Novice Class Judging

[Roy B.]

Re: OK my 2 cents

All these arguments. Cant we just all get along? ( remenber that statment?)
In my humble lonely option I see three classes of groups.

1.The people that have a need to be recognized by gaining all the Ribbins, Trophies,Bloomington Gold they can get and those that, lets face it are in business to sell Corvettes.

2. Those people that are interested in having a part of history owning a Corvette as it was when new by undertaking judging to bring back his or her Corvette as it was in the begining.

3. Then people that fall in catagory 1 and 2 ( been there, done that ), and now in joy and really drive thier Corvette and other people more now then ever.

I find those people mostly in the Sportsman Class where there is no judging,no pressure, good talk, happy people, having great stories of driving thier Corvette and maintaining them. The big benefit is that most people in group 1 don't criticize or look closely at our Corvettes any more.

And now that I have made more enemies with my 2 cents!

[Joe R.]

Re: Novice Class Judging FINAL

NCRS Members,

Thank you for all you interesting comments on the Novice Judging suggestion I posted last evening. Certainly, it was not a suggestion for judges but only for new members or members new to the judging process. It was not intended to point fingers at judges or the present judging process. As a final thought, each of you might want to check the post from Tom Olson on "73 Convert NCRS Start". Tom Olson and his 73 are the people I would like to have included in the Novice Judging.

Again, thanks for all the input.

JR

[Chuck S.]

You Seem To Have...

A lot of pent-up anger at NCRS, Todd, and I am not sure why. It's not NCRS judging standards that are the root cause of your anger, but not being a "shrink", it's tough for me to figure out what's bugging you. I suspect it is tied to unsatisfactory judging marks, and/or ownership of a Corvette that can never meet NCRS' standard with attendant frustration and denial.

The NCRS, with its well defined goals and objectives, was here long before either of us joined. Since we joined, the standards have only been relaxed and made more reasonable, not made more stringent, and yet the two of us seem to have developed totally different attitudes about current judging standards.

My attitude is to use modern technology when it only makes sense, but to attempt to comply with the judging standard by keeping it out of judging sight, or making the car look as much like it did originally as possible (BC/CC, I like it; hardened valve seats, damn straight). If I am unsuccessful in this endeavor, then I'll take the point hits.

If, after taking years to restore my car, judging hits from "improved technology" result in my getting a Second Flight, or a Third Flight, or No Flight, I will have to swallow hard, park in the Sportsman's lot and never allow the car to be judged again. Further, if after my own evaluation of the car, I suspect my "modifications" will not allow the car to achieve Top Flight, then it WILL NEVER BE JUDGED. I understand the standard perfectly, and I have no problem with it...on the other hand, I think I know what is best for my restored car, and I WILL NOT COMPROMISE IT. If it means no Flight awards, then I can handle that.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the NCRS should now adjust the standard it held before you got here, to what you now deem more appropriate, and are stridently advocating your position. This organization has its problems, but they are not in the judging arena in my opinion. For the most part, virtually the entire NCRS membership is a great "silent majority" that never offers any opinions on anything...But, if you were to get what you are wishing for, i.e. a straw vote on changing the NCRS standard to your positions, I think you would be astounded by the outcome.

If the goals and objectives of NCRS EVER become contrary to what I believe about Corvettes, and what for the most part, I learned here, then I will vote with my feet...I will be out of here permanently in a New York second. Maintaining a vocal presence in NCRS with a petulant, angry attitude would be counter-productive for me, and I can put the $30/year to other uses.

[Kent K.]

Re: Novice Class Judging FINAL

Let's see - I want beer but not strong beer, so I add water. Like adding water to wine, you destroy it. NCRS is the group who recognizes true restoration of Corvettes. Love it or lump it, there is no middle road in the judging catagories. There are the Sportsman and Star groups, the somewhat different recognition programs within NCRS. Novice judging is probably, like others have suggested, found at chapter events although sometimes it can be just as demanding and accurate as at National events.

After at least 10 years experience of being the Florida Chapter Judging Chairman and overseeing judging at "Cypress Gardens" Winter Regional Meets, the biggest disappointment were the owners who just couldn't accept accurate NCRS judging and drove off the field early endangering other members. They came back year after year with the same problems without using our judging as a learning experience. Be lighthearted, interested and use your car judged experiences as education for the next time.

Another thought is to join AACA. I had my '67 Duntov 99.1 point A/C Corvette judged at a Regional AACA show where someone suggested I cut the red wire out of my original electrical harness. It wasen't original, they said. Lucky, I know better - it's original!!!!!!! I didn't cut it out. Stiil received my National Junior Award and hope to attend for a Senior Award.

Or join NCCC where they judge any Corvette with white gloves no matter what you've done to it. Chop, channel, section, lower, paint it psychedelic colors, or make it a "Whoopie" mobile, they'll judge it as long as it is a Corvette.

The choice is totally yours.

Good Corvetting,
Kent #6201

[Todd H 26112]

Chuck You Seem To Have Mis-Attributed...

...not to mention over analyzing while attempting a personal assessment. But keep trying to figure out your shrink suspicions - when ya get close Chuck - I'll be sure and let ya know.


"WILL NEVER BE JUDGED... I understand the standard perfectly ... WILL NOT COMPROMISE IT... I will vote with my feet"


Full of sound and fury aren't we?


"You, on the other hand, seem to think that the NCRS should now adjust the standard it held before you got here, to what you now deem more appropriate, and are stridently advocating your position."


Oh? I do? 'I' want to "adjust"? The 27 year old society representing ~20,000 members must bend to my personal will? Gee Chuck I thought this thread was a speculative thread seeking feedback about an additional or new standard NOT about modifying the existing standard? Not about my purported megalomaniac tendencies or your apparent comprehension skills. Should I be confused or should I suggest you go back and start again from the top? Because Chuck - that was kinda the core principal to this speculative thread ya know.


"But, if you were to get what you are wishing for, i.e. a straw vote on changing the NCRS standard to your positions,"


BZZZZZZT Again Chuck w/ your mis-attributions - I never "wished" for a "straw vote" in this thread as you put it or a survey for that matter - I merely pointed out in the form of a question that there are no surveys. Lots of individuals conduct surveys on technical matters but organizationaly I'm not aware of any that address organizational issues.


And you should know that a properly done statistically viable survey does not 'load' the question in an attempt to 'get ones way' either - the questions are appropriately objective to simply allow the results to speak form themself w/o taint of subterfuge or 'personal' agendas.


"...on changing the NCRS standard to your positions"


BZZZZZZT Once again, go back and take careful note of the topic at hand about a new, different, judging standard re - "novice" - if after reading thru that you wish to insist upon making this a personal thing that I am advocating a broad sweeping change to flight judging for my personal gratification - get your facts in order first Chuck.


In summary I find your portrayal of me personally to be silly and based on ignorance and your attempt to position me as some unrealistic "angry" radical wanting to tear up the existing standard for personal reasons is silly, unrealistic and utterly unsupported.


"I think you would be astounded by the [survey] outcome."


Riiiiight - Sure I would.


Here's but a sample survey question whose answer would purportedly surprise me directly relative to the question posed by the original thread-starter for the general membership or a reasonable random sample size or even prospective members within the larger Corvette community:


If NCRS held judging events with an additional non-flight (novice?) class of judging based on current flight judging standards but held to a less rigorous standard with allowances for safety equipment, modern materials, service replacement items and less emphasis on numbers with a possible requirement the judged car be driven to the event would you:
A) be LESS likely to attend, judge & enter your Corvette for judging*
B) be EQUALLY likely to attend, judge & enter your Corvette for judging*
C) be MORE likely to attend, judge & enter your Corvette for judging*


*any type of judging


Honestly Chuck that is pure speculation on both our counts. And I for one am not holding my breath that it will move beyond speculative to quantifiable fact any time soon. But who knows, maybe some day I'll crack open the Driveline and be pleasantly surprised.


good luck


PS based on what you've written and how you've attempted to characterize me on a personal level - my opinion of the existing flight standard would probably surprise you. But that's not for this thread.


PPS I do in fact vaguely recall some sort of survey a couple few years ago but I think it was actually a Chevrolet marketing survey. Maybe it asked some substantive organizational questions but I don't recall.

[Karl #35089]

Proponents of changing...

Please answer this sincere question - a question that is fundamental to any effective business process re-engineering: What problem are we trying to solve? Don't worry about your ideas for solutions, just please explain to me, someone who clearly doesn't get it, what the problem is.

From my point of view, we have a standard (in my opinion, a logical, well-thought standard. Simply, "new car"). We judge cars for correlation to that standard. Point deductions reflect a lack of correlation from that standard. Not "good car" / "bad car" - correlation with a standard.

You can paint your car with latex and a brush. There's no law against it. It's your car. And you can have it judged - it will just take a deduction because it does not correlate with how the factory did it. What is the problem? It doesn't correlate. It doesn't even if we pretend.

You can "make up" all the new standards you want, but it doesn't change the cars in question. The car painted with a brush will still be a car painted with a brush. It will just now be a car painted with a brush with a little plaque from NCRS that says it's OK. The problem is not the standard. The problem appears to me to be one of people who equate "correlation with a standard" to "good" and of self-esteem so fragile that it seeks approval from a car club. ...and that is stated in all candor.

If your motives are truly altruistic, maybe the goal is to just be inclusive and hand-out more little certificates for just "nice cars". I oppose that for the following reasons: 1) It is a new product not needed in the market (i.e. There are plenty of other organizations that do so now. Why do we need to?) 2) The introduction of a subjective standard in place of an objective one will result in MORE arguments/hard feelings, not fewer. This, then, will lead to an ever slouching "standard" to not hurt the next guy's feelings. Lacking the "big stick" of "factory", who decides where the line is? Let's just skip that evolution and hand out a Top Flight to anyone that joins NCRS. 2) Lastly, and most important to me, it "waters down" the value of the existing Flight judging and, really, the organization as a whole by confusing the fundamental objective of the organization.

But I'm here to learn so please correct any misconceptions I may have.

-Karl

Did you ever get the idea that we are replaying the same argument that was had every couple years for the last couple decades. I think I'm gonna run my 6 tail lights. Safer, dontcha know.

[Warren F.]

Re: Proponents of changing...

Karl: Well put!!!!

[James F.]

Re: Proponents of changing...

Warren,
Well put! Regards,

[Todd H 26112]

Good question but already answered.

Valid question but if you take the time to re-read the original post by the thread starter it seems to be answered. Several times. From that post I think the logical inference is to expand interest and involvement in having cars judged notably beyond current levels.

Sure it's politically correct to say 'come on out, get involved and have your car judged...' as I've heard many NCRS leaders say or print on occasiona but in reality it's not that simple. For starters there's logistical problems w/ expanding judging involvement significantly. Space, enough judges, costs etc... I'm sure there's other reasons as well. Thus do we 'really' want that many more folks doing this?

You can "make up" all the new standards you want, but it doesn't change the cars in question.

My take is that this was intended to target a 'new' audience of owners/cars - thus it DOES change the cars - as in new cars that may not get judged...? And it seeks to involve non-traditinal less elitist judged car owners. Oh and I would think the standards are not merely 'made up' as you dismissively put it but rather derived from existing flight standards.

maybe the goal is to just be inclusive and hand-out more little certificates for just "nice cars".I oppose that for the following reasons: 1) It is a new product not needed in the market (i.e. There are plenty of other organizations that do so now. Why do we need to?)

Bingo - I believe the goal per the original post is in fact to be more inclusive but quite not to the cute degree you characterized of merely standing in a queue to receive a piece of paper. Besides Isn't there already an award that does that?

I believe there are popularity contests and celebrity 'judging' contests involving a few minutes to glance at each car but I am not aware of any other judging that is to a given 'standard' for Corvettes. There is nothing I am aware of that is transitional or 'in-between' these popularity contests w/ 1 winner and a bunch of losers and flight judging where one is compared objectively to a defined standard.

2) The introduction of a subjective standard in place of an objective one will result in MORE arguments/hard feelings, not fewer.

I agree given that context you have contrived - but I'm curious as to what hat you pulled this "subjective" standard of yours out of???

My impression is it would be following the same basic layout or formula as existing flight judging only streamlined in what is judged and how points are assessed - e.g. the subjectivity factor would be comparable to existing flight judging - indeed if novices are part of the intended 'inclusive' audience - then subjectivity needs to be all the more mitigated. Worst case scenario is that it should be no more subjective than existing flight judging - that's my take anyway.

2) Lastly, and most important to me, it "waters down" the value of the existing Flight judging and, really, the organization as a whole by confusing the fundamental objective of the organization.

I think the original premise was a different naming ("novice or...") that was intended not to 'take away' from the prestige of flight judging or dilute it as you presume. Whether in fact it will or not - I don't know nor am I going to make that assumption.

Now let me get this straight Karl. People sit around here and scour every page of their judging guides and can quote head bolt markings from memory and have these lawyerly discussions over the nuances of rules and protocols of the judging like PhD scholars. NCRS largely occupies a fairly extreme niche within the overall Corvette hobby group. Yet the introduction of a novice-like lesser judging standard would somehow "confuse" people? Suuuuure Karl. Have any other lakefront property you are selling?

I'm sure there are many, probably the overwhelming majority of current and previous 'active' flight judge involved members that will join you in stridently opposing any additional judging standard such as 'novice' that is perceived as potentially 'watering down' flight awards. That it's "most important" to you is to be expected. Clearly top flight infers value and suggests hard work and notable expense and that translates to money. I've observed that cutesey homely warm and fuzzy words like "hobby" or "friends" or "fun" get tossed aside real quick when someone perceives a threat to their "investment". I'm not blind and I'm not going to hold my breath for any serious consideration to a new standard like the one proposed by this thread starter. It's just an interesting topic to ponder as the true defenders of the faith circle the wagons.

Seriously though the watering down is a good analogy and important point of consideration. If any organization that only actively involves a couple few percent of it's membership were to seriously expand involvement - any changes necessitated by that goal would assuredly water things down from the perspecitve of the involved minority.

...Let's just skip that evolution and hand out a Top Flight to anyone that joins NCRS.

Uh huh.

Did you ever get the idea that we are replaying the same argument that was had every couple years for the last couple decades.

Heh heh - yes! Would a survey help?