[NSRCA-discussion] We aren't behind the times.
ronlock at comcast.net
ronlock at comcast.net
Tue Aug 28 12:45:10 AKDT 2007
I remember Kathy, but Norm? <VBG>
Ron Lockhart
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Scott Anderson" <scott at rcfoamy.com>
> Yep I remember those days of Norm with his wife Kathy calling, in D1.. He
> could have crashed and still got points..lol
>
> Scott 529
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] We aren't behind the times.
>
>
> >A cheerleader can call for me anytime.
> >
> > Randy
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: "J N Hiller"
> >> Great, professional callers too.
> >> Jim Hiller
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jerry
> >> Stebbins
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:00 AM
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] We aren't behind the times.
> >>
> >> Seems like we are flogging the dead horse for some other reason than the
> >> "Spectators". TOC comparisons are a reach. Most "spectators" are other
> >> contestants/helpers. Few wannabes come out unless they are working, and
> >> if
> >> they have the pattern itch they would be there anyway. Those are they
> >> ones
> >> we can talk to/explain/cultivate/ let fly after the contest!.
> >> Maybe the old days of short shorts callers could be brought back by
> >> developing and forming a set of touring callers--how about calling the
> >> Dallas Cheerleaders and see if they would be interested. THAT would
> >> probably
> >> increase our "Spectator" base. :) :)
> >> Wonder what the underlying reason is for this thread-anyone willing to
> >> fess-up?
> >> Jerry
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: John Pavlick
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:00 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] We aren't behind the times.
> >>
> >> Uh, what are you guys talking about? Spectators at a Pattern contest?
> >> Where
> >> are they? Do wives and girlfriends count?
> >>
> >> John Pavlick
> >> http://www.idseng.com
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: John Gayer
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:12 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] We aren't behind the times.
> >>
> >> Having a large scoreboard with names(maybe pictures of pilots with
> >> airplanes) and raw scores would help. So would providing handouts on the
> >> patterns and pattern in general.
> >>
> >> Not having been to an IMAC contest in years, are they doing better in
> >> providing information to spectators? Are they getting large crowds for
> >> the
> >> unknowns and freestyles?
> >> The TOC had a large scoreboard that was kept uptodate, as I recall, with
> >> raw
> >> scores and handed out the patterns being flown.
> >> Must be why they had such large crowds :-)
> >> John
> >>
> >> Mark Atwood wrote:
> >> To take that a step further...when was the last time you saw them
> >> televise
> >> the Figure Skating compulsory rounds...which is basically what we
> >> fly...the
> >> EXACT same routine. They've dropped the "figures" portion of the
> >> competition completely.
> >>
> >> But I still think it would be entertaining to see scores...though I agree
> >> it
> >> is likely to create problems.
> >>
> >> -M
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/27/07 11:30 PM, "JShulman"
> >> wrote:
> >> Has anyone else thought that pattern is just really boring? Lets face it,
> >> if
> >> you don't enjoy precision flying, there isn't much that can be done to
> >> spice
> >> it up. It's still the same sequences being flown flight after flight.
> >>
> >> As for the scoring real-time... the only one's that it would matter to
> >> would
> >> be the one's participating in the contest. Not necessarily just the one's
> >> in
> >> the class, but the one's that stay the extra day to watch. Until we throw
> >> in
> >> some sort of freestyle or combat, it's just pattern. Who would watch
> >> figure
> >> skating without music?
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >> www.jasonshulman.com
> >> www.shulmanaviation.com
> >> www.composite-arf.com
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [
> >> mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> >> On Behalf Of Lance
> >> Van
> >> Nostrand
> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:17 PM
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Are we behind the times?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm willing to try things that would make pattern more spectator
> >> friendly.
> >> I think the reason the lone spectator talking during a flight has such
> >> an
> >> effect is because its a lone person and talking loud enough that judges
> >> can
> >> hear is rare. If it became common place we would soon tune it out and
> >> spectators would be better able to follow the contest.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your points are excellent. In my area we don't require judges to
> >> initial
> >> their scoresheets. I don'tunderstand this and I always initial mine,
> >> but I
> >> also sometimes put downgrade shorthand next to my scores for pilots that
> >> enjoy knowing why they got a certain score. The occasions that pilots
> >> have
> >> approached me afterwards were supportive and spiritbuilding.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --Lance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >> From: Woodward, Jim
> >>
> >>
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:08 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Are we behind the times?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I heard a story from this years nats where one of the Advanced
> >> competitors
> >> that was in contention flew a less-than-perfect maneuver, and another
> >> pilot
> >> who was also in contention (and watching) yelled out an inappropriate
> >> remark. I think that audience input or influence is something we should
> >> steer away from for precision aerobatics. We certainly do not need it
> >> to
> >> be quiet like for golf, but direct statements meant to be heard by the
> >> judges are not good.
> >>
> >>
> >> Although slightly off topic - what I do think we should do is post all
> >> raw
> >> scores every flight for every pilot (I think this is done for the WC).
> >> I
> >> think this would provide the following opportunities:
> >> 1. The availability of the raw scores would in itself represent and
> >> INCREDIBLE judges training tool. Seasoned and new competitor alike
> >> could
> >> watch flights together, make comments and discuss, then go back later
> >> and
> >> see if what they thought they saw was in line with the scores for that
> >> flight. There is all kinds of opportunity here to facilitate judging
> >> training (.. ideas welcome).
> >> 2. Posting of raw scores would allow "judges" to after-the-fact see how
> >> they performed compared to their judging partners. There is all kinds
> >> of
> >> good value that could come from this. Whether noted privately or
> >> discussed
> >> between each other, it is good from time to time to check yourself.
> >> 3. Posting of raw scores would help keep the honest man honest. By
> >> posting
> >> raw scores, I think there would be a reduction of bias any way you cut
> >> it:
> >> Santa-Clausing, Low-balling, "teams", regionality, or other bias' would
> >> be
> >> removed/reduced if the person knew ahead of time that the judges scores
> >> would be posted.
> >> 4. And most importantly, increased "transparency" in the system helps
> >> the
> >> seasoned and new comer alike understand the process of the contest,
> >> scoring, and "how" the 1000, 900, or 800's came to be. I believe that
> >> no
> >> matter whom you are, you want to leave a contest and feel like you (&
> >> everyone) was dealt a fair hand. Transparency is the key to this.
> >> 5. OK - last one - it takes "scoring" which is a topic of much
> >> discussion
> >> during and after a pattern contest in case you haven't heard, away from
> >> a
> >> shadowy discussion, and brings to the open this topic which everyone is
> >> already discussing. This would do a lot to remove ammunition from the
> >> conspiracy theorist and such whom all of our districts have.
> >> Transparency
> >> is good J
> >>
> >>
> >> I write none of this from the sour-grapes perspective. I love this
> >> stuff.
> >> I think the potential benefits from posting the raws would out weight
> >> the
> >> potential bad, provide more transparency for the competitor and also
> >> provide
> >> judges training.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jim W.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> >> is
> >> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> >> confidential
> >> and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
> >> or
> >> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
> >> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the
> >> original message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _____
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> >> [
> >> mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
> >> On Behalf Of
> >> JShulman
> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 1:49 PM
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Are we behind the times?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Probably the best reason not to have it...lol. It's bad enough when we
> >> screw-up... I mean when a pilot screws-up and you hear all the
> >> OOOooooohhhhhhhhhhhh's from the crowd. Now just imagine the uproar when
> >> someone gets judged for a maneuver that they are doing all wrong! Total
> >> Chaos!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jason
> >> www.jasonshulman.com
> >> www.shulmanaviation.com
> >> www.composite-arf.com
> >>
> >> On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> can you just imagine all the "oohhhss and aahhhs" from the spectators.
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >> _____
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >> _____
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20070828/e5252b82/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list