On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:32:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Second, historically, races are not only won by those flying the perfect flight, with decisions made that minimized risk and maximized speed, but ALSO days are won by those same pilots who chose or had to take a major calculated risk to win the day. Those who are trying to eliminate that side of the contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have developed the skill set for that method of fast flying.


This summarizes the two poles of the argument. Those who believe taking 'major calculated' risks should continue to be part of the game, and those who would like to minimize those as a means to win.

I do not believe though, that "Those who are trying to eliminate that side of the contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have developed the skill set for that method of fast flying." It does not eliminate those pilots from competition, only to the extent that their success was born exclusively on taking those major calculated risks. The really good pilots are going to win anyway - even with airspace restricted to someone's idea of safe. There are a very few who would do less well, because major risk taking is a large part of their success. Is the success rate of taking major calculated risks what we are trying to measure in soaring competition? Should taking major calculated risks be weighted with, or above, picking thermals, centering them quickly, and managing energy in-between?