No more AMCA shows for this bike.........

[gmarakas]

The system needs work -- from us

I sympathize with the member who is ready to throw in the towel on the AMCA judging. I have personally had a 99 point bike go to an 86 and back up to a 98 3/4 in the course of three shows - with nothing being done to the bike in the interim. I have recently had a bike go from 87 1/2 to 57 1/2 after having corrected the errors found in the first judging. Bottom line is that while the judges work very hard and we need to support them, the members work just as hard to get it right -- sometimes at great expense -- and someone needs to support them. If the difference of opinon between two judges can be off by 10 or 20 points then our judging system is flawed and we need to address it before we lose more members. We need the AMCA awards to have distinction and respect. Under the present system, this is not happening.

I understand that we can have differences from one judge to the next. I believe our system can support a margin of error that is based on knowledge and fact. What it cannot bear is the weight of a system whereby the judge's opinion does not have any review and is not subject to scrutiny until someone objects. By that time, the damage is done. For example, we need a method where the scoring sheets are reviewed for proper procedure before the scores are recorded. On two occasions, I have fallen victim to a judge who has taken multiple points off in multiple categories for hardware. One category -- one score is the way the system is supposed to work. On another occasion I had 4 points taken off for "improper seat hardware". My understanding is that I could show up without a seat and only lose 4 points. The important point here is that the seat hardware was exactly as shown in the parts manual. That should be good enough for any of our judges. If the sheets were being reviewed for gross errors such as this before the scores are recorded, then we just might improve our system -- and our reputation.

I also believe the originally stated judging period of 10 minutes should be enforced. I watched a judge spend 35 minutes on one of my entries and then complain about how many bikes he had to judge. He also made 6 mistakes with regard to points off that cost me an award. I spent several hours putting together documentation to refute this judge's opinion for the next judge. Why can't we find a method whereby the judge's opinion can be challenged prior to recording the scores? Not by argument and shouting but by presentation of documents such as service manuals and parts explosions. I have witnessed some fine judging since joining this organization but I have also witnessed judging by people who had no business passing judgment on a bike. No one wants to be screwed by a judge that simply does not have the facts. That is our biggest problem as I see it.

I guess this rant could continue but I believe the time has come for all of us to look at our system with the intention of making it better. I am proud to be a member of this organization and I want to keep it that way. As long as I believe we are trying to improve, then I will continue to work toward that goal. The unfortunate aspect of this is that we will never know how many good members we lost because of the flaws in our system. It will never be perfect but it can be a damn site better than it is.

I think all of us should give Kevin and Robyn our support and suggestions for how things can be improved. If we work together on this, we will never hear of a member throwing in the towel because of poor judging again. That is my goal.

[Lonnie]

I believe that everyone would agree that the point George is making is the single most frustrating issue regarding the judging - that a bike can score a high number at one event and lose a significant number of points at the next event! Or worse, fixing an issue for which points were deducted and having that fix noted as incorrect and being told that the way it was set up at the first event was correct! Argh!!
I had a situation at an event where it was noted that my '48 had the frame boss drilled for the hydra-glide steering damper pin (it had once had a glide front end) - still received Junior First. At the next judging it was disqualified for wrong frame while undergonig Senior judging, after I had filled in the hole and invisibly touched up the paint! That was a case of the judge not focusing on the bike details but referencing the first judging paper, ignoring my paper inside the judging folder where I noted all fixes, and perhaps making some erroneous assumption that the issue could not be fixed! After the awards a friend and I accosted Kevin and rather vehemetly made my case (sorry Kevin). Kevin immediately took matters in hand, the bike was judged and the '48 received its Senior designation.
All that being said, I have four points to make:
1> If you see a problem, take it up on-site with the Senior Judge. I have had errors corrected and the sheet fixed before leaving the event. And be nice - make your point without being an arse as I was.
2> Drastic changes downward from one event to the next (as in George's post) should raise a flag, since such changes mean that one or the other group of judges has made significant mistakes. I feel these should be reviewed before the awards are given even if a hold is placed on that bike and the other bikes get theirs. That way there are no hard feelings (well, maybe not as hard as there would be otherwise).
3> Though there are great references as to what is original and what is not for most bikes (Bruce Palmer's book as an example), the judging is based on the knowledge base of that judge or group of judges at that event at that time and as such is not the full base of knowledge available. And even the best reference books do not cover the very fine details. This may be pie-in-the-sky thinking, but there should be a computerized database on the more common bikes available on-site as reference for the iffy circumstances.
4> Lastly (I know you are breathing a sigh of relief) there should be a common deduction within each category such that incorrect hardware or hardware in place incorrectly or wrong hardware finish do not receive an entire category deduction. George has a point about his 4-point seat deduction that I have heard others complain about.
All this being said, I agree with Carl that as bike owners we should get involved in the judging (I intend to at Davenport) so that we as owners can learn more. And remember, there is a Judges' breakfast meeting prior to the judging. FREE FOOD!!

Lonnie C. from SC

[gmarakas]

Some suggestions to ponder

Good to hear from you, Lonnie. I plan to get knee-deep in judging at Davenport. I expect to learn many things in the process.

In keeping with my last post, I offer some ideas that need devil's advocates and, hopefully, champions to see them through. Some where in all our suggestion will be welcome improvements to our system.

- We need a method to level the playing field with regard to knowledge. The judge's score is based on opinion but the exhibitor's response bears the burden of proof. This creates an unfair situation that needs to be addressed. I witnessed a situation where an emininent member of our organization who has a well-known (and considered definitive) book on a class of H-Ds, contradict his own book. The exhibitor has only the manufacturer's and domain reference books available as resources. While well-known mistakes may filter through the ranks, these are rarely recorded anywhere for reference. If documentation can be provided in defense of a deduction, it should be accepted with the same respect that we expect (and owe) to our judges. To accomplish this, we need to put some burden on the judge to be sure their opinion is based in fact.

- We need a method of creating a developmental atmosphere in the judging process. I have read many posts complaining about a lack of information on the judging sheet due to poor writing, lack of effort, or whatever. I have read judges complaining that the sheet makes it hard to write enough information to be useful. This needs to be fixed and doesn't sound like a mountain moving project to accomplish. A second sheet that allows a judge to identify a category and write the deductions clearly is not out of the question. The judges should be performing their charge with an eye toward helping a member make their entry better and this will require some effort.

- We need a method to communicate the deductions to the member before the judging and awards process is over. Sure, Kevin and stand ready to be accosted after the show is over and can, and has, made decisions as a result but this process defeats many of the goals of our current process. I doubt that anyone who sits through the announcements of the awards and applauds for the accomplishments of their fellow member feels the same sense of accomplishment whne Kevin gives them a justly earned award after everyone has left the building. We have the announcement of the awards because we want to join in celebrating the accomplishments of others. Why promote a system that does not allow for that to occur in situations where a judge has made a mistake? If a copy of the sheet is handed to the exhibitor (or left with the bike folder) as soon as the judging is complete, the exhibitor can determine if any question needs to be raised. This will spread out Kevin's regular onslaught and will likely get mistakes corrected on the spot.

- We need a formal method of communicating the changes made to a bike in a manner similar to the judging form. This will allow a quick method for a judge to see what has been done since the last judging. This can be quickly checked and verified. I have developed a three column form that I include with the documentation of each bike I show. The first column shows the category in which the deduction took place. The second column shows what was written by the judge to indcate the exact reason for deduction and the amount of that deduction. The third column shows my response to the judge. In cases where I disagree with the judge, I write "Believe to be correct -- no change made." I then use the bottom of the sheet to put a small picture from a manual or to place some text from a book or manual in support of my position. This system already puts my response in a better light than the judge's. Mine has a clear and verifiable reference associated with it. The problem with my current system is that the judges don't know to look at it or simply choose not to. If we had a formal method for this communication, then each judge would be trained and instructed to begin the judging process with this form.

- We need a method to reduce the often ridiculous oscillation of opinion amongst our experts. I have seen a situation where an exhibitor has been given deductions for changing what the last judge said was wrong that he simply hung a ziplock bag with one set of screws in it on the bike near where the other screws attach to the bike. This sends a clear message to the judges to work it out for themselves. We need a method where the xhibitor does not get penalized for doing what the judge asked -- even if it is wrong. If a deduction is made at a show and the required change is made, then no points should be deducted because the next judge disagrees. If the change turns out to be wrong, it can be noted on the judging sheet with no points deducted. Along with this should be some information such that the exhibitor can determine the truth of the matter. I understand that the judges are not perfect and I respect their efforts. I just don't think the exhibitor should be the victim of their differences of opinion.

Well, I am nothing if not long-winded. I hope all of you interpret my long-windedness as being an indication of how much I want to see us get this right and to improve as an organization and a hobby. I think it's worth the effort to try.

[kval]

No more AMCA shows for this bike

George and Lonnie
by the sounds of your post's, you both have some very useful ideas. we have a judging committee that tries to cover whatever problems arise and ways to improve the system.
Robin and I are considering expanding the committee to include members involved with judging, to get more input from the membership. anyone with ideas can talk to Robin or myself at any meet, then it will be discussed with the committee, if all agree that the idea has merit we will try it(anything to improve the system).
when this system first started, we put the forms back on the bikes after adding up the score. this did not work because the owners then came up to the judges, who were now on another bike to argue a point. We now allow everybody to stay on the field while the judging is being done, if you hear something that you do not agree with, find Robin or myself and bring it to our attention
Kevin
PS Lonnie, no problem all is forgiven

[gmarakas]

Let's keep working...

Kevin, I always appreciate it when you take time to enter into the discussion and give us information about past successes and failures. I am willing to bring many ideas to the judging committee and we can start with the ideas in my last post.

I understand the dilemma faced with leaving the sheets on the bikes. Allowing us to stay on the judging field may help some but it does not solve the problem. I have never been able to discuss anything with my judges and I have experienced 30 point swings. One would think the judge would want to talk to me. If we cannot leave the sheets on the bike, then we need to find a system that will solve the problem.

I respect the fact that you cannot address the problems identified here by simply writing a response to the forum. I also acknowledge that my experience is limited compared to the senior members of our organization. That said, my field is information systems and I am fairly good at identifying weaknesses in a system and proposing ways to resolve the weakness. I offer my help with all due respect to what has been tried in the past.

When people begin to question a system, these situations often breed an atmosphere of "why we can't do something" or "why this can't work." I want us to start by agreeing on what the problems are and then take the approach of "what can we do to solve thess problem." If the committee is willing to take that approach, then I will commit all of my energies to helping wherever I can.

In the spirit of your offer, I would like to request that you bring the following to the committee:

>>We have a problem of not being able to identify scoring errors (such as taking away the same points in multiple categories or filling the sheet out wrong) until after the awards are over. Perhaps you could review (or designate one or two experienced judges) to simply review the sheets as they are presented for scoring. One extra pair of trained eyes could solve this problem.
>>We have a problem whereby the judge's opinion requires no justification but the owner's rebuttal does. We need a review process that will serve to level this playing field. I completely agree that the judges should not be beleagered with arguments while trying to give the next bike a fair and accurate assessment. Perhaps, a procedure for rebuttal could be designed such that a discussion period could be set aside after the judging is complete but before the scores are recorded and the awards handed out. This could be accomplished if the judging was held on Saturday and the games were on Sunday. We certainly can find the time if we try. At Eustis, we spent more time playing games on Saturday than we spent judging bikes on Sunday. perhaps we should reconsider our priorities in this regard.
>>We have a problem where there is no posted guideline for how much to deduct. You could create this guideline and provide the judges with it. These types of mistakes are 1/4 point, these are 1/2 point, and so on. While it is understood that these would simply be guidelines and the judge's decision is the basis for a deduction, anything to bring some degree of standardization will go a long way to solving this problem.
>>We have a problem where the owner ends up being the victim of a difference of opinion between two judges. Perhaps we could have a procedure that eliminates any deduction for anything corrected by an owner at the direction of a previous judge. This could then be reviewed by a third party (such as yourself) to make a determination. If this could happen prior to recording the scores, we could dramatically reduce these types of frustrations.

In short, we could solve a number of our recurring problems simply by instituting a few additional procedures and by allocating additional time to the process. If the committee is serious about making things better, they may not like my suggestions for changes but they should find it hard to disagree that the problems exist. If we all agree that the problems exist, then I trust our senior people to find a way to solve them. For the record, I believe we are all dedicated people and we are all on the same side. I also believe we all want to see our problems solved and our system improved. If this means some changes are in order, then let's begin the discussion and start making them.

Thanks for listening.

[Chris Haynes]

[QUOTE=KNUCK;65924]Carl I respect your knowledge and experience with knuckles but, not everyone produced in 46' came with painted lifter blocks. QUOTE]

If they weren't painted or Parkerized they would rust. Carl is 100% correct.