Bill C
312 posts
Apr 04, 2009
2:27 PM
|
Scott, It sounds to me like the floppers were not scored if the judge said I gave a 1.2 for those that rolled and were scoreable. That would be a reason not to get a 1.5 and for quality that could also be a reason. If he saw 8 to 10 birds with a 1.2 but the deep tumblers going 1.6 depth were not scored then there you have it.
Off cousre we were not there to see the fly and I am only basing my statement on what I've read above.
I also think CLiffs statement has good wieght to it. Just look at the Bible, there are so many ways people view truth and yet they all read Gods word but end up with many different doctirnes. Same with judging a kit, the more you see out there the more you can identify quality. Bill C
|
Velo99
2081 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:10 PM
|
Scott,
Thats the crux of the discussion we were having. Too many judges think that 1.0 is the starting point when it IS NOT.
"Next the raw score shall be multiplied by a quality factor of 1.0 for "adequate" to 2.0 for "truly phenomenal" based upon the judges overall impression of the average quality exhibited in all of the turns scored."
From Dictionary.com
adequate:
adjective
1. having the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task; "she had adequate training"; "her training was adequate"; "she was adequate to the job"; "he was equal to the task" [ant: inadequate]
2. sufficient for the purpose; "an adequate income"; "the food was adequate"; "a decent wage"; "enough food"; "food enough"
3. about average; acceptable; "more than adequate as a secretary"
If its just like the last 300 kits you judged it gets 1.0.
yit
ps
As Bill noted I wasnt there and was relating a "war story".
----------
V99
blue sky single beat
in cadance performing now
earth beckons the winged
drawn breath is let quickly forth
orchestral movement follows
___ ~_____
\__\_/-|_| \__\____
/()_)__14___()_)\__\
Last Edited by on Apr 04, 2009 7:23 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3207 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:20 PM
|
Mike, yeah, I kinda thought he was talking birds, I was talking philosophy which I love. I guess my point I was trying to make was that saying that "there are no absolutes" is in itself an absolute statement, so are there or aren't there absolutes? LOL
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1813 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:32 PM
|
Kenny
Can you verify what rule states that 1.0 is the multi for an average kit? To me "adequate" means "minimum"...barely adequate...
If 1.0 is average what multi is given to a MINIMAL D&Q scoring kit?
If we can define a MINIMUM performance roller being, say 10 foot low X as a 1.0 D&Q, then we could better define an average performance roller as something deeper and higher quality spin. Each judge "ESTIMATES" the performance observed and "AVERAGES" that performance, some may be better and some may be not as good ( meaning the birds performance). In my opinion, 1.0 is not an AVERAGE kit but a minimal scoring kit.
While the judge you speak of and myself may both score the kit 1.0 D&Q, we differ in the definition of 1.0 being average.....is all. :))
The 1-2-3 scoring system gives the judge the latitude to score kit performance from a MINIMUM performance to a ultimate performance, from 1.0-2.0. So from a strictly mathematical point of view, 1.5 is AVERAGE. It is all in the way we define our terms.
Is 1.0 average or is it better described as a minimal score for a shallow depth, not high quality and not high velocity, kit of rollers?
NOW if we are talking about NATIONALLY, taking all kits involved in competitions and run the numbers, I would expect a large majority of the kits to score below 1.3. From that stat, one could draw the conclusion that 1.0-1.3 is "AVERAGE". Do you think that is what he is talking about?
Cliff
|
Bill C
313 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:36 PM
|
Tony, that clears it up. Yes there are aboslutes, you are correct and now I understand your point better. Even though you were talking to Mike, just thought I would mention it.
Velo99 and Scott, I agree with you that the rules say 10 feet and not tumblers. But you all know that most new guys to the sport get a Zero or no score for lack of quality most would not continue in the competitions. So even though judges might start with a 1.0 the score is so low any way that it does no real harm. Many of us had zero and it didn't stop us, but its a rock and a hard place when you want to promote new flyers in your area and then we have rules so strict that they cannot enjoy flying their birds due to getting a fat zero. So I dont have a problem with that 1.0 even if the bird or a few of them were tumblers instead of rolling. I think it would be a rare event that all the birds were tumblers, surely a few would be rolling.
I'm not promoting crap rollers, just look at it from their point of view. I see most every guy into comp improve year after year. Maybe not leaps and bounds but they see good birds and often a guy will get a better family that has velocity and quality in order to improve his stock and move forward. BillC
Last Edited by on Apr 04, 2009 7:41 PM
|
Bill C
314 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:55 PM
|
The thing I think no judge should score is when you see three birds rolling and three that drop and do not roll, tumble or anything and its counted as a 5 bird break. That kind of judging goes on alot and we have all seen when there are not all the birds doing what they should be doing. Sometimes it has been two rolling and five just drop with out rolling or the birds kind of spread and and seprate from the kit and it was not a real beak. That is the part that guys get confused on when they see seperation and not rolling and count them as breaks. Bill C
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1814 posts
Apr 04, 2009
7:59 PM
|
Tony,
You misquoted me....I did not say "there are NO absolutes in life"....which contradicts itslef, as you said, and is an absolute statement. I said, "There are VERY FEW absolutes in life....." so your counter-position is not a valid one since it didn't actually deal with what was said! LOL!
My response "There are very few absolute truths in life. Truth is relative to one's experience of life and to one's perspective. What is true for one is not necessarlily true for another," was to Jay's question, "What is the truth?" Whether taken in a broad context of life, or in dealing with rollers, the staement is actually one of the most profound statements in life. The more experience of life I gain, the more accurate I find it to be.
For example, truth depends on the culture in which we are raised, and the circumstances of life. One could say that it is wrong to steal..truth...but if a man steals to put bread on his table for his children, for him the statement may not be true.
In some cultures, it may be "true" that cutting off a hand for stealing is justified......in other cultures that may not be true.....it may be looked on as barbaric. It may be true that burping is rude in some cultures but in others it is a compliment to the chef. Get the drift of the statement now?
When it comes to rollers, it is true for me, based on the things that I have read about the origins of rollers and the develooment of the Birmingham Roller, and in my experience working with my family, it is true for me that the quality of performance is outstanding and the importation of the Indigo factor eighty years ago is irrelevant to the Birmingham Roller as a performance breed. To the purist, the importation of any additional genes after the turn of the century (or some line in the sand, somewhere) is a travesty and detracts from the ourity of the breed. For one guy, the truth of the best best way to feed rollers is 50-50 wheat and milo...for another, it is 50-50 wheat and peas. So all truth is relative and depends upon ones perspective and experience of life. We might think it is true that matter is solid, and now we are finding out that matter is composed of mostly space. So there are few absolute "rights" or "wrongs'..."truths" or "untruths". For most supposedly "absolute" truths, we are finding out that under certain contions they are not really true. Make more sense now, Tony?
Cliff
Last Edited by on Apr 04, 2009 8:08 PM
|
Velo99
2083 posts
Apr 04, 2009
8:17 PM
|
Cliff,
Thats pretty close to what I had in mind. I think the mults are used too liberally. One 10 bird break with an inflated multi can add 40-50 points to an underperforming kit.
----------
V99
blue sky single beat
in cadance performing now
earth beckons the winged
drawn breath is let quickly forth
orchestral movement follows
___ ~_____
\__\_/-|_| \__\____
/()_)__14___()_)\__\
Last Edited by on Apr 04, 2009 8:28 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
3208 posts
Apr 04, 2009
8:32 PM
|
LOL, Cliff, yeah, like I have $500 to pay my $1000 mortgage, but I tell the bank it is $1000 because that's all I have for my mortgage payment, so it must be the proper amount. It's "right" for me because it works for my situation. Try telling that to the bank. lol
Try telling the merchant's hungry child that he won't be eating tonight because the bread he was bringing home for him is missing from the shelf in which it was placed.
You are not describing "truth" but moral relativism.
----------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
pigeon pete
263 posts
Apr 05, 2009
5:56 AM
|
Averages and pecentages generally confuse me, but I do know that if 1.0 is for an average kit, then all kits must be 1.0. (simple math).
The difficult thing for a judge is that the multiplyer he gives must be an average of the breaks he scores, so a multiplyer of 1.0 for depth means that all the breaks scored were just rolling to a minimal depth, and any deeper birds were not scored often enough to raise the multiplyer off the base line. Judges could score 1.05 or similar but not many seem to use that option. Also another often misquote is that they must roll 10ft to score. The rules do not state that they must roll 10ft.
If all birds had to roll perfectly with absolutely no observable fault to score 1.0, then most kits wouldn't score in my opinion. The difference between a perfectly rolling break, and a phenomenal break would be difficult to gauge. I believe that to score, a bird must be seen to be rolling to a reasonable standard, and birds rolling sideways, or twisting about in the roll wouldn't score under me, but a kit of birds that break, and all pigeons are rolling perfectly would be worth 1.5 not 1.0 to my way of thinking. You still have a lot of leeway to score higher if you see a kit of rollers that are better than perfect!
Pete.
|
0221
144 posts
Apr 05, 2009
7:08 AM
|
Can someone please post the W.C. rules on here. I thought they said 10 feet,rollers not tumblers and at least 5, to even score.
|
Velo99
2086 posts
Apr 05, 2009
7:51 AM
|
World Cup:
Scoring. It is mandatory for the region to furnish a timekeeper/scribe for the fly-off judge for each finalist. The judge shall simply estimate and record the number of birds rolling adequately in unison for each break involving 5 or more. The suggested minimum depth for scoring is 10 feet. Afterwards, the judge shall multiply those numbers by 1 for 5-9, 2 for 10-14, 3 for 15-19 and 5 for 20. Those results shall be added together to produce a raw score. Next the raw score shall be multiplied by a quality factor of 1.0 for "adequate" to 2.0 for "truly phenomenal" based upon the judges overall impression of the average quality exhibited in all the turns scored. Likewise, a depth or duration factor of 1.0 to 2.0 shall be multiplied to produce a final score. The judge shall announce the final score before leaving.
----------
V99
blue sky single beat
in cadance performing now
earth beckons the winged
drawn breath is let quickly forth
orchestral movement follows
___ ~_____
\__\_/-|_| \__\____
/()_)__14___()_)\__\
Last Edited by on Apr 05, 2009 7:52 AM
|
0221
145 posts
Apr 05, 2009
8:02 AM
|
pigeon pete,
Please read post 2086.
Velo99 Thank You.
|
Scott
1979 posts
Apr 05, 2009
8:22 AM
|
Pete, never should a kit of birds rolling like culls be put in a position where they can score over a team of birds that roll correctly,would some teams not score ? yes, but why should they ? To top it off it sets a low bar for what is acceptable and goes right back to the heading of this thread, myself I can't make myelf score birds that don't roll correctly from start to finish.
There is markable differences between poorer style, speed ect. to seperate acceptable from great.
As for the 10 ft, 10 ft is dicy to judge for sure as it is just too close to the edge , when I'm on a short kit I just call the ones that I know were there and I don't split hairs, one thing that I've noticed is that these Santa Clause judges pay absolutly no attention to depth.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Apr 05, 2009 8:38 AM
|
0221
146 posts
Apr 05, 2009
8:41 AM
|
I just saw a kitt last sunday score over a 1000 points that only had 3 bird that rolled a scorable depth, in My opinion. The flyer said to Me, well what do You think? Very proudly, And I said to Him. I only saw 3 birds that rolled over 10 feet. He agreed with Me. What do You do? The judge, in My opinion did Him an injustice. Now the flyer thinks He has arrived. I mignt add, most of the birds were only milling, just flutter.
|
JMUrbon
685 posts
Apr 05, 2009
9:02 AM
|
What I have found with most of these as Scott put it " Santa Clause Judges " is the fact that they really cant determine either because of poor vision or the fact that they just cant tell the difference. As for the differences in quality. To me they are very decisive and if you ask me I think there are far to few 1.0's given out and to many judges are afraid to give them out. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
pigeon pete
265 posts
Apr 05, 2009
10:39 AM
|
Dear Mr Velo or 0221 or what ever, why should I want to read that post, it is just a cut and paste of the rules, what are you trying to say?
Pete
|
0221
148 posts
Apr 05, 2009
10:44 AM
|
Pete, read Your post, You said it was a misquote that the birds had to roll 10 feet. thats why I ask someone to post the rules. Thats all I was wondering about. have fun.
|
pigeon pete
266 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:07 AM
|
If anyone wants to know the World cup rules (and not just someones personal interpretation which is what we usually get) then go onto the WC site at worlcupfly.com
As an example 0221, told me to read the rules. I think he was trying to being clever because I stated that the rules do not say that they must roll 10ft minimum
depth. I suggest he read post 2086 himself, again and again until he realises that he is interpreting the suggested minimum as a hard rule..
In dozens of posts from some quite literate men I've seen it stated that they MUST roll 10ft to score but that's not what the rule says.
Scott, Why are you telling me that culls should not score? I've been competing long enough to know that.
Maybe you are one of these that think anything that is not as good or better than your birds are just culls?
Read my post I didn't say to score culls, I said if we only score perfect rollers, and then only give them 1.0, then what are is the multiplyers for?
I would compete in a fly that only scored top quality (I did once and got very few points LOL), but the flys like the World cup would no longer be flown, because we need the dozens of low quality kits that you scorn to raisze the cash to run the thing in the first place.
If only perfect birds are to be scored, then you will have about 99% less competition, so you should win, but it may cost you $1000 per kit. Take your choice.
I have seen poor rollers scored in the WC final, but you can't legislate for sloppy judging or judges with a low opinion of what constitutes 'adequate', rules can always be tightened, or explained better, but most sets of rules I've seen are at best a bit vauge.
Pete.
Pete
|
pigeon pete
267 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:12 AM
|
0221,
Why would I want to read my post, I wrote it so I know whats in it already,LOL
Pete
|
0221
149 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:20 AM
|
Pete, I did reread it and still think it says 10 feet. The competion is for rollers not tumblers. I wasn't trying to be clever, What does 10ft minimum mean? 5or6 feet. Have a nice day.
|
Scott
1980 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:32 AM
|
(Pete, if a bird doesn't have the capability to roll correctly it is a cull in my book, with no standard we might as well just fly glorified tumblers )
Scott
Scott, Why are you telling me that culls should not score? I've been competing long enough to know that.
Maybe you are one of these that think anything that is not as good or better than your birds are just culls?
Read my post I didn't say to score culls, I said if we only score perfect rollers, and then only give them 1.0, then what are is the multiplyers for?
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
pigeon pete
268 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:47 AM
|
0221,
yes very funny,
you have one too.
Pete
|
pigeon pete
269 posts
Apr 05, 2009
11:57 AM
|
Scott,
I think you already know that I agree with:--
(Pete, if a bird doesn't have the capability to roll correctly it is a cull in my book, with no standard we might as well just fly glorified tumblers )
In fact from what I've seen, many flyers ARE flying glorified tumblers by some defintions. The competition birds have got shorter over the years. Whole kits rolling 30ft used to be the norm at one time, and I would say that most kits flown in recent years average half of that depth. If a guy flying 20ft rollers gets 1.7 in the WC final and it is one of only a few with that score, it leads me to think that the majority are flying 10ft birds because you always see more 1.0 or 1.2 than 1.7's.
YITS,
Pete
|
Scott
1982 posts
Apr 05, 2009
12:35 PM
|
Pete, we have to choose our judges carefully ,if we accept less we will get less, it is as simple as that.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
j .wanless
706 posts
Apr 05, 2009
1:19 PM
|
hi all
the big problem with the judges in the w/c is because the w/c as become too big.so most of the so called good judges can not afford to take the time off work that it takes to go around the world.
|
norlan hollingate
1940 posts
Apr 05, 2009
2:34 PM
|
good post scott
they must do it in the sky to evern think about breeding off it
there is people on the uk site who say they will breed off none rollers if they are from good parents why would you evern keep a none roller never mind stock it
nothing is 100% with rollers but i think people are going the right way if they are breeding from birds wich can actually do wat they are surpose to do [roll]
a friend of mine did the mass breeding thing n yes he could put a good team out but over 3/4 years totally lost quality depth n kitting if u mass breed for a couple of years n keep only the best then work with
them n get rid of everything else evern the parents
|
gotspin7
2356 posts
Apr 05, 2009
2:41 PM
|
Norlan, why would you get rid of the parents if they are making you the goods? I understand going thru your breeders and making sure you cull out the one's that do not breed to your liking (producing good birds)but if they are making you good one's why would you move away from them? What guarantees do you have that their kids will reproduce themselves?
----------
Sal Ortiz
|
Velo99
2088 posts
Apr 05, 2009
6:36 PM
|
OK Pete,
Here we go. Touche` on the 10 foot minimum SUGGESTED depth. 0221,the tumbler comment is in the NBRC rules.
Back to Pete.
The 1.0 is for adequate rollers. Thats rollers that perform to the standard for a suggested minimum of 10 feet. Now I suppose it is up to the judge to set the bar for adequate. If,there we go IF`n,the birds spin like hell for 10 15 feet they should get a higher than average multi for q but 1.0 for depth. If they are slow assed x wingers 1.0,adequate but not pretty.
I dont believe in not scoring for coming out with a plate. There are birds that it is a fault because they just cant help it. You have to pay attention.
I have seen birds that are looking for the kit when they come out of the roll and do it. It is a use of their skill in locating the kit.
If you see a bird do it only a few times,a half plate with his head over his shoulder in the direction of the kit,it isnt an involuntary plate and scorable.
yits
----------
V99
blue sky single beat
in cadance performing now
earth beckons the winged
drawn breath is let quickly forth
orchestral movement follows
___ ~_____
\__\_/-|_| \__\____
/()_)__14___()_)\__\
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1815 posts
Apr 05, 2009
7:22 PM
|
Guys
How can we remedy the issues with udges that have vision problems, judges that count by 5's, judges that do not know the rules, judges that simply cannot estimate depth well, or judges that are biased because of the reputation of the flyer or even the color of the feathers?
We play with pigeons, we are a backyard hobby, we depend on volunteers, to run our clubs, and to handle the judging. There is no pay for the judges and there are no monetary rewards for those who win.
We demand perfection from our birds and from the men who evaluate our kits but who among us is perfect ?
WHO ARE WE KIDDING?
0221.... It is "SUGGESTED" that 10 foot be the minimum before a ROLLER can be judged/counted.
BUT... Scott and Joe are correct in their remarks if we are looking at "SCORING NUMBERS"....."TOTAL POINTS". Please, let me change the focus of this and see if this helps. What if NO SCORES, were posted ? What if all the judge did was report the ranking of the kits? This would not help poor judging at all but it may help us get back to the importance of who Qualifies/wins.
10 flyers compete, what is the most important thing? The score or who won?
Just a few years ago, many regions were won with scores less than 100 and finals scores rarely over 200-300. Do we remember who won.....or what their score was?
If we can focus on who won, that may help lessen this importance connected with the NUMBERS; but still we must find a way to help the regions/finals pick QUALIFIED JUDGES.
I agree that many judges are better at counting birds in a break than determining if all birds met the minimum depth. Next would be the problem of actually averaging the Quality of the birds that counted in the breaks. I, along with many men here, can see the problems.....but how to help fix these short-comings, is a whole lot harder than just pointing fingers.
These "FAIRNESS ISSUES" will do us in unless we accept the limitations of our own human frailties. WE must accept the basic concept that each judge is doing his dead level best each time he evaluates a kit. What other recourse have we?
Cliff
|
0221
156 posts
Apr 05, 2009
7:37 PM
|
Cliff, if You have rule's, we should stick by them. But here is what I think would be good. lets say 20 people fly in a region, I think the birds that I want to take home when the fly is over, is the winner. What kind of crap do you think that would start. Let Me say, I'm only killing time on here. If I'm out of line I'll stop posting. You be the judge. keep looking up.
|
Scott
1986 posts
Apr 05, 2009
9:09 PM
|
Kenny, what is coming out with a plate ? are meaning not coming out of the roll cleanly and correctly ?
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
pigeon pete
271 posts
Apr 06, 2009
3:59 AM
|
On the subject of judges, as touched on by JW and Scott.
The WC winner gets the chance to judge the next years fly so the point about picking decent judges is irrelevent. We get what we get, so the rules need to be as specific as possible with regards to scoring and minimum standards.
The point about judges not being paid is also irrelevant, as most of us judge because we want to, and the chance of a paid trip all around the world to judge the final doing something we love, well most of us would pay for a chance to do that.
Pete.
|
0221
157 posts
Apr 06, 2009
5:21 AM
|
The point I think Scott was trying to make on this post, was to raise the quality of the the rollers that are being flown. Not to beat up the judges. But if pigeons that are not worthy of the title roller are scored on the breaks. Well then I think this is what Bill Pensom was talking about, when He said competition's would be the ruin of the true Birmingham roller. The birds don't have to shrink into golf ball size for 40 feet to score. but a pigeon that flops around changing wings fighting the roll shoudn't be scored at all. Lets keep the Birmingham roller alive.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1816 posts
Apr 06, 2009
5:37 AM
|
Pete,
My reference about paying judges was made merely to show how better control could be maintained over their performance. If you work for somebody, they control the purse strings and you work to please them and they make the rules you follow. Just because men volunteer and "want to judge " does dot necessarily make them qualified and the same goes for the Winner of the WC/NBRC Championship. Winning doesn't make one a good judge, necessarily. Maybe that's what Scott is referring to. Let's take the right tackle of the winning team of the Super Bowl and allow him to referee as head linesman at the next Super Bowl. It wouldn't work. Just because a guy wins any contest, it does not automatically give this guy the knowledge to apply the rules properly. That said, most of the finals judges do a pretty good job, a very good job considering the hours they work and the "MONEY" they are paid....or not....LOL. I agree with you, that many of these judging situations, may be avoided if we had better written definitions, particularly involving a minimal scoring roller. If a certain distance is "SUGGESTED" that just adds to the confusion but on the other hand there is no way to PROVE a judges estimation is accurate. So we are back to square one. We should enjoy the competitions, enjoy the birds, enjoy the personalities and have fun with the hobby. It will never be perfect.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Apr 06, 2009 5:39 AM
|
bman
657 posts
Apr 06, 2009
7:50 AM
|
Ok here is one for Scott & Cliff or anyone else who has judged comp.
What is the minimum for a scoreable roller?
In other words a 10 footer,low x,clean in,clean out.
Fast enough not to be able to count revolutions.
Is that scoreable?
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
0221
158 posts
Apr 06, 2009
7:53 AM
|
I'd say that was scorable.
|
j .wanless
707 posts
Apr 06, 2009
8:11 AM
|
HI ALL
PETE your right about the winner getting 1st refusal as you well know .but you for 1 + a lot more that have won it have not been able to judge it for 1 reason or another.so then we are left with some one that gets voted to do it.also winning the w/c does not make you a good judge.so in reality we could have some one winning it + could be the worst judge there is.what i was saying is though i would love to do it i could not possibly as i have a morgage that has to be paid + i doubt if my works would let me have 12 weeks off work.like i said it has become so big only a certain few can get the time to judge it.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
1817 posts
Apr 06, 2009
8:50 AM
|
bman
The rule says the suggested minimum depth is 10 feet. As Scott has stated, 10 feet is hard to judge because it happens so fast. Standing with my arms over my head is nearly 10 ft. My experince of judges in my area is quite different from Scott's. I find that they rarely score a 10 ft. performance. It usually takes 20 ft. He seems to find that in his area, they tend to score everything that flutters. Secondly, it is very difficult to evaluate whether all the birds are meeting the judges criteria for depth and quality. Each judge may have a little different estimate on what 10 feet looks like at different distances. To answer your question, if the judge estimates the birds are performing for a minimum of 10 feet and given the other examples you listed, then yes it is suposed to be scoreable. BUT.... one judge may estimate that 10 is 8 foot in his eyes, while another may estimate that 10 foot is 20 foot in his eyes.... and both are correct under the rules. It boils down to depth perception at different distances.....and it will vary with different judges and under different conditions. I would suggest to anyone to try to place birds in the kit box that perform for a minimum of 20 feet and see if you agree with the judges evaluation. You will seldom see a short kit with high multipliers because the judge just can't see everything he needs to see in the blink of an eye.
Cliff
|
Flipmode
369 posts
Apr 06, 2009
9:51 AM
|
I say, up the suggested min. depth to 20'. Then the real 10 footers would get scored.
|
bman
658 posts
Apr 06, 2009
9:54 AM
|
Cliff, I agree with you on the depth. A ten footer just doesn't get any seperation from the kit in my view.Just wanted a baseline.
----------
Ron
Borderline lofts
|
Alohazona
599 posts
Apr 06, 2009
12:33 PM
|
Flipmode,
That is an excellent suggestion and certainly a step in the right direction.Also you will probably see better kits being flown by raising the minimum to 20'...Aloha,Todd
|
Alohazona
600 posts
Apr 06, 2009
12:53 PM
|
As for judging, this is not a perfect world no matter how much some push the point.To be a judge you have stand under a lot of kits and put your flight time in.If the NBRC man dated only a select few to judge competition kits that would be an unbeleivable task.I feel I will always be fine with who is selected to judge,as I know I would not want to be in their shoes.
So if a change is needed in the judging system,let's hear some solutions,it sure is easier to complain to no end.I seriously think some would rather keep complaining rather than initiate a change.Depth or quality of depth is only one issue,so there would probably be several changes.If it helps clarify our ability to judge ,why would we be against it?....Aloha,Todd
Last Edited by on Apr 06, 2009 12:55 PM
|
Spin City USA
205 posts
Apr 06, 2009
2:02 PM
|
A step in the right direction would be a certification program for judges by an association or club with respect. If a person had to pass some sort of test to become certified we would all know that every judge would be at least in the same range on the score. If there were too many complaints a judge could lose their certification.
I remember when we used the 1/4 turn and 1/2 turn system, and in some ways I liked it better because now know I know some people are guessing. It is easier to call a 1/2 turn and give it a bump on the quality than it is to say it was really 11,12 or was it 13 on that break? Like Alohazona said,it is easier to complain. Anything can happen if we want it to. The NBRC convention is comming up soon and something like this should be on the agenda.
----------
They gotta Spin to win.....Jay
|
norlan hollingate
1943 posts
Apr 06, 2009
2:12 PM
|
i posted this quite a while ago on the uk site that the min depth should be 20 ft then all the tumblers will not get scored
it is an average but if 10ft is min then 8to12 will get scored
but if it is 20ft min 18to22 will score short birds are horrible to watch bu do win comps so my belief is they will only get shorter n shorter unless we go to 20 ft
gotspin 7
hi m8 wat i was getting at was early on in the post it was stated that people were breeding of bumpers/rolldowns/nonerollers/etc as we all know nothing is g/teed but if u say breed 60 out of the above n get say 20/30 decent birds then start again with these its not the best way bu at least you know you are starting with birds that can do the job they should n not the trash they were breed from not saying its perfect but at least they can roll correctly not like there parents [fault birds]
|
0221
159 posts
Apr 06, 2009
2:53 PM
|
The idea is to fly quality rollers. In My mind the birds should roll (long) enough to see that there rolling correctly. Myself, I'd rather see a bird spin 1 to 2 seconds without loseing altitude, but now I'm dreaming. I don't want to dog anyone. I just want to see better rollers on the fly. Most everybody has some in there kitt. I don't have the answer, I just go crazy watching flutter get scored.
|
Scott
1988 posts
Apr 06, 2009
3:41 PM
|
Yea Cliff, you guys get the special judges LOL LOL , actualy Cliff we are pretty picky about the judges we use,so not much garbage being scored,which is also why you never see the goofy scores in our regional flys.
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
Last Edited by on Apr 06, 2009 3:44 PM
|
Scott
1991 posts
Apr 07, 2009
4:12 PM
|
Ron, this is a prime example of a 1.0
(What is the minimum for a scoreable roller?
In other words a 10 footer,low x,clean in,clean out.
Fast enough not to be able to count revolutions.
Is that scoreable?)
----------
Just my Opinion
Scott
|
j .wanless
710 posts
Apr 08, 2009
6:15 AM
|
hi all
scott dont get me wrong the last thing i would want is a kit full of birds rolling 10 ft or so.but i have a little red hen in my kit now that only rolls 10ft or so + is fantastic + plenty of people have commented on her.ive also bred the odd 1 like her before they are like lightening.put it this way they are by far better in the roll than some of the so called deep birds i have seen.lots of people seem to think if theyre deep they are good.they could not be further from the truth.
|
pigeon pete
274 posts
Apr 08, 2009
10:30 AM
|
John and Cliff,
Amen
Cliff you sure must be a big guy, I'm only just over 6ft and can only reach just over 8ft. you must be 7ft with long arms? lol
Pete
|