Somewhat cropped for the sake of discussion...
The whole reason the US team committee undertook the huge effort is exactly
experience with the "objective" system... snip...
...We prized "fair" and "objective" above "successful." We
could go back to that... and to the predictable results. The US team
committee, bless them, wants to win on occasion, not just be "objective"
about who gets selected.

So, what do you think is more important: The US winning, or the feelings of
people who feel they should have been selected? Experience has proven you
can't have both.

Let's give it a try. Let the US team committee pick, and if pilot a or b is
unhappy about the result, tough. Let them form good teams, of people who
will work as teams. Give them a few cycles, and let's see if they can
produce results.

Written with all due respect...

Accepting "winning" as the vslid/highest U.S. Team Selection Committee goal, I
seriously question several hidden assumptions apparently underlying the above
logic.

Acknowledging the stated logical arguments supporting each selection approach,
I'm unconvinced they point solely to a compelling conclusion for "need for
selection methodology change." Stated another way, the "selection choice
dichotomy" may well be a false forced choice while the fundamental problem(s?)
lie elsewhere.

I suspect the reasoning "simply" illustrates symptoms of "somethings else." I
don't pretend to have compelling arguments for proposed/possible solutions,
but suggest that if "fair and objective" selection has consistently yielded
"unprepared pilots" (a debatable proposition, in my view) then "the problem"
could lie elsewhere...e.g.: (gasp!) task calling menu/proportions;
meteorological (the U.S. is large enough to have hugely differing "standard
soaring conditions" compared to [say] middle/western Europe [arguably home for
a high proportion of recent international soaring champions]); the sheer size
of the U.S. may generate/contain inherent issues affecting "team flight" not
affecting many (most?) other countries sending "competitive teams" to
international competitions (e.g. cost/logistics associated with
dispersion-induced "team practice/cohesiveness" etc.).

When I try to apply today's present selection logic to the U.S.'
post-WW-II-based participation in international soaring competitions and its
slate of international champions, selection method doesn't jump out at me as
dominant. What seems more dominant is - arguably - individual brilliance.
MacCready in his day readily admitted he was far from "the best at"
thermalling...but he came up with a way of compensating through
logically-based (and subsequently methodologically proven) "lift
discrimination." Moffat? If anything, he continued in the "MacCready logical
vein" but with (as I infer) "considerably honed" mechanical and psychological
skills. Jacobs? Insufficient info available to me to hazard a guess.
Ironically, Moffat might be considered to have *lost* further chances to make
the U.S. team when we once before switched from "purely results-based
selection" to "other factors actively considered" selection inclusion.

Somewhat tangentially, I suspect "a Sebastian Kawa" can arguably be thought of
as a pilot fitting into the "winner through brilliance alone" category as well.

In any event, in the 35-or-so years between MacCready and Jacobs, LOTS of
other things in and permeating the sport changed massively, two obvious ones
being ship technology (wood/metal=composites) and knowledge/skills
dispersion/ permeating throughout competitive soaring pilots worldwide.
Additionally, cockpit instrumentation (technology) and again, (gasp) contest
task-calling philosophy/methodology are part of the picture. (For younger
readers, Moffat famously was a part of the forces moving toward higher
proportion of assigned task calls.)

"Obvious conclusions" to "fixing" the U.S.' now-long-standing "failure" to
generate a world champion certainly aren't obvious to me, though I do suspect
the pilot selection methodology change perceived to underlay this thread's
"train wreck" won't prove to be a panacea in the "eventual results" sense of
things. As always, time will have its measure...

What think others?

Respectfully,
Bob - generally interested in these sorts of things - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com