[NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]

[J N Hiller]

It appears that turnaround began with "Expert Turnaround" (36 K, 17
maneuver) in the 1990/91rule book as the top class, replacing the previous
450 maximum K / build your own Masters schedule. Masters remained
non-turnaround and was down graded to fit between Advanced and Expert
Turnaround. The 1992/93 rule book restored the "Masters" name to the top
class with a full 66 K 23 maneuver schedule and Expert Turnaround was
dropped. All classes went turnaround in this rule cycle also.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Fuqua
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:52 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]

If my memory serves, in 87 we were transitioning to turnaround.  Masters was
the old AMA style and Expert was Turnaround.  We had 6 classes with 2 AMA
classes being a turnaround style.

John

  _____

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
kennie
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:46 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]
That ' 87 listing was interesting to me in light of the class number
reversal seen by the huge Sportsman class relative the Expert numbers. There
must be a lesson in there somewhere. Is the reversal the result of forced
advancement???
I think there were a total of 141 pilots and did that exclude FAI ??? Where
did we go wrong, or did we even ???????
Interesting stuff !!!
G.



----- Original Message -----
From: John Gayer <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>
To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] [Fwd: Proposal]

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" <mailto:seefo at san.rr.com>
<seefo at san.rr.com> <mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<mailto: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 <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20070824/12279cef/attachment.html