RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Too Many Trials, Too Few Judges?

79K views 351 replies 83 participants last post by  Buzz 
#1 · (Edited)
The Retriever News has an interesting article entitled "Too Many Trials, Too Few Judges?"

Some interesting statistics from the article
- There are approximately 250 trials per year
- This translates to approximately 2000 judging assignments
- There are 1022 "Active" Judges, that is, people who have judged in the past five years

- 39.4% of those 1022 Active judges have 1-9 points
- 28% have 10-19 points
- 25.2% have 20-49 points
- 4.3% have 50-69 points
- 2.4% have 70-99 points
- .65 have 100 points or more
 
#71 ·
As pointed out by some previous posters there are a group of judges who have multiple MINOR stakes experience, but probably have never been asked/invited to judge an AA event.

That may be an area/resource that could be tapped. If someone has judged a Derby and a Qual, they are more qualified to step up to judge an AA stake then putting a clipboard with a novice club member along with an 8 point judge, which in essence turned the stake into a one man judging event. Now convincing the powers that be to give these minor judges the Open/Amateur assignments may be another ball of wax, but what are the alternatives
 
#74 ·
Only issue is the new requirements to become an AA judge and is the person with 8+ minors willing to jump through the hoops?
 
#77 ·
Some of the issues of poor judging are persons selected to judge at a major stake level, after apprenticing. We have some judges who are now 8 point judges plus several times, who have not done much in a all-age stake but are asked to judge. Sometimes hard workers at club events become judges as rewards , even though they are limited in experience with the stake they are judging. Put a 8 plus point judge with an inexperienced judge and "you know who will run the stake". Then you have the issue of trading judges, you judge for us and we will give you an assignment. There are so many issues it is a myriad of problems. Then you have the issues of minor stake judges with sometimes dozens of assignments who never get asked to do the big dance. Some clubs will ask you to judge a minor stake first, then come back and do a major stake at a later date. I think that has merit.They get to test the waters, especially in a qualifying stake, to see how you perform. It also gives an experienced person to judge with a less experienced person, rather then "lets see if we can make the total needed for eight points" in the minors. From a personal standpoint I have judged in the 40's in major stakes or the RTFN range of 20 to 49, but,have judged scores of minor stakes before getting asked on a regular basis to do a major. It wasn't until I was running all-age stakes on a regular basis I was then asked to do a major stake even judging minors, both sanction and licensed for many years. I suppose hunt tests at the Master level could apply also to the above criteria. I am a eight plus point Master judge, but a relative newcomer at the hunt test game, with limited experience judging the Junior and the senior. I was immediately asked to judge a Master (have made five MH) but perhaps should have started at the junior and senior level. I have judged only one Junior, just saying. Perhaps apply the eight rule to the minor FT stakes and perhaps a eight point rule to the HT junior or senior before moving up to a master. Just a bunch of thoughts from a personal perspective. It was a beautiful training day with the water open and the snow gone on the Illinois/Wisconsin border.
 
#83 ·

Without naming names, for what reasons will you not run under these people?
 
#84 ·
Another issue that isn't being discussed that impacts getting judges is the economy of flying in qualified 8 pt judges. I figure we (Cimarron RC) can handle two judges that have to travel by plane or drive long distances. In some cases driving can be more expensive than flying. I could get four 8 pt judges quite easily for our trial. Getting them within a reasonable distance is the trick. We have lost money or barely scraped by the last four trials. We are down to one a year now, a combination of the members wearing out and the wallet wearing thin. I think the judging rules that were put in place several years ago made it much tougher for small, thin clubs to find judges. Again, a rule that was made (in my opinion) by folks in the sport that have clubs with many members and a thick bank account.
 
#85 ·
This is a great discussion! Many have great ideas. I'd like to add a few thoughts as well. First, merely competing in an all-age stake--even if one is very successful does not really translate into being a good judge--especially if they don't train dogs and routinely set up tests. If, as a successful handler, all I do is learn to handle for field trials and show up to run my dog in training on a test that my pro has crafted, it does not bestow the ability to set up tests--real tests--not training drills--on me. One of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years is that field trial tests have become the latest control drills seen at professional training set-ups.

I like the apprentice program, but how many folks are going to put up their own nickel to be at a trial to watch, hopefully have some input into the tests and evaluations, only to have to do that at least once more before being qualified to hold the book for an all-age stake. We used to have experienced and knowledgeable judges for minor stakes. We would pair a less experienced person with them to give them more experience and insight into crafting tests. Those experienced judges must accommodate the newer judges to let them suggest tests, listen to why they want a test, and then tactfully give feedback as to where the pitfalls may be or what may or may not happen. That's how they learn, not watching the next generation of control blind drills (like the ones that have given rise to running to the bird planter's feet, then buzzing the side of his chair for the next blind in a double set-up. To me, those are not field trial tests, they are drills.

I am firmly against allowing professionals to judge. Our sport is too small and our dogs/handlers too intertwined to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I don't care how good of a person they are or now fair they are perceived to be, they derive their livlihood from training dogs for amateurs and they should not be judging.

Money is always an issue with respect to trial expenses for the clubs. That said, if we are going to complain about the quality of judging or size of the trials, or any other aspect of putting on a good trial, we would be willing to pony up an entry fee that will enable the clubs to at least break even. For me, that would seriously limit the number of trials that I would run. It would likely make for smaller trials because I doubt I'm the only one that $100 or $150 entry fees would affect.

Unfortunately, I think many have decided it's acceptable to blame poor performance on bad judges or bad trials, etc. It may be that it just wasn't our weekend; our dog wasn't on his game, or simply isn't talented enough, etc. But it seems the judges are always at fault.

One of the reasons that people like Mac/Lynne DuBose, Mark Medford, Bruce Hall, and many others who are routinely successful is because they buy the best that is available, not what is "within budget". (I apologize if I have left anyone out of the list--I know I did and I also acknowledege there are many successful trialers who do operate within budget & with hard work)

In short, it's not a simple answer. I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all, so let's keep talking about it.
 
#86 ·
I agree with Vicki that this is a very complicated issue.
If the issue is not enough judges. Good luck solving that.
If the issue is quality of judges. It's my opinion that people do the best they can and they get better with experience. This will just take time.
If the real issue is poor set-ups. Why not ask the top pro's (2) at any trial to meet the AA judges to discuss and offer insight into the set-ups.
I think you could develop some criteria using the Retriever News judges points as a guideline. Example...If total judges points don't add up to XX it's mandatory they meet with the pro's.
If the pro's refuse to play along have the AKC suspend them for X amount of time.

- 39.4% of those 1022 Active judges have 1-9 points
- 28% have 10-19 points
- 25.2% have 20-49 points
- 4.3% have 50-69 points
- 2.4% have 70-99 points
- .65 have 100 points or more
 
#87 ·
I guess I will put my 2 cents worth in. Our club just put on a trial and the entry numbers were low. We will lose money. Our club has been around for quite a long time and has a great membership that gets the job done. We also are on state land and those fees are relatively low. That said if we consistently had losers financially the club would go away. Having traveling/fly in judges is getting more expensive by the year. We have tried very hard to keep entry fees at a level of break even for the cost to put on a trial. I assume this is the same with other clubs. So unless entries go would increase the adding of out of area judges is not going to change from the current level.

Much has been discussed at nauseum about the relation of trial success, training of ones one dog vs having a pro trained dog. I think to use a black and white formula is a poor way to look at it. I have seen some folks judge that follow all Marvins golden judge rule that would do a poor job at a puppy stake. I also know a LOT of people that are good judges that have not owned a titled dog. Never got the win, dog died prematurely, had to step away from the sport for family/work reasons and so on. A good judge is just that if they are not dont ask them to judge. As for the number of points one has as a judge I feel that most people try to judge twice a year. Using that formula to get to 40 points . Also do you think some were celebrity judges?

To the last part is I will answer why I may not run under a judge. While working as a marshall or other worker how they treat the help. Poor attitude about the game and life. Willing to cut dogs just to get done early. Prejudiced against a female or brand of dog or even a newby. Disregard for the safety of participants human and canine. A favorite "trick" to drop dogs. Lastly I think a few times I have just been plain screwed over on a placement.

All I want is to run a test and get a fair shake. Be judge on a equal and fair basis. hope they give the benifit to the dog. Someone will do the test the way the judges had it set up and hopefully it is me.

One thing I did notice last weekend in the derby and the Q and after the awards were given. The pros that ran under me seemed to be genuine in giving thanks for taking time to judge. Tried to be at the stake where the marshals sent them. Most of all handed me the duck in a thoughtful manner not butt 1st haha.

BTW the derby had likely 60 points or more between us was that overkill ?
 
#89 ·
My judging career began in an era when judges were expected to do a major and a minor stake which accomplishes two things, experienced judges for the minor stakes and a significant reduction in expenses for the club. I have not judged two stakes in the same weekend for a very long time and the last time I did it was a derby and qualifying (3 sets of judges). A few clubs still use just two sets of judges but not many.
 
#90 ·
Nice thread and good post, particularly this page. I just wanted to follow on Steve's last sentence regarding super experienced judges judging the derby. I was invited and encouraged by Roger Fangsrud to judge my first trial back in 1997. He put me with a very experienced, and more importantly great mentor, co-judge in the Open. I was startled to be judging the Open and asked why not the derby, it was Roger's viewpoint, and after judging a while I agree, that the derby is the hardest stake to judge. I learned the hard way when I was put with a zero point judge, I had two points to judge a derby. It was a disaster, too long a story to tell here, but I can honestly say that, though we worked our butts off and worried ourselves to death, we ultimately failed. It was a hard lesson that I took to heart and learned from.

Now I love the challenge and fun of judging the minor stakes. I don't like it when the minors stakes get the short end of the stick on grounds, judges and resources. Put an experienced-good judge with that newbie judge in all stakes.

John
 
#93 ·
Some thoughts:

1. We need more people with a passion to contribute to the sport. That includes putting on trials - and judging trials.
2. I happen to support the apprentice program. To those that say that it involves too much sacrifice, I say "so what." I want person who is willing to stay on the grounds until 7 pm on Sunday, if that is what is required to do right by the contestants and their dogs. Judging is hard work. It requires dedication and sacrifice. I want a person who understands and accepts that.
3. I would like to see more judging seminars, but unfortunately, the people who attend the seminars are not the ones who need them.
4. I am in favor of pros judging. I doubt it will happen, because the issue is too polarizing.
5. I think the minor stakes are a good place for new judges to learn the ropes. However, when clubs fly out judges, it is usually for the major stakes - and when those stakes are larger, the imported judges do not judge the minors.



 
#94 ·
To Many Trials, Too Few Judges

I too support the apprentice program. Recently we tried to get some folks to apprentice & they just plain out said they couldn't afford to burn the vacation days and the funds to "apprentice". Every person's circumstances are different, so that may not be a "popular" response insofar as deciding if that is a good route for developing new judges. But...it happened. The times that I have had an apprentice work with me, it's been a fun and, I hope, rewarding experience for the apprentice. There have, however, been a couple of times when the person apprenticing simply wanted to "punch their ticket" for the AKC, and I doubt they learned a darned thing.

I think there are many who confuse "a fair shake" with leniency. It's very difficult to be lenient in 80-100+ dog stakes. It's not difficult to be fair. The sport has evolved into large entries, fewer handlers, and tough judgment calls. If that were not the case, we would not have the ever-present discussion about limiting entries at field trials. Being generous in one's callbacks takes on a different meaning when you still have the same amount of time to complete a stake, but you have often triple the number of entries that were experienced when the basic rules for conducting the stakes at a trial were conceived. So generous becomes more like small margin for error for judges faced with these numbers. That is why I made the statement earlier that it's easier to blame the quality of judging than to accept that each of us is part of the problem to greater or lesser degrees.

How are we part of the problem? By continuing to run up the entires in trials with multiple dogs to handle; by failing to accept some judging assignments each season; by complaining about large entries, but continuing to enter--even when the entry is large when we enter; and by complaining that judging is bad when all these other things are present as if "judging quality" is the one big "fix". By failing to work at weekend trials--most everyone wants to be on a national committee & get their name and photo in the recap edition of RFTN, but how many of us actually help a struggling club that needs help? I've had people tell me they have to concentrate on running their dogs, so they can't work or judge because they would be less successful! Don't that just beat all!

Maybe the standard should be that each person who enters "x" number of major stakes (or minor stakes if running at that level) must within the next calendar year meet the requirements to judge a major stake, and then those handlers must accept a judging assignment for each different dog they run during the upcoming trial season after attaining their qualifications. That might fix the "number of available" judges; but won't by itself address "quality". So...if you run 5 all-age dogs; you must judge 5 all-age stakes each year at a minimum. If you run 1 dog; judge 1 all-age stake each year at a minimum. That of itself may serve to give cause for pause about large numbers of entries!

I will also say this: Those club members who are responsible for obtaining judges have a difficult job and certainly need to be able to deal with rejection. But...they also have a huge responsibility to ask judges with experience and demonstrated knowledge. Let's face it, when someone is getting started on their judging career, they are extremely flattered when asked to judge. They don't question their credentials; they believe they are being asked because they in some way have demonstrated they have the right qualities to be asked! Most will not say, they can't because they aren't qualified. They will attempt to set up what they think they know--either good tests or poor tests--based upon their actual experience. They don't set out to be bad, and I sincerely don't think anyone sets out to be unfair to anyone. Different things appear to bear more weight with some judges than with others.

The gallery at nearly every trial I have attended over the last 35 years seems to "judge" the judges; to criticize each mark and boldly point out what is "wrong" with the test, albeit in a "gallery" sort of way that "floats" up to the line, rather than direct conversation with the committee or the judges. I've heard more than a few comments from newish judges that they simply can't deal with the gallery behind them!

All in all, it's still a very big problem. One thing is for certain, none of us should hold others to "our" standard of behavior or commitment when it comes to the sport we all love. After all "we" may not be as much a "pillar" of the sport as we think we are!
 
#108 ·
I too support the apprentice program. Recently we tried to get some folks to apprentice & they just plain out said they couldn't afford to burn the vacation days and the funds to "apprentice". Every person's circumstances are different, so that may not be a "popular" response insofar as deciding if that is a good route for developing new judges. But...it happened. The times that I have had an apprentice work with me, it's been a fun and, I hope, rewarding experience for the apprentice. There have, however, been a couple of times when the person apprenticing simply wanted to "punch their ticket" for the AKC, and I doubt they learned a darned thing.

I think there are many who confuse "a fair shake" with leniency. It's very difficult to be lenient in 80-100+ dog stakes. It's not difficult to be fair. The sport has evolved into large entries, fewer handlers, and tough judgment calls. If that were not the case, we would not have the ever-present discussion about limiting entries at field trials. Being generous in one's callbacks takes on a different meaning when you still have the same amount of time to complete a stake, but you have often triple the number of entries that were experienced when the basic rules for conducting the stakes at a trial were conceived. So generous becomes more like small margin for error for judges faced with these numbers. That is why I made the statement earlier that it's easier to blame the quality of judging than to accept that each of us is part of the problem to greater or lesser degrees.

How are we part of the problem? By continuing to run up the entires in trials with multiple dogs to handle; by failing to accept some judging assignments each season; by complaining about large entries, but continuing to enter--even when the entry is large when we enter; and by complaining that judging is bad when all these other things are present as if "judging quality" is the one big "fix". By failing to work at weekend trials--most everyone wants to be on a national committee & get their name and photo in the recap edition of RFTN, but how many of us actually help a struggling club that needs help? I've had people tell me they have to concentrate on running their dogs, so they can't work or judge because they would be less successful! Don't that just beat all!

Maybe the standard should be that each person who enters "x" number of major stakes (or minor stakes if running at that level) must within the next calendar year meet the requirements to judge a major stake, and then those handlers must accept a judging assignment for each different dog they run during the upcoming trial season after attaining their qualifications. That might fix the "number of available" judges; but won't by itself address "quality". So...if you run 5 all-age dogs; you must judge 5 all-age stakes each year at a minimum. If you run 1 dog; judge 1 all-age stake each year at a minimum. That of itself may serve to give cause for pause about large numbers of entries!

I will also say this: Those club members who are responsible for obtaining judges have a difficult job and certainly need to be able to deal with rejection. But...they also have a huge responsibility to ask judges with experience and demonstrated knowledge. Let's face it, when someone is getting started on their judging career, they are extremely flattered when asked to judge. They don't question their credentials; they believe they are being asked because they in some way have demonstrated they have the right qualities to be asked! Most will not say, they can't because they aren't qualified. They will attempt to set up what they think they know--either good tests or poor tests--based upon their actual experience. They don't set out to be bad, and I sincerely don't think anyone sets out to be unfair to anyone. Different things appear to bear more weight with some judges than with others.

The gallery at nearly every trial I have attended over the last 35 years seems to "judge" the judges; to criticize each mark and boldly point out what is "wrong" with the test, albeit in a "gallery" sort of way that "floats" up to the line, rather than direct conversation with the committee or the judges. I've heard more than a few comments from newish judges that they simply can't deal with the gallery behind them!

All in all, it's still a very big problem. One thing is for certain, none of us should hold others to "our" standard of behavior or commitment when it comes to the sport we all love. After all "we" may not be as much a "pillar" of the sport as we think we are!
One thing I learned when playing baseball and basketball... You can't have "rabbit ears"... Or listen to the gallery comments. Maybe I'm just dense, but when I'm judging I'm oblivious to any comments from the gallery or anywhere else unless the marshal, FTC or my co-judge says something to me. No matter what you do, the comments and critique will be there, it's the nature of the game... I do it when I'm in the gallery too.
 
#95 ·
Making someone judge just to satisfy a requirement is not necessarily a good idea..That person may not be a good judge,or able to recognize good dog work, or even know how to set up a good test. You would actually be doing the trial itself an injustice by making someone judge a trial...its not like jury duty...Yes you would like everyone to contribute to the sport, but lets not go to the other end of the spectrum and have ill equipped judging assignments, there is way too much at stake in the stakes

Lets concentrate on making good judges, and getting good judges to accept those assignments...As Ted alluded to there are other areas that people can contribute to the society (trial) besides being a judge,plenty of work to be done at a trial
 
#96 · (Edited)
Not to mention what if no one liked your judging and no clubs would extend an invitation to you to judge their trial? Are you out of the sport because you can't fulfill the requirement to judge???

Also, like I've said, I have been playing with dogs for 10 years. In the last year I've been too busy to train as much as I'd like, but I have set up or helped set up a lot of training set-ups. But that's what they are is training setups, and a lot of what we set up to train would not be good weekend trial setups. I don't think training is the same at all, but it does teach you about dogs and how they react to factors in a test. I doubt that there is a substitute for actual judging experience. What has helped me the most is judging the occasional weekend club picnic trial with some of our old salts at SVRC.
 
#97 ·
I will say setting up marks while judging to hit it perfect is quite a challange. We talked at the trial how in most AA stakes you can usually tell when the wind,light and other factors are the best time to run. 10 feet can make all the difference in the world. I remember the 3rd or so AA stakes I judged it had always bothered me listening to the gallery judge the test. In the group was a RAC member a 2 time National judge and pro of equal experience all say what a stupid test it was and where they would put the birds. 2 of them picked up on the second and the pro got 2 or 3 dogs to do the test. All 3 said when they left the line what a nice test it was and was surprised. After that I figured I could do a decent and fair bird placement a could give a hoot what the gallery thought.

I think often it takes the right person to judge. You will have to drop your friends dog that needs 1/2 a point 3 weeks before the cut off to the national. Your pro who has a dog or 2 of yours. You also have to listen to the BS from the gallery and the monday morning handler 3 states away from the trial. I think a lot of folks could be good judges because they can set up nice marks in training but dont want the BS. Who could blame them. I also do it to give back to the sport and because most of the time I like it. I like to see the dogs do good work . I like to see the handlers who can barely breath and about to puke watch the dog take a perfect line.

Some one said maybe if they paid judges. I would not do it because if I had to be compensated the clubs could not afford it. My lawyer would be cheaper. All the fun out of it would be gone.
 
#98 ·
#99 · (Edited)
Without naming names, for what reasons will you not run under these people?
There are several that I sincerely believe are dishonest.

There are others who consistently have set up bad tests. By bad, I mean rely on various tricks because I believe deep down they do not have confidence in their ability to place birds. I am by no means anywhere close to your level of experience Ted, but I have run enough dogs and trials to know what is a good test and what is not. After I see one of the two aforementioned reasons more than once from the same judge, I am done.

I have a active career, a family, and other interests that bid for my time. I want to enjoy running the 7-10 trials per year that I run, even if I am not as successful as I might hope. So I am not going to give up a weekend and $400-600 to run under someone who I believe is dishonest or just hasn't demonstrated the ability to put up a nice trial.

One consistent theme is people who have been around a long time, but for whatever reason have not been competitive in years. They are deemed to be knowledgeable, but in fact have regressed to the point where it's just not worth it.
 
#100 ·
Being the glass half full guy I am, I have to point out that the flip side, those good judges that I will go out of my way to run under. I agree with Mike on the trick test judges. I don't mind super hard test, even like them, but I hate those trick test. One of them is setting up a key mark with the intention of making it hard for the dog to pick out, maybe the second bird with a flyer in the way.

John
 
#101 ·
Is the ability to transfer from a training mode to successful field trial marks( marks that get answers by having varying work) an automatic thing for most folks? Make your own conclusion. In the first series of a large trial its usually an elimination test, whereas in the last series it needs to be a marking test to differentuate the dogs that made it thru the first series as their work may be similar. In which case, if you dont have a marking test the trial may be decided by the blinds which is not the preferable answer. Sometimes the best college coaches were.not the most successful players but have a better understanding.of the sport. Train your dog and he or she will give you all the answers you seek. A good dog will.challenge you to be creative. Apply yourself as you expect your dog to apply theirselves.
 
#102 ·
Is the ability to transfer from a training mode to successful field trial marks( marks that get answers by having varying work) an automatic thing for most folks? Make your own conclusion. In the first series of a large trial its usually an elimination test, whereas in the last series it needs to be a marking test to differentuate the dogs that made it thru the first series as their work may be similar. In which case, if you dont have a marking test the trial may be decided by the blinds which is not the preferable answer. Sometimes the best college coaches were.not the most successful players but have a better understanding.of the sport. Train your dog and he or she will give you all the answers you seek. A good dog will.challenge you to be creative. Apply yourself as you expect your dog to apply theirselves.
Definitely not, it's actually pretty hard and a lot of good handlers never get it.

I agree that many times the first series of a large trial is designed to eliminate dogs, but I have run under a lot of good judges that eliminated dogs by having really hard marks. I believe that in most trials you get more answers about how good a marker a dog is in the first series rather than fourth. They are definitely different animals and water marks are very hard, but many times that winner comes down to the most courageous dog willing to make the big swims. That's a very good thing, and it requires a good marking dog with courage and conviction, but it is easier to recognize good marking in the first than the fourth. Just my opinion.

John
 
#103 ·
I agree John, but if it is an elimination test in a large trial in the first , the judges need a marking test somewhere in the trial. Even if in the last test only 3 out of 10 do it without handling, if its a test where u miss the bird and handle the 3 that do it might have similar work. Always prefer challenging marks but sometimes conditions change ina test and definitely don't want to pencil dogs out.
 
#104 ·
Brooks

You seem to be saying that a test that results in a significant number of dogs handling (that is, an elimination test) cannot have good marks.
If that is what you are saying, I disagree.

Ted
 
#105 ·
A lot of what has been said here is worth talking about but it all boils down to were are we going to find enough good judges to acomadate the additional trials we all wanted in hopes that the entry's would become smaller that hasn't happen is most areas they just have stayed about the same.
Good dog people become good judges they are student of the game in every aspect of it.
Some people just can't learn enough they want more hence they work in every part of our game they want to learn it all where else but joining a club chair a trial plant blinds run dogs do it all and this person will eventually become a judge and depending who the first 8 points are gotten with who knows what kind he will be until he or she finds their self and gets enough confidece to do there own thing.
It still boils down to the same thing we need new blood and let them judge,the game has changed and the new comers see it a little different than I.
I know that so I will join rather than be against the changes.
 
#107 ·
#110 ·
We sure have a problem but maybe it is deeper than just lack of judges. Sportsmanship seems to be lacking. As good sportsmen we should take our time to judge and do the best we can, also encourage others to judge and if we feel the need offer constructive criticism, not just throw folks under the bus for poor test design. I always look at and ask those I think are good judges and handles to offer comments on my test after the trial. As far as getting less experienced judges more opportunity this should be a prioriety among the clubs. I have just 10 AA points so am I experienced not by most standards. Asking those less experienced to judge is going to be critical to expanding the pool. I always think what a waste when you see two judges who both have 100 points judge together although it is usually a good trial. Those that are good judges and mentors should insist on judgeing wilth less experienced folks to spread their knowledge base.
 
#111 ·
We sure have a problem but maybe it is deeper than just lack of judges. Sportsmanship seems to be lacking. As good sportsmen we should take our time to judge and do the best we can, also encourage others to judge and if we feel the need offer constructive criticism, not just throw folks under the bus for poor test design. I always look at and ask those I think are good judges and handles to offer comments on my test after the trial. As far as getting less experienced judges more opportunity this should be a prioriety among the clubs. I have just 10 AA points so am I experienced not by most standards. Asking those less experienced to judge is going to be critical to expanding the pool. I always think what a waste when you see two judges who both have 100 points judge together although it is usually a good trial. Those that are good judges and mentors should insist on judgeing wilth less experienced folks to spread their knowledge base.
Very good point, I feel the same way. Why fly two high point judges in when you could fly one experienced mentor judge to take a relative newbie under his or wing for the weekend. I know some would be worried that the old timer would dominate on test set up, call backs and placements, but that wasn't the case with the good judges I was put with in my early trials. These people to a man (women in one case), bent over backwards to insure I was 50% of the equation while teaching me a lot at the same time.
 
#113 ·
as a note for those trying to solve the judging issues: i don't think statements like "we should all give back to the sport" is useful in the recruitment of "new people" to judge.

most new people aint took nothin' yet!;-)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top