Proper role for an OJ

[Jack H.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

I had a buddy take his 66 to BG three years in a row to try for a Gold. Each time he came back home with a list of items to "fix" only to go back the next year to a different set of judges and a new "list" of mistakes. After the 3rd trip he gave up never to go back. His 66 wasn't that far off but his experience left him with a sour taste for BG.

That's reasonably 'rare'...a car/owner returning to BG several times! We see that situation at NCRS more than the other judging circuits that are run by lottery and/or invitation. It invites owner critique for inconsistency.

But, that critique is typically the result of unreasonable owner expectations... The notion that there's an 'ultimate' authority that has ALL of the knowledge and will find everything without error of omission or error of commission is what's unreasonable.

In any/all judging situations, the judges are human subject to human frailties. That's life...

So, when a given owner sees this aspect of human inconsistency and blames the judging organization for it, he/she is being unrealistic. You work with the system that's there, keep your blood pressure down, and your calm, cool, reasonable demeanor high.

Take each input/deduction for what it is...that judge's 'best effort' on that day. Do NOT blindly accept everything that's said/scored. Take them as input(s) for further research/study. And remember, the more input you get, the closer you'll come to knowing the 'truth' about your car...

[Edward M.]

Now, my question is; What happens when the OJ askes a question about an item that untimately brings to light the fact that the judges missed something? Mention it to the owner with no deduction, don't mention it at all, mention it and make the deduction?

Here is a situation where you can certainly help educate me. I am not sure how best to handle that situation on the judging field.

[Harmon C.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Lyle;

I agree, there are many owners who are "in it for the points".

But that doesn't mean that NCRS should cater to them. The goal is the restoration and preservation of Corvettes. If we let some things go because "the real judges" didn't catch it, we are doing a disservice to the owner (although he/she may disagree), and the hobby.

Now, having said that, there is a fine line between giving the owner the benefit of the doubt on a questionable item, and just plain ignoring a incorrect item.

I have heard many owners say after the fact that "the judges missed this". Our goal (which we all know is unattainable) is the the judges don't miss anything.

I even recall one instance on a show field where a spectator asked one of the judges a question about a particular item on a car. That question was prompted by the spectator's desire to learn, but it ultimately resulted in a deduction for an item that the judges had missed. The owner laughed and then said "I thought I was going to get away with that one."

Our standards are high; they have to be. An NCRS award would be worth much less if they were not.

I think the key here is the Judges should be taking the deductions and the OJ's input if correct should be noted. If a scoring change is needed take it but to temper the input of of an OJ to change the score as he could have an ax to grind with the owner.

[Jack H.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

That's a very 'political' question and the answer varies greatly depending on time available, the judges in question, and the objective(s) of the specific meet...

I've OJ'd with several senior judges who didn't want the OJ to 'interfere'...ask questions, point out his observation(s), or do anything more than what he was told to do. Yep, that was 'confining', but I won't say that I learned NOTHING from the process...

Then, we turn the table and go to Australia in 2005. That was their FIRST judging meet. The chapter chairman, Murray Forman, wanting to maximize local judging knowlege drummed up the support/assistance of eight visiting Yank judges including Roy Sinor himself, Tom Barr, Michael Pierce, and more than a few Rocky Mtn Chapter folks.

To 'enhance' the Australian experience, Murray had beaten the bushes for cars and turned out +20 Corvettes ranging from '54 to C4 for the 2-day affair. HEY, there's NO way eight Yanks can judge +20 cars in two days with ALL of the Australian and New Zealand members 'observing'...

So, we wound up in the role of TL's with the locals (who'd never judged before) doing the work. There was MUCH 'book reading' and times when team judges stood 3-4 deep in line to the TL with their questions. Now, this is an EXTREME situation that doesn't come close to typifying Stateside Regional/National meets. There, we generally have more qualified judges turning out than we have team judge slots available for them.

On the question of what constitutes a 'novice' vs. 'senior' judge, you try to drive the answer with the point level associated with a given individual from the NCRS Judging Recognition Program. That's wrong in my book...

The NCRS program merely counts 'time in grade'...how many times did you turn out to either judge or manage at a judging meet. It's not a reflection of CBI (competency based instruction).

It's possible (unlikely though) for a given member to garner a Master level black hat by simply doing umpteen Operations Checks. That doesn't really qualify that person for, say, Mechanical judging on a '67 L88, does it?

On the other hand, we've got more than one member in our chapter with less than a Level 5 status in the Judging Recognition Program who've been in the business of restoring and maintaining classic Corvettes for +25 years. These guys can walk up to just about any Corvette built and serve competently in any Flight Judging role.

So, you interpret the terms (novice and senior) in their true meaning...one of raw knowledge and competency.

[Roy S.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Guys I will submit two items for your consideration:

First the judges are the judges if they do not make a deduction then they do not make it. If the OJ asks a question resulting in the judges changing there opinion then the notation should be made but it should not be a deduction. We do not need or want three or four judges or the system would require three or four judges.

Second, all of those who think a master judge is some all seeing all knowing individual including the master judge himself has not paid much attention to the process as they advanced. It is my opinion the master judge knowledge at level 100 varies from novice to expert, depends on there training, there personal knowledge level and there people skills. There are level 5 judges that are better judges than many master judges. The master judge level is for all practical purposes as previously mentioned a time in grade position, for many of us it was the master judge level that opened our eyes to how little we actually knew.

[Edward M.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Well this has centainly turned into an interesting discussion, and gone well beyond the original issue.

Many good points have been made, and I now have a few more things to consider on this issue.

Thanks to everyone that participated. I, for one, got some good things out if it.

[Chuck S.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

As an owner I think at the meet the owner is more interested in getting the award he hopes to get at the meet than having an OJ add to the deductions. When he gets home he is interested in improving his car when the judging sheets get back. As judges we all miss things each time we judge so if six eyes rather than four are inspecting every item I think the owner is not being helped that day...

Hunh??!!...I don't get it.

On the one hand, the owner doesn't want additional deductions so he can get the award; but later, he wants to use the judging sheets to further improve the car?

If the judges are missing many things, then the judging sheets are incomplete...there should have been deductions that aren't shown there. The next time he has it judged, he thinks he's ready; but the next set of judges don't miss those same items, so he's frustrated and confused.

It seems to me if something is NOT typical of factory production, the judges should make the deduct, and owner should be able to admit that it's not TFP regardless of how many judges it took to point it out. Otherwise, the judging system is not absolutely objective...it's just judging roulette within the boundries of two-man judging teams of sometimes doubtful competence working inside given time constraints.

Further, if I were on a team of two experienced, maybe Master Level judges, and an OJ kept seeing a lot of things I've missed, then I believe I would need a period of introspection to figure out if this individual is extraordinarily over-qualifed for the role of OJ, or if I needed to review my qualification for judging the year class. JMHO.

[Brian M.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Well said.

Guys I will submit two items for your consideration:

First the judges are the judges if they do not make a deduction then they do not make it. If the OJ asks a question resulting in the judges changing there opinion then the notation should be made but it should not be a deduction. We do not need or want three or four judges or the system would require three or four judges.

Second, all of those who think a master judge is some all seeing all knowing individual including the master judge himself has not paid much attention to the process as they advanced. It is my opinion the master judge knowledge at level 100 varies from novice to expert, depends on there training, there personal knowledge level and there people skills. There are level 5 judges that are better judges than many master judges. The master judge level is for all practical purposes as previously mentioned a time in grade position, for many of us it was the master judge level that opened our eyes to how little we actually knew.

[Jack H.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Amen, Roy! Thanks for taking the time to consult with us...

[Harry S.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

I agree with Roy 99.9% of the time. Here is an example where I OJ'd. I know that the JG was questionable/incorrect on a few areas and I quietly pointed it out to the judge. The Judge said he was going by the JG as written. The owner lost points that he should not have. So I went silent as the OJ as not to cause a problem.

The Judge is the Judge but??????????????

[Harmon C.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Hunh??!!...I don't get it.

On the one hand, the owner doesn't want additional deductions so he can get the award; but later, he wants to use the judging sheets to further improve the car?

If the judges are missing many things, then the judging sheets are incomplete...there should have been deductions that aren't shown there. The next time he has it judged, he thinks he's ready; but the next set of judges don't miss those same items, so he's frustrated and confused.

It seems to me if something is NOT typical of factory production, the judges should make the deduct, and owner should be able to admit that it's not TFP regardless of how many judges it took to point it out. Otherwise, the judging system is not absolutely objective...it's just judging roulette within the boundries of two-man judging teams of sometimes doubtful competence working inside given time constraints.

Further, if I were on a team of two experienced, maybe Master Level judges, and an OJ kept seeing a lot of things I've missed, then I believe I would need a period of introspection to figure out if this individual is extraordinarily over-qualifed for the role of OJ, or if I needed to review my qualification for judging the year class. JMHO.

Along the way to getting five Duntov awards I found that the same two judges would take off about the same points every time. If I fixed half the deductions two new judges would find some new things they did not like so the car got better but the score stayed the same. Some judges take off one full point for every minor thing incorrect on a line while others think that two or three items equall one point.
To train everyone to take the same deductions and see the same things will never happen. Some cars at a chapter level have so many deductions I need to stop when their is no more room on the line or between the lines to list all the things that are not correct. This type car could fix most items only to get a new list the next time out.

[Peter G.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

This is a great discussion that I would like to get into.

A lot of different perpectives and even the thoughts of the NJC (and thanks for taking the time to help explain some of the objectives).

I have done all off them.

People skills either at an NCRS Judging Meet or at work. It is still the same. People skills help greatly. Owners do get review surveys of their Judges.

If OJ's were to be like judges then there could possibly be 15 judges on one car! This is too much. For the car and the owner.

I have always thought: Let the judges do the judging and the OJ's do the learning.

[Troy P.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Looks like I started some very interesting discussion. Thank you all for your comments.

Now for my 2 cents worth.

I've been studying certain year Vettes for about 20 years. I know a lot about certain things on those cars. In limited areas or parts you could say I'm an expert. Yet I don't and never will know it all. But my objective is to always learn more. So I sign up to be an OJ to learn. I recognize that is the intent of the position.

However, I believe if an OJ sees something the judges missed that observation should be expressed to the judges. This can be done discretely in many cases outside of the owner's hearing range.

Why do I feel that way?

Restorers have three sources of information on which to base their restoration quality:
1) Independent research - books, magazines, factory photos, studying original cars and NOS parts, etc.
2) Judging manuals
3) Judges

Since judging is a key element I believe the judging should be as accurate as possible. If the OJ can add to the accuracy and the judges agree with the discrepancy or discrepancies presented it should be reflected in the scoring and judging sheets. This will allow the owner to improve the quality of their car. It will also help avoid the frustration often heard in the form of, "The judges didn't dock me for that last time." The more that is found the first or second time around the better.

(BTW as a personal opinion, I sense a general trend in the hobby away from doing independent research and toward more reliance on the judging manuals and the judging. Thus a greater need for really well done manuals and accurate judging.)

I don't believe OJ's should raise opinions on issues that are unclear, thus adding to the confusion of how something should or shouldn't be. But if they observe a known certain defect it would seem to me to promote the mission of NCRS to weigh in.

For example, I have observed the following items that the judges missed:
1) Glass bowl fuel filter did not have any filter element in it.
2) Incorrect battery cable (there is a photo of the correct one in the judging manual). Problem observed at two different meets.
3) Poly top in lieu of tar top battery.
4) Washer head screws used on door panels when original panels have crimped in stainless ferrules.

I recognize we can't field more than two judges but if we have an OJ assigned that knows something it seems like we'd want to take advantage of that.

Meanwhile I'll keep my mouth shut unless the official thinking changes. However, I have been tempted to fill the owner in on my unofficial observations least they get docked for those discrepancies next meet.

[Chuck S.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Troy, I sense we are exactly on the same page on this issue, and are pretty much in the minority.

The other side of the discussion revolves primarily around a "fair" judging versus a "thorough" judging. We wouldn't want to increase the number of judges with OJs; too many judges might make it even clearer that the car is a salvage yard candidate or parts car with no business being judged. It might produce such a burden of extended judging sheets, that it would be too much for the owner to bear. The worst case is the owner that knows nothing about Corvettes, paid someone to restore it for him, and wants that last big award so he can sell the car for a lot of money...This individual doesn't really care about how correct the car is.

Back in college, my old roommate (a chemistry graduate student) would live in fear and high anxiety each semester until he learned the names of the instructors of his advanced chemistry classes...it was like watching a man forced to play Russian roulette.

My university was determined to build a reputation of academic excellence...the grading scale was high (91 was a high B!) and faculty expectations of students were high. The Chemistry Department was well renowned as being the most chicken**** department on campus. Some of their instructors were absolute dictators; they didn't suffer fools, said complicated formulas only once, and gave no compassion to anyone. When you took organic chemistry under them, all your other courses were going to suffer mightily, you were going to work your butt off day and night, and you might make a C if you were lucky enough to pass at all. I'm sure that one class of chemistry was enough to change some students career plans, or cause them to "lay out" the next semester so they could change to "Party School U."

Flash forward to today...let's say you're a cancer patient...which student of organic chemistry would you rather have as your physician? Yeah, I admit I'm "over the top" here with a life/death analogy, but Corvette excellence should be important to us as members, owners, and judges. It either "IS" or it "AIN'T"; having judges that can't see warts, even small ones, is no help to owners.

[Harmon C.]

Re: Proper role for an OJ

Their is one thing in the picture you may need to think about. In order to get a Duntov you can only lose 36 points per area if your opps are perfect. If the judging on each item is done by an expert on that item it would be hard to score under the 36 point deduction. I agree that no major item should be missed. How about if the original gasket on a carburetor had four square corners and a 1/16 " radius. If the OJ who is a carburetor restorer said the gasket should have 1/8" radius corners and about ten other things wrong that were as small as the gasket corners and you take off one point for each that's 14 points and the Duntov award would be out of reach. The Duntov award should not be easy to get but also it would be easy for a person to put the award out of reach for everyone. As a restorer who has done frame offs restored every part on a 73 Corvette I need to bunch small items together and not take one point off for every item I see. At the 100 judging level I was just starting to understand the system and now at over 400 I temper my deductions by grouping things together or no one could score under 36. If we make the award out of reach at some point we will not have cars to judge or the numbers will need to be changed to allow more points to be deducted to get the Duntov. In the end it's really about the people and the friends we make along the way. The cars just bring us together.