Proposed new 4-way rule....

[cmgolden 0]

http://4way.org/cgi-bin/board/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=87

Comments welcome!

[quade 3]

Proposed rule change being discussed on 4-way.org

Quote

No team in the Advanced or Intermediate classes may be composed of:

a) more than one quarter of members who have won a gold medal in that class; or

b) any member who has won any medal (gold, silver, or bronze) in a higher class;

having won such medal(s) within the previous five (5) years, in the same event at a previous U.S. National Championship or FAI-sanctioned World Cup or Championship event.

Hmmm, lemme think about that. What would be rediculous but still possible?

So, a team could win a gold in this year's Intermediate class, three members go on and one team member decides to stay in Intermediate. That team member hooks up with three of the fourth place Advanced class team members for next year.

Hmmm.

Let's see what the scores would be for the gold medal team the next year?

Let's say one member from Gold Intermediate team Juggernaut (14.1 average) and three members of 4th place Advanced team Skydive.com Fast Forward (12.6 average) got together, what do you suppose their score could be in the Intermediate class would be?

I don't know either, but my -guess- is that it still whips the pants off of the rest of the Intermediate field since the second place Intermediate team scored a 12.6 average.

Hmmm...

What's the history here of the winning averages?

4-way Int.
1997 - n/a
1998 - 7.7
1999 - 11.8
2000 - 15.3
2001 - 14
2002 - 14.1


4-way Adv.
1997 - 10.83
1998 - 11.1
1999 - 13.6
2000 - 13.2
2001 - 15.5
2002 - 13.7


4-way Open
1997 - 20
1998 - 21.3
1999 - 21.9
2000 - 21.3
2001 - 21.3
2002 - 21.8

What I find interesting in this very small sample is that in the open class the winning score is pretty consistant.

With the introduction of the Recreational/Intermediate class in 1998 things seemed pretty fair, but if you look at the scores in the next few years it -seems- to me that there was some pretty obvious sandbagging going on because the top scores in both Intermediate and Advanced pop up and around quite a bit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhreeZone 14]

Same token, how would you like to compete against a team that just rotates one person out every year just to stay in the lower levels?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[weid14 0]

you couldn't rotate one out to stay in the lower levels, if you won the gold that is, then you'd have to rotate 3 out.

[quade 3]

Well, heck, there's all sorts of things you -could- do as far as shenanigans goes. I was talking about this and a lot of other Nationals issues over lunch last Sunday with our USPA V.P. who also sits in on a lot of interesting requests for mods to the rules and such.

Hey, if I wanted to go out and win a medal in something just to make me feel good or have something cute on my resume, there's plenty of ways to go about it. I mean, I don't skysurf, but I know SBS does, even if we sucked (and clearly we do) we coulda walked away with the Intermediate Silver just by jumping out of the plane.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

No team in the Advanced or Intermediate classes may be composed of:

a) more than one quarter of members who have won a gold medal in that class; or

b) any member who has won any medal (gold, silver, or bronze) in a higher class;

having won such medal(s) within the previous five (5) years, in the same event at a previous U.S. National Championship or FAI-sanctioned World Cup or Championship event.

So what's the rule now?

[Watcher 0]

Faster and slower draws I think account for some of this flucuation within the advanced class. Also this years intermediate was alot better than years past as it had 8 more blocks and were 10 rounds instead of 6. Of course I still felt our draw was kinda slow.

Jonathan

Jonathan Bartlett
D-24876
AFF-I

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

So what's the rule now?

Only a) more than one quarter of members who have won a gold medal in that class.

At least they're trying to stop the 'bably killing'.
Juggernauts had a real talking to by several Open competitors (read: Airspeed) on what they did at Nationals. I hope others take note.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[ernokaikkonen 0]

In Finland it's:

An intermediate(We only have two classes, Intermediate and Open) 4-way team may have no more than one member who has

a) won a gold medal in that class.
or
b) competed in a higher class

I hear for some reason they're changing that to two members, dunno why.

Erno

[weid14 0]

Quote

Quote

So what's the rule now?

Only a) more than one quarter of members who have won a gold medal in that class.

At least they're trying to stop the 'bably killing'.
Juggernauts had a real talking to by several Open competitors (read: Airspeed) on what they did at Nationals. I hope others take note.

ltdiver

oh, they've heard it from about everywhere....

[quade 3]

Quote

Also this years intermediate was alot better than years past as it had 8 more blocks and were 10 rounds instead of 6. Of course I still felt our draw was kinda slow.

I think you have to define the term "better" -- better for who? Are more blocks better for the average weekend Intermediate team or are they better for people that really ought to be in the Advanced class anyway?

I would have thought that would make for even -lower- scores in Intermediate, but I think the scores of the winning team speaks for itself.

As for the number of rounds, going from 6 to 10 -shouldn't- make that much of a difference in the overall -average- a team can achieve. About the only difference I can think of is that a -lot- of weekend Intermediate teams will not have the energy to perform well jumping more than about 6 rounds in a single day. Looking around in the heat and humidity of SDC on Saturday, it seemed to me that a -lot- of the Intermediate teams were petering out on round seven. Of course, that's just -my- observation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Ok, I've thought about it for a couple of days and if I wanted to proposes something that would really make the system -fair- it would probably be something like;

Quote

No team in the Advanced or Intermediate classes may be composed of any team members that have previously been on a team attending the U.S. National Championships in that event that has scored higher than 0.618 times the winning average in the previous year's event at the next higher level.

Ok, let's look at how that would work.

Golden Knights Gold wins the 2002 Open Class with an average of 21.8

ANY member of ANY Advanced team that scores an average of more than 21.8 x 0.618 or 13.47 would be forced to then compete in the Open class next year. In this case it would mean both the Gold and Silver Advanced teams move up.

For Intermediate, since the winning Advanced average was 13.7, everyone with a higher average than 8.46 would have to move up. I'll admit, that's a LOT of folks, but it would really balance out the rankings in a very natural way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhreeZone 14]

How about an easier number to deal with like just .6?

And for the intermediate to advanced make it something more like .8

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 3]

Quote

How about an easier number to deal with like just .6?

"You don't really want the explaination do you?" quade said as he fired up the geek-o-vision.

"THIS ought to get a few heads to explode!" he said.

Essentially, there is a certain natural beauty and proportion to the number.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhreeZone 14]

Yeah yeah yeah... I know all about the Fibonacci sequence with the golden ratio, but for simplicitys sake... And leave it to you Quade to make me relive my 10th grade year math class again in about 15 seconds.

And yes, the hidden meaning in it does not esacpe me.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Samurai136 0]

Fibonacci





I'm gonna smoke now.

k

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

"You don't really want the explaination do you?" quade said as he fired up the geek-o-vision.

"THIS ought to get a few heads to explode!" he said.

Essentially, there is a certain natural beauty and proportion to the number.

OK, so I just made my MATH majoring roommate cry. Why did you go and make me do that?

So explain it to me: other than a very dorky/geeky explenation that you obviously enjoy, what makes your number so great? How is that better than .7 for skydiving?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Well, because phi (0.618...) is the the reciprical of Phi (1.618...) it would very quickly and evenly distribute all the players into logical classes in which it would be just as easy to move up because you're good as move down because you suck.

ANY other number would have a tendancy to unfairly move people up or down.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

If you read 4way.org
We looked at making a numerical seperation for the classes...Like some shooting sports use. It didn't seem to gather much support, and was such a different approach that it would meet with alot of resistance.

We tried to come up with a rule that had a chance of passing.

To do this it had to be a smaller change that still produced the effect we were looking for.

There were several options (only one draw and class, using math to decide who goes into what class, good old peer preasure), but this rule is not so new that it will meet with alot of difficulty getting passed, didn't require a math degree, and most importantly worked.

I for one HATE any kind of handicap. I have yet to see one that works well.

The classes should have rules that limit who can enter it....I think that limiting someone who has medaled in a higher class from entering in a lower one works.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 3]

I followed the "rewrite" proposal on 4way.org for a bit and while it's ok and maybe even acceptable to a lot of folks, it ultimately won't change the sandbagging and player/coach situation.

As for the numerical part of the discussion, I think you might be refering to my contribution to that thread which is essentially the same as presented here.

Well, I can imagine that there are a number of reasons it didn't gather support, but probably the biggest one is the simple inertia of the current system. If no one had ever used the current system and was devising one from scratch, I seriously doubt they'd come up with a solution as convoluted and unfair as the one we currently have. However that system we have in place is the one people are "comfortable" with and to radically change it would cause an uproar even if it ultimately would make the sport a lot better for everyone participating.

I also hate the handicap system which is why I believe a system that mathematically breaks down the classes according to raw scores is probably the most fair.

My system would totally eliminate the player/coach -- you could still hire whoever you wanted to coach you, they just couldn't be a point turning member of the lower classed teams.

And lastly, in order for my system to work, there would need to be some sort of record keeping by the governing body far beyond what is done in the current system, but almost trivial compared to a lot of other organizations.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

You and others sugested the "Math" solution...

And yes, the reason that it didn't fly has alot to do with how the "system" already is.

However, for your plan to work...
It would have to get passed....which it most likley would not.

It would require alot more record keeping.

It would require only one draw, and you would not know what class you were in until after the competition.
That takes alot of the fun out of it.

If you looked at prior meets to do the math. It could still be used to cheat.

According to the "Math" of the whole years meets Frost could have gone Advanced..We had a one rd meet, a Camera caused Zero in another, and one just bad meet (for a 13.5 year AVG. which put us below Nemesis, Beez, Even Tunnel Vision I think.) ..but we did a 14.9 and the winner of Advanced did a 13.7.

So that does not really work....You could just sandbag all your meets. "Damn my camera broke again", or "Opps, funneled again".

I think the Math way could increase the "Sandbagging"
And I could always have aPro on the team, but he just gets factored in like the rest.

How would you factor in a team that didn't do any meets?

I just think that you need to limit the Big Dogs from playing in the kiddie pool. Open to Advanced, or Advanced to Intermediate.

This proposed rule does that pretty well. There are still people in Open that have never medaled in Open, or Advanced...Me for one. Or people in Advanced that could go Intermediate....But I think that this rule will keep most teams from doing it.

Ron

Besides....I am a stupid skydiver....I hate math.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 3]

I don't think you completely understand my proposal.

Eh, no big deal.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

You could explain it to me....

Just a thought.

Try to use small words, and not to much math.

Questions:

1. where would this years teams been put?
2. When would they have known what class they are in?
3. How would the results have changed this years standings?
4. How would it Eliminate Sandbagging and Player coaches?

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 3]

Recapping and adding to what I've already posted higher up in the thread.

Obviously the wording would need to be reworked, but in a nutshell here's what I would want.

Quote

No team in the Advanced or Intermediate classes may be composed of any team members that have previously been on a team attending the U.S. National Championships in that event that has scored higher than 0.618 times the winning average in the previous year's event at the next higher level.

Ok, let's look at how that would work.

Golden Knights Gold wins the 2002 Open Class with an average of 21.8

ANY member of ANY Advanced team that scores an average of more than 21.8 x 0.618 or 13.47 would be forced to then compete in the Open class next year. In this case it would mean both the Gold and Silver Advanced teams move up.

For Intermediate, since the winning Advanced average was 13.7, everyone with a higher average than 8.46 would have to move up. I'll admit, that's a LOT of folks, but it would really balance out the rankings in a very natural way.

So, to specifically answer your questions . . .

Quote

1. where would this years teams been put?

Well, I'll admit I didn't go back and look at that, but as you can see it's a pretty easy thing to figure out for yourself.

Quote

2. When would they have known what class they are in?

A person would know what class they're in for NEXT year the moment official scores were posted at THIS year's Nationals. That's the entire point. FINALLY it would actually mean something when a person calls himself an "Advanced" 4-way skydiver. How you're "seeded" would be determined from the previous year's Nationals. It's a very simple calculation. Take the winning average of the Open team, multiply by 0.618 and if your team's score was above that, then you're now in Open, if not, then you may compete in Open if you'd like, but your incentive is to develop yourself at the proper level and win some Gold there. Same deal with Intermediate, look at the winning average in Advanced and multiply by 0.618. If your team average was higher, move into Advanced, if not stay in Intermediate.

Quote

3. How would the results have changed this years standings?

I haven't really done the math to figure that out, but suffice it to say that Intermediate would have changed quite a bit -- maybe Advanced too.

Quote

4. How would it Eliminate Sandbagging and Player coaches?

Because the seeding takes place only once a year, after Nationals, it would make no logical sense for any team to sandbag -- they're only screwing themselves out of a year's worth of skydiving. Player/coaches are eliminated due to the rules -- no Open class competitors on Advanced or Intermediate teams. Simple.

Now, is this a perfect system? No, because NSL and USPA don't really play by the exact same rules and don't have their Chamionships at the same time. I'd like to see that change as well, but that's another issue entirely.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 7]

Locical...
Makes sense....
It will probley never work.
It most likley would never get passed.


But according to what you have....then Nemesis, Bees, Vision. Would all of had to go Open this year.

The Bees and Tunnel Vision would not be able to try for Advanced Gold next year either.

They, are by definition Weekend teams...Teams that have jobs, and have to pay for jumps/gear...ect.
Should the weekend teams have to compete against Airspeed?
The Advanced class was created to allow the weekend/non pro jumpers a chance to stand on a podium. This would have made them compete in open...and the super cool jump off situation would not have happened. This would have robbed these teams,,and everyone on the ground of the tension.

That would have sucked.

It also limits the % of performance in the lower classes.
I personally think that a weekend team (with no pro's should be able to do a solid 15....It has really yet to happen).

In fact only three times have I seen a Weekend team post over a 14 on a 10 round meet. Nemesis once at Fantasy of Flight, Frost at Nationals and Bees at the NSL playoffs.

The top weekend teams have been posting 13-14 (minus any ringers) since 99. But I would hate to put a cap on them. And besides the move up rule would take over.

Looking at the Nationals...There are very easy to see levels.

Intermediate it is harder to see.....a 15 in Intermediate does not equate to Advanced draw. However, there were levels in Intermediate. 2 Teams pulled away from the pack. One was sandbaging, and the other was the top Airforce team...they don't pay for jumps, gear..ect. Airforce is the Intermediate version of the Knights.

10 to 13.7 Advanced. Thats not alot of disatnce...and there are alot of teams that can fit in that class.

Semi pro...this year only 2 teams were in the void of Advanced/Pro they both posted 14.9 and 15.3.

Pro teams that did 17 or better. All of these teams have or had skydiving as the job they do. Knights, Airspeed, Majik.
Still I would hate to limit what a team in a class can do....If a weekend team can do a 17....good for them.

And you didn't have an answer for a new team..One that was not at last years nationals.....Or a team made up of other teammembers?

Not that it is a bad idea....Just has alot of working out left to do.

Maybe a rework of the %....0.7 would have let a team with a 15.2 go Advanced....but that might be to high. It would be better however.

And the Move up rule would have to go.

Until a total rework can be done...lets fix the problem we have now....Pro's should not be allowed to compete for Advanced medals...Or Intermedate teams should not be allowed to hire Advanced winners.

The current proposal does this.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334