[NSRCA-dist8] Contest Scores

Mon Jun 29 07:34:17 AKDT 2015

Good idea. Alan I agree that it's really hard to pick that stuff up, but in
the case I am addressing, the error was so obvious it should have been a
zero...no questions asked. Just looking over the sequence before the flight
will certainly help. We all have down time at a contest and it doesn't take
a lot to stand behind the judges and watch other sequences a time or two.
We owe it to the pilots we are judging. In the end we are still just flying
toy airplanes and it should be about fun.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:

> One thing that judes could do is use Peter Vogel’s calling smart phone
> application. If you used this and headphones then you could have it call
> each maneuver for you without bothering anyone else. Most everyone has a
> smart phone so this is a good option plus Peter gives all the funds to the
> US worlds team. I have this app on my phone and it works great.
>
> —Gordon
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2015, at 5:35 AM, alan wellentin via NSRCA-dist8 <
> nsrca-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> I disagree, I don't believe a cursory overview would have eliminated the
> error, it might have, but I'm not convinced.  It's too difficult to
> remember 3/4 roll or 1/4 roll, push or pull, inverted or upright.  If a
> judge is looking at more than one sequence, especially if it's masters and
> FAI, remembering which maneuver came in and what is should be is not very
> likely.  I've spent a bit of time in the chair this year and decided that a
> scribe is almost mandatory for me, and asking the caller to sound off like
> he has a pair, helps.  At the end of the day, it comes down to imperfect
> humans trying to impartially judge a multi-segment maneuver that takes just
> a couple of seconds to complete and then on to the next maneuver.  With
> that in mind, I'm really loving the slower pace of play that todays models
> exhibit compared to some of the early turn-around models.
> Alan
>
>
>
>   On Sunday, June 28, 2015 10:01 PM, Patrick Harris via NSRCA-dist8 <
> nsrca-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>
> I agree....that's why I didn't point out who or when it was. In this
> particular case, the error was so blatant, if the judges had a cursory
> overview of the schedule, they would have seen it easily.
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:50 PM, trexlesh at msn.com <trexlesh at msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>  I feel "touched"....  :-)
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>
> ------ Original message------
> *From: *Patrick Harris
> *Date: *Sun, Jun 28, 2015 9:40 PM
> *To: *Gordon Anderson;
> *Cc: *R LESHER;AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY;
> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-dist8] Contest Scores
>
> Speaking of scores....This is a bit of a touchy subject, but I think it
> needs to be voiced. I really feel it is vitally important we be familiar
> with the sequences we are judging. Here is an example that I was able to
> garner from the results Gordon posted.
>
> At one of our contest, I witnessed a maneuver (I was not judging) that was
> flown totally wrong that it should have been a no question zero, yet the
> pilot received a 7 and an 8 from the judges.I won't name the pilot or the
> contest, but had the judges been familiar with the sequence, they would
> have known it immediately. It wasn't something like an a judgment call on a
> snap or a spin.
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Gordon,
>
> No problem  I agree, I stayed inside and cut and buffed wings and stabs.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry I was so far behind! I will try to keep up with things the rest of
> the season…. it was too hot here today to anything outside so it was a good
> day to spend behind the keyboard!
>
> —Gordon
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 9:22 PM, Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gordon,
>
> Thanks for getting the results up and running!
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, trexlesh at msn.com <
> nsrca-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Looking at the raw scores can tell you where you are lacking or winning in
> comparing pilot scores.  To me, the best thing about Gordon's scoring
> sheets is the running summary of the average scores and points cost of
> individual maneuvers.  That will instantly tell me where I need to improve.
>
> Comparing normalized scores between you and the other pilots is a quick
> way to see if you are gaining or not, but you have to see where in the
> sequence that is happening.  The only way to do that is to see the other
> pilot raw scores in each maneuver.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>
> ------ Original message------
> *From: *Karl Watts via NSRCA-dist8
> *Date: *Sun, Jun 28, 2015 6:46 PM
> *To: *Gordon Anderson;
> *Cc: *AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY;
> *Subject:*Re: [NSRCA-dist8] Contest Scores
>
> Oh, I did not know I could see raw scores.  This helps as I try to compare
> my flights to others from another contest.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> It is kind of hard to do, you can see all the scores on the web site even
> each pilot's raw scores. I think the best comparison would be the
> normalized scores but this is not perfect. There has been a lot of debate
> over normalization. You can at least get a pretty good idea.
>
> You can learn a lot looking at the scores and seeing how consistent the
> pilots are etc. There is a lot to be said for consistency.
>
> --Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Karl Watts <karlwatt at sarmc.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, this makes sense.  So I really cannot compare my scores in Redmond
> contest to how pilots did in the Boise contest?
>
> Karl
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>
> Ok the web site 2015 contest results are posted. I still have to update
> the district champ rules as per the new rules and post the current results.
> I will do this later this week I hope. Please check out the site and make
> sure I have this correct, let me know if you find any errors.
>
> Karl,
>
> Please reference this link from Redmond:
> http://www.nsrca.us/contest_results/2015/D8/Redmond/contestResults.XML
> It shows the standings and has detail you don't see on your score sheets.
> So here is how the scoring works:
> 1.) We generally fly 6 rounds and you take your top 4 rounds and sum them
> to get your final score.
> 2.) Your score sheets show your raw scores that have had the Kfactors
> applies.
> 3.) Your raw scores are normalized to the highest scoring pilot in each
> round. The highest scoring pilots gets 1000 points and all the other pilots
> are normalized to this highest score. So if you received a raw score that
> was 90% of the highest scoring pilot you would get 900 points.
> 4.) Your four highest rounds are then summed to get your final score. If
> you look at the link you will see lines through your rounds that were
> thrown out.
> 5.) The highest possible total score is 4000 if you win 4 rounds.
>
> I hope this makes sense??
>
> --Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Outstanding...thank you.
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>
> i will as soon as I finish posted all the web updates, should finish in 10
> to 15 mins....
>
> --g
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Patrick Harris via NSRCA-dist8 <
> nsrca-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Gordon or Rex....you want to explain "Normalization"?
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Karl Watts <karlwatt at sarmc.org> wrote:
>
> So what is the connection between the scores I get handed to me after each
> round and the ones that determine the places?
>
> Karl
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This e-mail, including any attachments is the property of Trinity Health
> and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this message, and reply to the sender
> regarding the error in a separate email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>
>
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This e-mail, including any attachments is the property of Trinity Health
> and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this message, and reply to the sender
> regarding the error in a separate email.
>
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This e-mail, including any attachments is the property of Trinity Health
> and is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential.  Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this message, and reply to the sender
> regarding the error in a separate email.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist8/attachments/20150629/22520769/attachment-0001.html>