Inaccurate Contest Scoring

[Bill Feldbaumer]

On the second day of this year's 15 Meter Nationals, Karl Striedieck
chose the best direction for his flight and smoked the rest of the
field. He made 63.7 mph, 8 mph better than the second pilot and 14 mph
better than the third. Did he get 1000 points for this outstanding
performance? No, he received only 852 points. The reason was that some
other pilots chose less favorable directions for their flights and
landed out. That devalued the day and Karl's score. The more poorly
Karl's competitors did, the lower his score became. Karl should have
stood by the finish line and urged his competitors to come home so
that he could have received a better score!

In racing sports world wide, an individual's score is determined by
his performance alone. Soaring is the only racing sport that allows an
individual's score to be affected by the performances of his
competitors. It should not be this way. It can be changed.

It is possible to make a rational analysis of scoring systems rather
than just accepting "the way things have always been done." Any one
interesting in doing so could start with my posting on r.a.s.,
10/2/2003, "History of Contest Scoring."

Bill Feldbaumer 09

[John Jones]

At 14:18 04 June 2004, Bill Feldbaumer wrote:
>On the second day of this year's 15 Meter Nationals,
>Karl Striedieck
>chose the best direction for his flight and smoked
>the rest of the
>field. He made 63.7 mph, 8 mph better than the second
>pilot and 14 mph
>better than the third. Did he get 1000 points for this
>outstanding
>performance? No, he received only 852 points. The reason
>was that some
>other pilots chose less favorable directions for their
>flights and
>landed out. That devalued the day and Karl's score.
>The more poorly
>Karl's competitors did, the lower his score became.
>Karl should have
>stood by the finish line and urged his competitors
>to come home so
>that he could have received a better score!
>
>In racing sports world wide, an individual's score
>is determined by
>his performance alone. Soaring is the only racing sport
>that allows an
>individual's score to be affected by the performances
>of his
>competitors. It should not be this way. It can be changed.
>
>It is possible to make a rational analysis of scoring
>systems rather
>than just accepting 'the way things have always been
>done.' Any one
>interesting in doing so could start with my posting
>on r.a.s.,
>10/2/2003, 'History of Contest Scoring.'
>
>Bill Feldbaumer 09
>

I do not fly contests. But I agree the proper measures
should be in place if you are going to hold a race.
The proper measure is not distance, but speed. Seems
clear the question is who can fly the fastest, not
who can fly the farthest.

GPS provides this solution for the pilot. With a simply
program written for a PDA, the current average speed
is easily shown in terms how fast is the pilot flying
AWAY from the last turnpoint.

No need to just count the miles flown. Just figure
out who is flying the fastest around the course.

How do you score this for a week-long contest? You
can not just add the speeds together each day (nor
distance for that matter). Each day should be counted
the same....just like in MotoGP motorcycle racing where
each race is counted the same, whether that race was
in the rain, sun, cold, or whatever. 15 points for
first place, 14 points for second...on down to 1 point
for 15th place. Everyone else gets no points, including
those who do not finish (DNF sailplanes that land out,
I say). End of the week, your best pilot will be the
pilot with the highest point total. The week was what
it was...you cant try to alter or devalue the points
to some nominal expectations of what the conditions
should be....if it rains all week, it rains, deal with
it...do not pretend we can devalue the points as if
the weather were better.

[Brian Penfold]

>I do not fly contests. But I agree the proper measures
>should be in place if you are going to hold a race.
> The proper measure is not distance, but speed. Seems
>clear the question is who can fly the fastest, not
>who can fly the farthest.
>
>GPS provides this solution for the pilot. With a simply
>program written for a PDA, the current average speed
>is easily shown in terms how fast is the pilot flying
>AWAY from the last turnpoint.
>
>No need to just count the miles flown. Just figure
>out who is flying the fastest around the course.
>
>How do you score this for a week-long contest? You
>can not just add the speeds together each day (nor
>distance for that matter). Each day should be counted
>the same....just like in MotoGP motorcycle racing where
>each race is counted the same, whether that race was
>in the rain, sun, cold, or whatever. 15 points for
>first place, 14 points for second...on down to 1 point
>for 15th place. Everyone else gets no points, including
>those who do not finish (DNF sailplanes that land out,
>I say). End of the week, your best pilot will be the
>pilot with the highest point total. The week was what
>it was...you cant try to alter or devalue the points
>to some nominal expectations of what the conditions
>should be....if it rains all week, it rains, deal with
>it...do not pretend we can devalue the points as if
>the weather were better.
>
This is a reply for real?

If it is not a wind up then I think the first line
of post says it all really. I'm afraid your solution
shows a complete lack of the dynamics of soaring competitions
and of the sport in general. The current rules, while
not perfect, take into account the multitude of variables
associated with perhaps the most dynamic of all sports.


Motor-racing, has 'standard' conditions for all entrants,
ie same track, same weather, same mechanical constraints,
common start - with only the driver/rider performance
and the funding behind the development of the engine/chassis
to really providing the advantage. There is very little
to compare, apart from transatlantic sailing I guess,
(and that uses on 2D dynamics) with soaring competitions;
the dynamics are infinitely variable, and the current
scoring systems allows for that. Try explaining the
nil points for a land out to the pilots, on a day when
everybody lands out and yet the furthest flown competitor
lands within a few Kms of the finish after a 300km
flight task, and the novice competition pilot lands
25kms after the start line. Who has had the most meritorious
flight/ Who deserves the most points. How do you
score a week when every day everyone lands out?

Also the proper measure cannot be 'just speed' alone
but must be as it is, a delicate balance of the ability
of the pilot to balance his skill against the characteristics
of his own aircraft, with the current and projected
climatic conditions as well as other pilots. The only
way to achieve what you ask is for everyone to fly
the same sailplane, cross the start line at the same
time and to fly exactly the same route.

Ever tried to race a LS8 with a Junior? are they even
in the same league? ( VNE LS8 145Kts - VNE Junior
119Kts) well they can be, and the scoring system takes
account of this. It also allows club aircraft to compete
against privately owned aircraft, at many different
levels.

Try flying in a competition sometime, perhaps you will
understand it - you could then comment on it from
an informed position.

[John Jones]

At 19:06 04 June 2004, Brian Penfold wrote:
>>I do not fly contests. But I agree the proper measures
>>should be in place if you are going to hold a race.
>> The proper measure is not distance, but speed. Seems
>>clear the question is who can fly the fastest, not
>>who can fly the farthest.
>>
>>GPS provides this solution for the pilot. With a simply
>>program written for a PDA, the current average speed
>>is easily shown in terms how fast is the pilot flying
>>AWAY from the last turnpoint.
>>
>>No need to just count the miles flown. Just figure
>>out who is flying the fastest around the course.
>>
>>How do you score this for a week-long contest? You
>>can not just add the speeds together each day (nor
>>distance for that matter). Each day should be counted
>>the same....just like in MotoGP motorcycle racing where
>>each race is counted the same, whether that race was
>>in the rain, sun, cold, or whatever. 15 points for
>>first place, 14 points for second...on down to 1 point
>>for 15th place. Everyone else gets no points, including
>>those who do not finish (DNF sailplanes that land out,
>>I say). End of the week, your best pilot will be the
>>pilot with the highest point total. The week was what
>>it was...you cant try to alter or devalue the points
>>to some nominal expectations of what the conditions
>>should be....if it rains all week, it rains, deal with
>>it...do not pretend we can devalue the points as if
>>the weather were better.
>>
>This is a reply for real?
>
>If it is not a wind up then I think the first line
>of post says it all really. I'm afraid your solution
>shows a complete lack of the dynamics of soaring competitions
>and of the sport in general. The current rules, while
>not perfect, take into account the multitude of variables
>associated with perhaps the most dynamic of all sports.
>
>
>Motor-racing, has 'standard' conditions for all entrants,
>ie same track, same weather, same mechanical constraints,
>common start - with only the driver/rider performance
>and the funding behind the development of the engine/chassis
>to really providing the advantage. There is very little
>to compare, apart from transatlantic sailing I guess,
>(and that uses on 2D dynamics) with soaring competitions;
>the dynamics are infinitely variable, and the current
>scoring systems allows for that. Try explaining the
>nil points for a land out to the pilots, on a day when
>everybody lands out and yet the furthest flown competitor
>lands within a few Kms of the finish after a 300km
>flight task, and the novice competition pilot lands
>25kms after the start line. Who has had the most meritorious
>flight/ Who deserves the most points. How do you
>score a week when every day everyone lands out?
>
>Also the proper measure cannot be 'just speed' alone
>but must be as it is, a delicate balance of the ability
>of the pilot to balance his skill against the characteristics
>of his own aircraft, with the current and projected
>climatic conditions as well as other pilots. The only
>way to achieve what you ask is for everyone to fly
>the same sailplane, cross the start line at the same
>time and to fly exactly the same route.
>
>Ever tried to race a LS8 with a Junior? are they even
>in the same league? ( VNE LS8 145Kts - VNE Junior
>119Kts) well they can be, and the scoring system takes
>account of this. It also allows club aircraft to compete
>against privately owned aircraft, at many different
>levels.
>
>Try flying in a competition sometime, perhaps you will
>understand it - you could then comment on it from
>an informed position.
>
>

Informed position?? Clearly, you are mis-informed.


Sure, the sky conditions can change despite everyone
going from turnpoint A to turnpoint B because people
get spreadout and late/slow pilots will can have different
conditions.

How does that differ from NASCAR or Indy racers? Those
out front have the clean air and no traffic slowing
them like those drivers back in the pack. Should we
build each car a seperate race track and then somehow
devalue the results if one of the racetracks have different
weather conditions??

And how does choosing or failing to choose a thermal
differ from auto racing? Just because a pilot land-outs
cause he was too busy about going forward instead of
climbing, we have to assume he is to be rewarded somehow???
Ask NASCAR fans if drivers should get championship
points because they run out of gas instead of pitting.
Thermals, like the gas can for the car, is what makes
the plane go. Can't believe you suggest awarding points
to pilots who do not understand this simple idea.

Sure, on really bad days, everyone lands out. Don't
hold a race on a day with bad weather, but mistakes
will happen, so what do we do? Nothing! That's just
racing. For autos, sometimes you have a flat tire,
blown engine, or get involved in a multi-car crash....just
part of racing, you are DNF and you get no points.
Same thing with sailplanes, it is okay to have bad
luck, it is part of racing.

Stop trying to normalize things to some standard 1000
point day. Judge people on the actual performance
they turn in, and penalize severly any unsafe activity.
Just because you spend time and money on your sailplane
does not mean you are entitiled to be competive and
earn points. Want points? Then go to the front consistently
just like the NASCAR boys do.

[Brian Penfold]

MMMMmmmm I'm sure others will have there view of Johns
response. Can't actually see in my post where I said
anything about 'normalizing things to some standard
1000
point day'. All I'm saying is that you cannot really
compare NASCAR racing with gliding. It's like comparing
apples and grapes.

Sure conditions will change, but the conditions can
be better or worse at any point on the task. You can't
compare that to clean air at the front of a car race,
come on. And as all competition pilots will know,
you can win a contest as the last glider that crosses
the start line - its not about being out in-front.
Good competition pilots require more of an analytical
or tactical approach to winning, not balls out speed.
If you don't understand this then perhaps you'd better
take up NASCAR racing.

At 20:06 04 June 2004, John Jones wrote:
>At 19:06 04 June 2004, Brian Penfold wrote:
>>>I do not fly contests. But I agree the proper measures
>>>should be in place if you are going to hold a race.
>>> The proper measure is not distance, but speed. Seems
>>>clear the question is who can fly the fastest, not
>>>who can fly the farthest.
>>>
>>>GPS provides this solution for the pilot. With a simply
>>>program written for a PDA, the current average speed
>>>is easily shown in terms how fast is the pilot flying
>>>AWAY from the last turnpoint.
>>>
>>>No need to just count the miles flown. Just figure
>>>out who is flying the fastest around the course.
>>>
>>>How do you score this for a week-long contest? You
>>>can not just add the speeds together each day (nor
>>>distance for that matter). Each day should be counted
>>>the same....just like in MotoGP motorcycle racing where
>>>each race is counted the same, whether that race was
>>>in the rain, sun, cold, or whatever. 15 points for
>>>first place, 14 points for second...on down to 1 point
>>>for 15th place. Everyone else gets no points, including
>>>those who do not finish (DNF sailplanes that land out,
>>>I say). End of the week, your best pilot will be the
>>>pilot with the highest point total. The week was what
>>>it was...you cant try to alter or devalue the points
>>>to some nominal expectations of what the conditions
>>>should be....if it rains all week, it rains, deal with
>>>it...do not pretend we can devalue the points as if
>>>the weather were better.
>>>
>>This is a reply for real?
>>
>>If it is not a wind up then I think the first line
>>of post says it all really. I'm afraid your solution
>>shows a complete lack of the dynamics of soaring competitions
>>and of the sport in general. The current rules, while
>>not perfect, take into account the multitude of variables
>>associated with perhaps the most dynamic of all sports.
>>
>>
>>Motor-racing, has 'standard' conditions for all entrants,
>>ie same track, same weather, same mechanical constraints,
>>common start - with only the driver/rider performance
>>and the funding behind the development of the engine/chassis
>>to really providing the advantage. There is very little
>>to compare, apart from transatlantic sailing I guess,
>>(and that uses on 2D dynamics) with soaring competitions;
>>the dynamics are infinitely variable, and the current
>>scoring systems allows for that. Try explaining the
>>nil points for a land out to the pilots, on a day when
>>everybody lands out and yet the furthest flown competitor
>>lands within a few Kms of the finish after a 300km
>>flight task, and the novice competition pilot lands
>>25kms after the start line. Who has had the most meritorious
>>flight/ Who deserves the most points. How do you
>>score a week when every day everyone lands out?
>>
>>Also the proper measure cannot be 'just speed' alone
>>but must be as it is, a delicate balance of the ability
>>of the pilot to balance his skill against the characteristics
>>of his own aircraft, with the current and projected
>>climatic conditions as well as other pilots. The only
>>way to achieve what you ask is for everyone to fly
>>the same sailplane, cross the start line at the same
>>time and to fly exactly the same route.
>>
>>Ever tried to race a LS8 with a Junior? are they even
>>in the same league? ( VNE LS8 145Kts - VNE Junior
>>119Kts) well they can be, and the scoring system takes
>>account of this. It also allows club aircraft to compete
>>against privately owned aircraft, at many different
>>levels.
>>
>>Try flying in a competition sometime, perhaps you will
>>understand it - you could then comment on it from
>>an informed position.
>>
>>
>
>Informed position?? Clearly, you are mis-informed.
>
>
>Sure, the sky conditions can change despite everyone
>going from turnpoint A to turnpoint B because people
>get spreadout and late/slow pilots will can have different
>conditions.
>
>How does that differ from NASCAR or Indy racers? Those
>out front have the clean air and no traffic slowing
>them like those drivers back in the pack. Should we
>build each car a seperate race track and then somehow
>devalue the results if one of the racetracks have different
>weather conditions??
>
>And how does choosing or failing to choose a thermal
>differ from auto racing? Just because a pilot land-outs
>cause he was too busy about going forward instead of
>climbing, we have to assume he is to be rewarded somehow???
> Ask NASCAR fans if drivers should get championship
>points because they run out of gas instead of pitting.
> Thermals, like the gas can for the car, is what makes
>the plane go. Can't believe you suggest awarding points
>to pilots who do not understand this simple idea.
>
>Sure, on really bad days, everyone lands out. Don't
>hold a race on a day with bad weather, but mistakes
>will happen, so what do we do? Nothing! That's just
>racing. For autos, sometimes you have a flat tire,
>blown engine, or get involved in a multi-car crash....just
>part of racing, you are DNF and you get no points.
> Same thing with sailplanes, it is okay to have bad
>luck, it is part of racing.
>
>Stop trying to normalize things to some standard 1000
>point day. Judge people on the actual performance
>they turn in, and penalize severly any unsafe activity.
> Just because you spend time and money on your sailplane
>does not mean you are entitiled to be competive and
>earn points. Want points? Then go to the front consistently
>just like the NASCAR boys do.
>
>
>
>

[Philip Plane]

I think the original point here was that if a pilot flys the task
set for the day and is the first finisher, his points should not rely
on the performances of other contestants.

Devaluing a day because the other contestants were unable or unwilling
to fly the task doesn't make the flight of the pilot who does
fly the task less worthy of points.

When the rules make it sensible to take a start and land back so the
day is devalued, reducing the points difference you risk in the contest,
rather than attempting the task, there's something wrong.

The current rules make that behaviour advisable if the class is
small, and the day marginal. A few start and land backs will
devalue the day dramatically. The land back pilots don't risk
a landout, and they don't risk their competitor getting 1000 points.

I've seen a task set and the entire field land back except one pilot.
He flew the whole task, with updates coming over the radio with his
ops normal calls like 'ops normal, 1500ft, scratchy', 'ops normal,
getting low'. This went on all afternoon. Then he lands and gets the
reward for the day, 0 points. All the other pilots landed back, so
not enough completed the minimum task scoring distance.

He flew the task set and deserved the full points.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[Ian Scarle]

While I tend to agree with you here Philip, the case
you state is very exceptional. I haven't sat and worked
through the figures, but you do need a really small
field, a very small task, and only one glider to fly
it. The rules on scoring contests have been iteratively
developed over a number years to meet the needs of
the sport. Just as in the same way that the scoring
rules for Formula One were changed recently to meet
the needs of the sport.

I do agree with Brian however, you really cannot compare
the sport of gliding with that of NASCAR or any other
sort of 'powered' race. That does show a lack of
understanding of soaring, especially in this forum.
Johns suggestion that you score no points if you land
out, is more likely to be far more controversial.
You really cannot compare the two sports or the scoring
system associated with either of them. Sure the current
rules do disadvantage the day winner under certain
circumstances, but I think it is all relative.

Ian
<<<<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's just no substitue for span!


At 21:06 04 June 2004, Philip Plane wrote:
>I think the original point here was that if a pilot
>flys the task
>set for the day and is the first finisher, his points
>should not rely
>on the performances of other contestants.
>
>Devaluing a day because the other contestants were
>unable or unwilling
>to fly the task doesn't make the flight of the pilot
>who does
>fly the task less worthy of points.
>
>When the rules make it sensible to take a start and
>land back so the
>day is devalued, reducing the points difference you
>risk in the contest,
>rather than attempting the task, there's something
>wrong.
>
>The current rules make that behaviour advisable if
>the class is
>small, and the day marginal. A few start and land backs
>will
>devalue the day dramatically. The land back pilots
>don't risk
>a landout, and they don't risk their competitor getting
>1000 points.
>
>I've seen a task set and the entire field land back
>except one pilot.
>He flew the whole task, with updates coming over the
>radio with his
>ops normal calls like 'ops normal, 1500ft, scratchy',
>'ops normal,
>getting low'. This went on all afternoon. Then he lands
>and gets the
>reward for the day, 0 points. All the other pilots
>landed back, so
>not enough completed the minimum task scoring distance.
>
>He flew the task set and deserved the full points.
>
>--
>Philip Plane _____
> |
> ---------------( )---------------
>Glider pilots have no visible means of support
>

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, REMOVE_TO_REPLY.bandit111964
@yahoo.com says...

>Informed position?? Clearly, you are mis-informed.

How many competitions have you flown in? I'm trying to get an idea of
why you are so dismissive of the present rules, which have been tweaked
for many years by competitors from regional through international
contests. The current rules were not drawn out of a bunch random rules
thrown into a hat, but are the ones that please most of the competitors
most of the time. They have evolved over the years, of course, as pilots
and technology have changed.
--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA

[JJ Sinclair]

Philip wrote>>>>>>>>>>>
>When the rules make it sensible to take a start and land back so the
>day is devalued, reducing the points difference you risk in the contest,
>rather than attempting the task, there's something wrong.

Come on guys, has anyone actually read the rules? If one takes a start and then
lands back, he is not a contestant. One must get a scored distance to be a
contestant. This can be done by landing at any distance from home or by flying
at least half the minimum distance (30 s/m in a nationals) and then claiming a
*constructive landout*, before returning to the contest sight. Thus making 1
vote to make it a *no-contest-day*. At least 25% of the *contestants* (those
who have scored distance points) must fly the minimum distance (60 s/m) for the
day to be an official contest day.

If we were to adopt a *winner-take-all* system it would favor the taking of
unreasonable chances. Bad idea! Our rules are very good just as they are,
although I don't think we should have a book that is almost as large as the
rules themselves, just to explain what's in there.
:>)
JJ Sinclair

[Jack]

Brian Penfold wrote:

> MMMMmmmm I'm sure others will have there view of Johns
> response.

I have a view: all your "Yeah, buts...." don't hold water, BP.

There is no way that degrading the value of one pilot's achievement because of
the bad luck or bad judgment of another pilot is a rational way to compete.
Sounds like more European Socialism to me.

Maybe if you knew a little more about NASCAR, you'd know a little more about
competition. I wouldn't compare NASCAR and Soaring, either. They are not
comparable to the extent that Soaring scoring is based on potential and NASCAR
scoring is based on achievement.



Jack

[Bob Johnson]

KS don't need no steenking rules tweaks -- he's been doing fine for a coon's
age.

Bob Johnson

"Bill Feldbaumer" > wrote in message
m...
> On the second day of this year's 15 Meter Nationals, Karl Striedieck
> chose the best direction for his flight and smoked the rest of the
> field. He made 63.7 mph, 8 mph better than the second pilot and 14 mph
> better than the third. Did he get 1000 points for this outstanding
> performance? No, he received only 852 points. The reason was that some
> other pilots chose less favorable directions for their flights and
> landed out. That devalued the day and Karl's score. The more poorly
> Karl's competitors did, the lower his score became. Karl should have
> stood by the finish line and urged his competitors to come home so
> that he could have received a better score!
>
> In racing sports world wide, an individual's score is determined by
> his performance alone. Soaring is the only racing sport that allows an
> individual's score to be affected by the performances of his
> competitors. It should not be this way. It can be changed.
>
> It is possible to make a rational analysis of scoring systems rather
> than just accepting "the way things have always been done." Any one
> interesting in doing so could start with my posting on r.a.s.,
> 10/2/2003, "History of Contest Scoring."
>
> Bill Feldbaumer 09

[Chris OCallaghan]

Bill,

the scoring system is goofy, and we keep trying to rejigger it, with
greater or lesser success. But one thing is a constant... the best
pilots keep winning. Why is that? When I figure it out, I'll be sure
not to tell anyone else.

[RHWOODY]

besides KS has been head of the rules
committee for many years and has had ample opportunity to tweak the rules

[stephanevdv]

There is logic in this rule, anyhow:

1 Soaring is dependent on the weather.
2 For a contest task (not the same as a leisure cross-country flight)
to be fair, it has to give more or less the same opportunities to all
contestants, so the weather should be "sufficiently" homogenous and
dependable, or else it's no longer a matter of skill but luck.
3 As it is next to impossible to assess the weather objectively in the
whole contest area, some kind of objective criterion is needed.
4 The best way the rule makers found until now was by taking into
account the effective results of the contestants, hence: the less they
perform, the less the day was predictable, the bigger the luck factor,
the less the day is valued.

I agree it doesn't seem fair at times, but on average, it's not that
bad a rule. Anyhow, it's a rule that was made for international
contests. There is nothing that prohibits the organizers of smaller
competitions to amend it. You can drop the day factor, drop the minimum
distance, drop the minimum number of contestants having to cover the
minimum distance, add a rule saying that if even only one contestant
flies the task, it will be valid regardless of other limitations... Of
course, you have to check with your national competition body if this
makes the competition acceptable for them to be recognized - but then
again, if it's a competition just for fun, it doesn't need to be
sanctioned.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Andy Blackburn]

There is a logic behind devalued days - unappealing
as it seems on first inspection.

The intention is to keep the standard deviation in
scores (the 'spread' in points) relatively consistent
over the course of a contest. Devalued days essentially
reduce the landout penalty if lots of pilots land out.
Why? Because the belief is that if a few pilots do
really well and a lot do poorly, there was likely something
odd in the weather conditions for the day or the way
the task was called to increase the 'luck factor' for
that day. While this may not always be true, it tends
to correlate pretty well in my experience.

Without devalued days one pilot might end up with an
insurmoutable lead early in the contest - hundreds
of points, perhaps 1000 in the extreme scenarios mentioned
here. The all (s)he would have to do is leech on the
next best pilot(s) for the rest of the contest - not
much fun. And no way to pick a champion in my view.
At least with devalued days a less skilled pilot would
have to put together a string of exceptional performances,
rather than just one - lucky or not.

It's fine to argue about the merits of every day counting
the same - but in the real world there are enough unusual
circumstances that competition pilots on the whole
have elected to deal with it this way.

I know Bill has an alternative that has been used in
Canada, I think. It ensures that no two days count
the same, but deals with landouts in a different way
and has some other pluses and minuses, some of which
are safety related.

It was debated here several months ago.

9B

At 18:06 05 June 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>Bill,
>
>the scoring system is goofy, and we keep trying to
>rejigger it, with
>greater or lesser success. But one thing is a constant...
>the best
>pilots keep winning. Why is that? When I figure it
>out, I'll be sure
>not to tell anyone else.
>

[John Jones]

At 15:48 07 June 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>There is a logic behind devalued days - unappealing
>as it seems on first inspection.

WRONG, wrong, wrong....there is no logic AT ALL behind
devalued days.

Yes, there can be luck and unusual weather conditions
that skew the results so that less skilled, luckier
pilots win one day.

The solution is to hold not one race, but several races
over several days......AND that is what each contest
does!!

Just like the World Series, or the Stanley Cup (Game
7 tonight!), a series of races will even out the luck
factor and let the skilled pilots go to the front due
to consistently out-flying the lucky pilots.

I would say if the better pilots can not win more races
in a week long contest than the 'lucky' pilots, the
perhaps the better pilots are really not that good
after all.

All this devaluing of days is just political correctness
that reduces competition victory so the loser does
not feel so bad.

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:24 07 June 2004, John Jones wrote:
>At 15:48 07 June 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>WRONG, wrong, wrong....there is no logic AT ALL behind
>devalued days.


I guess a monkey typed out that rule when no one was
looking.

;-)

Just because you don't agree with the logic doesn't
mean there isn't any logic at all.

By the way, different sports do treat individual competitions
differently. Many team sports (baseball, football,
basketball, hockey) generally count one game equal
to one point - the most games won decides the outcome
of a series. Other sports count cumulative score differential
(golf) and some (F1 racing)attribute non-equal points
to finish order (1st gets 10 pts, second gets 8 pts,
etc) - irrespective of how much you won by. So, winning
two games in the hockey playoffs by 10-0 scores is
not the same as winning the first two rounds of a golf
tournament by 10 strokes is not the same as winning
two F1 races by 10 laps - only in the second case does
cumulative score differential matter and only in the
second and third can you never win an individual round/race
and still win the tournament/series (though even here
there is a huge difference in how you would have to
do it). There are also round-robin and seeding based
tournaments, not to mention the college football BCS
system (yikes!).

I forget how they score bowling...

There are things about the day devaluation rules that
are strange and seemingly arbitrary, to be sure, but
lets not pretend that they aren't addressing a real
issue with how contests transpire -- and please let's
not pretend that other sports don't have similar peculiarities
that come out of they way they are played.

Take baseball's infield fly rule. Now THAT should generate
some heat!

9B

[Bill Feldbaumer]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your responses. A number of issues were raised. However,
many of you did not address the question that I asked. Should a
pilot's score be determined by his performance alone or should the
performances of his competitors be able to influence his score? If you
are still interested, please answer that question.

I don't know what my soaring experience has to do with your logical
evaluation of a scoring system. However, some of you asked. Over the
past forty-two years, I have flown sailplanes for over 3300 hours. I
have competed in ten nationals and numerous regionals. I have had
several articles on scoring systems for soaring published. You can
trace through them with the reference in my original posting, "History
of Contest Scoring."

Bill Feldbaumer 09

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Feldbaumer wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> Thanks for your responses. A number of issues were raised. However,
> many of you did not address the question that I asked. Should a
> pilot's score be determined by his performance alone or should the
> performances of his competitors be able to influence his score? If you
> are still interested, please answer that question.

I've flown under both kinds of systems, and I prefer the "determined by
his performance alone" for the rule simplicity, but I prefer the "the
performances of his competitors be able to influence his score" for the
greater fairness I think it supplies.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Todd Smith]

(Bill Feldbaumer) wrote in message >...
> Gentlemen,
>
> Thanks for your responses. A number of issues were raised. However,
> many of you did not address the question that I asked. Should a
> pilot's score be determined by his performance alone or should the
> performances of his competitors be able to influence his score? If you
> are still interested, please answer that question.

Bill,

Of course my competitors' performance should influence my score.
This is the whole point of racing !

Maybe you should rephrase that question.

My suggested questions:

Should every day count the same ?
Should strong days count more/less than weak days ?
How do we decide on strong/weak days ?

Todd Smith
3S

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(JJ Sinclair) wrote:

> Philip wrote>>>>>>>>>>>
> >When the rules make it sensible to take a start and land back so the
> >day is devalued, reducing the points difference you risk in the contest,
> >rather than attempting the task, there's something wrong.
>
> Come on guys, has anyone actually read the rules?

As he has been the scorer at a number of contests up to and including NZ
Sports Class nationals level, I would hope that (in fact I know that)
Philip has read the rules.

They may, of course, be different to local rules in the USA.

-- Bruce

[JJ Sinclair]

Bruce wrote>>>>>>....>
>As he has been the scorer at a number of contests up to and including NZ
>Sports Class nationals level, I would hope that (in fact I know that)
>Philip has read the rules.
>
>They may, of course, be different to local rules in the USA.

Sorry, Bruce
I have a habit of thinking of ras. as a US chat line. We (US) solved the
problem of several contestants starting and then landing back in order to
cancel the day. In order to be considered a contestant, on any given day, one
must have a distance score, which can be obtained by actually landing out or by
flying half the minimum distance (30 miles in a nats) and then returning home.
At least 25% of those who actually attempt the task, must go farther than the
minimum distance (60 miles) or the day becomes a no-contest day. Seems fair and
it works for us.
JJ Sinclair