that
>>fact. At that point they have 3 choices.
>>
>>1) Compete and HAVE FUN at the level they can currently.
>>2) Devote more time and energy to the competition and get better.
>>3) Move on to something else.
>>
>>People need to remember that competition is, and SHOULD BE unforgiving
>>of excuses.
>>
>>-Doug 
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>Date: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:38 pm
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]
>>To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>These are all great but, I see nothing changing to stop driving
>>>away the casual competitor. If the organization and sport wants to
>>>truly grow that area is long overdue. We need their numbers and
>>>help at fielding contests.
>>>
>>>   Del 
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20070823/370874fa/attachment.html