From the HG list: Discussion about the NSFC
Jake and Mark,
Feel free to echo this to the list if you like.
Your question about an "absolute" scale for NSFC is interesting. In any meet, the absolute scale is the system of points or scoring or determining the meet's winner chosen by the meet organizer. They're what I have been calling the "straight points." So if there's a max associated with that system, then NSFC just predicts off of that.
Out here in Region 2, the Regionals every year use a simple scoring system. It's a race to goal, and first across the goal gets 2000 points. Last one across the goal line gets 1000. In between, you're awarded points based on time. If you were second by virtue of crossing the line 4 seconds behind the leader, you'll probably end up with 1999 points, especially if the last one across goal is a couple hours behind. For those who don't make goal, they get a percentage of 1000 points based on their linear distance they made. If it's a 30 mile goal and they sink out at 15 miles, they'll get 500 points.
So we know the best score each day will be 2000, because I think there hasn't been a day in living memory when nobody crossed the line. So to choose your handicap with such a system, you will be predicting against the number 2000. If you think you will be one of the last few across the goal line, but fully expect to make goal, you might be wise to predict a 50% level, because you might be that 1000-point pilot.
You are absolutely right in recognizing that NSFC needs a comp to have a scoring format that lends itself to prediction. If it's an absolute system then it's easy. If it has to upper limit in theory --for example if you're scoring open distance, then the miles become the score. In that case, to predict for NSFC you pretty much have to come up with a distance you feel is the longest anyone is likely to make that day, and predict against that.
There's guesswork involved, true (that's such an ugly word...can we use the term "strategy"?) but it's a lot like flying itself. And it will sure be interesting.
Nobody wants to zero wrt NSFC points. But if it happens, well, nobody is going to be beheaded for it either. We learn, and next time we do better.
Incidentally, a meet can certainly decide to set up some kind of absolute scale against which to predict, but to use the NSFC points as the ones that determine who wins the meet itself. Ie, meets can be run as handicap events themselves, and use NSFC points to declare place wrt that meet. Or, a meet can stick with its own scoring to determine who places in the meet, and these NSFC points simply go down by each competitor's name back at NSFC HQ, toward each pilot's national ranking.
- Mike
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001
From: condorclub@aol.com
Subject: RE: NFSC
Kevin says:
>I always thought a contest was supposed to be
>about the best contestant winning.
I will echo Mike Vorhis's point that we have in place a system (NTSS) that I believe does a reasonably fine job of picking from the *currently competing* pilots who will score the best for the US in world meets. If you believe that there are a number of local SkyGods who can simply step up to the NTSS plate and beat the Barbers, Lees and Arias (and other top ranked pilots) at the team flying, race to goal, cover your competition, convoluted GAP scoring game then I would have to say that you may have a shallow understanding of how completely you must understand the game before you can play it well.
The NSFC system was formulated and enacted to strike a balance between purely rewarding the best pilot in the above game and rewarding participation at the local level (which is one of the best ways to get new blood interested in competing).
>I see no evidence of that goal in this comp system.
I disagree. The skills that this system rewards is a skill that only our very best few pilots actually have...the ability to read task, conditions, scoring system, equipment and competition and then call the day. We place our best pilots on the task committees because they can read these things and call tasks that attempt to end up with a prescribed percentage of pilots at goal. I am amazed at how often these pilots call it right. There is obviously something really valuable in being able to know both your competitors capabilities and your own.
As far as the spot landing contest go...give it a year and see what happens. These contest are quite boring for most and I'll bet that there are not a lot of them held. If pilots seeing their ranking in a national system motivates them to continue competing then it will be worth it. I would however not be against only allowing say H2s to collect points for some of the more offbeat contests.
JB
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001
Kevin,
Thanks again. You're wearing my fingers out here,
but let me respond:
> I'm not out to undermine this, but out rock kicking
Glad it was earth-shaking. Sure hate to have heard
it was one of those instant deleters. Was your first
reaction to curse me or to say "Awright, we are finally
going to do a national ranking system!"?
I can't (well, I couldn't when I was wracking my brain
for a year and a half) think of a system that has no
misgivings. Can you? Even this one has an issue or two
in my own head. What will put to rest misgivings are action.
Regardless of perceived shortcomings, we need to give
this a chance. There are lots of good things about it.
Nothing worse than half-starting after saying for ten
years that we want the focus of the comp energy put
back into the membership mainstream.
> I strongly believe the guy who wins the meet really
This is the sentiment generally promoted by those
who secretly see themselves doing great things.
There are Kevin Frosts out there, no error. You
guys (Mark Mulholland said the same thing to me)
have the ability to creep up on the big boys and
girls; you're good. So you want a straight-up
kind of system. I agree. It's called NTSS, and
it has existed for a decade or more. As you come
streaking for the goal on a two-mile finish leg,
neck-and-neck with Arai and Lee and Barber, a four-
wing photo finish, I will be cheering for YOU.
But the term "levelled playing field" does NOT mean
a "level" playing field. We're giving lower skill
people a boost, to artificially "level" the field
for them. In actual fact we're giving them the
high ground, so they have an advantage. That is
ALWAYS what a handicap system does.
> In what other sport do they have a contest and
Bowling leagues. 1-on-1 basketball where the weaker
player starts with 10 points in a race to 21. Golf,
in every handicap tournament ever played. Cycling
handicap events. Sailing handicap events. Pretty
much any sport that has individual competitors can
assign a handicap or an "advantage" to the weaker
players. That is called "levelling" (although it is
admittedly only called that by those who get the boost).
> why would the majority of pilots who could all
But who are we aiming at here? Maybe people like you,
who are good enough to compete head-to-head in the
NTSS system, will not see the need for this. Most
pilots haven't a prayer of doing well in that system!
They can't afford rigids, and they won't go out of
cert to win. They fly one weekend a month because
the kids have little league on the other days.
IF they were ranked, and they're not unless they
are the top few, they'd be somewhere around 7000th
in the country, or something. Now, being ranked
7000th is a good reason to be luke-warm on a comp system.
With NSFC, those same people could WIN. They could be
Pilot of the Year. They could win gear. You name your
motivation and we will try to make it part of this
system.
Also: Do some math please. Great pilots will do great
in this system. Of course they have to show as much
consistency as weaker pilots, because consistency is
rewarded most in this system. But there's nothing
wrong with that. Do some math, work some case studies
(I notice you said "Huh?" on the case examples I gave),
and convince yourself.
> Sorry but I'm just not that altruistic
Oh, say it ain't so, man!
> Also, no way are the locals gonna let me fly
Where do I begin in answering that one??? So many
points to make here! Here goes:
1. You say you want a completely level field, no
advantages given to anyone through handicapping,
yet here you illustrate how most pilots do not
want to go head-to-head against far better gear
(or let's say "gear/sponsored pilots/funding").
That's why we're aiming this at the weekend
warrior. They outnumber you, or you've outgrown
them, in case you haven't checked lately.
2. This system throws everybody into one kettle.
I'm not a full time multi-system admin! You wanna
be? If this system is multi-tiered it will not happen.
3. If you have a better wing, you will be tempted to
declare higher--else you won't beat somebody who does,
at that very meet, or somewhere else in the country.
In fact you SHOULD be declaring higher. And you can't
win the day decisively without doing so. Well, if
you stub your toe, you have left the door open.
Those who get a small boost from the handicap
formula can overtake you. Gotta be always looking
over your shoulder at those "lesser" pilots, because
they can eat you alive unless you fly your best.
4. If you want your meet to have what you call a
"real" handicap, then DO IT. Remember, this system
does not take away a local meet head's right to
choose any system he/she wants for scoring that
comp. NSFC is a PARALLEL system, to rank nationally.
(You cannot use your own King Mtn system to rank
nationally because it's not appropriate to all sites.)
This system utilizes your local system! Score any
way you want. If there are "real" handicaps at
King as you want there to be, then NSFC predictions
are made ON those handicapped scores. You get the
primary effect of your home site system, and a
secondary compression for national ranking lists.
It just can't be more flexible than that. (You
see we were careful not to rob you of the freedom
to run meets exactly like you want, or need.)
> Finally, how bout a separate category for spot
"If we must"? Well first of all we must, even though
I don't love it either, because some sites have full
"circus" meets, with multiple events all contributing
to the meet--a speed gliding race, an aero event,
a spot landing evening, and a XC thing. Many
events are only open to Hang-3 and above. WE
ARE TRYING TO BRING THE NEW BLOOD INTO THE GAME.
It's good for the sport. They need to be able to
get points for it.
If you hate the ease with which those points
can be gained, realize two things:
1. Everybody in the nation can get such points
just as easily, so just enter one some evening
and get yours too; and
2. Again it's very easy to make it hard to get
lots of points in a spot landing contest. Just
score it in the "straight" scoring system so that
Dream 220s have to sit on the cone to outscore
a topless Sensor screaming in low from the weeds.
Weight and skew things so that you have to be
a real hotshot to win, and those who don't win
get almost nothing. It's easy to make the math
do that.
I will build you an equation that does it. In
fact, I'll go you one better and build a recommended
scoring system for all spot landing events, and offer
it to everybody who wants to run one within NSFC,
so that only one pilot has a chance of getting
good points and the 2nd, 3rd, ... placers will
get little or nothing. How would that be?
(I guess we could also limit spot meets to 2 per
person per season or something. But I think
nobody would have a chance to enter more than
one at most anyway. I'm going to gie that a miss.
Too many rules, and all that. Keep it simple.)
Does that solve your main concerns? Now can we
count on you to be positive about all the good
things this is trying to do?
- Mike
PS. Before you respond, go back and re-read this
whole thing from top to bottom please. Don't cheat
now....
PPS. I still believe you're an altruist.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001
Kevin,
One more thing:
You say,
This proves that you and we are trying to do two
different things. You want an open-class comp
proliferation. We are trying to accomplish something
entirely different. Apples and oranges--no need to
argue it further.
I urge you to campaign for reform of the GAPS
scoring system and NTSS meet system. I will
strongly support you in your reform campaign.
NSFC is another animal altogether, and we want
your support for it, in turn.
No need to shoot at it because it's a horse and
you are looking for an elk.
- Mike
PS. Notice I resisted the urge to say, "because
it's a horse and you want to have a cow," or
"because it's a horse and you like goats." See
how nice I am to you?
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
I applaud the work done by Mike Vorhis' committee. If the
goals are to feed the flame of competition, to produce
educated competitors and to bestow recognition on the
successful, the NFSC meets those goals.
The NFSC does not replace the MC-XC contests, the NTSS
scoring system or local competitions. The NTSS system is
not being used to select US team members. The winners of
local/regional competitions will still be the winners of those
meets, irrespective of the NFSC points earned by competitors.
The NFSC encourages a pilots to enter local competitions, to
know and improved their skills and to consistently perform
to the best of their abilities. The reward is national
recognition. Hurrah!
To criticize the NFSC system is like saying the MC-XC
contest is bad because it does not recognize the pilots with
the best race-to-goal skills, the best speed-gliding
skills or the best ridge-racing skills.
I believe the competition circuit will benefit from the NFSC
system. The work done by Vorhis and crew, while in its
embryonic stage, is none the less brilliant.
The NFSC is not the only, though I expect it to be a very
bright, star in night sky. Let it, help it shine on
deserving pilots.
Thanks, Mike.
R.R. Rodriguez
Wimberley, Texas
P.S. All that good work and he flies a Sensor.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001
The other cool thing is you can change your handicap every day. Say
you're a good pilot flying a big floater. One day the meethead calls a
downwind task on a light lift day. You figure you can hang out and drift
in the light stuff as well as anyone so you declare 90% for the day. The
next day, it's blowing like stink and the meethead calls an upwind task.
You figure you don't have much of a chance so you declare 30% hoping you
won't zero the day.
I really think being able to judge the conditions and call your
performance is a skill that will serve the up and comers well when they
start playing in the big leagues. The guys who win the big meets are the
ones who are super consistent and don't make any big mistakes. Going out
doing the kamikazee number where you either win the day or race into the
ground just doesn't get it against top level competitors.
--Dennis
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001
It rather reminds me of the card games like Spades, where you look at your
hand and claim how many points you're going to win. The points you make
depend on the hand you're dealt and your ability to predict how you'll do
relative to the other players.
The hand you're dealt is rather like your skill level, including knowing how
to get the max non-NFSC points, and your ability to predict comes with
experience at playing the game.
And if you're far behind, you can always hope the guy in front of you
over-predicts the next flight. It beats hoping he gets bad weather so he
doesn't skunk you. Not that I would I do that. I'm way too nice.
Yeah, I like it.
Nancy
From: "Vorhis, Mike"
Subject: RE: NSFC
> on the ridge Sunday there were the same questions
> all around, on the list there seemed to be a defining
> silence to an earthshaking announcement. So while I hate
> to criticize the best thing to come out of ushga in a
> long time, I don't think silence is gonna put to rest
> any misgivings.
> should be the guy who did the best piloting, why else
> have a meet?
> the best contestant dosen't win?
> very well win on a level playing field want to
> come fly such a meet?
> my Exxtacy against their toplesses and pigstickers
> without a real handicap, they just wont stand for
> it(or my 240 Dream in a spotlanding contest).
> landing, if we must have spot landing?
From: "Vorhis, Mike"
Subject: RE: NFSC
> the way I see it, the main thing wrong with
> the present system is that there are very few
> meets and they are expensive to attend.
From: rr@swt.edu
Subject: Re: NSFC
From: DH
Subject: Re: NSFC
From: Nancy Smith
Subject: RE: NFSC