Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2467 posts
Jun 17, 2010
1:16 PM
|
Well said, Joe.
Cliff
|
nicksiders
GOLD MEMBER
4356 posts
Jun 17, 2010
8:44 PM
|
Scott - you need to start judging better kits(LOL). Thirteen years with no three quarter turns, WOW! I haven't seen three quarter turns in my backyard, but I have seen them in other backyards, even this year.
You may be blind or just don't want to see(LOL)
What Is Life Without Honor?
------------------------------------------
Nick Siders
|
Scott
3086 posts
Jun 17, 2010
9:10 PM
|
Nick.. I didn't say none.. I said one.. but on second thought it might be two .. we are talking while judging here.
I think it has something to do with where ones standards are..in fact I'm sure of it.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
Last Edited by on Jun 17, 2010 9:12 PM
|
Southplainsroller
33 posts
Jun 20, 2010
7:26 PM
|
Thanks for the response Joe, That does make much more sense to me. thanks you.
Jake
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2468 posts
Jun 22, 2010
8:25 AM
|
Standards... Now there is a good subject to cuss and discuss. Until, the fly rules mandate some standards, we will always have "different " standards for each fly.
Scott
You were close to being as right as rain when you said," This is a stupid game". But I might add, yes, but it is still fun. ;0)
Cliff
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2469 posts
Jun 22, 2010
11:49 AM
|
Joe
Good start. Now figure out how to define and standardize each term so each judge and each flyer understand each term the same way.
For example:
Velocity and style....are the main components of quality. So far "style" is not defined in the fly rules.
Depth... is not a function of quality but it may be dependant, to a certain degree, on depth.... "suggested" to be the judges estimate of 10 feet.
Exit... can be good or a fault.
Return.. can be a direct route or become an out bird.
Entry..... Some will require a set up before a break..... But I find nothing in the rules to lead us one way or the other. A "surprise" break should be scored if 5 or more birds perform in unison and meet the judges minimum criteria. But nothing is set in stone.
All these are good things to have in a good kit, if things are done right per the rules.... if the rules address it. If the rules don't define it one way or the other, then we end up with a new standard (very different or only slightly different) with each new judge...... and it has always been that way.
What we need is to just get all the elements that make up the judges' over-all opinions of quality into written form, and then put it in the fly rules and we will all know exactly what it means. LOL! OR NOT! :0)
What about kitting.. loose or tight? How tight? Fly pattern.. figure eight or circles? Height of kit; number of breaks lost due to out birds?
Each one of us set our own standards, usually our standards will evolve upwards over the years. What we view as acceptable in the first few years becomes unacceptable over time. IF we are happy with our birds......? If we want our kits evaluated for 20 minutes, we pay someone a few bucks to come to our loft and give us his "OPINION" on what our birds did while under his judgement. Sometimes I think we screwed up with writting these rules. IF KISS was used more efficiently it could have looked more like this:
20 birds for 20 minutes, no out birds, no time outs, 5 birds breaking, or better, to score..... and let the judge sort out the rest of it.
Depth is suggested, quality is an over-all estimate, counts are an estimate... What have we got left? If the stopwatch is working and the judge can see, we will get a judge's opinion on what he saw. I am sorry but that is what we paid our money for..... Another man's opinion!
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jun 22, 2010 11:52 AM
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
871 posts
Jun 22, 2010
5:54 PM
|
Cliff...Read and study Bill Pensom's writing's and his only book. Also go back to the old way of judging and throw the professors way of judging out the window.Keep it simple and at the end of the fly's day you will know the best quality kit flown for the day.
1\4 turn 5 to 7 birds 1 point, 1/2 turn 8 to 12 birds 2 points, 3/4 turn 14 to 19 birds 3 points, 20 birds full turn 4 points,Best quality from the judge,1 kit 5 points.There's no splitting hairs. JDA
Last Edited by on Jun 22, 2010 6:01 PM
|
JMUrbon
1057 posts
Jun 22, 2010
8:40 PM
|
I have flown under both scoring systems and have seen quality teams scored under both but the fact remains that we have far more good kits these days that back in the 80's. I would truely hate to see this hobby go backwards by resorting to the old scoring system. Get out and watch some of the top teams in competition and you will see that whichever system you score with the best team will stand out like a sore thumb. If a guy want to complain about 1 or 2 breaks that he/she feels should have been scored I would bet they would complain no matter which scoring system was used. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
wishiwon2
338 posts
Jun 22, 2010
8:52 PM
|
I agree Joe. Talk about being criticized for scoring busy kits without quality now ... thats exactly what you got using the 1/4 turn scoring system. We have at least some way to differentiate between quality rolling and deep working kits vs shallow fluttering tumblers. I believe 1/4 scoring regimes are exactly what Pensom warned about being the ruination of quality Birminghams.
----------
Jon
If it were easy, everybody would do it
|
gotspin7
2679 posts
Jun 22, 2010
8:59 PM
|
I have flown under both scoring systems and have seen quality teams scored under both but the fact remains that we have far more good kits these days that back in the 80's. I would truely hate to see this hobby go backwards by resorting to the old scoring system. Get out and watch some of the top teams in competition and you will see that whichever system you score with the best team will stand out like a sore thumb. If a guy want to complain about 1 or 2 breaks that he/she feels should have been scored I would bet they would complain no matter which scoring system was used. Joe
Joe, I agree with this 100% and I could add that usually the ones doing all the crying or bickering either one do not fly or two will cry and bicker about anything. Now you are a arse kicker bro, I always enjoy your posts. Hope all is well.
Gang, I keep it simple, why did you choose the ROLLER? I think it was because of the roll, so stick to that..LOL.. Oh, and put up or shut up, now those words sound pleasing to the ear...LOL.... I hope you all move forward from this, all the CRYING just simply kills it for me.
The reality is if you put a good team together of quality rollers with good separation and a lot of spin, it does not matter if Manny, Moe or Jack judge your kit, you will be on top, or win the fly. Simple isn't it? LOL
----------
Salvador Ortiz
|
JMUrbon
1058 posts
Jun 22, 2010
9:06 PM
|
Thank you Sal, Jon. The kit you describe Sal would be on top because that kind of kit is hard to deny. It should be the kind of team we all should strive for. If you want and strive for quality pigeons they are within reach. You just cant settle for less. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
Mount Airy Lofts
897 posts
Jun 22, 2010
10:16 PM
|
Sal, guys... I think you guys are roaming a bit. Don't you guys see that their is a tend with the depth influencing the quality multiplier and vice versa. That is the sole of this topic... Not about the best teams winning as we all know that usually the best teams will prevailin the end.
As you guys know, we all can't be in those backyards... What we can do is view the score board. Most guys when they look at the scores turn to the multipliers to tell them who has the quality birds, regardless of the out come. Isn't it fishy to see a kit qualify with a 1.3 quality. Really, in the whole region and the best kit is only a average 'x' winger. If the best team in the whole region is only an average 'x' winging team.. Than we are in trouble. But as we all know, this isn't so! Only on the score board. I for one would like to see the right multipliers given...
----------
It's all about the friends we make :)
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2471 posts
Jun 23, 2010
8:12 AM
|
All good points of view and all valid opinions, but how do we convey to the hobby that no matter what rules we use, don't use, change, etc, it boils down to one mans "OPINION" watching our birds for 20 minutes and that is all? I don't buy the over-used assumption that the best kit will always stand out like a sore thumb, either. In my region we have eight or ten guys who can field good kits where one break can, indeed, make the difference in the winner.
What I seem to see, though,is that we have those who see it more about winning or loosing....and those who see it as a fun time to show off our birds/lofts and meet new/old friends.
Are we placing too much emphasis on scores and winning? Is this what WHP was concerned about?
In today's roller rules, I personally feel that "TURN" scoring needs to give way to actual numbers scoring and remove the pressure on the judge to call 14 or 15, 9 or 10. IMHO
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jun 23, 2010 8:13 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4109 posts
Jun 25, 2010
10:15 AM
|
Hmm, Cliff, how might things play out if only 10 bird breaks and higher were scored? As it seems scoring is coming down to guessing anyway...seeing half the kit break would be an easier guess and reward teams with better concert performance (which is where things are evolving to, right?). Of course the other guessing for depth and quality should continue. What do you think?
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2475 posts
Jun 25, 2010
11:14 AM
|
Tony
Excellent point! However, in the early days of the WC, the powers that be also thought that all breaks should be half turns or better. The way I hear the story was that there were a whole lot of zero's posted on a whole lot of score cards, and enthusiasm for the fly dropped like a rock. Then the idea was raised that maybe quarter turns should be scored too, and that idea has been accepted to date.
The WC is heavily dependent on flyer participation and making it too hard to even score is not what we need at this time. But I could be wrong.
The rules allow for the judge to " simply estimate" this or that and give his "opinion" on this or that. It is what it is and it will not change 'till we have a better way that comes along. This is a real low-tech game of chance. You pay your money and you take your best shot.
A guessing game? Well, whatever you call it , it always has been and most likely , always will be. BUT..... some of these judges are much better at their estimations than others. Experience does count. We just have to see it for what it is...... A game played with pigeons... eye candy if you will. WE LIKE TO WATCH THE PERFORMANCE!
Will it evolve to the point where estimates and opinions give way to something that is exact? Probably not without lots of high tech replay gizmos, IMHO!
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jun 25, 2010 11:15 AM
|
JMUrbon
1063 posts
Jun 26, 2010
9:14 AM
|
Cliff I have always said that there is a very small percentage of participants in both the WC and the FF that actually feel they have a chance at winning it. The rest participate either to support their region or to improve over previous years. But without that 90-95% that are flying to support or improve we will not have a WC or a FF ( national championship ).A You will certainly have a large number of guys drop the big flies if you were to only judge 1/2 turns or greater. A guy cant tell if he is improving if he gets a zero year after year. Even though he may no the birds are getting better, if you cant see it on a score sheet then in his mind they are still just getting zero's. It is not an easy task to tell if 10 birds roll together at the same time going at least 10 feet and doing it in good enough to score or did 9 go or 11. This all is done in about a second. That is a pretty difficult task. Joe
----------
J.M.Urbon Lofts
A Proven Family of Spinners
http://www.freewebs.com/jmurbonlofts/
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
875 posts
Jun 26, 2010
9:36 AM
|
Joe... Yes it is,You just count there leg's and divide by Two.JDA (-:
Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2010 9:38 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4114 posts
Jun 26, 2010
11:12 AM
|
Hey Joe, I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's sounding more and more to me like judges are simply guessing as to the best of their ability. Perhaps very few are skilled or talented enough to really see what is going on. Are we making up all these rules knowing full well we are really just best guessing at it and that some judges are simply better guessers than others?
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
Scott
3102 posts
Jun 26, 2010
12:03 PM
|
99 0/0 of the time you can place the kits in the right order without even keeping score if you have 10 kits flying against each other ... I have always found it interesting that those that mock the major flys are those that can't make a mark in them.
----------
Scott Campbell
" God Bless "
Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2010 12:04 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4115 posts
Jun 26, 2010
1:18 PM
|
Hey Scott, I don't know who is mocking major flys, but guys who are avid competitors are the ones who started using the words like "guess", "guessing", "guesstimate" and "educated guess". Independent thinkers like me, who read about all this guessing going on, find it silly to be judged by guys who are it turns out are only guessing after all?
You say in the above post that 99% of the time the kits can be placed in the right order without keeping score. This indicates to me that the judges "impression" of a kit is on par with keeping score. I am sorry, I would equate this with guessing.
In any event, I am currently filling 3 kit boxes for my next foray into comp flying. I figure I will have at least 1 decent kit for next years local flys, world cup and fall fly. I will look forward to having judges apply their educated guessing to my birds.
Now, before you start attacking the messenger, deconstruct what I have said. I want to learn something here if I can. I look forward to telling others to put up or shut up. Man, just typing that makes me want to let my birds out.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
gotspin7
2682 posts
Jun 26, 2010
3:32 PM
|
I look forward to telling others to put up or shut up.
Man, words I live by! LOL.... Good luck!
----------
Salvador Ortiz
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
680 posts
Jun 26, 2010
4:40 PM
|
Tony,
Rather than guesswork, I prefer to think of it as a subjective assessment of quality, depth and frequency based on the experience of the judge. Those who have done it frequently get pretty good at it. It is when they try to insert their personal bias into the assessment that problems arise. Just my opinion.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
877 posts
Jun 26, 2010
4:43 PM
|
Tony.... Don't forget Uniroyal,Rubber meets the road.lol JDA
Last Edited by on Jun 26, 2010 6:44 PM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4116 posts
Jun 27, 2010
6:18 AM
|
Hey Joe (Sunflower), without doubt, an experienced eye and knowing what to look for is an asset when determining the quality of a rolling pigeon. The challenge is in the limitations of the human eye.
When the evaluation is on 1 pigeon, human eye limitations would be minimal for most people I would think, it is only when the human eye is trying to watch 20 individual pigeons and make specific determinations about the performance of each one that the physical limitations of human eye perception are challenged.
The limitations of the human eye are brought to fore by the talk of guessing and the arbitrary experience of the judge. I have said before, I respect Scotts' ability to judge, his experienced eye is able to receive visual input and quickly extrapolate this data and make a determination as to what he just witnessed.
Did his eye "see" the performance of each bird or was it a collective impression of what he just saw based on what he already knows a proper roll looks like for an individual and then extrapolated to the performance of the breaking pigeons (at least 5)?
But even if you don't judge competition, you are still a judge of your own birds, you do it all year long and ultimately you are judging which pigeons get to your stock loft. A very important and key task for every roller pigeon hobbyist.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
681 posts
Jun 27, 2010
7:27 AM
|
Tony,
While I agree that it is impossible to focus on 20 pigeons at the same time, you can easily assess the performance of the whole if you do not get locked on to 1 or 2 birds. That I think is the trick and the problem that some judges have in the assessment. I think some of the high scoring judges tend to focus on a small number of birds and then extrapolate to the rest of the kit, whereas the more experienced and discerning judges like Scott or Joe Urbon tend to focus on the kit as a whole. Just my opinion.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4117 posts
Jun 27, 2010
10:00 AM
|
Hey Joe, nice to see we are in some agreement. For me though, an important question remains and that is how many birds can each judge really see before he begins extrapolating? Some extrapolate with 1 or 2 birds, others 3 or 4? Nevertheless, at some point, the extrapolating begins unless someone says they "see" each birds individual performance. Not likely though.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
879 posts
Jun 27, 2010
2:51 PM
|
The big clubs will have to do somewhat of a replay on video with a wide angel lens camera,not a cheep video camera with three judges.One filming and one judging and one scribing.At the end of the day of judging, the judge would look over the video with the camera man and come up with the best kits and placement for the day.JDA
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
682 posts
Jun 27, 2010
4:18 PM
|
Don't think current video technology is the answer. Does not do justice to the kit. Haven't seen a video yet that had the resolution necessary to judge a kit of rollers that is really hitting it.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
JDA
GOLD MEMBER
880 posts
Jun 27, 2010
4:40 PM
|
Joe....It would tell the number of birds in a turn and if and when they went together.JDA
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2476 posts
Jun 28, 2010
5:52 AM
|
Tony
This could border on intellectual, but can we agree that Judging Rollers is very subjective as well as somewhat of an art form? It will never be absolute even with stop action replay. If there ever was a place for " beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", this is it.
Are we tripping over the rules and missing the performance, in the process? In other words, are our rules helping the judge find the best kit or are the rules keeping the best kit from winning?
I wonder what we would find, if every regional/finals kit was judged and given a score... then see if that score would stand in relation to any rules infraction? Would the kit with the highest score win or loose?
It depends on if the glass is half full or half empty. Have the rules overridden the quest for deep quality spinners?
It looks, to me, like we may have a game within a game or several games going on at once; the birds, the weather, the judge and the rules.
Cliff
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4119 posts
Jun 28, 2010
6:16 AM
|
Hey Cliff, the aerial standard is not an art form. It is a precise description: "...inconceivable rapidity through a considerable distance". No paint brush here.
What is referred to as "art form" is merely the grey area between what the human eye can and cannot perceive and then what it wants to believe it sees.
When I read the comments and specific parameters about what to look for, I think that this is great info to judge a single bird, but then to apply it to a group of breaking birds in the span of mere moments stretches the limits of believability.
I call it guessing, you call it art. Ok, if that floats yer boat.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
Last Edited by on Jun 28, 2010 10:27 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2478 posts
Jun 28, 2010
6:27 AM
|
Tony
ESTIMATING sounds like a better description of what is actually occurring rather than "guessing" or "art".
Example:
A man gives you an estimate for repairs...... it is NOT a guess. It is an approximation based on experience.
Same with our judges, where they give an estimate on the number of birds spinning. Estimating is a lot more complicated than guessing. I don't know of any judges that "GUESS" at anything. They base their judgements on their observations...... NOT GUESSES. It's a fine line to be sure but the rules do not require the judge to be sure.... only estimate and give his best opinion on the average D&Q. Like Joe said , Judging is not an easy task.
Cliff
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4120 posts
Jun 28, 2010
7:08 AM
|
Hey Cliff, not going to get into semantic gymnastics, but to say, if I am going to pay to have repairs done to my house, I want a "QUOTE", not an estimate. If you accept an estimate, that's on you. You can bet the price is going up.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying, determining how many birds have rolled is not too difficult, it is all the other mumbo jumbo I find hard to believe that they have seen in fractions of a second from one to twenty birds do the following:
* The hole
* Style of each bird: >< X H ()
* Velocity
* Wing-switching
* Depth
* Entering the roll
* Exiting the roll
* Can you name some others?
The higher number of birds in the break, the harder to "know precisely" what has been seen. Deeper birds will attain separation from the kit and if the quality is right, the appearance of 5 of those birds looks much different than say 5 sloppy rollers.
So, the impression or interpretation of what a judge sees is determined by his previous experience and knowledge as to what quality performance is in an individual bird and then extrapolated to the breaking birds.
So he is not observing 5 or more birds individually but 5 or more birds performing as a single unit resembling as near as he can tell, the individual performance he is so familiar with.
Now, obviously, each judge might have his own way of describing the process, but this is how I do it and I am guessing (estimating lol) that this akin to how others perceive it.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2479 posts
Jun 28, 2010
8:07 AM
|
Tony
The rules do not require an absolute "quote", only an estimation of numbers spinning and a couple of overall averages. I do agree that the likelihood of an incorrect observation (count and/or D&Q) goes up with the sizes of the breaks and the distance away from the judge, but that's part of the 20-bird game.
I have the same questions as you, but I just accept it for what it is: one man's evaluation using his best estimate for the time under judgement. NO MORE NO LESS... as they say. ;0)
It's not rocket science....but it's not absolute without error, either.
How much error can we remove with better rules?
How much error can we remove with better-trained judges?
Error is inherent and subjective, and in many cases unavoidable, IMHO.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jun 28, 2010 8:10 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2480 posts
Jun 28, 2010
8:15 AM
|
Sunflower Joe
The problem with bias is that the current rules encourage the judge to exercise "HIS" standards. Our fly rules also have no set depth or quality standards.
We have a "SUGGESTED" minimum depth but if the judge can't see the quality in 10 feet , he simply says they aren't deep enough to score or drops the quality multiplier to whatever he likes.
Take a look at the "JUDGES QUALIFICATIONS" He merely needs to have won the fly the year before...and have the time available to take off work for two or three months, and he is instantly qualified as a judge. Nothing is said about his experience level or how he performed in that duty in any past judging tasks, or even if he has judged before.
Like you and Joe Urbon have made reference to, often times experience and better estimation goes hand in hand.
I am not bashing the judges, I am pointing out the likelihood, that low or no scores are NOT indicative of the performance of a kit, on a day to day basis.
Take, for example, Scott and Paul. They got no scores because of technicalities; not because there birds were no good.
Judges are a very important element needed in order for us to have a competition fly. We need to KNOW that the quality of our birds is NOT always seen on fly day and it may not be the way they really are performance-wise.
Our rules are poor, the standards are ever changing... judge to judge, and everyday brings new challenges.
A judge is just a man...... not an infallible machine.
Expect the worst, but work for the best, and tomorrow will be a better day.
Cliff
|
Sunflower
GOLD MEMBER
683 posts
Jun 28, 2010
8:32 AM
|
Cliff,
I understand and agree with what you said. Not sure we want to get overly specific with the rules. After all it is a subjective assessment.
----------
Keep em Spinning
Joe
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4121 posts
Jun 28, 2010
8:33 AM
|
Hey Cliff, when a group of people agree to a set of rules, then they submit to them, as error-prone as you yourself indicate them to be. With all the previous talk about rules and their application, I think it wise to have a "better" perspective as to their true limitations in judging Birmingham Rollers for competition flying and blindly telling people to put up or shut up. That's just misguided macho energy (but I still want to say it too! Gives one a position of such moral authority! LOL).
As for your "how much error" questions, how much integrity do you want to inject into competitions? I am not against them, but I know that there are limitations in trying to account for 20 active birds and judging sub groups with definitive accuracy.
I read the discussions that go round and round on comp rules and their interpretation and it seems almost humorous when you realize just how difficult it really is to see each bird with any detail.
So, despite the limitations, compete we must as it is the way, the truth and the only to not be told to "put up or shut up".
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
Last Edited by on Jun 28, 2010 8:33 AM
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2481 posts
Jun 28, 2010
8:46 AM
|
Tony
That is as good a way to put it, as any. Some flyers and some judges need to see it as you do... loaded with human limitations and just not that big of a deal. Fly um if you got um....for the fun, for the friendship and the comraderie of fellow roller enthusiasts.
Cliff
Last Edited by on Jun 28, 2010 8:47 AM
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
4124 posts
Jun 28, 2010
9:15 AM
|
Thanks Cliff.
----------
FLY ON!
Tony Chavarria
The highest form of ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about.” – Dr. Wayne W. Dyer
|
Ballrollers
GOLD MEMBER
2482 posts
Jun 28, 2010
12:15 PM
|
Tony
Always a pleasure discussing roller topics with you.
Cliff
|