Boomerang Bulletin March 2016

Welcome to the free edition of the Boomerang Bulletin. Please click on the link below to download the latest boomerang bulletin from the Boomerang Association of Australia and enjoy a good read…

Front Page Bulletin Mar 2016

2 Comments

  1. Manuel
    Posted 15 March 2016 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Very nice edition, thanks!
    Just a remark about the scoring system I proposed to try:

    -The scoring/point system will NOT minimize impact of conditions. That wasn’t my claim. No system can do that.
    -But it can extract much more information than just the rank per event.

    -A different story is: How to seed groups /assign circles. There I proposed a system making sure that.
    1) throwers very close to each other in the overall ranking throw at the same circle in the same group, throwers ranked close to each other at the same time on different circles.
    2) At every circle there are experienced/less experienced throwers.

    Example:
    1-4 and 13-16 on circle 1
    5-8 and 9-12 on circle 2
    So Ranks 1-4 throw at the same time and same circle, Ranks 1-4 and 5-8 at the same time.

    This could prevent that at least two direct opponents have completely different conditions (as it happened in Perth’14 during Fast Catch.)
    I made an excel sheet doing it for any number of throwers/number of circles.

  2. Matt Barker
    Posted 20 March 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Hi Manu

    Thanks for the feedback on the bulletin. It is work putting it altogether, notwithstanding the business of getting down to actually write the articles, and the no of readers increases each time, so with each bulletin, there is this expectation to produce a good issue with articles which for even an experienced thrower should be worth reading.

    I don’t think my article said that you can possibly change conditions, only God or the laws of nature can direct that. However, I think that the method you’re proposing minimises the impact of those conditions. You know, employing calculus may be a solution. I have often thought that fields, particularly when they cover a large area, have highly variable wind conditions, which can be due to structures (such as high rise apartment nearby) on one side of the field shielding circles from wind, while the other side cops the full force of wind because it is in an open area. But this is making everything a bit complicated and trying to use calculus to factor all that into arranging people on various circles is impractical.

    I think what you’re proposing will no doubt improve the situation, minimising the risk by placing players of equal strength on circles in close proximity to each other. The first group of equal rank go out together on both circles and they throw at the same time, as you have proposed. That gives us an opportunity to have the Top 10 throwers potentially, throwing at the same time with the same conditions. Then the next group, say the top 10-20 on the same two circles throw at the same time and so on.

    We can also take the opportunity that novice and beginner throwers have not developed the very strong, intense critical parameters that someone at your level has developed with experience. They can be treated a little differently, as variable wind for them doesn’t matter so much because they may not even be consciously aware of subtle differences in conditions.

    It is the throwers who can make the top 30 (includes me – ha!) in a WBC who will be more critical about which circles they wish to throw on and with whom, and this is where your method for selecting throwers by rank for the circles will really improve the situation.

    As my article had mentioned, I think you have something we can use Manu, and it is worth putting your “thesis” forward at the IFBA meeting for consideration.

    Well done. The boomerang throwing community has been enriched by your contributions,

    See you in Kiel and at Dreckhecken Manu and all the best to more success!

    Regardos,

    Matt Barker
    BAA Editor

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*