AquaticSuppliers.com     Cafepress Store

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

  1. #1
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Hello!

    There are more and more discus shows in Europe and around the globe. After each ones we are able to see several debates about winners, judges, rules etc...

    I worked on a series of 7 articles dedicated to this subjects and dedicated a special section on my website.

    Here is the first one "Discus competitions, lets talk about the actual situation"

    The 6 others will follow "day by day" but are already written. i will update it here

    http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/10...-de-situation/

    Switch in english language if needed on right side of Fanatik-Discus website (Translation)

    Yann
    My website Fanatik-discus

  2. #2
    Registered Member nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    8,054
    Real Name
    Rick

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Are you looking for commentary on your articles?
    Ex-President-North American Discus Association-NADA
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #3
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Hello nc0gnet0,

    Yes sure!

    But i will publish step by step all my argumentation in 6 more articles.

    That is why i'm passionate, share point of views

    I would like to structure our talks if possible, the first step about this 1st article was to present the situation and the general feeling.

    Yann

  4. #4
    Registered Member John_Nicholson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Caddo MIlls, TX
    Posts
    8,379

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    I currently do not have time to read the articles but I am in charge of the judging for NADA and I am one of the senior judges. I have been the show chair for 3 of the 4 shows. I have been actively breeding discus for 20+ years. I know lots of people from around the world that are in this business. I "know" of some shows that are 100% completely fair and I "know" of some that are not exactly so and no I will not discuss which is which so don't bother to ask...LOL. I will however gladly discuss with you anything that we do with NADA. I promise you our shows are 100% fair, unbiased, and we actively work to try and encourage the hobbyist to participate. Feel free to ask me any specific questions and I will do my best to answer them.

    -john
    Please check out http://forum.discusnada.org/

    SOS Crew Texas

  5. #5
    Registered Member nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    8,054
    Real Name
    Rick

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by yann View Post
    Hello nc0gnet0,

    Yes sure!

    But i will publish step by step all my argumentation in 6 more articles.

    That is why i'm passionate, share point of views

    I would like to structure our talks if possible, the first step about this 1st article was to present the situation and the general feeling.

    Yann
    I was curious on your proposals of Class's for the show. Wouldn't this be entry driven for each particular show based on the last shows entries?
    Ex-President-North American Discus Association-NADA
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #6
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Nicholson View Post
    I currently do not have time to read the articles but I am in charge of the judging for NADA and I am one of the senior judges. I have been the show chair for 3 of the 4 shows. I have been actively breeding discus for 20+ years. I know lots of people from around the world that are in this business. I "know" of some shows that are 100% completely fair and I "know" of some that are not exactly so and no I will not discuss which is which so don't bother to ask...LOL. I will however gladly discuss with you anything that we do with NADA. I promise you our shows are 100% fair, unbiased, and we actively work to try and encourage the hobbyist to participate. Feel free to ask me any specific questions and I will do my best to answer them.

    -john
    Hello John,
    Thank you! Hope you could find some time reading the series...
    I have more experience here in Europe and it would be nice to exchange our point of view.
    Cüneyt was judging once for the NADA i guess?
    For me it is not a question of "fair" shows or not; but more a reflection about how our contests are organised.
    The subject will turn around discus classification, notation system and i hope to be able to talk about the base for a discus standard.
    Here in France, there are 1 show per year (organised by 2 clubs) and i try to exchange and link them to improve our methods.

    I would love to know how is your classification, notation system etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    I was curious on your proposals of Class's for the show. Wouldn't this be entry driven for each particular show based on the last shows entries?
    I believe in a tree approach, and i think our show are not enough open to all discus phenotypes. I think better should be to have a better classification to give a chance to all.

    Yann
    My website Fanatik-discus

  7. #7
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Also, the part 2 of the topic is now online; http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/11...scus-concours/
    My website Fanatik-discus

  8. #8
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Hello!

    Here is the 3rd part of the series.

    This 3rd part is dedicated to the classification of pattern discus.

    http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/11...scus-concours/

    Yann
    My website Fanatik-discus

  9. #9
    Registered Member nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    8,054
    Real Name
    Rick

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by yann View Post
    Also, the part 2 of the topic is now online; http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/11...scus-concours/
    Interesting.

    A few notes. I think way to much is made of the "heckle cross". Should the numbers of entrants into a given Discus contest dictate that another class be made to accommodate such entries, wouldn't it be better to divide the "wild" class into two class's , such as pure wilds and Wild x domestic cross's?

    Your taking an interesting approach in so far as using phenotype to dictate the first division of the class's, may I ask why you choose phenotype over genotype?

    You had an interesting example in your first post about a show that had 37 entrants in the turquoise class. In Europe is this class divided into fine line and thick line (9 or 14 bar)?

    If you simply use the number of entrants in a given class to dictate whether or not to divide up the class (lets use the turquoise class as an example, with some "Tiger turqs in that class). Lets say for arguments sake you divide the turq class into two class's, one in which better accommodates the tiger turq, the other the more traditional turq. Eventually, the "tiger turq" will be judged against the traditional turq (for best in show consideration), and all the same bias's will then be back in play.

    Ultimately, what it is all going to come down to is how are the judges going to keep up with all the additional new class's, and who is going to determine the ideal of each? Each time a breeder develops a new phenotype, are the judges supposed to allow the breeder to determine the ideal?
    Ex-President-North American Discus Association-NADA
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #10
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    Interesting.

    A few notes. I think way to much is made of the "heckle cross". Should the numbers of entrants into a given Discus contest dictate that another class be made to accommodate such entries, wouldn't it be better to divide the "wild" class into two class's , such as pure wilds and Wild x domestic cross's?

    Your taking an interesting approach in so far as using phenotype to dictate the first division of the class's, may I ask why you choose phenotype over genotype?

    You had an interesting example in your first post about a show that had 37 entrants in the turquoise class. In Europe is this class divided into fine line and thick line (9 or 14 bar)?

    If you simply use the number of entrants in a given class to dictate whether or not to divide up the class (lets use the turquoise class as an example, with some "Tiger turqs in that class). Lets say for arguments sake you divide the turq class into two class's, one in which better accommodates the tiger turq, the other the more traditional turq. Eventually, the "tiger turq" will be judged against the traditional turq (for best in show consideration), and all the same bias's will then be back in play.

    Ultimately, what it is all going to come down to is how are the judges going to keep up with all the additional new class's, and who is going to determine the ideal of each? Each time a breeder develops a new phenotype, are the judges supposed to allow the breeder to determine the ideal?

    Hello

    Thank you for reading my article and comment it.
    For Heckel cross: My goal is to give a place for each fish phenotype. Even if the phenotype is not very well represented in discus show, we have to propose a place for this kind of phenotype in my classification tree.
    For heckel cross fish breeders have 2 way of selection: select a solid fish with the central bar or select a pattern fish with the central bar.
    So this 2 kind of phenotype are separate in the tree.

    Also, for the idea of 2 class for "wilds": pure wilds and wild x domestic.
    We would quickly have a problem with what is considered wild x domestic and when the wild cross is concidered becoming "domestic" F2? F3? and how to check this?
    In France, the organisators in last show join the wilds and the domestic brown in the same category... Problem was it was not fair because wilds took much time to acclimate versus domestic brown.

    In my point of view... when a discus is born in captivity, it should be concidered "domestic" even if it looks "wild".

    Here i want to focus on domestic discus because wild is too controversial now...


    For genotype VS phenotype; i think we have to judge fish with clear criterias. Judging what you see is more clear and more fair.
    we judge what we see, but the classification include genetic because the phenotype we have now are based on mutation. This approach will also bring us to the standard. And a standard is based on what you can see or mesure (=phenotypes).


    For my exemple of 37 fishs (infact i did a mistake it was 27... but finally a lot too) In Europe, it depends of shows... some put fine stripes fishs in the same category as turquoise. Some separate the turquoise (large pattern) and the snakesknin (fine pattern) and add the second one in a open catégory.

    My feeling is: We should create category depending in subscriptions. With the tree classification, depending to the phenotype presented and minimum number of fish choosen by organisators to open a category, your fish classification will be more fair.
    For exemple, if organisator say they want minimum 8 fish to open a category and only 3 large pattern pigeon blood are entered... you add this 3 fish in "open pattern" category.
    If you don't do this... sometimes you have shows with 3 winners... with 3 only fish in the category... not so interesting...
    I think we should judge fish the most close phenotype discus types than each other.

    For the turquoise exemple; i give some numbers as exemple: 100 fishs in competition with 7 category. average is 14 fishs per category. but it is never so perfect...
    in France show, organisators open a category with 8 fish minimum. So... you can have several cat with minimum enteries and one with many enteries.
    If you have a large number of fish in a same cat, you should if possible (in my opinion) have a reflection to open a new cat (one more). if you have 20 stipped turquoise and 10 vertical turquoise... why not separate them? the judgment should be more fair and in this way you could extract the best fishs for podiums.
    Infact i usually saw that organisator "organise" their categories depending on enteries they had for the last edition...(usually 2 years ago...) so you turn arround... and i think some discus phenotype cannot merge...

    You are right in your last sentence... in canaria, i have a good friend close to best world breeder (in its color). He told me when a new mutation merge, the breeder starting the selection is quite the reference... because he is the first to select it and know where he want to go...

    In the next article i will publish, you will understand better my view; because i present the firstfruits of what the standard could be and this why i use "level" in the tree.
    your new fish have to find a place in the tree. you will see the coming "90% solid red" classification and understand better my view with it. You have several kind of red "light red", "brown red", "dark red"... they have something similar= they are all 90% solid and if someone create for exemple a "pink red" you could integrate it in the tree if it is a 90% solid red pink.

    Also, i think we also have to structure us by federations as some want to. Or organisator could stay "king on their kingdoms" and decide... like it the case today.

    Hope my english is not too bad... it is a hard subject with several subtleties...

    Yann

    PS: the part 3 is online here http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/11/discus-a-patron/
    I will do my best to publish the other articles tomorrow
    My website Fanatik-discus

  11. #11
    Registered Member nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    8,054
    Real Name
    Rick

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by yann View Post
    Hello

    Thank you for reading my article and comment it.
    For Heckel cross: My goal is to give a place for each fish phenotype. Even if the phenotype is not very well represented in discus show, we have to propose a place for this kind of phenotype in my classification tree.
    For heckel cross fish breeders have 2 way of selection: select a solid fish with the central bar or select a pattern fish with the central bar.
    So this 2 kind of phenotype are separate in the tree.
    I would first like to say, although I do not agree with everything you have to say, you have 100% of my respect in what your doing. It's not an easy task. So even if we are in disagreement on some of the things you propose, please remember this. And while we have touched on that, I will give you some of my personal beliefs in the mindset that must be used when we propose to change things (and change is good).

    A Discus Clubs first and most important priority is to promote the hobby. This should be reflected in any show that the club puts on. While yes, the show does allow an outlet for individual breeders to also self promote themselves, it should never be placed above (in manner of importance) what is best for the hobby. One of the biggest problems the hobby faces today (at least in my opinion, others in NADA may disagree) is the explosion of the new phenotypes and the incorrect application of the word "strain". While I agree in principal of what your trying to do (add more class's), I think you might inadvertanty be opening Pandora's box when viewed in a long term outlook.

    While I don't know you, if I were a betting man, (and I am) it would be my guess that you like the "Heckle cross". Be carefull not to let your personal bias influence you. Maybe it's the term "heckle cross" that I find misleading. It leads the unknowledgeable hobbyist into believing his or her fish is a first generation F1 cross of a wild and domestic. We both know this is not true. So when does a "Heckle cross" stop becoming a "heckle cross" and just a domestic with a stronger than normal center bar? And why is a designation that references a wild genotype necessary? As far as looks go, it is just another sensory bar mutation, much like the snakeskin mutation. I have played with a few heckle cross's and found a host of genetics, far removed from a traditional heckle to turquoise cross.

    Also, for the idea of 2 class for "wilds": pure wilds and wild x domestic.
    We would quickly have a problem with what is considered wild x domestic and when the wild cross is concidered becoming "domestic" F2? F3? and how to check this?
    In France, the organisators in last show join the wilds and the domestic brown in the same category... Problem was it was not fair because wilds took much time to acclimate versus domestic brown.
    Conversely, why should a heckle cross be given its own class, what about a wild green cross? Or a wild brown cross? Your argument on the F1 vs F2 vs F3 is a good one, except it can be applied equally to the "heckle cross" class you propose. My best answer is that we should not be to concerned with what filial generation the cross is, but rather how well the fish represent a wild phenotype. If the judges are given this additional criteria for judging that particular class, then it becomes a non issue.

    In my point of view... when a discus is born in captivity, it should be concidered "domestic" even if it looks "wild".
    I agree.

    Here i want to focus on domestic discus because wild is too controversial now...


    For genotype VS phenotype; i think we have to judge fish with clear criterias. Judging what you see is more clear and more fair.
    we judge what we see, but the classification include genetic because the phenotype we have now are based on mutation. This approach will also bring us to the standard. And a standard is based on what you can see or mesure (=phenotypes).
    I respectfully disagree. Every year we see the introduction of dozens of new phenotypes. Rarely do we see the introduction of a new genotype. There is not going to be a lot of competition in a show with a 100 fish and 50 class's. Breeders will start to dictate to show's what class's they want or they won't send any fish. Sorting by genotype could re-introduce the show to the Golden and Ghost strains, and promote better development in these strains.


    For my exemple of 37 fishs (infact i did a mistake it was 27... but finally a lot too) In Europe, it depends of shows... some put fine stripes fishs in the same category as turquoise. Some separate the turquoise (large pattern) and the snakesknin (fine pattern) and add the second one in a open catégory.

    My feeling is: We should create category depending in subscriptions. With the tree classification, depending to the phenotype presented and minimum number of fish choosen by organisators to open a category, your fish classification will be more fair.
    For exemple, if organisator say they want minimum 8 fish to open a category and only 3 large pattern pigeon blood are entered... you add this 3 fish in "open pattern" category.
    If you don't do this... sometimes you have shows with 3 winners... with 3 only fish in the category... not so interesting...
    I think we should judge fish the most close phenotype discus types than each other.
    I like the approach we took last show, which was to divide the open class into two categories, pigeon based and non pigeon based. Perhaps in the future it can be again broken into three, as opposed to two.

    For the turquoise exemple; i give some numbers as exemple: 100 fishs in competition with 7 category. average is 14 fishs per category. but it is never so perfect...
    in France show, organisators open a category with 8 fish minimum. So... you can have several cat with minimum enteries and one with many enteries.
    If you have a large number of fish in a same cat, you should if possible (in my opinion) have a reflection to open a new cat (one more). if you have 20 stipped turquoise and 10 vertical turquoise... why not separate them? the judgment should be more fair and in this way you could extract the best fishs for podiums.
    Infact i usually saw that organisator "organise" their categories depending on enteries they had for the last edition...(usually 2 years ago...) so you turn arround... and i think some discus phenotype cannot merge...
    That is interesting but I think it's best to base your categories based on the prior show and publish which categories your going to have prior to the show. Yes you might have a few categories that don't meet the 8 fish minimum, but in my opinion that is better than having a breeder hand select a fish for entry into a category that you eliminated.


    You are right in your last sentence... in canaria, i have a good friend close to best world breeder (in its color). He told me when a new mutation merge, the breeder starting the selection is quite the reference... because he is the first to select it and know where he want to go...
    your going to let the breeders dictate to the judges how to judge the fish, ultimately.

    In the next article i will publish, you will understand better my view; because i present the firstfruits of what the standard could be and this why i use "level" in the tree.
    your new fish have to find a place in the tree. you will see the coming "90% solid red" classification and understand better my view with it. You have several kind of red "light red", "brown red", "dark red"... they have something similar= they are all 90% solid and if someone create for exemple a "pink red" you could integrate it in the tree if it is a 90% solid red pink.
    I will read your articles, but I think the foundation needs to be tweaked.

    Also, i think we also have to structure us by federations as some want to. Or organisator could stay "king on their kingdoms" and decide... like it the case today.

    Hope my english is not too bad... it is a hard subject with several subtleties...

    Yann

    PS: the part 3 is online here http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/2016/11/discus-a-patron/
    I will do my best to publish the other articles tomorrow
    You hit on the heart of the matter. We have no international standards.
    Ex-President-North American Discus Association-NADA
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  12. #12
    Registered Member John_Nicholson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Caddo MIlls, TX
    Posts
    8,379

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Still have not been able to read your thoughts but on the classes you have to be careful splitting everything up. You really need at least 10 fish per category or the class is really too small to be meaningful. As NADA has grown we have split some classes up but only once the need to do so was proven. It would mean nothing to win first place in a class of one.....

    -john
    Please check out http://forum.discusnada.org/

    SOS Crew Texas

  13. #13
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by nc0gnet0 View Post
    I would first like to say, although I do not agree with everything you have to say, you have 100% of my respect in what your doing. It's not an easy task. So even if we are in disagreement on some of the things you propose, please remember this. And while we have touched on that, I will give you some of my personal beliefs in the mindset that must be used when we propose to change things (and change is good).

    A Discus Clubs first and most important priority is to promote the hobby. This should be reflected in any show that the club puts on. While yes, the show does allow an outlet for individual breeders to also self promote themselves, it should never be placed above (in manner of importance) what is best for the hobby. One of the biggest problems the hobby faces today (at least in my opinion, others in NADA may disagree) is the explosion of the new phenotypes and the incorrect application of the word "strain". While I agree in principal of what your trying to do (add more class's), I think you might inadvertanty be opening Pandora's box when viewed in a long term outlook.

    While I don't know you, if I were a betting man, (and I am) it would be my guess that you like the "Heckle cross". Be carefull not to let your personal bias influence you. Maybe it's the term "heckle cross" that I find misleading. It leads the unknowledgeable hobbyist into believing his or her fish is a first generation F1 cross of a wild and domestic. We both know this is not true. So when does a "Heckle cross" stop becoming a "heckle cross" and just a domestic with a stronger than normal center bar? And why is a designation that references a wild genotype necessary? As far as looks go, it is just another sensory bar mutation, much like the snakeskin mutation. I have played with a few heckle cross's and found a host of genetics, far removed from a traditional heckle to turquoise cross.



    Conversely, why should a heckle cross be given its own class, what about a wild green cross? Or a wild brown cross? Your argument on the F1 vs F2 vs F3 is a good one, except it can be applied equally to the "heckle cross" class you propose. My best answer is that we should not be to concerned with what filial generation the cross is, but rather how well the fish represent a wild phenotype. If the judges are given this additional criteria for judging that particular class, then it becomes a non issue.



    I agree.

    Here i want to focus on domestic discus because wild is too controversial now...




    I respectfully disagree. Every year we see the introduction of dozens of new phenotypes. Rarely do we see the introduction of a new genotype. There is not going to be a lot of competition in a show with a 100 fish and 50 class's. Breeders will start to dictate to show's what class's they want or they won't send any fish. Sorting by genotype could re-introduce the show to the Golden and Ghost strains, and promote better development in these strains.


    For my exemple of 37 fishs (infact i did a mistake it was 27... but finally a lot too) In Europe, it depends of shows... some put fine stripes fishs in the same category as turquoise. Some separate the turquoise (large pattern) and the snakesknin (fine pattern) and add the second one in a open catégory.



    I like the approach we took last show, which was to divide the open class into two categories, pigeon based and non pigeon based. Perhaps in the future it can be again broken into three, as opposed to two.



    That is interesting but I think it's best to base your categories based on the prior show and publish which categories your going to have prior to the show. Yes you might have a few categories that don't meet the 8 fish minimum, but in my opinion that is better than having a breeder hand select a fish for entry into a category that you eliminated.




    your going to let the breeders dictate to the judges how to judge the fish, ultimately.



    I will read your articles, but I think the foundation needs to be tweaked.



    You hit on the heart of the matter. We have no international standards.

    Hello,

    No problem, my presentation is also there to open discussion and have point of views. Hope my English is enough good, and you also feel my respect

    I'm there to present this work and explain why i went in a way or not.
    I do not specially like the Heckel cross discus phenotype... i'm specialised in red breeding forms and i enjoy red forms far away from the others... (Sorry you loose the bet ) http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/category/mes-discus/

    But my goal with this classification is to give a place to all established phenotype.

    I understand your point of view about the term "heckel cross" i use in the article, and i think i should clarify this...
    When i use "heckel cross" term, i meant "solid or pattern fish with a central bar phenotype". I only here focus on breeding forms. Maybe i should call the phenotype with an other word ?

    In world discus show Napoli 2015, a "hechel cross" (turquoise + central bar phenotype) was placed in "wild category" and this fish was normaly re-place in an other category that is in my opinion normal.

    I think we are on the same line about this kind of phenotype... How we should call it to be more clear? "heckel cross breeding form"? "pattern discus with central bar"? Let me know your opinion about it.

    Infact, i think (as several breeders work on this phenotype) we have to give a place to this 2 phenotypes that are: solid discus with a central bar and pattern discus with a central bar. Just have to find them a name no?


    Also, i do not think we need 50 class for competition. I think we need a classification system that can be used and be understood by all. Adaptable to a 50 fishs show to a 500 fish show.
    The tree classification in this way is a tool for organisator to explain why this or this fish is present in a category. Only organisators propose the number of category they plane to have and how many minimum enteries they want to "open the category".
    Sure for exemple here in Europe, with 7 or 8 category is enough for around 100 fish in competition.

    Golden is in my opinion, (like ghost or other) is only a "tool" to access new type of phenotype. but quite close to those already exist. Look for exemple a "golden blue" is very close to a blue diamond... the difference is "subtile" phentypicaly speaking and this don't really change our solid blue classification.
    Look at the Raymond Lee picture on the article: full spotted GoldenLSS, like a LSS but with a different color variation.

    The approach you talk about your last show (Could you give me a link for pictures?) pigeon base and non pigeon base. Usually when we met 2 open cat; it is open solid and pattern.
    Could you tell me what was the other category for this show?

    You are right, i think no publish prior category before a show will be too new at this moment... But i think we need more "open method" to allow each passionate, each breeder to find a place to his fish. Rare phenotype or old school phenotype. After all enteries booked the categories should be in my opinion ajusted to be as fair as possible.

    I don't know if we need an international standard. But maybe to begin something... national first would be great... for other animals, there are asian, european or american with some subtilities between each other... I will talk about it later... for me all the reglementation should be published before the show... Not the case at this moment...



    I appreciate your constructive comment. Thank you again.

    Yann
    My website Fanatik-discus

  14. #14
    Registered Member yann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Annecy france
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Nicholson View Post
    Still have not been able to read your thoughts but on the classes you have to be careful splitting everything up. You really need at least 10 fish per category or the class is really too small to be meaningful. As NADA has grown we have split some classes up but only once the need to do so was proven. It would mean nothing to win first place in a class of one.....

    -john
    Hello John,

    Number of categories should depend also on number of enteries (that's what you thought if i understand well?). Number of fish in each category is decided according to the organisators, but yes should have a minimum to be "representative".

    Yann
    My website Fanatik-discus

  15. #15
    Registered Member nc0gnet0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    8,054
    Real Name
    Rick

    Default Re: Reflections dedicated to Discus Shows...

    Quote Originally Posted by yann View Post
    Hello,

    No problem, my presentation is also there to open discussion and have point of views. Hope my English is enough good, and you also feel my respect

    I'm there to present this work and explain why i went in a way or not.
    I do not specially like the Heckel cross discus phenotype... i'm specialised in red breeding forms and i enjoy red forms far away from the others... (Sorry you loose the bet ) http://www.fanatik-discus.fr/category/mes-discus/

    But my goal with this classification is to give a place to all established phenotype.
    Well, it wouldn't be the first time I lost a bet. I was a bit shocked to learn you proposed TWO class's for the heckle cross. More on that later.

    I understand your point of view about the term "heckel cross" i use in the article, and i think i should clarify this...
    When i use "heckel cross" term, i meant "solid or pattern fish with a central bar phenotype". I only here focus on breeding forms. Maybe i should call the phenotype with an other word ?
    Personally, I think it would be a good idea. Maybe something like "prominent center bar". But it's just not enough to create the class, you have to define the class. For instance, in this new class, is the thicker the center bar is, the better? Will a fish be awarded more points if it has a thicker center bar than it's competitors? If the fish also has an enlarged 6th bar, is this a deduction? These are things that need to be defined before you create such a class.

    In world discus show Napoli 2015, a "hechel cross" (turquoise + central bar phenotype) was placed in "wild category" and this fish was normaly re-place in an other category that is in my opinion normal.
    As it should be

    I think we are on the same line about this kind of phenotype... How we should call it to be more clear? "heckel cross breeding form"? "pattern discus with central bar"? Let me know your opinion about it.
    Anything that omits the term "heckel"

    Infact, i think (as several breeders work on this phenotype) we have to give a place to this 2 phenotypes that are: solid discus with a central bar and pattern discus with a central bar. Just have to find them a name no?
    This is were you start to lose me. Maybe in Europe you get a lot more of these dominate 5th bar fish entered in competition. Too date we get very few. Here, even giving them one class would be a stretch, let alone two. Besides, a solid fish should not have bars.


    Also, i do not think we need 50 class for competition. I think we need a classification system that can be used and be understood by all. Adaptable to a 50 fishs show to a 500 fish show.
    The tree classification in this way is a tool for organisator to explain why this or this fish is present in a category. Only organisators propose the number of category they plane to have and how many minimum enteries they want to "open the category".
    Sure for exemple here in Europe, with 7 or 8 category is enough for around 100 fish in competition.
    ok

    Golden is in my opinion, (like ghost or other) is only a "tool" to access new type of phenotype. but quite close to those already exist. Look for exemple a "golden blue" is very close to a blue diamond... the difference is "subtile" phentypicaly speaking and this don't really change our solid blue classification.
    Look at the Raymond Lee picture on the article: full spotted GoldenLSS, like a LSS but with a different color variation.
    While true it is used as a tool (and a lot more than most people realize), I sometimes wonder how under utilized it is as a stand alone genotype. Ghost would as well. Some of the recessive genotypes have a hard time competing when in the homogenous state, as they quite often are a little smaller than the other genotypes. Your examples of the GLSS strain fits here quite well.

    The approach you talk about your last show (Could you give me a link for pictures?) pigeon base and non pigeon base. Usually when we met 2 open cat; it is open solid and pattern.
    Could you tell me what was the other category for this show?
    http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showth...6-Show-winners

    1) Fine line
    2) Thick line
    3) Spotted
    4) Solid
    5) Wild
    6) Open Non-pigeon blood (you heckel cross's would fit well in this category)
    7) Open Pigeon blood
    8) Albino
    9) Bred by hobbyist. A class within all the other class's for the hobbyist breeder

    In addition to 1st - 3rd place in these class's we also award a Grand Champion and a peoples choice award.

    You are right, i think no publish prior category before a show will be too new at this moment... But i think we need more "open method" to allow each passionate, each breeder to find a place to his fish. Rare phenotype or old school phenotype. After all enteries booked the categories should be in my opinion ajusted to be as fair as possible.

    yes

    I don't know if we need an international standard. But maybe to begin something... national first would be great... for other animals, there are asian, european or american with some subtilities between each other... I will talk about it later... for me all the reglementation should be published before the show... Not the case at this moment...
    maybe we don't need it, but I think it would help.

    http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showth...ish-Megathread

    -Rick
    Ex-President-North American Discus Association-NADA
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Cafepress