DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Roller Pigeons
HTML https://rollerpigeon.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Roller Competition
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1331--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: michael salus Date: October 13, 2010, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliff, If I could not tell the quality of the roll, I would
not score it. As far as wing position, as you can see we all
have an opinion. No one can tell quality or depth at 1800 feet,
that's 600 yards...hehe. I would not score axel rollers no
matter how fast they were. I have scored x wingers, but I have
to admit that if I was judging now, I might not score them.
Over all impressions of the kit as they were rolling would
probably come into it. My standards have changed... gone up!! I
think the rule reads "to the judges standards", so it could be
anything and I think that's why were having this debate. On a
side note Cliff a few of the birds that I bred off your birds
are starting to go about 15' to 20', not the best Q., but they
seem to be getting better with age. I gave most of the birds to
a friend and kept the Andy hen, to work into the one cock I got
from JoeBob. later, Mike
#Post#: 1334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: deepwithspeed Date: October 13, 2010, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliff,
I have seen many kits, all across the country, over many years,
and I have seen very few axle rollers, but when I did, they
stuck out like sore thumbs. They do look "sloppy". Many slower
X-wingers, especially lower X-wingers, look "loose" and
"sloppy". My contention is that these terms, stated clearly in
the rules, allow a judge to use them to not count certain styles
that look loose and sloppy to him. The bottom line is that this
is a subjective sport, will always be a subjective sport, and
when the judge is subjectively judging your birds, he is
perfectly within the rule to not count birds that he deems loose
and sloppy.
DeepWithSpeed
[quote author=Cliff Ball link=topic=128.msg1287#msg1287
date=1286910010]
DeepWithSpeed,
Not to speak for Ty but, yes, generally speaking, loose,
sloppy performance should not be scored. BUT....althoug h an X
style spinner shows more wing than I like, if it is fast enough
and deep enough , many judges will score this type of
performance if there are no other flaws. There are varying
degrees of scoreable wing styles and identifying them depends on
the judge, his experience, the accuracy of his eye-sight, his
vantage point in relationship to the spinnng bird, and the
distance from the judge (usually relative to flying height.)
From what I know, X, A, H and ball style rollers , if they are
fast enough and deep enough.... should be scored....barr ing any
other obvious flaws. Ty's question, as I understand it,
centered around why a judge would not score X,H,and A style
performace with speed and depth, just because his personal
standard is that only a ball spinner should score.
Hope this helps,
Cliff
[/quote]
#Post#: 1335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: deepwithspeed Date: October 13, 2010, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ty,
I copied my reply to Cliff, because it is the same response that
I have for your post:
I have seen many kits, all across the country, over many years,
and I have seen very few axle rollers, but when I did, they
stuck out like sore thumbs. They do look "sloppy". Many slower
X-wingers, especially lower X-wingers, look "loose" and
"sloppy". My contention is that these terms, stated clearly in
the rules, allow a judge to use them to not count certain styles
that look loose and sloppy to him. The bottom line is that this
is a subjective sport, will always be a subjective sport, and
when the judge is subjectively judging your birds, he is
perfectly within the rule to not count birds that he deems loose
and sloppy.
DeepWithSpeed
[quote author=Ty Coleman link=topic=128.msg1300#msg1300
date=1286928198]
[quote author=deepwithspeed link=topic=128.msg1285#msg1285
date=1286901500]
Ty,
When it says that "loose" and "sloppy" rolls should not be
scored, what does that mean to you? Birds with their wings
sticking out, are "loose" and "sloppy" rollers.
DeepWithSpeed
[/quote]
Birds with there wings out are not always loose and sloppy, that
is just your opinion. A loose bird to me is one that can't get
balled up [cant see the whole because of being loose], a sloppy
bird to me is just what it say's sloppy, two different wing
positions or either rolling sideways, coming out backwords, not
clean going in, basicly a bird with a glitch[ non scorable]
[/quote]
#Post#: 1336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: Cliff Ball Date: October 13, 2010, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike (Didn't know that was you!)
I just don't want us to back ourselves in a corner. We make all
these rules and regulations covering minute details of the roll
and they claim to be able to see a 15 degree difference in wing
position at 300-500 feet (not yards...my mistake), claim to see
a wing switcher, claim to see all kinds of faults at these
tremendous distances. I once observed a very respected judge, a
WC finals judge ( Not Eldon), who counted and scored birds that
I estimated to be way beyond the normal range of sight. After
the time, I asked this judge how he could see well enough to
score those birds. He said " I couldn't, but I could see
separation and could count the birds in the break". Then he
says, " I will give him a lower Quality multiplier be cause they
got so far away". My problem is, if the difference between a
scoreable bird and a non-scoreable bird cannot be made visually,
how can we score at these distances? And the answer is, as you
correctly pointed out, WE CAN"T! But judges routinely score
birds beyond where they can see accurately. I see the need for
better written rules, I see the need for NBRC standards but I
also see where we can get in way over our heads real quick. But
South Africa has established a performance standard, and they
train and certify judges to score birds consistently based on
that standard. They are way ahead of the US in that regard, and
I predict that we will see that manifested more and more in the
World Cup scores.
Cliff
#Post#: 1338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: michael salus Date: October 13, 2010, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cliff, I was hoping you meant feet and not yards...
otherwise you would have had a new nickname.. eagle eye!!
#Post#: 1339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: Cliff Ball Date: October 13, 2010, 1:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DeepWithSpeed,
I don't disagree with what you wrote or how a judge scores
birds. BUT... we need a way to put into writing how a judge is
to score pigeons, what he is looking for, and what he won't
score; how he subjectively analyzes the D&Q. Based on the
questions that are being raised, it appears that many of our
flyers do not understand. We need something in writing. We need
to "EDUCATE" our flyers to what and how judges judge. If we
can't get agreement among our judges, then maybe each individual
judge could fill out a questionnaire in which he informs the
flyers as to what his personal standards will be. This thread is
not about judge-bashing, but about more information needed to
educate our flyers. I have heard of situations where RD's will
ask a judge a number of questions pertaining to how his
standards will be enforced, his understanding of the fly rules,
etc. That may not be such a bad idea.
Cliff
#Post#: 1348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: Cliff Ball Date: October 13, 2010, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is more to a scoreable roller than just wing position,
more than just velocity and more than just depth. It is a
combination of all three... without faults. Some judges believe
we should judge only the best. But I believe there is a "RANGE"
of scoreable wing positions and minimum depth, the judge's best
estimate of 10 feet, and a range of scoreable velocities with
the minimum being fast enough that you can't count the
revolutions. Scoreable rollers can be Good, Better and Best
depending on how fast, how deep and how tight. Loose and sloppy
roll falls below the scoreable line. Deep with loose and sloppy
still falls below the minimum scoreable performance. Tight
without minimum depth, is also non-scoreable. Some of these
ideas are hard to grasp untill you see a really great kit of
rollers.
Cliff
#Post#: 1357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: J_Star Date: October 14, 2010, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new roman]I judged my region fall fly this year.
Before each flyer released his birds, I explained to him and the
people there what I look for and how I will score the birds and
what will not be scored so that no one be surprised with my
scoring. In another note, yes you can not see the quality of the
spin when they are flying high or away almost out of sight.
However, if the birds were flying up close for a while and you
were able to determine the kit quality and depth, chemistry and
work rate, once they fly higher or away, then you can pretty
much assume that the quality and the depth still the same and
you still can score them. That is if they are with reasonable
viewing distance. Judging is not magic; rather it is more of the
person enjoys common sense, logic and good judgment. Some people
lack all those traits to be good judges.[/font]
[font=times new roman] [/font]
[font=times new roman]Jay[/font]
#Post#: 1359--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: Cliff Ball Date: October 14, 2010, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay,
Good point, but I think we have to be careful with
assumptions. We both have seen birds, whose performance varies
from tight and fast to loose and sloppy each time they roll. And
we have both seen kits that, as the elevate, become better
(tighter and faster and deeper), and others that, once they warm
up, see the spin improve dramatically. It makes me wonder, "Did
the spin actually improve or did they get far enough away where
I was unable to see the performance accurately?" Other kits seem
to become loose and sloppy as they fatigue, and I wonder if this
is hidden by extreme flying heights. We have to remember, that
we are observing an "illusion" and that illusion looks better to
different judges at different distances, depending somewhat on
the vision of the observer. But I will agree with your last two
sentences. Judging in NOT a guessing game. If you can't clearly
see the wing positions, if they are too far away to recognize
faults, are we are guessing that they are doing it right? If so,
what does that say about our judging? The best of all worlds,
is a select panel of 3-5 judges, IMHO.
Cliff
#Post#: 1362--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wing position
By: ezeedad Date: October 14, 2010, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don't agree with both speed,and style
which includes wing position, smoothness and entry and exit from
the roll, not to mention presence or absence of the hole.(Too
controversial?) all lumped into one multiplier. This one
multiplier...QUALITY.... Wing position is the easiest to
evaluate, I think, so now it seems to be the current focus. But
I am glad that it is being looked at more carefully. It will be
better for the breed.
Quality is hard to judge and most of the scoring that I
have seen doesn't use the multiplier to any great degree. Most
of the quality multipliers are within a couple tenths of a
point... It seems almost to be an afterthought. To me the most
important qualities of a Birmingham roller are being treated as
an afterthought by the judging system.
Depth has a seperate multiplier. Is it more important
than either speed or style?
Paul
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page