Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 11:50:24 -1000 From: djskites@aol.com (Djskites) Message-Id: <3bdjb0$47i@newsbf01.news.aol.com> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Subject: Re: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ In article , steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes: kdflkdjflkdjfldkf;kljfadkfldjk I agree with you Steve, keep the wheels turning. Dodd = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 07:18:25 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ Djskites (djskites@aol.com) wrote: : Well the reason we do(and I know steve will agree) is becuase we have seen : time and time again inexperienced flyer/judges judge poorly because of : exactly that reason. [etc. stuff deleted] As I mentioned, though, Dave's right: it's not going to be *easy* getting good judges. Judging, too, I agree, is not *just* the ability to fly well--it's the ability to be objective, to have a good eye for detail, to stay focused (try judging Novice Precision on a Southern California beach sometime), and to be fairly methodical. I think it's going to take some 'veteran' flyers to sit on the sidelines and judge rather than compete. Personally, I think that if I have a chance to show off in another forum (to appease my sponsor :-)), I'd be willing to forego competition. You don't need to be a competition flyer to judge, you just need to be good enough that you can pull off--or almost pull off--all the moves in question. The idea is that as a judge you need a clear idea of what is hard and what is trivial (for instance: side-slips are real easy indoors, trailing tip-drag side-slips are somewhat hard, leading tip-drag side-slips are very hard). Judging is quite a skill, and it shouldn't be overlooked. *** One other major point I forgot to make in my last post: judging needs to be *immediate*. That is, after the routine, the judges need to hold up their scores and show everybody. I realize this puts a lot more pressure on the judges, but its the *only* way to judge a *real* sport that might be interesting for somebody to watch (imagine watching Monday Night Football where they tell you the score at a private banquet the next day--nobody would watch!). I think judging the event this way will put a *lot* more drama into the competition, and also take some of the 'mystery' out of judging. It will also put the judges themselves more on the spotlight, which would only be a good thing. Again, I'll personally put my money where mouth is and judge--I'm with Dodd when he says that he doesn't want to see the same mistakes made that were made outdoors. *** Now, how about another idea, and the theme of making the sport as exciting to watch as, say, ice skating continues: how about the judges judging the event (remember that Indoor is doesn't have a Precision/Freestyle event) in two broadly defined catagories: "Technical" and "Artistic". This way, the difficulty and cleanliness of routine can be addressed in the "Technical" catagory, and the flow of the routine, the drama built up, the accuracy of the choreography, etc. would be judged under the "Artistic" score. Errors (screw-ups) would effect both scores (Artisitic because an error will often effect the flow of the routine, etc.). Indoor competition has a lot of promise--and it promises to be lots of fun for everybody (all year around!)--I think that if we get things off on the right foot, we'll avoid a lot of the grief we've gone through outdoor flying... -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- Daffy Duck = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 05:46:08 -1000 From: Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky) Message-Id: <3bfic0$lub@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Subject: Re: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ In <3bdjb0$47i@newsbf01.news.aol.com> djskites@aol.com (Djskites) writes: [Dodd grossed us out with] >kdflkdjflkdjfldkf;kljfadkfldjk > >I agree with you Steve, keep the wheels turning. Although this is humorus, I think the subject of ur thread should be "The Humorous Side of Indoor Standards". Seems to me that Steve is pretty serious about making standards. So are some others. Maybe that's why they speak in the 'we' tense rather than the AKA non-sense. Mr.Nasty = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 08:20:28 -1000 From: steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) Message-Id: Organization: VisionAire, San Francisco, CA Subject: Re: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ Frank Kenisky (Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : : Although this is humorus, I think the subject of ur thread should be : "The Humorous Side of Indoor Standards". Seems to me that Steve is : pretty serious about making standards. So are some others. Maybe that's : why they speak in the 'we' tense rather than the AKA non-sense. Well, any given event will most probably need AKA "sanctioning" of some kind, because of the _insurance_ issue. Does anybody have any thoughts on how one might bypass this issue? If we could, then sure enough, we wouldn't need the AKA at all--which would surely make things a lot simpler. Personally, I'd like to see an event put on entirely by a store, or better yet, a manufacturer... -- _______ Steve Thomas steveth@netcom.com "Consequences, shmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- Daffy Duck = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 05:20:19 -1000 From: mgraves@leadingedg.win.net (Michael Graves) Message-Id: <1380@leadingedg.win.net> Subject: Re: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ In article , Steve Thomas (steveth@netcom.com) writes: > >Does anybody have any thoughts on how one might bypass this issue? If we >could, then sure enough, we wouldn't need the AKA at all--which would >surely make things a lot simpler. > Abolish competition! Who needs to beat anyone? The only real competition comes from within. Michael Graves = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 05:06:58 -1000 From: Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky) Message-Id: <3bnd6i$nm9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Subject: Re: Judging, Indoor (was: Re: INDOOR STANDARDS_ In <1380@leadingedg.win.net> mgraves@leadingedg.win.net (Michael Graves) writes: >In article , Steve Thomas (steveth@netcom.com) writes: >> >>Does anybody have any thoughts on how one might bypass this issue? If >>we could, then sure enough, we wouldn't need the AKA at all--which >>would surely make things a lot simpler. > >Abolish competition! Who needs to beat anyone? The only real >competition comes from within. > >Michael Graves Very "Trekian". But I'm afraid u stand alone. "We are the champions, no time for loosers..." It appears that the standards are being set, judges for this, judges for that, soon there will be more judges than contestants. That's not the worst part, the worst is yet to come. Olympics, yea right! They can't [won't] even enforce the current rules, (wait I mean the guidelines, sorry dgombug). Mr.Nasty = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =