Tweet
I recently had a '48 pan judged for its junior and senior awards (after 2-1/2 years work!). At this juncture, I do not feel it appropriate to mention where these judgings occurred, as it is not my intention to criticize any person or persons. My reasoning is that, from what I can ascertain from discussions with other owners, these situations occur often at almost any meet. This seems to be an appropriate venue to air my comments and complaints, so here goes.
In general, I found the comments on the judging sheets to be enlightening. I see, however, three areas that need to be addressed.
1> In both cases, it was evident that the judges were not 100% familiar with the characteristics of that model year. This is based on comments and/or point deductions for components that were stated to be missing, but were not. Since these were one-year only items, this mistake can be misunderstood. This points out a lack of knowledge by judges that can jeopardize a bike's points standing. If the judge(s) are unfamiliar with what is correct, they should get a viable authority to help them. This situation leads to Item #2.
2> After judging, in both instances the senior judge on my bike had pulled up stakes and left. This I can definetly understand, as I too wanted to hit the road (1 meet was a 12-hr. ride, the other a 15-hr. ride for me). However, I believe that if a person undertakes the responsibilty of doing this important work, he or she should take the initiative to stick around to resolve any judging discrepancies. It just gets too confusing to try to resolve a problem if the judge cannot point out the exact part at issue.
3> In general, it seems to not be clearly understood by the owners what kinds of documentation is required of them to note the resolution of any points deductions at the junior level in preparation for the senior (or subsequent) judging. It was not until I was actually at the meet where I was going for the senior that another owner explained that I needed to document what I had done to fix the junior deductions. At the '48's senior judging, it seemed evident that the judges did not review my notes on corrective action taken after the junior first, thought the notes were immediately behing the junior sheet in the folder. This resulted in an inordinate amount of confusion. It is my thought that a sheet could be sent to the owner as part of a pre-registration packet for each meet entered.
In summary, I would like to state that I (and I am sure the vast majority of owners) appreciate the effort put into the hobby by these judges. I have judged antique cars and I fully realize what a thankless job it can be. It is my hope that Saturday morning judging, which I believe is what Jefferson is doing, will reduce the stress on both owners and judges, giving everyone the time and inclination to do a complete job.
Thanks for this opportunity to express my thoughts. A special thanks to Jim Long and Kevin Valentine for their assistance at these two meets.
Lonnie
In general, I found the comments on the judging sheets to be enlightening. I see, however, three areas that need to be addressed.
1> In both cases, it was evident that the judges were not 100% familiar with the characteristics of that model year. This is based on comments and/or point deductions for components that were stated to be missing, but were not. Since these were one-year only items, this mistake can be misunderstood. This points out a lack of knowledge by judges that can jeopardize a bike's points standing. If the judge(s) are unfamiliar with what is correct, they should get a viable authority to help them. This situation leads to Item #2.
2> After judging, in both instances the senior judge on my bike had pulled up stakes and left. This I can definetly understand, as I too wanted to hit the road (1 meet was a 12-hr. ride, the other a 15-hr. ride for me). However, I believe that if a person undertakes the responsibilty of doing this important work, he or she should take the initiative to stick around to resolve any judging discrepancies. It just gets too confusing to try to resolve a problem if the judge cannot point out the exact part at issue.
3> In general, it seems to not be clearly understood by the owners what kinds of documentation is required of them to note the resolution of any points deductions at the junior level in preparation for the senior (or subsequent) judging. It was not until I was actually at the meet where I was going for the senior that another owner explained that I needed to document what I had done to fix the junior deductions. At the '48's senior judging, it seemed evident that the judges did not review my notes on corrective action taken after the junior first, thought the notes were immediately behing the junior sheet in the folder. This resulted in an inordinate amount of confusion. It is my thought that a sheet could be sent to the owner as part of a pre-registration packet for each meet entered.
In summary, I would like to state that I (and I am sure the vast majority of owners) appreciate the effort put into the hobby by these judges. I have judged antique cars and I fully realize what a thankless job it can be. It is my hope that Saturday morning judging, which I believe is what Jefferson is doing, will reduce the stress on both owners and judges, giving everyone the time and inclination to do a complete job.
Thanks for this opportunity to express my thoughts. A special thanks to Jim Long and Kevin Valentine for their assistance at these two meets.
Lonnie