Nats Placings 21 through ??

The positions posted on the AMA site for final placing in 322 Precision Aerobatics are wrong. There was only one qualifying round flown, and it was on for separate circles in front of four sets of judges. It is impossible to establish placing for fliers from 20 on under the conditions we had and the results need to be amended.

There were many factors that skewed the placing in this year's National Championships, including the fact that Advanced was flown on the same circles as Open. Of the four circles, there were both high and low circles so scores cannot be compared and used to establish final positions.

There are also mistakes made on the fliers listed as DNF. This needs to be corrected.

Curt....my guess is that the scores are not "normalized"....primarily because normalizing is a pain in the butt and not all that reflective when dealing with the limited numbers.

See Ya

>There were many factors that skewed the placing in this
>year's National Championships, including the fact that
>Advanced was flown on the same circles as Open.

We discussed this at the Nats.

What exactly would the effect be of flying Advanced and Open flyers on the same circle? Especially in front of Nats caliber judges I expect that the scores would reflect the flight. There is no need to qualify the class you fly in to recieve a score simply based on the pattern flown.

>
>>There were many factors that skewed the placing in this
>>year's National Championships, including the fact that
>>Advanced was flown on the same circles as Open.
>
>We discussed this at the Nats.
>
>What exactly would the effect be of flying Advanced and Open
>flyers on the same circle? Especially in front of Nats
>caliber judges I expect that the scores would reflect the
>flight. There is no need to qualify the class you fly in to
>recieve a score simply based on the pattern flown.

Flying the same classes together would NOT skew the scores under normal circumstances. They would simply be seperated out as they are placed on the board.

Not qualifying the class gives you basicaly Jr Sr Open like the old days. People say that was one of the big reasons participation dropped so much. No one wanted to drive all day and night to be an "Also-Ran"

This year it was messed up so 21 and on really doesnt matter in either advanced or open.

I DO think that flying the classes all mixed in is a GOOD thing and should STAY that way. I think it really keeps the judges on their toes. Who really knows? There is another thread on here that really shows how differently the very same thing can been viewed very very differently.

Very interesting.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 06:50 PM (CDT)
 
The placings really - really don't matter because myself and a quarter of the other flyers were flying in the lowest scoring circle.
For example. I flew directly after Randy Smith in the final round and was summarily blown to the ground by capricious winds in circle four. I watched Randy's flight pretty closely and think that his score of 491.75 was about 30 points too low. My first flight of 458.75 was what stood, but I made a couple of ugly errors that I wanted to fix in the second flight that got zapped by the wind. The Wendsday rounds were cancelled due to steady winds blowing over 20 MPH. I flew on Wendsday but have no idea what score I had, it never got posted before the cancellation. There were many planes that contacted the ground during Wendsday's flying. Even Ted Fancher's Special Edition was a victim of the wind during an early AM practice flight at Ball State University. One of the spars let go in the center section and it went into the ground at the bottom of the vertical eights. That's why the results say Terry G. Fancher did not fly. Hopefully we are not all too traumatized by the unfortunate incidents caused in the wind to continue flying and modeling. I will, but I plan to slow things down a little slower than I have been going. Whew! That's enough....

>
>I DO think that flying the classes all mixed in is a GOOD
>thing and should STAY that way. I think it really keeps the
>judges on their toes.

That's cool, just that we are there to pick a National Champion, not to keep the judges on their toes. I was told this was tried before and did not work.

I was not competing back then, does anybody remember that?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 10:58 PM (CDT)
 
>>
>>I DO think that flying the classes all mixed in is a GOOD
>>thing and should STAY that way. I think it really keeps the
>>judges on their toes.
>
>That's cool, just that we are there to pick a National
>Champion, not to keep the judges on their toes.

Of course the Nats champ is the whole reason.

I was told
>this was tried before and did not work.
>
>I was not competing back then, does anybody remember that?
>
>Curt

I havent heard that but would be interested in how it worked out.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 00:50 AM (CDT)
 
>>
>>I DO think that flying the classes all mixed in is a GOOD
>>thing and should STAY that way. I think it really keeps the
>>judges on their toes.
>
>That's cool, just that we are there to pick a National
>Champion, not to keep the judges on their toes. I was told
>this was tried before and did not work.

I don't think it makes much difference, but you are correct, the point is *not* to challenge the judges - in fact, anything that makes their job easier makes it much more likely that they will get the right answer. I might also note that, despite innumerable comments on the topic, the overlap between advanced and Open scores was negligible once you took out the anomalies. I woudl add that I had no problem flying right after an Advanced flier, and it didn't seem to make any significant difference in any case I saw.

The placing of 21 and subsequent was as legitimate as it ever is - fewer rounds doesn't make that any different. The high/low circle issue was dealt with as always, by effectively normalizing the scores by making the ranking a percentage of the high score on the circle. The "low circle" was also the "tight circle", meaning that the non-qualifiying fliers from that circle were closer to the top. The circle I was on was the "loosest", and Billy's 552 in qualifying (way higher than the others, including Andrii and myself) blew the non-qualifiers percentage score into the weeds. I know because I helped Shareen program the Excel macros to calculate it.

Of course, there really isn't a perfectly valid way to rank 21 and on. It's really 4 separate contests, and you can't directly compare the results from one to the other. The percent of high score is certainly about as well as could be done, and as long as everyone still cares about their rank outside the top 20 (and they definitely DO), you have to do something. I'm sure that alternative methods could be considered, if any arise.

>I was not competing back then, does anybody remember that?
>

Yes. The problem was, and it was exhibited this year *in the extreme*, was that with only 5 from a circle, the seeding was super-critical. Even more so when you are taking 20 people total out of 80 (vice 35-40 like it was before). For example, when Ted crashed and didn't fly, it changed the outcome. Add to that the difficulty of seeding the foreign competitors, and you had a really difficult situation.

I've already made my point with Warren and Shareen, to wit, that if they ask me, we should go back to two-circle qualifying with 10 per circle, as it makes it less prone to seeding errors, and provides no advantage with a normal turnout. It would have been a disaster with 71 Open and 40-ish Advanced - not nearly enough hours in a day for that. It's my opinion that the 10 from two circles is ideal for a normal turnout, and that the 5 from two circles is ideal for a wildly imbalanced turnout as it was this year. Of course, Warren and Shareen had already figured that out before the contest started.

Any "value" that may have been added in being able to compare Advanced and Open scores directly has pretty much disproven the main arguing point.

As long as we are on the topic, calling off the first round helped some and hurt others (made no difference either way to me, as it turns out, since I was going to be second on my circle on Wednesday and was third on Thursday, but it could have), placed a premium on getting a good score on one flight vice several, and certainly added to the luck or random factors. But it's NOT intrinsically unfair or otherwise invalid. The large entry pretty much guaranteed that a few people who probably could have made it in normal circumstances did make it this time.

Brett

p.s. to clarify, take an example. In a normal year, we have about 40 Open entrants, and we take 20, or 50%. It been even higher in the past - in Lubbock, I think there were only something like 28 entrants, and we still took 20, for 71%. This year, we had 71 entrants, and still took 20, or 28%. Even with everything else being equal, this makes it much, much more difficult. Add to that the fact that many of the additional guys were quite literally World-Class, and it's even more challenging. Then split it 4 ways instead of 2, and the seeding gets more critical. Then add the single-round (and effectively only a single flight, since the second round on Thursday was pretty much a blow-out {and at least as bad as it was on Wednesday, BTW) and the randomness is multiplied. That's why I hung around staring at the scoreboard and sweating it out all day long, instead of cranking out my flights and going back to the hotel and watching Green Acres like I usually do during qualifying. bb

>
>We discussed this at the Nats.
>
>What exactly would the effect be of flying Advanced and Open
>flyers on the same circle? Especially in front of Nats
>caliber judges I expect that the scores would reflect the
>flight. There is no need to qualify the class you fly in to
>recieve a score simply based on the pattern flown.

In an ideal world, you are absolutely correct. The biggest problem is that in order to combine the two groups of fliers, four circles had to be flown. This meant that in order to qualify for the top 20, you had to finish in the top 5 of your circle. With as many fliers as were there, the seeding of circles was critical. The seeding of the judges also becomes a bigger factor.

To make it worse this year, the first round was thrown out right before it was completed. This meant the top 20 was decided by a single highest flight over just one day of flying. Each flier saw only one set of judges.

In a discussion I had after the Nats, with a Nats judge, he had some interesting observations. He said before the contest he predicted that by having such a range of flying skills on each circle, it could take two or three maneuvers for the judges to settle in. It is also possible for them to run out of room when going from a several good advanced flies to a very good open flier.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-04 AT 11:48 PM (CDT)
 
>>
>>We discussed this at the Nats.
>>
>>What exactly would the effect be of flying Advanced and Open
>>flyers on the same circle? Especially in front of Nats
>>caliber judges I expect that the scores would reflect the
>>flight. There is no need to qualify the class you fly in to
>>recieve a score simply based on the pattern flown.
>
>In an ideal world, you are absolutely correct. The biggest
>problem is that in order to combine the two groups of
>fliers, four circles had to be flown. This meant that in
>order to qualify for the top 20, you had to finish in the
>top 5 of your circle.

With as many fliers as were there, the
>seeding of circles was critical.

You are right. This was HUGE! Steve said on his circle there were eight guys who would be in there on a normal Nats.

The seeding of the judges
>also becomes a bigger factor.

This should be a non factor(in a perfect world)

>
>To make it worse this year, the first round was thrown out
>right before it was completed. This meant the top 20 was
>decided by a single highest flight over just one day of
>flying. Each flier saw only one set of judges.

Yep it made it pretty much a crap shoot for sure.

>
>In a discussion I had after the Nats, with a Nats judge, he
>had some interesting observations. He said before the
>contest he predicted that by having such a range of flying
>skills on each circle, it could take two or three maneuvers
>for the judges to settle in.

This I do not understand what so ever. They have praticed judging gone to a clinic and warm up each day. What is settling in?

It is also possible for them to
>run out of room when going from a several good advanced
>flies to a very good open flier.
>
>Curt

Run out of room???? What does that mean? Are they scoring the ADV higher than they should then no where to go on the Open guy?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-04 AT 00:32 AM (CDT)
 
>With as many fliers as were there, the
>>seeding of circles was critical.
>
>You are right. This was HUGE! Steve said on his circle
>there were eight guys who would be in there on a normal
>Nats.

Steve was about right, there were a lot of usual top-20 fliers on each circle. Then add in 8-10 guys from the Worlds, and it absolutely, positively, guaranteed that a number of them would not make it. The fact that you and Bill Rich were not present was a mitigating factor, but the net effect was certainly to make it much more difficult, at least on qualifying day. It has nothing at all to do with halo, or anything else. I was surprised at a few of the people left out on Top 20 day (Randy and Matt Neumann being quite notable, but certainly not the only, examples). It was a much, much tougher contest than usual, the single round raised the difficulty still higher. That's all.

Halo,

I took it out. YOu were right. Not the place nor did I see it. PLease remove it from yours and I will dump it here and act like it was never said.