Re: UK Trick Competition
|Subject||Re: UK Trick Competition|
|Fromemail@example.com (Andy Wardley)|
|Date||Mon, 18 May 1998 15:47:09 GMT|
Speedy wrote: > They fly against each other. Red fly 30 sec. (music provided by DJ, > mostly fast (Prodigy or so)) Yellow fly 30 sec.
[ 3 x 30 second slots each - best flier goes forward ]
This sounds much more like it. As I see it, this format has much going for it:
- The emphasis is on innovation, not preparation
- "Best of three" means that a tangle or crash isn't necessarily the end of the line [sic] for the flier
- Immediate results to keep competitors and crowds interested (for that small, nay tiny, percentage of people who are interested in such things :-)
- No complex score-keeping
- No wind rules - with no more than a 30 second latency both competitors get the same wind, no matter how low, or how high it may be.
I can also see a few ways in which the format might be improved. Here are some thoughts and ramblings for starters:
- Music choice. It's fair that someone else should choose the music and both fliers get equal flying time to it, but if the music's fast and furious and you're a much better slow, smooth flier, then you're not getting the chance to fly the best you can. Perhaps different music for each 30 second section? Perhaps each flier has their own music which is used for one slot, the other flier's for the next slot and a random choice for the third. A flier flies to his own music first so that the opponent (who may never have heard it before) gets a chance to listen and get some ideas. In the latter rounds, the music may be entirely random to really test the pilots.
- In any case, if the music is chosen by someone other than the flier, then it only seems fair that the flier gets a chance to hear it before starting flying.
- Opponent choice. It's always difficult deciding who should fly against who. Random choice is fairest, but might seem really unfair to Ned Novice who gets picked against Simon Superflyer in the first round. This is particularly true in a sudden-death type situation. Seeding is too difficult. Flying 2 rounds against different opponents would be fairer but would grossly complicate the scoring (perhaps at the benefit of making it more even). It would also increase the time it takes to run such a competition. If you're #2 in the world, then you might get knocked out in the first round because you came up against #1. That must be a bit annoying. :-)=
- Numbers. To do any knockout competition, you need to have even numbers. 18 competitors whittles down to 9 which isn't going to split into pairs. Best loser makes up the numbers? Do we have a fly-off between the losers or do the judges make an arbitrary decision? And if the losing 9 have a fly-off, who makes up the odd man? Is there any reason why we couldn't have a 3-way fly? After each flier has flown a 30 second round, the scores are apportioned 2 points for the best, 1 for the second best, etc. After 3 rounds (or do we have 4 - one for each competitors music, and one random?) Hmmm....getting complex again.
- Safety. We must make sure that both fliers (and judges) can be in the same arena with kites, etc., and do so safely.
There's more, but I haven't thought of it yet.
A large part of me is saying "Don't worry about all these details!" I think that a looser, less formal competition format may be the way to go, but it doesn't hurt to explore these avenues and see what we can improve along the way.
One more thought: I have access to hundreds of CD's that contain music tracks of every kind imaginable for use as jingles, etc. Nearly every track that you'll find on such collections will have a 30 second "jingle" version. These would be ideal for such competition: they're the right length, available in practically every music style (although "cheesey" seems to be most popular), they're predictable (i.e. once you've heard the first few bars, you can guess what's coming next) and more importantly, the fliers are unlikely to have heard them before removing any advantage that prior knowledge of the music would confer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Wardley <firstname.lastname@example.org> Signature regenerating. Please remain seated. <email@example.com> For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/