<VV> Worthless awards, was:Concours philosophy

[Shaun]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "airvair" <airvair@richnet.net>
<Smit>

>  I've never been a fan of the "gold,
> silver, bronze" awards, and for a good reason. As you point out, instead
> of competing against the rest of your peers, you compete against a set
> scale. This puts undue pressure on the concours judging staff to be
> "perfect" in their scoring, and even more pressure on whomever draws the
> line between gold and silver, etc. I call it a "feel good" award, as it
> proves only that your car can pull numbers within a certain score range,
> and that it makes you feel good. After all, even a second, third, or
> even lower ranked car could conceivably get a gold award. And this goes
> for everything down the line. So to me, the only thing a "gold" award
> proves is that it's a nice car. It DOESN'T prove that it's the best
> amongst its peers.

     I couldn't disagree more. The Gold standard is a far superior method of
judging, it takes the subjectivity out of the mix. Personalities and
politics are washed away and only the benchmark of perfection remains.
     How can you possibly pick a "best" when all are breathtaking? Imagine a
parking lot full of brand-new Corvairs waiting for delivery. How could you
pick the best one? Subjectively, that's how. That one is blue, I like blue,
or that one doesn't have whitewalls and I love whitewalls.
     We're all aiming for that perfect car, but what if two or more people
actually achieve the same level of perfection?
How could it possibly be fair to award a first, second and third prize to
equal cars? You'd have to start breaking it down subjectively, so red '64
Spyder convertibles would win everything, right? No. Give "Alice" a chance!

yea, Vairily ... Shaun