The last few posts on this topic seem to have taken turns for the worse and I am as to blame as anyone as I introduced a tangent that didn't really add anything to the core subject, how do we make concours judging better?

As I was cleaning, buffing and waxing the daily driver today (yes the non-Jaguar cars need TLC as well) I was thinking of ways we can really make scoring more consistent and fair, a goal I think we all would like to see achieved.

The problems seem to stem from two main factors:

1. Judges, to keep them from judging their own cars, are often not the most knowledable people about the cars they end up judging.

2. The standards are not absolute and there is some subjectivity involved, and not everyone does their homework.

So, how do we make it better?

How about these ideas?

1. We start to require each entrant to state in advance known deductions.

2. We require that you bring your last event entered scoring sheets and address each of the previous deductions (again, focusing on non-authentics and mechanical, the least subjective items) and that you list on your entrance "self assessment" any deductions that you haven't fixed since the last show.

No I am not insane, hear me out.

Yeah that's right, we ask you to tell on yourself! Who knows the car better than the person who prepares it for competition. I for one know were all the flaws on my car are. If you happen to be someone who has your car professionally prepared, why wouldn't you want the "professional" to let you know in advance where that car you just paid a lot of money to prepare for competition falls short. If you are one of those professional shops, would you rather your customer learn of the shortcomings from an "unqualified" amateur judge? Again, this would mostly apply to non-authentic items and mechanical. However, an entrant can certainly choose to point out other flaws as well. They would do this by submitting their own "self assessment" of their car on the JCNA forms as part of the entrance process.

This accomplishes a couple of things.

First, it promotes consistency in judging by not allowing one show to deduct for example for not having Cheney's and the next to choose to ignore it. It also alerts judges as to what is and isn't correct. If they reviewed all of the "self assessments" in advance then they would be looking at all of the cars to see if they had the same deductions. This is NOT judging one car against another, it is just another way to educate judges as to the standard against which all cars should be judged.

Second, it promotes participants continually improving their cars if they want a better score. It is still up to each person to decide if they want to fix this or that, but they won't be able to count on it "being missed" or "lax judging" at the next event.

Over time I believe it would lead to better educated judges, more consistent results and the best car winning. Isn't that the intent?

BTW, before everyone starts telling WHY this can't be done, ask yourself if you believe that if it was done that scoring would be fairer and more consistent? If you think the answer to that question might be yes, then why not focus your energy on improving on this thought and figuring out how it CAN work? That is if you really are more interested in the right car, versus your own car, winning?

Yo, Patrick, how's that one measure up to your cajones meter?

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG with a lot more flaws that my scores would indicate!

Submitted by dougdwyer@eart… on Mon, 07/26/2004 - 15:46

"and a judging format that ensures the same things are judged in the same manner and with the same weight at each event. "

BINGO !

If have a 4 stone chips in my paint next to the headlights, the deduction should be the same at any Concours I enter.

Consistancy with such details would require, I imagine, lots of addendums to the rule book....but it might go a long way towards solving problems.

The rule might read something like:

Stone Chips: Stone chips that have not been touched up require a "xx" deduction each, to a maximum of "xx" points. Chips that have been touched up are not to be deducted unless the number of chips exceeds 6 (Driven Class) or 3 (Championship Class)

This is obviously just an off-the-cuff example, (any perhaps the rule book always mentions the issue of stone chips...I didn't look) but you get the idea.

We'll never get entirely away from subjectivity, but anything that can be counted or measured should be allowed for in the rule book. IOW, a 3-inch scratch that breaks thru the color coat should carry the same weight at any JCNA Concours

Doug Dwyer
JDRC/NWA
1987 XJ6 III
1988 XJS V12 Coupe

Submitted by jrwalker@ev1.net on Mon, 07/26/2004 - 13:40

First of all let me state I don't think the current judging system is broken, nor even significantly flawed.

In a perfect world deciding which car is national champion in each class could be fairly accomplished by the rules as they are now written. Those rules assume all cars are to be judged the same, regardless of who the judges are and where the sponsoring club is located. In that perfect world an e-type that scores 99.95 at a concours in, say Long Island for example, should score the same - with the same deductions - at any other concours in North America. In the real world I think we all pretty much acknowledge that probably won't happen. That is not meant as a shot at the volunteer judges or any particular club, it is simply a statement of fact.

I don't think eliminating national champions and only awarding regional championships is the answer. Such a move would only admit there are problems with the current judging system and rather than try to fix those problems JCNA has decided to eliminate the result (National Champions). That's rather like destroying a dog that barks instead of training it not to bark.

If there is a question that needs to be addressed I think that question is: "How can JCNA bring judging up to such a level that there is confidence that those cars designated as National Champions are indeed the best cars in North America that year?"

For reasons of expense and individual time constraints I think JCNA can eliminate having a single set of judges traveling around judging at all concours. JCNA is largly a volunteer organization and should remain that way. Having enough professional judges to judge all entrants would be an expensive proposition.

I think the best answer is the one that has been stated time and time again on this forum. Good training for judges, coupled with comprhensive judging guides (some are already in place) and a judging format that ensures the same things are judged in the same manner and with the same weight at each event.

Regards, John

Submitted by Peddlarbob@look.ca on Mon, 07/26/2004 - 10:57

This is also where requiring the last show's scoring sheet be presented would help. Over time you would build an overall assessment the car that represents a cumulative score of sorts from all shows attended. If each time you have to fess up to all of last show's deductions and include all that you haven't addressed this time.

Jeff I certainly would not have wanted to give up my first score sheet. The judge had a personal problem with me and took it out on my car. Would that sheet have set up some sort of precedence that I would have had to live with from then on?

I personally dont think there is so much a problem with the standard of judging and if that does currently exists it is being addressed somewhat with the gradual introduction of the judging guides that are being produced. I think the problem is more around the standards for deduction values that are not consistent across all the clubs. Now I agree that to solve this is a major undertaking. As I have said in another of my posts, perhaps the chief judge of each event can be targeted and afforded more comprehensive instructions so that they can better direct their individual teams of judges.

Just a thought Bob.

92 V-12-VDP Black Cherry #39
92 V-12-VDP Oyster #90
87 V-12-VDP
86 XJ6-Soveriegn
85 XJ6-VD

Submitted by jklein@genphys… on Mon, 07/26/2004 - 05:38

Lisa,

First, I think this is sad. We are admitting that people care about winning over correct cars. Also, that we as a group don't care enough to correct it.

However, I've been waiting for your comment (someone was going to make it) to propose STEP 3:

If there are glaring deductions that a participant doesn't admit up front (e.g. a chrome e-type heater box)we DOUBLE the standard deduction! I know, I know, how do we deal with the truly ignorant or person who at least claims to be? We give then a one show grace period and then hold their feet to the fire. This is also where requiring the last show's scoring sheet be presented would help. Over time you would build an overall assessmentof the car that repsresents a cumulative score of sorts from all shows attended. If each time you have to fess up to all of last show's deductions and include all that you haven't addressed this time, then the end result is a score that is probably going to go down (if the next show finds more deductions), or stay the same at best UNLESS the entrant does something in between to address the shortcomings.

I suspect none of this will ever happen as people don't really want to have their cars judged fairly. The instead want to be stroked and told how wonderful their car is regarless of the fact that it just ain't so. We just have to decide if we want concours to be a "feel good" club or an honest assessment of the cars.

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

Submitted by jklein@genphys… on Sat, 07/24/2004 - 15:11

John,

Yup, it does nothing to prevent a less than honest competitor, other than to make them stand out like a sore thumb. Is that a bad thing?

Also, the second sugession, making you pony up your last sheet and checkingthose items tends to negate this over time.

BTW, mine was a placement of my key fob over a very tiny rip in the center console material (also since corrected). None of us are saints but wouldn't it be cool if we talked more about how such and such is overly critical of his / her car than about how much he /she carps or trys to hide flaws?

Jeff Klein
1970 OTS, BRG

Submitted by mcload@ev1.net on Sat, 07/24/2004 - 13:40

Mr. Klein:

Allow my to apologize for the unfortunate choice of words in my reply to your idea on the previous thread. They were out of line. The reason for my terse response was because it seems like everyone wants to change everything in this country. An awful lot of people over the decades have volunteered their time and efforts towards making JCNA one of the best national car club organizations around. And concours has always been one of the core events within JCNA. Personally, it was by attending a local concours 20 years ago that lit the fire in me to join JCNA and to restore my E-Type, and the quest for a national standing (of some degree) would validate the tremendous amount of dedication it takes. I believe that idea still holds water today. I would hate to see your ôregional onlyö idea adopted, undermining all the work that has occurred at JCNA in the past. So why do you want to just come along and ôchangeö everything? After your car is sold, will you still be around?

I apologize for mistaking you as one of these social reformers that wants to make everything equal and fair for everybody, and we must always be politically correct less we offend someone. Because of these social reforms that are embraced by a particular political party, we must provide hospital and welfare services to illegal immigrants thereby eroding not only our financial base, but our culture and language as well. It is the politically oriented people that embrace the United Nations and the ACLU that I have no patience with. I also apologize for mistaking your idea of ôde-couplingö top national winners from auction houses and the like as being anti-capitalistic. You see, I firmly believe ôto the victor goes the spoilsö, and persoanlly, I just havenÆt been the same after 9/11.

Simply put, I found your first post (the one I responded to) to be destructive in nature.

Regrets,
Patrick McLoad

Submitted by jrwalker@ev1.net on Sat, 07/24/2004 - 13:13

Interesting proposal Jeff.

I think the key to fair judging is consistancy, both in each concours and across all concours. That's easy to suggest and difficult, if not impossible, to implement. We all know the reasons why there is inconsistancy:
1. Volunteer judges who often have an entry in the show so they can't judge the cars they know best. As a result they are volunteered to judge a model they may not have detailed knowledge of.
2. Judges with differing levels of knowledge.
3. Judges that tend to focus on certain items. I am not complaining about the judging, just pointing out some reasons for inconsistancy. 4). Different judges at each concours.
Don't take this a a knock against the judges, it is not meant as such.

I don't know that there is a solution that does not involve a significant investment in either time or money, or both. One solution might be a checklist of the items to be examined. Something more detailed than the current score sheets, but not so detailed as to be unworkable. For example under "Engine" items like "correct hose clamps", "correct spark plug boots", "Correct finish on throttle linkage", "correct data tags on carbs" and so on might work. All that would be needed are "yes" and "no" check boxes for each item, with maybe a comment line. It would at least assure a minimum of items are consistently judged at each concours. Such a system might even speed up judging.

Also, I think all entries should be initially presented for judging with the doors, boot or hatch lid, and bonnet closed and latched and the owner asked to open everything after panel alignment is evaluated. I personally know of cars that had very poor panel alignment for which no deduction was taken because it was never checked.

Jeff, the one problem I see with your proposal is I suspect many entrants would be tempted to be less than honest. We all know of cars presented in a manner to hide or disguise shortcomings. For years I used to strategically place the class entry card under the left hand wiper blade so that it hid a blemish in the chrome windscreen surround (don't bother looking for this now judges, the piece has since been rechromed :-) ).