I am not sure why this thought has taken so long to sink in, but when taking a real good look at CL Stunt, what is required to be competitive, the needs of our generous contest organizers, these also being our individual needs if one thinks about it, why is it always troublesome--in some cases difficult--to come up with judges for the various events we fly?
It simply cannot be that the process itself is too hard or is somehow complicated. We all fly to the same schedule of maneuvers. We all know what the maneuvers are supposed to look like. In practice and contest flying we all know when we totally blow a maneuver (10 points), do a whack-job maneuver (15 to 25 points), a pretty fair maneuver (28 to 32 points), a killer maneuver of 35 to 40 points. (Fill in the blanks for variations on a theme.)
Even those just making a beginning quickly develop a feel for which maneuvers during each flight scored well or poorly. Shortly thereafter all of us are fully capable of knowing--almost with absolute certainty--which of two flights in a given class of competition on the day was the better of the two.
Judges? We sometimes beg for judges? When each of us is actively involved in self-judging not only individual maneuvers but complete flights?
Yes, everything is relative to one's experience at circle center; but dagnammit, the scale covers all skill-level classes of competition: A whack-job maneuver in Expert is still only a 15-25 point effort, just as it is in Intermediate. Same thing with a killer maneuver; it's a 35-40 point result no matter which class of competition or skill level.
At Stuntathon 2006 I was judging Advanced PA with Dragon Lady. Second round Mike Haverly laid in a nearly perfect landing, the only (very slight) booger being a little-bitty "bump" in descent as he appeared to be stretching things to the preferred side of the circle. Looked like a "36" to me, Expert PA territory. "Joan, I've already written down my score, but what did you give for the landing?" "I gave him a '36;' it was really good."
Ooops, got into the detail level there, but the point is that less OTS and Beginner PA, the pattern is a constant. If one can judge himself--and we all do--what's to keep one from being a competent stand-up or sit-down judge?
Better, look at it from a different level. Just as all of us can judge two of our own flights as to which was the better, I submit that nearly all of us can do the same thing as a judge, albeit with an expanded field. As in merely watching, for example, all the flights in Advanced PA, not writing down a single maneuver-specific score and ranking the contestants for the final results.
Far fetched? I think not. Sure, we don't do it, but I maintain that Steve Helmick, Dave Gardner, Dragon Lady, Chris Cox, Mike Conner and a few others could in fact pull this off with surprising accuracy and consistency.
With this thought in mind, note that those of us with less judging experience have access to a terrific tool: A score sheet which lists the maneuver schedule, meaning we only have to judge one maneuver at a time. How much easier could it possibly be?
Ah, but that's not enough to result in judging positions being over-subscribed during the contest season.
So let me give you just two reasons which have your own self interests at heart: Judging is one of the very best ways to really "see" mistakes and Good Moves made during maneuvers, this being secondary only to having your own coach. And few of us have a single coach dedicated to improving our performances, making judging others a valuable act indeed.
Secondly, we all talk about "shapes" as being of paramount importance. Some of us really believe it, others are merely repeating what they have been told. Proof, you want proof? Standing in the judging position during a few flights will make "Shapes, shapes, shapes, get the shapes right this time!" a mantra to be repeated during practice sessions, before each flight, maybe even during one of the two laps between maneuvers.
Shapes are hugely important to scoring well and consistently, but this message can not, does not, really sink in until forced to analyze the efforts of others. I mean, that's a fact, and you folk who have never pulled judging duty have been missing a glorious opportunity.
Again, that's just fact; this is not a debate...
How best to make a beginning to reducing the "Judges! We need judges!" pleas we hear far too often while getting a double hit in elevating our individual performances?
Contest organizers: Supply spare clip boards, pens and score sheets for use as training aids. Do so with consistency, contest after contest. Announce the availability of these judging tools at each and every pilots meeting. Don't impose qualifiers or restrictions. Maybe a judge-in-training is only interested in participating during a few flights instead of a complete round. No problem...
Still with organizers of CL Stunt activities, what about these Fun Fly operations popping up in the NW? At the Salem, Oregon, site for example, there is one paved circle, meaning of all the flyers in attendance only one is actually putting up a pattern. With score sheets readily available, each and every flight is an opportunity to hone your skills in both judging and flying.
Contestants: Avail yourself of an activity which is in your own self-interests, that of evaluating a series of flights, the goal being improvement of your own scores through a critical look at the efforts of others.
Jump in and work alongside the official judges. Again, we all fly to the same pattern. If you have progressed to the point of knowing what is required and can fly the complete pattern, you're already involved in judging. Apply that skill set to judging the efforts of others.
I can hear the whines here at my keyboard: "I'm only an Intermediate/Advanced/low-level Expert flyer. I can't be expected to be a competent judge."
Right. Of those recognized as being some of our best judges, John Thompson is known more for his interests in Racing and Combat than Stunt, has struggled in the mid-400s for years. Steve Helmick hasn't entered a contest for some time, back problems. Dave Gardner is new just this year to Advanced. Mike Conner flies Advanced. Dragon Lady doesn't fly at all.
So the only legitimate reason for backing away and shuffling your feet when the call comes for judges is the assumed responsibility of doing the job correctly. And you have no idea if you can do justice to the efforts of your peers, let alone the highly skilled amongst us.
No problem. Grab one of those spare clip boards, get a score sheet and an ink pen.
Stand with the judges.
Make appropriate markings on your score sheet.
At the end of each flight, or possibly at the end of each round, compare your efforts to those with more experience.
This is what we call feed-back, whether negative or positive. And feed-back is really all any of us need to progress from being a sideliner to being a fully qualified judge of CL Stunt.
Sure, there is more to it than this as, for example, the goal is not to give the same scores as does Dragon Lady. Instead, the whole idea is to accurately rank the flyers within a given class properly, although we are now into details not necessary at this level, details which will become clear when functioning as an unofficial judge, having an experienced judge as a mentor.
From there it's a relatively easy and painless step to judging in Classic, P.40, all classes of PA.
Our contests will be easier to administer, will flow in a more expeditious manner.
And you will see improvements in your patterns.
Who could ask for more?
You might even consider bringing your own freakin' clip board, a stack of score sheets and a few ink pens. Okay, pencils for those of us not yet fully confident in our competence at judging CL Stunt...
This page was updated June 29, 2006