Hello John,

In making an evaluation between two scoring systems, it is important
to focus on all the advantages and disadvantages of both systems. If
we focus solely on one disadvantage (or advantage) of one of the
systems, we will not make a net evaluation of both systems. After a
net evaluation, we might be willing to accept a disadvantage in one
system in order to get its' many other advantages.

I believe that the most important function of a scoring system is to
produce scores which as closely as possible represent the measured
performances of the competitors. This is unquestioned in other racing
sports. They go to great lengths to score accurately. With all the
effort we put into a soaring contest, we deserve to have the proper
champion chosen and all the other pilots ordered properly.

I am sending you a copy of my paper on scoring. It contains examples
which show that 1000-point scores do not represent measured
performances accurately.

I would like to add a personal example also. I flew in a regional in
which the 1000--point scoring put me in second place. The actual
measured performances - elapsed times - showed a different result. The
1000-point champion spent 40 minutes more in the air than I did (we
both finished all the tasks). In no other form of racing would a
result like that be accepted.

John, if you do not want to embrace distance scoring as a solution for
these inaccuracies, what solutions do you propose?

Accuracy is an issue underlying your discussion with Joerg Stieber
about scoring systems emphasizing weak or strong days. To be accurate
a scoring system must score what actually happens in the contest. If a
day is short it must be scored as such. If a day is long it must be
scored as such. Calculations of "points per minute" are an artifact of
1000-point scoring and its' arbitrary setting of both short and long
days to the same 1000 points.

Bill Feldbaumer 09