Re: [AGA-mcm] AGA2K4 Feedback Summary

[Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com>]

I am not disagreeing with your point but to continue
on w/ the Dog show analogy. In a dog shows smiliar
dogs are judged together in "Groups" ie, working ,
Toy, Hounds. They way it is done on a judging level is
that the dogs are not "judged" against each other per
say but rather to the "Standard". 

The standard represents what the ideal breed of that
dog should look like. How that dog conforms to the
ideal standard is how well it will do in a show. That
is how during best-in-show you can have an Akita vs a
Shih Tzu vs a Jack Russel, etc.

The responsibility for understanding the standards
lies with the judges. They are selected for their
assignments accordingly. Since there are so many
breeds of dogs and yet only three main styles of
aquascaping with many being derivatives of the three
it should not be to difficult for the judges to be
able to identify and score accordingly.

That being said I thought the judges this year did a
great job at judging and a wonderful job also at
explaining their decision in front of a large
audience. This is taboo in the dog world. The judges
very rarely explain any of their decisions even in
private.

Regards,
Larry
--- Ghazanfar Ghori <ghorig@gmail.com> wrote:

> True...
> But its like judging cats & dogs in the same show
> with the same criteria.
> They're both pets we keep, and similar in many ways,
> but also very
> different in a lot of aspects when it comes to
> judging them.
> True dutch aquascapes will almost always score low
> on the ..wassit called...
> 'viability?' section of scoring since they need to
> be meticulously maintained.
> Etc etc...just my opinion....work is pulling me
> away....i'll finish this later..
> 
> 
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:59:20 -0800 (PST), S. Hieber
> <shieber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But the contest might not yet be large enough to
> break out
> > into separate styles for judging. Oh, and fourth
> style,
> > biotopes ;-)
> > 
> > sh
> > 
> > 
> > --- Ghazanfar Ghori <ghorig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There's no way around it. Part of the whole
> point of the
> > > comments is to
> > > provide insight on what would make it better -
> but people
> > > perceive that
> > > in a negative way. In a couple of discussions, a
> few
> > > folks have also mentioned
> > > that Amano's comments on the AGA website on the
> scapes
> > > are mostly negative.
> > >
> > > At the AGA convention itself, it may be a better
> idea to
> > > just show the winning
> > > scapes and comments on why it won.
> > >
> > > Some people take criticism well. Others perceive
> it
> > > negatively.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is one major problem IMO, with how we're
> judging
> > > scapes.
> > > There are three distinct styles....
> > >
> > > Nature Aquarium - that in itself has several
> sub-styles
> > > that have critera
> > > that they're judged on.
> > >
> > > Dutch - (strict includes no wood or rock as part
> of the
> > > scape itself)
> > >
> > > American (Almost Dutch, without the rock/wood
> > > restrictions and less
> > > stronger plant groupings)
> > >
> > > To judge all three styles fairly using one
> criteria is
> > > probably
> > > difficult, if not
> > > impossible.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:59:36 -0500, Karen
> Randall
> > > <krandall@rdrcpa.biz> wrote:
> > > > > >From the few comments I heard back about
> the
> > > aquascaping awards, what
> > > > > most people did not like was the 'rush' to
> go through
> > > them, and the
> > > > perceived
> > > > > 'negativeness' of the comments. There was no
> option
> > > but to go through
> > > > > the awards quickly due to the schedule
> changes. If
> > > we'd taken our time
> > > > there,
> > > > > we'd have even more people complaining about
> how late
> > > Amano's demo was.
> > > >
> > > > I think we all understand the "rush" part, and
> the
> > > reasons behind it.  But
> > > > I'm surprised that people thought the comments
> were
> > > excessively negative.
> > > > I'd like to hear what some of you thought.  I
> thought
> > > we tried to give
> > > > constructive criticizm.  I know I was not the
> only one
> > > who mentioned several
> > > > times that a case could be made for many of
> the tanks
> > > being "the winner".
> > > > But if you don't get nit-picky, there is no
> way to
> > > justify picking one tank
> > > > over another.
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > AGA-mcm mailing list
> > > > AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> > > >
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AGA-mcm mailing list
> > > AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> > >
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > AGA-mcm mailing list
> > AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> > http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-mcm mailing list
> AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-mcm mailing list
AGA-mcm@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-mcm