Roller Pigeons For Sale. $65 Young Birds and $100 Adult Seed Stock. Proven Line of Ruby Roller Pigeons. Bred From Proven Breeders
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive > Is Qaulity a Function of Depth?
Is Qaulity a Function of Depth?


Click To Check Out The Latest Ruby Rollers™ Pigeons For Sale


Login  |  Register
Page: 1 2

Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2456 posts
Jun 10, 2010
8:12 AM
Is the Quality multiplier dependent in any way, on the Depth multiplier?

Why does it always "seem" that the Q goes up in a direct portion to the D? Are they not two separate measurements, independent of one another?

Why can't a 1.2 D break reflect a Q of 1.6 or more? Can't shallow depth birds perform with a high quality of spin performance?

Cliff
rtwilliams
GOLD MEMBER
660 posts
Jun 10, 2010
8:33 AM
Does any one understand multipliers? Heck I do not.
What should be considered with quality? Wing position, how clean they come out of the roll, speed, velocity, and what else.
I was wathcing my birds yesterday, and 4 or 5 where real good, with good quality, a few others were doing wierd stuff and unscorable. Do unscorable rolling birds mess with the quality or just the scorable birds? The 4 or 5 wher 1.6 Q, the rest 1.0 do they average to 1.2 or what?

I look forward to some debate on this topic. The two should be sperate, but the overall impression of the kit seems to affect the Q multiplier and that includes depth.
----------
RT Williams
Brink of Rolling Loft
kcfirl
648 posts
Jun 10, 2010
8:49 AM
depth is depth.

quality is a function of speed and style.

it takes time to asses quality. It is easier to see quality if the bird goes deep. It the kit is full of 10 footers, it is very difficult to asses q on all.

Ken
michael salus
238 posts
Jun 10, 2010
10:10 AM
Ken, Your right! When birds are deep, much more time to see the Quality. WE saw some good deep , Quality birds at John Elton's.... Cliff, I do think that Q. and D. go hand in hand... when they go deep, they just seem to have better Q., but again more time to see it.... lol
----------
MJ "Peace"

Last Edited by on Jun 10, 2010 10:20 AM
winwardrollers
480 posts
Jun 10, 2010
12:27 PM
Depth and quailty should not have tangent reflections. I would agree that with depth, quality is easier to see.
Trampas only scoreable birds are factored in on quality. You are right that scoreable junkers can delute your score, they give you more birds breaking but quality factor goes down with it. This is where guys in the hobby get mislead, they have three good rollers mixed in with marginal rollers hoping the judge will count all movement the same as the best..
A slow roller can go deep..no doubt.
bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 10, 2010 12:29 PM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2457 posts
Jun 10, 2010
1:26 PM
So If I follow your logic, the deeper the birds the higher the Quality? I'm not sure I agree with that. Then we should expect to see some kits with D 1.8 with 1.2 Q also? All deep kits can't be high quality kits too, can they?
Cliff
maxspin
386 posts
Jun 10, 2010
1:36 PM
No Cliff,

You asked why the Q score goes up with D.

When a bird roles deep with quality the judge is better able to see the quality. A 10 foot blurr can easily get lost in the break.
I also believe that if there is a quality deep roller the judges eye will follow it.

Keith
fhtfire
2556 posts
Jun 10, 2010
3:18 PM
Ok..I will take a big stab at this. Quality and Depth are not absolute. They are an OVERALL impression of the kit.

They have no relationship and they are not judged together. They are a seprate animal so to speak. Quality can be seen with a 5' roller and a 40' roller. To me Quality doe not get lost in the short breaks...if you have a trained eye to a high quality pigeon....you will see it like you do a bikini model walking across the street. It is very OBVIOUS.

Depth is just that...the overall impression of the kit. One deep pigeon is not going to raise the Depth Multiplier just like one Mediocre Quality pigeon will not lower the bar. Again...A deep kit is just that..a majority of the birds are rolling deep.

Quality and Depth are in the eye of the judge...just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder...Now we must remember that that beuty in the eye of the beholder is usually based on ones own experiences on what Beauty is...just like ones experience with Quality and Depth. If you have never seen a High Quality Pigeon spin its arse off...then you have nothing to base your beauty on. But one thing for sure...once you see a High quality pigeon....you never forget......ok my point is ....Q and D is based on experience on what you have seen...and judging is also based on experience.

Quality should not go up or down with depth. Quality is Quality...Depth is Depth.

We just have to remember...its the overall impression of the kit from start to finish. Kit meaning group of birds not individual birds.

Rock and ROLL

Paul

Last Edited by on Jun 10, 2010 3:19 PM
fhtfire
2557 posts
Jun 10, 2010
3:38 PM
Brad hit the nail on the head about fliers being mislead...fliers feel that they should have as many birds as possible instead of...as many QUALITY birds as possible. Of course we cant see the future and sometimes a kick tail roller will have a bad day....but overall its all about the best birds overall being introduced into the kit.

For example...I just did a major overhaul of my A-team...due to the weather being so boogered up in Cali in the past weeks....fly time was few and far in between and I had trouble finding problem birds or adding good birds. Brad had stated on my fly that My B-team had birds that should have been in my A team and vise versa...anyway

I pulled all the birds..added my 5 best that I knew were kick arse....each fly with the B-team..I would focus on one or two birds that are doing it...again..Quality and speed stuck out like a sore thumb...I am up to 16 birds in the A team and they are BACK to there old form. I would also take any wing switcher of bird not up to my standards and toss them in another kit box. The wing switchers etc...will be then fed up and flown again...just to make sure that they were not having a bad day...or were just off on the nutritional aspect.

My point is this....I had 4 birds in the A-team that at one time were solid birds but for some reason they either went a little stiff or the quality and speed went down....those 4 birds were really messing up the team. The new A team is like night and day. I still have three or 4 in the B-team that are lavender that I am having a hard time identifying.....I also found a 2010 Hen that was just put in the A team and fits right in.....

Again..the point is this...get the highest quality pigeons together that work together. Any birds with issues dont make the cut...PERIOD...Basically....you dont have to fly 20 just because....you fly 16-20 of your best high quality pigeons ...the A team is a privilage not a right.

rock and ROLL

Paul
wishiwon2
331 posts
Jun 10, 2010
4:04 PM
Cliff/all,

I too have noticed the same trend, multipiers often seem to change in accordance with one another. I dont know why this is, outside of some the explainations given above. They are distinct and seperate evaluations or should be. When I am judging, I make a concious effort to independantly assess each factor. That doesnt mean my multipliers awarded are always different from one another. The biggest spread I can think of that Ive given was 1.5 Q and 1.2 D.

I do think that often the 2 factors go well together and compliment each other in the overall impression. Birds that commit fully to the roll are those same ones that go a tad deeper and roll faster/harder than the others. Whether or not that would be measurably so, I dont know, but it makes a different impression on a judges eye.

Another trait that influences both multipliers is cleanliness. Birds that begin and finish crisp and abrupt with no perceptable bobble in the middle will almost always get awarded a tenth higher or more, in both categories, than birds that go with equal depth and/or roll with equal speed. At least this has been my observation from watching lots of kits be scored.
----------

Jon

If it were easy, everybody would do it

Last Edited by on Jun 10, 2010 4:05 PM
wishiwon2
332 posts
Jun 10, 2010
4:24 PM
Trampas,

that is one of the knocks on loose judges. The only birds that SHOULD figure into either multiplier are those that were scoreable in a break.

A couple of examples; a kit breaks big but is sloppy in its break meaning a few initiate the break (not scoreble) a group go and then a few follow up, reacting to the kit action (not scoreable). The first few and last few arent scoreable because they constitute a waterfall and didnt break with the group enough to be counted. In this case a judge should try to only recognize the birds that broke together in considering how to award multipliers. It is a difficult task and is subjective.
Example 2; A kit is on the strong side and breaks seldom. Because they're strong, they're also short depth in the breaks. There are, however, some that continue to work independantly with their normal frequency, depth and/or quality, which may be exceptional. A judge SHOULD discount any of the activity not associated with scoreable breaks. Again, not easy to do, especially when the stuff outside the breaks differs widely from the action in the breaks.

The answer to your question -
"I was wathcing my birds yesterday, and 4 or 5 where real good, with good quality, a few others were doing wierd stuff and unscorable. Do unscorable rolling birds mess with the quality or just the scorable birds?"
Is YES they do, but they should NOT. Only scoreable birds in the breaks SHOULD influence multipliers. Reality is, often they do have an effect.

Like Paul says better off to only put up your very best than to fly birds that may compromise your score somewhat. As you watch your kit perform, if any bird stands out, be damn sure its because its a good one, not because its garbage. Right or wrong, it will likely leave a sub-concious impression on a judge.
----------

Jon

If it were easy, everybody would do it
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2458 posts
Jun 11, 2010
7:03 AM
Good responses, gentlemen. Let's use the WC 2010 finals scores so far, as an example. So far, 32 flyers have posted scores that included D&Q. Over 75% of the D&Q multipliers posted are 100% proportional, to one another. That may change dramatically after the WC is over, but right now there seems to be a definite correlation between D&Q in the multipliers that are being awarded. Of the 25% or so that are not 100% proportional, most of them are 80-90% proportional.

If these numbers hold up over the fly, I would say there has to be some kind of a link between D&Q in the mind of judges....or else it is another one of those "bad habits" that judges fall into when they award multipliers. It appears that one can predict with 70-80% certainty what the Quality multiplier will be, based on a given Depth multiplier, then there must be some kind of correlation between the two in the minds of many judges.
Cliff

PS/Paul,
Nice work on re-assembling your comp team. Sounds like you got some good advice from Brad!
fhtfire
2558 posts
Jun 11, 2010
8:00 AM
No Cliff....it is not in the mind of judges to tie the two together....it is in the mind of crappy judges if you ask me. Judging is not as hard as everyone makes it out to be. If you know the rules...if you know what good quality and depth is...if you know what a solid break looks like.....and you know at the end of the fly you have depth and quality.

Anybody that is saying they are related or is doing it that way is just plain wroing. Why....because a deep pigeon rolling with good quality is not absolute....you can have deep and crap....deep and perfect..short and crap...short and perfect...so it is impossible to tie them together. That my friend will get you in trouble.

But lucky for us the key is consistancy....and as long as a judge is consistently making the same mistakes....that is fine...all I care about it the right order.

Cliff....I did get good advice from Brad....but his advice was something I already knew....but I did not have enough days to fly to know what birds were doing what....I am serious...preparing for the Regionals.....in a two week period..I only flew two times where they could actually be looked at...the other three times I flew....the were blown off and would not roll good....and the rest of the time I could not fly.....really screws up a solid team with a couple of retards in the kit.

rock and ROLL

Paul

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 8:30 AM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2459 posts
Jun 11, 2010
9:30 AM
For those of you who feel that shallow depth birds have a hard time being properly evaluated because of the limited time the judge has to watch them, I agree to a point. But if a kit scores several breaks shouldn't the judge be able to make a more correct evaluation?
If you as a judge saw a kit of shallow depth birds that were tight, high quality spinners and you saw this same performance in 5 or more breaks, could you with confidence, award a high Q multiplier?
If not why not? Historically, this is just not seen in today's Rollers. Do we, as judges, "subconsciously" discount a shallow kit, quality-wise?
Is our over-all opinion of a kit's quality linked to the depth?
If depth is depth and Quality is Speed of Velocity, wing position, clean performance, what-ever, shouldn't we be seeing larger swings in quality as depth increases? What is it that locks us in to minor swings or exactly the same, in quality, to whatever the depth multiplier is?
If we were seeing scores reflecting 1.5 Q or higher in 1.1 D kits , I would say Q is not linked to D, but that does not seem to be the case. I hear what you say that it shouldn't, but that's not what we appear to be seeing.
Cliff
winwardrollers
482 posts
Jun 11, 2010
9:55 AM
We need to back up a bit here.. I said that Paul had ..one bird.. from his B team that should have been in his A-team. I believe that was a lavender, you would have to look on the score card. Paul flew some deep birds in his B team...but on that.. given day.. they were rolling over either their right or left shoulder. They were coming down sideways, but with good velocity. Deep and speed was there just not the proper roll from the get go. Now.. on another day those birds may straighten out, only Paul would know, for I was only there at a point in time.
As a judge I could have given paul a higher depth factor on His B-team, Lets say that I gave him a 1.6 instead of a 1.1 or 1.0 that I gave him that added up would have given him 3 more points..lol. The B team birds were rolling odd from the start so the lower multipliers were awarded. The break I awarded my have been shallow just can't remember. If the B team birds were rolling proper from the start with low quality but rolling as deep as they were then 1.0 Q and 1.6 D would have been awarded. Paul then would have go 3 more points..lol. Sorry for using you as an example Paul.. lol.
bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 10:08 AM
winwardrollers
483 posts
Jun 11, 2010
11:13 AM
cliff
Seeing a shollow kit roll a few times is what it takes for me to award higher Quality factors. Simply taking a few breaks to just making sure what I am seeing is correct, but by the end of the fly..that 20 minutes a judge has a good feel for what the kit is up to.
The number/percentage's in your 4585 post, to me reflects that we don't began scoring a kit unless the quality is there. A tail rider doesn't get scored no matter how deep he is. Once the birds are.. scorable.. then the Quality and Depth factor are figured seperate.
bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 2:08 PM
Scott
3080 posts
Jun 11, 2010
12:12 PM
Cliff.. I notice such things also .. not sure why but I would say most do this .. other things that stand out with some also is where the multipliers tend to start at 1.4 and go up from there.. I have also seen kits with the same multiplers where they were like night and day..the bottom line is most do the best job that they know how and it is what it is.
----------
Scott Campbell

" God Bless "

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 12:14 PM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2460 posts
Jun 11, 2010
1:43 PM
Brad
You have a strange way of selectively reading different posts.
"If you see a break that has a relatively short duration and mentally give it a 1.1 D but each bird that performed in that break was a TIGHT, "H" type roller, could you now assign it a high Quality multiplier?" I went on to say that we have several breaks in which to confirm what we saw. I said nothing about tail riders, deep tail riders or any such description.

Scott,
You are right, about not being sure why but it is done. I also agree the judges do the very best they know how.
I "think" there is some confusion over what 1.0 Q should be. I have heard where one flyer believes only high Quality spinners should be scored.
Another flyer wants un score-able roller's scored. Until we define a minimal scoring roller, we will always have these questions. The truth is , we have a "RANGE" that starts with roller just fast enough to not be able to count the revolutions with wing positions that must meet the judge's minimal standard (whatever that may mean), to a Blur ball. It is up to the judge to assign a Q multiplier that represents the average quality of all the birds that performed in score-able breaks during the time that they were under judgement.
It just seems strange that we keep seeing quality multipliers that mirror the Depth multiplier, when the two, are not a measure of the same thing at all.
Cliff
winwardrollers
484 posts
Jun 11, 2010
2:19 PM
Cliff... Cliff..
All post are in agreement about the same thing on this thread, as I read it. I think you got off on your 2457 post, I don't know were you came to that conclusion on that post. And now your last post Makes no sense to me.. Delete them both,then I can delete this as well, all they do is contradict what I meant and add confusion. Reread the entire thread, you will see. You can't think about your new women and discuss pigeons..one or the other..lol
Bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 2:46 PM
fhtfire
2559 posts
Jun 11, 2010
3:47 PM
Brad,

No problem using me as an example....LOL...The B-team was off and they were really inconsistant from the fly time I did not have in preperation. So no problemo..to be honest.....the A and B teams the last 2 months have flown the worst that they have since around 06...LOL...they looked aweful and I think you scored just right on all the kits.

The Lavender was pulled and moved to the A-team...and fit right in...I know that my A team bird that was screwing the team the most was an 08 cock. He was way to strong...but I think he was just getting to much feed and lack of fly time.....so...he is getting a once over after I pull some more birds from the B-team...or should I say the A/B team..LOL..

You example was just fine and again....no problemo.

I have a club fly next Saturday and Scott is the judge...So I am interested to see how the new rebuilt team will perform...Dwight Wallace was over two days ago and they did real good considering that there were some new birds in the kit. But none of the birds were slow or shallow that is for sure....

Cliff.....I lost you to bro....But I think the fact is....some judges think a bird cant have quality with depth and short rolls you cant see...I put it this way..if I cant tell the quality of a bird in 10 ' then the bird is rolling to shallow and wont be scored. It not brain surgery....the big thing is this...experience seeing top quality birds is key....because once you have seen what a bird can really do...then you have raised your bar and all other birds have to meet that bar.

When I judged Ramsey a couple years back and saw the speed of his birds...I am talking breathtaking ball up...speed with depth....I knew I had to step up my game....and really started working on the speed...the depth is in my birds already....so I raised my personal bar and it I am sure will make my future judging a little more stiff as one would say.

rock and ROLL

Paul
Mount Airy Lofts
895 posts
Jun 11, 2010
3:54 PM
Cliff,

You bring up a very interesting point. I really never cared what a judge gave me as to Q/D as flying in these flies were more about just puttung them up for the guys, more so then competing. Now that I think about it, you are totally right. It does seem as tho the judges are awarding the two as one, instead of what it should be which are two different things. I know one year when I flew in the w/c I know my birds were at least a 1.5 quality but due to the depth, they were only given the same multipier. I have seen this many, many times in other backyards as well. I makes no sense why a guy can not score 1.8 for quality even if his birds only average 20 feet. I mean aren't our birds suppose let it go on the breaks. If so, 1.2 for quality... Really!
Cliff thanks for bringing it up. I hipe this would finally open some eyes. I would like to see this trend break and will make sure I bring this topic up during my clubs anual August getogether.
Thor
----------
It's all about the friends we make :)
quickspin
1116 posts
Jun 11, 2010
6:03 PM
I honestly thing the quality factors should be seperated by the speed and the style as they are two different like the moon and the day. Many do thing is the same and dont know yet what is wing possition.

Depth is How deep the birds drop. 10'-60'

Quality is the style of the birds wing possition on how high the wing tips touch on top and on the bottom.
X-V-H-A-()-0-

The speed is the revolutions the birds turns ovard backwards in the smallest distance possible.

----------
Salas Loft
rtwilliams
GOLD MEMBER
662 posts
Jun 11, 2010
7:32 PM
Excluding depth will you guys describe a 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 quality kits. I have not seen many scores above 1.6.
Also how does team work play into quality? I kit that is a waterfalling, but still has scorable breaks, does it lose quality points? I personally think this should be included. Two kits that are similar in speed and style, but the kit that breaks together I think should have a better multiplier.

Trying to learn.
----------
RT Williams
Brink of Rolling Loft

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 7:33 PM
winwardrollers
485 posts
Jun 11, 2010
9:40 PM
Sala that is what I have been wondering for years, why speed and style are lumped together? If we start breaking differant aspects of a proper roll down, it would get cumbersome to judge and I think that those who invented the 1-2-3 system that we presently use took that in account. I am going to e-mail a founder of the system and see if I can get some feed back.
Personally I like the present 1-2-3 system that we use it is simple, but complex enough that you can make seperation of kits by working with the factors.
Bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 11, 2010 9:47 PM
wishiwon2
333 posts
Jun 11, 2010
11:20 PM
Trampas,

Teamwork should never play into consideration for multipliers. It is its own element. The birds must break together to be scored PERIOD. Birds that waterfall, should not be counted in the score of the break. That is why often times it appears to a casual observer that lots of birds rolled, but the judge only scores those he believes he saw break together. Difference between loose and solid judging in a nut-shell. Those kits that put on messy breaks are a pain to score correctly. It is much easier and more pleasurable to score kits that break cleanly together, but it doesnt equal a change in multipliers.



Brad,

Ive visited with Doc and Brent (founders of 1-2-3) about this before. Quality multiplier was intended to represent the average overall impression of quality. We in all our idle spare time have disected things to death over the internet, until we seem to have confused even ourselves. It is the sum of wing position, revolutionary speed, cleanliness, etc, etc. The difference in application comes in what is valued more highly by the individual judge ... H or () or A, the hole or a solid ball ... Cliff has suggested in the past we assign various gradients to such traits, I disagree. I highly doubt we as a group of hobbists can reach a consensus of what is 'best', second, third best, etc. And in the end it is trivial details, because the multipier is meant to represent the over all impression of quality exhibited by the kit, not the tiny nuts and bolts differences.
----------

Jon

If it were easy, everybody would do it
winwardrollers
486 posts
Jun 12, 2010
8:18 AM
Jon
Not only could we not come up with a consensus, but if the club did then that would be all he more to argue about.
I would have to agree with cliff that a lot of tandem multipliers are give out. I know our area got all 1.4 for quality and 1.3 depth across the board from a judge that came through not long ago. Interesting thing is this same judge found the best kit doing this and all seem to work out any way.
bwinward
Scott
3081 posts
Jun 12, 2010
9:22 AM
The multipliers are allways going to come down to "overall impression" of the team.


----------
Scott Campbell

" God Bless "
donnie james
1034 posts
Jun 12, 2010
5:17 PM
isn't quality is how they ball up and how high their wings are ???????and dept is how deep they are??????or aim i looking at the question wrong or miss understood the question
----------
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
Velo99
2301 posts
Jun 12, 2010
5:22 PM
OK let me add my two cents here.
When a kit breaks the overall impression is what the judge should give the Q for. BUT The deeper the kit for the most part the better the Q should be.
Let me use Scotts judging technique as an example.
A bird that doesnt perform to the standard doesnt get scored. Period. In that way he makes it easier to score the birds. If you discount the junk all you have is quality. Stay with me here people.
I have noticed that immediately we started talking about A bird in the kit. This is KIT competition. The deeper the kit rolls the better the quality has to be because of the physics of the roll. They cant have quality and roll deep to the standard. A tight judge will not give you anything for junk. Loose judge might give you a lower Q.
Is this doing the breed any good? We have thousands of pages of info available in the how and why of rollers and we still want to count junk? As stated before the deeper a kit rolls the longer the judge has to look for Q. It works both ways in my opinion. If the judge has longer to look he can find the quality it takes to have deep rollers. If he doesnt have time to assess the Q he cant award what he cant see. Hence a "standard" q by some judges. A deeper kit earns the q they get and the shorter kits the q is sometimes gifted by the judge.
The answer is to put up the absolute best you have. Use the knowledge and experience you gain from competition to raise better rollers.
----------
V99
blue sky single beat
in cadance performing now
earth beckons the winged
drawn breath is let quickly forth
orchestral movement follows

___ ~_____ _
\__\_/-|_| \__\____
/()_)__18___()_)\__\

Last Edited by on Jun 12, 2010 5:28 PM
donnie james
1037 posts
Jun 12, 2010
5:24 PM
hay kenny,
very good post well said
----------
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
Mount Airy Lofts
896 posts
Jun 13, 2010
7:37 AM
I don't know about you guys but most if not all of my fastest rollers have been from the ranges of 15-25 feet. I find that many of my 'H' patterns rarely will roll past 25 feet as well, seems like they just don't drop. For me, it is very rare to breed a deep bird that can roll like the ones I like. I mean who doesn't like deep birds? I just find it hard to understand how a deep bird can out roll a high velocity humming 20 footer that seems to just not drop. Yet the 20 footers are only getting scored 1.4 or less for quality vs the deeps are averaging 1.6 or more. I find that trend very disturbing.
Quality is quality. Depth is depth. Period!

Thor
----------
It's all about the friends we make :)

Last Edited by on Jun 13, 2010 9:24 AM
JMUrbon
1048 posts
Jun 13, 2010
8:52 PM
As judges we try our best to pick the cream from the crap. I treat depth and quality as completely different aspects when I am evaluating a kit. I am in agreement that it is easier to see the truely great pigeons if they go more than 10 feet but I will and have awarded short kits with high multipliers. I do however believe that we are moving this hobby in a forward direction and thus the kits we see and judge in the FF and WC should be of a higher caliber than on any local fly. I would never purposely fly a kit of 10 footers unless it is all I had. Nor would I fly a kit with even 1 40 foot wing switcher in it. Unless its all I had. Any experienced flier knows what a quality bird is and whether it belongs in a kit or not.
Also Thor if a kit was hitting 20 feet consistantly with the scorable birds it should recieve better than 1.4 in my opinion. The fact is however rarely do we have all of the birds in a scorable break hitting the same depth. Some pull out short and some go deeper. we as judges try our best to come up with some sort of average as we see it. At least I do. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
Sound Rollers
347 posts
Jun 14, 2010
4:54 AM
Doesn't depth in competition result in less breaks? I think breading for style and depth is counter productive in kit competition. Style and Depth is how I would describe the individual bird. Uniform and in sync is how I would describe a good kit.


Photobucket
Photobucket
JMUrbon
1049 posts
Jun 14, 2010
5:45 AM
John that is were the kit comp gets a bad rap. Myself I would never attempt to breed for shorter birds to increase the number of breaks. I always breed for the highest quality pigeons and I also never breed for depth. I like a 30-35 footer and that is what I get in my birds on average. If you breed for depth your quality will be hurt as well as you will soon get a bunch of lawn darts. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
Sound Rollers
348 posts
Jun 14, 2010
7:06 AM
Joe, that's sounds like catch 22, damned if you do damned if you don't. The more breaks the more points. So instead of a timed event grade X amount of breaks in an allotted time period, which ever comes first. That would give everybody the same goal "Quality and Depth"


Photobucket
Photobucket
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
675 posts
Jun 14, 2010
7:21 AM
John,
My philosophy is to breed for style and velocity and accept what ever depth comes with that. I would much prefer a 25' stylish spinner with great velocity than a 40' with mediocre style and velocity. Whereas some place greater emphasis on the depth. Just a matter of personal preference.
Joe Urbon, that little Andy cock turned out to be a little Andy hen.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe

Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 7:23 AM
winwardrollers
487 posts
Jun 14, 2010
7:54 AM
Thinking of depth only, it is much easier to put together a busy kit of shallow sky mulchers compared to a solid core kit of deep birds that will work as a team. Looking at the scores from the worldcup you will see mostly shallow kits, I am sure those kits had a few deeper birds, but not enough to bring up the multiplier. I like how depth is half of the multiplier, if we added/divided any other factors in it would delute the depth multiplier. A sound kit of deep birds is few and far between.
bwinward

Last Edited by on Jun 14, 2010 11:22 AM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2461 posts
Jun 15, 2010
9:16 AM
Brad
My post 2457 is not in response to your post 480. It was directed to Ken Firl's post.
Cliff

Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 12:29 PM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2462 posts
Jun 15, 2010
9:28 AM
Paul
If you see 5 or more breaks during the 20 minute fly , Isn't that enough spin time for a judge to be confident enough to award a high Quality multiplier "IF THE QUALITY WAS THERE", even in a 1.2 D kit?
What we may be doing is just automatically down grading a kit with a D of 1.1-1.3 and saying it cannot be a high quality kit.
If a kit breaks once or twice with a D of 1.0, I can understand a judges reluctance to be confidant enough to give a 1.5Q that he "thought" he saw.
But if there are several breaks and if the birds quality is 1.5 and up......... Why aren't we seeing such on the score cards?
A shallow working kit is tough to judge, no doubt.....tough to count and even tougher to be confident of a quality multiplier. If the judge estimates the kit is breaking 10 foot or more, it scores. If the judge estimates the breaks are less than 10 foot they don't deserve a score. These are my interpretations of the rules.
We all want the judge to see enough depth and quality to be confident in his calls.....not rocket science but not a guessing game either. If the judge scores the depth at 1.0 he should also be able to be confident in the quality he sees. If he can't see the quality, then the depth is too short to score, in my opinion. Top quality, deep kits may be the easy kit to score but short depth, high quality kits also need to be scored per their ability.
Depth is depth.
But quality is in some way linked to depth also. IMHO.
The same can be said for deeper kits. They seem to get higher Q multipliers.
IF these two multipliers HAVE no connections, we should see a wider variance between the two and we don't.
All shallow kits cannot be low quality and not all deeper kits cab be higher quality.....unless we actually do favor deeper birds quality wise.... without even knowing it. Human nature may be one element in this.
I know very few flyers wanting to compete with 10 ft birds but I have seen short birds with high quality. Short to me is 10-20 ft and is my best estimate of that distance, not absolute.
But from looking at some of these scores going back years, If you tell me the D multiplier, I can give you the Q multiplier 70- 80% of the time and it will be the same as the D multiplier or close to it.
I am not saying anything about the judge's ability. I am saying it "looks" funny.
The best answer I have read so far is that it seems like they go hand in glove together. A glove, without a hand to put it on is useless, a deep bird without minimum quality is useless, a shallow bird without minimum quality is likewise useless. Depth AND quality are only one part of this puzzel.
Let's say A kit scores 300 raw, D-1.2 Q -1.7. How many guys will say it can't happen. Bad judge? Piss and moan, etc? Damn Tumblers won?
Get that fellow some new glasses? Kill those red badges! LOL! Rookie judge? One of those loose judges?
Cliff
Scott
3082 posts
Jun 15, 2010
11:32 AM
Anytime a kit is rolling a min of 10' it is easy to see the quality .. the deeper the more chance of a fault in the roll which makes it un-scorable (or at least should) and that is why it is much harder to fly good deep kits.
Also many of the fastest birds don't actually roll real deep when on.. much their duration in the roll will be the same as it's slower deeper counter part.
Looking at some of the depth multiplier of some of the flys make absolutly no sence to me when I see a grossly high number of breaks along with a very high depth multiplier .. normaly you will see this when judges are scoreing activity waterfalish type stuff and not real breaks... you see this with the high scoreing judges that put the kits into ther 1000 snds.. the math just doesn't work.
----------
Scott Campbell

" God Bless "
Scott
3083 posts
Jun 15, 2010
11:35 AM
I think that you are getting to close to border line unscorable .. in reality the 1.7 is really pushing the envelope when we are looking at averages of all scored through the entire fly.. same with a kit going 10' .. they arent all at 10'.



(D-1.2 Q -1.7. )
----------
Scott Campbell

" God Bless "

Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 11:37 AM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2463 posts
Jun 15, 2010
12:27 PM
Jon
Sorry if I mis-spoke but I do not support assigning various gradients to the different wing positions. My thoughts were to the idea that, a wing position may be cause to be called a fault.... WITHOUT first... listing all wing positions and agreeing on best to least acceptable.
Per the rules, if a bird meets the judges estimate of 10 feet (and rolls fast enough to not be able to count the revolution) the bird may be score-able (and not showing any listed faults).
Without giving the flyers information on this subject, confusion will not get any better on this subject.
I agree that, agreement on this issue will have a slim chance to none, of happening.
I would also like to add that I believe that ONLY birds that were scored in breaks , should be used in the determination of the over-all quality, multiplier. (Exactly like the Depth Multiplier)
I do however, appreciate the English use of "KITTING POINTS" to recognize elements not recognized in the 1-2-3 system.
Pardon my sarcasm but isn't flying pigeons fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things? :0)
Cliff

Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 5:00 AM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2464 posts
Jun 15, 2010
1:16 PM
Scott
Like a lot of the discussion about rollers, there are pie in the sky discussions and real time factual information about real kits in real competitions.
Very few kits show their best performance on fly days.
Very few judges can accurately estimate depth in several different locations with varied weather conditions.
Very few judges can estimate over-all impressions of quality, when they are trying to count birds in a break, look for faults, etc.
I have never seen or scored a 1.2 D get a 1.7 quality, nor have I seen a 1.9 D & 1.9 Q. When the WC is over, we can see what birds are really doing and where.
IF as you say, the more shallow kits may make less errors, it is possible to see more higher quality breaks but for some reason they do not show up on the score cards. By far and away the deeper kits get higher quality.
Truth be known, the actual difference in feet, between the AVERAGE deepest kit and the AVERAGE medium depth kit may be only 5-15 feet.
As was brought up here by you and others , we need to focus on real expectations. Good X-H quality birds that have control and spin 20-30 feet or 2-3 seconds. Putting 20 birds together that will break 20+ times in 15-20 minutes will be a competitive kit in most regions.
AS a hobby we are not there yet. WE do have flyers capable but doing it on fly day is not an easy task. There are too many variables to list, that will determine the outcome.
Cliff
Scott
3084 posts
Jun 15, 2010
1:57 PM
Cliff.. in the NBRC finals I gave Randy Gibson a 1.2 on depth and a 1.6 on quality.. never have I given a 1.7 ... let alone a 1.9.


(I have never seen or scored a 1.2 D get a 1.7 quality, nor have I seen a 1.9 D & 1.9 Q.)



Scott Campbell

" God Bless "
kcfirl
649 posts
Jun 15, 2010
3:46 PM
Scott,

you went out of your area of expertise when you said the math doesn't work.

Here's the way a kit legitimately scores 1,000 pts.
3 x 15 bird breaks = 135
8 x 10 bird breaks = 160
14 x 7 bird breaks = 98
25 breaks for Raw = 393
Q = 1.6
D = 1.6

Total = 1006.08

This is an outstanding kit, but not unreasonable. And certainly one that I'm sure you would be proud to fly.

Ken
Scott
3085 posts
Jun 15, 2010
4:27 PM
Ken.. I may have seen only one true 15 bird break while judging in the past 12 -13 years.. true 1/2 turn breaks are a feat in themselfs... but is what you posted possible with those multipliers ? yes .. but the envelope is really getting stretched and the seams are beginning to pop.

----------
Scott Campbell

" God Bless "

Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 4:28 PM
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2465 posts
Jun 16, 2010
4:55 AM
Scott,
I have heard Randy has some nice birds....he has some of the same birds in the background of his family as I do. I would like to see them on one of their better days.
Cliff
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2466 posts
Jun 16, 2010
5:57 AM
How 'bout this:
Depth and Quality multipliers are the over-all averages of two entirely different elements of a kit's performance. But although different, they are seemingly...." dependent" on one another.
Cliff
Southplainsroller
32 posts
Jun 16, 2010
8:38 PM
Hey guys, I am a fairly new roller guy, ive been a member for sometime, but havent posted much of anything. I have a question, What I never understood is why are not more 1.8 and 1.9s given out? I understand that 2.0 is just a guide for perfection so they wouldn't be given, but why have a 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, if they are never given out?
JMUrbon
1050 posts
Jun 16, 2010
9:29 PM
I will attemp to answer that Southplainsrollers. I will just say that I have never seen a kit including my own that I would give that multiplier to. The thing with the multipliers is it is an overall impression of all of the birds involved in the scored breaks. I have never witnessed a kit that every bird was doing everything correctly in order to recieve a multiplier that would constitude an almost perfect multiplier. What we see in the air has to be scored on an overall impresion. that being said I feel that the chance of you seeing a 2.0 or even a 1.9 or 1.8 are slim. Not saying it cant happen because all judges see things differently. I just have not seen a kit in the air that all birds in a break performed perfectly on every break. The highest I have given out is 1.6 and believe me when I say this. they were some nice birds. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/


Post a Message



(8192 Characters Left)