Competitions and 'previous winners'

[Kym]

But Bob, the judges already know who has written that poem that keeps gettting 2nd, 3rd, HC, 2nd, 2nd!

So if the author of that multi-placing poem is already well known, then surely knowing the author of a poem that has won ONE comp previously should be even LESS of a stumbling block?

[Peely]

As I see it, it is a tough argument. There are good arguments both for and against being able to submit poems that have been previous winners in written competitions. On the one hand, you may see a boost in the number of entries in a competition from the well established writers, but at the same time, you might also see a drop in the number of entries from the up-and-coming writers. If you keep getting poems that are placed in competition without being winners, as a competition organiser, do you also exclude any poems that have been previously placed, given that there is the potential for prejudice from a judge for recognising who the author of a particular poem is?

I would agree with Kym on limiting the number of times a poem can win in a competition if you were to allow previous winning poems to be submitted, but the problem with this is that someone would need to have an accurate record of where a poem has won in the past to determine its eligibility. The question would then be of who would keep this record and how would it be accessed? Would it be something that is provided on the ABPA main website if it was to be put in place? You would need to put a similar system in place if you were going to limit the number of times a poem could win in performance competitions, but again, there is plenty of work that would need to be done to allow this to happen. One of the other problems is that not all competitions are run under the ABPA guidelines or for that matter are made widely known through the ABPA membership, this would also make the accurate record keeping difficult.

Even at this point in time, it is not necessarily an easy task for a competition organiser to exclude a poem based on the fact it has been a previous winner. From my own experience in the role of a competition organiser (on the committee for the Victorian Bush Poetry and Music Association), you are mostly relying on the honesty of the entrants in this regard since other ways of checking are not necessarily going to give you a clear indication otherwise (results being slow to be published or only available in the magazine as examples).

Allowing previous winners is certainly not going to be an easy decision to make.

Regards


John Peel

[Stephen Whiteside]

In my mind, I keep coming back to tennis as an analogy. I know there are always purists (and I am one of them) who say you cannot compare art with sport, but purists don't make the world turn around - at least, not by themselves.

I love the idea, for example, that Bjorn Borg won Wimbledon five times, but didn't do so well in the other majors. Why was he so good in London? Why did he struggle elsewhere?

I love the idea also that you can count the number of Grand Slams Roger Federer has won, and compare them with Pete Sampras, or Andre Agassi, or Rod Laver, or anybody you want to. Of course, it doesn't mean a lot because you are never comparing like with like, but it's better than nothing, and makes great water cooler conversation. It is also a big part of the general appeal of the sport.

We bush poets don't have anything like that. It would be pretty well impossible for a member of the general public to get a handle on the history of the Australian bush verse revival in this way. Sure, you can ask around, and hear a few names, but that's about it - and names tend to get mentioned more than poems, as I have said before.

So is it about the poems or the poets? Of course, it could be both, in the sense that you could easily keep a tally of both. It would then be up to the individual poet to decide whether to submit the same poems over and over, or new ones, or - the most probable response - a mixture of the two.

I agree with John Peel, though, it would have to be 'all or nothing'. The idea of trying to keep a tally of wins for individual poems would be utterly impractical, I am sure.

[Brenda Joy]

Everyone is concentrating on whether or not a winning poem should be allowed to enter other competitions. My opinion is that it should not. Especially in this very competitive arena (sometimes up to 650 entries in a competition) it is enough to get a winning award for a poem That poem has then gained its spot in the first prize winning poems of ABPA approved or affiliated competitions - i.e. it has received its 'highest honour'. Why ask for more? Well that's just how I feel.

The other issue that is not being concentrated on is whether poems that have placed second or third in one competition can enter in another. Poems that receive Highly Commended are eligible for re-runs and I feel rightly so. Many judges state that any of the top 6 poems could have won "...on a different day with a different judge..." So all of the top six are potential winners. However, most of the top competitions do not allow poems that have received 2nds or 3rds to be entered in their comp. If a poet gets a 2nd or 3rd that poem can never go higher than that even if the poem has come 2nd to another by the same poet and/or has only been beaten by one mark. To me that seems sad for that poem. Also, competitions are therefore not getting anywhere near the best poems from many poets who have large numbers of placings.

Brenda

[Kym]

Hi Brenda, you mentioned comps receiving up to 650 entries - I think you'd find that most comps DON'T receive enough entries, which is why so many have closed down over the last few years. Perhaps freeing up THEIR rules would encourage more entries? Big big name comps can be as tight as they want cos they need to control numbers, but perhaps the smaller comps could be more flexible?

And yes, I agree with Peely that if previous winners can be re-used, comps could be completely taken over by the big names, which the newbies would find daunting ... I hadn't thought of that!
I think basically, each comp should make up their own rules. If they don't want previous winners, so be it. There are some that allow previous winners, as long as it wasn't in their own comp, which is completely understandable. Some don't give a hoot if poems have won anywhere else or not. Perhaps the current situation is the best solution after all???

[Terry]

Interesting discussion!
Perhaps the old saying might be worth repeating - "If it's not broken, don't fix it". Although I personally have an open mind on the subject.

Terry

[warooa]

In my mind, I keep coming back to tennis as an analogy.

I could be the Bernard Tomic of Australian Bush Poetry

[Glenny Palmer]

...write your very best...share it widely, yet honourably...and perhaps, dedicate the hours given to debating, to the poet's life source...dreaming?

(...when we are ultimately just worm bait, all of our proud trophies are only destined to grace 2nd hand shop shelves, ...eh?)

[Terry]

Yep: spot on as usual Glenny.

Regards Terry

[Bob Pacey]

Nah thay are not Glenny i had heaps of thropies from my football hockey squash and touch football days packed all the ones up that i did not want and gave them to the riding for the disabled they recycle them for the kids.

Bob