[NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Mon Aug 3 13:36:48 AKDT 2009
I think Greg Grigsby would agree. Greg won the Master class at the
1997 Nats. He placed about 25th this year and I thought he flew very
well.
Ron VP
On Aug 3, 2009, at 4:27 PM, michael s harrison wrote:
> Everybody I judged was a somebody. I thought you flew very well
> and thought I scored you as such. 9th or 10th in that bunch was
> quite an achievement. It was the best Masters bunch I have ever seen.
>
> mike
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
>
>
> I agree Mark. 100%...
>
> I'm a try to win guy normally, but for my 1st and 2nd nats, the
> finals is good IMO as I haven't paid my dues, and am a nobody. I
> guess I'm just not used to not being judged equally. Something I
> will have to get used to if I want to continue to go to the nats.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 1:32 PM
>
> I’d argue there are two groups of people that go to the nats. One
> group to try and win, the other to see their general placing and
> enjoy the social environment of a week playing with toy airplanes.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:53 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
>
>
> Equal exposure takes time we usually don’t have. We lower the cut-
> off point to ensure that the top fliers in contention for winning
> make the finals.
>
> Then why does anyone go to the nats. Shouldn't only the top flyers
> go? <~WRD000.jpg>haha
>
> On another note, who fly's morning's next year. LMAO.. lol
> <~WRD000.jpg><~WRD000.jpg>
>
> I'm starting to get a laugh out of the nats.. lol
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 12:28 PM
>
> As someone who’s goal this year was to make the FAI Semi Finals, I
> understand your point completely.
>
>
>
> The problem is that all you’re really doing by changing systems is
> shifting the accuracy from spots 6,7 & 8 to 11,12 & 13. Bad seeding
> will still result in those positions being a coin toss. An unknown
> flyer, or one that has not been to the Nationals in years, does not
> usually get “seeded” and can mess up the whole game (with regard to
> that 12th spot…not as far as picking a champion or even the top 6).
>
>
>
> Bottom line, anything but equal exposure will always make the cut-
> off positions subject to error. Equal exposure takes time we
> usually don’t have. We lower the cut-off point to ensure that the
> top fliers in contention for winning make the finals.
>
>
>
> I’m not really sure what else can be done.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of krishlan fitzsimmons
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
>
>
> My opinion may be a little different, but similar Mark.
> An example, Mike Mueller flew against Tony all week. Flew
> excellent, but didn't make the finals. My opinion, he should have.
> The way our system works (or doesn't work) caused this IMO. Mike,
> like myself and many others, spent a lot on the nats, and if it
> isn't fair, why go? Well, it's a great time for sure. And it's
> great to see all you guys! But we need a system to allow us to be
> judged fairly. We would never run this kind of system at a local
> contest, so why do we do it at the nats, our most prestigious
> contest? Could you see it at a local? Ok, you two guys fly in front
> of those judges, and you other 2 guys fly in front of two other
> judges, and so on. Why did FAI want equal exposure this year? My
> guess is because they had less entries, yes, but because our system
> doesn't work right, and I'm sure they know it. Would the outcome
> have been different if they ran it different? Maybe, maybe not. But
> I sure feel the Masters outcome would have been had we had equal
> exposure. And if Intermediate, and Advanced would have had a
> finals, I feel the outcome may have changed a little.
>
> We discussed this some at the contest this weekend, and doing
> Jerry's system, with taking the top 3 in each group, then flying 3
> and keeping the best 2 rounds would work pretty well, and not much
> more time. That way, the top 8 will make the finals regardless of
> their grouping inconsistencies. Unless we can get equal exposure
> like FAI did this year. That is the best system. Just a thought.
>
> Where I differ I think in our thoughts Mark, is that I go to try to
> make the finals. Then I would be satisfied. 8th place is good to me
> at the nats right now. Yes we are trying to pick a national
> champion. But to some of us lesser talented flyer's, we are
> battling for, and proud of 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. <~WRD000.jpg>
>
> In the long run, whatever happens, happens. The point of the whole
> discussion is to bring about new and possibly format changing ideas
> that we all may find hope in and try those ideas. Change is good
> sometimes. With the high amount of intelligence amongst our group,
> we ought to be able to figure out a way to do this IMO.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 11:06 AM
>
> This is really the ONLY issue at hand. Proper seeding becomes
> vital to both formats. In the Matrix system, two “weaker” (no
> bashing, just being honest) groups will normalize very high to one
> another on the day they fly against each other knocking out some
> of the pilots from the other groups who are forced to always
> normalize against one of the stronger pilots (in this years case
> that was Arch and Frak).
>
>
>
> The 4 mini contests does a better job with the math (your at least
> not trying to force normalization with equal exposure) but in
> contrast, the idea of taking the top 2 or 3 from each group assumes
> that one group won’t have 4 of the best pilots. Not the best
> assumption given the inconsistent attendance that many have at the
> nats. No way to seed beyond the top 3-4 people that we have
> experience with.
>
>
>
> In both cases…people have to stay true to the “Goal”. Which is
> really to make sure that the top 3 guys make the finals. We’re
> trying to pick the National Champion, not the 5,6,7 and 8th place
> guys. Taking 8 to the finals in EITHER format does a good job of
> ensuring that the top 3 are in the finals and have a fair, well
> judged event to choose the champion.
>
>
>
> I think any format we choose is likely to err when it comes to the
> 8,9,10 place individuals. That would be a problem if we were only
> taking 3 to the finals. The idea of taking 8 purposely mitigates
> that.
>
>
>
> It’s even less of an issue in FAI where 20 fly in a full exposure
> format to choose the finalists and they still take 8 to choose the
> top guys.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Derek Koopowitz
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
>
>
> Seeding would be very critical in this just like seeding is
> critical in the current matrix system as well. I'll give you a
> good example... had Glen Watson showed up wouldn't that have
> affected some pilots in his group? With Glen not being there that
> group became an "easy" group and the normalized scores
> reflected that relative to the other groups. I'm not trying to
> diminish anyone's flying efforts here but I think the ED should
> adjust the flying groups based on attendance if necessary in order
> to level the playing field for everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Mark Hunt <flyintexan at att.net> wrote:
>
> I too would like to see an article on this. No offense, but
> initially it is unclear to me how this would give any better
> exposure of pilots to the same judges/conditions than the current
> matrix system allows for. Would seeding not become even more
> critical in this scenario?
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: Anthony Romano <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2009 11:56:34 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Matrix improvements
>
>
> Maybe Jerry could detail this in a Kfactor article. Perhaps could
> be used at locals to help with an oversized Masters group.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:45:19 -0700
> From: derekkoopowitz at gmail.com
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in
> 2010?
>
> Jerry Budd had a good suggestion in running 4 mini-contests for 6
> rounds where each pilot would fly against their group for 6
> straight rounds and then the top 3 from each group would fly in the
> finals. I'm leaning toward this because the current format does
> not work. We also need to do something about FAI - because there
> isn't equal exposure there either.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM, John Fuqua
> <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> Every Nats I went to that had all events in 2 weeks ended up screwing
> Pattern out of time or space. It never failed. I am against it even
> thought I liked to go see other events. We cannot do a first rate
> job when
> we compete for runway space and days to fly.
>
> I thought AMA wanted to reduce Nats costs. Moving them around does
> not do
> that if you look at history and read up you will find a consistent
> comment
> about reducing Nats costs. NPAC was fully funded by the pilots and
> it cost
> more than a typical Nats so factor that in.
>
> No one has addressed the equal exposure to judges issues for the
> current
> format yet and Mike's proposal does not correct that situation for
> Masters.
> I had one person suggest to me that if we continue to use the
> Matrix system
> that we take the top 3 pilots from each "Group" to a 3 round
> finals. At
> least then we have equal judging exposure and more or less equal
> weather
> exposure per round.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tony
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:56 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in
> 2010?
>
> That is a possibility also. AMA is thinking about returning the
> NATS to a 2
> week all-events NATS like used to be done. If all events are
> together, HQ
> can put all costs into one effort. If they are all split up, Each
> group
> would have more costs to deal with due to the fact that HQ can't
> send a
> group of people to every site.
>
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South, Inc.
>
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
> Brunswick, GA 31525
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> www.radiosouthrc.com
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tim
> Taylor
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the Nats in
> 2010?
>
>
>
> It was done, It was called NPAC
>
>
>
> Tim
>
> --- On Thu, 7/30/09, Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Bill's Email <wemodels at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Flash Poll - Relocate the
> Nats in
> 2010?
> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 2:06 PM
>
> Why not allow the SIGS to do their own thing? IMAC and NSRCA
> do not
> need to share a site. The LSF can find a site for the soaring NATS.
> Pylon
> knows what venues work for them and so on. FF can do their own
> thing as
> well. Why tie soaring and FF together and so on??
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> Matt:
> Yes, it is just difficult to tell if it is actually
> feasible. The
> problem is that it requires a large site for Pattern/Pylon/IMAC and
> will
> require another large site for Soaring/Outdoor FF. It may be very
> difficult
> to actually find places that can handle this group.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony Stillman, President
>
> Radio South, Inc.
>
> 139 Altama Connector, Box 322
>
> Brunswick, GA 31525
>
> 1-800-962-7802
>
> www.radiosouthrc.com <http://www.radiosouthrc.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> <http://us.mc623.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-
> discussion at lists.nsrca.o
> rg>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try BingT now.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
> 08/03/09 05:57:00
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.42/2279 - Release Date:
> 08/03/09 05:57:00
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.42/2279 - Release Date:
> 08/03/09 05:57:00
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> <~WRD000.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list