Scott
104 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:20 PM
|
Paul, this is why is it critical to have a mentor and hang with good flyers when new.
There is a standard , and it is the same in the US,Canada, England,Denmark ect.
And that is any bird that doesn't have the "capability" to roll without a fault is nada,zero, crapola.
Faults are, wingswitching or glitching in the roll(even slight) , coming out of the roll sloppy,coming out backwards , so slow you you can count the revolutions,axel wing,it is universal Paul.
Paul, you can any country and the same will apply, one of the biggest problems that we have here in the US is that it is just so big and guys try to become self taught with no guidance,or they fall in with those that just don't know themselves, I was lucky, I was "schooled" to not ever accept faults in the roll, nor do they accept such in England ect..
Notice above where I said "capability" ,there are times that even the highest quality birds will look roll like culls, and young birds can be real hit and miss until they mature, but they should still never be scored if it isn't done right.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
kcfirl
321 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:26 PM
|
Scott,
the standard is not the same even among the WC finals judges that the US puts out there, let alone betweeen USA and other countries.
I would support having a very high quality standard but I bet most that fly in WC would not.
If we want to measure the tru BR as Pensom knew it, we need a seperate standard.
Ken
|
Scott
105 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:37 PM
|
Ken, a poor judge is just that, a poor judge ,and the WC has had it's share lately, they seem to be the "nominated" judges.
Lets test this , WAYNE and others from the UK or anywhere else , should birds that roll with any of the faults that I described above ever be scored ?
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 6:54 PM
|
Mongrel Lofts
530 posts
Feb 26, 2008
6:54 PM
|
Guy's,
I think it simply comes down to this. If we are going to judge wing switching, slow sloppy tumblers then why do we call it a roller competition? Pensom was correct if this is what we allow to be judged. Competition will ruin the Birmingham roller if we judge it like a common tumbler competition and that is what many are doing and advocating today.. Sad thing is, more want Crappy rollers judged than don't these days. Just my opinion. KGB
|
George R.
237 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:11 PM
|
Ken
So if a person only has 5 Birds that spin correctly , then should that person(s) forget about ever flying until he has 20 perfect spinners.
I also like perfect spinners BUTt I live in a REAL World and I know that no one is gonna Breed 20 perfect Spinners every year.
And if people are upset about the recent Judgeing and they Believe they can do a BETTER job then step up to the PLATE and have at it.
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 7:12 PM
|
Scott
106 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:26 PM
|
George,never do I put anything in the A team that doesn't have the "capability" to roll without a fault,never.
Okay,almost never ,I remember one W.C. finals fly where I was scraping for birds and I did try sneak in 3 birds that didn't come out of the roll correctly.
John Wiens from Canada was the judge,and he popped me on it and I lost several breaks due to it, that George is a good judge, I knew better.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 7:28 PM
|
George R.
240 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:29 PM
|
Scott
Then we need to start PAYING guys like John Wiens to judge.
remember that old saying "You get what you pay for" ?
It cost Money to miss work and the Good judges deserve to get paid for there Time.
|
Mongrel Lofts
531 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:33 PM
|
George,
Who said anything about perfect? Did you read what I wrote? Rolling straight with decent velocity without wing switching, Axle style or falling apart in the pull out is far from perfect. It's just a good roller 1.0. There is lots of room for improvement between good and perfect.
By your reasoning, we should judge anything that turns over backwards and expect the best kit to win? That makes a joke out roller competitions. Don't you think? KGB
|
Scott
107 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:39 PM
|
George, I certainly couldn't take the time,I would come home broke ,divorced and my dogs would probably be renamed by the mailman.
I've done several regions ,state and countless local,but the big flys is a whole different animal, I turned down judging the NBRC finals one year,just couldn't do the time.
And that is just it George, we are going to have some good and some bad and everything inbetween when it comes to judges,that is just the way it is.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
George R.
243 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:42 PM
|
Scott I agree.
Ken I never said we should judge Culls, but maybe we should forget about competing if everyone is going to complain about the way a guy Judges .
I truly believe that the best kit will WIN on Comp day regardless who the judge is .
|
Scott
108 posts
Feb 26, 2008
7:51 PM
|
"I truly believe that the best kit will WIN on Comp day regardless who the judge is . "
Not true george
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
George R.
245 posts
Feb 26, 2008
8:30 PM
|
Maybe, Maybe Not Scott
but I will not lose no sleep over it. Will the next President of the U,S,A, fix the country,s problems Maybe maybe Not but I still wont lose sleep over it LOL.
All I can do is my work and let OTHERS do thier Work
Last Edited by on Feb 26, 2008 8:38 PM
|
Scott
109 posts
Feb 26, 2008
9:18 PM
|
Nor is any of this worth loosing sleep over George, the fact is 99.999999999 percent of what we do as far as these birds are concerned still comes down to just us in our own backyards playing with our pigeons.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
George R.
247 posts
Feb 26, 2008
9:22 PM
|
SHHHHHHHH Scott I thought that was our SECRET LOL
|
Shadow
99 posts
Feb 26, 2008
11:06 PM
|
There are class Rollers,and good Rollers,which are acceptable to my eyes,especially the class ones,all other kinds portrayed are CRAP,and if flown should not be scored,anything showing this (class) when working should only be awarded quality scores,to make points quality available for these type of crap rollers is even more ludicros,10ft gudeline is a joke,this caters for activity,not rolling,and to continue to reward these types,is to encourage a type of tumbling bird,who is capable of doing an amount of these (rolls/tumbles)more often than any genuine roller ever will,if its not class/rolls good/rolls,no matter whats said its still crappy/roller/rolls by any other name,and for one dont want them.Earlier post said,"best kit always wins" true enough but the best kit of rollers dont always win.
|
Ballrollers
1056 posts
Feb 27, 2008
7:38 AM
|
Hey Guys,
Sorry I got behind on the discussion....been out a couple days with an ill child...I'll try to get caught up, here....
Mr Shadow/Feb 26
I think you do see the range of depth and quality that is scoreable. I agree with you. The point I am trying to make is often we fail to adequately describe the full range. We become infatuated with the upper end, quality and depth birds and over-look scoreable birds of minimal depth and quality. Sure we would all like to have nothing but the best quality birds in our kits, but there is a minimum and average performance somewhere beneath the top or the best, as we have been discussing.
Would you give me your definition on a scoreable but minimal quality and depth bird? Then show how that relates to the rules as written? I see you mention 20 foot as an "acceptable depth", nothing wrong with that, I feel the same way. But the rules state that a suggested minimal depth is 10 feet.
What I am trying to avoid is the old cliches: "A good bird is a good bird, you'll know it when you see it, I only judge the highest quality birds." That's not what the rules say, though some judges would like to get such a reputation for themselves. If we all saw it that way, and we set up the rules that way, I would have no problem with that, and we wouldn't be having as many of these questionable scores.
Thanks for your opinion.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1057 posts
Feb 27, 2008
8:17 AM
|
Shadow,
I recall Mr Pete Handy talking about some of the standards used in England. If I am not mistaken , he said something like there was not a feet in depth minimum, it was more of a, "If you can see it clearly , it is scoreable". One element the English use that I think is really interesting is the use of kitting points. I think that is a very good way to evaluate a performance quality that we don't. I suppose we just use the out birds to do a similar function, if two or more birds are not in the kit , the kit can't score; whereas the English score the overall kitting. I am always interested in how scoring is done differently in different countries.
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1058 posts
Feb 27, 2008
8:29 AM
|
Scott/Feb 26
"The suggested minimum depth for scoring is 10 feet". TO me, that means , you should be very careful not to score birds that perform for LESS than 10 feet. It says nothing about the minimum being MORE than 10 feet. How you can define this rule, any other way, defies reading comprehension. Pardon me, but a "suggested minimum depth for scoring" IS a rule for depth.
The rules make very good sense to me when it employs the use of "DURATION" meaning "TIME of spin" to determine depth. The judge should use duration when the kit is directly overhead or when those rare spinners seem to remain suspended during their brief performance. They seem to defy gravity but we know they can't.
The reason flyers become agitated during a fly is because the Rules do not mention anything about coming out backwards. Why wouldn't a flyer question a judge that judges this way? This just points out the need to address this issue; i.e.place wording in the fly rules about how to score a bird that comes out the wrong way and immediately goes to the kit vs. one that comes out the wrong way and does not follow the kit after a break. And as Fly Director, it would much easier to deal with complaints from flyers about a judge's estimation of depth at certain distances, rather than the frustrations that are continually expressed about the inconsistancy that exists with the current state of affairs in the fly rules; not scoring scoreable performance, scoring all kit "activity", high scores, low scores, etc. These frustrations are all the result of the vagueness of the rules.
JMHO,
Cliff
PS I know your head will be allright, but these pooters are rather delicate. Be careful out there.
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 8:29 AM
|
Ballrollers
1059 posts
Feb 27, 2008
8:32 AM
|
Ken Firl/Feb 26,
Well said. That is exactly my point. I believe that this is apparrent to many other experienced roller men as well...
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1060 posts
Feb 27, 2008
8:55 AM
|
Scott
One more time on this dead horse. The judge, and only the judge, can make a depth-estimate of the minimum 10 feet to be able to score. He will use this same estimate throughout all the kits he judges. But the judge must use the rule as written, and whatever his 10 foot estimate is, he "SHOULD" score birds that meet his estimate. He should not alter the rule to raise his estimate to 15 or 20 or any other depth. The rule states a suggested 10-foot minimum, not a suggested 15-foot minimum, and not a suggested 20-foot minimum.
I find your resistance to scoring a 10 foot break interesting, but I understand your desire to raise the standard of performance that is scored. Why not simply score the 10-footers in the break (if the minimum quality is present) and ding the kit on the depth multiplier?
I see very few 2.0 birds in most competition kits. I bet it is the same with you. I also bet there are many more 1.0-1.5 birds being flown than 2.0 birds. So, in reality, it takes a more competent judge to score a kit of 1.0-1.5 birds than a kit of 2.0 birds.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1061 posts
Feb 27, 2008
9:04 AM
|
Sandy/Feb 26,
Absolutley...that's why the rules were set up the way they were. They were not established to score only the best performance in order to "force" the hobby to produce more of the "best". I doubt many rollermen actually shoot for these 1.0-1.5 performers in their breeding programs...they are simply produced in higher percentages than the 1.9-2.0 birds.
YITS,
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
1063 posts
Feb 27, 2008
9:18 AM
|
Ken/Scott,
Try to stay focused, here, guys. Nobody is advocating scoring birds with faults like winging-switching or slow, sloppy tumbling. You are missing the whole point of the discussion....
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 9:24 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
2219 posts
Feb 27, 2008
9:34 AM
|
Where's the tail in the diagram illustration? How does the presence of the tail impact what the judge is observing? Hardly seems a good representation when the tail is missing??
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge...argument is an exchange of ignorance". by unknown
Support This Site With Your Pigeon Product Purchase-Over 100 Pigeon Products!
|
turkey buzzard
23 posts
Feb 27, 2008
10:10 AM
|
Scott and others, judging is a volunteer job. Taking off time from families etc. Most judges, except for the finials are gotton by the Regional Directors. The Directors should be held responsible for not getting a judge. You should scold the Regional Director for not getting the judge like the one you may want. Their is no school or accrediation for judging it's based on some rules written down and the rest is left to interpretation. So what if someone scores 2000 pts. as long as that judge scores all the birds at every loft the same. Speak and list the judges names on the list if you do not believe they can judge so that every one will know who to watch out for.
Some people speak about the high scores (Moderated) gives fliers when he judges, but I for one can see no wrong with it because he judges every kit the same.
Just my Opinion,
Carl R. Braker
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 1:15 PM
|
Sandy91, SA Region 3
209 posts
Feb 27, 2008
11:38 AM
|
It would have been nice to know who flew the best kit ever to date but we will never know because the judges are so diffrent. Eg. Someone wins a W/Cup with 300 pionts with an brilliant kit and the following year the winner has over 2000 pionts. Of course most people will think the 2000 piont kit were the best witch may not be the case. Or say for instance the same person win two times in a row, the first time with 300 pionts and the second time with more than 2000 pionts. The birds could not have gotten "SO" good in a years time.
We should try to get some kind of consistancy especially in a W/Cup.
Just my opinion.
Thys
|
Scott
110 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:13 PM
|
"And as Fly Director, it would much easier to deal with complaints from flyers about a judge's estimation of depth at certain distances,"
And that Cliff is why the rules state that the judge shall not score anything that does not meet his standard ,and that the judges call is final.
Other than scheduling the judge the fly director has no power over any judges call or judging, nor should he ever or the integrity of the entire fly could be lost,your answer should be direct and simple as there is only one answer that you can give them,and it is in the rules and that is what I wrote above.
You are always going to have someone crying over something.
normaly it comes to what the judge will "not" score and more than likely it is because they want birds that roll with a fault scored ,and or they don't know the difference, that is not the judges fault.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 4:39 PM
|
Scott
111 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:18 PM
|
"The reason flyers become agitated during a fly is because the Rules do not mention anything about coming out backwards. Why wouldn't a flyer question a judge that judges this way?"
Cliff, they should question the judge, that is how they are going to learn.
When I'm judging any more I try to go into detail after the fly about what I saw and why I scored the kit the way I did , this seems to go a long way.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 5:53 PM
|
Scott
112 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:22 PM
|
"I find your resistance to scoring a 10 foot break interesting, but I understand your desire to raise the standard of performance that is scored. Why not simply score the 10-footers in the break (if the minimum quality is present) and ding the kit on the depth multiplier? "
Cliff, I have no resistance what so ever in judging 10' birds, But I want to "know" that they are going ten ft.
Generaly I want to see some seperation, when I see seperation than I "know" that they went 10' for sure and it leaves little doubt,duration also is a valuable tool.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
113 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:24 PM
|
"Where's the tail in the diagram illustration? How does the presence of the tail impact what the judge is observing? Hardly seems a good representation when the tail is missing?? "
Tony,the diagram is nothing more than to illistrate wing position.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
114 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:27 PM
|
"Ken/Scott,
Try to stay focused, here, guys. Nobody is advocating scoring birds with faults like winging-switching or slow, sloppy tumbling. You are missing the whole point of the discussion....
Cliff "
Did I miss something Cliff, this is the whole point of the discussion,scoreing birds that roll with a fault verses scoreing only birds that don't, PS you left one of the faults out,that being exiting sloppy and or backwards.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
Scott
115 posts
Feb 27, 2008
12:40 PM
|
"So what if someone scores 2000 pts. as long as that judge scores all the birds at every loft the same. Speak and list the judges names on the list if you do not believe they can judge so that every one will know who to watch out for.
Some people speak about the high scores (Moderated) gives fliers when he judges, but I for one can see no wrong with it because he judges every kit the same. "
Carl, this above is one huge problem, everytime you score garbage with no thought to what is right verses wrong, no thought to waterfall verses a real break,bunch of activity where there is no break and throwing a number on as if it were,no attention to depth ect,you just robbed a good team that is rolling crisp with clean breaks,scoreing what I wrote above is where those goofy score come from Carl.
Put a loose judge under a good clean breaking quality kit and they don't look that loose, put that same judge under just an active kit and that is where there true colors show, the reason for this is that the breaks of a good quality team is going to be decisive and undeniable, the other is just made up,that is the kind of judging that you just described above.
With some of these judges we just don't have a clue what kind of kit won, how can you when they are scoreing anything and everything under the sun.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 1:14 PM
|
Scott
116 posts
Feb 27, 2008
1:02 PM
|
"I see very few 2.0 birds in most competition kits. I bet it is the same with you. I also bet there are many more 1.0-1.5 birds being flown than 2.0 birds. So, in reality, it takes a more competent judge to score a kit of 1.0-1.5 birds than a kit of 2.0 birds.
YITS,
Cliff "
This is where it gets dicey Cliff, I use the 1.5 range for HIGH quality, and the 1.3-1.4 for good to very good quality .
I tried useing 1.5 one time for GOOD quality and ended up with a problem as to what had to be scored to hit the 1.0-1.3 range.
Never do I want to leave a door open for inferior birds to take the day,so either you don't score them at all you fiddle with your calls and be inconsistant which is a bad thing also.
I see 2.0 as the brass ring that can't be had and just a finger tip away but yet you always strive for it.
Keeping in mind that the multipliers are an AVERAGE.
I have given a 1.6 twice , one was for a kit that only had one break,if he had more breaks chances are at least some would have been less quality and that multiplier would have dropped, the other was Rick schoeney (sp) last year, it was a very nice clean breaking quality kit, I was kicking a 1.7 around in my head but didn't pull the trigger due to a couple of lesser breaks that I scored, he ended up with 249 points,which is pretty good from me.
Here is the kicker, if I judged without a quality standard he probably would'nt have won, what a shame that would have been
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
maxspin
193 posts
Feb 27, 2008
1:16 PM
|
Scott,
I just don't follow you on this one.
I think that we all agree that we would rather see a kit of high quality performers win over a kit of active birds.
Your resistance to score over a 1.5 seems to fly in the face of that.
I would think that you would advocate using the multipliers to give the "better" kits as much advantage as possible.
I admit not having enough experience, so I must be missing something here.
Keith Maxwell
|
Scott
117 posts
Feb 27, 2008
1:39 PM
|
Keith, there is no resistance, keep in mind that awarding the multipliers are an "average" of every bird scored within every break scored, it is far from being cookie cutter,some are always going to be lesser and some superior no matter how good the team.
And you must always leave room to go higher if a team merits it.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
kcfirl
322 posts
Feb 27, 2008
1:40 PM
|
Keith,
I agree with you on this one. I believe we need to award higher multipliers to high quality kits. I have gone as high as 1.6 1.6 but would award even higher today.
The way to seperate and award the true Birmingham Roller with the points and the score, is to award high multipliers to the quality kits.
Otherwise, frequency wins the day, every time.
Ken
|
kcfirl
323 posts
Feb 27, 2008
1:44 PM
|
Whether a bird is breaking simulataneously with the others has nothing to do with no fault rollers - ie. identifying champions.
Simultaneous breaking is a way of judging kits of tumblers, not Birmingham rollers i my humble opinion.
When the old guys of the early 1900's were judging champion birmingham rollers, they were not concerend with concert performance, they were concerned with straight, stylish, fast, deep, and to an extent frequency.
Only the competition tumbler guys flying kit competitions were concerned with instantaneous breaks.
Ken firl
|
Mongrel Lofts
532 posts
Feb 27, 2008
5:50 PM
|
Ken F,
So what your saying is we have taken what the old Birmingham roller men did in the early 1900's and improved it.. Asking that birds roll in turns like Birmingham rollers, not tumblers.. I think They would be impressed with that improvement.. Lets not lose it by going back to scoring tumblers in breaks.. Agreed? KGB
Whether a bird is breaking simulataneously with the others has nothing to do with no fault rollers - ie. identifying champions.
Simultaneous breaking is a way of judging kits of tumblers, not Birmingham rollers i my humble opinion.
When the old guys of the early 1900's were judging champion birmingham rollers, they were not concerend with concert performance, they were concerned with straight, stylish, fast, deep, and to an extent frequency.
Only the competition tumbler guys flying kit competitions were concerned with instantaneous breaks.
Ken firl
|
420
32 posts
Feb 27, 2008
5:53 PM
|
NO
|
Mongrel Lofts
533 posts
Feb 27, 2008
6:04 PM
|
The fact of the matter is that we need to define the min quality...and define a min scorable roll...if we defined the rules and made them understood by all..we would not have the debate....
Paul,
I agree with you here.. How about this,, Rolls straight! No deviation or hitches in the roll for no less than 10 feet. Rotation fast enough that it can not be counted by the naked eye. Style High X and must come out of the roll clean. 1.0 Quality and 1.0 depth for the above. Anything less than this standard is of to low of quality to be scored as a roller. Any thing higher quality than this minimum standard and you start to go up with the multipliers. To me, the above is adequate.. What do you think? KGB
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 6:05 PM
|
fhtfire
1262 posts
Feb 27, 2008
6:13 PM
|
Mongrel,
Sounds good..don't forget that it comes out the right direction...I like what you wrote...min of 10', Rolls straight, can't count the revs with the naked eye, snaps from the roll clean and facing the right direction...now we are on to something!!!
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
kcfirl
325 posts
Feb 27, 2008
7:21 PM
|
kgb,
no I don;t think we've improved the Birmingham roller, I actually think we've taken some of the birmingham roller and bred towards co ptumblers in some ways.
I'm just saying the current rules aren't moving us in the right direction from what I can see because oif how they are applied.
I've changed my htinking on this over the last few years.
Firl
|
Scott
121 posts
Feb 27, 2008
7:26 PM
|
Ken ,I hope you aren't driving while useing that BlackBerry LOL
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
W@yne
1128 posts
Feb 27, 2008
9:56 PM
|
Guys
Why should we make it hard for a judge to score a kit of birds the job is hard enough as it is. The rules that KGB mentioned above look good to me and would make a kit of birds much easier to be Scored.
There's nothing worse than trying to judge a kit of birds that have faults amongst the kit its hard for the judge an hard on the flyer when he gets his score card so if we adhere to this certain standard then i think we can all be happy and benefit from this
I am all for making it as simple as possible for the judges so no one gets confused and the judge can go out there without criticism and enjoy the fly with no people nasty mouthing them behind there backs.
Am i asking too much here?
----------
Regards
W@yne UK
Patience Perseverance Perfection
=====================================
Last Edited by on Feb 27, 2008 9:57 PM
|
kcfirl
326 posts
Feb 27, 2008
11:18 PM
|
Scott,
no I'm not but trying to type while feeding a 6 month old is NOT recommended.
I like KGB's take as a start.
Firl
|
Shadow
104 posts
Feb 28, 2008
1:13 AM
|
Cliff
Almost all involved here including yourself appear to believe the current rules create too many grey areas,why bother then trying to modify or clarify them so as you asked here is my defination of rule flys that would be fairer to ALL
types of rolling.
Min depth 20 ft,this will give Judges a better chance to get it right than say current 10ft
Kit Breaks marked at 1/4, 1/2 3/4 FULL TURN
Min of 5+ = 1/4 10+=1/2 15+ 3/4 20= Full Turn
All breaks together. ie no 1/2 second
Quality points say 20 Max awarded to each bird capable of earning same.
Kitting points also.
The sliding scale of 20 pts per bird is available to all birds,with ordinary rollers at one end,good to class roller at other,this would eliminate a good deal of grey areas.
What do you think Cliff, all the best
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 1:15 AM
|
Ballrollers
1064 posts
Feb 28, 2008
5:25 AM
|
KGB
Now we are getting somewhere! I like it! So a break of 5 high-X quality birds going 10 feet will be awarded a 1.0 Q; and a break of 5 high-H quality birds going 10 feet will get a 1.1 Q. OK, Great! Now, I got a little suggestion for you and Paul and whoever else wants to go this route. Why don't you guys convince your local clubs to enact these rules for a few "TEST" flys? Get some real-time feed-back from the flyers. See how they like it; see if there are any unexpected problems. I mean , no use getting the national club involved in this till we know it will be well accepted by the guys.
The point is, I think I remember back several years ago when the WC was just getting started, they changed the minimum break from 1/4 turn to 1/2 turn. It didn't seem like a big deal to the guys who asked for the change to improve quality standards and bigger breaks. As I recall, it did not go over too well and the WC had to go back to the prior rules that had been proven to work. It seems too few men even got scores at all and since they had nothing, to evaluate their birds on , they weren't too keen on supporting the next fly. Does anybody else remember that example of an attempt to "improve" the scoring system? Had they done what I suggest to you here, maybe that problem could have been avoided. It shouldn't be that big of a deal with the clout you men carry in your local area. I bet it will be a slam-dunk. Keep us posted on the scores and any feed back you want to share with us.
Shadow
Personally, I like the way you are thinking....but I can tell you, now, that such wholesale, big changes in the scoring system would never be passed. Heck, we couldn't even get the name of the fly changed from the Fall Fly to the National Championship! We might get away with defining the existing rules a little more clearly, but that's as far as I think we'll get. Have you seen Guil Rand's graduated system of scoring in the Bulletin a couple issues ago? I think he is on target, also.
Do you know of any club currently using rules as you suggested? If so, how is it working? And can you educate us on how the quality points would work? Could a low wing-position score quality points? Am I correct that each individual bird is evaluated for quality points; not just an average quality of the birds that performed during a break? Could birds get kitting points that did not roll in the break? Is it conceivable that an axle wing roller could score quality points? There are a lot of things to consider, as you can see.
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 5:31 AM
|
Scott
124 posts
Feb 28, 2008
8:55 AM
|
Cliff and all,what Kenny suggested is basicly the old 11 bird standard, in other words not scoreing birds when they roll with a fault, he just didn't beat around the bush with it.
It is a good min. standard and will go along way in educating flyers and couldn't help but raise the bar and get a little consistancy.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 9:01 AM
|
kcfirl
328 posts
Feb 28, 2008
9:18 AM
|
Scott,
I am in total agreement on this. I am surprised to hear you say you are since you have been so strongly arguing against a minimum quality standard.
Please help me understand your position.
thanks,
Ken
|
W@yne
1129 posts
Feb 28, 2008
10:10 AM
|
Lets test this , WAYNE and others from the UK or anywhere else , should birds that roll with any of the faults that I described above ever be scored ?
Scotty
In my opinion and i will speak for the UK guys in general most who dont have the privilage to use a computer i think i am talking 99% would say a BIG
NEVER NO NO NO NO NO .
LOL Hope this helps
----------
Regards
W@yne UK
Patience Perseverance Perfection
=====================================
|
Scott
125 posts
Feb 28, 2008
10:15 AM
|
Ken, if it is the right min standard I have little problem problem with it.
But, I see this a couple of different ways and I'm not sure that you are following what I am saying about locking it in.
My fear is that it can create problems when a judge or flyer doesn't know the difference, it is like the suggested 10' min., if it didn't say "suggested" that means it is locked in stone and if someone or group of flyers disagrees then what ? and that is why I think dropping it in as a "sugested" standard is a better option
But also if also states "the judges call is final" then that should trump any potential problems,but yet he can still be accused of not judging by the rules and some will think that there is someone over the judges head,that being the fly director,some issues can turn into a can of worms,but then mybe maybe not.
I've been accused of not judging by the rules myself because I "try" to judge by the standard Kenny out lined above, many think that you score anything that goes 10' regardless and then use the multipliers to seperate it.
The real problem of coarse is that they don't know the rules themselfs though because it clearly states that the judge shall not score anything that doesn't meet his standard,just kind of thinking out loud here and I'm not sure what the best approach is to be honest.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2008 10:18 AM
|