Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2348 posts
Jan 26, 2010
6:09 AM
|
Scott
You said, "there has always been a standard..some just have a lower standard than others."
You are referring to personal standards, and that means there is NO STANDARD....no room to criticize anyone else and no bragging rights, because everyone's standard is legitimate and by the rules. Heine's is no better or worse than yours..no better or worse than Eldon's...no better or worse than anyone else's. They are all legitimate personal standards according to the rules. That is why I oppose this as a basis for judging. A standard is something that is standard, from one individual to the next, the same on the West coast as the East coast. It means the same thing to Don Oullette and to Heine Bijker. If you have a personal standard that you follow, write it out just like you would like to see it in the fly rules. Write it so we all can understand it and duplicate it, without gray areas. Can you do that?
And BTW, it was not I who put forth WC finals scores as an example. What I said, from those scores posted by others, is that this information clearly shows that a frequent kit can also perform with high quality, which the last time I looked, was the subject of this thread.
If you wish to list some facts or examples to support your opinion, rather than hearsay and opinions, type away, man! But do compare apples to apples, please.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jan 26, 2010 6:14 AM
|
Scott
2832 posts
Jan 26, 2010
7:47 AM
|
Jay.. Heine is a friend of mine that has been here several times .. read my posts.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
|
Scott
2833 posts
Jan 26, 2010
7:49 AM
|
It is based off of experience Cliff.. same as Pete's.. Joe.. and a couple of others here.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
|
Square
794 posts
Jan 26, 2010
12:16 PM
|
Well keepin up with the original question, I choose quality. Thats what I breed for. I hear alot of people say the need more frequency and they are breeding for that. Thats fine if you are big on comp. For me Ive alway's been flying my birds in the middle of nowhere. In fact when I started my family there wasnt a rollerflyer withen 100miles. I do want to be scessful in comp so to speak, but my personal enjoyment comes first! comp is only acouple of day's outta the year.I do have birds that are outta the same parings and they are diffrent, some more frequent some deeper. Some take 3months to roll some take 11monts to roll, all the same FamBam.Does this mean I need to change my whole program for frequency??? Nope not for me it just means that I need to sift trough what I got to assemble a team for the moment/Comp ya kno?. Kinda like size, I like small typeie rollers but I dont have a loft full ofum, Most of my birds are larger, However they do produce small typie birds. Quality is it in my experience, the rest has followed. Good luck in 2010
Booker.
----------
"Home of the Ghost Town Roller"
K.C.R.C
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2352 posts
Jan 26, 2010
12:31 PM
|
Scott
Your "EXPERIENCE" is helpful, no doubt, But use that experience and put down on paper what is your standard as it pertains to the fly rules. A standard must be known by all concerned before we have a "STANDARDIZED" understanding of anything. Just write out your fundamental basic standard that we can judge all kits by. Give us a depth standard, a quality standard, velocity standard, on overall impression standard.
I know you are a man of few words but use the fly rules as a blue print and write down your standard.
No Hurry, take your time.
Cliff
|
PAUL R.
151 posts
Jan 26, 2010
5:11 PM
|
Theres no ending to this argument. We have rules that are like mentioned before: subjective.and I disagree with this (subjective issue).. Instead of pointing fingers to each other, use that same energy and bring this to the NBRC Committe in hopes that we can see eye to eye on judging. We have so many different opinions on how judging is to take place and not 1 to follow as a guideline.
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2354 posts
Jan 27, 2010
5:01 AM
|
Paul
The judging will always be "subjective" but the standards can be defined. I hope the EC takes on this problem of clearing up some of these gray areas. But like you say there are so many different opinions, it may be difficult to get a quorum to agree on many of these issues. Time will tell.
Cliff
|
Scott
2834 posts
Jan 27, 2010
5:10 AM
|
Cliff ..you seem to be pushing for what you wrote above..sorry buddy but it is 100 0/0 impossible to put numbers to all of the variables .. it simply comes down to the overall impression of the team.
But we can start a baseline for what is scorable.. and for me and many others it starts at the min. standard for 1.0 which is X wing or higher..fast enough not to count the revolutions .. no wing switch..come out of the roll clean and roll a min of 10 ft .. and I will add that many of us will NEVER go below that standard regardless of what someone might try and plug into the rules.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
|
J_Star
2243 posts
Jan 27, 2010
5:27 AM
|
Isn't that the current standard Scott?? I think it is but it is not defined in the by laws as such. Some don't score X wingers with the qualifications that you mentioned.
Jay
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2356 posts
Jan 27, 2010
7:32 AM
|
Scott
Excellent start! Now write it like you want it in the fly rules. If you would quit humping up your back and try to help in this process, we might eventually make some headway. Hopefully the EC will take this issue up at some point and the more we can nail down potential proposals, the more prepared we will be.
But keep in mind that you are only one individual and a part of a much larger community, you can't take your ball and go home if you don't get your way in this game. If we work together, we can all play ball better. This is a Club not a dictatorship. I'm sure you realize that there are others with slightly different ideas about the standards, and that there's are just as valid as yours.
The base line is what we are trying to establish in depth, in quality and in velocity. I know you can make up a short list of the main things that are included in your overall impression. They are probably sort of unconscious for you at your level of experience, but we need to try to nail it down so that another judge can come close to duplicating your "overal impression." Make sense? You just did it as you judged the finals so it should be fresh in your mind. Who better to give us this information?
Sure we can't list 100% of every little thing that you took into consideration, but maybe we can list the main things that stick out in your mind as things that can elevate or detract from the calculations for D&Q, as you started above.
You are looking at this so defensively...surely you can see we are trying to help the flyers to KNOW what the judge is looking for in scoring our competitions. The more ambiguous we are about "overall impression" the more we are open to criticism about partiality, favoritism, good ol' boys stuff, poor eyesight, etc.
We could get to the bottom of this WITH YOUR HELP. YOU...US...WE can all be part of the problem or be part of the solution. It is up to us. Now get over this negative posture and help us write this thing the best we can as clear as we can. We have much to gain and little to loose.
Cliff
|