|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
Individual Performance
Individual Performance
Page:
1
2
3
nicksiders
587 posts
May 14, 2006
7:24 PM
|
I don't think you can have a great comp. kit without it having many more than one individual star performers. Those individual stars perform better when flying in the kit.
The individual performer will make himself/herself visable and will never leave the kit............you all know that, so why are we struggling with this topic?
|
knaylor
184 posts
May 14, 2006
7:29 PM
|
Brian, that is exactly what I am talking about. You breed for the best birds and then you make them into a good team. I know that when I put pairs together I do it to make good spinners. Then i take those birds and try and make a team together. I think this is what alot of guys do?? I dont think you can just breed a good team. Kevin
|
roller
2 posts
May 14, 2006
8:44 PM
|
Hi all, just join the site, ya all need to listen to LD guy, some of ya missin the point. It don't take rocket science to figure or seperate a champion kit bird and a champion as discribed by LD. It is one and the same. Alot of hardhead in the thread. plain and simple, put 20 champion together in a kit box and thats a kit, put 20 average roller in a kit box and that's still a kit. the performance is the difference, I figure some of ya just don't get it
hardball
Last Edited by roller on May 14, 2006 8:53 PM
|
knaylor
185 posts
May 14, 2006
9:45 PM
|
Hardball, tell me where there is 20 champions in a kit please???? Thanks, Hardhead Kevin
|
roller
3 posts
May 14, 2006
10:01 PM
|
use your imagination! who said anything was taken at face value? The topic is about a concept, literallly?..not. Duh, you either get it or you don't...like statistic as someone mentioned earlier.
keep on rolling
hardball
|
knaylor
187 posts
May 14, 2006
10:07 PM
|
I guess I dont get it.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
524 posts
May 14, 2006
10:07 PM
|
Scott, most definitely the best kits are made up of top quality spinners.
Russ, most definitely a top kit will possess quality individuals working together as a unit.
You both know I believe in that concept 110%.
It just seems to me that some of the discussions on this topic lean in favor of the belief that the two cannot, or do not currently co-exist. I would beg to differ, but so far this is what I am getting out of what has been said so far.
Brian.
|
Mount Airy Lofts
220 posts
May 14, 2006
10:37 PM
|
Brian M.,
Did you recall a post Rick S. posted on Earls list. He stated that his birds would simply just roll and by accident roll together. In the same post, he also stated he wanted his birds to roll with the same chemisty this years Final W/C judge's kits does.
The question now lies, does this make Rick's birds individual performers and Hienes not.
I have been told to not breed from birds that roll from the back or birds that roll right after returning to the kit. I would think that these birds would be under the Individual performer catagory.
If there is no difference in performers, then this original post does not matter.
I guess I need to pull out the old NBRC tape and view what the heck those Camera men where taking about when they stated 'Individual Performance'.
Rick Mee has an article on breeding for Concert Performance. Maybe it is time to look up that article again.
If there is a difference, would young birds be considered Individual performer? I have not seen a really young bird team with with any concert performance, they seem to just be filled with roll.
Thor
|
roller
4 posts
May 14, 2006
10:48 PM
|
Brian Mc., see it is not so hard to comprehend, you hit the nail on the head!!!
Thor, you are lost my friend. what the hell is waterfalling got to do with the concept that Brian was just saying. Get a grip ya. Thor and Kevin Please read Brain's post over and over untile it sinks in.
stoppd rolling
hardball
|
roller
5 posts
May 14, 2006
11:01 PM
|
Thor, It it seems like you are a good researcher on birmingham rollers, you seem to have quotes, vedios,books from here and there to make your point, bud, your problem is turning that research into gospel truth or evidence. what you are missing is how to test and apply what you learn, not believe everthing just becasue someone with authority wrote it or said it or proved it, my friend you have to have little skeptitism in your analyzing skills and thingking.
fly on
hardball
|
nicksiders
589 posts
May 14, 2006
11:09 PM
|
Read BMC's last post.
We all breed for individual performance and kitting is a big part of the individual performance. We not only can do both; we have to do both!
|
roller
6 posts
May 14, 2006
11:11 PM
|
There you go guy
stopped rolling
hardball
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
525 posts
May 14, 2006
11:12 PM
|
Thor wrote:
"Did you recall a post Rick S. posted on Earls list. He stated that his birds would simply just roll and by accident roll together. In the same post, he also stated he wanted his birds to roll with the same chemisty this years Final W/C judge's kits does."
(Thor, in fairness to our friend Rick, I am not sure he was conveying the true essence of how his birds perform. He recently had two great flys where concert performance obviously dominated, therefore I think he might be inclined to recind his previous comments from a few months ago. I took them as a shotgun statement to convey his frustration at the current state of his birds.
We had a good converstation today with a good friend who has judged the birds of the judge you spoke of. In a nutshell, coming from someone else who has personally seen his kit, the consensus was they are bred for and expertly managed strickly for concert performance, that being his primary emphasis.)
"The question now lies, does this make Rick's birds individual performers and Hienes not."
(If Rick's birds execute instantaneous breaks as a team, they are no different than Heine's or anyone else's kit for that matter. Where I believe Rick drew the line was in regards to the number of huge unison breaks that Heine's kit appears to be capable of. Obviously he found this trait of performance to be especially endearing and like most of us, would like to have a kit that always "goes big".)
"I have been told to not breed from birds that roll from the back or birds that roll right after returning to the kit. I would think that these birds would be under the Individual performer catagory."
(In my opinion you were given excellent advice to not breed from birds which roll from the back of the kit or birds with excessively quick triggers. That should also include any birds which consistently rolls while not in the kit. It would be my opinion that classifying such birds as "individual performers" would in some ways be degrading to those who actually breed specifically for and pay attention to those specific birds in their kits which display the quality they seek, that being their sole and primary focus of enjoyment with their birds.
I think where the debatable confusion lies is in the interpretation and use of the word "individual".
If you watch only one bird in a kit, you are watching an "individual".
If a person care's not for concert performance and only seeks to breed birds for their isolated rolling performance, those could be called "individuals".
If a bird rolls by itself in the kit, it can be called an "individual".
It might do well in the braod scheme of this topic that we isolate the specific intent of the use of the word "individual" as it pertains to the original question.)
"If there is no difference in performers, then this original post does not matter."
(I believe there is a difference in the way birds perform as well as the intent of the description of that performance.)
"If there is a difference, would young birds be considered Individual performer? I have not seen a really young bird team with with any concert performance, they seem to just be filled with roll."
(The age of the bird should have no bearing on the label.
There are plenty of young bird teams that exhibit concert performance. I tend to find my young bird teams which reach about 10 months of age will whip the crap out of my old bird kit in terms of concert performance. They are filled with roll, but do it together as by process of elimination, the birds which roll by themselves, roll from the back of the kit or roll in any other fashion other than from the kit and with others, are demoated or culled. )
In another conversation just today with a club member who has been the prodigy of some extremely well respected roller fanciers, some mentioned in this thread, he stated he now feels that he cut himself a little short only stocking the superstar birds and breeding for only those instead of bringing in the adequately good ones which rolled from the front, triggered the kit and rolled on the breaks. His mindset was do one or do the other. My reply was very simple.....DO BOTH.
A person can have their cake and eat it too in the modern era or roller flying.
Brian.
Last Edited by MCCORMICKLOFTS on May 14, 2006 11:14 PM
|
roller
7 posts
May 14, 2006
11:17 PM
|
Brian, I rest this case with your post, but Thor please read it.
gotta hit the sack
hardball
|
3757
24 posts
May 15, 2006
7:15 AM
|
Brian - Good point.
Motherload - I have a question also. Are all of the competition judges judging to the standard or does turns and multipliers for quality points differ? Can you have a high score with low quality points? I think the answer is yes. So, Brians point has validity. Not all individuals are breeding for the same quality. I know Monty Nieble did and so does his mentor Bruce Cooper.
|
3757
25 posts
May 15, 2006
7:33 AM
|
Brian - Good point.
Motherload - I have a question also. Are all of the competition judges judging to the standard or does turns and multipliers for quality points differ? Can you have a high score with low quality points? I think the answer is yes. So, Brians point has validity. Not all individuals are breeding for the same quality. I know Monty Neible bred for quality spin and so does his mentor Bruce Cooper.
|
Mount Airy Lofts
221 posts
May 15, 2006
11:11 AM
|
Brian Mc.,
I too think Rick is short changing his birds. I thought his comments was rather odd. As the judge for Rick's region last year - flys birds right across the lake from me so I visit him on a regular basis. He stated that Rick's birds were just rocking when he was there. Rick came out with the top seat but passed it off because he was that years Final's judge. I hold the fellow I know's words in high esteem so when hearing Rick's comment about his birds, it came to be a shock.
Looking at Rick's score this year, he has to have the goods and must be doing something right. I would assume this year's team is pretty much the same team my guy judged last year. Both teams scored in the same ball park (600's). I still would like to see a team of that calibre. Heck, a 1000 plus points would also be nice to see first hand.
Hardball,
Who made you the Roller god. (grin) No hard feelings dude. It's just all roller talk. A reason I visit so many fliers is to talk about rollers. I'm all ways learning...
Thor
P.S. For some reason, my young birds will not roll in unison. Alot of 3 and 4 bird breaks but unison breaks come in after they reached a 1 year old. It's probably just the trainner here.
Last Edited by Mount Airy Lofts on May 15, 2006 11:22 AM
|
Mount Airy Lofts
222 posts
May 15, 2006
11:17 AM
|
Hardball,
It helps to be the Librarian and Sec. Officer of the Roller Club. It also helps to ask a ton of question while visiting all the top fliers (any flier) in my state.
Thor
Last Edited by Mount Airy Lofts on May 15, 2006 11:18 AM
|
Double D
211 posts
May 15, 2006
1:21 PM
|
3757 - What can you tell me about Bruce Cooper? I would be interested in learning anything you can share about the man and his family of birds. If you'd prefer to send me an email rather than post it here, that would be great also. Send to: olson22170@msn.com
Thanks!
Darin
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
526 posts
May 15, 2006
1:31 PM
|
"Not all individuals are breeding for the same quality"
LD, I would say this is one perspective and should not be considered all-encompassing. I will assume you are not generalizing because in the big picture such a determination would be sort of like an assumption based on the average of quality flown in every kit that participates in every fly. And this would also include having seen every one of the kits to make that determination.
It goes without saying that truly not every flyer breeds specifically for the ultimate quality spinner. As we know, some guys just have their rollers and enjoy the time they are allowed to spend with them as well as just participating in flys. The huge variations of each person's realities determines what their goals are.
So for conversation sake, if you solely concentrate on the hard core flyers and hard core roller breeders, I think you would find the percentage of those individuals who are seeking to produce the best spinners they can will increase dramatically. I can't speak for other regions of this country but of the really hard core flyers in my area, quality spin is always desired.
Bottom line, guys generally fly the best birds they have available to fly in a team. Because the quality might not be there doesn't necessarily mean they don't breed for it.
Brian.
Last Edited by MCCORMICKLOFTS on May 15, 2006 2:24 PM
|
3757
26 posts
May 15, 2006
2:55 PM
|
McCormick - Based on your experience what do you see out there in higher percentaged based on the Clyde Davis's drawings. I have attached an example and I hope it goes through.
The various styles of performance
drawn by fellow fancier Clyde Davis
(Pensom 1945) "Lewis Wright says that the true Birmingham Roller turns over backwards with inconceivable rapidity through a considerable distance like a spinning ball, this sentence provides an excellent standard for the performance of a Birmingham roller. During my experience, I have always found a total ignorance regarding this standard, yet it is quite plain in its interpretation."
Last Edited by 3757 on May 16, 2006 7:02 AM
|
3757
27 posts
May 15, 2006
2:59 PM
|
Darin - I will e-mail you personally.
|
motherlodelofts
765 posts
May 15, 2006
3:17 PM
|
No !!! they do not judge by the same standard , as the standard drops the scores rise.
I would also venture to say that some judge by no standard at all , a good example is many of the regional scores , look at them and then check them against the finals score , it will tell the story as this judge is only birds that are rolling/spinning like true Birmingham Rollers.
I might add I dont mince words between rollers or spinners ,champion or what have you , I know what is good and I know what isn't and what is inbetween.
I think that Kenny Billings summed it up well when he said "I just breed for good honest rollers" thats pretty much it in a nutshell and here and there I get one that stands out above all else.
Scott
|
Ballrollers
355 posts
May 15, 2006
3:29 PM
|
Good discussion, guys. 3757 opened this thread with a reference to a comment of Pensom's from 1958 with regard to individual performance qualities desired in rollers; high velocity, style, and depth. From what I have observed, and in my opinion, there is no doubt that kit competitions are changing the way we breed rollers and what we are breeding for, just as Pensom feared it would. True, we all breed for the same superior quality in style and speed if we participate in kit competitions, but the outstanding individual performer may have the other ingredient that has been left out of this conversation.....depth. Kit competitors must sacrifice depth in order to be successful in today's competitions. The most glaring error in the kit competitions, that I have observed, has been the inclusion of one or two deep individual performers that the competitor was, rightfully, very proud of; but the bird or birds were unable to keep up with the kit causing a lower score. (Many other men have the good sense to keep birds like that out of the competition.)Flown in a small kit of a half-dozen or 11 birds, these birds are viewed as potential champions. In a kit competition, they become a liability. The guy who wants to win the National Championship or the World Cup will not breed towards such birds. The guy breeding for an individual champion will eat it up everytime he sees such a performance! He'll breed towards it and show it off in local flys and competitions, and to his neighbors and friends. That doesn't make him any less the roller man! But it is becoming a lost art, I fear. Joe Bob Stuka is a perfect example. He told me that he had to change two mindsets of his, in order to win the World Cup. First, that he was obliged to give away some of his best birds every year. Second, that his birds needed great depth, no matter how good their quality was. Those birds have to roll just deep and well enough to score some depth and quality multipliers and be able to get back to the kit to set up for the next break, and do it quickly; which is not possible from great depth. An individual champion with outstanding depth doesn't stand a chance of being bred in that situation.
Likewise, the individual performer or champion may have all those great performance qualities, but may be missing that kit chemistry for simultaneous breaks. A 20-bird kit competitor would not include such a bird in his kit and might even cull him if he was so fatigued by frequent, deep performance that he rolled out the back of the large kits. That is irrelevant in an 11-bird or a 5-bird burnoff (ours is this weekend!)that emphasizes individual performance. That's where the waterfall issue comes into play. These types of performers are typically stimulated to perform by the action of a nearby bird, viewed as a waterfall break and unacceptable in the 20-bird competition, but less relevant in a competition judging individual performance.
So, to me, there is no right or wrong, better or best, but there is a significant difference in what is being bred for and how the bird is used. It's a mater of personal preference; the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing. And that's why I believe that we need to continue to emphasize 11-bird and smaller competitions; in order to challenge the development of the champion individual performer, as well as the champion kit performers. It's just as difficult to breed quality, stlye and speed in a deep, stable roller, maybe even more so, than it is to breed good kit competition birds. It's just a matter of where we want to put our emphasis or our priorities as fanciers. And I, for one, hope that men will continue to shoot for that style of roller. And we need a better mechanism for acknowledging their effort and their accomplishment in a bigger and better way, when they do.....Just my honest opinion.
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on May 15, 2006 3:50 PM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
529 posts
May 15, 2006
3:34 PM
|
3757--
You'll have to use HTML code to insert your hosted image file into your message. The image must be hosted on a photo hosting server.
I know of the drawings you mentioned. I can't say with any honest certainty which is more prevelant in kits. It would be easy for me to generalize and say, "I see more X type rollers than anything else in terms of percentages". But that would be truly unfair of me to say because I don't go from house to house counting the number of birds which exhibit each type of style. If I notice the position, generally it is because the bird isn't rolling well from what I could see.
In most kits I will see two or three birds which are really good, clean and fast spinners, most of which roll at an angle of view that I can't see where their wings are positioned. Their color or the color of the sky or the angle seems to often camoflauge the wing position.
Most of the time in most of the kits there are always a few, sometimes more than a few that aren't rolling well. Maybe on that day they are resisting the roll and non-commital, or maybe they are just mediocre rollers filling in for losses the owner has sustained. I know that I have had to put in some birds which were not nearly as good as most in my A team simply because of losses. Hell I lost two yesterday to the redtails and the hits to the best I have just keep on coming. So lesser quality troops have to be fill some unfortunate voids, ultimately skewing the presentation of what I feel I am capable of breeding and flying.
Those are some of the realities we fail to sometimes realize or acknowledge when making an overall assumption about the bird's flown in various kits.
I can say that for example in our WC prelims we viewed 34 kits I think it was. In the majority of those kits I could always find at least one bird that was really truckin' and doing it right. Sometimes I would get so fixed on one bird that it took someone else pointing out another one which was similar in its quality of performance. Sometimes there were numerous really, really nice spinners in some kits. At the risk of embarrassing him, the ones that stick out in my mind from that weekend was in Grant Gilman's kit. He had at least five bonafide Spinners in his kit on that day. They were exceptionally impressive! Most of the time nice balls with smooth speed which in no way showed any type of wing position. In essence from our viewing angle, they were nice round feathered balls giving the impression of excellent speed and performance.
Honestly and with due respect to the coveting of wing styles, I don't go looking for wing position. If I can see their wing position, generally they aren't rolling fast enough. Occasionally I might think I see how their wing position might be. It depends on how they are viewed. When they are coming down straight overhead they might appear to be A or H or X style, but when they break from a different angle, it might only be partially noticed, or more likely, not at all if the speed and balance is right. You can tell when birds are fully committing to hard spin and when they are just rolling.
If I had to wager a guess, based on say all those kits viewed, I would say that per what I find to be truly exceptional, the percentage of those overall would be 5-10 percent. Is that value accurate? Most likely not as I am purely guessing off of memory.
Another thing to add is the human variance. For example, you know what a really hot looking chick looks like. (I'm going to assume you do..lol) When you go into a bar or a resturant or a night club, instinctively you seek out the best looking women. Within a small amount of time, if asked, you could point out the best looking ones. But the reality is that you make your assessments based on the women there. If you get lucky and hook up with the one you felt was the hottest chick in the joint, then woke up next to her the next morning, there is a good chance you might wonder what in the hell were you thinking...lol. Best is a relative term. The best in one group doesn't necessarily equate to the best in another.
Translate that to roller kits and I can admit to instinctively looking for the best bird in the kit. But while I say, yah, I saw one, two or three really good ones in that kit, chances are very good that my decision can be made based on how they looked against the others in the kit. Granted, birds doing it right are birds doing it right. But sometimes, probably more than we realize, some birds make others look better than they possibly are.
Brian.
Last Edited by MCCORMICKLOFTS on May 15, 2006 3:35 PM
|
motherlodelofts
766 posts
May 15, 2006
3:50 PM
|
Cliff the only time deep birds will hurt the kit is if the rest are short, and or if the deep birds can't handle the depth.
Who the hell like's short birds ? I certainly don't nor do I ever ever breed for them , buddy I want depth and I want qaulity, I also want them in a team , and I want that team to hammer , that is what I strive for.
I guess the 11 bird fly would be good for those deep culls that don't have the heart to make the team , or those quick trigger birds that are over taken by the roll.
Scott
Last Edited by motherlodelofts on May 15, 2006 3:56 PM
|
Ballrollers
356 posts
May 15, 2006
4:11 PM
|
Hehehehehe, Scott. Always the smart-ass, eh? LOL! I'm talking about real depth....60 ft. plus. No matter how much heart that bird has in trying to get back to the kit, he's going to hurt your score, in a kit of 20-30 footers, especially if there are a couple of the deep birds. You calling that short? The other birds don't have to be short for the difference to be seen. At least I don't consider 20-30 feet short. I consider 10-15 ft. short. Yet that is the standard depth more guys breed for for competition (20-30 ft.) You put a couple 75-100 footers in there, call them culls if you like...(you make my point, exactly, by the way)... and he'll hurt your score big time. There are great numbers of men in the sport today who admire, cherish, and strive for that kind of performance. Unfortunately, many of these men are omitted from the comps and relegated to backyard and local flys by the way the competitions are structured. As I said, they are no less roller men than we kit competitors.
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on May 15, 2006 4:15 PM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
530 posts
May 15, 2006
4:34 PM
|
Cliff, what would you consider a bird which roll 75 feet, but doesn't show a conscious effort to return to the kit?
Basically it CAN roll that deep, but doesn't kit?
Brian.
|
Ballrollers
357 posts
May 15, 2006
5:07 PM
|
Brian,
I'd consider that bird a cull. Those birds that zoom all over the sky in a panic, possessed by the roll are not what I am talking about. Making a conscious effort to kit is certainly a part of quality, and a part of what we want to breed for. But a conscious effort to kit is not what a judge is looking for in the current kit competitions. Let's face it, sometimes that bird will turn away from the kit for a moment, sometimes even intercepting the kit from the front of the flight path rather than chasing the kit from behind. And sometimes they circle once to get their bearings before regaining the kit. Is that such a great flaw after such a performance? I think not. But it won't work in a 20-bird competition. That bird is usually counted as an out-bird by most judges that I have seen, especially if there are a couple of them doing it. So the score suffers. Remember, it's up to the judge's discretion, right? I'm saying that most serious competitors won't take the chance on breeding and including such a deep bird, risking the judge's discretion, when a 20-30 footer that can get back quickly will score more points, and be a much safer bet in the comps. So, the emphasis on the kit breaking simultaneously and frequently is, logically, not conducive to the development and breeding of champion spinners with great depth. I place no value-judgement on either as right or wrong. Personally, I think each has its place. But I believe that, in reality, they are mutually exclusive within the same venue. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. It is, truly, an awesome sight to see Clay and Joe Bob's kit breaking 53 times in 20 minutes; many of them 1/2 to 3/4 turns, with quality and speed. But I sure sucked in my breath, and got a real adrenaline rush every time Don Simpson's black white flight hen (that Clay photographed last year), cuts a 75-footer with great style and speed, pulls out 10 feet off the ground and heads straight back for the kit for all she is worth. Did he fly her in his competition kit? Of course not. Is that bird special? You betcha! Especially if she remains stable, and I realize that is a big "if", which makes it even more impressive when it occurs. Yet all he can do is put her up for the guys after the comps are over and show her off. It's too bad there is not a mechanism for acknowledging and recognizing success in breeding and flying such a bird in a kit. I think the hobby is missing the boat in a way. And I think that speaks, exactly, to the issue 3757 was raising.
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on May 15, 2006 5:21 PM
|
motherlodelofts
767 posts
May 15, 2006
5:21 PM
|
Cliff there is a reason for birds that deep, it's called lack of control and they are fairly easy to breed , nor can they (or most) hold the qaulity all the way through and they will hicup somewhere along the way or at the very least not come out clean so therefore yes most of those birds are culls or at least roll like culls at that point in thier lives.
I get a few of those every year and just keep flying them hard, they either get a handle on it at which time they will shorten up (normaly the qaulity and speed pick up also) or they kill themselves , I sure don't hang my hat on them though.
I do get some hammers once in a blue moon that can go 50 - 60 feet(maybe a touch more at times) and shoot back to the kit like they are shot out of a slingshot , they will roll hard,clean and comeout of the roll crisp , matter of fact I have one now, these are rare ,oh yea and they don't need to fly around to get thier bearings , screw that.
Scott
PS That bird at Don Simpsons house , go see that bird this time next year.
Last Edited by motherlodelofts on May 15, 2006 9:07 PM
|
knaylor
188 posts
May 15, 2006
5:25 PM
|
Cliff, according to the rules a deep bird is not out if it is heading straight back to the kit. Now when they turn out in the other direction or roll again on the way back then they are out. If a guy had say 8 birds in his kit that were 60foot plus and had good or great quality and broe togeteher just amagine what his multipliers would be???? About five years ago I had a real nice hen that I flew for two years. She was a blue check with a white tail. She would go around 100ft when the birds would elevate. Did I fly her in my kit you bet because she didnt hurt the kit at all because she never jerked around. Joe Urbon do you remember her?? Kevin
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
531 posts
May 15, 2006
5:29 PM
|
That is false Cliff. If a judge can't see the difference between a bird which is not trying to get back to the kit and one that is, he is not judging correctly per the rules. If a bird rolls from the kit, whether by itself or with a break, it is not "out". The judge's descretion is to determine whether or not it is trying. Any judge with any kind of experience watching rollers can tell when a bird is trying to get back or just lolly-gaggin around.
Now it is understandable that a bird(s) which roll really, really deep will take longer to get back. Realistically that is a given. There is no doubt that the "ideal" cirumstance would be a kit of 30-40 foot workhorses that can return quickly and get right back to business. That is exactly what I strive for as do others. I want to fly the deepest birds that roll right and work together. That entire package might only be a group that averages 25-30 feet. It boils down to what you have to fly. What you see over a guy's house is seldom the epitome of what he desires to fly. AND, one lone deep bird will do little to nothing to help your depth multiplier. A kit of them, well, that is another story!
I've got several birds that can roll 60+ feet. The reason I don't put them into my comp kit is they tend to roll by themselves and are a distraction. Anyone who believes you cannot fly deep, good rollers in a comp kit are kidding themselves. It is it just very challenging to get all of the variables to work together in high percentages and ultimately something most of us are not priviledged to succeed at. But we try. I know I do. Each year I am able to fly some deeper birds than the year before and as long as those birds do everything right, they can particpate in my comp kits.
Nothing is impossible Cliff, and with the right decisions and dilegent effort, you CAN have your cake and eat it too!
Brian
|
Ballrollers
358 posts
May 15, 2006
5:46 PM
|
Scott,
Well we are getting into a semantics thing here, I guess. You are talking about a different type of bird, than I am. I am familiar with the bird you are describing. I would agree, maybe, that there is a little "less control" in the ideal individual champion with great depth over the ideal 20-bird kit competitor, but we are comparing apples and oranges, here. And control takes many forms in performance. It affects speed, style, depth, etc. It takes a certain amount of control to pull out at 10 ft. and head back to the kit, agreed? It's like saying that the birds bred for frequency and work rate in a 20-bird fly all have lack of control because many that we breed roll out the back of the kit and/or roll so frequently they can't keep up with the kit. We breed those every year as we miss the mark towards our kit birds for the 20-bird comps. Yet by fixing our eye on the goal, as a sport, and setting up a competition to assist in achieving that goal, and acknowledging the men who succeed; men have been successful in more numbers than ever before.
What you are describing; the poor quality, loose, dishrag, wing-switching bird with little control, is the same missed mark for the man breeding for an individual champion with great depth. I propose that if the hobby were to give the same attention, and accolades, to a competition venue and the man who bred the best individual spinner with great depth, speed, and quality (and control)-like National Champion Bird or World Champion Spinner; that within a few years, we would see them in greater numbers than we do today.
YITS, Cliff
|
motherlodelofts
768 posts
May 15, 2006
5:56 PM
|
I don't think you would see em in larger numbers Cliff , they are what they are and they can only hold it for so long before loosing it qaulity wise or killing themselfs , it is the nature of super deep birds.
I have never seen a bird of the depth that you describe do anything for me , the first blip is like an athlete stumbling and gig is up , and they "are" going to stumble (no matter how slight), and no I wasn't talking about dishrags and I can assure you we are talking apples to apples , besides I know if they don't get a handle on it they are dead meat anyway, kinda takes the fire out of it for me.
Last Edited by motherlodelofts on May 15, 2006 6:04 PM
|
Ballrollers
359 posts
May 15, 2006
5:56 PM
|
Kevin,
I know what the rules say, and I understand the discretion of judges. I don't disagree with anything you said. And about that awesome kit with a half dozen 60-footers, what you propose could happen on occaision, and it would score well, and be a ball to watch in action. I just believe that the trend is away from breeding really deep birds for kit competitions. I think I saw Brian do a scoring comparison for Kenny Hartman about a deep kit that didn't turn out quite as high as he thought it would. Correct me if you recall that, Brian. Man, Kevin, that must have been an awesome hen you had. So, tell me, was she, as Scott says, easy to breed, out of control, dishrag, wingswitching and poor to exit? Somehow,I doubt it! Ya gotta be careful with those sweeping generalizations, Scott!
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on May 15, 2006 6:04 PM
|
Ballrollers
360 posts
May 15, 2006
6:34 PM
|
Brian,
Let me clarify my meaning. When I said "Making a conscious effort to kit is not what a judge is looking for in the current kit comps," I realize that that is what is supposed to happen. My meaning was that, in reality, much of the time it does not. In other words, the judge wants to actually see the bird getting back in a hurry, not just making an effort to do so. Make sense? I have seen many, many times when a couple birds rolled deep and were heading back to the kit, that the rest of the kit broke and was not counted..."Two outbirds" was the call. But I'm not here to criticize the judges. And I stick by my opinion that the concern for the judges discretion in these areas concerning deep birds, contributes to guys breeding for more optimum depths for the 20-bird; 25-30 ft., as you said, and with tremendous speed. Let's face it, the emphasis is on speed in the kit comps. That's a good thing and no secret to anyone. And I agree with you 100%, the deep birds are a distraction from the quality and speed in the rest of the kit, and the greater depth makes the other birds in the kit look shorter. And I agree with you, completely, that it is very challenging to get all the variables to work together in high percentages, especially with greater depth. That is precisely my point, gentlemen. Deep birds are a greater liablity in a 20-bird kit competition, for the most part, with a few rare exceptions, so the hobby tends to breed away from them, thus minimizing the effort to breed the quality individual spinner with great depth! And my hat's off to you, Brian, for throwing down the gauntlet in such a positive way. Perhaps you are right. Maybe with an ammendment to the rules, (like you said..."with the right decisions"....) and diligent effort, maybe the kit competitions can think out of the box for a way to include the deep spinner rather than penalize him...or someone will just flat out put up a whole kit of 'em at some point!
I've enjoyed the discussion gentlemen. We all know each other well enough to recognize that we won't change each other's minds....but hopefully we have all expanded them slightly! Well, except for you Scott. There is no hope for you, I'm afraid! LOL! Gotta run! Later! Cliff
|
knaylor
190 posts
May 15, 2006
6:46 PM
|
Cliff, she was one great hen. The only one that I have bred like her. Really good quality during the entire spin. The year That she was in my kit Don Oullette judged and made some great comments about her. On the other hand I know the type that Scott is talking about. We see alot of them because there are a few out there that only concentrate on depth no matter how they get there. Sometimes it is almost funny when you are on a fly and you see a birds drop way out of a kit and is wingswitching too many times to count or trying to comout of the roll but cant. Then all you hear is how deep that bird was and how awsume it was. LOL Kevin
|
motherlodelofts
770 posts
May 15, 2006
7:18 PM
|
Keven I don't think that is the type of bird that he was talking about , wasn't the type I was talking about either.
I will get what he's talking about in youngbirds or yearling, they either shorten up (get more stable) or die , there is nothing else for them, one or the other.
Scott
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
532 posts
May 15, 2006
8:50 PM
|
Cliff, based solely on the description of your example, those judges were wrong and in many ways adds fuel to the fire you are describing about breeding for shorter working kits. I do not and will not believe that the hobby is breeding for shorter birds, or choosing to breed away from deeper birds. I am aware that there are some people who do breed for shorter workers for active kits. But because some choose that path and some judges amplify this desire by scoring routine activity, you will naturally see more of it, especially in certain areas of the country that are organized.
People fly what they have to fly. That is reality. I don't know of anyone who doesn't consider depth as part of their matings. The reality is that most of us don't get a whole lot of super stable, really deep rollers.
I was recently talking with an RD for a particular large region here in the US. During our conversation he started talking about how different the kits and birds were in his area. I asked why? He said he recently judged three different states and was astonished that kits could be flown with rollers that rolled deep. He continued by saying that where he lives, they don't fly deep birds as they "prefer" much shorter and more frequent kits. But now he has "seen the light" and seen a bigger picture of what the competition roller world is about. I got the impression that he felt sort of frustrated about the philosophy in his area and was hoping to get someone in next year to judge their region who might actually shake things up a bit.
Cliff, breeding for competition on a higher level is a very delicate balancing act. No judge, and I mean NO JUDGE can dismiss a kit of fine quality spinners rolling at a nice, even deep depth. There are plenty of folks out there breeding for depth right along with the other necessary elements of a roller's performance, many of which will be flying them in the comp kits. If a person is stuck in an area where only the short, buzzing kits are flown, they might not ever realize it is possible.
Brian.
|
Mount Airy Lofts
223 posts
May 15, 2006
9:33 PM
|
Cliff,
The guys in the metro in my area don't have the choice, it is either the 11 bird fly or no fly at all. The hawks are just killing us. You would think the country side fliers would be in worst shape then us Metro fliers... nope.
I think everyone wants to fly in the 20 bird fly if they had a choice. Altho any fly is a good fly.
Last count, I'm down to 5 birds left. My neighbors are down to 15 or less (they breed 50-200 birds in a season).
I breed 20-30 birds in a season. People always say, breed more. I think it doesn't matter how many you feed the hawks. If you have a hawk problem, you have a hawk problem. The more you breed, the more you will feed.
Thor
|
GREED FOR SPEED LOFT
7 posts
May 16, 2006
4:59 AM
|
LD,,,,, man what agreat topic,(90--post).I know that the topic got side tracked sometimes but I hope that it has opened the eyes of some to see that of the iniviual's perfofmer and the fanciers who's only focus of perpetuating of higher calibre.....................Hardball, yeah man thats it's exactly how you play,thanks for keeping it straight!!!!!!!!!!!!!TONY C!!!!!!!!thanks for giving me the assistance to set up to get in this site (much easier),to post.THANKS A MILL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Richard Luna
|
Ballrollers
362 posts
May 16, 2006
7:53 AM
|
Kevin, See what I mean...it CAN be done. Scott and Brian are right, the majority of the deep birds do not remain stable, so most of us do not have numbers of them that are still around. What happened to your hen, Kevin? Were you ever able to breed her? Did she produce anything like herself? I still say that you should have been eligible for possible national recognition for breeding and flying such a bird. Brian, I hope you are right about the hobby as a whole not really breeding for the 20-30 ft. working kits...that would be unfortunate. Maybe it's only a regional phenomenon in some areas of the country, as you describe. Around here, we see all of the above: the 20-30 ft. working kits, the 30-40 ft. range, and the 40-60 ft. range. Good discussion.
YITS, Cliff
|
Ballrollers
363 posts
May 16, 2006
8:07 AM
|
Thor,
Very few men do not have a hawk problem of some sort. Sure some are worse than others. But, I still believe that part of the solution to the hawk problem is to breed more numbers of rollers. They can only take so many. I raised a hundred birds last year and retained about 18 in a holdover kit, and pulled my best three into the stock loft. Most guys I know that bred 50 or less have nothing left to hold over and scrambled just to pull a few mediochre birds into the stock loft. I can't see anyone moving forward with their breeding program in improving their quality and production under those circumstances. Do you feel that keeping your numbers down is working well for you in being able to keep a holdover competition kit, as well as a pair or two of your best to breed from? I think it's a numbers game. Percentages of production that spin with quality...percentages hatched and weaned...percentages flown out with quality performance....percentages lost to bumping accidents and disease....percentages that remain after the hawks take theirs.....percentages we give away...We just do the best we can to increase our odds and percentages in each area. And it seems to me that we have to start with a bigger number if we expect to have anything left over! YITS, Cliff
|
Mount Airy Lofts
224 posts
May 16, 2006
10:24 AM
|
Cliff,
I think that is the problem. Some guys think that breeding more is the solution. This year has been awful and I feel it will just get worst as years go by unless some law is changed.
If breeding more really is the answer, I wouldn't think those Real Hard core fliers would drop out from the hobby or stop flying birds completely would you? Names like James Turner, Eldon Cheney, etc comes to mind.
Trust me when I say, numbers means nothing. You'll just help raise more of them pigeon eaters. You can't know how it is unless you are flying in such enviroment.
About numbers. I don't believe it is about numbers but on quality. I say this because 90 % of the time, the goods will come from the best pairs regardless. Why have others when all you need is your best pairs? With that said, losses is to be expected and I do like to use a few fosters to make the most out of my pairs.
I like to enjoy my birds, if this means keeping the numbers down, then let it be.
I would also keep in mind that there are other hobbies that I love besides flying rollers. You kind of just have to make the most out of everything you love and hope it balances out.
In all honestly, when I hear some one say breed more. I hear this alot from out of state fliers. It goes in one ear and out the other as I think that is BS. My old flying place was 100 times worst then where I am now so I know a thing or two about hawk problems. I'm not complainning about losing the 10 or so this year as I know it could be worst. I use to lose 20 in two to three months even with lock downs at my old flying place. Altho, I don't know what is worst, losing a young super star bird or losing a super star bird that you have put 2 or more years flying out. Who really has the heart to feed their best birds to the hawks is a better man then I.
Thor
P.S. I was taught by the Veteran fliers here (each flying rollers for 30 plus years and held numerous Club Officer positions) to keep the numbers down and the quality up. These guys only breed 30-40 birds a year.
Last Edited by Mount Airy Lofts on May 16, 2006 10:34 AM
|
Richard A.
83 posts
May 16, 2006
5:13 PM
|
3757, I agree with you. Very few are focused on true quality today.
Richard A.
|
motherlodelofts
771 posts
May 16, 2006
7:20 PM
|
I say that far more than a few are Richard , but some have no guidence either. and some will never see it no matter what , once you know what it is there is no turning back.
Scott
|
GREED FOR SPEED LOFT
13 posts
May 16, 2006
9:45 PM
|
Richard A-------Motherlode----- right on target!!!!!!!!!!!!Richard Luna
|
3757
31 posts
May 16, 2006
9:45 PM
|
Richard you are correct and Scott I agree with you also. Once you have seen a true spinner You will never be the same again. It is as though you can almost feel it when a real one spins.
Dr. LD
|
roller
11 posts
May 16, 2006
9:49 PM
|
That's right Richard Luna, Folks should stop talking the craps and face reality, stop hiding behind the bushes. Man the roller pigeon is older than most guys in this forum. You mean roller men over the years have not disected this bird-- to a one.
Answer this... did the standard came first or the bird??
just rolling
hard ball
|
GREED FOR SPEED LOFT
16 posts
May 16, 2006
9:55 PM
|
Gee Roller, Iam lost in this question,,,,, LOL,,,,,,Keep up the good work!!!!!! R-Luna
|
Post a Message
|
|
|