CONTEST PROCEDURE QUESTION

Ok, here are the parameters: 30 entrants, two sets of judges, two circles (one with a great deal more turbulence problems than the other), random assignment of circles, fifteen to each circle and the top five from each circle advance to the finals. Two flights, best score determines advancement.

Contestants perform before the same set of judges on the same circle for both flights. Any problem with this scenario?

John...
That is essentially the way that we try to run Intermediate at the Nats....

We do have only the best single flight determine placings (three attempts for two officials, best single flight counts).

The only problem with this method is that one circle could be heavily populated with real good guys and another with less good.

I am a very firm believer that it is impossible to seed flyers prior to a contest....

See Ya

>I am a very firm believer that it is impossible to seed
>flyers prior to a contest....
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Why?

It might be difficult, or rather impossible or impracticle or meaningless to try to "seed" any pilots in any Beginner or Intermediate competition. And it would be almost as difficult and meaningless to seed Advanced flyers. (If a flyer is good enough to even be considered to be "seeded" in one of these AMA class events, it would appear that individual should be flying in the next higher category.) For qualification rounds at the Team Trials and Nats Open event and for balancing the circles for the Team Trials, seeding is a very practicle and necessary process and not difficult to do. The purpose is to avoid the situation where random assignments could result with known top pilots unevenly assigned among the qualification circles, thus resulting in an uneven playing field for all competing in that event.

Keith:
I contend that seeding in PA, especially at National Championship level is both unfair and improper...

It's not in the book.

It also assumes that a group of 40 or so open flyers can be ranked regardless of the current condition of their health, practice level, equipment functionality or attitude. If it's possible, why hold the contest at all? Save everyone time and money and mail 'em the trophies.

The Luck of the Draw should prevail.

See Ya

>The Luck of the Draw should prevail.

Wrong!

With random circle assignments, a scenario could result where a totally incompetent flyer or flyers could qualify for the semi-finals round at the Nats Open event or for the finals round at the Team Trials. How can this be fair to a competent flyer who has invested effort and resources to participate in the event and see his efforts negated by the "luck of the draw"? This is one area where contest management can level the playing field to make the competition as fair as possible for all who participate.

The rulebook does allow the Nats procedures to include periods of qualification and semifinals rounds. It is a fact that the rulebook does not specifically mention seeding of flyers at the Nats for the qualifying rounds. It is also a fact that the rulebook does not specify how competitors are assigned to the qualification circles. To use a seeding process is no less an arbitrary decision on the part of contest management than would be a random assignment of flyers to each of the qualifying circles. Besides, the procedures used for the PA event at the Nats are outlined by the Event Director to the Nats Planning group and is approved by the AMA prior to the event starting. That may be a fact that you are not aware of and is one of the many details that the ED must take care of far in advance of the Nationals ever starting.

Here again is an area that the rulebook is less than clear or perhaps less than perfect. Maybe a rules change proposal would be appropriate to clarify this matter. If there is a proposal to require random assignments to the qualification circle at the Nats Open event, there will likely be a counter proposal to specify that a seeding process to be determined by the ED should instead be used. I do not think that a proposal to require random circle assignments for the Nats Open PA event would get very much support from the CL Aerobatics Contest Board. Such a proposal would be contrary to a tradition used at the Nats since Bill Netzeband introduced the multi-circle qualificaiton process when he was the ED for the Nats in the early 60's. Such a proposal would simply be not fair.

How many guys do you seed? I might program a little simulation to show the implications of seeding. A more mathematical person could probably calculate it, but I would use brute force.

>How many guys do you seed?

The number of pilots that are "seeded" depends on who has registered to compete and the number of circles used. I think, typically, 6 to 10 or so will be seeded. This is based on those individuals intered who have placed well at recent Nats and/or Team Trials.

There is one misconception here about seeding. I may be wrong, but one of the reasons that some people who are opposed to seeding somehow feel that seeded pilots have some advantage in the contest for the very fact that they have been seeded. There is no advantage or disadvantage to any individual flyer for the fact that he is seeded or not seeded. The judges do not know who has or has not been seeded. The judges only see pilots coming to fly in some scheduled order and the score sheets are on the clipboard for the judge to write down scores. Each pilot, whether is has been seeded or not will still have to fly and demonstrate how well he can fly before he has a chance to advance to the next level of competition. Seeding does NOT automatically give any pilot a free ride to the next round of competition as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread.

I should repeat that seeding only makes since and as far as I know is used in the Open event at the Nats as well as at our Team Trials. I will repeat what I mentioned earlier that seeding would be meaningless in the PAMPA classes of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced.

As I have tried to explain before, seeding is one tool that the contest management has to make the competition as fair as possible for all those who are entered, regardless of their flying capability. Besides, with the current Nats procedure during the initial two days of qualifying rounds, seeding does not now make that much difference since all competitors fly the same number of flights in front of each set of judges. The same is true for the Team Trials. The thing that could throw the competition out of balance with top pilots not being seeded is the possibility of extreme weather variability during the contest and the assignment of judges where one group consistently scores higher than another group.

Seeding is accomplished at these contests for much the same reason that we see teams or individuals seeded in different competitions like basketball tournaments and tennis matches. It prevents pilots who have flown well from being eliminated from competition and in the process of being eliminated, allowing pilots who have not performed well in that contest to advance to the next round of competition. This is not the same thing as saying that the pilot with a good record will automatically advance because there is not automatic advancement, seeded or not. Nor is this the same thing as saying an unseeded pilot without a stellar contest record cannot knock the socks off others in his group and qualify for the next round which he can do and there are any numnber of instances over the years when this has happened.

If it is not clear that seeding is a positive action that contest management can do for these multi-circle qualification contests (our Nats and Team Trials), and that there is no advantage or disadvantage for any individual pilot to be seeded or unseeded at these contests, then I have not done a very good job at explaining what this process is and what the advantages for it are.

It is recognized that this process is not included in the rulebook. Neither are a myriad of other administrative details regarding the management of the Nats or of any other major contest spelled out in detail in the rulebook. The rulebook does allow for a qualification process at the Nats with multiple circles with procedures other than using three attempts to record two official flights where the single best flight determines the placing of flyers. Implicit with this generalization of how the Nats can be planned and run is the flexibility of contest management, the ED, to incorporate variations in procedures. This flexibility has allowed the Nats format to evolve over the years to where eacy competitor is allowed four official flights over two days to demonstrate his or her capabilities. At least this is what has happened over the years with PAMPA leadership and the Nats Event Directors working very closely together to evolvoe these processes. I believe that most who participate in these events feel that this format is much better than before, even during those Nats when a qualification round consisted of the best of two flights in one day to determine who could advance to the next round. Seeding is one tool the ED has to help level the flying field for all competitiors. To specify how the seeding process should be implemented in the rulebook would be unwieldy and could prove overly restrictive as adjustments to the process are necessary from year to year based on a number of factors. Also, when it comes to specifying how judges are chosen and assigned to circles in the rulebook would unnecessariy restrict the ED to make adjustments before and during the contest in his attempt to minimize favoritisms and regionalims within the judging corps. It is rare for the ED to know who will actually show up to judge prior to the beginning of the Nats. It is impossible to know what pilots will be in the semi-finals rounds and finals rounds which will have some impact of how judges are assigned for these rounds. Contrary to what some have contended in the past, Warren Tiahrt has carefully assigned judges for these rounds to avoid or minimize any apparent loading of judges or apparent conflict of interests to favor or disfavor any particular flyer based on known personalities, relationships, and/or regional affiliations. Sometimes, decisions have had to be made for these reasons that have prevented some of the better judges being assigned for these semi-finals and finals rounds. Yet, there have been accusations that judges have been assigned to specifically help or hinder certain individual flyers. Such criticisms really make it a fun deal to help run these contests.

let's see we normally seed 10 flyers ...
but .... suppose we just used a random draw ... and it happens that all 10 wind up in one grouping ... then since we take 10 flyers from each group to make up the top twenty day ... then the 10 seeded flyers still make it ... some flyers who would probably have made it anyway are in .... and maybe some new guys would make the top twenty for the first time.... The finals on Sat. are probably gonna be the same.

Frank,

You are correct. The system will work that way. The one variable you did not mention that I tried to explain, but evidently not very well is when extreme weather conditions occur sometime during the two days coupled with the variabilities of judges' scoring tendencies during the qualification rounds and better fliers are knocked out of the competition while truly unqualified pilots who cannot fly that well could get in. Even in these conditions, the better flyers still tend to rise to the occassion, but as I tried to explain, this is one area that the ED can make the contest more fair for all involved. A competitor who is not as capable and does not fly that well should not advance to the next rounds just because of the luck of his draw and circle assignment. A flyer should advance only on his skills, not on his luck. At least some of these factors can be minimized by the ED.

This has nothing to do with an individual who has some random equipment failure. Such equipment problems are an area the ED has no control over. However, the ED can control the equalization of known talent on each of the groups moving through the initial qualification rounds.

Any flyer who is good enough to qualify has a better chance to qualify in such a sytem, again, whether seeded or not.

Keith,

That exact senario did in fact happen at the 2004 Nats in the Advanced class. Watt Moore qualified for the Top 20 and Curtis Comer did not!

>let's see we normally seed 10 flyers ...
>but .... suppose we just used a random draw ... and it
>happens that all 10 wind up in one grouping ... then since
>we take 10 flyers from each group to make up the top twenty
>day ... then the 10 seeded flyers still make it ... some
>flyers who would probably have made it anyway are in ....
>and maybe some new guys would make the top twenty for the
>first time.... The finals on Sat. are probably gonna be
>the same.

That's the way I see it, and have seen it for some time.

The problem is that seeding has no procedure. The method cannot ultimately be left to the ED (are you saying Warren seeds the circles? That is not what I understand to be the case).

Brad Walker mantra:

"If it affects the flier's ability to score, it should be in the RULEBOOK. Period."

The current method could not be made into a rule, as it has no real procedure. Random draw could be made into a rule, so it is a valid procedure.

I agree with Frank's statement, random draw would have no real effect on the outcome of the Top 20. Seeding only improves the order for the best fliers, which has no real bearing on the outcome of the contest. Based on the fact that seeding procedures currently used could not pass rule proposal scrutiny, so they should be DROPPED IMMEDIATELY.

As far as your comments on judges not being assigned until the event starts, I have no problem with that. ASSIGN THEM. The Top 5 judges should be assigned on Tuesday. The idea that judges should be "graduated" using measurement methods that are not published and are certainly questionable in their effectiveness, would be a total NO-NO. If we are not going to study judging at any higher level than a line graph and an average line, the practice should be abandoned.

I like a limited seeding procedure, and one could be written into the book, if kept simple.
Seed, say, eight OPEN flyers...four to a circle if two circles are used, two to a circle if four are used.
Pick'em from: the Open flyers from the Walker Fly-offs immediately proceeding the event...
The reason that I favor limited seeding is that it gives new and improving flyers a good opportunity to gauge their progress...this method would insure that each Open competitor has the opportunity to fly with at least two (or four) for a couple of days.

See Ya

>I like a limited seeding procedure, and one could be written
>into the book, if kept simple.
>Seed, say, eight OPEN flyers...four to a circle if two
>circles are used, two to a circle if four are used.

Why? The best fliers are still going to qualify, right? Do the math. Seeding, as far as the best fliers are concerned only increase their bragging rights in the finishing order. They still will qualify, maybe just at a lower order.

Seeding, however, could limit the qualifying of newer fliers.

ISeeding is unnecessary, unfair, and has been used for years without the practice ever being made official by it being added to the rulebook.

Keith said that the CD needs "flexibility" for running the event. I would grant that a few experiments are in order. However, seeding is no longer an experiment, it is a deeply entrenched practice without publication.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-19-04 AT 07:54 AM (CST)
 
I did a simulation. I assumed 40 contestants. They were assigned at random to four circles in the 2003 Nats Wednesday-Thursday format. I ranked the contestants and assumed that a higher-ranked contestant would always place higher than a lower-ranked contestant. I did 10,000 runs with and without seeding the top eight to see how many times the 20th-ranked contestant would make the top 20 and how many times the 21st-ranked contestant would make the top 20. Here is the upchuck:

No seeding:
#20 made the top 20 5079 times.
#21 made the top 20 4009 times.

Seeding the top eight:
#20 made the top 20 4983 times.
#21 made the top 20 3668 times.

That's not quite what I expected. I might do some histograms and add some noise to the ranking to represent wind and judging and flying inconsistencies, but I have an airplane to build, so I probably won't. If somebody else wants to fiddle with this, I'll email him a copy of the Excel file. The macro is written in VBA.

I didn't check to see how fast this converges. I'll do 100,000 runs overnight and report the result tomorrow, maybe.

Edit: In 100,000 trials:

No seeding:
#20 made the top 20 56381 times.
#21 made the top 20 43962 times.

Seeding the top eight:
#20 made the top 20 55564 times.
#21 made the top 20 41222 times.

>I did a simulation. I assumed 40 contestants. They were
>assigned at random to four circles in the 2003 Nats
>Wednesday-Thursday format. I ranked the contestants and
>assumed that a higher-ranked contestant would always place
>higher than a lower-ranked contestant. I did 10,000 runs
>with and without seeding the top eight to see how many times
>the 20th-ranked contestant would make the top 20 and how
>many times the 21st-ranked contestant would make the top 20.
> Here is the upchuck:
>
>No seeding:
>#20 made the top 20 5079 times.
>#21 made the top 20 4009 times.
>
>Seeding the top eight:
>#20 made the top 20 4983 times.
>#21 made the top 20 3668 times.
>
>That's not quite what I expected.

So the conclusion is that seeding has slight effect on the ability of lower ranked fliers to make the Top 20, but the effect is only slight?

Using the reverse, you could make the case seeding is not necessary, so why do it?

Good point. I gave it much thought, pretended I was cabable of going to the Open group at a Nats. If I were in a circle that had the top 20 in it, I would be overwhelmed. However, if it had only say, 10 of them, then I would not feel so overwhelmed. A moot point, for sure, but the psychology is there.

Peabody, I have been a Nat's competitor a few times and in addition a charter member of PAMPA. I was there in the '70s' and I was there this year. I don't remember ever hearing your name before a few years ago. I think it would be of great interest to many of us as to your extensive background and experience that enables you to totally understand how the Nat's should be run. So please, go ahead and help all of us that you think need help. Could be some fun entertainment! Bob Whitely

>Peabody, I have been a Nat's competitor a few times and in
>addition a charter member of PAMPA. I was there in the
>'70s' and I was there this year. I don't remember ever
>hearing your name before a few years ago. I think it would
>be of great interest to many of us as to your extensive
>background and experience that enables you to totally
>understand how the Nat's should be run. So please, go ahead
>and help all of us that you think need help. Could be some
>fun entertainment! Bob Whitely

Bob; you actually think he is going to answer this? =DOC:)

>Peabody, I have been a Nat's competitor a few times and in
>addition a charter member of PAMPA. I was there in the
>'70s' and I was there this year. I don't remember ever
>hearing your name before a few years ago. I think it would
>be of great interest to many of us as to your extensive
>background and experience that enables you to totally
>understand how the Nat's should be run. So please, go ahead
>and help all of us that you think need help. Could be some
>fun entertainment! Bob Whitely

It really has nothing to do with experience. It has to do with the fact that it is not in the rulebook. If it has been done this way for some time somebody should have added the procedure to the rulebook for the event. For whatever reason the seeding procedures have never been added to the AMA rulebook, and it is my feeling the procedures used for seeding the fliers and judges WILL NEVER stand rulebook scrutiny.

What would the rule read? "If Bob, Billy, Ted, etc are present, please seed them evenly oever the two circles".

There is no ranking system for fliers (like tennis for example) so, once again, the seeding is left to a few individuals. This is not in the spirit of true fairness, especially if the competitor might feel that the person doing the seeding is not represented of their interests.

Not only is seeding unfair, a case could be made that it is bias and not part of the AMA rules.

I would rather take my chances with the "random" seeding.

...and Whitely, the very idea that someone of higher skills would have "more invested" or would "spend more time" than a contestant of lesser skills SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. You believe the higher skilled fliers should get special treatment, don't you?

>Peabody, I have been a Nat's competitor a few times and in
>addition a charter member of PAMPA. I was there in the
>'70s' and I was there this year. I don't remember ever
>hearing your name before a few years ago. I think it would
>be of great interest to many of us as to your extensive
>background and experience that enables you to totally
>understand how the Nat's should be run. So please, go ahead
>and help all of us that you think need help. Could be some
>fun entertainment! Bob Whitely

OH MY GOD! GAK! OOOF! Al K.

>Keith:
>I contend that seeding in PA, especially at National
>Championship level is both unfair and improper...
>
>It's not in the book.
>
>It also assumes that a group of 40 or so open flyers can be
>ranked regardless of the current condition of their health,
>practice level, equipment functionality or attitude. If
>it's possible, why hold the contest at all? Save everyone
>time and money and mail 'em the trophies.
>
>The Luck of the Draw should prevail.
>
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Ron B.
F4Fguy

SO! The USTA should just hand the U.S. Open trophy to Andre Agassi and forget it?

>Ron B.
>F4Fguy
>
>SO! The USTA should just hand the U.S. Open trophy to Andre
>Agassi and forget it?
>
>Ron B.

You are not serious are you? Comparing a judged sport like stunt to a head to head competition like tennis. Come on. You can do better than that.

In tennis they have a ranking system. This system is public knowledge and all competitors are ranked using the very same set of rules. Their ranking gives them their starting postion at the events they enter. The events are seeded based off of their ranking using a proven public method.

Someone said something about basketball tounament. Well that is another head to head competition based on the record prior to getting to the tournament. Good record gives you excellent placement. But the record is from the regular season just prior to the tournament.

If you want to use regional contest placings as a seeding tool then that would be great. You set up a point system like we use to win the District 8 Trophy. You earn points from all of the "regional" contests you enter from August 1 through June 1. Then the top 12 point getters are split between the two circles. First you have to look at the country and all the major contests. Then designate by geopraphical postion make 3 or 4 or 5 contests in each district Regional contests that are point getters for the Nats seeding. Publish them each year in SN. I am sure they would all be the same each year. Try for different weekends so the really ambitious ones can really rack up the points by traveling all around. I think it would be cool. It could also help grow the regional contests. The NW comes to mind as one, it is already so huge. Could you imagine Kent Tysor getting to Washington from Georgia for some points, could happen. They already report the contests results to SN just add in the points attained for Nats seeding as well. Plus it ties in the locals to the Nats!

Sounds like fun.

Also I think it would be cool if the prior years Walker trophy winner got a BYE into Friday. He still flys in front of the judges on Wed and Thrusday and he is scored as well but it is not counted towards the final placing. Or he could opt out of flying in front of the judges if he chooses. Take the top twenty as usual and add him in for 21 on Friday. The Walker is so hard to win I think it would be OK if the reward ran into the next year as well.

>Also I think it would be cool if the prior years Walker
>trophy winner got a BYE into Friday.

I would sign that.

If judges are going to rank the flyers using purely subjective criteria anyway, why do you object to another purely subjective ranking prior to flying? Six of one , half a dozen of the other.

Kieth (and others)

IMHO "seeding" has no place in our event. The purpose of seeding is to make sure that the #1 and #2 don't meet in the first round of elimination format competition. NCAA "March Madness" and USTA events come to mind. CLPA and Ice Skating are not head to head elimination type competitions. IMHO, to be fair to all entrants they should be allowed to compete on as level a playing field as possible. This can only be accomplished by all contestants flying before the same judges or having the two groups switch circles (judges stay put) and then the scores be added together to determine the people who advance.

Mr. Peabody does in fact run the PA-I event at the nationals in the manner which I described. Rich, how do you think the finalists would react if they were split into two groups of five with two different circles and two sets of judges and the best score for one flight determines the placings?

Randy, Marvin, The purpose of my post was the hope that some long time CDs and Judges would comment and perhaps Mr. Peabody would see that not everyone agrees that this is a fair way to run the Nationals and perhaps a change in procedure would be in order in the future.

Thanks to all of you who have responded.

John:
I may be misunderstanding you.
I believe that a format of two flights in front of the same judges and that allows the dropping of the worst flight is a fair and equitable one. A guy that drives hundreds...even thousands of miles only to miss a needle setting has another shot.
A multi-circle format whereby only the top five-tem..half, whatever advance is, in effect, two (or more) parallel contests whereby the winners are brought together in yet another, independant contest. Our National Championships (for Open flyers) are, essentially, three
seperate and distinct contests....a re-rack at the conclusion of each.

Using a muliti-circle format allows more competitors to fly in a given time span.

The zinger is when the second phase is not flown ...... then "normalization" must be used and the results are less than fair.

I believe that the "top-half"...or whatever PRE-ESTABLISHED number advancing to what, essentially, becomes a "fly-off" situation, is a good and workable deal.
See Ya

Rich,

You're kidding right?

John,

If I were in this situation I would make sure the contestants flew one flight on each circle so they have the opportunity to fly before ALL the judges. In the flyoffs the judges should be picked by lot but using one judge from each circle. The idea of having 2 flights before 2 sets of judges sets bad with me, all the judges need to see flights by all the flyers or you don't have a level playing field. As a contestant I would not fly under your stated conditions.

Randy has it right. Additionally to each pilot flying in front of both sets of judges, each pilot will also have to cope with the turbulent circle as well as the good circle, total both scores and the top however many go to the finals. I see no problems here.
Bigiron

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 09:41 PM (CST)
 
To answer John's question. No there is no problem with that. It simply runs as two seperate contests. Or you could do it the way Randy says. His way would probably sit better with most contestants.

As to seeding the circles.

Well since you know ahead of time who you think will be a contender why dont you just give them a BY into Friday's rounds. Let all the others battle for a few extra "Also Ran" spots and shorten the contest and the costs with a week long contest to prove out what you already know.

Seeding fliers seems very un fair to me. Especially to the guy who is on the cusp of getting in. Luck of the draw is not any less fair than a blown plug or split pipe coupler. Steve had over 250 flawless flights in 03 prior to the nats. On day one flight one the rear bearing pukes. From there all of his officials had motor troubles. EVERY ONE! Just the chance you take when you enter. If you know going in that you might work your a-s-s off to possibly get on a circle with 14 hotdogs then so be it. You might also get the luck of the draw on your side. I see seeding as a deffinant advantage to the better than average flier.

Seeding judges should NEVER be done period. I have never understood this concept. Could someone please explain.

Doug, Where in the world did seeding of judges come from? Never heard of that one.

>Doug, Where in the world did seeding of judges come from?
>Never heard of that one.
>
>Later, John

Doug is probably refering to the practice "graduating" judges in to the final rounds based on their "peformance" in the earlier rounds (something cannot be measured according to Mr. Buck BTW).

This is another practice that I feel would never stand up to rulebook scrutiny. The measure of the performance is obviously not open to scutiny, as all statistical methods are invalid, right?

Judges should be chosen before the event starts, and substitutions outlined, if needed, beforehand.

My lawn needs seeding...

LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-04 AT 09:36 AM (CST)
 
"To answer John's question. No there is no problem with that. It simply runs as two seperate contests."

Doug,

Could not possibly disagee more. The senario is to have all the constants compete against one another. I for one would strongly oppose this 2 contest, one flyoff concept if every one were at the same location on the same day. No one can possibly be judged fairly with different circle conditions and different judges flying for the same trophy. I'd be scalped if I tried to run a contest like this.

All,

As to "seeding", I think this is rediculous. As a CD its my job to make EVERY effort to make sure EVERY contestant is to have EVERY opportunity to fly under as near identical conditions as possible as the day permits. To prejudicially assign the stars is not only unfair to the less accomplished or developed flyers, its downright insulting. Flight order should be luck of the draw, first circle should be luck of the draw, after that eveyone goes to the oposite circle with a newly drawn flight order. That is the ONLY way to fly a contest like this fairly. There has been so much grumbling over the years about "star power" or "aura" or "halo effect" or what ever else you want to name the aledged prejudice of judges for name flyers, this whole seeding idea is BAD! Worse, its UGLY!

Sheesh, this certainly encourages me to attend a Nats.

If I came to this meet I would greatly prefer that the flyers and judges on a circle move to the other circle for the second flight. I fly for largely for enjoyment. Having to fly twice on a circle with known poor air would not be much fun and wouldn't prove much about the contestant's capabilities. Talk about luck of the draw!! NOBODY has any control over when a gust of wind is going to hit, that is for sure. Spread out the grief.

Flying one flight on each circle before different judges and totalling the flights essentially eliminates any chance of recovering from bad luck or a mistake. That really puts a lot more emphasis on luck. Talk about halos and stuff, what do we do about the flyer who always seems to get the lull in the wind when he flys?

That's what happened the last time I flew against you in combat. You had all the good air.

Hi John,
If two circles and two sets of judges are available for the class being flown, I believe it would be most fair to fly on each circle. Judges stay with their circle, fliers swap. Add scores.
Bill <><

Bill...
I believe that the flaw here is that both flights must count....no throwaways...

See Ya

I don't really have any problem with seeding. How would you feel if they used a random draw and you ended up on the same circle with Paul, Richard, Ted, David, Brett, Randy, Billy, Bob and me?

>I don't really have any problem with seeding. How would you
>feel if they used a random draw and you ended up on the same
>circle with Paul, Richard, Ted, David, Brett, Randy, Billy,
>Bob and me?
>
>Don

Wow,
I guess with me in there that will be the top 10 from that circle.

I'd fly like I had to put up my best flight ever, just like always.

I would pray for the wind to come up so I would have a slight chance!!

Bigiron

You and Larry Oakley are 'bout the only ones left doing that wind-sailing deal. It's still neat- when most others are hanging on for dear life or bailing out, you're out there saying "in your face, Wind!" Deadstick! dg

Wind: the Wichita briar patch.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-04 AT 02:07 PM (CST)
 
Don,

>>I don't really have any problem with seeding. How would you feel if they used a random draw and you ended up on the same circle with Paul, Richard, Ted, David, Brett, Randy, Billy, Bob and me? <<

That would be great! I'd lose horribly, but I'd have a heck of a lot of fun doing it.

To one and all,

I posted this because I feel that to run a contest in this manner is grossly unfair. There has been much said about judges not seeing things the same way. In our example (which Mr. Peabody thinks is the way to do it) Let's consider that one set of judges will consistently score 50-60 points lower than the other set. It is then quite possible that the # 6 or 7th (or both) ranked flier on one circle might be actually a better flier than the #1 ranked flier on the other circle. If the purpose is to actually determine the top 10 for purposes of determining the order of finish out of all the contestants. Said determination to be made (presumably) by flights on the same circle in front of the same set of judges. In order to do that, the preliminaries must be just as equal. Two circle, two judge formats are flown at many contest (most notably: VSC) Then these two scores are added together and it should result in a proper placement down to the last place.

Variables like wind conditions, where the sun is when you fly, etc..etc..etc... are not things that can be controlled with "rule book" changes. Seeding is not a real issue if the contest is combined scores. It doesn't matter if all the past Nats champs are on one circle or not because they are all going to have to add their scores anyway. The seeding of contestants or for that matter judges was not the purpose of my post. I was trying to determine if this really presented a level playing field in the minds of those who have more experience than I.

Apparently, the only one who disagrees and sees nothing wrong with this is Mr. Peabody who actually is in charge. This is a non official event at the Nats and so the only one to complain to is Mr. Peabody. I had hoped that with some direction from competitors and or officials with more experience than Mr. Peabody, He might consider changing the way the contest is set up in the future.

I would be first in line to applaud Mr. Peabody for his effort over these many years and the time he has devoted to running this "un-official" event (PA-I) but I would not drive 1000 miles (one way) to enter it again if the format were to remain the same.

With respect and thanks again to all who responded,

I have flown several years in intermediate at the Nats on the grass pad. Yes it is an unofficial event according to AMA and PAMPA. The beginner competition is unofficial. It also is flown off the grass pad. Now we have Classic and Old Time which to my knowledge are unofficial events. They get to fly off the L Pad. As far as the way Richard Peabody has run intermediate does not seem odd to me. Usually we have to hurry before the rain and wind come in. He gets two grass circles and two sets of judges. Then we go to the top ten. That is if weather permits. If you don't fly intermediate at the Nats under Peabody's leadership, keep quiet. He just may decide to concentrate on flying his class of stunt by practicing. If you do fly under his leadership, complain before flying starts not after it is all done. Enough said, -DOC:(

LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-04 AT 04:39 PM (CST)
 
Rich,

This simply blows my mind, even with the switching of circles there is no equity in highest score. If not the total then the total divided by 2, each pilot has to have his efforts from both circles as a part of his score to give a true reflection of his overall performance. Highest score is only fair if all flights are judged by the same set of judges.

Hi Randy,
That is my thinking on the senario. Why would we need a throwaway score? We are looking for the best on that day. To me, two separate circles with two separate sets of judges is two separate contests.
Even with seeding, the fact would remain that if you take the top 5 from each circle, the #6 on one circle could be flying better than the #4 from the other. If the scores are added then the high and low circles even out. The possibility of a high and low scoring circle seems to be all too possible. (if not always the case)
A bad flight can be the possibility for all contestants. If so, then they aren't the "best" that day.
Why is that a problem? (hypothetical qustion)
Bill <><

LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-04 AT 04:40 PM (CST)
 
Precisely my point Bill, take a look at my earlier post, #6. My reponse to Rich was in a way sarcastic and could have been worded better.

I've gone back and deleted what I think is the confusing wording.