# SQ judging/scoring discrepancies



## godfathr (Jun 22, 2009)

Gents,
I am a little concerned, (and I don't think I am the only one), with the discrepancies in the SQ judging in the California MECA events so far this year. I truly believe it is a training issue that can be fixed and should be addressed sooner rather than later. Between IASCA last year and MECA this year we have seen a huge increase in SQ competitions and I am very excited to see that. What I don't want to happen is for new competitors who are just getting into competitions to be too disappointed and discouraged from competing because they scored 70 points one show, went back after recieving feedback and made improvements, only to recieve a 50 point score the next time around. I can understand a 5-8 point difference but a 20 point raises a flag to me. As I said before I believe it is a training issue and I am not singling out any one particular judge. We have some seasoned industry veterens with judging experience who are more than willing to help with this, and a new generation of judges who are learning and I am sure want to be fair and consistent and not discourage anyone. Since we only had a few hours of training from Steve earlier this year it is impossible to grasp all the necessary concepts and develop the skills to effectivly score on a consistent basis. I have seen the competition scene in California go from big numbers in the late 80's to mid 90's then drop off to nothing and I don't want to see that happen again. I am willing to offer my shop as a venue to host a more in depth judges training for all of our newly sanctioned judges who are serious and want to improve the competition scene in NorCal and SoCal as well. Fred from Arc Audio has agreed to offer his insights and take the SQ training we all went through with Steve to the next level. I am reaching out to all competitors, certified judges, independent reps, factory reps, store owners, and anyone else who would like to see this competition scene grow and develop into something better than we have ever seen here before. I made a commitment last year to do what I could to jumpstart our industry during this tough economic time and I am not going to give up and I don't want to see happen, what happened in the 90's. I know we all can make it work if we all put our minds to it! 
Please share your thoughts!
Vinny
aka godfather


----------



## atsaubrey (Jan 10, 2007)

I will agree that your point is well taken and is already being addressed. If you would like to discuss it further I am available thru several means. You can trust my NorCal shows will be as consistant as I can possibly make them.


----------



## jkrob21 (Mar 27, 2009)

Consistency is always an issue with multiple judes in SQ. It is a subjective competition afterall. Proper training will narrow the gap but it will always vary a little.


----------



## slvrtsunami (Apr 18, 2008)

Godfather, its owners and others here that make me miss the whole competition scene.

As a previously certified IASCA judge, I have to agree with you in that there will be discrepencies in scoring. Yes, 20 point swing is a bit much, but all the factors have to be taken into consideration. I do hope that your efforts along with numerous others will work out in the end and not allow it to die again. Now, if only I could stoip working 65-70 hours a week, I would join you!!


----------



## scooter99 (Dec 21, 2008)

Well if for nothing else than to learn more about the industry that is SQ, I'd be in for sure! You now me brotha, I'm a sponge for information and learning!


----------



## BobG (Dec 8, 2006)

I've had a 20-something point scoring discrepancy with the *same* judge without ever changing a thing. LOL. 

Judging consistency (or lack thereof) has been a big issue lately. I've actually broke out in laughter after looking at some scoresheets. Like what's already been stated in this thread, it's definitely a training issue. There needs to be focused training on what exactly the judges will be hearing on the disc. Sit the judges in a room and play a recording. Then drop 500hz 5-10dB and play it again. Ask them what they've heard. Something along those lines.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Me and Mike Baylor have talked about the potential of joining the judges’ training as a competitor. That way while the judges are trained in what to listen for, the competitor can be involved in their training so _we_ know what the judges are looking for. It would help for those cases where the comments are less than ideal and as a competitor you have somewhat a grasp on what the judges are being trained to listen for. 

Not necessarily in line with this discussion, but since we’re talking about judges’ training, I wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## Insane01VWPassat (May 12, 2006)

Hey all,

Im placing my foot into the lions den on this one. I have had the oppurtunity to talk with Vince and Aubrey both about this and yes, in the three shows that have taken place in california there has been some serious judge scoring issues between northern and sourhern california. However the issues at hand are far less substantial and easier correctable than those issues with the past years competition in California and across the USA....

The current issue here is being caused by 2 seperate but yet related platform issues. 

The first issue is simply the judges using the rule book as their platform for scoring... Every catagory on the score sheet has a cross referenced section in the rule book that tells you more or less "If it sounds like this, then this is the score you give it" ...... very simple and very defined. This platform is written in even incriments however the judges do have the oppurtunity to use their own judgement on clarity, focus, and defination of that criteria and to award the competitor in .25, .5, and .75 incriments between those reference points. It is very black and white and with very little area (didnt say any, jsut very little) for "Personal opinion" to take rank in the results. 

The solution, very simple, read the rule book, use it as the reference when judging, and remember that is the structured platform, follow that and the consistency of judging should be within a few points from judge to judge rather than people having to worry about who their judge is becuase they are using their own scale on what they think it should be given.

The second issue is extended training.... I cannot speak for the So Cal training but when Steve came out to Nor Cal for the traiing up here he was extremely time limited and as a result he did not have the oppurtunity to overview the details of the rules on hoiw scoring could be achieved... however he was very clear and detailed that the judges need to spend the time to read the rule book as the points structure is black and white... and.. he is right... 

Vince, Aubrey and I all agree that additional training is needed and we are looking at ways to further this for all of the judges and competitors in Nor Cal so that we can spend the time to establish a equal platform of judging based on the rule book (as cut, dry and to the point it is) and allowing competiors the oppurtunity to grow and better themselves and their vehicles.

I think that with MECA we are being given a golden oppurtunity to reviatilize competition in Califonia. MECA offers no room for politics and personal agenda's, it offers a great classification platform that in the primary competition classes it takes away the saying of "competition is for those who can afford to compete" and the old saying of "its $1000 per point" and puts the focus on Music and the ability to recreate music in the way it was intended. 

MECA offers platformed classes in sound quality which doesnt throw every competitor into a single class with rookies having to compete against pros who while giving them the oppurtunity to compete without having to focus or worry about the financial end of making an installation detailed and extravagent enough to compete in an install/sq based platform. MECA actually gets the clue that people are more into and financially able to create musical experiences in their vehicle rather than having to make in some cases serious investements into installations that have little to no effect on how they sound.

Aubrey, First show for you as a promoter.... and I think you did great... some lessons learned.... and some new ideas im sure on how to make things better.. I think you did a great job and look forward to you helping run the show in Nor Cal so Todd doesnt have to be on the road and so far away from home so much...

Vince.... I say we get something in ink and do it quick as the season as already started... Aubrey had mentioned an idea of doig something the night before a show.. however I like the idea as I do that on a regular basis... I still think we should have one good day of Class Room ,Listening Room, and in car experience training. IMO it should be in a Saturday giving oppurtunity to competitors and Judges alike to attend so it wont be conflicting with most work schedules. Second I agree that this should be a regular event.... I would say atleast 2-3 times a year if not once a quarter during the competition season. I also think if planned correctly and if possible this training be planned in parallel with a scheduled live "Acoustical" performance that after the training all of the competitor an judges could attend so they can all have the same reference. (of course most of these will have admission prices and will be the responsibility of the individuals attending to cover their own cost)

oh well my jibber jabber IPHONE post is done (explains the spelling).... I have placed the targets on me, fire away...


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

I wasn't aware that there were any 20 point swings from the Sac Autorama to this past weekend's Kustom Kar show. But I do agree that additional judges training would be beneficial. I'm all for it and will be in attendance so long as I'm in town for it. I'll be the first to admit that I still have plenty to learn and I'm looking to guys like Fred, Vince, and Scott for knowledge/advice. 

So you guys have my support and if there is anything I can do to help then just let me know.

Zach


----------



## Insane01VWPassat (May 12, 2006)

Boostedrex said:


> I wasn't aware that there were any 20 point swings from the Sac Autorama to this past weekend's Kustom Kar show. But I do agree that additional judges training would be beneficial. I'm all for it and will be in attendance so long as I'm in town for it. I'll be the first to admit that I still have plenty to learn and I'm looking to guys like Fred, Vince, and Scott for knowledge/advice.
> 
> So you guys have my support and if there is anything I can do to help then just let me know.
> 
> Zach


 Zach I think the 20pt differene was in reference to the scores between the riverside show and the Kustom Kar/Sacramento Show


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Insane01VWPassat said:


> Zach I think the 20pt differene was in reference to the scores between the riverside show and the Kustom Kar/Sacramento Show


Yeah, I went and looked at the 3 show results. That does make perfect sense now. The SoCal score was a very low scoring event. And thanks again for your ideas on scoring and the whole "/4 formula." I think that really helped me to be more accurate in Santa Rosa.


----------



## CraigE (Jun 10, 2008)

Insane01VWPassat said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> The solution, very simple, *read the rule book*, use it as the reference when judging, and remember that is the structured platform, follow that and the consistency of judging should be within a few points from judge to judge rather than people having to worry about who their judge is becuase they are using their own scale on what they think it should be given.
> ...



Fred, your post was excellent, and the solution is right on.
Kudos to you.:2thumbsup:


----------



## Robert_R (Jun 18, 2007)

Fred I agree 100%....I think maybe some Key point of what you wrote were READ THE RULE BOOK. I think it has been written with such detail that it is a great tool that all the judges need to know and learn from. I also agree with more trainings. I mean really when it comes down to it the only way to get better at something is to practice. 

I will write more tomorrow but I agree with Vince and Fred on the direction.


----------



## pdqwrx (Aug 1, 2009)

How about tandem judging in teams of one novice judge and one experienced judge? This would allow the newer judges to learn in the field, tandem judging should create more accurate scores and better competitor feedback.....And yes I know we are only doing one seat but that primarily effects staging scores and a simple seat swap half way through would allow both Jedi and Padawan to compare their experiences......That was one part of the IASCA experience that seemed to work well (Well, pretty darn good anyway).


----------



## Buzzman (Jul 26, 2007)

I am glad to see that this issue is being openly addressed. After the Riverside event I raised it with Todd (and some others who attended/participated) via PM's and emails. Todd was most gracious and receptive to my concerns, which are identical to Vince's. In my opinion, consistency of scoring, or lack thereof, will make or break these events as it is most critical to the events' integrity (perceived and actual). Everyone agrees, I think, that because the judging IS subjective, and because some judges are more experienced and have better ears (whether trained or naturally gifted) than others, you will have variance of scores from one judge to another for the same vehicle. But, in my view the variance should be within an allowable range of points so that if one judge is more critical (such as the "tough" but excellent judge we had in Riverside) than another, he or she can have the latitude to score as he or she deems appropriate, but without throwing out the whole grading curve. As I have said to Todd and others, I think that consistency of scoring among the judges will be more likely if all judges had to listen to a "reference" car audio system (a high end factory system in a readily available brand and model, for example) which the MECA officials accord a particular score, and which also serves as a baseline against which all competitors' cars are judged and compared. In my view, written instructions to a judge will not be nearly as effective as a sonic reference point. If such a "reference" exists, it would also be most beneficial to competitors who are able to hear what they are being judged against. Perhaps such a "reference" exists, and the judges do listen to it, but I doubt it. My competition experience is limited, but I think more often than not a particular vehicle stands out in competition, and it becomes the reference point for a judge. But, that vehicle really serves as an example of the best (or among the best) reproduction of the sonic virtues we seek. I believe the process would be more valid, and consistent, if we also had a "reference" at the other end of the spectrum. This would allow judges and competitors to better understand and determine not only what should be accorded a 90, but also what distinguishes a 60 from a 90.


----------



## ChicoOG (Nov 27, 2007)

It's great to see people who are passionate about a topic willing to collaborate with the goal of continous learning and improvement. I'm one who received a 75 at one event and 54 at another. Frankly it didn't bother me much as it seems to have many others. That being said, I can definitely see the point everyone is making. 

The topic of instructional design comes to mind relative to this discussion. Given the quantity and complexity of information that needs to be absorbed, it seems training would have to be ongoing and broken down into a series of sessions. As part of the training, I'd love to have four cars, which 3-4 master level judges all agree, represent scores ranging from high 60's to mid 80's. Being able to experience each, side-by-side, with detailed explanation as to why they are scored that way would be very helpful to a novice like me.

As in any profession there are apprentice, jorneyman, and master level participants. In this case having a clear path that someone can travel to get from one level to the next would be great. The fact that we have some solid master level judges willing to work with beginning and journeyman level judges and enthusiast is huge and needs to be acknowledged, applauded, encouraged and supported. Anytime anyone is willing to host training should be supported fully.

So, thanks guys!! I really appreciate the passion and commitment. I love having the venue of competition to learn and continue to make my system better.


----------



## simplicityinsound (Feb 2, 2007)

a lot of great points have been made here and i am totally in agreement.

I think our biggest challenge is not knowing WHAT would help the descrepancies, rather, its how to get enough people, and how these people can find the time to undergo the neccessary steps to help make it better. 

With this economy, many people i have talked to are focused on work, shop owners foucsed on trying to stay afloat, and it hink everyone is in a similar boat, and like it or not, many people may not have the time to consistently undergo training and also to practice on their own. I for one, Todd asked me if i wanted to be a judge, but i turned it down simply becuase i feel that i will never have the time to really hone my skills and as a result, with the limited shows i can go to, i may indeed end up giving people inconsistent scores as related to other judges.

However, i am not at all discouraged, in my experienced, some kind of judging discrepancy has always been part of our sport, i too remember seeing two score sheets that varied by 20 pts from show to show with zero changes to the car way back in the day, but i think its absolutely wonderful that we are active enough, and care enough to raise the point and bring it out in the open to address it. to that end, thank you Vince!

Also, for me at least, i think a descrepancy of scores from one show to another, when its totally different judges, isnt a huge deal at least immedaitely IF the feedback is consistent and accurate.

for example, say i get a 75 at one show and 55 at another, but in general, my comments was say...too much midbass, okay width, good highs, diffused right of center, from BOTH shows, i am cool wtih it, because i know this is what i need to do, but its justthat perhaps the 55 point judge has a much higher standard... i mean regardless of how specific a rulebook says, i think if someone has judged multiple world champion cars in the past versus someone with relatively limited experience, its hard, just in human nature, to score a particular car, espeically one that is decent but not super-duper, the same. so i always thought, the score from one show to the next isnt as important as long as durin the show itself, the judge is consistent and everyone gets a fair shake.

the more immediate issue, again, this is purely my opinion, is making sure that the all the Sound judges at ONE show is relatively consistent with each other. I think from my customers, and my freinds, this has been a bigger complaint over the past year or more. that the feel the one judge scores higher than another during a singular show. 

The problem this causes is all mentioned above, fairness, integrity, and motivation for new competitors if he or she feels that they got jipped by a low scoring judge. Of course, this too, can be helped with training, but i also think that has to come slowly in time, i dont think any amount of trainig is going to turn a relatively novice judge into a pro scoring machine in the matter of a coupla weeks, yet that is the span that covers the downtime between comps here in cali.

For now, i wonder if we can do something that has been done many times before.

the first car in the comp is to be judged by BOTH (or all if there is more htan two) judges, independently, one after the other. when they get out, they compare notes, and see what the differences in similarities are and agree to some type of consensus. 

and then the rest of the judging begins.

now obviously, this doesnt cure the problem completely, but ithink it can do some good at the comps, espeically when an experienced judge is paired with a novice. 

of course there is also the question of whose car goes under this initial judgement, whcih could be viewed as the most harsh critique. so we can either do it as part of a lottery system, pick a name out of a hat, or perhaps use the event organizer's car, or even a judges car. just to establish some type of baseline. 

the main reason i bring this up this year, is that one hting i LOVE about MECA, is that everyone is scored on the same criteria, so technically, one can look at the other guys around them and make a fairly accurate guess whos got what interms of SQ...for me, this helps a lot when designing future builds aiming for a certain degree of sq, i can say, ah, look at that modex car, scoreing this compared to mine, let me check his car out, and maybe use some of his ideas in an upcoming build...

just my two bits


----------



## simplicityinsound (Feb 2, 2007)

i do want to add a few quick things i forgot in my last post:

1. Aubrey, i think you did a FANTASTIC job with your first comp brother! In my past real job, one part of my duties was to organize and run events, both large and small, so i certainly know the challenges facing your first show, not to mention this isnt your full time job so you have to dig up the time to do some thinking. But i think you remained calm and collected and dealt with the situation great! kudos! I am sure you came way with some experiences and ideas so the next one will be much easier. I only got one suggestion for you, that is to relax!! we are a family here, and everyone pretty much knows one another and respects each other, so you are among freinds, dont worry that people may be mad or pissed or something with you if things dont go PERFECT, we couldnt be happier than you are doing this for us here in norcal man! 

2. for me at least, i think think the two new sq judges in norcal have been great, and pretty consistent with me and my guys who have made almost no changes to their cars between autorama and kustom kar. we were judged by both Zach and Greg at the shows, one judge for each show, alternating.

for us three, Lai with the impala had a variance of 5 points, we changed hte sub amp and also turuned the gain up on it

Anthony wtih the G35 had a variance of 1.5 pts and we made zero changes

and i myself had a 3 pint variance but i did a tiny bit of tweaking in between, around 5 mins worth hehe..

so i think they have been doing a pretty good job, and i think it will only get better from now on.


on a totally werid point, my car, through 8 or 9 shows now from the beginning of last year, both norcal and socal, iasca and meca, with maybe 6 or 7 different judges, through all this, and i have made virtually ZERO changes to my car in equipment, setup or tuning, yet all my scores in sq, the maximum variance has been 5 points from one show to the next lol 

damn, thinking about this, why the heck did I make that previous post


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Thanks for the kind words Bing. It means alot to hear that I haven't been totally screwing up. 

And I agree 100% about Aubrey doing a great job with the 1st show!

Zach


----------



## pdqwrx (Aug 1, 2009)

Boostedrex said:


> Thanks for the kind words Bing. It means alot to hear that I haven't been totally screwing up.
> 
> And I agree 100% about Aubrey doing a great job with the 1st show!
> 
> Zach


One thing that needs to be remembered is that this IS NOT about anyone "Screwing up". There is simply a loop hole of sorts that could turn away some novice guys and we can’t afford as a group to alienate anyone. I think now that this has been pushed out into the light, that we can all work together and make it fun and exciting and informative for everyone.

No one should be getting butt hurt here.....

Scott


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

pdqwrx said:


> One thing that needs to be remembered is that this IS NOT about anyone "Screwing up". There is simply a loop hole of sorts that could turn away some novice guys and we can’t afford as a group to alienate anyone. I think now that this has been pushed out into the light, that we can all work together and make it fun and exciting and informative for everyone.
> 
> No one should be getting butt hurt here.....
> 
> Scott


Scott, sorry if I came off wrong. That was more of a joke that I was throwing out there. I didn't think that anyone was being called out for screwing up. Perhaps I should've been more clear with that one.  No worries on this end for sure.

Zach


----------



## pdqwrx (Aug 1, 2009)

Zach- No worries from me either; I posted that for EVERYBODY's benefit. We all have egos and they can be very fragile sometimes (Mine especially, ask my wife), and other times they can get in the way of needed evolutionary change (Note: not revolutionary). Vince has opened up a great topic of debate and given us a chance to make some VERY positive changes to ensure MECA keeps kicking butt in California....Zach, please keep up your great work.

Looks like I will see you in Fresno this weekend....

Cheers
Scott


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

I won't be in Fresno this weekend. I'll be in Seoul, S. Korea. But I'll be at the Hayward show on May 1st. 

And I also support more judge training and trying to help MECA's presence grow in the West Coast. I really enjoy the MECA format and will do whatever I can to help.

Zach


----------



## pdqwrx (Aug 1, 2009)

Well, have a GREAT trip and I should be at Ernies show as well....See you there!

Scott


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

This is problem that has been going on since they started judging car stereo. I have been around since the start of IASCA. I have seen the industry evolve some good, some bad. Consitancy of judging is a problem. I have been to finals where the judges can't read a soundstage map, the rule book and can't tell what instrument from what. The best one was the 2005 IASCA/USACI finals where the pro judges couldn't read a sound stage map, or even tell what the instruments were being played. What makes a good judge from a excellent judge in my opinion is being able to give constructive feedback, being able to point out trouble spots and give solutions if possible. I have listened to the majority of the cars at the Autorama and hopefully was able to give them some feedback that may help with there cars. I have access to a 40,000 reference system, access to Maximus recording studio, and have seen Manheim Steamroller and the Cincinatti pop orchestra preform multiple times, as well have seen mutlple jazz artists preform in a studio and in a club enviorment. I have talk to Todd and have offered my help with judging as much as I can. I have started to reverse engineer the new test disc and have found how wonderful that new disc is and some of the lengths they have gone to to get these recordings. You could judge a car with track 19, 21, 23 alone. These tracks will really tell you the technical side of a car and the soundstage and imaging. I have to commend Todd and Aubrey for stepping up and promoting and putting on these Meca shows. There is alot of hard work behind the scenes that the competitors have never seen. I think the best trainning you could ever have is go to a recording studio watch them record, go to a live performance, experience what us audiophile nuts talk about. This is a addiction and sometimes my wife says I need a intervention. So just my two cents worth.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

simplicityinsound said:


> consistent


x2. 

If comments are relatively the same (assuming you change nothing, yet get a different score) and the placings is similar (assuming competitors haven’t changed anything) then that’s what you get. 

I don’t worry so much about the numbers. I do, however, worry if a judge gives a guy a very low score, then a judge gives him a very high score *relative to the rest of the competitors*. To me, that shows inconsistency within judges.

If that kind of consistency is there, then that seems to be all we can really hope for. We have people judging our cars, so naturally there will be differences. If one judge is simply more critical than another, but the difference in the breakdown of your scoring is consistent through each step, then that’s the kind of consistency that can be tolerated and accepted. At least to me.


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

I try to score the same way everytime. Which is if the car does what it is suppose to do it will get atleast half the points of perfect. For example if you have a car that has left, center, right and the instruments are placed were they are suppose to be but are fuzzy and not clear in their presense they they will get half the points. If the car can't even technically be correct it shouldn't score above half of the points allotted. I have sat in many cars that technically can't do that. I was at a final where I sat in the all the competitors cars of one class scored them all with a notepad and when the trophies were given one of the worst cars for projecting realism won. It was such an synthetic sound it was horriable and instrument placement wasn't right, this car has won two world finals. So Tranning is key and knowledge is power. If people would like I will try to be at all the shows I can, my own personal car is one of the most techical correct cars I have heard. When Image had there traning I was asked by Jason Ewing and Harry if I could let some of the new judges listen to my car because of it being technically so correct. Once you get the car technically correct with the sound stage, the tunning is the easy part LOL.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Boostedrex said:


> Yeah, I went and looked at the 3 show results. That does make perfect sense now. *The SoCal score was a very low scoring event. * And thanks again for your ideas on scoring and the whole "/4 formula." I think that really helped me to be more accurate in Santa Rosa.


In So. Cal we have Matt as a Judge, he's very stingy with the points. 

I would rather have a ton of input after being Judged than a higher score with no input; Matt gives a good twenty minutes of feedback after Judging.


----------



## Insane01VWPassat (May 12, 2006)

michaelsil1 said:


> In So. Cal we have Matt as a Judge, he's very stingy with the points.
> 
> I would rather have a ton of input after being Judged than a higher score with no input; Matt gives a good twenty minutes of feedback after Judging.


Stingy is ok... not saying this was a score but it is an example.... if the MECA rule book states for reference on how to score width and depth scores=

VVVVVVVVVV From page 30 of the MECA rule book VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

1 – 2 Is well within the a-pillars, side or front glass, and
other boundaries of the vehicle, and is unstable

3 – 4 Is within, and/or meeting the a-pillars, side or front
glass, and other boundaries of the vehicle, and is
somewhat unstable

5 – 6 Is outside the a-pillars, side or front glass, and other
boundaries, and is stable


------------------------

and the judged car has a focused acoustical stage width that is outer edge pillar to mid edge pillar and the competitor recieves a score of 2.0 or even a 5.5.... that is not following the platformed scoring structure of the rule book..... so if you read the rule book and average scores across the board a car with a score of 50 has some serious issues.

That is the problem here...... it is simple... the rule book is in black and white... if the car is doing something a certain way.. the rule book tells you how to score it... point blank... black and white.... if the judge wants to have their opinion into it... that is why they allow scoring in 1/4 point icriments, but other than that... READ THE RULE BOOK.... its very simple... it the rule book is read... and the scoring platforms are followed.... the scores should be relatively in the same general area between judge to judge...


----------



## TREETOP (Feb 11, 2009)

Insane01VWPassat said:


> VVVVVVVVVV From page 30 of the MECA rule book VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> 
> 1 – 2 Is well within the a-pillars, side or front glass, and
> other boundaries of the vehicle, and is unstable
> ...


But even these are open to opinion, for example the stage could be within the pillars but still be "stable". Or it could be wide and/or forward but "unstable" or smeared.


----------



## Insane01VWPassat (May 12, 2006)

TREETOP said:


> But even these are open to opinion, for example the stage could be within the pillars but still be "stable". Or it could be wide and/or forward but "unstable" or smeared.


that would still be a 3 or 4 based on the rules.. not a 2.0 or 5.5


what im saying... is the rules and the scoring platform is there.... there is room for opinion.... but how can one judge score on a car with solid pillar to solid pillar stage width score a 3.75(+/- .25) and then another judge in the same car with no changes to the stage and the same results score it as a 2.0 (+/- .25) .... when the rule book states the foundation score is a 3-4..... this is the issue... .. according to the rules a score of 2.0 is a car that Is well within the a-pillars, side or front glass, and other boundaries of the vehicle, and is unstable... reading that I see a lot of "and's" ... not "or's"

in the case of where the concerns are... the platform was not followed and the judge appears of to created his own scoring platform... this appears to be the complaint and/or concern..


----------



## dbiegel (Oct 15, 2006)

Matt gave some of the best feedback I've ever gotten from a judge. It was a great learning experience and I was very impressed with his enthusiasm and experience.

That said, I had to leave early, before the scoring (I never even saw my score sheet). If what people are saying is correct, I think it's a serious issue. One of the reasons we pay for competing is to have a score sheet that you can take home and use as a reference for improving your system, or just know what your strengths and weaknesses are. If there's no rulebook-based consistency then it can be very hard to figure out where you stand in the grand scheme of things and what you need to improve on. If you think about it, rulebook-based scoring -- and being placed on a reference grading system -- is what really separates getting judged in a competition vs. just asking someone to critique your system.

Since we have a nice little online community going, it would also be great to be able to compare systems across regional boundaries.


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

Well I did a little experiment with my own car according to the rule book guide lines which is in black and white. My car would scored a 88. There are a couple of places were there could be some interpretation that is why you can use half points. But the guidelines are pretty self explanitary. Just figure I would throw this out there.


----------



## ChicoOG (Nov 27, 2007)

JBishop said:


> Well I did a little experiment with my own car according to the rule book guide lines which is in black and white. My car would scored a 88. There are a couple of places were there could be some interpretation that is why you can use half points. But the guidelines are pretty self explanitary. Just figure I would throw this out there.


Jim, you are much more experienced and have a better ear then I do. So, when I sit in my car and score it (which I've done), I score it higher (high 70's/low80's) because I don't hear/recognize the nuances that others like yourself do. 

Therefore, having someone more experienced listen and give me feedback is real helpful. That being said it would seem if all judges follow the scoring instructions laid out in the rule book scores should stay in a pretty tight range of maybe +/- 5 points.

This has been a healthy discussion that I've learned a lot from. So when is the next training


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I just scored my truck and scored an 89  no sense in going against you Jim  where's my trophy  lol j/k


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

Big Red your mine.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

YouTube - Cat speak with ak47 - Say hello to my little friend


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BigRed said:


> YouTube - Cat speak with ak47 - Say hello to my little friend


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

Well the Fresno show answered alot of questions. Like I stated earlier in a post I scored my car to the judging guidelines and I got a 88. Fred scored my car at a 85.75 so Ya He was spot on and pick up on the problem I was having with new placement of the sub, and my resonating door problem.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

Cool deal Jim....how did you do in placement at the show? You are in modex, correct?


----------



## JBishop (Oct 8, 2009)

BigRed said:


> Cool deal Jim....how did you do in placement at the show? You are in modex, correct?


I'm in Mod. and finished 3rd overall by points I do believe


----------

