Seeding the Circles at the Nats

I have an idea for seeding. In this way it could be made into a rule and added to the rulebook. It is based on some ideas from myself and Doug.

1. Upon registering for the Nationals competition, all fliers will be required to check a box on the entry form determining whether they have participated in an OPEN CLASS WALKER CUP FLYOFF IN THE LAST (10) years.

2. If any flier has flown in a Walker Cup flyoff in the last (10) years, he will be considered a SEEDED flier.

3. If any flier has NOT competed in the Walker Cup flyoff in the last (10) years, he will be considered an UNSEEDED flier.

4. All SEEDED and UNSEEDED fliers’ names will be drawn randomly from separate draws. The pilot draw will take place at the Pilot’s Meeting. The order of draw from each category will determine the circle placement. Odd numbered fliers from each draw will fly on Circle One, ad even numbered fliers will fly on Circle Two.

5. All late entries will not be seeded and will be added as the need for fliers in a particular circle warrants.

I don't know Brad, I still think the whole idea is rediculous. Draw a flight position, fly both circles, done deal.

>I don't know Brad, I still think the whole idea is
>rediculous. Draw a flight position, fly both circles, done
>deal.

I think seeding should be eliminated, but I have a feeling that any attempt to promote this idea will be met with a lot of bitching, whining, crying, nashing of teeth, stamping of feet, etc.

This is my compromise proposal. It is the most important thing to be able to express Nats procedures in terms of absolutes, instead of intangibles. This procedure has absolute terms, at least.

>I think seeding should be eliminated, but I have a feeling
>that any attempt to promote this idea will be met with a lot
>of bitching, whining, crying, nashing of teeth, stamping of
>feet, etc.

I cant stop giggling(sp)...I cant stop. That is funny!

>
>This is my compromise proposal. It is the most important
>thing to be able to express Nats procedures in terms of
>absolutes, instead of intangibles. This procedure has
>absolute terms, at least.

This last statement is so TRUE. The only real way the entrants, AND THAT MEANS ALL OF THEM, are protected or treated fairly is if the actual procedures taken to run the contest are in the RB. I guess Protected is not a good word but I couldnt think of any other one. BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT it ALSO PROTECTS the CD and ALL personell who are running the thing. It really only seems like the right thing to do. I just cant believe it isnt this way now. I never even thought of it until a few friends from other disciplines enlightened me on this subject.

>I have an idea for seeding. In this way it could be made
>into a rule and added to the rulebook. It is based on some
>ideas from myself and Doug.
>
>1. Upon registering for the Nationals competition, all
>fliers will be required to check a box on the entry form
>determining whether they have participated in an OPEN CLASS
>WALKER CUP FLYOFF IN THE LAST (10) years.
>
>2. If any flier has flown in a Walker Cup flyoff in the
>last (10) years, he will be considered a SEEDED flier.
>
>3. If any flier has NOT competed in the Walker Cup flyoff
>in the last (10) years, he will be considered an UNSEEDED
>flier.

That's WAY too restrictive. I think that if you add it up, there are only about 10-12 people total that fit the bill. But there are many people who are so good they ought to be seeded to make it fair for everyone. If you expand it to the Top 20, then you have roughly the right scope.

Remember - seeding is there to make it more fair for everyone. Not seeding it, or very severely restricting it, puts the luck of the draw back into the mix. There's enough randomness now. And once you get to Friday, then it's heads-up anyway.

I assume the underlying idea is to get more "turnover" in the Top 20. But getting it by lucking into it is not something I think anyone would really appreciate.

> That's WAY too restrictive. I think that if you add it
>up, there are only about 10-12 people total that fit the
>bill.

Rrrrrrrrright......???? (yes)

But there are many people who are so good they ought
>to be seeded to make it fair for everyone. If you expand it
>to the Top 20, then you have roughly the right scope.

So what should be the criteria to determine who is seeded?

Ted Fancher
Brett Buck
Windy Urt
Billy Werwage
Bob Hunt
Doug Moon
Richard Oliver
Randy Smith
Bill Rich
Curt Contrada
Frank McMillan
Kaz Minato
Paul Walker
Constantine
Todd Lee
David Fitzgerald

...all Top 5 in last 10 years, and there are more I am sure. This isn't enough? How many seeded fliers should there be? Half? I don't agree. This is a lot already.

I'm afraid I don't qualify for your list.

>I'm afraid I don't qualify for your list.

Oops. I thought you made the Top 5. I guess you were real close in 2003, right?

> I assume the underlying idea is to get more "turnover"
>in the Top 20. But getting it by lucking into it is not
>something I think anyone would really appreciate.

No. The underlying idea to address the seeding issue is to be able to create a procedure that would stand up to rule type scrutiny. The current procedures will not stand up to being made into a rule.

Brad,
If I were in favor of seeding, then I think it is a pretty good idea you have there. But, the knowledge is already available as to who has been in the flyoffs without much work to find out who they are.
IMHO, I would limit it to 5 years.
The best that week will still win in our present set up, seeded or not.
Bill <><

>Brad,
>If I were in favor of seeding, then I think it
>is a pretty good idea you have there.

From my unoffical polls there are only a handful of people who appear to have any interest in continuing with seeding.

The majority of "folks" I speak to would eliminate the practice.

>Please, if you feel strongly one way or the other
>
> Post it on this
>thread!!!!! Speak up!!!
>

Well if you are going to have seeding then it needs to be based on a criteria.(sp) Since there is NO way to track people nationwide. There is no way to compare people head to head and rank them with any real consistancy. it should be based on the years performace only. The top 2-9 from the year prior are seeded and that is IT! Number from the year prior, Walker trophy winner gets a BYE into Friday. If they dont all come then you move down the entrants list until you get the top 8. Follow? The rest are in the hat. It rewards you for attending and kicking it the year prior. It does not limit you to the top 5.

That is all it should be based on. Not REPUTATION but PERFORMANCE from the year prior.

The top 2-9 from the
>year prior are seeded and that is IT! Number from the year
>prior, Walker trophy winner gets a BYE into Friday.

I would buy that too.

If they
>dont all come then you move down the entrants list until you
>get the top 8. Follow?

I would say, if you do not show, you do not get seeded, no replacements.

You have to have some criteria. This seems to be as good as any. Using last year's top placers to seed and giving the winner a bye out of qualifying sounds good, if you are going to do seeding. Repeaters should get a little advanatage.

Depending on how much you have in the way of records, you can calculate some sort of performance figure going back as many years as you want. In tennis I think they go back and look at every tournament you played in to determine seeding at the top tournaments.

>Depending on how much you have in the way of records, you
>can calculate some sort of performance figure going back as
>many years as you want. In tennis I think they go back and
>look at every tournament you played in to determine seeding
>at the top tournaments.

Please do not bring other sports into this. These DO NOT apply. Other sports with head to head competition are based on performance during the year to create your rank. Then your rank "seeds" you in a bracket. We are not in a bracket. We are much more like NASCAR. All 40+ shooting for one spot all at the same time. This is not head to head elimenation rounds like tennis basketball or football. These sports and their procedures DO NOT APPLY!

NASCAR qualifies each and every week no matter who you are and what you have done you have to get out there and get in!

>>Brad,
>>If I were in favor of seeding, then I think it
>>is a pretty good idea you have there.
>
>From my unoffical polls there are only a handful of people
>who appear to have any interest in continuing with seeding.
>
>The majority of "folks" I speak to would eliminate the
>practice.

Scientifically taken poll, of course.

Actually, Brad, it doesn't personally affect me either way, probably, so from that standpoint, I don't care if it gets done or not. And I can guarantee that the guys on the list don't care either. We'll fly head-up with anybody. Or do you think Billy and Paul count on the seeding to make it to Friday?

BUT - what about all those guys who don't qualify for your special treatment? There are at least the same number of people who *could* make it in that they are close enough to make it on a good day. What happens when your random draw puts 7-8 of them on the same circle with 6 or so of the "chosen few"? A whole bunch of guys are knocked out right off the bat. While on the other circle, you have close to a free ride for some people who qualify by default.

Any idea that seeding is some sort of a conspiracy by the elite against the "Joe Bellcranks" is absurd. Seeding helps the "guys on the edge" - not the hotshots on your list (which appears to be wrong, I might add). And then figure out whos *not* on the list - like the several former national champions.

> Scientifically taken poll, of course.

> BUT - what about all those guys who don't qualify for
>your special treatment? There are at least the same number
>of people who *could* make it in that they are close enough
>to make it on a good day. What happens when your random draw
>puts 7-8 of them on the same circle with 6 or so of the
>"chosen few"? A whole bunch of guys are knocked out right
>off the bat. While on the other circle, you have close to a
>free ride for some people who qualify by default.

So, once again Brett, you have a great talent for critizism of other people's ideas, yet you present no alternatives.

WHAT CRITERIA WOULD YOU USE? Let's hear it.

You keep assuming that the seeded fliers are OBVIOUSLY going to take ALL of the top spots in their circle. EVERYONE flying against them is a disadvantage ALL THE TIME. That is an interesting assumption.

>>The majority of "folks" I speak to would eliminate the
>>practice.
>
> Scientifically taken poll, of course.

No, actually just asking my FRIENDS (some people have more than one or two) and people I speak to on the phone (which has been a lot of people lately with all the JB/Fancher bull going on). Why does a poll for model airplanes need to be "scientific"? Cutting edge important stuff here...

If none of the fliers care about seeding on the list, why in the heck are we doing it? Are you doing it for my benefit, so I have a better chance? If so, we can stop.

Seeding
>helps the "guys on the edge"

Prove it.

- not the hotshots on your
>list (which appears to be wrong, I might add). And then
>figure out whos *not* on the list - like the several former
>national champions.

Once again, thanks for your ever present help in policing the facts.

> Seeding
>>helps the "guys on the edge"
>
>Prove it.

Always the thoughtful gentlemen.

Line up 11 of the above list all on one circle. Tell me how many guys outside that list make it. Then take the remainder (maybe 3-4 people in any given year), and put them on the other circle. Which circle does the unseeded Joe Bellcrank wish he was on?

>- not the hotshots on your
>>list (which appears to be wrong, I might add). And then
>>figure out whos *not* on the list - like the several former
>>national champions.
>
>Once again, thanks for your ever present help in policing
>the facts.

So, it's OK if you make up stuff or get it wrong as long as you make whatever half-assed point you want to make, but it's not all right to point it out. Good to know.

You, sir, are truly a piece of work.

>> Seeding
>>>helps the "guys on the edge"
>>
>>Prove it.
>
> Always the thoughtful gentlemen.

This is an interesting tact from you. I never once heard you worrying about Joe Bellcrank, except to say that it would suck if they made it into the Top 20 because the circles weren't balanced (you have said that several times on SSW). Mostly you have echoed the sentiment that a stacked circle could lead to a top flier missing Friday (you have said this several times on SSW).

>>- not the hotshots on your
>>>list (which appears to be wrong, I might add). And then
>>>figure out whos *not* on the list - like the several former
>>>national champions.
>>
>>Once again, thanks for your ever present help in policing
>>the facts.
>
> So, it's OK if you make up stuff or get it wrong as long
>as you make whatever half-assed point you want to make, but
>it's not all right to point it out. Good to know.
>

No, I have no problem admitting when my facts (place on a forum on the Internet, which is equal to what??????? Testifying in court?????) are incorrect. I was obviously incorect about Howard. I am just seriously sick of YOU POINTING IT OUT. You add nothing to the conversation except to point out WHAT YOU DO NOT LIKE about a topic or fact, and do not present alternatives at all.

> You, sir, are truly a piece of work.

Thanks.

I am starting to believe that being the anti-Buck is a good position.

I am agreeing with Brett on this. I am definitely for seeding and I respectfully disagree with you, Brad, that the majority of the flyers don't want it. The whole idea is to put some semblance of balance between the two circles. Quite frankly I think that over the past few years they have done an excellent job of seeding the circles. And seeding can extend into twelve or fifteen of those competing in each circle.

Quite frankly, it makes it tough for the new guy. He has to crawl over about five of those guys just to make it into the top ten of his circle. If you did a random draw--five seeded players in each circle and the rest a random draw, then it might be that one good flyer was competing against a whole circle of good flyers and the other circle has three or four slots available in the top ten for just about anybody.

This is what seeding is all about--making it a level playing field for everybody and trying to get the best of the best to move to the top. You need to deserve your spot in the top 20, so it is as much about getting the very best to move forward as it is to trying to make sure that a few stragglers don't get in that don't really deserve to be there.

It is working now. Leave it alone! (Why does somebody always want to mess with what is working?)

How do they seed the top tennis players in a tournament? I dont play enought to know but believe they do it.

>How do they seed the top tennis players in a tournament? I
>dont play enought to know but believe they do it.
>
>Curt

They have a ranking system, like golf.

Someone come up with a ranking system that can be stated in less than two sentences, and I will be happy.

I think I have done that here. It is not necessary to have a ranking system down to the decimal point because this is not a match play sport, and individual matches are not defined. Defining a cutoff is sufficient, a points system is not required like tennis or golf.

>How do they seed the top tennis players in a tournament? I
>dont play enought to know but believe they do it.
>
>Curt

PLease dont start with tennis and other head to head sports. In tennis you earn a "rank" based on your performance throughout the current year plus a few other catagories. That rank "seeds" you in a bracket for head to head competition. The higher the seed the lesser the opponent. It does not apply here since we dont compete head to head. We are judged and what another pilot does has no "direct" effect on another. ONLY what the judge sees effects us. These head to head sports dont count. Same applys with golf. There is a clear cut way to get a higher rank wich in turn gives you a higher seed, or later tee time.

These ideas dont really apply to CLPA.

Let's see. X number of fliers from each circle will advance, correct? So it helps to even out the number of "top fliers" on each circle, so that some "top fliers" don't get to advance because there are a lot of top fliers on that circle as opposed to the other circle, where there only a few of them.

So this IS head-to-head, in a way. Or, as the Butterfly in a certain Peter Beagle movie would put it, it's head-to-head-to-head-to-head-to-head..

>I am agreeing with Brett on this. I am definitely for
>seeding and I respectfully disagree with you, Brad, that the
>majority of the flyers don't want it. The whole idea is to
>put some semblance of balance between the two circles.
>Quite frankly I think that over the past few years they have
>done an excellent job of seeding the circles. And seeding
>can extend into twelve or fifteen of those competing in each
>circle.
>
Ok, fine.

I said I had no intention of trying to eliminate seeding. I think I SAID THAT IN THE OPENING OF THE THREAD. The idea is to come up with a criteria that could be DOCUMENTED in a rule, and used over and over again in exactly the same fashion.

I have a criteria that I presented. Other types of criteria would be welcomed. I will not be a part of the nashing, crying, whining, stomping of feet on either side.

So, we all agree that seeding in some fashion must exist, at least for the time being. The only way I can see to document a procedure is to create a RANK for fliers. I have no interest in creating a database for National rankings, so I figure a simple criteria would be best. Something that could be determined easily without a calculator.

The important thing is that even within the seeded ranks, the split between the circles is random.

I think the present criteria, Brad, is who qualified for the top 20 at the Nats or the top 10 at the FAI trials in the last 2 (or whatever) years. Since this is what the preliminary rounds are all about, those who have made it to that goal in the previous (how many years) is thus used. Then these are spread out as well, as I recall. 1, 3, 5 place from the previous year are in one circle, 2, 4, 6 (or whatever) are in another.

Now, I may be off a bit, but, as I recall this is the present procedure. This year when the people from the worlds competition were also competing, they were seeded in the various circles by their placement as well.

It is an easy to document process and works quite well. Now, not everyone shows up every year, and if you came back from two years ago your competitive abilities may change. A new person can show up who has just never been to a Nats, but is world class competition. There is nothing perfect. If it were perfect we could simply seed people and then hand out the trophies. Skip the competition. But as it is it works pretty good and I don't see a reason to make it hard and fast into a rule.

>I think the present criteria, Brad, is who qualified for the
>top 20 at the Nats or the top 10 at the FAI trials in the
>last 2 (or whatever) years. Since this is what the
>preliminary rounds are all about, those who have made it to
>that goal in the previous (how many years) is thus used.
>Then these are spread out as well, as I recall. 1, 3, 5
>place from the previous year are in one circle, 2, 4, 6 (or
>whatever) are in another.

>It is an easy to document process and works quite well.

Hey great! Write up the procedure, I will include it.

But as it is it
>works pretty good and I don't see a reason to make it hard
>and fast into a rule.

Think about this one for a minute Leonard. There is a bunch of talk out there right now about how John B. just up and does stuff he thinks is OK. People are all flapped up about it right now BIG TIME! All of us are.

Now think about a procedure that is not in the rulebook. This means it has no "Real" definition that can be protested. How are you going to protest something that isnt in the RB? The AMA has no jurisdiction over it what so ever. So a few years from now. Warren no longer wants the headache. Can you blame him? Someone steps in and wants to change the procedure on the fly. As it stands now I think they could do this. There is no way to protest it. Make it a rule in the RB and it doesnt matter if Jimmy Joe from Egypt is running the contest. He will have to follow the rules, or else stand a protest that goes to the AMA. That protects the enrants from practices such as these. It also takes out any question of what the CD is doing. You dont question him. You question the rule/procedure printed in the book. It puts the pressure on the RB and relieves the CD and personell of any options as far as these types of procedures are concerned.

You and many others claim this type of behavior is happening with our Presidency. Dont just think it is limited to that particular postion....It is called CYA.

The real reason for this thread is to see two things. Support for seeding, and how to get it as rule so that pilots and the CDs are all protected from each other.

Think on it for a minute and get back to us?

Please tell us how it is not advantageous to have it IN the rulebook?

>Now think about a procedure that is not in the rulebook.
>This means it has no "Real" definition that can be
>protested. How are you going to protest something that isnt
>in the RB? The AMA has no jurisdiction over it what so
>ever. So a few years from now. Warren no longer wants the
>headache. Can you blame him? Someone steps in and wants to
>change the procedure on the fly. As it stands now I think
>they could do this. There is no way to protest it.

Everyone should read this

This is not "complaining" or "trying to change the event" it is an attempt to discuss an effort to document what we do now to the best of our ability to ensure the event remains consistent. These procedures should be in the rulebook.

Anything that could potentially affect your score should be in the rulebook.

Seeding just happens to be a more difficult nut to crack.

Brad....
There is a document that outlines "Nats seeding"...both for pilots and judges....the flaw is that there is nothing in the document that explains how the seed is determined....
We have both ends of a procedure without a definition....

See Ya

Peabody
http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_redorblue.html

>Brad....
>There is a document that outlines "Nats seeding"...both for
>pilots and judges....the flaw is that there is nothing in
>the document that explains how the seed is determined....
>We have both ends of a procedure without a definition....

I know, I have a scan of it. The Nats Guide sold by PAMPA determines that seeding is extremely important, and strongly encourages the practice, but gives no procedure for determining the seeds or how they should be assigned.

Remember, this is all that exists in terms of documentation that I can find. At least in terms of documentation made public.

March 1,1994 Nats CLPA ED Guide Page 18

Seedinq Process

In order to have equally balanced circles you need to seed to the
very last pilot. This is a relatively simple method and takes very little time. You take the highest scoring pilot and put him/her in Circle One and the next highest scoring pilot will then be placed in Circle Two. Working backwards in your next position place the next highest scorer in Circle 2 and the 4th highest in Circle 1. The Sth highest scorer will then go into circle 1 and the 6th will go in Circle 2. Continue in this fashion until all pilots are seeded.

For Seeding the Friday contest, I see nothing wrong with this method. It could easily be adopted as the official procedure.

March 1,1994 Nats CLPA ED Guide Page 18

Seedinq Judges

Another aspect of the seeding process is to seed the judges as
much as possible. Try not to let flying buddies/fathers and
sons/husbands and wives judge each other if at all possible. You will
need to get together with the Head Judge and determine how each judge
scores, whether he/she is consistently high or consistently low. When
seeding the judges for qualifying days you should aim for mixing high
and low judges as much as possible. The tabulator can also keep tabs
on the judges throughout the competition. If a problem should develop
you do not change judges during qualifying. However, you can make a
mental note of the problem and decide where to place that judge on day
3 and whether or not to use him/her on day 4.
Another thing to consider is to have a geographical
representation on each circle if at all possible. Such as one judge
from the West coast working with another judge from the East and one
from the South or North.
A good method to use for initial seeding of judges is to have
them put their names on their practice sheets during Tuesday's
training session and collect them at the end of the session. You can
then use these to track the judges and aid in your placement of them.

I have been told there are other documents, I am working on obtaining this document also.

>It is working now. Leave it alone! (Why does somebody
>always want to mess with what is working?)

What is working now?

What is the current procedure? Where is it written? As far as I can tell, none of the seeding procedures are documented. No one on this board has ever discussed a seeding procedure, and seeding has been brought up several times.

I just want to see the procedures end up in the the rulebook. If the current procedures are definable (as you stated) I would have ZERO problem with it being documented.

>(Why does somebody
>always want to mess with what is working?)

Leonard,
Respectfully, I am not so sure anyone is messing with what is working. The notion or belief that "seeding" should be entered into the rulebook is extremely valid..Unwritten policy and/or the unspoken rule has a tendency to create problems or being interperted too many differnt ways..The policy and/or rule provides the guidlines in which to follow, and lord knows we need structure and a reference point..The seeding issue is important, and from a personal perspective I like the idea of tracking from the previous year..I have some concerns around rigidity, but we do need some decisive action concerning this matter..The other topic that annoys me some is that conflict and/or heated thread discussions are not okay/constructive!!!That raising an issue and debating it is observed as negative and/or wrong! Then terms such as: "Whinning-"complaining" and other machoistic "vebage" are used to describe it...At risk of being "provokative" I will not add more. However, it seems that the health of this event resides on its ability to tolerate/manage and even encourage debates, especially, around issue of such significance..Individuals who struggle with conflict may or could benefit from the process--It is the process, not so much the content that always strikes me...Regards David....

>>(Why does somebody
>>always want to mess with what is working?)
>
>Leonard,
>Respectfully, I am not so sure anyone is messing with what
>is working. The notion or belief that "seeding" should be
>entered into the rulebook is extremely valid..Unwritten
>policy and/or the unspoken rule has a tendency to create
>problems or being interperted too many differnt ways..The
>policy and/or rule provides the guidlines in which to
>follow, and lord knows we need structure and a reference
>point..The seeding issue is important, and from a personal
>perspective I like the idea of tracking from the previous
>year..I have some concerns around rigidity, but we do need
>some decisive action concerning this matter..

I would have no issue with that, and Brad has so stated that this is what he would like to see, also. His original proposal, however, watered down the seeding process considerably and, after the first lot (those who had made the top 5 only) left everyone else subject to random draw. This would definitely be a change from present practice that I would not like to see.

If a rules proposal could be drawn up defining the seeding process that includes at least the top 20 finishers from the last few years, and maybe even seeds the rest as to how they qualified, then I think that would be quite helpful.

Taking the last ten years, however, is maybe going a bit far. Someone winning the Nats one year might not even qualify for the top 20 ten years later, either due to age (happens to us all) or inactivity.

>The other topic
>that annoys me some is that conflict and/or heated thread
>discussions are not okay/constructive!!!That raising an
>issue and debating it is observed as negative and/or wrong!
>Then terms such as: "Whinning-"complaining" and other
>machoistic "vebage" are used to describe it...At risk of
>being "provokative" I will not add more. However, it seems
>that the health of this event resides on its ability to
>tolerate/manage and even encourage debates, especially,
>around issue of such significance..Individuals who struggle
>with conflict may or could benefit from the process--It is
>the process, not so much the content that always strikes
>me...Regards David....

I agree. Sometimes we can ask questions, raise concerns, etc. but we need to try to be civil one to another. And we need to listen to valid objections so that we can truly see all sides. Sometimes we find we are on the wrong side of an issue and need to be willing to switch sides when a new and better plan is advanced. I am not one, however, who believes that change for the sake of change is good. If we can as much as possible use what is good from the present and then find ways to improve upon it, we will better the event for the future.

>His original
>proposal, however, watered down the seeding process
>considerably and, after the first lot (those who had made
>the top 5 only) left everyone else subject to random draw.
>This would definitely be a change from present practice that
>I would not like to see.

My idea was original and not based on any current practice, because I believe the current procedure is not only not published, I doubt that it is a true "practice".

You made the example concerning the WC fliers, that would be outside anything that would have ever been done before.

I do not see the previous Top 20 finishes being nearly as important as determing those fliers that have actively competed for the Walker Cup in recent years. I see no need to make special provisions for the lower finishers in the Top 20. The idea of seeding was to ensure that the dominant fliers would be evenly split. I believe that being in a Walker Cup flyoff would be a better definition of "dominant", and in recent years. If you are going to seed half of the fliers in an event, and not the others, drop the practice all together. To require "special considerations" for seeding, one should have a very specific resume, and that would mean that the flier was in the running to WIN the event, not make the Top 20, and recently.

>If a rules proposal could be drawn up defining the seeding
>process that includes at least the top 20 finishers from the
>last few years, and maybe even seeds the rest as to how they
>qualified, then I think that would be quite helpful.

Why? You are watering down the seeding process. It is only valid if you are seeding the most dominate fliers, ones that consistently compete for the Cup.

>Taking the last ten years, however, is maybe going a bit
>far. Someone winning the Nats one year might not even
>qualify for the top 20 ten years later, either due to age
>(happens to us all) or inactivity.

I do not understand what you are saying here. That is certainly not the case today. The list is not small using my criteria.

I would be willing to include the previous year's Top 5 fliers, and even give the Cup holder an automatic BUY into the finals, as Doug suggested. That seems only fair.

>I agree. Sometimes we can ask questions, raise concerns,
>etc. but we need to try to be civil one to another. And we
>need to listen to valid objections so that we can truly see
>all sides.

Every discussion cannot be one person proposes a plan of action, and the other person voices their disapproval of every concept without ever offering a counter proposal.

Len:
I wonder if a rules proposal is necessary?
PAMPA is charged by our AMA with providing an ED and help to stage the National Championships....
I would think that PAMPA, through a Competition Committee, should be able to state a proceedure such as seeeding, or judge selection, without having to go through the rules change process....and that it would be fine if they stuck with it.

See Ya

>I would think that PAMPA, through a Competition Committee,
>should be able to state a proceedure such as seeeding, or
>judge selection, without having to go through the rules
>change process....and that it would be fine if they stuck
>with it.

Hey, fine. Still not going to stop the need for all of the Nats procedures needing to be in the rulebook.

>>>(Why does somebody
>>>always want to mess with what is working?)
>>
>>Leonard,
>>Respectfully, I am not so sure anyone is messing with what
>>is working. The notion or belief that "seeding" should be
>>entered into the rulebook is extremely valid..Unwritten
>>policy and/or the unspoken rule has a tendency to create
>>problems or being interperted too many differnt ways..The
>>policy and/or rule provides the guidlines in which to
>>follow, and lord knows we need structure and a reference
>>point..The seeding issue is important, and from a personal
>>perspective I like the idea of tracking from the previous
>>year..I have some concerns around rigidity, but we do need
>>some decisive action concerning this matter..
>
>I would have no issue with that, and Brad has so stated that
>this is what he would like to see, also. His original
>proposal, however, watered down the seeding process
>considerably and, after the first lot (those who had made
>the top 5 only) left everyone else subject to random draw.
>This would definitely be a change from present practice that
>I would not like to see.
>
>If a rules proposal could be drawn up defining the seeding
>process that includes at least the top 20 finishers from the
>last few years, and maybe even seeds the rest as to how they
>qualified, then I think that would be quite helpful.
>
>Taking the last ten years, however, is maybe going a bit
>far. Someone winning the Nats one year might not even
>qualify for the top 20 ten years later, either due to age
>(happens to us all) or inactivity.
>
>
>>The other topic
>>that annoys me some is that conflict and/or heated thread
>>discussions are not okay/constructive!!!That raising an
>>issue and debating it is observed as negative and/or wrong!
>>Then terms such as: "Whinning-"complaining" and other
>>machoistic "vebage" are used to describe it...At risk of
>>being "provokative" I will not add more. However, it seems
>>that the health of this event resides on its ability to
>>tolerate/manage and even encourage debates, especially,
>>around issue of such significance..Individuals who struggle
>>with conflict may or could benefit from the process--It is
>>the process, not so much the content that always strikes
>>me...Regards David....
>
>I agree. Sometimes we can ask questions, raise concerns,
>etc. but we need to try to be civil one to another. And we
>need to listen to valid objections so that we can truly see
>all sides. Sometimes we find we are on the wrong side of an
>issue and need to be willing to switch sides when a new and
>better plan is advanced. I am not one, however, who
>believes that change for the sake of change is good. If we
>can as much as possible use what is good from the present
>and then find ways to improve upon it, we will better the
>event for the future.

Leonard,
Thanks for your candid response...I appreciate your work and effort.What is interesting Leonard is that it's never really the topic or the issue at hand, but really how individuals respond toward it..I have really embarrased myself in this event more than once..I had a verbal conflict at the Nats one year with 3 judges that really forced me to recognize and acknolwedge my shortcomings regarding this.What I also learned was I knew of no other way to express my anger than the way I did at that moment in time!!!!
I think we all have had our share of poor communication experiences. One thing I always try to remember concerning communication, is that people are communciating the only way they know how!!!Meaning that when they respond they are presenting their skill level with communciation and problem solving etc..It is no different than someone coming to me and saying speak Russian now DAvid!!!Well I dont know how..So asking or expecting someone to communciate constructively, resolve conflict, follow a protoclo/process etc, is honorable, but maybe unrealsitic..What I have learned throughout my life is that people do just what they have learned to do and capable of doing. Sometimes a circumstance/consequences internal or external forces them to do differently. Usually the change and/or recognition is always a process and never, or usually never, an event!!! I believe this paradigm and/or theory base applies to how we process debates/conflicts on this Website..I just want to validate your efforts and spirit regarding this challenging group of stunt flyers...Thanks DAvid..

And then
>figure out whos *not* on the list - like the several former
>national champions.
>

Oh, I know. I have no interest in seeding a pilot who has not made the Top 5 in last 10 years. I really do not think that seeding these people really affects the bottom line.

So, just becasue somebody won the Nats, they should be seeded?

The thing that everyone needs to understand is that seeding DOES effect the outcome of the contest. Placing high or winning one of the qualifier circles is a huge IMPRESSION boost to any flier. IT'S A BIG DEAL. Splitting the better fliers increases the chances of a higher place on their circle, even though they are still just about guaranteed to qualify becasue their are not enough "master fliers" to fill the Top 20, even if we assume they all showed up and flew well.

I DON'T feel strongly either way about seeding established highly competent fliers.

I wonder how many others DON'T feel strongly pro or anti. Limiting the call for responses to only those who DO feel strongly could lead to a lot of repetitive discordant comment.

Lest we forget, the intent of seeding is to prevent randomly drawing a circle flight order with all 12 or 15 of the guys you would seed. Only the top five from that circle (if there are four 1st-cut circles in all) would advance to top 20.

Many of those who wouldn't advance -- simply because of the stacked circle -- are guys we have learned and benefitted so much from over the years as we developed in this hobby. Send them home after the first round? Nice gratitude and respect, there... Leaves them with a great reputation hit, too -- knocked out in the prelims!

The five who DO advance will most likely place well. The other circles might have some excellent up-and-coming fliers, or might not. Still, five from each circle advance to top 20. Cheap boasting rights if they don't come within 50 or 60 points of the five from the "heavyweights" circle...

Unless the first round procedure has changed, this seems representative of the idea behind seeding.

Brad...I say that those that you have outlined should be moved to MASTER CLASS....

While I think that seeding should only be the top 4 from the prior year, two per circle, and OPEN class only, I would support your proposal, because, as you say, it does define something, and makes it possible for all to know and understand the procedures....

Now, do the same thing with Judges!

See Ya

>Brad...I say that those that you have outlined should be
>moved to MASTER CLASS....

This is like lifting Mt. Everest with a toothpick. It defies probability in our universe.

>Brad...I say that those that you have outlined should be
>moved to MASTER CLASS....

This is kooky talk. We have plenty of classes as it is. We have the same people every year. Why devide it up even more? Makes no sense. All we really need is new talent to challange for top honors.

>
>Now, do the same thing with Judges!
>

What? They dont pick them randomly and place them on the circles? Shouldnt they pick all the judges out of a hat on tuesday for the regular contest. Then find ten of the crop, on tuesday as well, who can stay for saturday and pick 8 more out of the hat for Jr Sr Flyoff and Walker. Sounds pretty simple to me.

>>Brad...I say that those that you have outlined should be
>>moved to MASTER CLASS....
>
>This is kooky talk.

Take it easy on Rich...now... take it easy. He is taking that new medicine for kookiness.

There is no cure you know....

Guys, you all took mathematics in school, and this problem is amenable to ciphering. Stop waving your arms and do some calculating.

>Guys, you all took mathematics in school, and this problem
>is amenable to ciphering. Stop waving your arms and do some
>calculating.

Help us Howard.

I know you have a take.

Are right as it was asked earlier, why hasn't the seeding procedures been posted? I would almost bet the top five at the Nats this year couldn't tell you how they were seeded. Seems the ones doing the compaining are the ones who can't make the top twenty at the Nats. Also if you look at some of the results in Stunt News. Seems some of the top flyers have been beaten at their local meets. Of course the alternative is for the AMA to take over again and run it like the old Navy Sponsored days. Contestant draws his or her card when ready to fly. Must be done between 08:00 and 17:00, no exceptions. I really want to say leave the Nats alone as far as the Open/Expert flyers. Now why do we keep beating a dead horse. -DOC

I think a quote from Dave Cook's District 1 column in the Sept/Oct issue of Stunt News has a lot of bearing on the thinking behind seeding.

"Because of the number of contestans entered in Advanced and Open at the AMA Nats, they elected to go with mixing Advanced and Open flyers to balance out the number of contestants in each circle. This made if difficult for the judges to keep on track as the skill levels varied so greatly from flight to flight. Consequently there were some surprising results in who did and did not make the cut."

Also a quote from Brett Buck's column in the same issue bearing on this:
"The return for this year of the 5 pilots from each of 4 circles(vs. top 10 from two) was certainly a good idea for such an imbalance between Advanced and Expert. But, just like the last time we did it, it made the seeding very critical and added a bit to the luck of the draw factor in qualifying."

Both of these quotes leave me with the impression that the purpose of seeding is to give the the top-seeded flyers the best chance of winning, and that giving the judges a wider range of flyers to look at makes this more difficult and is to be avoided.

Perhaps, rather than picking a fixed number of pilots from each qualifying circle pick the pilots within 5% or 10% of the top score on a circle(or whatever percentage gives 20 flyers overall). If a fair number of really good flyers were on one circle, presumably their scores would be fairly close and most of them would be in the top X%. A circle with mostly less skilled flyers would likely have fewer pilots in the top x%. Then seeding would be irrelevant.

It is worth noting that para 7.1 of the rules, which allows a qualification format at the NATS makes no mention of seeding. That means that if someone is disadvantaged by seeding they could file a protest, and would likely have it upheld. What constitutes "fair" depends on your perspective. Someone seriously pissed off might even file a lawsuit and have a good chance of winning, since the rules were not followed and they were purposefully disadvantaged by the conduct of the contest.

There are lots of equally fair ways of picking the winners from among 60 or so pilots at the NATS that haven't been tried or discussed.

well in the old days it was a lot more fair i think .... a guy that could only do a few manuevers with a ringmaster could compete against everyone else ... no circle preferences ... judges were navy personel ... not friends or enemys ... jim

Myself? I thought the title of the thread had to do with getting grass to grow where so many fliers had trampled it down.

Yeah Tom!! It's very hard to get it to grow on the "L"pads. When It does, it is called Moss.

Well I am going to step on a few toes with the following. Maybe the advanced class ought to be put back as unofficial with intermediate and beginner. Let the experts have the circles to qualify. Make them fly in front of each set of judges according to how many enter the Open competition. Why intersperse advance with expert? We don't do it on the local level. We are at the Nats site to pick the number one pilot in Precision Aerobatics. The Walker Cup, unless it has been changed, is to be contested for by the number one Junior, Senior and Open contestant. Not the top five in Open against the one lone Junior and Senior. At least that was the way it was when the Junior out score the Senior and Open pilot several times. But, if the Nats is going to be run according to skill classes lets run them on separate days. And if we run skill classes, drop the Walker Cup flyoff. Also forget the AMA Junior, Senior and Open classes. Later, -DOC

>Also a quote from Brett Buck's column in the same issue
>bearing on this:
>"The return for this year of the 5 pilots from each of 4
>circles(vs. top 10 from two) was certainly a good idea for
>such an imbalance between Advanced and Expert. But, just
>like the last time we did it, it made the seeding very
>critical and added a bit to the luck of the draw factor in
>qualifying."
>

That's half of the point, yes. The other half was not mentioned for sake of propriety. But don't let that stand in the way of tossing another brickbat.

I don't in any way agree with Dave's point - I just see NO evidence that flying after a "hero" or a "duffer" makes any difference in the score. Not with NATs judges, anyway. I've looked for it, and I just don't pay any attention to it anymore.

And in any case, this year was a whopping anomaly - given that there were twice the entries and far more depth of talent than normal. The mixing was not the problem - that was mandatory given the diiscrepancy. The problem this time was lack of facilities and personnel - something that I also mentioned in the very same column.

The purpose of seeding is to give everybody a decent chance, and not leave it to the luck of the draw that you might get a "hard circle" and "easy circle". Period.

If you got rid of it, you would probably instead be complaining about how so-and-so "got scr*wed" by having to beat a 5-time national champion just to qualify. Like used to happen all the time, and resulted in the system we have now. Almost like someone who knew what they were doing had come up with it. What a remarkable stroke of luck.

Super-hot-shots will make it anyway, since there aren't enough of them at the average NATs to keep them out assuming they don't screw up too badly.

Any idea that a protest of any of this would be upheld is idiocy. There's no specified method for determining who goes on what circle (thankfully, since it allows for variation based on turnout) and thus they can pick it any way they want.

I don't know about anyone else but I would rather fly against the best. It's kind of like drag racing the best man wins. So more practice is in order. JMO

>I don't know about anyone else but I would rather fly
>against the best. It's kind of like drag racing the best man
>wins. So more practice is in order. JMO

You will with the seeding that is done now. Whether you go up against last year's 1, 3, 5 or 2,4,6 it really makes no difference. And then if you are good enough to make it to the top 20, you will go up against the best all around. That is, if the seeding is done. If not, it is pot luck.

The thing though, is HOW is the seeding done, now?

> Any idea that a protest of any of this would be upheld is
>idiocy. There's no specified method for determining who goes
>on what circle (thankfully, since it allows for variation
>based on turnout) and thus they can pick it any way they
>want.
>
> Brett

I just don't see how this is a competitive environment. No other sport on the planet would allow the referees to change the game based on turnout or any other factor. This is simply not done in competition of any level in the real world.

Brad,
I know I am not even in the running for the top 20, so maybe a lot of guys could care less what I think about seeding and procedures of running the NATS. But........

1. I admire the job that Warren and his crew do to put this thing on. having said that, I do believe that the process of seeding (which seems to be sacred) needs to be published so that everyone knows what's going on.

2. It appears that a group of fliers only fly on one circle per day, is that so? Why? If you flew in front of each set of judges each day, then there isn't as much of the "high" vs. "low" circles.

3. Nothing can be done in this subjectively judged event, judged by human beings, flown by human beings, to a prescribed pattern that is know to be impossible at this time to be flown 100% correct, that will ensure "fairness for all". That should be a priori knowledge. Blind or randow draw will probably result in the same winner. Don't know how anyone can argue that. Humans will still have to fly and humans will still have to judge. All humans make mistakes.

If the statement I just made (#3) can be refuted, in a mature manner, please someone, do it.

The world will not end, repeat: not end, if a star doesn't win the Walker Trophy, no matter who he is. There just *might* be a phenom that shows up and can blow everyone in the weeds. Crazy? Crazier things have happened.

The discussion of these topics leaves a lot to be desired due to egos and passions. I'm tired.........

Bill <><

>1. I admire the job that Warren and his crew do to put this
>thing on. having said that, I do believe that the
>process of seeding (which seems to be
>sacred) needs to be published so that everyone knows what's
>going on.

There is nothing sacred about this and I believe it has been published several times. Just take a look at who is in each circle and where they placed in the past. The guys on the world team, for instance, were scattered so no two were in the same circle. In normal years it is 1,3,5,7,etc. vs 2,4,6,8, etc. in the other. That's as fair a seeding as you can get.

>2. It appears that a group of fliers only fly on one circle
>per day, is that so? Why? If you flew in front of each set
>of judges each day, then there isn't as much of the "high"
>vs. "low" circles.

By dividing into two circles you are competeing only against the flyers in your particular circle for a spot in the top 20. Thus it makes no difference whether you have high judges or low judges. You just need consistent judges. You fly two flights a day against the same judges that day. Thus if you have a "boo-boo" score on the first flight (or drew the first flight of the day) you have a chance to make it up on the second flight. If one flight was flown against high judges and the other against low judges, well, why bother with the low judges circle?

So what if the qualifiers in one circle range from 330 to 360 and in the other circle it is 480 to 495? The point is, with the seeding that takes place, you are still picking the ten best from each circle. And if an unseeded hot shot flyer comes along, he has a chance to compete in the top 20 where all contestants now fly all rounds against the same judges. No throw aways now. This is the pressure round.

>3. Nothing can be done in this subjectively judged event,
>judged by human beings, flown by human beings, to a
>prescribed pattern that is know to be impossible at this
>time to be flown 100% correct, that will ensure "fairness
>for all". That should be a priori knowledge. Blind or
>randow draw will probably result in the same winner. Don't
>know how anyone can argue that. Humans will still have to
>fly and humans will still have to judge. All humans make
>mistakes.
>
>If the statement I just made (#3) can be refuted, in a
>mature manner, please someone, do it.

The subjectivity will still be there, yes. And the winner will emerge regardless of the seeding. But the placing of the rest of the field can be drastically altered if, for instance, all of the top 20 from last year were placed in one circle, and everyone who did not place last year were placed in the other circle. Only 10 of last year's "best" would be able to advance, and some lesser flyers would qualify who should not.

But, yes, the best flyer would still win if that is your only concern. It is not only about winning, however, and the flyers really do like to see how they rank against the others.

>The world will not end, repeat: not end, if a star
>doesn't win the Walker Trophy, no matter who he is. There
>just *might* be a phenom that shows up and can blow everyone
>in the weeds. Crazy? Crazier things have happened.

The world will not end if we all quit flying model airplanes, either, or quit discussing them on the internet. But, as you correctly observed above, the winner will still emerge no matter what. The seeding does not favor the big star. It favors giving everyone an equal chance to place in his proper position whether he is 1st, 10th, or 48th.

>
>>1. I admire the job that Warren and his crew do to put this
>>thing on. having said that, I do believe that the
>>process of seeding (which seems to be
>>sacred) needs to be published so that everyone knows what's
>>going on.
>
>There is nothing sacred about this and I believe it has been
>published several times. J

Where?

You are the first person to mention this method so far.

I ran the Monte Carlo simulation again with the same assumptions (looking it up is left as an exercise to the reader). This is a VBA-Excel file. Email me and I'll send it to you, and you can do something more rigorous. I'm no statistical whiz. Gentlemen, for the 20th-best guy, here's the effect you're so passionate about:
Y axis should say 100,000 trials, not 10,000.

There appears to be little effect from seeding.

Come on Brad....don't let facts fog the issue....

See Ya

Hi Leonard,
Thanks for the plesant reply.

>>1. I admire the job that Warren and his crew do to put this
>>thing on. having said that, I do believe that the
>>process of seeding (which seems to be
>>sacred) needs to be published so that everyone knows what's
>>going on.
>
>There is nothing sacred about this and I believe it has been
>published several times.

Maybe it has, but no one seems to be able to locate it. At least as far as the actual process to determine the seeding.
>
>
>>2. It appears that a group of fliers only fly on one circle
>>per day, is that so? Why? If you flew in front of each set
>>of judges each day, then there isn't as much of the "high"
>>vs. "low" circles.
>
>
>By dividing into two circles you are competeing only against
>the flyers in your particular circle for a spot in the top
>20. Thus it makes no difference whether you have high
>judges or low judges. You just need consistent judges. You
>fly two flights a day against the same judges that day.
>Thus if you have a "boo-boo" score on the first flight (or
>drew the first flight of the day) you have a chance to make
>it up on the second flight. If one flight was flown against
>high judges and the other against low judges, well, why
>bother with the low judges circle?

I would be in favor of adding the two scores. A "boo boo" score is just that, a mistake. The throw away flight is sort of like the Ninentendo games with the "reset" button. We are looking for the National Champion.

>So what if the qualifiers in one circle range from 330 to
>360 and in the other circle it is 480 to 495? The point is,
>with the seeding that takes place, you are still picking the
>ten best from each circle. And if an unseeded hot shot
>flyer comes along, he has a chance to compete in the top 20
>where all contestants now fly all rounds against the same
>judges. No throw aways now. This is the pressure round.

Ok, "no throw aways". I, personally, with a 40+ year continuous high level of "sports" contact do not understand the throw away. We are wanting to elevate this "hobby" to a "sport" level according to many.
The reference to "team" sports is often pooh-poohed as not being analogous. Ask the clean up hitter in the bottom of the ninth inning of a tie baseball game how many chances he has (that one at bat) and how his team mates are helping him. He is all alone like the stunt flier. Produce or go home. Same with a golfer on the 18th green at Augusta the final day. Make the or not win. How is our flying different?

>
>>3. Nothing can be done in this subjectively judged event,
>>judged by human beings, flown by human beings, to a
>>prescribed pattern that is know to be impossible at this
>>time to be flown 100% correct, that will ensure "fairness
>>for all". That should be a priori knowledge. Blind or
>>randow draw will probably result in the same winner. Don't
>>know how anyone can argue that. Humans will still have to
>>fly and humans will still have to judge. All humans make
>>mistakes.
>>
>>If the statement I just made (#3) can be refuted, in a
>>mature manner, please someone, do it.
>
>The subjectivity will still be there, yes. And the winner
>will emerge regardless of the seeding. But the placing of
>the rest of the field can be drastically altered if, for
>instance, all of the top 20 from last year were placed in
>one circle, and everyone who did not place last year were
>placed in the other circle. Only 10 of last year's "best"
>would be able to advance, and some lesser flyers would
>qualify who should not.

I don't know how anyone is judged to "not be qualified" (should not be in the top 20)... he/she has done exactly what the event requires.

>
>But, yes, the best flyer would still win if that is your
>only concern. It is not only about winning, however, and
>the flyers really do like to see how they rank against the
>others.

I do believe that the NATS' purpose is to pick the National Champion. Second place is the first loser. Nothing wrong with being a "loser" in this event, but it seems that the event has just become a microcosm of today's society. "Give little Johnny a trophy, he particpated".
EXCELLENCE should be rewarded.

To see how we did against the best? well....... we lost. Try again next year and keep on enjoying what we are doing, or not.
>
>
>>The world will not end, repeat: not end, if a star
>>doesn't win the Walker Trophy, no matter who he is. There
>>just *might* be a phenom that shows up and can blow everyone
>>in the weeds. Crazy? Crazier things have happened.
>
>The world will not end if we all quit flying model
>airplanes, either, or quit discussing them on the internet.
>But, as you correctly observed above, the winner will still
>emerge no matter what. The seeding does not favor the
>big star. It favors giving
>everyone an equal chance to place in his proper position
>whether he is 1st, 10th, or 48th.

Well, the exact same logic to say it creates an even playing field for the "lesser talented", can also be used to say that it does favor the advancement of the top fliers. And regardless of posts to the contrary, it IS the main purpose for being in place. I am not THAT naive.
By dividing them they are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO ADVANCE!

I am not trying to incite a riot, Len, and I do appreciate your viewpoint. Thanks!

To win the Walker Trophy requires far beyond the "hobby" level of committment. It has to borderline on an obsession. Look at the number of flights, hours building, money spent, and etc., a true competitor for this prize will put in in preparation.

I see the National Championship as a process to determine a National Champion, ie., Super Bowl, World Series, etc.. Not too many people remember who finished 2nd. And that's quite all right at the top levels of competition. Guess I grew up in the politically incorrect Vince Lombardi era, and at a time when pride mattered. Competition was not a "four letter word".

Bill <><

>I would be in favor of adding the two scores. A "boo boo"
>score is just that, a mistake. The throw away flight is
>sort of like the Ninentendo games with the "reset" button.
>We are looking for the National Champion.

>Ok, "no throw aways". I, personally, with a 40+ year
>continuous high level of "sports" contact do not understand
>the throw away. We are wanting to elevate this "hobby" to a
>"sport" level according to many.
>The reference to "team" sports is often pooh-poohed as not
>being analogous. Ask the clean up hitter in the bottom of
>the ninth inning of a tie baseball game how many chances he
>has (that one at bat) and how his team mates are helping
>him. He is all alone like the stunt flier. Produce or go
>home. Same with a golfer on the 18th green at Augusta the
>final day. Make the or not win. How is our flying
>different?

All good points. Truly elevating the event would include doing away with throw away flights. One bad flight, you are done. The golf reference is a good one. No one gets a "mulligan" in tournament golf. The very idea of a "do over" is preposterous for just about every sport in the World.

Of course, to actually try to implement this practice will be about as popular as cold water enemas.

>Well, the exact same logic to say it creates an even playing
>field for the "lesser talented", can also be used to say
>that it does favor the advancement of the top
>fliers. And regardless of posts to the contrary, it IS the
>main purpose for being in place. I am not THAT naive.
>By dividing them they are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
>ADVANCE!

I ALWAYS knew this was the case. This HAS ALWAYS been the explanation for seeding from the people advocating seeding. This idea that seeding was put into place to help the lesser fliers is a COMPLETELY NEW spin. The explanation has always been if the circles were stacked, good fliers would not qualify, and lesser fliers would. In this case, a less skilled flier would benefit in a big way. Many lesser fliers might not complain....

Splitting the circles creates more top placings for the best fliers. Winning your circle is way better than say 4th in the overall order. 1st always leaves a better impression going into Top 20 day. Judges are influenced by this kind of thing, they always have been.

>>Well, the exact same logic to say it creates an even playing
>>field for the "lesser talented", can also be used to say
>>that it does favor the advancement of the top
>>fliers. And regardless of posts to the contrary, it IS the
>>main purpose for being in place. I am not THAT naive.
>>By dividing them they are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO ADVANCE!
>
>I ALWAYS knew this was the case. This HAS ALWAYS been the
>explanation for seeding from the people advocating seeding.
>This idea that seeding was put into place to help the lesser
>fliers is a COMPLETELY NEW spin. The explanation has always
>been if the circles were stacked, good fliers would not
>qualify, and lesser fliers would. In this case, a less
>skilled flier would benefit in a big way. Many lesser fliers
>might not complain....
>
>Splitting the circles creates more top placings for the best
>fliers. Winning your circle is way better than say 4th in
>the overall order. 1st always leaves a better impression
>going into Top 20 day. Judges are influenced by this kind
>of thing, they always have been.

The purpose of seeding is to get the best flyers into the competition at the end. If that means that it favors the best flyers, well, I guess it does. However (I won't make it big again, but it is big), Let's say I am "Johnny Come Lately" and I have the ability to be at least the 17th or 18th place flyer. I come to the nats hoping to fly my best and expect to qualify. But now I am suddenly thrown into a circle with the top 15 qualifiers from last year. Only ten will rise to the top. The others watch on Friday. And I will be one of them.

The purpose of seeding is to get the best flyers into the competiton. If I have reached the level of competance to be able to qualify for the top 20, then I should be able to do so. The only other alternative is to not have two circles and do as they do with the Worlds. One circle and take four days to qualify everybody. Then I make the 18th spot and qualify for the top 20.

Or, I guess you could shuffle the deck and decide to reverse seed. Take all of the top 20 qualifiers from last year and put them in circle one. Put all of those who didn't make it last year and put them in circle two. Then the absolute best will still fly on Friday, and there will be another ten, most of whom have no business being there because they would have been beaten out in a true head-to-head competition.

Seeding works to get the best to Friday's run-off. Why dilute it, or penalize people because they happened to draw the "tough" circle?

>
>I would be in favor of adding the two scores. A "boo boo"
>score is just that, a mistake. The throw away flight is
>sort of like the Ninentendo games with the "reset" button.
>We are looking for the National Champion.

Call me a wuss but I like the throw away. It benefitted me in 02. During my second flight a wind storm came up for about 15 minutes. I was in the verticle 8 and Dale Gleason was at the beggining of his flight. We were both totaly scewed right out of a flight. luckily for me my first flight was high enough to keep me in contention. The Nats is very much in favor of giving the contestants as much of a chance as possible to get a good set of flights to qualify on. Since weather has such a big part of what we do and it can on no way be controlled. I think a throw away is good. This is a hobby and people travel a long way to the big show. 15 minutes of wind to send them packing on day one would suck for anyone.

>
>Ok, "no throw aways". I, personally, with a 40+ year
>continuous high level of "sports" contact do not understand
>the throw away. We are wanting to elevate this "hobby" to a
>"sport" level according to many.
>The reference to "team" sports is often pooh-poohed as not
>being analogous. Ask the clean up hitter in the bottom of
>the ninth inning of a tie baseball game how many chances he
>has (that one at bat) and how his team mates are helping
>him. He is all alone like the stunt flier. Produce or go
>home. Same with a golfer on the 18th green at Augusta the
>final day. Make the or not win. How is our flying
>different?

It is not any different. But we are talking about qualifying right. Look at top twenty day. I beat Brett by .5 or 1.5 points to get into the top 5. That is a simple tiny bobble or a something even smaller and he is out and I am in. You talk about tough. Speaking from experience it is very mentally taxing. Didnt eat much Friday afternoon no breakfast on Saturday and didnt sleep. I fell asleep during the first round of the Top 5 under our tent. It actually helped me calm down alot. It was funny. I am in the biggest show of my life to date and people are like "Where is Doug?" Steve says "Oh he is sleeping under the tent." They are like "WHAT? You gotta be kidding!" It was very hard and taxing but I flew good and it was fun!

Only 10 of last year's "best"
>>would be able to advance, and some lesser flyers would
>>qualify who should not.
>
>I don't know how anyone is judged to "not be qualified"
>(should not be in the top 20)... he/she has done exactly
>what the event requires.

I agree this type of thinking is flawed and uses reputation for a basis. It is all about what you do with what you are given. If the draw gives a chance to make it in and you do then you are QUALIFIED. There is no qualifying before the contest starts. How on earth can anyone say someone is not qualified to be there if they earned a spot according to the draw. I am sorry but if someone said that I made it in just because I got a good draw and I shouldnt really be there. I might just freak out on em.

>>
>>>The world will not end, repeat: not end, if a star
>>>doesn't win the Walker Trophy, no matter who he is. There
>>>just *might* be a phenom that shows up and can blow everyone
>>>in the weeds. Crazy? Crazier things have happened.
>>
>>The world will not end if we all quit flying model
>>airplanes, either, or quit discussing them on the internet.
>>But, as you correctly observed above, the winner will still
>>emerge no matter what. The seeding does not favor the
>>big star. It favors giving
>>everyone an equal chance to place in his proper position
>>whether he is 1st, 10th, or 48th.
>
>Well, the exact same logic to say it creates an even playing
>field for the "lesser talented", can also be used to say
>that it does favor the advancement of the top
>fliers. And regardless of posts to the contrary, it IS the
>main purpose for being in place. I am not THAT naive.
>By dividing them they are MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
>ADVANCE!

This argument here will go on until the end of time.

>To win the Walker Trophy requires far beyond the
>"hobby" level of committment. It has to borderline on an
>obsession. Look at the number of flights, hours building,
>money spent, and etc., a true competitor for this prize will
>put in in preparation.
>
>I see the National Championship as a process to determine a
>National Champion, ie., Super Bowl, World Series, etc.. Not
>too many people remember who finished 2nd. And that's quite
>all right at the top levels of competition. Guess I grew up
>in the politically incorrect Vince Lombardi era, and at a
>time when pride mattered. Competition was not a "four
>letter word".
>
>Bill <><
>
>When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his
>friends.
>Japanese Proverb

What four letter word are you thinking about?

Bill what a refreshing post!

>
>There is nothing sacred about this and I believe it has been
>published several times. Just take a look at who is in each
>circle and where they placed in the past. The guys on the
>world team, for instance, were scattered so no two were in
>the same circle. In normal years it is 1,3,5,7,etc. vs
>2,4,6,8, etc. in the other. That's as fair a seeding as you
>can get.

You have explained absolutely nothing in this post. Please lest us all in on how someone is given the number 1 and to be placed on such and such circle. How are the pilots divided up? I totaly see what you are saying it is makes sense yes. But you still have not told us how they decide who sets where on the circle. How does one pilot get an odd and one get and even number attached to them to get them on a certain circle.

You have the following flyers. Seed us.

Doug Moon
Ted Fancher
Paul Wlaker
David Fitzgerald
Bob Hunt
Brett Buck
Windy U
Bill W
Matt N
Brad Wlaker
Steve Moon
Mike Scott
Bob G.
Randy Smith
RO
Kaz Minato

Now seed us. This is just an example. There are 16. There will be two circles and the top 5 go on. Please explain how you come to your conclusions about how the pilots are to be split up. We all understand about the odds over here and the evens over there. But how do you give odd numbers and even numbers to each pilot is what we want to know.

Please explain.

>By dividing into two circles you are competeing only against
>the flyers in your particular circle for a spot in the top
>20. Thus it makes no difference whether you have high
>judges or low judges. You just need consistent judges. You
>fly two flights a day against the same judges that day.
>Thus if you have a "boo-boo" score on the first flight (or
>drew the first flight of the day) you have a chance to make
>it up on the second flight. If one flight was flown against
>high judges and the other against low judges, well, why
>bother with the low judges circle?
>
>So what if the qualifiers in one circle range from 330 to
>360 and in the other circle it is 480 to 495? The point is,
>with the seeding that takes place, you are still picking the
>ten best from each circle. And if an unseeded hot shot
>flyer comes along, he has a chance to compete in the top 20
>where all contestants now fly all rounds against the same
>judges. No throw aways now. This is the pressure round.

This is all very good. tried and tested over many years it works well I agree with all of the above. Even though me agreeing with it means very little to most...

Thanks

I guess when it really all comes down to the nut cuttin' our community of flyers is so small just about anyone with some stunt history on their side would be able to evenly split the entrants into two groups. I mean think about it for a minute. It is pretty much Ground Hog Day at the Nats each year. Same faces in pretty much the same places each year for the past 9 that I have attended. The final places do move around and there is always a Dark Horse running around out there, Todd Lee comes to mind. Man he stormed into the finals like a Train with no brakes! It was awesome! I bet I could split it up pretty good. I wouldnt have a tangible system for doing so. Just go by what I know and I have read in SN and seen over the years. I have been hear a short time and I think I have good feel for it. I bet Shareen has a real good feel for it. You think??

Gentlemen, Sure is a lot of rhetoric for something that is not broken. It seems that some people need rules for everything or must have everything explained to them constantly. Most times you change something because it has a negative impact on one or more of us. It is painfully obvious that seeding is the most logical way to set up the circles at the Nat's. Can anyone of you give us all an example of how the seeding process has been detrimental? I believe some have totally missed the point that CLPA is a subjectively judged contest. That is not about to change in the near future, so to compare it to Nascar, Pga, Tennis etc is apples and oranges. The best way to change it is to put in a rules proposal, do it by the book so that the ones that must have their hand held for the whole process can make it through. I agree with the throway flite as a pilot can lose an engine, the weather turns to *&^%$$, any number of things can happen not in the pilots control. This is a SUBJECTIVELY judged event! Very few other sports are that way. So, those of you that have a problem with it, that need a finite decision as to who wins and loses, you really need to move on something else,say maybe Archery, Bowling, Miniature golf. Totally objective scoring and you don't even have to think to do it. RJ

It is painfully
>obvious that seeding is the most logical way to set up the
>circles at the Nat's.

Yes this is true.

The whole thing is HOW are the flyers seeded? How do you determine who is seeded where? How are they "ranked" so to speak? That has been a question for years and NOT ONE ANSWER TO DATE! NOT ONE! Do you know? If so please let us in on this.

I am only 36 and there are alot of things that happen that are known by the ones who have run the show for a long time. What happens when most of those who run the show dont do it anymore? They are all freinds of similar ages and might decide to get out on or about the same time. Then what? Chaos! Us youngins would like to know how it goes. They have been working at the contest and it's procedures for about 30 years. They have forgot more than I will ever know about how it all works. Every time I attend it runs smooth as near as I can tell. It may well be like a duck across the pond. The body is still as it glides across the pond but its feet are kicking like heck the whole time. The impression is smooth with no appearant problems. Seeding is just ONE of the many things that go on without any of us really paying attention. Just one of the many details they have worked out over the years. We need to know how to do this stuff. If the event is to survive as it stands today.

Also wouldnt it be to the benefit to have the procedures in stone in the RB? It protects the flyers from willy nilly on the fly changes. If it isnt in the RB and it is a used process it is not protected and can be changed by pretty much anyone in the powerseat. It cant be protested and the AMA has no jurisdiction. So if so and so many years from now wants his friends to do well he can slant it any way he wants. I NOT saying this will happen. But some of the stuff I have been reading about the President and the replys from those who are against him leave nothing to the imagination about what lengths people will go to get what they want. THAT INCLUDES BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUES BY THE WAY!

The best way to change it is to put
>in a rules proposal, do it by the book so that the ones that
>must have their hand held for the whole process can make it
>through.

You are very correct here. There is a bunch of muck here on this thread. But the main concern is HOW are the flyers picked, how are they ranked, and placed on the circle? IF THAT WERE TO BE EXPLAINED THEN YES WE COULD PROPOSE IT INTO THE RULEBOOK!

Brad simply had an idea about seeding.

Why is it such a crime to discuss things and think of ways of runing things and how the contests could be run in different manners. I always think it fun to think about all the different ways to have a contest. This is just internet talk not actual rules proposals or anything like that. Just talking about contests and how to run them and all the different ideas.

The current one, procedure for seeding, seems to work fine. However the heck it works we dont know so we cant set it in the RB. Are you following me here?

These threads and others like them are all about the future of our sport. Not about the now. When I am 60 you and about 75% or more of the current crop wont be heading to Muncie for the Nats each year. It would be nice to keep it going that long. Knowing all of the intangibles and having it in the RB for most anyone to undrstand would be so helpful. Can you see that? Or do you not really give a rip?

>These threads and others like them are all about the future
>of our sport. Not about the now. When I am 60 you and
>about 75% or more of the current crop wont be heading to
>Muncie for the Nats each year. It would be nice to keep it
>going that long.

I really get the impression a lot of these guys do not care what happens when they are gone.

Whitely has once again chosen to tell everyone how everything is fine, we are all wasting our time, missing the point entirely.

Bob,

If the current procedure is clearly defined, great, but since no one knows the method, it is very difficult to get it written down. I have no problem with the current method I suppose (since no one has said what it is). I think the point of the thread was to show that I had no intention of trying to eliminate seeding. Maybe it is simply ineviatable that with the current two circle format, there must be some form of seeding. I am simply trying to come up with a method, make it a standard, and perform the procedure out in the open.

How in the heck could this be bad?

This is a speed flight order procedure taken from the FAI Code:

Draw for Flying Order
l It is recommended that the draw should be arranged so that competitors fly at five minute intervals.
l The draw should be arranged so that competitors from one nation are not required to fly within fifteen minutes of
each other.
l After the draw has taken place, it should be split into three equal groups, A, B and C.
l For round one, group A flies first, followed by group B and then group C.
l For round two, group B flies first, followed by group C and then group A.
l For round three, group C flies first, followed by group A and then group B.
l There should be a ten minute break at the end of each hour of flying.
l Re-flights should take place at the end of each round.

>
>(snip)The whole thing is HOW are the flyers seeded? How do you
>determine who is seeded where? How are they "ranked" so to
>speak? That has been a question for years and NOT ONE
>ANSWER TO DATE! NOT ONE! Do you know? If so please let us
>in on this.

Doug, I have posted this a couple of times now, but as I recall it is done on the basis of the highest placing at the Nats or FAI trials in the last two years. That simple. Then 1,3,5, etc. are placed in one circle, 2.4.6, etc. are in the other. I will let someone correct me if I am wrong.

Brad's proposal was to seed only those who made the top 5 (too narrow) and for the past ten years (too broad). One needs to have recent statistics, as someone who was in good shape ten years ago may not be in so good a shape today (just look at me. No, come to think of it, I wasn't in good shape ten years ago, either.) Some people come every year. Some every other year. Some less frequent than that. So using a couple of years is fine, but not ten. And, if you are going to seed, you need to do this across the board. When someone shows up for the first time, he is unseeded. A couple in this circle, a couple in that circle, these remain random. That we can live with.

>
>I am only 36 and there are alot of things that happen that
>are known by the ones who have run the show for a long time.
> What happens when most of those who run the show dont do it
>anymore? (snip)

Hopefully they will train their successors in what they have been doing so there will at least be a pattern to follow. But whether we are seeding the contestants, judging appearance points, or judging the flights, when someone new takes over it seems that there is new criteria being used. Maybe this should be cast in stone, or maybe we just live with the changes. Either way I don't think there is a crisis in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory if we don't know how the seeking takes place.

(One thing I have always done when the flight orders are posted is look at who is in what circle. Then I do my mental guessing as to who will make it and who won't. It always seems pretty balanced to me. Still, it is a flying event, and it ends up being a matter of who is hot and who is not.)

>Maybe this should be cast in stone, or maybe we just live
>with the changes. Either way I don't think there is a
>crisis in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory if we don't know
>how the seeking takes place.

Who said there was a "crisis"?

It appears that discussing any issue in relation to our competition must imply that there is an immediate life and death situation. This is a very strange kind of panic. A very strange "why are you discussing that? We like it the way it is!!! If you discuss it someone will want to change it! OHMYGOSH!!!"

I started this thread, and I never said said there was a crisis. I said I had an idea for solidifying the process and put it into a form that could be written as a rule. The only real problem is that the procedures are not documented, which I feel they should be.

I do not feel the method you are advocating is "the current" method is absolute. There is NO WAY you are going to say that if a "top" flier (by definition a Walker Cup contender in the last 10 years) skipped a year they would not BE SEEDED DISPITE THE "RULE"! Give me a break.

Paul Walker skipped a year or two there, I guarantee he was seeded. To imply that he did not receive special seeding considerations because he did not attend the last Nats or TTrials is silly.

The WC's do not have seeding.

Seeding is bogus, and should be eliminated.

Each pilots names should be drawn from a bowl and placed on a circle, one at a time. This should be done at the pilots meeting for everyone to see. If all the 'best' pilots end up on one circle and have to duke it out, so be it. It'll be different the following year, and the yeat after that, etc.

The judges should be picked in this manner, also. And, a certain number (say 10) judges should be asked at that time if they can stay and judge the Walker Cup. Pick 7 or 8, whatever it takes when the day arrives.

And, for Pete's sake, let some new judges judge!!!! I am sick and tired of being judged by the same guys every year (I am not attacking them) and getting the same score every year. We have been told for years that we just can't get enought people to judge the Nats, so we have to use the same judges every year. I think that is bogus, as well. I know of people who have volunteered, and were told no. What gives?

>
>>Maybe this should be cast in stone, or maybe we just live
>>with the changes. Either way I don't think there is a
>>crisis in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory if we don't know
>>how the seeking takes place.
>
>Who said there was a "crisis"?

I wasn't intending to imply you or anyone else said there was a crisis. I was just stating my own feeling that things are working quite well along these lines (although we, as frail human beings, always look over the fence at the other circle and want to say, "Hey, I could have taken that bunch.")

>It appears that discussing any issue in relation to our
>competition must imply that there is an immediate life and
>death situation. This is a very strange kind of panic. A
>very strange "why are you discussing that? We like it the
>way it is!!! If you discuss it someone will want to change
>it! OHMYGOSH!!!"

The big thing here, Brad was the inplication that seeding wasn't necessary, or that only the very top guys needed to be seeded (is that a rhyme?) That I would disagree with. For the sake of fairness I think there is a need to seed all contestants since we are using a 2 circcle qualifying system. However, the order of flying is still random. Maybe we ought to give the bottom seeds their choice of flight time and work down to where the top seed in the circle gets last pick.

>I started this thread, and I never said said there was a
>crisis. I said I had an idea for solidifying the process
>and put it into a form that could be written as a rule. The
>only real problem is that the procedures are not documented,
>which I feel they should be.
>
I would see no problem with proposing a rule similarly to what is currently being done for the seeding at the Nats. However, maybe a simple Nats guide could be drawn up and it put in there. Then one could also add appearance point judging, and a few other things that don't need "rules" but do need documentation. Maybe something like the (flying) judges guide. There is nothing "official" here or "in the rules" (although it does attempt to help the judges to be able to judge according to the rules.)

>I do not feel the method you are advocating is "the current"
>method is absolute. There is NO WAY you are going to say
>that if a "top" flier (by definition a Walker Cup contender
>in the last 10 years) skipped a year they would not BE
>SEEDED DISPITE THE "RULE"! Give me a break.
>
>Paul Walker skipped a year or two there, I guarantee he was
>seeded. To imply that he did not receive special seeding
>considerations because he did not attend the last Nats or
>TTrials is silly.

Dunno. Since there is no "ranking"...?? If I were to do it and a couple of past top qualifiers showed up but who had not flown in the last couple of years and that was the criteria, I would put one in one circle and the other in the other and be done with it. Maybe that is how it was done. Add that to the rules, maybe.

>The WC's do not have seeding.

And they fly on one circle so it is everybody flying against the same judges for the entire round of qualifying. If we used one circle, we wouldn't need seeding, either.

>>
>> What happens when most of those who run the show dont do it
>>anymore? (snip)
>
>Hopefully they will train their successors in what they have
>been doing so there will at least be a pattern to follow.

Oh, ya. The training is going well (PAMPA is real good shape concerning the new folks). It took me 2 1/2 years to find someone who would discuss how the judges are evaluated at the Nats (thanks Dave Cook).

What manual are these people going to use to train the "successors"?

I submit that the AMA RULEBOOK WOULD MAKE A GREAT REFERENCE MANUAL!!! Rulebooks are for rules and procedures, that is what they are for!!!

This would assure that procedures would CONTINUE (Bob) and not be radically changed. I would think that even the most conservative types would understand this!!!

My goal is to have ALL of the current procedures used to run the Nats adopted to the rulebook. Since everyone loves the way it is ran, there should be no issues with adopting a rules proposal that outlines the current procedures.

The problem is that there are a few procedures that will not stand up to rule scrutiny. Seeding is one of them in its current form. Determining a seeding criteria is the only way to make seeding a set procedure. Leaving seeding up to the "opinions" of a few individuals is no way to run a National contest. This is more like local contest procedures, and has no reflection on true competition procedures. The Nationals should be held to a higher standard.

>My goal is to have ALL of the current procedures used to run
>the Nats adopted to the rulebook. Since everyone loves the
>way it is ran, there should be no issues with adopting a
>rules proposal that outlines the current procedures.

Are you suggesting we have a Nats rulebook, and one for the rest of the country? The rulebook is for the use of anybody at any contest held under AMA sanction. There are certain procedures that are unique to the Nats. I suppose we could put a Nats only section in the general rulebook, but that is where I was suggesting a procedure book.

>The problem is that there are a few procedures that will not
>stand up to rule scrutiny. Seeding is one of them in its
>current form. Determining a seeding criteria is the only
>way to make seeding a set procedure. Leaving seeding up to
>the "opinions" of a few individuals is no way to run a
>National contest. This is more like local contest
>procedures, and has no reflection on true competition
>procedures. The Nationals should be held to a higher
>standard.

Once again, I respectfully disagree with you. The seeding procedure used at the Nats does stand up to scrutiny. If they use the highest placings of the pilots at the last two Nats and the FAI trials, it is set in concrete. Easy for anyone to do. Now if we just look at someone and say, "Well, here's Brad. I am going to put him with Paul and Bill and David and Ted and Brett and...just so he doesn't have a chance", well that's not seeding. And that is what proper seeding is supposed to prevent. If you are the 19th or 20th qualifier, you should hopefully be able to be the 9th or 10th qualifier on your circle. Everyone should have an equal chance to qualify where he would have had there been but one circle and all flew against the same set of judges.

>Gentlemen, Sure is a lot of rhetoric for something that is
>not broken. It seems that some people need rules for
>everything or must have everything explained to them
>constantly. Most times you change something because it has
>a negative impact on one or more of us. It is painfully
>obvious that seeding is the most logical way to set up the
>circles at the Nat's. Can anyone of you give us all an
>example of how the seeding process has been detrimental? I
>believe some have totally missed the point that CLPA is a
>subjectively judged contest. That is not about to change in
>the near future, so to compare it to Nascar, Pga, Tennis etc
>is apples and oranges. The best way to change it is to put
>in a rules proposal, do it by the book so that the ones that
>must have their hand held for the whole process can make it
>through. I agree with the throway flite as a pilot can lose
>an engine, the weather turns to *&^%$$, any number of things
>can happen not in the pilots control. This is a
>SUBJECTIVELY judged event! Very few other sports are that
>way. So, those of you that have a problem with it, that need
>a finite decision as to who wins and loses, you really need
>to move on something else,say maybe Archery, Bowling,
>Miniature golf. Totally objective scoring and you don't
>even have to think to do it. RJ

He Bob ,
I was thinking, and you are right.It has and always will be a subjective event period..I will go all the way to the extreme and say the only way to remove the subjectivity is to do incorporate a blind/judging method-( which is impossible)..Meaning that the judges were blind to who was flying..The issue it "seems" and always has been that noted flyers are getting differential treatment and/or scores....Attempting to control all the variables is also impossible. Like I have stated before Roger Clemens will always get a different strike zone than lets say a "Bill Munrue". I think using that analogy helps put it into some sort of perspective for me..It does make for intresting debate though!!How is your eye sight doing???Regards David

Hi Dave, and all the rest of ya'll, I am so glad that we have the technology! Cataract surgery in both eyes, and now have 20-15 and 20-20! Unbelievable! Thanks for asking. Back to the discussion. Someone said that no one knows how the seeding works. Not so, as it does get done and done superbly. Just as a guess whom do any of you think does all the legwork? Hmmm? It's the same person that makes everything else look like it's on cruise control. If we all flew on one circle, no we wouldn't need seeding. And no, we don't need hard and fast rules because this is a SUBJECTIVE event. Not speed, not carrier, etc. As soon as you make hard rules and they don't work out, you have to go back and fix them all over again. I believe in honorable people and good character and have no doubt that the individual/individuals that set up the seeding are those people. When we start needing rules to maintain the honor of the event then we have lost heart of the sport. I will do whatever the event directors want that run a contest cause all the rest of the pilots have to do the same thing. Remember, in the end all we have is the character of the ones involved and if we lose that perspective then I'm back to drag racing.....not nearly as difficult and also not as much frun. RJ

I believe in honorable people and
>good character and have no doubt that the
>individual/individuals that set up the seeding are those
>people. When we start needing rules to maintain the honor
>of the event then we have lost heart of the sport.

<sigh>...

I am sure you would feel this way until someone was running the contest that you did not "honor" very much.

The idea that the National CLPA event should be run on a "trust me" basis will probably never be very satisfactory for someone who does not know, communicate with, or in particular get along with these "people" you keep referring too.

In a true competitive sense, the idea is just silly and truly not fair.

I would love to see if say...John Brodak...became the Nats ED with his wife doing the seeding for the fliers and judges (Windy would no doubt help I am sure). I bet you would be the first one screaming for a standard Nats procedure.

The idea that this is NATIONAL event not a local contest held in Indiana has truly escaped some of you guys.

> I believe in honorable people and
>>good character and have no doubt that the
>>individual/individuals that set up the seeding are those
>>people. When we start needing rules to maintain the honor
>>of the event then we have lost heart of the sport.
>
>...
>
>I am sure you would feel this way until someone was running
>the contest that you did not "honor" very much.
>
>The idea that the National CLPA event should be run on a
>"trust me" basis will probably never be very satisfactory
>for someone who does not know, communicate with, or in
>particular get along with these "people" you keep referring
>too.
>
>In a true competitive sense, the idea is just silly and
>truly not fair.
>
>I would love to see if say...John Brodak...became the Nats
>ED with his wife doing the seeding for the fliers and judges
>(Windy would no doubt help I am sure). I bet you would be
>the first one screaming for a standard Nats procedure.
>
>The idea that this is NATIONAL event not a local contest
>held in Indiana has truly escaped some of you guys.

Godzilla,
Boy do you ever have passion!!!!No disresepct, I admire it to some degree..Something tells me you feel or believe you got a raw deal somewhere down the line with respect to judging?????? I can relate..When I was in my I think late 20's-cocky arrogant haughty, etc etc..I felt simialar and nearly had to be restrained by a close pilot friend who has since passed away...I never get that mad unless something has affected me deeply, apparently that did...I would never tell you what or how to proceed, but anytime I respond to situations today its like it has to pass the so-what test...Another words I know the judging is suspect-(only at times)so what! what else is new!..It is a institutionalized aspect of this event...I know you will say, what do you mean so what, it is important to you, I know this..Maybe you will be the pioneer for change, who knows..I tell you what you make things interesting, at least for me anyhow... Regards David..

>Godzilla,
>Boy do you ever have passion!!!!No disresepct, I admire it
>to some degree..Something tells me you feel or believe you
>got a raw deal somewhere down the line with respect to
>judging??????

No, not really. I do, however, believe in constant improvement, it is what I do. This is not always met with open arms in CLPA because any notion of change is slapped down as fast as it can stick its head up (unless you are certain folks, who appear to change things at will).

I just think a competition should be run like a sport. CLPA flying at the highest levels is very serious competition. It is no Fun Fly, local contest, or invitational tournament. It is an OPEN National Contest where competitors come from all over the country to compete, and is sanctioned by the AMA. Therefore the event should be overseen by the AMA. The only way to do this is to have all of the procedures in the AMA rulebook, so any deviations or questions could be directed to the AMA, the governing body.

Zilla....there you go again, clouding the issue with facts....

Just what kind of Texan are you, anyhow?

See Ya

>Zilla....there you go again, clouding the issue with
>facts....
>
>Just what kind of Texan are you, anyhow?

I am an Okie Sooner.

I live in Texas. I like Texas better. Oklahoma can be a bit boring.

I wonder how random the draw really is?

What I mean is how randow is the draw after they somehow figure out a rank of each flier?

Thinking back on it.

I have been to every Nats in Muncie except this last one. That would be 8 trips. My brother is there also. Well I think it was 6 of the 8 times that we have been there we ended up on opposite circles flying at the SAME time during the qualifiers on both days. We always pit for each other here at home. But this means we have to get others to help out and you know about lauching and how it goes. It is ggod thing to have your regular launcher there when it comes down to it. If it is a random draw after the ranks are given to the entrants than that is one heck of a coincidence!

What do you think?

I think that you are really parenoid.

> I think that you are really parenoid.
>
> Walter

Parenoid?? What??

'Zilla

Here's my take on seeding at the Nats. If you are concerned about what group you are seeded in then either you need to get better or fly advanced! I bet Dave, Billy, Paul, Ted and Bob "H" don't really care wheather they are seeded together in the same circle or not. They all know their good enough to win!