Club Class vs. Sports Class

OK, so I made a long post in one thread about competition classes...
5U started another thread about the Rules Committee and I was really
tempted to respond to Karl's comments there; but I didn't want to
hijack the topic. So I'll post this in a new topic instead:

I'm a low-time glider pilot (though I've had a number of 300+km
flights this summer), and a newcomer to competition in gliders.
However, I have extensive experience with competition in various forms
of Auto-Racing. I've seen what works and what doesn't, and have
helped establish rules for successful classes (such as the wildly
popular "SpecMiata" class).

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Glider Competition yet, so I'm
not going to try to fix anything I don't fully understand - but I'd
like to make a few observations about the Club Class vs. Sports Class
issue:

1) I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. Its especially
helpful for new people to competition to have a straightforward class
that allows someone to show up with almost ANY glider and be legal to
compete. Handicapped classes do this (even if the system isn't
perfect and the playing-field isn't 100% level).

Handicapped classes that specifically exclude certain aircraft _don't_
meet this requirement, though. Excluding fancy aircraft does not
automatically limit you to less-experienced pilots or casual pilots.
And the aircraft you fly does not determine your skill level. A rich
ex-Microsoftie near me is looking at buying a DG-1000 before he even
learns to fly; but do you really think that the aircraft will
automatically make him a better pilot the first time he flies a race?
Would he really be better off if he were shoved into some "expert
handicapped" class with only high-dollar aircraft in his first
competition? By the same token, Karl S could probably take a Libelle
201 and stomp me in my DG-300 (even with appropriate handicaps)...
Also, your total-time or total number of competitions does not
determine your skill-level either!

2) New pilots need to have a fun atmosphere where they feel that they
can do well. But they don't need to _win_ to have a good time, and
trying to "rig" the rules or classes to give newcomers a better shot
at winning is just plain backwards! Competition is about people doing
their best; not about coddling people or giving them a special
advantage that throws the rest of the competition out of whack.

Of course, this doesn't mean that we throw new pilots "to the sharks"
and make them feel helpless. But we should find ways to make the
competition fun for them, and encourage them to STRIVE to get better
and rise to the top over time. No one expects rookie basketball
players to be better than NBA All-Stars. No one expects every first-
year QB to put up Brett Favre passing-numbers. No one expects
newcomers to the PGA to out-shoot Tiger Woods. Yet in all of these
venues, the first-timer AND the old-veteran compete on the same court
or the same course or in the same stadium; often head-to-head with
each other. Even though we aren't paid to be on TV like these other
sports, we're a legitimate sport that requires both talent and skill;
and people should expect that they have to work to become #1 just like
these "Pro Athletes" have to.

Like I said, if people are concerned about the newbies going up
against the top competitors, then the focus should be on how to make
the newcomers feel good and get rewarded for their attempts to get
better. "Rookie" awards, "Most Improved" awards, and active
encouragement by the veterans are all ways to do this. Newcomers
should also be encouraged to compare their standings (unofficially) to
other first-timers, not just the entire field. And I'm sure there are
many more ideas that folks can come up with...

3) If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly
rewards a particular make/model, then they need to speak up (in a
reasonable tone of voice), present good evidence, and go through the
proper channels to try to get the handicap reviewed and revised. NOT
just for that one "troublesome" make/model, but for the entire field.
In auto-racing we would do this for certain handicapped classes every
1 - 3 years. Of course, when looking at results you always have to
try to take pilot skill into account, in addition to the raw
performance of a glider. This makes the handicapping tricky and a bit
of an art-form; but it can be done.

Finally: The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the
playing-field 100%, or to give everyone a "good chance to win".
There's just no way to be perfect with such a diverse group (both with
cars and gliders, _and_ with varying levels of pilot skill)! A good
handicapping system should give folks with similar skill-levels a
"legitimate shot" at finishing in a similar position on the
leaderboard despite flying different equipment. A good measure of a
handicap is to imagine the perennial top-10 competitors shuffling into
different gliders - if you think they could still finish at the top of
the group, then the handicap is doing its job.

Anyone think I'm way-off-base here?

Thanks, take care,

--Noel