Man on Man Stunt

You want some real stunt competition? Try this on for size. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Big problems at the NATS are no one trusts the judges(otherwise there wouldn't be the push to have mulitple flights in front of two sets of judges), scores balloon, the weather, and different conditions on the circles all interfere.... So a lot of effort has been put into averaging all these things out to minimize their effects by having multiple qualifying flights on at least 2 circles, then a top 20 flyoff, and a top 5 to determine the winner. It theoretically took 314 flights last year with 66flyers. Having qualifying rounds really changes the event from the winner take all format at a smaller contest.

How about making it a man-on-man tournament. The basic idea is to compare two flyers in back to back flights to minimize all the extraneous things that go on, and more importantly, declare a clear winner in the pair. The winners go through a winnowing process, and in the final round you end up with a first place winner who flew better than everybody he flew against. The current judging system seems to be pretty well up to the task of fairly judging back to back flights.

First round the judges would judge each pair of flyers in turn, using their normal scoring. The better score of the pair would get a "match" score of 1, the loser, a 0.
Round two could be in front of the same judges on the same circle, or flyers could move to circle2. Match 1's with 1's and 0's with 0's. After round two you would have flyers with 2's, 1's, and 0's. Drop all flyers with 0's.
Round 3, move to the second circle(or circle 3 if using 4 circles). Match the 2's with 2's, etc. Judge each pair. You'll end up with 3's,2's, and 1's. Drop the 1's.
Round 4, same circle(or move to circle 4)Match the 3's with the 2's, and fly. You'll get 4's, 3's, and 2's. Drop the 2's.

Round 5. New circle and/or new judge crew. Matchscores, 4's with 4's, etc.

Round 6. New circle and/or new judge crew. Match 5's with 5's, etc.

After round 2 you eliminate some flyers each round. It works out to an average of 1/4 of the flyers in a round. Everybody has a chance to make a bad flight and still continue. With 66 flyers it would take about 7 rounds. You would end up with one flyer with all wins, 1 with one loss, and the rest could be determined by when they were eliminated. Total number of flights would be about 3x the number of contestants.

Doug made me do it!

Hi Phil,
Typical double elimination tournament I would say. Works exceedingly
well in sports, whether it be indivual or team events.
Of course it is way over the top for the NATS.
A Joe Bellcrank might get to the finals! But of course he wouldn't deserve it. (just a joke guys...... sorta)
LOL!!
Bill <><

It's Combat logic. It'll never go over - it removes too much of the "reputation" built up with the judges.

It's more analagous to ice skating and gymnastics instead of golf or baseball. Let's remove the compulsories and start a freestyle.

just kidding ...

>Hi Phil,
>Typical double elimination tournament I would say. Works
>exceedingly
>well in sports, whether it be indivual or team events.
>Of course it is way over the top for the NATS.

I like it. It really does do away with some of the problems associated with judges sitting all day in the weather. It also gets rid of the need for seeding, and could shorten the event.

Very interesting.

Maybe Brodak would adopt this format for his contest to give it a try.

Proof positive that a mindless dedication to subjective judging (Combat) does not translate well to an extremely effective, fair and accurate subjective ranking of the best-of-the-best and on down the line.

One wonders how PTG, Rush and myself were ever able to make the transition...

How does this eliminate seeding. If you draw Paul W in the first round you are looking a bull in the face while wearing a red shirt. If you draw Steve Moon or Mike Scott now you are on very equal grounds and both of you have a chance at a one. The first round draw becomes VERY important for everyone. Ted draws David Fitz now they are on a level. Ted draws Kenny Stevens. Kenny is a world of hurt from flight one. Without some way to setup a rank as the year leads up to the Big Tournament there is no way to setup the bracket fairly from the Startup. Especially of you go single elim. Also there is no deffinent way to win. It is a subjective event so reps still mean something. No matter how hard a person trys to omit reputation it still creeps. I mean I have judged many times and it is very hard no matter how hard a try not to know who is flying. It is in there no matter what you do. The PWs and Teds have a striking Advantage in the early rounds in this event. Just as Serrena does at her events. But there is a deffinent way to win there, but not here.

Still I think it would a real FUN way to fly a contest!

>How does this eliminate seeding. If you draw Paul W in the
>first round you are looking a bull in the face while wearing
>a red shirt.

So?

Seeding would not be necessary. It would only delay the ineviatable.

>>How does this eliminate seeding. If you draw Paul W in the
>>first round you are looking a bull in the face while wearing
>>a red shirt.
>
>So?
>
>Seeding would not be necessary. It would only delay the
>ineviatable.

Actually seeding would be necessary, unless you are only concerned about getting a winner and nothing else. But then, to be fair, you have to seed as they do in tennis. Number 1 rank goes against the number 40 rank, number 2 against number 39, etc. Then after you have totally humiliated those, number 1 goes up against the winner of 19 vs. 20, 2 against the winner of 18 vs. 21, etc. Now, some "nobldy" may pull off a win against Billy or David or Paul, but don't count on it. The ideal goal in this situation is for number 1 to end up against number 2 at the final (center court). Doesn't always happen, but you can hope to get close. And in this competition you never know. One flight is all you get, and just one bobble could lose it for you.

Let's just leave it alone and go back to what we have been doing.

Seeding works as you outline in tennis, etc. because a few errors generally won't lose the match.

Flying man-on-man does have the advantage that everybody really has to put out their best on each flight. They can't semi-coast along, content(or relieved!) just to make the cut in the qualifying rounds.

just trying to followup on the purpose of PAMPA and actually talk about possible improvements to the event.

Not that this would mean much to most folks. At local contests it often seems that half the flyers are just relieved to walk away with a plane after two flights. that is an attitude I have a hard time understanding, having left pieces of planes on the circle many, many times. My philosophy, egged on by my wife, always was that flying model planes, you kiss it good bye before the launch, and give it a nice welcome back pat if it survives. If you aren't crashing, you aren't trying hard enough.

you kiss it good bye before the launch, and
>give it a nice welcome back pat if it survives.

Phil:

Are you referring to the wife or the model?

>just trying to followup on the purpose of PAMPA and actually
>talk about possible improvements to the event.
>
>Not that this would mean much to most folks. At local
>contests it often seems that half the flyers are just
>relieved to walk away with a plane after two flights. that
>is an attitude I have a hard time understanding, having left
>pieces of planes on the circle many, many times. My
>philosophy, egged on by my wife, always was that flying
>model planes, you kiss it good bye before the launch, and
>give it a nice welcome back pat if it survives. If you
>aren't crashing, you aren't trying hard enough.

Oh, Phil, that is one I can't go with. I always advocate flying high until you get your shapes down and then bring the maneuvers down to a comfortable pattern height. For a combat guy who builds a plane in an hour, you can risk the plane (and do). But for precision stunt where you can spend 8 months in building the plane, by all means you should not be thinking of risking it at every flight. A beginner, yes, a beginner will crash. While you are learning you will crash. But once you learn the pattern, your crashing days should become fewer and farther in between. If the conditions are such that you are not sure, don't risk it. You need to know yourself and your plane and fly only to those limits and never over them.

>
>Oh, Phil, that is one I can't go with. I always advocate
>flying high until you get your shapes down and then bring
>the maneuvers down to a comfortable pattern height.
Hey Len,

I want to say that I dont always disagree with you just to disagree. But I do and it always makes for good conversation. Thanks for this board.

I always tell people to build planes that they wont mind crashing during the learning phase. I mean more than just the pattern. I mean really getting into it. You know the drill Twisters and the likes. Dont get attached to it. It is a tool at this point. Get used to flying near the ground as early as possible. The sooner the better. Learn the pattern high and it will hurt you for along time to come. Dont practice mistakes. Dont build planes above your flying skills at first and dont get motors that you cant replace with ease and low cost. Int flyer with a Twister that has 4 weeks in it or an Int flyer with a TP with 8 months in it. Garunteed the twister guy gets it sooner that then TP guy. He just simply gets after it a works. He also learns repairs which in turn makes for a good modeler. Then when he does get a TP when he is ready he zooms right by. I know TP is a stretch but I have seen it.

Thanks for the board. I did agree with you on the other thread about seeding go check it out.

We still agree on a lot of things, even here. I do agree that in the learning phase a person should build a simple plane. Easy to build, easy to repair. Don't spend a lot of time on a good finish. You and I will disagree on learning to fly low. I think shapes are more important to learn first, then correct heights. If you fly 15 foot bottoms and learn the shapes, then the proper sizes of the maneuvers, it is easy to move these down. And then you do get your practice time in which moves you up faster. If you try for the bottoms too early, you will be crashing all the time and spending far too much time on the building board.

Any time you bring your plane home in one piece, it was a good flying session. Any time you crash, you had better have learned something from it. If you aren't capable of placing your maneuvers within 4 feet of where you are aiming, then you had better not be shooting for 5 foot bottoms yet. If you fly 15 foot bottoms and miss by 10 feet, you are still flying. and you learn to hit the spot. If you try to fly 5 foot bottoms and play "chicken" so you don't crash, you will never learn to hit the spot.

Learn high, then bring it down. Other than that, I think we agree.

I see what you are saying. Shapes and maneuvers are for sure the key. You got be able to do the stuff before you can go for the bottoms. I guess what I mean is dont try to learn to fly a really well shaped 15' bottom pattern and then work down.

What I mean is once crashing is to a minimum start looking for 5' get a feel as soon as you can on maneuvers you are comfortable doing as close to 5'as possible. Always fly your level laps at 5' it helps to show you where you are exiting your maneuvers if you are always at 5'in level laps it can help you get a feel for it. You know when you are high on your pullouts.

I bet we agree on this more than I think.

LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-04 AT 02:17 PM (CST)
 
Great idea, Phil,

It would be perfect if you just drop all the second chances and go FULL SINGLE ELIM,,,, 'combat rules' all the way,,,, The Quick and the Dead,,, Gunfight at the OK Corral,,,,, The Red Baron didn't give a 2nd chance.,

As in combat, losers only fly one flight,,, winners fly 6 or 7.

There are no big problems with stunt at the Nats. Nats stunt is the best model airplane contest I have seen, and I've been attending contests for forty-five years.

You may be trying to seduce some of these stunt flyers into a different sport, the loud one on the grass circles. I applaud you for that.

Why dont the two flyers fly at once in the same circle? While one is doing his manuvers the other is doing his level laps in between. Maybe tie a streamer on and let them get "Bonus" points along the way. Who's up for this idea?

> Why dont the two flyers fly at once in the same circle?
>While one is doing his manuvers the other is doing his level
>laps in between. Maybe tie a streamer on and let them get
>"Bonus" points along the way. Who's up for this idea?
>
>
>
>
>Bruce H
I wanna watch the wingovers in that one! (From a safe distance, of course!)

Howard, probably the best model contest I have seen was when you ran Combat in '76 with 120+ entries, all single elim. That was a competition! And run darn well to boot.

I've watched plenty of stunt flights at the NATS and at local contests. Can't say that it really is competition. The top fliers do an impressive job flying, but it isn't really competition when half the spectators standing around watching can't figure out why x scored higher than y. The other half called it the same as the judges, so they think it was obvious.

the spectators standing around
>watching can't figure out why x scored higher than y. The
>other half called it the same as the judges, so they think
>it was obvious.

OK, Phil, how about this,

Two adjacent circles, one set of judges.

Pilot B flies level.

Pilot A does stunt, then Pilot B tries then tries to better it. Judges pick the winner,,,,

Pilot B does a stunt,,, A tries to better it... All the stunts you can do within a time limit...

If you give good prizes, they will come.

>OK, Phil, how about this,
>
>Two adjacent circles, one set of judges.
>
>Pilot B flies level.
>
>Pilot A does stunt, then Pilot B tries then tries to better
>it. Judges pick the winner,,,,
>
>Pilot B does a stunt,,, A tries to better it... All the
>stunts you can do within a time limit...
>
>If you give good prizes, they will come.

I think we are moving to pure "stunt" now, not precision aerobatics.

Let me make two suggestions:

1) If you think this is the way to go, hold a contest with your rules and see what happens.

2) Make sure you get corporate sponsorship. You won't be able to give good prizes without money. And if you are charging huge up front fees, you can be sure they won't come.

Me, I like precision aerobatics just the way it is. That does't mean we can't improve on judging, procedures, etc., but every suggestion of late seems to be trying to change it into a different event. No one can fly a perfect pattern, but as long as we know what it is, we have a life-long goal to chase.

Phil:
REAL Stunt Flyers should be able to fly two to a circle, and do their maneuvers 180 degrees from each other...just add an extra set of judges to the mix and a contest could xoom right along!
Smoke, too...today we have pretty effective and lightweight smoke stuff....beats streamers.

See Ya

Smoke doesn't have the same feel when you cut a piece off.

"Head to Head" or "Man vs. Man" sounds better.

"Man on Man" could be a little suggestive to the innocent by-stander.

Sorry, I couldn't resist......

Racin is done three up. You sayin Stunt fliers er chicken?

Three up stunt, WOW!

Instead of streamers, tie the smoke on the end of the string. You have to cut it free Before it goes out! This could be fun!

Back in the 60's there was a father and son team that flew stunt together on the same side of the circle. Any one remember their names? They were from Calif I believe.

From ferocious,

I've watched plenty of stunt flights at the NATS and at local contests. Can't say that it really is competition. The top fliers do an impressive job flying, but it isn't really competition when half the spectators standing around watching can't figure out why x scored higher than y. The other half called it the same as the judges, so they think it was obvious.

Phil C

This is one of several reasons that I simply cannot take Phil's input very seriously. I don't doubt his is an honest, heartfelt expression of what he sees.

It is most certainly not what I see at Stunt contests, what I have always seen at Stunt contests. Further, I do not know any Stunt fliers who have even the slightest idea what Phil might be ranting on about.

It is tempting to say the view of CL Stunt from the CL Combat circles is not focused well, but even that is not true, and a great many acknowledge that fact.

people keep talking about seeding in tennis. Tennis is a different ballgame. The same people that are competing do it world wide. The record is closely tracked. If we had the same top twenty pilots traveling nationallyand/or world wide, flying against each other I would say seeding would be logical. But, the Nats is a once a year thing and I still think that our event director and his helpers are doing one terrific job. Did not know anybody was complaining about the seeding process until now. If it makes it to the AMA rule book does that mean we would have to seed flyers locally? Speaking mainly of meets like VSC, SIG and Brodaks. Later -DOC

>Phil:
>REAL Stunt Flyers should be able to fly two to a circle, and
>do their maneuvers 180 degrees from each other...just add an
>extra set of judges to the mix and a contest could xoom
>right along!
>Smoke, too...today we have pretty effective and lightweight
>smoke stuff....beats streamers.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

RICH: Does this mean the maneuvers are done ninty degrees of down wind??DOC

Sport is a competition against time or a skill or a person or a team. Is model airplane flying a sport?
I always thought it was a hobby. Some places even call themselves Hobby Shops. Who had the idea that you take an enormously fun hobby like model airplane construction and flying and turn it into a sport?
Then when you get all the "rules" laid out, you squabble and fight like wolverines over a dead mule. I want no part of it. please excuse me for never reading these threads again. Geeeeez!

>Sport is a competition against time or a skill or a person
>or a team. Is model airplane flying a sport?
>I always thought it was a hobby. Some places even call
>themselves Hobby Shops. Who had the idea that you take an
>enormously fun hobby like model airplane construction and
>flying and turn it into a sport?
>Then when you get all the "rules" laid out, you squabble and
>fight like wolverines over a dead mule. I want no part of
>it. please excuse me for never reading these threads again.
>Geeeeez!

Thanks Norm, -DOC

You imagine, going pro, tv contracts, cnn, your own talk show, cheerleaders, Jay Leno, the works!

Yeah it would be great. Then maybe I could get paid doing something I like to do.

Earlier on there was some talk about flying low, this begun by Phil, elaborated on by others.

I really find this quite amusing. And Rush, Heavy Stunt, Scott, I expect some back-up here...

We were at the 2004 Fall Follies. Second round of PA Expert. Quite a few members of PW's family were there. Paul was flying an old-friend Impact, fairly recently fitted with RO-Jett 61 for power.

He burned in one of the most amazing flights I have ever seen. Low? Oh, yeah! Way, way too low if the rule book is your guide. Paul's nieces and nephews didn't seem to have a single rule book amongst them, wouldn't have cared to read it if supplied with one. They were there to see Unca' Paul fly, and fly he did.

What, waist high? Of course not, heck *I* can do that and do it with fair regularity. Well, we weren't measuring, actually; but I can remember standing downwind, right next to the paved circle, alongside Rush and we were both giggling like little girls. In my mind's eye I can still see that roaring Impact repeatedly, and with remarkable consistency, bottoming out at just about knee high and (slightly) lower.

I know exactly two CL Combat fliers who can do something similar: Bob Carver and Slava Beliaev. The former is quite the crowd-pleaser, especially so the day Rush wanted to see grass move at the corner of a wingover, this taking place mere feet in front of us, but his is a two-trick act, and he has been known to plant a few. Belieav also is amazing; but again, it's a limited schedule by a talented and highly experienced flier.

Neither Bob nor Slava, in my opinion, can pull off a performance such as we saw at a local NW Stunt contest.

Let's hear no more about the CL Combat guys being the Kings of Flying Low; cheap, disposable models or not, as it seems to make no real difference from what I have seen over the years.

Howard,

You aren't going to leave me hangin' out here, are ya...?

Well, you guys are getting a bit better. I count 6 or 7 actual discussion replies here.

There has been quite a lot of discussion of the NATS competition here. A lot of comment about the great length of development to get to the current format. One of the key ideas was that you can't trust the judges, so all flyers in a group have to fly in front of the same judges. You can't compare scores from different groups of judges. Second, you can't compare day-to-day scores. Third, due to all the extraneous things that happen- weather, wind, etc.- the flyers deserve at least one throwaway score.

This idea is a fairly simple extension of those thoughts. With the current judging system the best, most consistent comparison the judges can do is between two back-to-back flights. Minimal problems with extraneous stuff, no problem with scores ballooning, minimal problem for the judges to keep on track being sure they are scoring the same maneuvers the same way.

The nice thing is, it doesn't require ANY changes to flying procedures from current. All the changes are in how the scores are used after they are given. Instead of lumping 30 flyers in a group, flying them off over 8-10 hours, and then comparing scores and picking the winners, you do it by pairs. The judges comparing Joe Blow at 9:10 and Ahnold Schwarznegger at 9:20 are going to have a MUCH better handle on which one flew better than trying to compare Joe at 9:10am and Ahnold at 3:35 pm.

It doesn't reduce the number of flights much. At a local contest it would add flights, since each event would go longer than two flights per pilot. But local contests rarely have the long flight schedules of the Nats.

It does nothing for "seeding", if you think that is necessary. At some point every flyer has to fly against someone they think is better . It ain't competition otherwise. If you feel seeding is a must, do it after the first round of flights. Match the top scoring winner against the lowest scoring one. It ain't a great option, but at least the info is current. For the first round I see nothing wrong with making sure the top fliers from the last few NATS don't fly each other and also make sure that flyers from the same part of the country aren't matched against people they fly with regularly. That is kind of a no-brainer, common sense plan.

It does put a lot of pressure on just about every pilot to fly their very best in every flight. Some of the very best guys may slack off a bit if they are flying someone they feel isn't likely to post a really high score, but that is no different than only trying to "make the cut". Everybody else needs to go all out.

Phil,
I really like your idea. It sounds like it really would make the judge’s job a lot easier. Much easier to justify who won if they both flew within 20 minutes or so.

If seeding was necessary in the first round to keep the top guys or flying partners from flying against each other it is a simple matter to do based on the system we have always used to separate combat flyers in the first round.

Why don’t you hold a stunt contest and try this out. Not really sure why anyone would object on the local level.

Hope to see you in 2005 at a contest somewhere. You guys need to come on down to Huntersville NC and fly with us. Great stunt and some Speed Limit Combat to boot.