Pete I honestly think you are throwing stones at the wrong people. Lets talk about this at our next members meeting. See you Thursday.

Word.

Will the same be said about persons arguing in favour of Portsmouth without understanding the measurement based systems ?

Wouter

Homework...OK I'm done, now where do I turn it in?



As Jake pointed out, your PM box is full.

So you are saying you want some of us to check in by phone? Can you trust us not to start taking about politics or...squirrels?

Call me a rebel but I do not have much faith in committee and associations when it comes to advancing new ideas and concepts. It is typically not in their nature to do so.

I say, leave Portsmouth as it is now don't seek any link; just work out a better system and let the "market" decide which it prefers.

Lets develop it parallel to the others and let the others fend for themselves.


So do we want this or not ? There is not going half baked on this one. You will piss some people off as some people will always be pissed off.

Wouter

Do you seriously think being glib is constructive?

Touche!

Generally I call someone with that attitude a person who has not participated in the associations or committees he derides.

Hence the Roberts Rules. Only way we can keep on track. All the squirrel talk is saved for the bar - half the reason I go to these things is for the bar talk.

Just an observation, having spent many hours on committees (yawn), some are good at it and some not. That I suspect is why you are where you are. You are GOOD AT IT. Thank you for being the one.

Wouter is a visionary. Most visionaries have little time for politics and small talk.

Someone like you, John can bridge the gap if you so choose. Wouter is not a lone noise in the night.

I understand committees play useful roles in society, necessary roles even and I understand that politics is part of every project. Just not in the initial stages.

Committees and politics are never kind to emerging projects and new concepts. It is wrong to expect any good from them in these early stages.





Or who has waste too much time and effort in the instances when he did !

The origins of the given stance can go both ways.

I participated in the Texel committee but Texel changed after I split off and did NMBR.

Of course the effected changes had been in processing for many many many years before NMBR and I was certainly not the first one to propose them. Ohhh no ! It was just a coincidence that they were (finally) implemented after NMBR did.

Either way, the in-house committee work got nowhere where the "split off" project gained succes within months. Go figure.


In house committee got assurances of support for no less then two catamarans in the Olympics. When it was time to lay the cards on the table they all turned up Monohull.

I wonder why I'm sceptical about committees.

Wouter

Yes... my bad... I misspoke. The issue is on the agenda.
Something like what I suggest could be proposed, discussed and voted on at the meeting (per the council rules).

More importantly... there is no reason to dissect the issues with Portsmouth and make judgments at the MHC level as if we needed to bash ONE rating system so that we could move to a non existent US measurement system.

As Jack notes, we would like both the OPTION of using a complete NA measurement rating and the SANCTION/ AUTHORIZATION for the measurement by USSA and the MHC.

I really think it's important to have a single national authority in charge... For CRAC the decision to move from Herb Malm's NAMSA ratings (which worked well) to USSA Portsmouth was in large part driven by the national credibility of US Sailing and the club's willingness to go with the flow so to speak. I understand other clubs had huge issues with the change of the rating system.

Everyone should keep in mind that PHRF and IRC coexist in North America. ISAF and RYA Portsmouth coexist in Great Britan..... There is no reason why Portsmouth and a Measurement rating can't coexist in North America as well.
Many of the important big boat regattas on the Chesapeake will score a boat in PHRF and alias their time for scoring in IRC of the same race. The Gunners focus on the IRC result... the Corinthians like their normal PHRF result and the OA keeps everyone happy.

I would hope that any issues that are raised with the MHC council about Portsmouth were first raised with Darline and the Portsmouth Committee. I know I have raised most of these issues with Darline over the past several years.

John,

I have another procedural question.

If the MHC decided to move forward. Would the formation of a measurement ratings committee be passed on to a separate committee of USSA or would it/ could it stay under the MHC. The catamaran volunteers will do the same work but under who's jurisdiction. (Non answers to these kinds of questions and history are the reason that we have several large multihull handicap measurement rules now in use in the USA (We have three rating rules on the east coast alone!). These are truly a mess and we must avoid this fate at all cost!

Wouter... where to start? I have been given a summary of your involvement with Texel - I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that your recollection might not marry up well with others' who are still involved. Your summary of the Olympic situation is no deeper than a teaspoon. I have not and do not make fun of your NMBR project, but I suspect the reason you don't work well with committees is because you have a reluctance to participate in a peer review atmosphere. I don't make any judgment whether that is good or bad - I think for some folks, that's just how they're built. You sincerely enjoy, I think, being the "lone wolf," the dissenter, the alternative. If NMBR were the standard, it would be your target.

Hey Mark - now you're thinkin' like Lincoln. These are the right questions, IMO, to ask moving forward. I'm but one vote on the Council - these questions are for all of us to consider. Thanks for articulating the "then what?"

Of course it doesn't, why do you think I did NMBR in the first place ?

Let the record show that when it comes down to getting something done, I'm not a jolly good fellow. I do tend to burn bridges if that means that the resulting ashes will furtilize the field for some new growth.




I don't object to peer review in principle, just not by anybody. I tend to loose interest when things go in circles. Maybe I should just say it out loud. I'm smart enough to present a high benchmark for any peer reviewer and in the past I have also told University professors that their arguments were simply boogus. I guess that is my personal problem. I have little to no respect for seniority, status, standing, prestige and what other things are unrelated to scientific discourse. Earning my respect basically can only be achieved by one way only; presenting your case with clear verifyable arguments that are to the point.

Somebody said that I should put action to my words when I pontificated about how cat design could be better and I fathered the F16 class.

Someone else said that if I knew better then the available ratings systems that I should simply build one and not pontificate about. And what do you know I did !

I can almost give a list of example but that will not matter because there will always be somebody poo-pooing anything I did with a character assessination phrase like :

"I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that your recollection might not marry up well with others' who are still involved."


You know it really doesn't matter what my recollection is of that of others. My NMBR is out there, test is against the other system. Looks at its fundamentals, judge them on their own merits and drawback and present a counter argument on that. All other stuff is just politics. You don't like me rocking the boat with a (superior) system so you blow smoke about how my recollection is "different" from some undisclosed others.



I mean just look at NMBR against Texel.

Texel puts the F18's at 101%
NMBR at 100% (in both wind strength ranges) (meaning corrected time = elapsed time)


Which system will make handicap rating calculations easier for any given typical fleet that is dominated by F18's ?


How about the A-cats.

Texel 101 over the full range of conditions = equal to F18
NMBR 97 and 106 for respectively light and medium/strong conditions.

Maybe the spread is too wide, but it certainly is a whole lot more reflective of real life course experience then Texel is.


Or lets compare to Portsmouth

F18 = 62,4 sailed for 45 minutes to correct to 1 hour 12 min and 7 secs
F20 = 59.0 sailed for 43 minutes to correct to 1 hour 12 min and 53 secs

How much faster did the F20 have to sail to win the race ?

46 seconds ? (= the difference between the corrected times)


Using NMBR

F18 = 100% sailed 45 min. and corrects to 45 min.
F20 = 95% sailed 43 min and corrects to 45 min and 16 seconds

16 secs ? (= difference between the NMBR corrected times)


Of course the real answers are USPN = 27 secs and NMBR = 15 secs

Notice how much more accurate the NMBR corrected time difference is to the sought answers and how far of the mark the USPN rated time difference is ?

The NMBR system is full of such little improvements.



How about arguing the merits of each system to the point and scientifically.

I think THAT would a fitting start; also by you.


I'm sorry if my words are a bit harsh. I derive no pleasure from that even when I am comfortable as a "lone wolf"


With otherwise all due respect,

Wouter

But is probably better if I shut up completely now.

My system is out there, documented and explained (although the statistical parts are missing). No further benefit is to be expected from my abbrasive attitude. Politicing is not my game, my part in the this was completed when I presented the NMBR as a proof of concept and viability.

Mugrace, I wish you all the best.

Wouter

Haha, Wouter at his finest of burning bridges.

But no matter what rating system you put in place, people complain, and the best sailors predominantly win. Best way to solve that is just go and sail and put in the effort.

Thanks, let us take it from here at the moment.

The issue is whether USSailing wants to sanction experiments with an alternate system per se, not which system it would be.

Apparently most here think that such an experiment must be Nationally sanctioned by the existing authority. I understand that feeling but also believe that it will be hard to get enough voting participants on the committee to go that way.

The perception is that another system lurking nearby will cause further disinterest in the existing system...and I can see that logic. A house divided......etc.

I would say that on this forum there is strong support for one way or the other, but not a lot for a dual system.

Time will tell.