Every time this topic comes up it bothers me a little more. I came indoor as
a kid and I have continued to fly all the way through college. The more I
fly the less I care about competitive indoor. For most kids the goal of
getting into a top tier college affords all the competition they they need.
I certainly don't think that competition is unimportant, but after competing
in SO. TSA, AMA and FAI events there are only a handful of contest that
actually remember how I, or anyone else placed. What I do remember is that I
had a lot of fun along the way.
As Kagan said indoor is intrinsically cool. I have had everyone from fine
art collectors to scientist and engineers express interest in my models. The
problem that we face is time it takes to become a proficient indoor flier. I
don't see this as a bad thing. Whether is playing and instrument or learning
snow ski, It takes time, money and commitment to get good at it. I think
that indoor as a whole will sustain itself as long as people long as people
keep going to contest / flying events and maintaining the open door policy
that the community has traditionally had at these events.
What I think needs to stop happening is: All of us (and I'm guilty of this
as well) saying I'll make the next contest or I'll volunteer teach a group
of kids or work a contest next time. There will always be other things we
could be doing with our time but, if indoor is important enough of us to
have these indoor is dying conversations then indoor is worth donating the
time it took to type the email to a contest or a kid.
Lastly, I think we should place the burden of starting indoor promoting
actives on people who don't currently fly. Guidance councilors have there
hands full with children whose parents are meeting their children's basic
needs. Teachers, especially public school teachers make all of 1000 dollars
a year before taxes for staying after two work with students after they have
already put in 8+ hours for the day. I know that personally, once quitting
time comes around the last thing I want to do is to stay at work anther 2-3
hours for free. While it would appear that this is a negative situation its
actually a positive situation for indoor mentors. Indoorist are able to say
to the schools, we'll come in and run an after school program at no cost to
the school if you'll give us a gym to fly in and a room to meet. As members
of the Oakland cloud dusters have found, this a profitable situation for all
involved.
So please, put the time that you would be spending talking about why indoor
is dying into doing something to save it.
Nick
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Thomas <parkreation_at_msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
> Agreed. The issue of #3 just morph's if #1 and #2 are achieved. When this
> sport achieves higher ranking importance in a student's life, their "time &
> energy" will increase to maintain their own #1 & #2.
>
> Incidently, as much as our society has attempted to water down brains,
> skills and competition, at no time in one's life are these more important
> than between the ages 11 and 21. Sparring for position is a given. So is
> getting attention. Yes, I speak from my experience as a parent of 4
> competitive kids, Science Olympiad, Ex-TSA official, Scouts and being on
> School Board, I have witnessed this scenario many times over.
>
> Stepping Off,
> Tom Sanders
>
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Mark F1diddler" <f1diddler_at_...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com<Indoor_Construction%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Thomas" <parkreation_at_> wrote:
> > d
> > > 1) Youth involvement is directly proportional to "bragging rights" (ie:
> does my involvement raise my status with my peers, my girl/guy friend?)
> > >
> > > 2) Is this activity something that will get me into a good college, is
> there any money to earn?
> > >
> > > 3) How much time does my involvement consume? I have lot's of homework,
> band, sports, Science Olympiad, Choir, etc. etc.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Tom, I think this "adolescent psychological" approach is wiser than our
> intuitive surmising, even in the order of importance above. #1 and 2 seem
> accessible for us to exploit, not so much #3, short of implementing RDI
> (Really Dumb Indoor) which would seem to work against #1 and 2.
> > Mark B.
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 14 2010 - 08:02:06 CEST