Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1040 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:44 AM
|
Since Brian Middaugh judged my rollers last Fall I have started using a Stopwatch to determine depth of roll.Before that I always counted off 1001,1002,1003 etc.
I know there are several on here that judges at the Flys.Do any of you use a Stopwatch and if so how do you determine depth per second.Assuming the bird is rolling correctly.
If you don't use a Stopwatch how do you determine depth.
I thought that Tony had a chart in his book "How to breed better Rollers" but I can't find my copy of it.LOL. If so maybe Tony will reprint it here for us.
I thought it was something like 3/4 second was 10 foot etc.David
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1207 posts
Mar 06, 2007
6:19 AM
|
Here you go David. Without pulling my old notes, I think I found this in an old 1974 copy of the APJ journal. Maybe someone else knows who the original author of this chart is.
Spin Time----------Spin Depth
(in seconds)-------(in feet)
.56------------------5
.79-----------------10
.97-----------------15
1.12----------------20
1.25----------------25
1.37----------------30
1.48----------------35
1.58----------------40
1.68----------------45
1.77----------------50
1.94----------------60
2.09----------------70
2.24----------------80
2.37----------------90
2.50---------------100
2.80---------------125
3.06---------------150
3.31---------------175
3.54---------------200
Please keep in mind that a short roll is better than a deep sloppy one, no matter how deep it is. This is just a guide, and by no means meant to represent the actual rates. It is merely a chart for informational purposes.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 6:26 AM
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1041 posts
Mar 06, 2007
6:41 AM
|
Tony.That was the one I was looking for.I knew I had seen it somewhere.Thanks.David
|
motherlodelofts
1509 posts
Mar 06, 2007
7:06 AM
|
Dave , I don't get that wrapped up in exactness , it's impossible and there is no system that will get you even close , many of the higher qaulity birds won't drop nearly as much per sec. as most that roll like culls can.
I look at several things , one being seperation from the kit,an example is, if they break and yet don't seperate from the kit then they are very short , I basicly call them just too short (3-10), short (10-15) kinda short (15-20) decent 20-25 , good depth 25-30, 30' plus I consider deep as long as they are doing it correctly from start to finish, if not it is a mute point.
Of coarse these are just round a bout guesses , but duration still trumps actual depth for me , but I don't actualy count it either , and I'm not looking at duration to determine depth (for the most part).
But sure I'll throw an estimate of depth out here and there , and on very deep one's might do a count for giggle's.
But I am more focused on looking for faults in the roll than trying to keep an actual count on them, one single fault and it was all for nothing in my book.
In short they are either too short, kinda short, decent, good depth, deep, very deep , and like I said actual depth in feet is pretty meaningless to me.
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 7:20 AM
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1042 posts
Mar 06, 2007
8:10 AM
|
Scott.Thanks for responding.As you know I am into the 11 bird comps so depth is very important to me.I judge each roller I raise according to quality and depth of roll.I don't care how good of a team player they are if they don't reach my depth and quality I don't want them to compete with.
I have found that by judging each roller like this when I put a kit of 20 together they seem to become team players.Maybe not as many going on each break but according to what I have seen being posted in the scores big breaks are few and far between anyway.
Maybe if I ever fly the 20 bird fly I will have to change my mind.LOL. David
|
longarm
87 posts
Mar 06, 2007
9:55 AM
|
That is an interesting chart I breed some very deep birds and work very hard to keep the quality of roll. The deeper they get the more they want to dish rag and open up. I would like to find an exact way to check the depth because the 200 ft bird they have on the chart would be about a 40 ft bird by my count. So here is a question. if two birds roll 100 ft one is much tighter that the other which bird rolls the longer duration? I had been thinking about video tapeing the birds in the roll so I could slow it down and count revolutions ( seemed like a good way to better sort for stocking ) but from reading post by those more knowledgable than I with cameras this is not feasable. c.j.
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1043 posts
Mar 06, 2007
10:27 AM
|
C.J. Are you saying you have rollers that roll for 20 seconds? David
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1243 posts
Mar 06, 2007
10:35 AM
|
Tony, 3.54 seconds for 200 feet????????????? WTF?
Tony, I think your goal is close, but 1.12 seconds for 20 feet, not a chance. Sorry, not a believer today.
David, according to Tony's math, a 20 second roller would roll over 1000 feet..lol.
David, I don't use a stop watch, what good would it do? Show me how long they or a bird rolled? Time doesn't reward distance. We simply pick a number that appears to be close to what we see and then associate the two. I believe as a whole, and on average, seconds pretty much are about as accurate as we can get for knowing depth...AND...it is an easily understood, universal method which most can understand when they use it. The real distance isn't important because it can never be proven. Time however can be proven, but it has to be associated with a figure. So 1 second for 10 ft, 2 seconds for 20 feet, etc, is in my opinion the best method we have to judging depth. If a person ever wonders how long it takes a bird to roll 10 feet, just remember the last time a bird was coming into land and went into the roll. It hits the ground so fast....fast enough to be about one second of time.
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1044 posts
Mar 06, 2007
10:59 AM
|
Brian.The more I time mine I am leaning more toward 14 to 15 foot a sec.
What amazes me is we can send a man to the moon and back and have him land in Florida at the exact time but noone can estimate the distance a roller rolls in a second.On average anyway.
I learn a lot by timing mine.David
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1244 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:19 AM
|
David, as mentioned by Scott, what if some of your birds are only going what you assume is less than 10 feet while those you think are going 14-15? What does that do to your average? Every bird will be different. That is for certain. If everyone used the one second rule, we would be as close to certainty as we could expect to be. I don't care if a bird rolled 15 feet or eight feet in one second. What matters is that most people use the same method of gauging distance, which we are only Gauging, not Identifying.
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1208 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:27 AM
|
WTF to you Brian, did I say this chart was made by me? Get off the high horse dude.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1209 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:37 AM
|
Scott said:
"But I am more focused on looking for faults in the roll than trying to keep an actual count on them, one single fault and it was all for nothing in my book".
Scott, so if 7 birds bust together and if one is "off" they don't score 1/4 turn?
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1045 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:51 AM
|
Brian.My thinking is that if all my birds in the kit are doing the same time(on average) they will be more apt to score better than some doing 10 foot and some doing 45 foot.David
|
bman
244 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:57 AM
|
I think BMC has the right take,duration puts in in the best perspective regardless of distance traveled.I think debating 10 vs 15 feet per second is trying to pick the the fly crap out of the pepper.The chart seems flawed to me because according to the chart the bird is accelerating to
(if my math is right)almost a forty mile an hour free fall at 200ft.Sounds a little fast for me.Duration with a stop watch is a fact,distance is subjective.I just want to see a good tight roll and a nice seperation from the kit.
----------
Ron
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 11:58 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1210 posts
Mar 06, 2007
11:59 AM
|
For All, the speed at which an object loses altitude is determined not by wieght, but by resistance to air. In a vacumn an elephant and a feather will fall at the same rate.
Outside of that vacumn, an elephant will fall faster.
Elephant and Feather - Free Fall No Air Resistance
"Newton's Laws
Animation of falling elephant and feather: Suppose that an elephant and a feather are dropped off a very tall building from the same height at the same time. Suppose also that air resistance could be eliminated such that neither the elephant nor the feather would experience any air drag during the course of their fall.
Which object - the elephant or the feather - will hit the ground first? The animation at the right accurately depicts this situation. The motion of the elephant and the feather in the absence of air resistance is shown. Further, the acceleration of each object is represented by a vector arrow.
Many people are surprised by the fact that in the absence of air resistance, the elephant and the feather strike the ground at the same time."
Elephant and Feather - With Air Resistance
"Newton's Laws
Animation of elephant and feather falling w/air resistance: Suppose that an elephant and a feather are dropped off a very tall building from the same height at the same time. We will assume the realistic situation that both feather and elephant encounter air resistance.
Which object - the elephant or the feather - will hit the ground first? The animation at the right accurately depicts this situation. The motion of the elephant and the feather in the presence of air resistance is shown. Further, the acceleration of each object is represented by a vector arrow.
Most people are not surprised by the fact that the elephant strikes the ground before the feather. But why does the elephant fall faster? This question is the source of much confusion (as well as a variety of misconceptions)."
One thing I take from this is that the fast roll offers less air resistance therefore this roller will have a faster rate of descent. We also learn that time DOES equal distance.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 12:00 PM
|
bman
245 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:14 PM
|
Tony,
I have access to google to.lol
First of all no vacuum,second I would guess the weight spread on rollers is probably 8-12oz.Third a falling object can only attain a certain speed it does not continue to accelerate indefinetly. I think argueing over depth is okay over a couple of beers(I'll even buy) but to try and inject a little uniformity to judging duration seems to me to make more sense.I have seen 100ft rollers,
higher than the 100ft oak in the back yard terminated by the earth(yard dart) I don't beleive it took ten seconds.
But if judge on duration everyone is on an equal playing field.If it does it right for 4 or 5 seconds I don't think
the one second is going to cost you much on the depth multiplier.
----------
Ron
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1245 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:16 PM
|
No high horse here Tony, simply questioning the logic of the chart in your post.
Do you really think that a roller in the roll will drop 200 feet in 3.54 seconds?
Do you really think a roller in the spin will drop 20 feet in 1.12 seconds?
The latter is closer to what we commonly see. But to take a page from your play book, I ask you to prove it as fact...LOL
I can't, therefore the best tool available is duration of the performance based on a generally accepted interpretation of distance. Isi it possible we are both in agreement?
Est modus in rebus
|
Ballrollers
695 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:24 PM
|
Based on what I have seen the past few years, there seems to be a tendency for judges to underscore depth, in my opinion. I'm almost 7 ft. tall. With a three foot arm length, when I reach up, the top of my hand is close to 10 ft. Now that's not very far, and should represent a scoreable roll. And at 500 ft. that's only an inch or so at the tip of an outstretched hand. But most 10 footers just won't get scored by a judge, especially if he wants to earn a reputation for being tough. But the rules say they should be. I would like to see judges tough on quality, like Scott said, yet willing to score the depths that qualify. I think I have mentioned it before, but at the NBRC Convention in Portland, we visited some waterfalls. Looking at the top of the falls, they looked fairly close...you would want your birds up higher for scoring. We asked each other how high the falls were....most guys guessed 100-200 ft. If my memeory serves me right, the falls were actually close to 400 ft. high! The ability of humans to guess depth sucks, basically and we tend to under-estimate the depth, especially the further things are away from us.
JMHO,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 12:45 PM
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1246 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:45 PM
|
Cliff, the biggest eye-opener for me was when I decided to use my rangefinder to get an idea of exactly how high a kit was flying. It was more of a curiosity thing just to see if I could do it; place a lazer on a bird for the second of time it takes for the measurement to be secured. In the end I discovered that what I thought was shorter distance was actually a greater one. When I thought the kit was flying around 50-60ft up, they were generally closer to 100ft high. I found that I can, with accuracy, say that I prefer my kits to fly in the 300ft range for good viewing and good performance from them. Prior to that my choice of height was just speculation.
The benefit of that experience taught me a few things too. I realized what some depths are based on their flying height, and then based on deduction of the remaining distance to the ground. As they get higher, the ability to distinguish this greatly deminsishes, even more so if they are right overhead, which tends to be the case.
I also realized that a kit isn't a flat horizontal plane either. Though it only makes sense, I didn't think about it as it plays out with a kits performance, and what we see. A kit can be anywhere from a few feet upwards to ten feet deep, from the lowest bird to the highest bird in the kit. When a kit is elevated over us, it is almost impossible to see this. If a kit is off to the side, we can sometimes see this better.
Now if a kit which has, say a five foot difference between the lowest bird in the kit and the highest bird in the kit....and they break at the same exact moment (like they should), and consequently roll for the same exact amount of time, the visual perspective of what we think we are seeing can be skewed, thinking that a few didn't roll as deep as the others. That meaning the lower ones in the break appeared to roll deeper, because they were at the lowest point of the break, making the ones above them appear to roll shorter, when in fact, they rolled for the same amount of time, and probably close to the same depth of their lower teammates.
Brian.
|
Ballrollers
696 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:52 PM
|
More good points, Brian. I think we are saying many of the same things. So you really can get the range-finder laser on a kit bird in flight?! I thought about trying it but I never thought I could pull it off! LOL!
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 12:52 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1211 posts
Mar 06, 2007
12:59 PM
|
Hey Brian,
This is a disclaimer quote from my post with the chart:
"This is just a guide, and by no means meant to represent the actual rates. It is merely a chart for informational purposes".
David asked, I provided it. I also said it was published in the APJ back in 1974. Don't get on my case for providing information that was asked of me, I did not claim these numbers were true.
People read something and get tunnel vision, read the entire post in context and you would not have said anything. This stuff gets maddening having to explain stuff like this.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
1247 posts
Mar 06, 2007
1:02 PM
|
Tony, my apologies to you, I didn't read the fine print..lol
Cliff, it took a while. I think maybe my sports photography experience probably helped some, using the "panning" technique to keep steady and move with the kit. I got pretty good at it after a few days, up to about 400 ft. That was the threshold where the birds were so small it was a luck thing to get a reading. Beyond 500ft was impossible.
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1046 posts
Mar 06, 2007
1:15 PM
|
Brian.Now you need to get hold of a Radar gun and see what speed they are doing.LOL.
Really I am interested in this distance thing because a 19 footer only scores 1 point where a 20 footer scores 2 points.It can really make a big difference in your score by just a 1 foot difference. David
|
motherlodelofts
1510 posts
Mar 06, 2007
3:18 PM
|
Dave , you completly missed the context of my post, who in thier right mind doesn't breed for qaulity and depth ?
Elevan bird or twenty bird makes no difference.
Cliff, I have seen the exact opposite, far to many pay no attention to min. depth , or at the very least don't sort out the 3fters from the one's doing the min. when scoreing a break.
Scott
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
1212 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:16 PM
|
Okay Brian, I'm good. lol
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1047 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:23 PM
|
Scott.You said:and like I said actual depth in feet is pretty meaningless to me.
Actual depth may not mean anything to you as both your 19 footer and 20 footer will score the same in the 20 bird fly.Whereas in the 11 bird fly just that foot of difference can mean an extra point.So to me depth is very important.David
|
motherlodelofts
1511 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:33 PM
|
Duration or depth, whats the difference ,they are still going to drop , some will drop less than others in the same duration Dave, that is my point as for trying to use duration as a guide for depth .
As for you trying to seperate 19 ft from 20 ft , no one can call it exact,it is impossble, it is nothing but a general guide.
Scott
|
Flyin Hawaiian
80 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:48 PM
|
Hey BMC,
Great post I agree and may I add that to many guys have gotten hosed by that very same scenario. This seperation thing that is often tossed about in the circle of judges and competitiors is just a scape goat for a judge to use in order to explain himself. A good simultaneous break that goes deep and in unison they seem to be a bit sheepish about calling out in the depth chart. Its very subjective from judge to judge and flyer to flyer without having some starting point it is only a GUESSTAMATION!!!!! at best for depth.
The name of the game for me is velocity coupled with balance over a considerable distance or better yet duration within the movement. Those deep sloppy 60ftrs that so many claim to have they can continue to feed them but for myself and the true Birimingham roller and what it is capable of displaying is the fact that it has the ability to roll with inconcievable rapidity and velocity which seperates it from all the other tumbling breeds. If you fly these that can vaporize with the balled up no wings visible and you had them within your kit a careful eye would dipict them and the rest of the birds would look like pikers!
|
motherlodelofts
1512 posts
Mar 06, 2007
4:57 PM
|
(This seperation thing that is often tossed about in the circle of judges and competitiors is just a scape goat for a judge to use in order to explain himself. )
Explain Himself , what does that mean ? I want to see seperation,a bird spinning in place would have seperation from the kit unless that duration is a split second , if the kit froze in place in mid air than that theory might hold.
It is too much a guessing game as it is , and yes there are illusions out of our control due to ht. angle ect.
It is rare that anyone gets underscored or hosed on anything , at least that has been my experiance including the judging of my own kits by others , normaly I feel over scored in all area's, it tends to swing that way far far more time's than not.
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 6:23 PM
|
Santandercol
848 posts
Mar 06, 2007
5:30 PM
|
Whoa that thread went on a different tack!!I was taught that timeXspeed equals distance,which means not all rollers tuck the same so don't ball up and fall at the same speed.How could that chart determine how fast a bird will fall,spinning,when they go into the roll in differnt stances,you know,causing differing amounts of resistance.Screw the chart,I just want to see my birds spin and live to coo the tale!!
----------
Kelly
|
Flyin Hawaiian
84 posts
Mar 06, 2007
7:05 PM
|
Scott,
You don't get seperation when thier all going simultaneously together. I'm talking about a big break not a mini break where you have something to start your seperation by. This is where I find a problem with the quality multipliers on depth within a kit on average when you get kits that can hit the big breaks and they are not awarded with good depth multipliers. Thats why I stated the seperation thing is just an excuse by the judge to uphold the final outcome. We're all guilty of it to some degree because its all so subjective. What you see and what I see can be totally different in depth especially when were looking at a kit rolling straight above us and thier is no starting point to guage them by.
Ivan
|
Dave Szab
70 posts
Mar 06, 2007
7:46 PM
|
Guys,
Here is a good picture that Ivan took of me standing at the bottom of a 100 ft windmill tower. 100 ft is a lot deeper than you think, but 10 ft, seen from a distance, is a lot shorter than most think. I'm 6 ft tall, find me at the bottom of the tower and double my height, which would be 12 feet, and you can see that it's not much when seen from a distance.
Dave Szabatura
|
Ballrollers
698 posts
Mar 06, 2007
8:30 PM
|
Dave,
What is equally important for us to know is, how far is the camera from you and the tower? It looks like about 20 yards....
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 06, 2007 8:32 PM
|
motherlodelofts
1514 posts
Mar 06, 2007
8:40 PM
|
Yea I got you, I was just giving it some thought on the countless variables.
When you get a hard break straight up I think that for the most part the duration plays in even with nothing to gauge depth by ,duration alone will give the illusion of depth to a large degree , at least it does for me.
As you know the multipliers are an average , and average of the breaks and each break is averaged ,and unless only one break is scored it is going to be an overall average on all the breaks and not just a few straight up.
What I am getting at is the over all impression of the entire fly is going to determine the multiplier , short , kinda short,decent,deep , thats the way I see it and for me I keep it that simple, to many variables.
I'm a nutz and bolts kinde of guy, some might say more nutz than bolts though LOL
Scott
|
motherlodelofts
1515 posts
Mar 06, 2007
8:42 PM
|
Dave , I think at a 100 ft 10ft or there about is pretty easy to determine.
Scott
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1048 posts
Mar 07, 2007
4:05 AM
|
Dave.I know you fly the 11 bird fly and I am sure you have judged them in your region.Maybe you can relate to what I am trying to determine.LOL
Would you say on average(I know every bird is different)that a roller is closer to 15 feet per second compared to 10 feet per second?
Now I am going to ramble.
Someone came up with the 10 feet per second that everyone is using.How was this determined? The stopwatch I am using and what I am estimating is 15 foot per second.I also am understanding that a stopwatch won't work with a 20 bird kit as good as an 11.And I know a judge can't use one on every roll when he is judging but it could help in estimating a rollers depth when it comes to giving bonus points etc.
If 10 foot per second is what is adopted as being what is used nationwide I can accept that and go from there.
However going back to the chart that was used in the old APJ there is a big difference.How was this chart determined?Personally I think it is way off but I am not into Physics.
I know it is not going to change anything but it's something to discuss on a Snowy day.LOL. David
P.S.Dave is those trees behind the tower around 35 foot?
Last Edited by on Mar 07, 2007 4:20 AM
|
Dave Szab
71 posts
Mar 07, 2007
8:20 AM
|
Dave.I know you fly the 11 bird fly and I am sure you have judged them in your region.Maybe you can relate to what I am trying to determine.LOL
Would you say on average(I know every bird is different)that a roller is closer to 15 feet per second compared to 10 feet per second?
Now I am going to ramble.
Someone came up with the 10 feet per second that everyone is using.How was this determined? The stopwatch I am using and what I am estimating is 15 foot per second.I also am understanding that a stopwatch won't work with a 20 bird kit as good as an 11.And I know a judge can't use one on every roll when he is judging but it could help in estimating a rollers depth when it comes to giving bonus points etc.
If 10 foot per second is what is adopted as being what is used nationwide I can accept that and go from there.
However going back to the chart that was used in the old APJ there is a big difference.How was this chart determined?Personally I think it is way off but I am not into Physics.
I know it is not going to change anything but it's something to discuss on a Snowy day.LOL. David
P.S.Dave is those trees behind the tower around 35 foot?
Hey David,
I don't use feet per second to determine depth because the drag on the bird would affect how far it falls in a certain number of seconds. These birds are NOT rolling in a vacuum. Actually a crappy slow roller with wings out, will have more drag as it drops, than a balled up fast spinner, and therefore will drop less of a distance, during let's say 3 seconds, than a balled up fast spinner. So during that 3 seconds there would be 2 different depths for 2 different birds. That's not even taken into account the wind. With an updraft, the birds won't drop as far in 3 seconds as they would on a perfectly still day, and there could be different winds at different altitudes. Also a balled up fast spinner will do more revolutions per second than a slow roller. I don't know about you, but I would rather have a 15 foot balled up blur, than a 30 foot slow roller. There are too many variables to count seconds to judge depth.
The best way to judge depth is to study a known height of an object, at different distances, and train your mind to notice what that depth actually is, then apply it to judging your own birds depth every time you fly them. You will then eventually get a good idea in your mind, as to how deep the birds are actually rolling.
The tree right behind the tower is almost exactly a third of the tower, so I would say it is about 33 feet tall.
Dave Szabatura
|
bman
247 posts
Mar 07, 2007
8:25 AM
|
To All,
Do you think that the speed(velocity) that the birds is rolling can change our perception of depth (optical illusion) ?
----------
Ron
Last Edited by on Mar 07, 2007 11:05 AM
|
longarm
88 posts
Mar 07, 2007
10:36 AM
|
david
I had 6 birds that would on a stop watch hit 16 to 20 seconds rather regularly. These were off my appleberry line. Those birds were lost with the rest but I was able to get the mother to three of them back here from a friend and am now breeding her with a son whom I had not flown out before giveing him away and never got see perform just crossing my fingers and hopeing for the best as it is all i have to work with in the family. I have her sister here and she is breed to a 100ft cock bird from kuhlman and we will see what that does. c.j.
|
Ballrollers
701 posts
Mar 07, 2007
4:56 PM
|
A lot of guys simply will not believe that, cj, unless they have witnessed it. If there is any area in the sport today where we fall short, in my opinon, it is in the area of the encouragement and rewarding of the breeding and cultivation of the high flying deep indvidual performer. Taking nothing away from the system of turn scoring and kit competition that was brought over from England and given to us, I believe that it is important for us to preserve that aspect of the heritage of American Rollers. Who among us who has witnessed these birds rolling 80-100ft. with control, from 800 to 1000 ft. has not sucked his breath in in the viewing of such a performance?
Yeah, I know, I've heard it all before...it can't be done...they eventually crash....sloppy performance.... ya da ya da....mostly loft blindness, I'd say.....It is a different kind of performance; granted, than what we see in today's competitions. But it's like comparing apples and oranges...or Thouroughbreds and Quarterhorses...each has its assets and qualities...and each is different in what it has to offer. There are a lot of roller breeders out there who are committed to the proposition that it can be done, and unfortunately we have relegated them to the confines of their back yards....I'm not saying that it is a BETTER way of doing things...just different strokes for different folks...and it has a degree of value in the hobby.
JMHO,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Mar 07, 2007 5:47 PM
|
Missouri-Flyer
333 posts
Mar 07, 2007
5:05 PM
|
can I come and watch? I am always game for watching DEEP birds in action..Jerry
----------
Home of "Whispering Wings Loft"
|
motherlodelofts
1519 posts
Mar 07, 2007
6:21 PM
|
Cliff , I believe it,but what I don't believe is that they can hold qaulity through it from start to finish.
Deep birds are easy to breed, qaulity deep birds that hold up are not , there is a reason that the American Roller has all but went the way of the Passanger Pigeon.
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 07, 2007 9:54 PM
|
Mongrel Lofts
278 posts
Mar 07, 2007
9:16 PM
|
I'm one of those guys that wants to see separation in a break.. I also want to see a long enough duration in the roll that I can get a good count.. If bird burst in a break and the birds that are rolling don't separate from the birds that are flying,, They are not deep enough for me to score.. I score what I have time to count, not what I guess turned over but didn't even roll deep enough or long enough to separate from the birds flying away from the rollers. I think to many want short burst breaks guessed at. I won't score tumblers and birds that don't show some separation from the birds left flying,, If 15 birds break, there should be 5 birds left flying,, If those five turn and come back to the rollers,, you will notice them,, If they don't roll long enough to get a good count, I only score what I can count in the time the roll duration allows me to count.. I guess that's why I don't get asked to judge much. LOL Just my opinion, but way to many short tumbler breaks get guessed at and make the score cards. Some just love short breaks guessed at.. If you want them judged, make sure they roll long enough and deep enough to be judged! You just have to fly rollers that roll deep enough to be counted, not guessed at,, KGB
|
Alohazona
251 posts
Mar 07, 2007
9:52 PM
|
KGB,
That's a very good point!..I have to admit,I am in rollers for the DEEP ONES,and the DEEP ones that roll collectively,what more could you ask for...Aloha,Todd
PS..How are your birds looking this year??
|
Alohazona
252 posts
Mar 07, 2007
10:05 PM
|
Ivan,
Subjective,I got ya on that one! There are days I'd like to to bust'em in the chops,and then there are days I'd like to sit'um down and feed'um laulau's,LOL...Aloha,Todd
|
Bluesman
Pigeon Fancier
1051 posts
Mar 08, 2007
3:40 AM
|
Kenny.Now I like that description of the way you judge.And thats the only way my slow brain can judge my 20 bird kits.Except I only get to 7 or 8 bird seperation.LOL.
When kits break and do what Brian said I am totally lost.But I understand too that when kits are stacked like that the top birds are rolling just as deep as the botton ones.Just I am to slow to keep in focus.And I think they have to go in 1/2 second?
As long as there is a good seperation I can do fine.Maybe I should try to build a team that has good seperation but I think they are still going to fly at different levels in the kit and still cause that mass confusion.David
|
Velo99
971 posts
Mar 08, 2007
5:15 AM
|
Guys,
Of course judging is subjective. I waver somewhere in between Scott and Kennys analysis. There are way too many variables in judging the actual depth of roll. In light of that,seperation and the "impression" factor would be the alternatives left to consider when judging.
Now let me ask you guys that have actually judged this question. How does the impression left by one flyers birds affect your impression of the next guys kit? Say your judging two flyers who live within say 10 minutes of one another. Will your brain still have the image of a the prior kit imprinted on it versus the first kit of the day when you are fresh? Do you compare all kits to the best one you have ever seen?
----------
V99
Flippin`The Bird!
http://www.bluedotloft.50megs.com
|
longarm
89 posts
Mar 08, 2007
6:44 AM
|
Cliff
I havent anything to prove so I dont really care if they do LOL I looked long and hard to find a blood line that was capible and have worked harder to improve it. The theft really set me back but I am rebuilding and have the blood here to do it.
jerry
My door is always open to folks who want to come see some birds. I enjoy flying my birds for people and barbacue so it works out well. just let em get some more young birds flying If you want come out in the fall and we will fly some birds and hunt some others.
scott
You are very correct I have seen and raised many rollers that ""roll"" very deep but they dont have any qulaity to speak of. I find it is best to stair step my birds. I will push a bit deeper and them tighten them up. I have to qualify that my birds dont finish a 200 ft roll with a roll that I would put up for a w/c judge. they just cant fight the centrifical force that long. but they must maintain good form through out. I had a family that would break out of the roll with a plate spin and I loved them but that line is now gone and I dont think I will ever find more. so to qualify my deep birds comp quality - no super tight show the hole rollers - no super tight kitting - no breathtakeing to behold in the air - for sure
They are just a hobby And they will be setting on the back burner for a bit while I work harder on my team for the fall fly but they will allways be here. c.j.
|
motherlodelofts
1523 posts
Mar 08, 2007
7:07 AM
|
Dave, the half second is from the first bird to the last bird, in other words simultaneous , once a kit of birds develope into a team the look of mass confusion should diminish also and they should have the look of a solid unit working with each other , clean and fluid.
Selection is key, birds coming out backwards, slow returning to the kit, rolling out the back "stability", stiffs leading the team ,particular birds or bird keeping the kit on one wing ect. ect., will all handicap the team from becoming a real team , think of the team as just that a "TEAM" and you are the coach ,and it is your job to mold them into a team , you have what 8-10 kits ? you should have plenty of birds to select from,and should even be able to field a decent second team.
As for judging, the better the team is as far as qaulity and depth, the easier they are to judge , the more the team is all over the board as far as qaulity and depth , the more of a challange it becomes as you have to sort it in a short amount of time , good judges sort, poor judges just count it all.
Scott
Scott
Last Edited by on Mar 08, 2007 7:12 AM
|
Ballrollers
702 posts
Mar 08, 2007
7:41 AM
|
I'm still not convinced that "separation" is the key to assessing quality performance in a 20-bird kit,in my mind, guys. In fact, I believe that over-emphasizing separation is actually part of the problem. If you get a 12-15 bird break of 20 ft. and 3 or 4 continue on to 30 ft. or more, your eyes will follow and focus on those that separated and judge the break according to the quality and depth of those birds. The other potentially fast, high quality, 20 footers aren't part of the separation and don't get scored in many cases. If the judge incorrectly estimates the deeper birds at 20 ft,then a lot of good performers don't get scored. That is not being a tuff judge, it is simply misjudging depth. Granted, some of the shorter birds may have crappy quality and should not be counted, but I don't think separation is the issue. In Clay Hoyle's winning kit a couple years ago, the entire kit had many breaks where they would drop thirty feet, pull out together and continue on in the same path of flight at a 30 ft. lower altitude. There was no separation. Had that been the criteria used, he would not have scored.
Now in an 11-bird kit, David, separation is an effective tool to use, I believe, because the judge is looking more for individual performance.
Last Edited by on Mar 08, 2007 7:54 AM
|