nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
4007 posts
Jan 03, 2010
3:40 PM
|
Changing or adding to the fly rules may not be the best way to go. I have spent some time thinking this over from every prospective I could think of. I do have a problem with the vast differences I have experienced with judges and I am not going to make any conclusions about whose judging I think or feel is right. They are all right; just different standards and preferences and it makes it difficult for some fliers to decide if they are on the right path or not. I also believe the judge has to fulfill a training obligation as well by reviewing the flier's kit with him.
Now, this leads me back to the original point or problem. Why is there the vast differences from one judge to the other? Is it the judges who need to be trained so they can teach the flier's correctly? Who is going to train the judges? Is it the fliers who need to be trained and if so, who by?
How about a train the trainers program? How about rules changes that spell out what what is expected of a kit and the individual birds?
Use the rules to train everyone; the flier and the judge?
OR train a group of roller men and women who will train other groups (this is a "train the trainers" system).
Now, the real problem will be, as always, who will train the trainers; who will train the judge(s). It always comes down to "who". Like a judge, no system will ever be perfect. But, we need to decide how we can properly train the masses or we will end up having fewer and fewer competing and this will not take the roller to any higher level.
How do we bring it (the training) to the masses the quickest? Who will be chosen to do it?
Any thoughts on this?
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
Scott
2793 posts
Jan 03, 2010
4:03 PM
|
Nick.. this has been kicked around forever.. Tom Monson mentioned one time that the key is educating the flyers.. I know in the club that I got my feet wet in we were fierce competitors.. and we judged by a strict standard.. there wasn't a finals judge come through that we ever thought was too strict..and that was pre-thousands of points days.
We chose our regionial judges carefully and worked hard at getting quality minded judges as it was how we got our teams in the right order.
Where it come's to these flys I came to the conclusion that it is what it is.. and the next year is a new fly and a new judge.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
|
donnie james
863 posts
Jan 03, 2010
5:21 PM
|
hey nick,
i'm sure if the judges get trained and i think they will see a kit of birds all different for example if their was 10 judges and they seen the same kit their going to come up 10 different answers in what they saw i think also they should leave everything alone.
----------
Donny James
"Fly The Best And Cull The Rest"
"Saying One Thing;Doing Its Another"
"Keep Your Head Planted In The Sky And Wings Spanned Wide"
1996 Piedmont Roller Club Lifetime Achievement Recipient
Portsmouth Roller Club Participation Award System Recipient 1994 '96 '97 And 2000
2001 Limestone,Ohio Sportsman's Club Lifetime Member Recipient
2002Portsmouth Roller Club Certified Judge
2004Portsmouth Roller Club Lifetime Member Recipient
"Miss Portsmouth"NBRC/90/J311 Rusty Dun Check Self Hen First Bird To Get Certified In Portsmouth Roller Club History With A Score Of 53 Judge By Joe Roe The 1993 World Cup Winner And John Bender The 1994 World Cup Winner
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2010 5:46 PM
|
viper
78 posts
Jan 03, 2010
5:24 PM
|
I'll add to Scotts by saying alot is up to the flyer or judge to put in the time and get out of your own yard to see and learn.Always seek the top spot don't settle for next time.Pick your judges that at quality mind.Open the door and let the birds do the talking.
Blake
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2010 5:25 PM
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
4008 posts
Jan 03, 2010
6:33 PM
|
Guys, We may already have the rules in place we need to do this right and to aid in the continue growth of this part of the pigeon hobby. Really, how finite do we really need to be? Even if we become more finite with rule changes we still have the judge's perception on what, if anything, has occurred that would trigger a decision or not of any rule. What will we have been gained? Maybe nothing, but added confusion.
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
Last Edited by on Jan 03, 2010 9:10 PM
|
donnie james
865 posts
Jan 03, 2010
8:47 PM
|
hay nick,
i think if they change the rules a lot of guys wouldn't fly just my opinion
----------
Donny James
"Fly The Best And Cull The Rest"
"Saying One Thing;Doing Its Another"
"Keep Your Head Planted In The Sky And Wings Spanned Wide"
1996 Piedmont Roller Club Lifetime Achievement Recipient
Portsmouth Roller Club Participation Award System Recipient 1994 '96 '97 And 2000
2001 Limestone,Ohio Sportsman's Club Lifetime Member Recipient
2002Portsmouth Roller Club Certified Judge
2004Portsmouth Roller Club Lifetime Member Recipient
"Miss Portsmouth"NBRC/90/J311 Rusty Dun Check Self Hen First Bird To Get Certified In Portsmouth Roller Club History With A Score Of 53 Judge By Joe Roe The 1993 World Cup Winner And John Bender The 1994 World Cup Winner
|
pigeon pete
476 posts
Jan 04, 2010
8:39 AM
|
Nick.
I agree with Toms obsevation.
Even with proffessional sports and proffessional referees (and not's lets not forget we are in an amature sport/hobby) you will get different standards.
The biggest bone of contention is scoring/not scoring marginal birds. With very little diference in the judges standard/perception, you may get a zero or a big score from the same kit.
We just have to accept some anomolies as part of the game.
Over a period of time, on average the better kits will do more winning.
As a competitor, all I can do, and all I want to do, is to put the best possible kit I can produce into the air, both for my satisfaction, and to imppress the judge.
Pete
Last Edited by on Jan 07, 2010 3:51 AM
|
wishiwon2
269 posts
Jan 05, 2010
2:01 PM
|
I like what Pete posted. "We just have to accept some anomolies as part of the game."
When scores vary widely from one judge to another, it does raise my eyebrows and I do make some assumptions, but it doesnt change what my goals are or how I create a team. I have to remind myself, you werent there to see it and it could have happened, as absurd as it may seem. I simply accept it as what it is, a judges opinion/evaluation of kits of rollers. Those judges who are extreme in either end of the spectrum will likely not get alot of invites to judge again, therefore, in the long run the problem will resolve its self.
As a flyer I have tried to get around and see lots of kits fly, in different areas of the country (because I believe there are local preferences. This has served to educate me what is prefered in roller performances and gives me my own comparison as to how my kits compare rather than just reading it from a score sheet. While at a fly competition, I keep my own score sheet and compare it to the judges at the end. I ask the experienced guys there, "what did you think of that kit, or bird?", "what could have been better?". It was never the clubs or anyone elses responsibilty to educate me, it MY responsibility as a flier to learn.
As a judge I am learning too. Ive realized that I have more obligation than simply calling out scores and placing teams. I need to visit with the flier more and describe what I am seeing and why I like/score it or not. My fault, and something I plan to work on in the future.
----------
Jon
If it were easy, everybody would do it
|
Scott Coe
28 posts
Jan 05, 2010
6:14 PM
|
Experiance Judgement And Training!!! Lets not forget those who JUDGE have many years of Experiance. Training come's from heart, The fact that they do it Should be enough.
juthe Haerteart.e
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
600 posts
Jan 07, 2010
9:08 AM
|
Paul,
I would say if you had a 20 bird kit all hitting 40' with scorable style and velocity, then you would be pretty close to a 2.0.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
PAUL R.
141 posts
Jan 07, 2010
11:06 AM
|
Joe, so a kit that breaks roughly 40 feet represents what? close to 2.0 is not the answer. The question again is : How deep does a kit need to be in order to get a ( 2.0 ) .
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
601 posts
Jan 07, 2010
11:56 AM
|
Paul,
Why is there air? Can I drink the water? Does a wild bear defecate in the woods? What part of 20 birds going 40 feet DEEP with proper style and velocity don't you get?
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
pigeon pete
484 posts
Jan 07, 2010
5:51 PM
|
Paul I would say around 80ft.
Rediculous I know.
As with the quality score, if the maximum depth you think it is possible for a kit to perform is lets say, 50ft; then that would maybe get a 1.8. All it is, is a scoring scale and it matters not if the 2,0 is unobtainable.
lets say you judged a kit that all rolled 50ft and you were shocked into awarding 2.0.
What would you do if the next kit all rolled 60ft?
I feel there should always be a little headroom.
If the rules stated that 40ft deserved 2.0 then that would be how I'd judge them, but I like to differentiate between very deep and even deeper still, and I would press for the maximum multiplyer to be inceased to something above 2.0.
I have seen posts asking why nobody ever gets 2.0 for quality. Like the depth question 2,0 for quality should be virtually impossible.
Think of the best roller you could imagine, and it may be better than any roller you ever saw, now imagine 20 of them rolling perfectly, and in perfect unison, at least twice a minute. with every single roll executed imppecably.
That team would deserve a 2.0. I will never see such a team let alone 2 such teams in one competition, but if I did and I awarded them both 2.0 for quality I would die happy, but scorned. lol
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
4019 posts
Jan 07, 2010
6:30 PM
|
Joe, even PE majors knows why there is air. To blow up basketballs and footballs and soccerballs
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
wishiwon2
272 posts
Jan 07, 2010
9:54 PM
|
Pete, all,
I dont believe we should think that 2.0 performances should be 'unobtainable'. They are absolutely elite, no doubt, but if they are truly unobtainable, why even have that as part of the scale. The wording of the rule says "truly phenomenal" not practically impossible.
The awarding of multipliers is a relative scale. Relative to the judges experience and perspective. I would expect as a judge matures in the hobby for his assessments to adjust slightly to what he has seen before and conceives what is possible from a team of rollers. I doubt I will ever award one, but it wont be because I dont believe it is impossible.
To answer your hypothetical 'if'; "lets say you judged a kit that all rolled 50ft and you were shocked into awarding 2.0.
What would you do if the next kit all rolled 60ft?"
I would award the next kit a 2.0 also. Then the next time I went to judge I would have greater experience, and a more sound realization what the capabilities can be. "Truly phenomenal" isnt a superlative. Its not a good, better, best, terminology. 2 teams could both be truly phenomenal and also differ at the same time.
One consideration which makes 2.0 performance extremely difficult and seemingly unacheivable, is because it is an average, so unless every break, every bird, meets that high standard it will calculate as something less. That doesnt make it impossible, just extremely rare.
I'm not trying to wordsmith your post or nit-pick details, I just prefer to hold a different philosophical perspective. I want it to be realistic so that I have something to work towards. If it can never happen, what then should I/we have as our goal, 2nd best? Goals have to be able to be accomplished, else why try, knowing ahead it cant be done ...
P.S. Joe - bears do crap in the woods, Ive seen it ...
----------
Jon
If it were easy, everybody would do it
|
PAUL R.
142 posts
Jan 07, 2010
11:31 PM
|
Jon,
You state: "The awarding of multipliers is a relative scale. Relative to the judges experience and perspective". This is not part of the rules in judging a kit. I've read the rules & it doesn't specify : Depth being from 1.0 to 2.0 would be relative to the judges experience. No, it doesn't state that.
It states: A Depth, or Duration factor of 1.0 to 2.0 shall be multiplied to produce a final score. The suggested minimum depth for scoring is 10 feet.
Okay, birds are to be judged based on ( depth ) or ( duration ). So now we have to different factors a judge may choose to score based that the birds roll at least a minimum of 10 feet. So theres our starting point, 10 feet. Where's the ending point?.....Duration? I Would believe that involves time. Are we talking about 2 seconds,3,5 or 10 seconds here.
Bottom line as I see these rules, a person judging can judge however he feels like. The only real rule he follows is the 10 feet minimum. Beyond that, well, theres no rules.
Now if we had a ( scale or a chart ) as a guideline, then we would have a more accurate score.
Then the big question: How deep is 10 feet at 200 or 300 or 500 feet.
The rules should be more specific under a guideling or scale for judging. This way we all can be on same page on fly day.
Last Edited by on Jan 07, 2010 11:33 PM
|
pigeon pete
485 posts
Jan 08, 2010
2:18 AM
|
wishi,
Truly phenomenal may not be a superlative acording to your absolute definition, it only means something that is truly extraordinary or truly outstanding, but yes do I think that to say that the term is not describing the best, is nitpicking.
Why would we not want to reserve top marks for the best?
Most reasonable people would read the words truly phenomenal and quicky work out for themselves that to get 20 rollers perfroming to a truly phenomenal standard (ON AVERAGE) for 20 minutes is not very very very likely.
Why would we want to have a scoring system that awards top marks to kits that are quite good (they must be pretty good, but as you say they are not the best).
If you used the maximum score for good kits then it would be dumbing it down in my opinion, with some judges giving top marks for 3oft and others the same for 40ft because depth, like quality is a subjective guesstimate.
Can you imagine what a farce the olympic long jump could be if the rules were changed so that anyone jumping 15ft or over would get maximum points?
They would all have to keep jumping until someone got tired or sloppy,lol
Fact is that most fanciers fly 10 - 20ft rollers in competition, but the rules give all types a chance.
Deeper rollers get extra points, better quality get extra points, but for most of us the quality maximum is something to aspire to, to work towards, but if it was easily obtainable, and kits that were of lower merit than the best were also awarded 2.0 then it would be a bit disheatening to those flyers who had put a better team in the air.
If we put a ceiling or plateu on the top performers by awarding top marks to less than perfect teams, and in doing so we removed the differential between phenomenal and very good, then we may as well just count rollers, and forget merit points or multiplyers.
Pete.
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
602 posts
Jan 08, 2010
5:28 AM
|
Jon,
I've seen the bear crap in the woods also. Kind of scary when it is still steaming!
I still say any judge that wouldn't award a 2.0 to a 20 bird kit, all doing 40' with proper style should be castrated and sent home with an axle roller in each pocket!!
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
603 posts
Jan 08, 2010
5:39 AM
|
Pete,
As far as your statement on max points, the same was said of Olympic gymnasts until Nadia Comaneche and Mary Lou Retton came along. In their cases the judges saw truly phenomenal, flawless performances and awarded them the previously unattainable score of 10.0.
I think some out there are trying to make subjective judgement way too scientific. Judging rollers is based on the eye of the judge. What his standard is for depth, style and velocity is all that counts as he is the judge. He counts the breaks, he awards the Q & D multipliers, no one else gets a vote. Once he announces a score it is final.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
pigeon pete
486 posts
Jan 08, 2010
6:31 PM
|
Sunflower.
you said,
As far as your statement on max points, the same was said of Olympic gymnasts until Nadia Comaneche and Mary Lou Retton came along. In their cases the judges saw truly phenomenal, flawless performances and awarded them the previously unattainable score of 10.0.
Exactly!, proving my point my point. Once gymnasts or any other athletes start to regularly get max points. you have to start and reconsider how those points are earned so you can restore the differential between best and second best.
I;ll retire from the discussion because some guys think that winning but not getting maximum points is comming secong best. Putting up the best team in the world seemingly means nothing if you didn't get a 2.0.
That sort of twisted logic is beyond me I'm afraid.
How can a guy say he cannot strive for the best because some scoring scale goes up way beyond the normal and may be unobtainable?
I suppose it's the same mindset that goes all whoop de de congtatulations etc, when a 1000pts is awarded in the prelims, and then turn around and say that the Finals must have been a poor afair because it was won with only a few hundred points.
Yes that's the critisism I heard the year I won the WC.
Well if we all want everyone to get thousands of points then change the rules so we have a 3.0 or 4.0 as the max multiplyer. At the same time define maximum depth as 20ft, and 3,9 for birds that are quite good. That way we will get hundreds of woderful kits wont we? LOL.
You don't need a lot of intelligence to realise that the scoring system is just a tool for the judge to use in sorting out the order of the flyers.
A tool just like builder uses a tape measure to measure walls and floors to work out an estimate of cost, or to cut his wood,
Does the builder say,"I may as well not measure these jobs anymore; because my tape measure is 50 metres long and at the most I only ever use half of it"?
Pete,
|
wishiwon2
274 posts
Jan 08, 2010
8:15 PM
|
Pete, I dont think you understood my position fully, or perhaps I didnt understand you completely, Im sorry. I hope my posts have not come across as belittling or diparaging anyone who has won or done well in any competition. I am sorry that you felt that your World Cup win was undermined by criticism. It wasnt me, I promise. I am not looking for superficial high scores either, but that is a different issue. I think you and I are closer than seems in our opinion of awarding multipliers. It is a simple difference of philosophy.
Although I would be delighted and satisfied to win a major fly competition, the win isnt my sole motivating force. I hope to someday breed and fly a perfect kit, one that is truly phenomenal, in quality, depth and work rate. If I were to believe that that goal wasnt possible or attainable, where would I be? I could be motivated by a desire to be the best, yes. Best is a comparative against someone or something else. It depends on the level of competition as to its worth. Being the best in the world is an outstanding accomplishment. It can, however, be done with birds that are not phenomenal in Q or D. I also have goals wherein I compare only against myself or compare to an ideal. In these type comparisons there is no 'best' because once you have called it 'best' then there is no room for improvement. Either the ideal was met or not, its not a ranking unless it is something less than the ideal, which is what we most always see.
This multiplier award isnt a measure of best, that is the aggregate score. It is a measure against an ideal. I choose to believe that it is possible to reach that goal of the ideal standard. There is no upper limit as that limit continues to be redefined (more so in reference to depth than quality). I never said it would be easily attainable.If you got that out of my post, Im sorry. It will be most difficult to do, always, but should be possible. I agree with you it is very unlikely to happen or that I would have he priveledge to witness it. However if we set a goal that can never be reached, whats the point?
"Does the builder say,"I may as well not measure these jobs anymore; because my tape measure is 50 metres long and at the most I only ever use half of it"? "
No, he wouldnt quit measuring, but he might ask himself why the hell do I have a 50 m tape?
Paul, it IS relative, it is a subjective judgement. Your 1.4 will be slightly different than mine. Maybe you have seen lots of excellent rollers and another guy, depending what he has seen, believes he has seen great rollers, when in fact the bird you've seen are superior to anything he knows. Your great and his great are different because of the experiences each of you has had. Its just the nature of our game. We do the best to select judges with experience, but there will always be variability.
I agree with defining a minimum, a point to begin. Im not sure if I like the idea of a scale describing all possibilities. Unless we come up with ways to objectively measure performance, there will always be variability. For now we are measuring an illusion and estimating, based on an impression (according to the rules - 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.)
You're right the rule doesnt specify that it is a relative evaluation, it just is. The rule does say, "The judge shall NOT score anything that does not meet his standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of performance. ... Roller flying is a subjective sport ... " which implies that there will be differences in judgement, because each judge is unique.
----------
Jon
If it were easy, everybody would do it
|
PAUL R.
143 posts
Jan 08, 2010
11:32 PM
|
Jon,
What exactly is the: ( standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of performance?)..... My standard may not be the same as yours or the next judge or the next. Thats why I say we need something more concrete than leaving it to everybodys guess as to what he feels it should be. explain....
|
PAUL R.
144 posts
Jan 08, 2010
11:36 PM
|
Jon,
So many good judges and very few takers to explain there : standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of performance as you state.....
That my friend shows to me the inconsistency of judging under these rules.
|
winwardrollers
402 posts
Jan 09, 2010
9:12 AM
|
Nick
You asked the question..."How about a train the trainers program? How about rules changes that spell out what is expected of a kit and the individual birds?"
We can debate back and forth but until we start educating the flyers hands on, words on paper know matter how they are written will not be adequate.
Someone in your region, even better local group should know what a quality roller looks and preforms like. This individual or individuals has the responsibility to mentor and educate. If you are having problems with local, bring a judge from surrounding area in on local flies. I say local flies this is were this needs to begin, tutoring from the best in your area.
Here is an example;
The group of guys I first flew with locally were all pretty new to the hobby. We had the rules that existed back then and read and discussed them. We panel judged with the group always making sure you would have a vetern in the group. The local flies were not taken to seriously but ment to tutor and train for bigger flies.
One guy joined and began to fly a very active kit, the bird were always doing something. The quality of the kit was not that good, but constant activity of his kit keep him in the lead. This went on for some time when he began to see that other kits had quaility he could not readly find in his kit. It took some time for him to become honest with himself that his birds weren't up to par. The main problem was that went your new you have know idea what quality looks like until you stand under it and witness it with your eyes and are honest enough with yourself to see the differance. This guy began to make changes with his rollers to up grade them now that he had been shown and taught better. First working selecting new breeder with what he already had. He began to better spot out birds during the flies that were impressive. Pretty soon he was infatuated with only top preforming birds. There was no rules change..no better defined sentances added..just his understanding of what a quality Roller looked like from hands on training by those in his area.
bwinward
Last Edited by on Jan 09, 2010 10:15 PM
|
JMUrbon
844 posts
Jan 09, 2010
10:23 AM
|
Very good post Brad. I am a strong advocate for panel judging. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
michael salus
107 posts
Jan 09, 2010
10:45 AM
|
Panel judging on local fly's is the best way for new people who haven't judged to get their feet wet. When I joined the MFRG that is how we did our club fly's. Good learning tool !!
----------
MJ
Last Edited by on Jan 09, 2010 10:47 AM
|
PAUL R.
145 posts
Jan 09, 2010
12:59 PM
|
Joe Urbon,.....Im glad to hear from you. You support panel judging which is a good training tool to help anybody that is willing to listen and learn, hopefully make changes in there flying expectations....
Now that panel judging has clean or fine tuned the kit to compete, the question still keeps comming back empty handed.. Joe.
Last Edited by on Jan 09, 2010 1:00 PM
|
JMUrbon
845 posts
Jan 09, 2010
1:39 PM
|
Panel judging and getting out of your own backyard to see other quality teams of birds is the two best things a guy can do if he is interested in leaning what a quality kit looks like and how to score one. A judge that cant see the difference in quality spin and action spin is going to screw up a fly really quick and pretty soon there is no were to place the kits. What I mean is I have seen judges come through that would give all kits the same multipliers. You have no way of showing which kits were the better birds without being able to show with the multipliers. I cant speak for everyone but I know for myself I dont care if a kit scores 600 points if it does it with a bunch of 1.1 quality rollers. I want to see 1.5 and up. That is and has always been my goal and as long as a guy has goals like that they will continue to improve. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
PAUL R.
146 posts
Jan 09, 2010
5:21 PM
|
Joe Urbon,.. With everything you have said and some of the other guys, What will it take for a kit to hit a 2.0 in quality and depth?
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
4024 posts
Jan 09, 2010
5:49 PM
|
Paul, A miracle(LOL)
----------
Just My Take On Things
Nick Siders
|
JMUrbon
846 posts
Jan 09, 2010
7:30 PM
|
For me it would take 40 plus feet consistantly and all hitting perfect a style or shrunken A. Or like Nick said. "A Miracle". Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
fhtfire
2439 posts
Jan 09, 2010
8:41 PM
|
Put it this way....
I agree with Joe...it would have to be a damn near perfect kit....kind of like when Mary Lou got the perfect 10 in the olympics back in the day....damn near FLAWLESS...
Not just one or two birds doing 40...the whole damn kit doing 40....
rock and ROLL
Paul
|
PAUL R.
147 posts
Jan 09, 2010
9:39 PM
|
Joe Urbon,..... Thankyou for stepping up to the plate and given us an idea of what to look for. But, ITS A SHAME with so many good judges out there and only 1 is willing to put some words that makes sense. This shows that even they dont know what it would take to get a 2.0 ... Or perhaps to afraid to come out of the closet to provide their intel on this subject.... Or its more like monkey see monkey do.... This is a subject that has been talked about so much and yet , it remains the same. .....Lets hope that the judge has the experience, which one ( who knows, I don't) , but lets leave It to (hope)..........Thanks Again Joe Urbon for your input on this subject.
|
JMUrbon
847 posts
Jan 10, 2010
10:33 AM
|
I wouldnt say the whole kit doing 40 plus but Every bird in every break has to be. We as judges use the multipliers for the birds actually included in the breaks. My post earlier also should hav stated also high H style rollers because different judges like the A over the H and visa versa. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|