Adv. class @ nats

[bliston 0]

Congrats to all the teams this year for solid efforts through the tough draw. As always, I was impressed with the sportsmanship and talent, especially from all the Elsinore teams. I'm already looking forward to battling it out again next year.

Sorry, again, to Perris Exceed for getting the shaft. At the least, you should've been allowed to finish the meet out as a guest team; you guys were smoking the field.

Be fast,

Ben Liston
Mass Defiance

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[BikerBabe 0]

Ben, you guys looked awesome! Sorry about the NJ's.

It was cool sharing the plane with you on most of the loads (we were secretly rooting for you guys because of that )

Andi
Perris KII

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[NeedToJump 0]

That was definitely a painful draw, but we had a lot of fun. Ben - we were rooting for you guys too. It was nice to see another East Coast team without a player coach doing well. I think there were 5 player coach teams in Advanced this year! You guys rocked it out.
-Ari
Crosskeys Down To Earth

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[bliston 0]

Thanks for the kind words, Ari and Andi. We were happy to have good plane company, too! Look forward to seeing what you guys and your repective teams get going next season. Sparks are sure to be flying... I hope teams can stay together and build on the solid scores from this year

Take it easy.
Ben

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[jmpwme 0]

MD looked great, as did Down to Earth. What was up to D2E getting shafted on the live judging??? That seemed pretty wrong. Special props to Exceed, they were clearly the team to beat in Advanced.

What a great meet. So close all the way. Its the only way to compete. Congrats to all. Hope to see everybody competing next year.

With respect to PC's, this year seemed better than most. I only counted 4 pc teams among the contenders and only 1 PC team on the podium. Surely an improvement over prior years.

Steve
GT

[bliston 0]

"respect to PC's, this year seemed better than most. I only counted 4 pc teams among the contenders and only 1 PC team on the podium. Surely an improvement over prior years."


Agreed, I am all for the use of player/coaches - they help people vastly impove their skills and do a lot of good for 4-way in general (assisting other teams on the DZ from time to time, being visible role models for new jumpers, etc). But I agree that there's something extra sweet about getting a team of regular guys/gals together and putting up some cookin' skydives.

Wish us luck getting through the snowny and icey winter!

Ben

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[jmpwme 0]

"Wish us luck getting through the snowny and icey winter! "

Go West young man, Go West!!!

Steve
GT

[greuni 0]

Would someone be so kind to define what a "Player Coach" team is in their mind? Compared to some of my "Colleagues" who pocket $500/day for their endeavors, I have never pocketed one penny for competing in the Advanced Class. I competed in Advanced in 2002 (Tunnel Vision - 25 Training Jumps) and 2004 (Jamba - 100 Training Jumps), both times with a group of friends that needed a fourth to compete. I jumped on these teams because I love to jump, want to do 4-Way, and had an opportunity to jump with my friends. Is it just because I have competed and succeeded in the open class that I am viewed as a "Player Coach"? Is it because I know more about 4-Way than my teammates that I am a "Player Coach"? Etc....

With respect to the spirit of competition, I am all for regulating the PC situation and I do not want to get into the debate about classifications at Nationals; I have my own views on that and don't think this is the forum to share those. But I am just curious because it appears that people are quick to label a team as a "PC Team" and as a result quickly overlook the abilities and efforts of the members of such a team. One person can not carry a team no matter how good they are (although 3 can carry 1) and a "Team" is always as good as it's "weakest link" and the "sum of it's parts".

-dvg

[fraschc 0]

Quote

But I am just curious because it appears that people are quick to label a team as a "PC Team" and as a result quickly overlook the abilities and efforts of the members of such a team. One person can not carry a team no matter how good they are (although 3 can carry 1) and a "Team" is always as good as it's "weakest link" and the "sum of it's parts".

-dvg

Amen brother!
Courtney

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

But I am just curious because it appears that people are quick to label a team as a "PC Team" and as a result quickly overlook the abilities and efforts of the members of such a team. One person can not carry a team no matter how good they are (although 3 can carry 1) and a "Team" is always as good as it's "weakest link" and the "sum of it's parts".

As someone on the other side (on a PC team but not the PC), I say amen as well. I mean, what am I? Chopped liver? I'm choosing to spend my money and time this way because it's making me into a better skydiver and competitor in the fastest time possible. I'm impatient... I like to think that my regular teammates and I had something to do with our personal and team success at nationals this year. Alena's a damn good skydiver, but she wasn't flying every slot...

Look at the medalists in Advanced this year and count how many were a product of a PC team. How is that a bad thing?

Now, it may surprise you, but my opinion on regulating PC teams hasn't changed. I just got outvoted.

Andi

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[bliston 0]

In my mind a player/coach is someone who has been a professional formation skydiver and gets paid to be on a team. Again, I think it's great that this happens and don't have any problem with these teams competing in the advanced class. If somebody has been successful at the national or international level but is still paying his or her own way, then I wouldn't consider that individual to be a player coach, just a valuable teammate.

I agree with you that a team can only be as fast as it's weakest link and anybody that does a 12, 15, or 17 average with or w/o a player/coach earned it and should be proud of being personally capable or that accomplishment.

I guess what I was alluding to was that when all the people on the team are comparable skydivers and make, more or less, equal amounts of angle, grip discipline, mental or other mistakes throughout the season, it makes it all the sweeter when everybody steps it up and you have a great meet.

I guess there is just a slightly different feeling at the end of the day when everyone on the team feels like the jump or the meet was the best they have ever done personally or as a group compared to three out of the four people feeling that way. My thoughts on this are based on personal experience.

Hope this post answered your question and doesn't cause me to get burned at the stake.

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Special props to Exceed, they were clearly the team to beat in Advanced.

Thank you, Steve.

My team worked very hard this season, starting way back last November in formulating their training schedule and goals. We made about 300 skydives together as a complete team but then unfortunately lost our very talented tail flyer, Piya, to an unexpected job loss situation just two months before Nationals.

We kept training, as a 3-way with coaching for 2 months and only the 4 days before Nationals did we add our final tail to our squad. About 20 jumps of training, then Nationals.

I've watched from above as Exceed trained over the season. Saw them rise from an 11 point average at the start of the season, and every SSL they attended saw the average rise.

They say it takes about 100 jumps per point rise. We made almost 400 jumps together total, with incredible coaching from B.C., Kirkby and McGowen (Pat, not Mike).

I'm extremely proud of my team members, Baat, Alan, and Christy, their talent...their focus....their determination....their honesty...their giving spirit. I'd be with them again in a heartbeat.

ltdiver

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

[Ron 7]

David,

Quote

Is it just because I have competed and succeeded in the open class that I am viewed as a "Player Coach"?

Most people consider a PC to be a person who has medaled in a higher class.

My only reall issue with the PC teams being in a lower class is that the USPA forces a team to move up, but will allow a higher medalist to move down?

That makes no sense.

You, Ian and Kyle (all 20+ avg skydivers) could grab me and go advanced, but I could not go advanced with Niklas and Carlos (Who's best avg is a 14.9).

How does that make any sense?

I agree that a PC team has many great benefits. But it seems unfair to allow top notch competitiors to compete in lower divisions.

You don't see NBA pro players playing in college basketball games.

If you have stood on an OPEN class podium, you are clearly above any lower division. Add in the fact that regular weekend guys that win that class have to move up and I see a disparity.

A PC team will have the same benefits if that team competed in Open as they would get in Advanced...Except that they would not get a chance at a medal.

And I disagree that one guy will not make a difference. I was at an FSL meet last year. A team had a person get hurt and Kurt asked me to fill in. This team had been doing a 9 avg all year. This meet they did an 11 avg and they claimed to have the best meet of their lives. The next meet with the regular back in place...a 9 average again. I have aslo done tunnel and jumps with members of Majic filling in when we lost Glenn...They were some of the best jumps we had had that year.

If one guy does not make a difference...Then why do people hire PC's?

So to make thinsg fair USPA has to do one of two things:

1. Make it so PC teams compete in Open only...Thereby allowing a person to hire as many Pro's as they can afford. They will still get the benefit of the great coaching and skill building, they will get to do the same draw as the Advanced class for bragging rights, but they could not medal, unless the beat the other PRO teams.

2. Get rid of the move up rule. It is just silly to make people who have won a class move up, while you allow Pro's to move down.

Just my thoughts.
Ron

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

[jmpwme 0]

How did this horse come back to life????? I thought it was dead and gone.

To help answer David's question - in the various proposed rules that have been sent to USPA, a player coach is defined as Ron states. Any person who as won a gold, silver or bronze in a USPA Nationals or an IPC sponsored World Championship or World Cup. The fact that you may or may not have taken compensation is irrelevant to the issue. The term "Player Coach" is purely based on ones success as an open class competitor.

Additional facts:

1. USPA has made it clear that the use of player coaches is here to stay and that teams using a PC will be eligible to earn medals in Advanced, notwithstanding that this was not the original purpose of the Advanced Class. We should all learn to live with this and go compete. Does it suck to pay a coach all year and then have to compete against that coach in the same class? Perhaps. To each his/her own on that one. But - these are the rules, USPA is not going to change them. GO COMPETE

2. IMO, Ron has correctly spotted the issue with the current rules. PC's, as defined above, are being given more latitude in the Advanced Class than those who have achieved a gold in the Advanced Class and this in simply not fair. For example, a team with John Hamilton, Gary Beyer, Christorpher Irwin and DVG would be eligible to win Advanced under current USPA rules BUT a team with Doug and Kim Glover or Ron and Carlos would not. This part of the rule should be changed. Its a simple change. If you believe in the 25%/move up rule, simply add medalists in a higher class to the 25% prohibition. Its that easy.

3. The use of player coaches, the merits of using a PC, whether they should win medals, how much they contribute to a team etc. has been hotly debated all over this forum since the Optic Nerve days. Let it go, train hard, be willing to pay your dues, compete against the PC teams on equal footing and beat them.

Notwithstanding my views on PC teams which I have made very clear over the years, the PC teams in Advanced competed where their competition was. Satori, Jamba and the various Katalyst teams made the Advanced Class one exciting race. Exceed flat out kicked our butts, but they belonged in Advanced, they were a weekend team and had very few jumps with Shannon. They were just that good.

That having been said - props to Directe and O2 Project for the decisions that they made.

Steve
GT

[Ron 7]

Quote

these are the rules, USPA is not going to change them

It is a shame that the USPA will not listen to those that they make rules for huh?

Tells me something about a defuct organization.

Quote

GO COMPETE

Hey buddy...I was there

Quote

Let it go.

You don't know me very well ....do you?

I'd rather fight something I don't agree with than just accept it and do nothing. I may have to live with it, but I don't have to like it

BTW it does not really matter to me since I have never even competed in Advanced. It just seems unfair that a person with money can bring a Pro (or more) to a High School game.

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

[jmpwme 0]

"You don't know me very well ....do you?

I'd rather fight something I don't agree with than just accept it and do nothing. I may have to live with it, but I don't have to like it "
*****************************

Fight on my friend - we have been on the same side of this issue for a long time. I did speak to Mary Lou about the issue I discuss above. It appears that there is some agreement that a fix here is needed. Will it happen? Who knows. But that answer was better than any previously received.

Steve.

[arlo 0]

Quote

And I disagree that one guy will not make a difference. I was at an FSL meet last year. A team had a person get hurt and Kurt asked me to fill in. This team had been doing a 9 avg all year. This meet they did an 11 avg and they claimed to have the best meet of their lives. The next meet with the regular back in place...a 9 average again. I have aslo done tunnel and jumps with members of Majic filling in when we lost Glenn...They were some of the best jumps we had had that year.

If one guy does not make a difference...Then why do people hire PC's?

ron, dvg did not say that one guy does not make a difference. he said:

Quote

One person can not carry a team no matter how good they are (although 3 can carry 1) and a "Team" is always as good as it's "weakest link" and the "sum of it's parts".

BIG DIFFERENCE between "carrying a team" and "making a difference"...at least that's how i read it.

also, teams in general have different averages for each of the NSL meets. everyone that competes knows that some draws may be faster or slower than others. you know how true this is. i remember you telling me at the perfect spot during one of the FSL meets that you guys scored such and such because it was a slow draw. that could account for some of that avg point spread when you filled in for that team. if you check out the NSL season scores for this year at NSL meet averages, you'll see a spread of over 4 points with majik...and they didn't change members. so maybe the draw itself had a little to do with it. but you know much more than me in this arena since you still compete and have done so for much longer than i did....
arlo

[apincus 0]

I'm pretty neutral on the player coach discussion. The only rules I can find that govern who can compete in addition to having a 'B' License in Advanced is:

Quote

E. No team in the Advanced or Intermediate 4-Way
Formation Skydiving classes may be composed of
more than one quarter of members who have
Previously won a gold medal in that class or a higher
class at a previous U.S. National Skydiving
Championships or in the same event at an FAI First
Category Event, provided that the videographer will
not be considered when applying this rule.

It is my feeling you should compete where there is competion, as long as you play within the rules Doing a 16 or 17 in Advanced, based on passed scores would not be the correct place to compete, especially with a World Class Competitor. Doing a 13 in open would not prove very competitive.

In my experience you do not get the same feeling playing in Open as you do battling for medals in Advance at the same point average. One way is a boogie, the other is real competition.

I do agree with Ron that it is very strange that PD Blue can compete in Advance at a 19 AVG, but Taiwaz, Inferno, Frost, Adrenalin can't put a team together and compete at a 15 AVG. However these are the rules. This rule forces these Skydivers either to put together full time teams to be competitive, or go to Nationals in Boogie mode.

Based only on the previous statement, it is my feeling the rules should be changed to: eliminate the move up rule above, or to follow the current proposal not to allow medal winners of a higher class to compete in a lower class. Until the rules are changed we should quit giving PC teams grief about where they compete. They are following the rules. If they get caught breaking the rules they will likely get DQ’d, and this is mute point.

Alex

[jmpwme 0]

Alex -

You are correct in your understanding of the rules. The rule you cite is the one under debate.

You also left out one other possiblity for Gold medal Advanced teams - break up and stay in advanced so long as you don't exceed the 25% rule. Although most Advanced Gold medal winners seem to feel obligated to jump open, the option does still remain for them to compete in Advanced within the 25% rule.

What do you think of my proposed change which would say no more than 25% can be gold medalists in that class or any medalist in a higher class. While this certainly doesn't fix the PC issue, it does put Advanced Gold winners on the same playing field as medal winners in open. Eliminating the move up rule really doesn't work either if you look at the history of the Advanced Class. If you remember, it was started to avoid squatting when there was only 2 classes and the 25% rule came with it. Of course, this is all old news on this issue. USPA has been discusing a "defend your title once" rule, but I'm not sure how that could be drafted and it seems like an enforcement nightmare.

As for your conclusions - I couldn't agree more. The rules are what the rules are and you do your best to compete within them. I also don't think anybody in this thread was bashing PC teams as has been done in the past. I think this thread is bashing the rules. There is a big difference between the two.

Steve

[apincus 0]

Steve:

You know me very well. I do much better when I don't try to help. It took many Martini's with yourself and many discussions with Ron before I really had an opinion. I think you and Ron both have great ideas, and I would support any or all of them. Just show me where to sign.

Alex

[BikerBabe 0]

At the competitors meeting with USPA after Nationals, Doug Park came up with one of the best ideas I've heard for dealing with this issue.

Now, I'm sure in theory there could be something better, but this one was also easy to implement...

Basically, draw the line between advanced and open class based on team average after three rounds or so of Nationals. Since USPA is unlikely to merge with NSL anytime soon, it would be hard to track a competitor's average throughout the season, not to mention a logistical nightmare.

Doug's idea was to have everyone in the same class for the first three rounds or so (we jump the same dive pool, anyway), then after that, draw the line. Teams that "made the cut" would be in open, and those that didn't would be in Advanced. It's totally based on performance as a team at the meet, and it's easy to implement. Plus, there would be no more worrying about who medaled when and where...so if Kim and Doug Glover were on a team together with two newbies, then they could compete where they belong based on their performance.

The "tracking averages throughout the season" idea came up, but we have to suggest something that is actually feasible for USPA to do.

Anyway, thoughts? Like I said, it wasn't my idea, it was Doug's but I think it's one of the most realistic ways I've seen to define the classes...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[harryskydives 0]

So teams a & b both do XX on rounds 1&2. Then team a has a terrible round 3, and team b has their best jump ever. So a goes advanced, and b goes open???

Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time...

[fraschc 0]

Quote

At the competitors meeting with USPA after Nationals, Doug Park came up with one of the best ideas I've heard for dealing with this issue.

Now, I'm sure in theory there could be something better, but this one was also easy to implement...

Basically, draw the line between advanced and open class based on team average after three rounds or so of Nationals. Since USPA is unlikely to merge with NSL anytime soon, it would be hard to track a competitor's average throughout the season, not to mention a logistical nightmare.

Doug's idea was to have everyone in the same class for the first three rounds or so (we jump the same dive pool, anyway), then after that, draw the line. Teams that "made the cut" would be in open, and those that didn't would be in Advanced. It's totally based on performance as a team at the meet, and it's easy to implement. Plus, there would be no more worrying about who medaled when and where...so if Kim and Doug Glover were on a team together with two newbies, then they could compete where they belong based on their performance.

The "tracking averages throughout the season" idea came up, but we have to suggest something that is actually feasible for USPA to do.

Anyway, thoughts? Like I said, it wasn't my idea, it was Doug's but I think it's one of the most realistic ways I've seen to define the classes...

I've heard similar ideas passed around and the question then becomes....what is the cutoff or how is the cutoff average decided? If the cutoff average is known ahead of time, will there be teams out there willing to sacrifice their average so they can 'sandbag' their way to a gold medal? I wouldn't think so but I dunno. I still think it's a good idea that can probably be worked with somehow.

Courtney

[rehmwa 2]

Regardless of the method, those team that would be less than totally honest, will work any system. So sandbaggers will sandbag no matter what method is employed.

I like Dougs recommendation, it's even handed and doesn't require defining any specific individuals, or forces people who like to jump together to not be allowed to. Anything like this needs to be defined by the team, not specific individuals. Also, for some teams, making the cut for the open or advanced class would be a great goal for nationals to achieve and could take great pride in not taking a lower class medal in lieu of qualifying to step up to the higher division.

I'm certain that there is no system to force people to have exactly equal concepts of what's fair or not. So we'll have to settle for something clever and deal with anybody trying to 'game the system' within the RW community.

Or we could just give everybody medals like in today's grade schools.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 7]

Quote

At the competitors meeting with USPA after Nationals, Doug Park came up with one of the best ideas I've heard for dealing with this issue.

This idea, or ideas like this one have been kicked around a lot. Some shooting sports use these types of rankings. They define the Advanced class as being a % of the Pro/Open class.

In some cases they wait till the end of the meet to divide the rankings...In essence you all compete in open, and then they come in and seperate the classes based on performance.

I don't like that since it takes some of the competition out of it.

Quote

Anyway, thoughts? Like I said, it wasn't my idea, it was Doug's but I think it's one of the most realistic ways I've seen to define the classes...

I don't like it...Let me explain why.

Lets say that you, Ari, Ben, and Steve decide to get together and train like hell. You do 300 jumps and are really kicking ass. The meet is a good one for you and you are killing the competition...Good for you. You did good, trained hard, you get the medals. I would hate for you to suddenly be "kicked up" to have to compete against Airspeed.

Besides it is SO easy to do one of these two things:

1. Not allow anyone with a higher medal to step down.

2. Get rid of the move up rule, and allow PC teams...Thereby creating a weekend warrior class.

The only problem I see with the current system is PD Blue (20 avg), Airspeed Blue (16), Perris Skoolboyz (16.4), Hell even this years Knights team (19.9) (if they had a different Alternate), or Fastrak (17.1) could go compete in Advanced next year, but Mojo (13.6) , Perris Synchronicity (15.3), Thunder (14.0) could not due to each team having two members who have an Advanced Gold.

If you adopt the no higher medalists can step down it allows guys like you, Ari, Ben, and Scott to train like hell, kick ass, and win. It's fair.

Thats why I like the idea of adopting the no higher medalists can step down rule. Teams that train like hell and blow the other same class of teams out of the water still can win.

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