I rarely post on this sight but visit constantly. Since judging seems to be a big item of discussion on here at present I am curious as to some of your opinions on a comment given to me by one of the more respected taxidermist and judges in the business. A few years back I was at a national taxidermist contest that was geared to deer and turkey mounts . Although I do not enter contest I am always interested in looking at quality work and getting new ideas. This particular year there was a weak group in the Masters Division with maybe only 4 or 5 competing in it that year. The winner of the Masters had been a regular participant year in and year out in all divisions but this was his first Masters. Although the work was good there were some flaws that I noticed and pointed out to the judge and asked how that could be the winner. His response was that due to the lack of competion that even though it was not perfect it was the best they had and with 100s of $$$ in prizes somebody had to be given the award. My problem with that analogy is that it waters down the purpose of the Masters Award to give it out for work less than Master quality regardless of prizes given. IMO when the work is not of Master quality then there should not be an award given not just by default because of lack of competition. I am curious how some of you feel.