[Killietalk] RE: Convention Judging and the "75 pts" bale-out

["Koran, David HQ02" <David_Koran at hq02.usace.army.mil>]

I have to agree with much of the complaints about why fish contributed,
donated or in general just given up to the AKA for its benefit do not receive
the courtesy of the fish actually being pointed.  I believe some of the
shortcuts that have been taken were to streamline the judging process;
however, I think those decisions have made a negative impact.

I have judged fish for nearly 30 years and am listed as a senior judge but
have not been asked to judge by the chairman for the last few years even
though I have judged internationally for the AKFB and DKG and tried to fathom
how they arrive at a point total without using the process Charlie Nunziata
and his team developed over 25 years ago.  Using the categories in the
protocol it is fairly easy and in my mind always fair to judge any entry.
The key to using the system is to allow yourself room to maneuver.  You have
to assume the fish are average to begin.  What that means is to start with a
point value that is one less than the maximum for that evaluation factor if
maximum total for that factor is 6 or less points and two less if the factor
is 10-7 total points.  If you did nothing else this places an entry as
average and gets it something in the range of about 80 points which is what
an average entry should get.  I then would go over each factor and determine
if it was better than average and decide to give back the point or two it
lost to start and if it had problems deduct a point or more.  In general I
would find that good quality entries earned point totals in the mid to upper
80's, very good entries might hit 90-92 but only outstanding entries would
hit the 95+ point level.  A majority of the entries would be in the 70's
which in my mind indicates an average quality entry.  Fish that are in the
60's or even 50's had problems or even major problems and I could justify the
evaluation.

Only when I completed judging each entry did I total points and see how the
ranking worked out for the class.  In most cases the fish I might have
thought was the best in the class would be the winner; however, on several
occasions the points would say different and in checking I would have to
agree that the "first impression" was wrong and that the "system" if left to
itself does provide the best fish.

So what are the "no-no's" in this.  Well I wasn't supposed to total my point
values, there are people on the judging committee to do that; however, the
judging forms were also well thought out and instead of totaling points
earned you only need to count points off and then subtract from 100 (since it
is easier to add 1's, 2's or 3's than larger numbers).  Second, I am in favor
of independent judging where I think part of the problem we now experience is
teams are required to judge each entry as a unit.  If you cannot trust a
judge you consider to be qualified to judge independently why would you
retain them at all or burden another judge to have them as part of the team?
I also found that it was not a mathematical challenge to average point totals
between two judges and then rank the results.  You don't need a computer
program to do that either.

So why did things change?  I am not sure I have all of the answers but some
of this has to do with the linkage to the KEY program and other choices I
think are falsely enacted to expedite the judging.  Theoretically, if an
entry receives less than 75 points, then the entry earns the exhibitor no
points for KEY--no entry points and if it is a poor quality class also no
show/place points.  The question might arise if the judge is too harsh and
the exhibitor penalized-maybe.  If the exhibitor is merely bulking up his
point total with less than average entries then they were "smoked out", but
this in our special case this is the National Convention and the fish are
being donated for the good of the organization so maybe that concern should
not be valid here.  I think that every exhibitor basically knows if they have
a worthy fish or not, does "grade inflation" need to be a part of our judging
to make participants feel good?  I think telling the truth is good for both
the exhibitor and the potential buyer, that is, if they pay any attention to
that when they are considering their bid for the fish during the auction.
Are all fish entries at the Convention A or B grade fish?  Remember again
that the donations are a mixed bag and there are D and F grade fish as well.
Finally, I believe it is wrong to "pre-select" your class winners and then
try to make the point totals fit which in some way appears to be what the
current system does--have the two person team go through and select the 3+
entries they deem best, award everything else 75 and then go back and examine
the few remaining entries.  If you agree, then I think it is your duty to
express your desire to have the process changed.

Anyway, this probably guarantees that I won't be asked to judge any time
soon!

Dave Koran

To join the AKA see http://aka.org/modules/tinycontent0/index.php?id=9
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/