No, I'm mainly concerned with the "big show" I guess. At Hemet there was a group of spectators leaving the field mid day Saturday, and someone made the comment about already knowing who won. With a couple of point lead after the first round, the meet is over for second place on back.

You could do it at qualifiers too. I don't think the qualifiers and the Masters have to be the same. The rules don't - if you qualify at Top Gun, it is only saying you qualified. Get ready though, because at "Masters you are going to have to get it together, they have the best rules and the tightest most fair judging". Of course we don't have that, but we could.

My view of Scale Masters is this; prior to Top Gun, Masters was much more elite than going to the AMA Nationals. You hadn't accomplished much winning the Nats, but Masters was the show to be in.

While they basically use the AMA rule book for Masters, they shouldn't. They could simplify the rules very easily - gray areas and subjective judging make it complicated. I personally think the static documentation should be expanded. The reason static takes a long time is it is time consuming, and since some of the judges don't know what they are looking at, they are trying to figure out what to do and how to score it. I know that sounds harsh, it is, but we have all seen some dogs get a great static compared to a really well pulled off scale model.

You come up with a set of rules that set you apart from Top Gun and the AMA, try something new. Right now it is just another scale meet with a fancy name. You know, it is a sad aspect that is only found in this hobby - everyone is trying to copy someone else instead of developing a unique new product. I run into it everyday. Somebody copying an O-ring brake, or retract valve, or scabbing a fuselage and releasing their own copy kit.

So, break the trend, write a new rule book - make some news. What's going to happen, 25 show up instead of the 28 or whatever this year. Now there are two reasons for not doing it, either they are scared to change, or they don't want to.

If they are scared to, we have a management problem. For every competitor that decides they don't like a new format, two will come along that do. If they don't want to, then we have another, deeper issue. Either they don't want new ideas for fear it would open up the competition and not allow it to be "controlled", or it is just a hard headed power trip deal. Now I'll take a step out of line, but I am willing to now. When I say controlled do you think rigged or guided to certain individuals winning? It does make me wonder when I see the numerous judging issues go on for decades and nothing is done. If you have a static judge that doesn't like you, or "P-51's", he can either consciously or not ding you - he holds all of the power is not accountable to anyone under any circumstance. The good thing is he'll be there again next year, so you're done. There is NO reason for this crap.

This exact problem is on television right now. Many of you know I am a big auto racing fan. If you know anything about NASCAR you are watching Scale Masters on television. NASCAR attendance is dropping, and they blame the Economy, but all experts agree the officiating is sketchy, to many gray areas and suspect judging calls. The product is not as good, it is dumbed down and controlled to a point people are leaving. With all of the ideas proposed, they refuse to listen to new ideas.

When I read the post above, I just shook my head. Rcrmel - read what he said. Several years. Everyone is scared to mention possible rigging or sloppy rules or anything in the open, it is always the whispered discussion behind the porta potty.

I read on here about this being brought up on a public forum, not the USSMA web forum. I didn't even know they had one, and most don't. If this is on a popular forum, it is out there and it is exposed, and look what is happening now - now we see that Rcrmel and LA7 weren't whispering about our ugly airplane over there, they are talking about what we all are in our own little circle.
quietly.

I see the comments about the flight judging, but I only agree to some extent. When I stand there and watch a judge checking out girls in crowd (or whatever he was looking at) and completely missed more than one maneuver, then they converse on it, he looks at the other judges sheet then changes his 8.5 to an 8 and writes it on his own sheet - There is NO reason for this crap.

These groups of buddies sitting there discussing the flight like they are watching reality t.v. is not what judging is about. The jury doesn't sit in the jury box and openly discuss the testimony and and one is looking out the window not paying attention. I'm trying to work on a better plan for that deal - they also need to be accountable for what they are scoring and why. When someone is going to be questioned on what they did, they are less likely to do sloppy work. I had two well known competitors tell me on the phone yesterday that they didn't go this year because of the judging. I'll leave out what they specifically said about it, but it wasn't very nice.

If you think this post had a different attitude, it did. My anger level went up a little the more I think about this deal. I feel good about something though. I checked out the other thread and didn't see anybody come up with much, certainly not what has been talked about here. I'm going to print this thread and pass it out when this thing goes down in flames.

Dennis