LUCKY, I also did not see the contest, but here is an attempt to answer your " I don't know what criteria the judges used but...."
statement.
This could lead to a good number of arguments but the most simple answer is that "It's all a matter of comparison".
Each judge simply compares each contender to each other contender and makes a decision within his own mind as to whom is the best contender down to whom is the 'worst' and all the other contenders in between.
Then each of those individual 'decisions' are combined with the other judges' individual decision ...... and then 'combined together' in order to determine the overall winner.
It definitely gets a bit more complicated but that is the simple answer which some of the GetBig "judges" may or may not agree with.
I hope that WIGGS will butt in here and make a statement as I consider him to be a damn good 'test judge' based on his 'unofficial , who's gonna place where performance?' as observed at the Cutler Desert Classic prejudging session a couple of weeks back.
Many years ago the actual 'computation process' in which the individual judges' decisions were used to determine the placing of each contender .... was the one and only method that was unquestionably the best method possible.
A group of us 'know it alls' tried to improve it .... but found it impossible!
It appears that those who continue to 'question it' simply do not know how it's done ... so they continue to question it.
AMEN!
OH YEA! I also gotta state that many of us still want to judge a contest by comparing photographs which often appears 'valid' , but this only appears to be 'useful' at art exhibits during museum fund rising functions ...... and internet arguments related to political placings!
But ,,,, John photographs well which possibly refutes everything I mentioned above.
Maybe the sanctioning bodies will start a new division in which every judge will have a polaroid type camera and base their decisions by comparing the photographs.
But .... I think not!
