If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
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 Well stated. UH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
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! --Noel Hi Noel, A good post, and if I could just add one piece of context here to consider. The reason for establishing handicap "sub-classes" such as the club class is that there is such a diverse range of performance out there in gliders that it becomes impossible at some point to run a "race" in the traditional sense. An extreme example that is oft- cited is the "1-26 vs. Nimbus argument." It's pretty clear that on a day with strong winds and widely spaced thermals, no amount of handicapping will make the 1-26 even remotely capable of getting around a course that might be a walk in the park for the Nimbus. Even with turn areas and MATs, there are some days when the required performance is more than the 1-26 can muster (not that some 1-26 drivers aren't game for the challenge). On a similar note, there is a big difference in the tactics of flying when you can more-or-less stay with the pack than when you can't. It's reasonably well accepted that, on balance, flying with a good gaggle will get you home faster than struggling on your own. So, if you don't have a pretty good chance of staying in contact with others, you're really not participating in the same game. It all sort of boils down to what we are trying to achieve. If we're having a "fun race" where the handicapping should work more often than not, then it's probably okay to have a very wide range of ships. But if you are looking for a race with a reasonably level playing field, then I suspect that sub-classes based on a range of handicaps is the only way to go. P3 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. Noel, I am a long time sports class pilot, flying a Grob 102 and would love a "club" class so that I would be scored more fairly, but I would miss flying with my friends that have non-club qualifying gliders. On balance, I would keep the classes combined. 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, But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win, if they are flying the best at that contest. 3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly ... The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a small range of handicaps. Especially for a weather driven sport. Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the playing-field 100%, Yes the idea IS to level the playing field between different aircraft, leaving pilot ability the determining factor. So that the better pilot wins. It is very hard to have any semblance of fairness when the rating spread is as wide as a Nimbus 3 against a ASK 14. --Noel Thanks Todd Smith 3S |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
I encourage everyone to realize that, when considering the matter at
hand, we realize it does not necessitate an "either/or" conclusion: Sports Class and Club Class can coexist. The support of a Club Class here in the U.S. is NOT ipso facto the death of Sports Class. Alternatively, it may actually invigorate grass roots participation. Ray Cornay LS-4 RD |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:
But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win, if they are flying the best at that contest. Todd - This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies: I completely disagree with you on this. I used to make the same argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at winning. And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things like collectible card games where more money can make a big difference... But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program that makes someone's budget irrelevant. And many of the attempts to do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the whole sport or competition that they were designed to help. I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually competing on a shoestring! :-P The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. People love to make comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. If you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. If you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget, then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you can get out of doing more with less... But screwing up the majority of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong. Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. If they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is doing what it is supposed to do. Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: Do you really think that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? What about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling- ball? Does the handicap take that into account? No! There are plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful and have plenty of participation... These "unfair" sports haven't stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots? The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport. Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always changing and never exactly identical. That's one of the reasons this sport is so challenging, afterall! So how do you come up with standards or metrics on something like that? And don't think that it only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers... My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days? Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? Or a DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? How finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you end up making the rules as a result? I return to my original argument: You handicap to give folks in various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. And you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even before handicapped classes). Take care, --Noel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:55*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: 1) *I strongly believe in a "run what ya brung" class. Noel, I am a long time sports class pilot, flying a Grob 102 and would love a "club" class so that I would be scored more fairly, but I would miss flying with my friends that have non-club qualifying gliders. On balance, I would keep the classes combined. 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, But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win, if they are flying the best at that contest. 3) *If people feel that the handicap is out-of-whack or unfairly ... The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport. Finally: *The idea of a handicapping system is NOT to level the playing-field 100%, Yes the idea IS to level the playing field between different aircraft, leaving pilot ability the determining factor. So that the better pilot wins. It is very hard to have any semblance of fairness when the rating spread is as wide as a Nimbus 3 against a ASK 14. --Noel Thanks Todd Smith 3S Help me out here. As a prctical matter what are the alternatives? Sure, any handicapping system is imperfect, but for example, if you look at the last four Sports Class competitions at Parowan the top of the podium has been claimed by a Duo twice, an LS-3 and a Twin Astir. If I understand correctly only the LS-3 would have been allowed under Club Class rules. So what class would those other pilots fly? The Duos would have to fly Open if there was one and the Twin would be SOL. There were also a number of ASW-27, D2, V2 class ships in sports, usually flown by new (or "low key") competition pilots. Presumably they would have to fly an FAI class or drop out if that was too intimidating. Under the scenario where you offer both Sports and Club classes, pilots would divide up, some who are eligible for Club might fly Sports, bit the mix of ships in Sports would most likely be a few low- performance gliders and a bunch of current generation ships - which only accentuates the issues associated with handicaps, but more importantly splits the field, making it less fun IMHO. The thought of scoring Club Class within Sports Class seems appealing, but I'm not sure I see much benefit. If a guy flying a Twin Astir wins, why would you exclude him (or her) from Club Class seeding? And if a guy flying the latest generation ship wins, it seems a stretch to me to award a trophy to someone who may have finished well down the scoresheet just because his ship is on a list of Club Class gliders. You could do it, but I don't think it solves a real-world problem. Dividing up classes let's you give out one more trophy, but I doubt it would very often be to someone who would have won if he'd been flying a newer glider - or if everyone else had been flying one like his. The great thing about Sports Class is its inclusiveness. While it has its warts, I think it works pretty well overall in allowing pilots to compete no mattery what ship they fly. 9B |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote: But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win, if they are flying the best at that contest. Todd - This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies: I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things like collectible card games where more money can make a big difference... But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the whole sport or competition that they were designed to help. I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually competing on a shoestring! :-P Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. I want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable chance of winning in. Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money. The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ? COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff. you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget, then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong. Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is doing what it is supposed to do. Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling- ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots? There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that will improve your score through equipment limits. One design sailboat classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a $10,000 purchase price. The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport. Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers... My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days? Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you end up making the rules as a result? I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a simple system such as we have today. Allowing any glider into the scoring, (Nimbus vs 1-26) breaks the simple handicap system. I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even before handicapped classes). Take care, --Noel Todd Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
Oh, you want a practical answer ? Didn't know that ;-) My practical answer is to leave the system alone :-) I have fun at the contests. A club class score done "on the side" within sports might be interesting, but the scorer already has enough work. We don't have the number of participants to really split the class. There are 2 conflicting desires he Inclusiveness vs Fair scoring Fair scoring requires limiting the types of glider so that the handicap spread is small. Inclusiveness would allow any glider in sports class. The only real solution will be to double/triple the number of contest glider pilots in the US. Then we can split the classes and have enough people. No change to the racing rules will fix that issue. Todd Smith 3S |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Club Class vs. Sports Class
On Sep 23, 1:29*pm, toad wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:47*pm, "noel.wade" wrote: On Sep 23, 11:35*am, toad wrote: But long time pilots that fly low level equipment must be able to win, if they are flying the best at that contest. Todd - This is where I probably break from the pack and earn a few enemies: I completely disagree with you on this. *I used to make the same argument you are using, back in my auto-racing days. I fought mightily for rules to allow anyone with any budget to have an equal shot at winning. *And as someone who's worked in the games and entertainment industry I also used to strive for that kind of equality in things like collectible card games where more money can make a big difference... But the bottom-line is that I've never ever seen a successful program that makes someone's budget irrelevant. *And many of the attempts to do so have been big failures that have had negative impacts on the whole sport or competition that they were designed to help. I'm all for simple and reasonable efforts to make the competition fair - but there's no way to make it 100% level across all equipment and to force the guy with the fat wallet to compete with no more advantage than the guy on a shoestring - and I say this as someone who's usually competing on a shoestring! :-P Budget for prep is very different than budget for glider purchase. *I want a class that a $20,000-$50,000 glider can have a reasonable chance of winning in. Prep work is mostly sweat equity and cleverness, not money. The "Nimbus 3 vs. ASK-14" thing is ridiculous. *People love to make comparisons like this, but again this is a SPORT and this is That was a real situation in a real contest, if the intention is not to fairly score the contest, why did we have scoring ? COMPETITON; at a National level in some of these cases/arguments. *If you put a high value on winning then you need to make the sacrifices and choices in your life to compete at the highest possible level. *If I want a fairly run, level contest for me and my regional flying friends, I don't really care about the national top level stuff. you cannot compete at the absolute top level because of your budget, then you do the best you can and you take the satisfaction that you can get out of doing more with less... *But screwing up the majority of the racers just so a couple of people at the lowest level can theoretically do better than people at the highest levels is wrong. Don't target the slim majority at the top OR the bottom - target the middle and upper-middle ranges, the majority of your competitors. *If they're reasonably competitive against each other, then your system is doing what it is supposed to do. Look at an individual sport like Bowling or Golf: *Do you really think that the handicap there makes everyone play at the same level? *What about the guy who can afford better clubs or a custom-drilled bowling- ball? *Does the handicap take that into account? *No! *There are plenty of other examples of this, in sports that are highly successful and have plenty of participation... *These "unfair" sports haven't stopped rookies from trying the sport or attempting to move up in skill and equipment over time - why should it stop glider pilots? There are lots of sports that effectively cap the amount of money that will improve your score through equipment limits. *One design sailboat classes exist that allow you to be competitive for much less than a $10,000 purchase price. The problem is that the handicapping should really depend on the weather conditions, a single number handicap only works well within a small range of handicaps. *Especially for a weather driven sport. Except that the exact combination of weather conditions is always changing and never exactly identical. *That's one of the reasons this sport is so challenging, afterall! *So how do you come up with standards or metrics on something like that? *And don't think that it only matters for gliders with hugely different performance numbers... My DG-300 came with big ballast bags; does that mean I should have a worse handicap than a DG-300 with small ballast bags on strong days? Or what if specific conditions favor a DuoDiscus over a DG-1000? *Or a DG-1000T over a Duo X but NOT a DG-1000 over a standard Duo? *How finely do you want to slice this, and how insanely complicated do you end up making the rules as a result? I want the rules simple, a small handicap spread allows use of a simple system such as we have today. *Allowing any glider into the scoring, *(Nimbus vs 1-26) *breaks the simple handicap system. I return to my original argument: *You handicap to give folks in various equipment with equivalent skills a SHOT at doing well. *And you hold the competition over multiple days to try to average out the weather and the luck factor - that's the way its ALWAYS been (even before handicapped classes). Take care, --Noel Todd Smith- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't think I could support a system that, as a practical matter, exclued pilots from being able to compete in a regionals becasue of the kind of glider thay own. Nimbuses fly in Sports typically because there is no Open Class offered and they guys who own SparrowHawks and Russias, well, Sports is all they've got. In my experience the ships out at the edges of the handicap list only rarely end up at the top of the scorsheet over the course of a contest. The guys with high handicaps are likely to be at a big disadvantage on one or more days and the guys with really low handicaps generally have trouble beating the field by that much, between gaggle flying and tasking for the average glider that makes it hard to break away by a lot on a consistent basis. The only case I can recall, the Twin Astir this year, Nick did an extraordinary job of flying. Was it enough to beat KS on the basis of pure piloting? - I dunno, but I didn't hear a lot of complaining and there were plenty of races between much more closely matched gliders down the scoresheet where I'm sure the handicap made the difference in placing. Honestly, if I got beat in a contest by an ASK-14 it tip my hat to the pilot - handicap or not. That's gutsy. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2007 Sports Class Nationals 12-21 June at Caesar Creek Soaring Club near Waynesville Ohio | 2007 Sports Class Nationals | Soaring | 1 | November 28th 06 01:02 PM |
Yet more thoughts on Sports/club class | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 3 | July 7th 06 10:20 PM |
SPORTS CLASS/CLUB CLASS | 5 ugly | Soaring | 0 | July 2nd 06 11:14 PM |
Sports Class | 5 ugly | Soaring | 3 | March 8th 06 01:00 AM |
UK Open Class and Club Class Nationals - Lasham | Steve Dutton | Soaring | 0 | August 6th 03 10:07 PM |