LAST EDITED ON Nov-30-03 AT 02:07 PM (CST) Hi Doug,
Really interesting question and, as often happens, there is more of interest in the history of the event than you are likely aware of...because you weren't there yet!
As a matter of fact, when the current four circle format was initiated and at the time that Rolly McDonald and (I think Big Art but it might have been Jack Sheeks...old-timers setting in) instituted the skill class system into that format we were actually doing exacly what is now being discussed as the "new" format. For several years the advanced and open contestants flew "mixed together" on the four circles. The judges were not informed of who was flying in what class and the only distinction was the scoreboard on which the scores were posted. After qualifying, the breakdown for semi-finals for open and (at that time) finals for the advanced class, was pretty much the same as now, i.e. separate competitions in front of separate judges.
I agree now and did then with your suggestion that that was a superior method of actually integrating the classes so that the results actually were indicative of the skill difference between those who chose to fly one skill level or another.
This method was changed (unfortunately, again IMHO) for pretty much the reasons you addressed in your original post. Some people felt it was too difficult for the judges to somehow make this huge change in mental perceptivity to be able to fairly compare the efforts of an advanced flyer and immediately thereafter an open flyer. I thought then and continue to feel this is a great disservice to those hard working and competent individuals who volunteer to judge our affairs.
I think, Doug, you are probably the poster boy for why the resulting system failed to provide a realistic distinction between the advanced and open flyers at the nats. You spent a number of years working hard to try to achieve what you thought was an important stepping stone to legitimize your entry in open vice advanced. You felt it was necessary to win the advanced class before you would feel validated.
When, for whatever reason, you ultimately decided you were spinning your wheels and wasting valuable seasons in that endeavor you entered open and immediately not only increased your "scores" dramatically but found yourself flying at least one more day than you probably felt was likely to happen! For those unfamiliar with the recent past at the nats, this means that Dougie qualified for the Top Five Flyoffs the first time he flew in Open! An awesome, likely unprecedented happening.
Did you actually fly that much better than the year before when your "scores" were significantly lower and you failed to beat all of the 40 or so other entries who felt unqualified to compete in Open? You certainly did fly better...but not, I submit, "that" much better.
What really happened, in my opinion, is that the "qualification" of your flying, the "scores" I put in quotes above, were significantly effected by the sort of "pre-flying manipulation of outcome" that is produced by administrative schemes that pre-select" the level of competence of the contestant. By that I include the structured separation of classes during qualification at the Nats or other big contests you addressed, Doug; the between rounds manipulation of second round flying order by virtue of "increasing or decreasing level of performance" as mentioned by P'body (I thought that was why we were flying...to decide what the proper ranking of performance is on a given day. If we already know we could all save a lot of gas and spend some time at home with the wife and kids!); and, most especially, the terrible suggestion to judges that flyers of a given class should receive maneuver scores in a certain narrow range...advanced, 28 to 32 and open, 31 to 35 or some such arbitrary range of scores.
The influence of these sorts of administrative manipulations on the outcome of events is, I feel, much more invasive and disruptive to the ultimate ranking of flyers than is any possible confusion on the part of a judge when flyers perform maneuvers that aren't all of the same degree of perfection from flight to flight. That is, after all, their job; one which they must perform not only flight to flight but within a given flight wherein it is entirely possible for an open flyer to fly a maneuver worthy of only a modest score...to say nothing of the possibility of an advanced flyer doing a perfect one. Once again, determining the quality of each individual maneuver is what the judges get the big bucks for!
Once again, I think it is almost indisputable that your experience in back to back nats is as clear a piece of evidence as one could hope to witness in an event so dependent on subjectivity for the ultimate picking of winners and losers.
The only form of administrative manipulation of flight orders with which I am reluctantly in agreement is the need for seeding flyers into circles when the number of entries is high and the quality of flyers involved can be at such disparate levels. This is a very difficult task and, like most people picking stocks to buy, depends an awful lot on past performance. Not sure there is any other way.
The process is arguably justifiable, however, because the possibility of a total random selection making the range of competence of one circle vice another so great that clearly inferior pilots will "by process" end up qualifying for succeeding rounds due simply to the fact that all the "better" flyers end up beating each other into submission on the "tough" circle. Imperfect but necessary, in my mind, until somebody can think of some magic way to get around the problem.
More than you wanted to know, probably, Doug. But I was sure you would be interested to know that not everybody felt the current system was inherently preferable to what you thought was a new idea but was actually a reality for a number of years!
I'll be very interested to see what the range of opinions from others on the forum is on this subject.
) 
