[NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final

Dave Burton burtona at atmc.net
Sat Sep 18 14:05:26 AKDT 2010 

I guess I don't have a top secret clearance either. I can't get to the
documents section. Says I am not permitted to enter.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 5:48 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final

Matt earlier said to go to the NSRCA website and find the methodology  
in the judging section.  Here is the url:

http://nsrca.us/documents/judging/judgeevaluation/ 
Judge_Evaluation_Method.pdf

You can read about it there and ask questions about anything which is  
unclear.

Ron Van Putte

On Sep 18, 2010, at 3:28 PM, John Gayer wrote:

> Matt,
>
> What are you using for an algorithm  to get these numbers? Based on  
> the fact that they are all below 1000, I assume that a judge who is  
> 10% higher than the average gets the same score as one who is 10%  
> low. I suggest that adding a plus or minus to the judge score would  
> identify which side of the curve a particular judge is on. Also,  
> does a 900 imply that the judge has a 10% deviation from the norm?  
> Thus if the average score is 8.0, then a judge with a 900 is giving  
> a score of 7.2 or 8.8? That would indicate a 750 judge is giving  
> sixes when the rest of the world is giving eights.
>
> John
>
> On 9/18/2010 12:17 PM, Dave Burton wrote:
>>
>> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri;  
>> panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma;  
>> panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */  
>> p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin- 
>> bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New  
>> Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99;  
>> color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,  
>> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple;  
>> text-decoration:underline;} p {mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin- 
>> top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin- 
>> left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New  
>> Roman","serif";} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;  
>> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;} .MsoChpDefault  
>> {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;  
>> margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
>> All of this stuff was done while I was away from pattern for a few  
>> years, so help me understand how this information is used. What do  
>> high ranking judges get out of the system besides an attaboy?
>>
>> How is it used by CDs, event directors, pilots, etc?
>>
>> Is anyone paying attention to it?
>>
>> Who/how provides input into the system?
>>
>> Thanks, Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
>> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of rcmaster199 at aol.com
>> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:07 PM
>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>>
>>
>>
>> Jon,
>>
>>
>>
>> That is correct...each of the scores for each judge represents how  
>> that judge performed the job (of judging) compared to the other  
>> judges. You can read the explenation of how the system works in  
>> the NSRCA website under the Judging section.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scoring a 900 or higher is a big deal in this system. It means  
>> that these judges placed each of the pilots very close to where  
>> the pilots ended up PLUS scored each of the pilots with minimal  
>> deviation from the pilots average score, ie- the score the pilot  
>> received for his round. Often, a judge scores well in one of the  
>> two categories but very seldon does a judge score well in both.
>>
>>
>>
>> The program does not look at each individual maneuver score; it  
>> looks at the total raw score. Formulas could be created to look at  
>> each maneuver but we decided (the Judge Ranking team) not to do it  
>> that way. In our view it would have been unecessarily complex. I  
>> seriously doubt that a more sophisticated program would produce a  
>> more accurate result.
>>
>>
>>
>> The "throwaways" Ron is talking about are Judge scores that are  
>> not high enough to be counted in overall rankings. Only the best 8  
>> scores over a span of 5 years I believe, count in ranking the Judges
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>>
>> MattK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 9:13 am
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>>
>> The ranking system is not perfect.
>>
>> Sure we'd like a larger sample size, but I don't know anywhere  
>> that has more than five judges.
>>
>> Second, a judge's score is dependent on the other judges. If a  
>> judge does a good job in a group of good judges, his scores will  
>> be high. However, if a judge does just as well in a group of less  
>> qualified judges, his scores will be lower. That's why judges have  
>> "throwaways" in the overall judge rankings.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Ron. I guess the two columns are from the two rounds we >  
>> judged in 2009. I think the inconsistency shown is representative  
>> > of the conditions in which my group was judging. 20-25 mph  
>> winds, > colder than a .... And not to be disrespectful to the  
>> flyers that > day under very difficult conditions, but the flying  
>> was also all > over the map; I remember seeing some 8.5's or 9's,  
>> followed by a > series of 5's and 6's. Clearly shows the need for  
>> a larger sample > size, but I'm not sure we will get it, using  
>> only judging from Nats > finals. I did not judge Masters finals  
>> this year (was supposed to > do FAI, but got rained out).
>> >
>> > Jon Lowe
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
>> > To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 8:32 am
>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>> >
>> > Perhaps it's time to reprint an explanation of the NSRCA judge >  
>> ranking system. Judges are ranked based on how they compared in >  
>> scoring pilots relative to the judging group they were in and in >  
>> their relative placing of all pilots, also compared to the judging  
>> > group they were in. A perfect score of 1000 means that a judge >  
>> agreed with the scores and placins of the judging group.
>> >
>> > Ron Van Putte
>> >
>> > On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:07 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have no clue what is being presented here. What does this mean?
>> > >
>> > > Jon Lowe
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: rcmaster199 at aol.com
>> > > To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> > > Sent: Fri, Sep 17, 2010 10:45 pm
>> > > Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judge Rank, 2009 Masters Final
>> > >
>> > > Judge Rankings from 2009 Masters Final. Belated information  
>> for > > inquiring minds; This will be on the NSRCA website at some  
>> point, > > as I complete the assessment:
>> > >
>> > > Judge: Scores
>> > > R Lewis 879.0 875.2
>> > > G Miller 824.3 804.2
>> > > J Lowe 720.8 861.4
>> > > T Romano 778.9 946.0
>> > > M Hunt 757.1 769.8
>> > > B Clemmons 903.8 785.1
>> > > J Dunnaway 783.7 816.8
>> > > J Lechowski 787.3 843.1
>> > > RVP 877.2 781.3
>> > > T Terrenoiser 884.6 866.9
>> > >
>> > > Note: First 5 judges judged rounds 1 and 2; the last 5, rounds  
>> 3 > and 4
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > MattK
>> > >
>> > > =
>> > > _______________________________________________ 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
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3142 - Release Date:  
>> 09/18/10 02:34:00
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3142 - Release Date: 09/18/10
02:34:00

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list