the old days

[Manny]

I remeber when the matches were won for the center referee and the 4 cournes judges using pen and paper, in those years the scores were not high, only solid kicks scored and for me things were easy, then a change was made using somekind of joysticks a pc and screens so everyone could see the points and things started to become very bad about questioning about the point awarding, then electronic hogus and controversion got higher and now electronic helmets and the use of some cards (blue or red) to ask videotape review to see if a point was or mas not.

In my days of pen and paper we don't have so many arguments, the competitor who won was the one who kicked the best, things were simpler.

Manny

 

[StudentCarl]

My memory from my tournament experience in the late 1970s was that there have always been complaints about judges. I don't think "the good old days" were that great. If they were, there would have been no reason to try to improve the system. All that has changed is now we complain about technology instead of or in addition to people. We have not improved in how much complaining there is, either.

I do agree it was simpler, but it also covered up problems.

Carl

 

[terryl965]

Oh the good days when people where judge by men and women with the pen and paper and still certain instructors was arguing over what was a point and what was not a point. Nothing ever changes when it comes to winning and losing. People do not like to loose and they never will.

 

[granfire]

There is always the argument when pursuing a judged competition activity.

Always has, always will be, even with video replay...

In the olden days people had a little more respect (and less video exposure) and accepted the judge's ruling.

(had a situation scored against me once I know was the other way, but what th heck, it's a game of tag, no real importance to it.)

 

[Manny]

There is always the argument when pursuing a judged competition activity.

Always has, always will be, even with video replay...

In the olden days people had a little more respect (and less video exposure) and accepted the judge's ruling.

(had a situation scored against me once I know was the other way, but what th heck, it's a game of tag, no real importance to it.)

You got me! in my days we had as a competitors and the coaches also had more respect for the judges, yes sometimes I felt I was robery at gun point in a fight inside a tournament but as you said we aceptaed what the judges (plural) said.

I never felt competition was a paramount thing to me, i did sparr and do sparr those days not trying to win but to survive (amoung young men and kids that are a heck about speed and timing that I don't have) and trying to nail my oponente with a good kick and wehn I do I relly feel happy to put my foot on my sparring parthner and not to be beaten jajajajaja.

Manny

 

[ralphmcpherson]

At our club we dont compete in tournaments and dont count points when we spar in class. For the competitive students we have the annual club championships. I helped score the sparring at the championships last year and we had 3 judges, 2 had a pen and paper and scored only very solid kicks and punches (no extra points for head kicks), at the conclusion of the match the two scorers compared their scores and the third judge said who he felt had won. In 99% of cases the scores reflected what the 3rd judge felt was the result. Their were no complaints and the system worked really well but I felt this was more due to the fact we only scored very solid punches and kicks to the hogu, basically there was no real margin for error, the scores were very low and reflected this. Basically a point was only scored if the strike would have hospitalised the opponent had he not been wearing a hogu which made scoring relatively easy.

 

[StudentCarl]

In the olden days people had a little more respect (and less video exposure) and accepted the judge's ruling.

As imperfect as the 'human-only' system was, I do think people accepted the calls more than today. It's as though all of the focus on technology (e-hogus, replays, etc.) makes it more acceptable to argue in hope that the evidence will agree with you. How often does arguing change a call?

Then again, competitive TKD is bigger than ever before. The more that rides on a result, the more heated the issue of 'bad calls'.

 

[troubleenuf]

I dont think the judging was any better. It was just hard to protest a score that you never saw. You didnt know if 4 judges scored against you or two. Nor did you really know which kicks you scored with and if the judge was scoring for you or against you.

 

[StudentCarl]

...Nor did you really know which kicks you scored with....

There is definitely both good and bad about the immediate feedback from electronic scoring. I like being able to watch video and see which techniques scored. However, this trait also hugely increases arguments and complaints because you can also see right away when a technique doesn't score when you thought it should have.

In spite of the increased arguments, I do think immediate feedback (when the equipment is good and consistent) helps athletes and coaches to improve--which IMO is why we're there.

Carl

 

[RSweet]

I remeber when the matches were won for the center referee and the 4 cournes judges using pen and paper, in those years the scores were not high, only solid kicks scored and for me things were easy, then a change was made using somekind of joysticks a pc and screens so everyone could see the points and things started to become very bad about questioning about the point awarding, then electronic hogus and controversion got higher and now electronic helmets and the use of some cards (blue or red) to ask videotape review to see if a point was or mas not.

In my days of pen and paper we don't have so many arguments, the competitor who won was the one who kicked the best, things were simpler.

Manny

Ah, the good ole days. I carry a lot fewer colored pens these days. I used to have several different colors to prevent the Head of Court from changing my scoring. Let's see - the pity points - those would be the ones added after the match was over by some referees who felt they must have missed a point. Let's not forget all those little conferences with the HOC ripping everyone for scoring more than 3 points in a round for any one player. I could go on and on. It was a corrupt system that was abused frequently and in secret. People didn't have more respect, they just knew they wouldn't get anywhere complaining.

 

[granfire]

Ah, the good ole days. I carry a lot fewer colored pens these days. I used to have several different colors to prevent the Head of Court from changing my scoring. Let's see - the pity points - those would be the ones added after the match was over by some referees who felt they must have missed a point. Let's not forget all those little conferences with the HOC ripping everyone for scoring more than 3 points in a round for any one player. I could go on and on. It was a corrupt system that was abused frequently and in secret. People didn't have more respect, they just knew they wouldn't get anywhere complaining.

Sounds like figure skating...