Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Mottle
I'm also thinking of debating whether or not we even have pro judges this year. It seems that the majority don't have the time to spend to make the critiques I had hoped for, so it may simply be public voting and crits. Maybe the very final challenge will somehow have selected judges to do some analysis or something.
|
I'm not a big fan of 'juried shows'. But when you are running a high-profile competition, there are certain expectations. One of those is what you called pro judges. That implies payment, but I don't think that's what you meant, literally. I would bet the judges are part of what makes your sponsors comfortable putting up the bling that they have in the past. there's nothing wrong with public input and voting, of course.
The suggestion of limiting the judges' involvement to the last stages is interesting. However, I would think it better to have them at least do a simple part of the selections if you do a narrowing down process. If its an everybody fights 'till the end, then they could come in to judge the results. Along the way, the competitors' peers will be advising and critiquing. That could work.
Getting judges to write appropriately detailed crits--hey, it comes with the job. Being asked to judge a competition is considered an honor. We just have to find qualified people who are willing to put in the time to do a good job. It helps that after doing this thing for a few years we have an idea of the effort it will require. When I judged the first year, I was really surprised at how much work it was. So we make sure the judges are aware of that and promise to put in the time for the crits. There are people who can do this, and do it well.