birdman
494 posts
Feb 22, 2008
3:07 PM
|
Nick, I personally think the depth multipliers would be easier and more accurate if they were based on a scale starting with 1.10 for an average depth of 10' and progress upward from there. At least that's how I rate my own birds.
It's like this:
1.1 = 10' average depth
1.15 = 15' average
1.2 = 20' average
1.25 = 25' average
1.3 = 30' average
1.35 = 35' average
etc...
etc...
With this method you could even rate the average depths in between such as 11' ave (1.11), 12' ave (1.12) , 13' ave (1.13), etc... etc...
That's the way I see it.
Russ
|
CSRA
1413 posts
Feb 22, 2008
6:23 PM
|
I think the scale should be like this Style 1.0 to 1.5
Velocity 1.0 to 2.0
Depth 1.0 to 1.5 quality should be broken into two parts just my thoughts
|
Flipmode
129 posts
Feb 22, 2008
8:52 PM
|
I found this scale on the net awhile ago for scoring depth.
1.0 = 10'
1.1 = 15'
1.2 = 20'
1.3 = 25'
1.4 = 30'
1.5 = 35'
1.6 = 40'
1.7 = 45'
1.8 = 50'
1.9 = 55'
2.0 = 60'+
Last Edited by on Feb 22, 2008 8:57 PM
|
Flipmode
130 posts
Feb 22, 2008
10:21 PM
|
Hey locoloft In that case I guess you would get a high score in the "Quality" department.
Last Edited by on Feb 23, 2008 9:29 AM
|
wishiwon2
44 posts
Feb 22, 2008
11:09 PM
|
I dont think that you can assign an individual empirical value to a depth of roll or to a specific quality for a couple of reasons.
1) It is impossible to view a break and at the same time, evaluate each bird in the breaks depth and quality individually. Similarly, you cannot effectively track this through out the time-in of scoring. If you are trying to do this, you are missing out observing the kit as a judge. If in your head you're calculating "3 at 10 ft, 2 at 15 ft, 2 at 20 ft, but waitone wasnt scorable quality ..." you've missed the boat and perhaps the next break. Our brains cannot take in the much information simulateously and process it accurately. You must assign a multiplier based on a "general impression" you witnessed as a judge, based on your standard of excellence which in turn is based upon your experience.
2) We cannot define accuraltely enough quality nor depth to write a binding standard. There will always be exceptions and variations. For example the issue raised above, If a birds rolls for a duration of time but doesnt drop X feet through space how does it score? do we make an allowance for time lapsed or do we add to quality... ?
When we are judging a kit we are asking the judge for a subjective analysis based on a set of guideline criteria. Judging a kit of rollers isnt a science, I dont think it should be either. The rules system we have isnt absolute and it isnt perfect, but it works well and almost always favors the kit which performed the best on the given day.
Some judges are crap, no doubt about that. But I think that for the most a person who has spent time standing under and watching kits of good rollers and is honest with himself can make an adequate judge. One who will improve with experience given he stays honest with himself and true to the ideal of improving the hobby. There are nay-sayers, i know, but I think they are typically those who thought their kit was the greatest, they're ego is bruised and they feel cut out of the glory of victory so instead of looking at them selves or their birds, they choose to complain about the system that "robbed" them of their day in the sun.
The short and simple answer to the original post query:
My opinion, 1.0 should equal 10 feet and 2.0 70 + feet. These multipliers are an average of the kit, not the individuals all-stars within it. Thus if it is truly an average, and it 10 feet is a suggested minimum to score, then by averaging we should rarely see a 1.0 or 2.0 multiplier. Scorable rolls start at 10'. It wold be rare that all scorable rollable rolls are = 10', if there are even a few birds which are scorable Q and roll 15, 20, 25 feet, whatever then by definition of average, it could not be 1.0. The same would apply to a 2.0 multiplier, the principle of averaging would make it extremely unlikely to be acheivable.
Ive wandered off the thread a bit, forgive me. Just had alot of thoughts about judges and judging from recent posts combined.
Last Edited by on Feb 22, 2008 11:10 PM
|
SpinCityRollers
130 posts
Feb 23, 2008
12:25 AM
|
Am glad you guys have all these ultimate thoughts running aroung in your minds it is so appealing. Now tell me when was the last time you saw these deep 70 ft birds except in indivisual circumstances.and usally they are lacking quality (velocity) what is reality
Ten feet very short distance even on the measuring tape Where am from people used to say poles and thats funny. It depends on how high the pole were around your area nieghborhood When I was on 66th street in los angeles ca I would say the street light polls are about 25 ft hight and the wood ones in the back yard were about thirty ft high If a bird is extremly fast it would be hard for him to crank 70 once a minute keep up and do it for 20 min he would probably come down after a while
I can see 50-60 ft 1.8-1.9 Depending how they get there smooth or violent
It all about being consistant and Fair
Judging all depends on the judge
that how i see it
Picture 20 bird two poles 50-60 Breaking once a min
Mien What A site
P.s remind me not to get birdman to judge us he is bad for business some people would say lmao
Spincity
spincityrollers2008
Last Edited by on Feb 23, 2008 12:28 AM
|
Mount Airy Lofts
513 posts
Feb 23, 2008
9:25 AM
|
I like what Rick Mee uses. Very easy to discern. With that said, I would also like to add that if you don't fly... please don't preach about the rules. In my opinion, nothings perfect. Every thing is fine as it is.
All most impossible to score a 2.0 x 2.0 if you were to ask me. Judges just don't want to put themselves there. Unless you have zero BOPs and have the best of breeders breeding a Champion a year.... it would still take you 15-20 years just to get enough 2.0 x 2.0 birds into one team. 20 Blurs of 60 footers would be a dream... dreamers are all we can be to keep us going.
Thor
----------
It's all about the friends we make :)
|
Flipmode
132 posts
Feb 23, 2008
9:32 AM
|
Hey Thor a 2.0+2.0 break would be a Jawdropper! lol. But like you I think its close to impossible!
|
