Is it time to change Model Contest Judging Rules?

[chuck540z3]

I’ve been reluctant to post this for some time because I did not want to come off as a sore loser of modeling contests. In spite of this, I really think that something should be said, because I think model contests do not always reward the best OVERALL accomplishments of a model build and they only focus on the flaws. What exactly should be judged to determine excellent in modeling? The best looking build that you’d like to take home with you or the one with the fewest screw-ups? Let me explain.

I have attended two Model Contests in the last 4 months which had different judging methods. In the first contest, a traditional Gold, Silver and Bronze medal was awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best entry in each category. The problem with this system is that there might only be two entries, which results in an automatic Gold and Silver, or there could be several entries of poor quality, which will also result in Gold through Bronze awards for so-so modeling.

The second contest had a much better judging system (IMO), where Gold through Bronze was awarded on a point system, where you were judged on the quality of your build and not against the other entries. You start off with 20 points and through deductions, you wind up with a point total that may or may not qualify for a medal. 17 or more points wins a Gold medal in the Intermediate category, but you needed 18 or more points in the Advanced category to win the same thing. Each category might have multiple winners of medals for Gold or Silver, whereas other categories might have no winners at all because the quality of the models were not up to stuff. Further, the judges wrote down what the deductions were for, so that you did not wonder why you wound up with your final point total.

I found this second system to be far more fair and fun than the first system. If some super-star modeler submits some killer entries in your category, you still have a chance to win something based upon the merits of your model. If some categories have crappy entries, they win zippo because nobody really deserved to. I also really liked to see what the judges found to be deductions, so that I didn’t have to chase them down to find out what they were. For example, one of my aircraft entries had four deductions so I wound up with a Silver instead of a Gold in the Advanced category. They were for some slightly silvered decals in a few areas (Guilty), a seam line on the landing gear (What? Oops, they were right, so Guilty), but also for a mix of raised and recessed panel lines and a “stain†on a horizontal stabilizer. Since I re-scribed some of the panel lines on the kit, but not all of them, I was given a deduction and the stain was created by salt weathering and I wanted it there, so in my mind, I know I really deserved a Gold medal instead (only 2 deductions), because those deductions were invalid- or at least they are in my mind. Although I’d be a liar to claim these deductions didn’t bother me a bit, the reality is that the award of a Gold vs. Silver isn’t that big a deal and I had a lot of fun at the contest seeing other models and talking to the other modelers. I plan on going again next year and seeing where the chips fall again.

The problem with both judging systems is that they are based upon deductions only and there are no points for merit. Why are there no points for positive things like a super-fantastic paint job or maybe some custom decals that turned out really well and unique? Here’s a theoretical example of what I have witnessed in the above contests, as a reason I think that model contest judging is missing out on something important.

Two 1/32 Tamiya F-14A kits are built and entered into a contest. They both have resin cockpits installed and are therefore are in the Advanced category, but one of them is converted to a “B†model with full airframe conversion with GE-110 engines at the rear and all the other subtle changes required for an F-14B. Most of the raised panel lines are re-scribed, but not all of them. This Tomcat gets a full salt weathered treatment to the paint and overall, it looks very accurate and stunning. It does, however, have a small glue mark where the canopy glass meets the frame, but it’s very small.

The second model is made as the OOB F-14A, but with the resin cockpit. The assembly and painting is flawless, but it is super clean like it had just been released from the factory. All of the raised panel lines in the rear are left untouched, even though the front of the aircraft has recessed panel lines as they came out of the box. As “flawless†as this Tomcat looks, it also looks like an unrealistic toy and most would not give it a second look.

From what I’ve seen at these contests, the F-14A will win every time, even though it is unrealistically painted and probably took about half the time to build as the F-14B. This is because it has no deductions, whereas the F-14B got docked for the canopy glue mark and the mixed panel lines on the rear of the aircraft. Time and time again I see boring and simple builds beat more complicated and interesting models because they have fewer errors and therefore fewer deductions. Why is this? Shouldn’t a model be judged on OVERALL merit, rather than just what’s wrong?

Now some real examples. At the first contest I saw a 4 foot long diorama of a WW-II German train with tanks and all sorts of complicated stuff on board. It was a fantastic entry and I had to look at it for about 5 minutes to take it all in. It must have taken at least a year to build. It won a Silver because, allegedly, the tracks of the train did not show some flex from the weight of the train. The Gold medal winner? It was a cannon/gun of some kind that was about 5 inches long. It was nicely assembled, I guess, but sucker was tiny and couldn’t have taken more than a week to build. How it was in the same category as the train is unknown to me, but the Silver winner was clearly robbed.

Since I’m into 1/32 fighter jets, the most notorious contest robbery in this category occurred at the 2009 IPMS contest when John Vojtech's incredible F-15C lost to a Tamiya F-14A Aggressor. While the F-14A was impressive, the F-15C is mind boggling in the detail and blows away the Tomcat in my opinion. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, there’s a video of the F-15C here:

http://www.umm-usa.com/mygallery/galleryf15c.html

and the controversy surrounding the loss posted here:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=198374

For those who don’t want to go through all the links, the consensus is that John may or may not have had pin marks in the intakes, which probably killed his chances at first place. A deduction, therefore, erased over 2,000 of hours of work assembling 5,000 individual pieces, most of which were scratch-built. How in _ell does this happen? Whether you like the weathering on the Eagle or not, the rules are stupid and John was robbed, at least IMO. The rules should have somehow rewarded the other positive aspects of the F-15C. Even if there were pin marks in the intakes, the beautiful scratch-built engines should have erased this flaw and probably 3 other sins as well.

This happened again, I think, in the same category at the 2010 contest. Scroll down to category 140 - Military, 1/32 and Larger Jet, at the link below. How in heck did that simple Me-163B beat out the Israeli F-4E? Well, I answered my own question- it’s because it’s simple and therefore has no deductions. Since I’m building an F-4E myself right now, I know that this Phantom has tricky modifications like slatted wings and although I didn’t see this model myself in person, I know which model I’d like to take home- and it isn’t German with no details. Although it may not be fair to use only the pics posted without actually being there, I think even the third place A-7E blows away the winner.

http://www.ipmsusa.org/Nats2010/winners/winners.html

I think it’s time that modeling contests started to focus on the merits of a build along with the flaws. I know that I’ll get comments that flaws are usually objective while the positives of a build are subjective and hard to measure. I don’t think so. For example, positive things like overall presentation, the paint job, effort invested, difficulty, etc., could be judged on a scale of X out 10 and ultimately dilute the negative flaws discovered when judging a model. This system isn’t perfect either, but it sure means the heck out of just looking for goof-ups. Unless things change, safe and boring will continue to win over risky and interesting entries, which is a real shame.

Edited October 4, 2011 by chuck540z3

[Moose135]

...docked for the canopy glue mark and the mixed panel lines on the rear of the aircraft. Time and time again I see boring and simple builds beat more complicated and interesting models because they have fewer errors and therefore fewer deductions. Why is this? Shouldn’t a model be judged on OVERALL merit, rather than just what’s wrong?

Basics come first when judging a model for competition. As you said yourself - you can have a complicated, super-detailed model, but if you don't get the basics right, like alignment of parts, seams, decal film, glue marks, you will not win over a cleanly-built model with fewer added details. Having judged at many local, and some regional IPMS shows, my first look at a model in competition is the quality of the work, then I'll look at any extra that was done - and if you add extras, they better be done well also.

[RiderFan]

I'm not sure what to comment here except to say that this is why I don't like judged "sports" like figure skating in the Olympics either.

I lost a model contest as a kid because, while my entry completely blew away the winners, the judge didn't believe that I did the build myself. I've not entered a contest since then.

[Joe Hegedus]

[RiderFan]

Basics come first when judging a model for competition. As you said yourself - you can have a complicated, super-detailed model, but if you don't get the basics right, like alignment of parts, seams, decal film, glue marks, you will not win over a cleanly-built model with fewer added details. Having judged at many local, and some regional IPMS shows, my first look at a model in competition is the quality of the work, then I'll look at any extra that was done - and if you add extras, they better be done well also.

A 100 hour build done, for all practical purposes, out of box, no matter how well done, should never win over a build with 2000 hours of highly detailed scratch work put into it. Period.

Edited October 3, 2011 by RiderFan

[chuck540z3]

Basics come first when judging a model for competition. As you said yourself - you can have a complicated, super-detailed model, but if you don't get the basics right, like alignment of parts, seams, decal film, glue marks, you will not win over a cleanly-built model with fewer added details. Having judged at many local, and some regional IPMS shows, my first look at a model in competition is the quality of the work, then I'll look at any extra that was done - and if you add extras, they better be done well also.

So, using my example of the two F-14's above, which one is more interesting, valuable and displays the merits of our hobby? Which one would you like to take home? Tiny glue mark or not, I'll take the F-14B- and it should be judged that way. I know it isn't judged that way now (I'm not arguing that), but I think it should be.

[Moose135]

A 100 hour build done, for all practical purposes, out of box, no matter how well done, should never win over a build with 2000 hours of highly detailed scratch work put into it. Period.

Assuming equal quality of work, I'd agree with your opinion. However, if that 2000 hour job had a glue smear on the canopy, or misaligned wings, would you still give it the win over a simpler built model without glue marks or misaligned parts?

[niart17]

A 100 hour build done, for all practical purposes, out of box, no matter how well done, should never win over a build with 2000 hours of highly detailed scratch work put into it. Period.

With relunctance to post in this thread at all, but going with the sports analogy, does that mean that a team that practices 3 times as hard and has a quaterback that can throw better should never lose to a team that doesn't play as well BUT post more points on the board? See that's the thing about "judging" models. IF you want to have a true contest, then you have to have winners and loosers. And the only fair way to I can see to dictate winners from losers is by eliminating basic flaws first. Everything else is subjective and open to interpretations. That is why many contest have other themes such as "people's choice" or "most popular". That way that model that everyone says "well it only had a small glue drop on the windscreen" can win an award since it otherwise might have been passed over. IF you want to have a model show, then yeah, judge based on overall merit. But that becomes opinions of the judges. In my opinion, if you choose to enter a model in a contest, then you have to go in knowing what the terms of judging are and except the findings that judgement. If you don't want to go up against a model that might have only have 1/10 of the amount of work and lose, then don't enter that type of contest.

I've seen some three piece resin models in Sci-Fi win out over a highly modified and detailed x-wing fighter simply because the seam work and paint job were perfect. You have a choice when you build a model, build for show, build for wins, or build for fun. I think the happiest modelers are the ones that build for fun, hope to win and enjoy showing it. To me, the most valuable thing you can get from a contest is fellowship with others with like interest. Second to that is learning from others and sharing what you know. And a real distant third is a ribbon or piece of metal. But that's just me.

Bill

Edited October 3, 2011 by niart17

[chuck540z3]

Assuming equal quality of work, I'd agree with your opinion. However, if that 2000 hour job had a glue smear on the canopy, or misaligned wings, would you still give it the win over a simpler built model without glue marks or misaligned parts?

Of course we are both talking about extremes in order to make our points, but what I am really trying to drive home is that this total focus on so-called "basics first" is not always fair. As a matter of fact, I have found that it encourages boring and simple entries and I'll bet there are modelers who build this way on purpose if they plan on entering the model in a contest. Why take a chance if there could be a deduction for your efforts?

Where are the positive points for realistic weathering, for cockpit clarity and for scratch-building? There isn't any, but I think there should be.

[RiderFan]

But that's the point. It's not an equal amount of work. A "glue smear" on a model with that much effort put into it strikes me as unlikely. However the judging should take into account, first an foremost, the complexity of the build and how well the challend was met.

That perfect 100 hour OOB build is simply no way comparable to the 2000 hour build even with a minor blemish. I understand that's why contests have categories. But clearly the category system is as flawed as the rules being used by judges.

[geedubelyer]

Oh my Chuck, you've started a hot topic with this one buddy.

I hear what you're saying. How come an "easy" build wins over a "mega" build?

Truth is, some of the so called easy builds really take more work than you think to get everything lined up and perfect so it may be decieving to think that they are simple.

Perfectly uniform re-scribing is an art, perfectly spaced and straight rivetting is a challenge and a super smooth, thin and fawless paintjob over invisible filled seams is what only a few top guys ever really achieve. The fact that we think that the end result is n't interesting does n't necessarily mean it did n't take alot of work to get to that result.

I'm not saying that the current judging criteria is correct, fair or good but it does (supposedly) give a firm set of parameters that the judges can use. Once those basics are judged then they can move on to the other "fun" stuff if the builds are even on points.

It's easy to forget that contest judges don't necessarily know much about every type of aircraft that they judge. Taking your F-14 example and your favourite salt technique, it's quite possible that the theoretical judges have never even seen a Tomcat let alone know that the Navy birds do get weathered in just that way. You know they do because you've spent hours looking at reference photos. With your current build, Scott has furnished you with more first hand knowledge on the subject than you can shake a stick at which is making for a beautiful replica but will the judges ever know how accurate it is? If there are two F-4Es in your class, all they'll be bothered about is the basics, not all of the hours of toil that you (or your rival) have expended on your pride and joy. That way they can make direct comparisons of two individual models and score them accordingly.

To discuss another of your comments, using a de-merit system is a tried and tested method of working back from an ideal of perfection.

If you start at zero and work up by adding plus points for every added key point then you may arrive at a result that does n't necessarily reflect what went into a build. An accomplished modeller may take much less time to add all sorts of goodies to a build in double quick time where a less experienced modeller may put his/her heart and soul into just one or two additions which still take hours of painstaking work to perfect. If those two models look the same side by side, who wins.......? The one with all of the whistles and bells built in two weeks by an experienced show winner or the model with less aftermarket that took two months of blood sweat and tears for the novice....?

I was interested to read of the show that awarded more than one Gold in a category. To me that makes little sense sadly. I can see the point about awarding a Gold to just the one entrant is silly but at least they took the time to enter. If all contestants go home with a Gold having achieved the required points tally, what's the difference? :huh:

If there ar no clear winners then could n't judges commendations be awarded instead of gongs?

I don't wish to sound as though I'm disagreeing with you just for the sake of it. Indeed, I feel very much as you do and think that the most detailled, interesting models deserve accolades over more ordinary builds but it seems almost impossible to offer consistant judging based on that criteria.

I don't know what the answer is but perhaps an award category of "Peoples Choice" could be introduced to shows?

In that category, the show goers would be asked to vote for their favourite and an award given based on popularity rather than perceived basic modelling skill.

I'll be eagerly watching everyone's thoughts on this.

Cheers.

*Edit* Bill, I think you posted as I was typing but what you said makes alot of sense to me.

Edited October 3, 2011 by geedubelyer

[chuck540z3]

I've seen some three piece resin models in Sci-Fi win out over a highly modified and detailed x-wing fighter simply because the seam work and paint job were perfect.

And that is my point, which I have witnessed myself many times. It doesn't make it right either.

You have a choice when you build a model, build for show, build for wins, or build for fun. I think the happiest modelers are the ones that build for fun, hope to win and enjoy showing it. To me, the most valuable thing you can get from a contest is fellowship with others with like interest. Second to that is learning from others and sharing what you know. And a real distant third is a ribbon or piece of metal. But that's just me.

Bill

I get that and I'm doing that because I can't change the system.

[Charlie Cheetah]

I've helped out with the Judjing several times at the CAMS show in Fredericton over the last few years, and I do appreciates the club members taking us into help out. I've learned many things about what separates a good model from a great one. At Cams they use the Points system just like have in your second example, except on a 30 point score card. I never liked the fact however that a well built simple oob model could possibly acore as high as a months long mega build. So I just had a idea Id like to share with you guys...

Use the 20 point demerit system as is right now but add points for degree of difficulty. The DoD could be based on a 5 point system, and perhaps a set of guidelines could be written up to determine the amount of points given. This way, the Gold, Silver and Bronze medals can still be awarded on the base points, and the best of category would be awarded based on the combined base points plus DoD.

[chuck540z3]

Oh my Chuck, you've started a hot topic with this one buddy.

With your current build, Scott has furnished you with more first hand knowledge on the subject than you can shake a stick at which is making for a beautiful replica but will the judges ever know how accurate it is?

Cheers.

Thanks for your insightful comments Guy, which are always welcome. I obviously knew this topic would be controversial (it always is) and I too look forward to the thoughts of others.

Using my F-4E build example, I am having to go with the "accurate and just for me approach", rather than what might win at a modeling contest. I'm certain it won't win anything because it has been modified so much already.

Without going into specifics (which always get me into trouble), I have had a few deductions on my models that were just plain wrong, mostly because I altered something for accuracy. For example, I put a copper wire on a model to replicate the real deal which was also copper colored, but I remember thinking at the time that it might be viewed as a deduction or at least lazy for not painting it. To prevent that, or so I thought, I supplied a number of photos of the real deal with my model, which had a picture of the copper colored piping where it belonged. I found out from one of the judges later that they did talk about the wire and considered giving me a deduction, but they never did look at the photo's because "they didn't have time". Thankfully they did not give me a deduction after all, but it does give an example of, "why would you bother adding detail that could get you in trouble". Had I not put the wire in at all, they wouldn't have even thought about it. Caution wins every time.

Edited October 3, 2011 by chuck540z3

[echolmberg]

Hi guys!

This topic is always very interesting and is always worthy of discussion. I just wanted to relay my own personal experience. Last year I entered a model contest (my very first actually) and was very excited to do so. To make a long story short, in the "1/48 post war aircraft" category, there were around eight planes entered. The plane which won was Monogram's 1/48 scale B-58. However, the model was loaded with surface scratches because the builder screwed up the clear top coat and tried to sand it out and buff it back to a high polish. The canopy frames were painted free hand. The black boots along the wing and tail leading edges were painted free hand as well. You could easily tell because all these lines were wavy not just a little, but a lot.

I can't help but feel that the large B-58 won simply based on size seeing as how it beat our a couple of much smaller Corsairs and a very well done X-1. I have no doubt that the builder of the B-58 won due to the sheer size of the work in spite of the scratches, visible seam lines, and poorly free-handed painting. I guess with that being said, I have a hard time believing that a 2000 hour build should always beat out a 17 hour build. Quality is quality no matter how long it took. I guess I kind of view it as two people driving two different ways to get to the same location. Just because one guy drove 50 miles to go to the house next door, that doesn't mean he deserves more credit and should be judged more favorably than the guy who simply walked next door.

Thanks for listening/reading,

Eric

[Helidriver]

"Had I put on my judges hat and tried to rip them apart I probably would have found more flaws on both and weighed the flaws to decide who the worst modeler was."

This is a quote from a different thread. I don't know how to quote properly.....

Anyways, isn't this statement just a perfect example of what is wrong with this situation? Is the intent really to "rip them apart" and decide who is worst?

Should we not praise who did the best job, point out the good points as well as the bad, and then decide who was best or did the best job?

"congrats to the winners, you get a plaque because you suck less than the others...."

Do people really wonder why modellers shy away from competitions?

Ken

[HOLMES]

Chuck

did you not ask this very same or similar question a while back...

I dont think you can change something that is set in stone for many many years ,can you ?

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=232122&st=0&p=2213228&hl=model%20contests&fromsearch=1entry2213228

[RiderFan]

With relunctance to post in this thread at all, but going with the sports analogy, does that mean that a team that practices 3 times as hard and has a quaterback that can throw better should never lose to a team that doesn't play as well BUT post more points on the board?

The flaw in that analogy is that football is not a judged sport. Yes it has refs that make judgement calls. But there are many checks and balances to ensure those calls are correct. And both teams have 60 minutes to ensure the game doesn't come down to a blown call in the rare case they do happen. And there are no points given for artistic meret.

So it doesn't matter how hard they practice. They win or lose based on how they play.

[chuck540z3]

Chuck

did you not ask this very same or similar question a while back...

I dont think you can change something that is set in stone for many many years ,can you ?

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=232122&st=0&p=2213228&hl=model%20contests&fromsearch=1entry2213228

Holmes,

Yes, I had a similar post earlier this year after the first model contest, when I really didn't understand what the judging system was and I was trying to figure out what is was all about. Since that time, however, I've come to the conclusions listed above after a lot more research and another contest when I saw the same flaws in judging. Rather than a wishy-washy "what's wrong?" approach before, I now think I know what is, or at least in my mind.

As for changing the current judging system, I really doubt I'll have an impact but isn't this what the General Forum is for to discuss things that are sometimes controversial?

Edited October 3, 2011 by chuck540z3

[Jay Chladek]

I've seen MANY contests over the years and I've seen results sometimes that have me scratching my head. I've been part of teams that have put contests on as well and have judged (which I try to do to the best of my ability). But overall, the system employed by IPMS seems to work best as the cream rises to the top. Judging will never get it right 100% of the time as it is about subjectivity, not objectivity. With the multitude of entries that can appear at a show (especially a National or Regional one), points systems can take time to do and I remember a few years ago at a KC show when there was almost a disaster as they tried to employ the AMPS system for everything and it took WAY TOO long to judge all the subjects. Open systems (Gold, silver and bronze) in my experience work best for a sub set of the hobby at a show, such as AMPS or Wonderfest (which are armor only for the first and figure and SF in the case of the second one). The other problem with small shows trying an open system is there needs to be more awards in place IN CASE something happens where most of the models on the table qualify as gold, silver or bronze. If there is a limited trophy selection, then the criteria tends to get elevated or skewed sometimes. Either that or the awards get cheapened to ribbon level to control the costs. So honestly, doing it with first, second and third in categories judged to certain criteria tends to have more advantages than problems. I've seen plenty of contests try to reinvent the wheel and they haven't always gone too well. No system is EVER going to satisfy everybody.

The best thing to do honestly is to enter a show, enjoy the fact that you've put your work on display and treat an award as icing on the cake rather than the goal. If you get one, great. If not, enjoy the day anyway. If a trophy is what you desire, there are ways to achieve that. Build OOB, fix all the seams, align the parts, paint it, decal it and clear coat it right, or enter a category consistently not heavily populated at shows. Believe me, if you enter 1/48 jet or prop categories (such as WW2 Axis powers, in a sea of Me-109s and Fw-190s) and expect an award at all shows, you must be a MASTER builder or are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I've won awards over the years, so much so that at times I am practically drowning in plaques as I don't have space to display them all. For me, the real award comes with the handshake and the other modelers or attendees who ask me how I did my subject. One person who takes interest in my work makes up for a wall of awards for the same subject IMHO. At the same time, if I see a model that didn't quite make the awards cut (for instance if it is a category I've judged), I sometimes seek out the builder and extend the handshake and ask him about it so he gets a chance to talk about it and I get a chance to see it again with some of my questions answered. It is that personal one on one interaction with other modelers that make me love going to shows. And that handshake is an award which is very special and only given out to a select few by one person, me. Plus, it is cheaper than coming up with the "Jay Chladek Cool Thing Award" ;)

[niart17]

I think one question I would have is if you spent 2000 hours on a model and you have some simple glue mark and alignment errors, why wouldn't you put in 2002 hours and fix all the little mistakes? Besides, without the judges acually having built that exact model, how are they to know what amount of time is required to produce what you've done? I mean, ok you have a model listed with a scratch-built interior going against a model with a resin cockit. Ok, on the face of it it sounds like if they both look equal, the scratch built should win. But how are they to know what "scratch-built" means to the person that built it? It could really be kit bashed, or detailed or any of a number of other techniques. So who's to say adding the resin is easier or harder than not adding it? Or painting the crappy kits interior is harder or not. You can't judge difficulty unless you've done the exact work. That's why difficulty is subjective and wouldn't be a fair basis for winning in a traditional IPMS contest. If you want to have a beauty pagent for models, sure go by looks. If you want to have a craftsmenship contest go by the amount of work. But those aren't how IPMS contest are set up. It's almost impossible to have ART judged against each other in a fair way. So the only way to have a "winner" is to take the art part out of it. And that leaves build quality. Without basics, it's just cosmetic lip stick and rouge. Is it perfect? Far from it. But it seems to be the easiest way to be fair.

Not saying I don't like the idea of other types of contest and shows, but I understand why IPMS is the way it is.

Bill

Bill

[Zactoman]

Not having time to do more than skim the above comments, I’m taking a moment to add my thoughts from my experiences.

I’m not a fan of IPMS style judging.

I’ve been the recipient of first place awards where I entered OOB builds that beat out builds with tons of scratchbuilt detail and hundreds of hours invested.

In some cases I felt I deserved to win because my build ‘looked nicer’ and despite being OOB had more of an “overall appeal†than the other entries that had extreme “wow factor†but flaws that ‘stood out’.

To me it was the fact that the flaws stood and out detracted from otherwise nice builds that made this fair.

In one case one of my builds that I felt was mediocre beat out three incredible, completely scratchbuilt models with flaws that had to be looked for. In my mind the flaws could be forgiven considering the overall appeal and sheer amount of work involved in creating these masterpieces.

I gave the judges a piece of my mind and this was the last time I volunteered to be a judge.

I understand that judging “overall appeal†and “wow factor†is subjective and makes judging more difficult but I think it can be properly done given fair, experienced judges.

One of the questions I ask myself when comparing models is “which one I’d be more proud to have built?†or “which one I’d rather take home and put in my display case?â€.

I agree that searching for a flaw and disqualifying a model because of it is a flawed method.

This is particularly true when that flaw might be a seam on the underside of a bare-metal finish that can only be seen with a mirror when the light hits it just right (yes, I’ve seen this happen).

As for being a contestant, I still enjoy entering the contests and take the whole win/lose thing with a grain of salt.

I will say that having been involved in IPMS contests and IPMS style judging for so many years, that making sure that all of the basics are covered during my construction has become second nature and this has made me a better modeler.

[niart17]

... And there are no points given for artistic meret.

So it doesn't matter how hard they practice. They win or lose based on how they play.

I understand what you're saying I really do, but that's why I say you can't have "artistic contests" It's two totally different things.

And the analogy does hold true. Take Dallas Cowboys this weekend for instance (because I relish the opportunity to rub it in their faces. ) They played pretty good and by some accounts played a better game. BUT two simple mistakes of throwing the ball to a defendant and having them run it for a touchdown cost them the game. So by the numbers, Cowboys played better EXCEPT for two small glue marks on the windscreen, which cost them the game. Not exactly the same, but basically it holds true. And oh yeah, Cowboys lost....

Bill

[C-130CrewChief]

You need a basis to judge something that's standard. Otherwise all judgment will be subjective.

I'm not a fan of F-16's If I saw a table full of them I would automatically be biased towards the other subjects available. If I am forced to judge on a standard I will be more likely to be fare.

It's good to know what the rules to the game are and play to the rules if you want to win the game.

Curt

[chuck540z3]

OK, in order to really drive home my point, I need to be a little more specific.

There is an aircraft model that won Gold at the first of the contests mentioned earlier. It is BORING with almost no detail, a super clean paint job, no weathering of any kind and it looks like a toy you'd buy at K-Mart for your kid. Apparently it has no obvious flaws, but I found at least one biggy that no doubt had been missed by the judges.

It was entered again at the second contest, where I used it as an example with another modeler when we were discussing this very topic and how flawed the judging rules are. The other modeler couldn't believe it had won a prize at all. Guess what, it won Gold again! Incredible.