I really do. Competition brings out the best in humanity, the best in both individuals, and in groups and in whole societies. Competition put a man on the moon. Competition has put ever higher quality models on the shelves down at the hobby shop. Competition pits hobby magazines against each other, and they compete in three arenas: circulation, material, and advertising revenue.
So why am I responding to Randy Lee's editorial in the May 2003 issue of Model Railroading, entitled "Competition... a Dirty Word?" Because model building is not a sport. Automobile racing is a sport. Baseball is a sport. Ice hockey is a sport. Writing poetry is not a sport. A sport is about performance; the others are about creating.
In this analogy, the designer of a race car is a creator. On the day of the race though, his creation is in the hands of the driver - the performer. His creation could be superior in every way to the other guy's, but if the other guy's driver is performing at 100% that day and yours is only at 93%, you lose the race. If the race were judged, they guy with the best car would win... but the race is raced... and the guy who crosses the finish line first wins, as it should be.
So why would we want anyone to judge our models for us? We don't race our models. Ok, some people do, but that's kind of a fringe thing :-) Most of us built them, create them, to please ourselves, to fill a spot on our layout roster, to recreate our past, or even just indulge a fantasy. We don't make them to beat someone else. We don't make them to score the most points on an arbitrary scale. An NMRA contest has more in common with a Senate committee meeting than it does with a sporting event.
The main purpose of Randy's editorial is to encourage participation in NMRA contests... he has noticed as we all have, that the number of entries is shrinking to the point that sometimes all one has to do to claim a blue ribbon is show up.
He offers a total of five different reasons he sees for this decline, which he separates into the old, or ever-present reasons, and two new ones he identifies. The old ones are, paraphrased: 1) Domination of contests by individuals; 2) Objection to the judging parameters; 3) Not enough free time. The new ones he offers are 1) The downplay of competition in the educational system, or discouragment of individual achievement in favor of mediocrity and 2) The high quality products now available for the modeler.
Certainly all of these reasons are valid, and any one of them might be primary for a given individual. In particular, the high quality models - recently touted by one of Randy's regular authors - have really cut deeply into the concept of modeling as a means to an end. Many of us became modelers because we couldn't buy what we wanted... now that you can, fewer people will learn to build models. Overly simplistic explanation, but it essentially describes the phenomenon. But let's take a look at the classic reasons, which have become cliche's and I love to take a closer look at cliche's.
Now quoting Randy directly:
"1) There have always been modelers who have dominated contests. While some modelers have been discouraged because they felt they could never compete with (insert name here), others have used that person as a benchmark for excellence."
Every one of us knows what a contest prima donna is. There are guys who build only for the contest, and if there is no award, they don't show up. But this statement is built around the notion that winning the contest is all important, and if a win isn't possible, why show up at all?
The NMRA says that modelers who don't win can learn something from the judge's scores and comments. Is that so? Interesting theory, and maybe someone out there has actually experienced this. From what I've seen of the NMRA judging process, any critique, points off, or commentary from the judges is likely to be VERY old news to the builder of the model. Suffice it to say, we all judge outselves and others' work whether we do it out loud or not. I am not a trained NMRA judge, I don't know what much of their criteria is. It's actually kind of a boring read. But I can tell you this... I can look at Dave Hussey's SD39, and in about 20 seconds it's fairly obvious to me that it's a better model than anything I ever built. I have nothing to be ashamed of, and if I want to learn something, I'm going to look at Dave's book of pictures and drawings he made for fabricating the model, ask him questions, etc... that is 100 times more valuable to me than a judge's comment that I could have had five extra points for scratchbuilding the pilot faces and that I got 3 points off for orange peel on the gray paint on one side.
This feeds on into the next cliche', again I quote:
"2) There have always been those who object to how the judging is done. The perfect way to judge a modeling contest will never be found."
Certainly a true statement. I've listened to the debate year in, year out about model contests... judges play favorites, judges who love color will never give an award to an old black Pennsy diesel no matter how well done, too much emphasis on scratchbuilding, too much emphasis on prototype conformity, not enough emphasis on prototype conformity. Same for photo contests. And any other form of "creative competition" in which the winner is decided subjectively rather than by a clock or a tape measure.
But, I submit that there IS a perfect way to judge: DONT. The result of judging has always been the same, and will remain the same: A winner, multiple losers, and more arguments about the judging process.
The third reason, having to do with available time and resources, is a fact of life but also variable on an individual basis. Today baby boomers have more money than time. As we begin to retire, that situation will be reversed. And it will be interesting to see how we use our time then.
The basic premise of the editorial, to encourage people to stretch themselves, take some chances, challenge themselves to build better models - that's great, and I agree totally. But to mandate a connection to the NMRA contest process, or to imply that avoiding the contest is somehow cowardly, or indicative that we are all just happy, politically correct mediocre modelers, is way off base.
I know this, because I've been to many regional weekend prototype modeling meets, none of which have judged contests, and these meets attract dozens of modelers and HUNDREDS of fabulous models. Randy doesn't come to these meets, or feature them in his magazine... although he does usually visit the RPM display at the NMRA nationals. The other magazines all cover these meets, at least some of the time, and often send a representative and in one case even co-sponsored a meet. Randy, you are just plain missing the boat if you are looking for all the good models in the NMRA contest room!
I don't know if my theory about the dwindling contests is correct, I only know my own reasons for not participating. That, and the inescapable fact that when the contest element is removed, all kinds of modelers, from beginners to the very very best bring out their wares to share, in a relaxed atmosphere. More like a lodge than a library... more like a lounge than a morgue.
Randy Lee, put yourself to the test. Come to Cocoa Beach. Or Naperville. Or La Habra. Or Savannah. Or Cleveland. You're the only one suffering, because you're clinging to the past. Model building isn't a sport. Of course if you come to a meet and bring your camera, you're going to have to choose between upwards of 500 models as to which to feature in your magazine... there won't be any blue ribbons to tell you which ones are "best", you'll have to decide that on your own. Like the rest of us.
Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------