<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bill:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that what Fred introduced is an
improvement over the previous Freestyle criteria. The current rules change
proposal looks the same as what he introduced at the 2002 IMAC Nats.
Though an unorthodox procedure, he described it at a pilots meeting, asked the
pilots to vote and got unanimous consent to use it. The CD was OK with
this change and supposedly so were AMA officials. There was no waiver.
At any rate, I was one of the 4 freestyle judges trying the proposed
new criteria out that year. I thought it was an improvement,
providing better tools for a judge to be more objective. I still don't
think you can ever be completely objective for this type of flying, but this
seems to be a step forward.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have to read up on what's being proposed for
pattern and get exposed to it through competition. I'm a complete rookie
in this new ballpark, so I can't really comment on AA as proposed, other
than share some experience from the IMAC world that might lend a useful
perspective to those with the experience & knowledge here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>One thing I like already about pattern is that I
haven't yet smashed a part of the Focus II into the wall or ceiling while
manuevering it around the workshop to Monokote it. I used to spend more
time patching dings in those 40% planes while building than when flying
them. Much less cussing in the house this way. Otherwise, I'm pretty
much clueless about nose rings, proper soft mounting, wing adjusters etc.
It's almost like starting out new again. I believe I can probably still
tune a glow engine - we'll see.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Good hearing from you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=billglaze@triad.rr.com href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com">Bill
Glaze</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 25, 2004 5:19
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Artistic Aerobatics</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Ed:<BR>Remember back when you and I were both on the IMAC BOD,
how meticulous everyone was in trying to get "objective" judging, as opposed
to "subjective, impressionistic" judging? We (the BOD) were really
meticulous, or at least as meticulous as we could be.<BR>Yet, when we are
judging freestyle, we must suddenly switch gears, and be purely
subjective. In fact, it's all impression. I feel it can be done,
(in fact it has been done successfully,) but it certainly requires a quick
change in thinking.<BR>That's the difficulty I see when combining scores on
Freestyle and cut-and-dried sequences to get an overall score. It
totally mixes judging philosophies. It can be done, (in fact it was done
successfully at the T.O.C.) but it requires a definite mental shifting of
gears for judges.<BR>Having been fortunate enough to judge at the Don Lowe's
and the JR Challenge, I was privileged to see a new system that Fred Johnson
has introduced with his "matrix" for freestyle. It removes a lot
of uncertainty about scoring freestyle.<BR>And yes, just dragging the tail in
the grass, and doing a blender won't get a competitor very far any more.
The days of the one-trick pony are over. It takes a more holistic
approach to WOW the judges nowadays.<BR>Welcome aboard, Ed. We'll
probably be leaning on you for some valuable electronic advice. You were
very helpful on the big bird lists.<BR><BR>Bill Glaze<BR><BR><BR>Ed Alt
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=midBAY7-DAV40Xok84FTA7000007b3@hotmail.com type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi all:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm new to this list, having decided to get
into pattern in '04 after about 7 years of IMAC competition.
I find the comments on Artisitic Aerobatics very interesting,
especially coming from this background. There are some fun aspects of
the IMAC Freestyle that can certainly spice up a competition, but it can
also become the center of attention by a CD and materially
interfere with the quality of the precision sequence flying, which is all
that most IMAC flyers usually participate in. I never even competed in
Freestyle until '03, when we were socked in by low ceilings at a contest and
the only flying we could do was down low, hence my plunge into the
event. I could never really get my mind around how to properly
coreograph a performance to music, so I stayed away from it in
competition. I also didn't much like the idea of the pure
subjective nature of the event, the way pure WOW factor could spell a win
over superior flying etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Later in the year, I took one more whack
at Freestyle and actually won the event, but I couldn't rationalize
why. I thought my performance was mediocre at best. After that,
I think I finally made peace with myself over this and figured that it was
just another chance to put the airplane up, show off if you are so inclined
and generally have some fun. FWIW, if you can approach it this way,
Artistic Aerobatics could be a nice addition to pattern events if you don't
want to be too serious about it. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>A few
will be able to really do it right, i.e., coreograph something that somehow
captures the mood of the music, accentuating it as much as it accentuates
the flight of the model, displays precision where it seems like precision
should have been achieved and fully exploits the performance envelope of the
model at the right moments. They should rise to the top.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Incidentally, there may be a misconception that
the IMAC freestyle is mostly about low torque rolls and dragging the tail in
the grass. That trend is well past. Excessive time spent doing
TRs, or for that matter staying in a pure 3D flight mode and not showing the
full capabilties of the model, displaying precision aerobatics at least part
of the time and making good use of the aerobatic box is generally not a
winning formula anymore. Lastly, although I can't say that
I'm intimately familiar with what's being proposed for AA, it
seems that one challenge that deserves much attention is to try to
have as much objectivity in the judging criteria as possible. That's
not an easy thing to do and is probably not fully achievable. IMO, if
you can accept the idea that your scores may
be strongly influenced by moods and style preferences, then it
seems that you may be able to enjoy Artistic Aerobatics.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed
Alt</FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>