ajlisko Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) >>What the heck is "IIRC"? << If I recall correctly ... took me quite a while to figure it out too ... :-) Edited August 1, 2014 by ajlisko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Detweiler Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Got it!!! Thanks Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZ Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 And remembering correctly something I was mixed up with 20-30 years ago can be sketchy sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasgroh Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) odd. I've talked to many from that era that judged, and they say there was never a defined criteria for what was or wasn't a tick. Many have even posted it here. now i will agree on corruption and favoritism ...interesting conversation. When I started going to critiques in, ulp, 1969 while my corps was touring the midwest, the CSJA (Central States Judging Assn) was the model at the time for judges' education. They were starting to address the faults of the tick system, which were very apparent along with disparities in the "build-up" credit scoring in GE captions...it was all quite the mess, but it was OUR mess. The CSJA actually had educational meetings to deal with the concept of "tolerance," just what constitutes a tick, and of course that was a huge buzz word amongst the teachers in the activity. So, yes, there was significant effort put in, at least in the midwest (so you could say everything to the west of the big east coast judging circuits...'cuz Cal came in heavy with both excellent corps *and* influential judges about that time, so much so that the DCI judging you see now is a direct offshoot of the Cal/CSJA circles). I don't recall anything other than experimentation with clickers and such, but when it all changed over to "numbers management" I recall breathing a sigh of relief. Mostly because as a teacher I found myself getting upset over judge positioning, the fact that their heads were buried in the sheets, whether the guy or gal had a ha*d-on for my group...whatever. Now it's all about judges' education...a new "tolerance" discussion if you will...it's less like the OK Corral but, doncha know, still fraught with that irritating and unsolvable problem: the human evaluating humans. Edited August 1, 2014 by chasgroh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDz Posted August 3, 2014 Author Share Posted August 3, 2014 The intent of my original question was to ask if the judging scale needed to be adjusted, slipped, or "slided" to account for the progress designers and performers have made to raise the performances to new levels of accomplishment. For some reason, that intent got lost when I tried to explain how one slip by one performer, can make a huge difference in the bottom line..... a difference disproportionate to its true intent Big W's explanation satisfied me very much. I still do not envy the job of the judges. How do I feel about ticks? While ticks technically make it possible to get your highest score of the season in May, they also result in the following: 1960 May 29, Jersey City "Preview of Champions" 1. Hawthorne Cabs, 86.900; 5. Reading Bucs, 83.150 June 18, CT "Music in Motion" 1. Hawthorne Cabs 89.670; 6. Reading Bucs, 66.870 Cabs +2.77 (27 fewer ticks ?) Bucs -16.28 After watching MBI on Kilties Klassic today, the judges will have a top-4 and maybe top-5 covered not by the same blanket, but by the same sheet of paper ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkmummer Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Big W, It stands for Equal Advantage Scoring System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkmummer Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Jeff by the same token 10th place at championships with a low 60/high 50 number is kind of adding insult to injury. The placement speaks for it's self. No need to hammer a number to overstate the point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Big W, It stands for Equal Advantage Scoring System. Thanks, always curious about the Acronym of the day. Always liked BFA myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Jeff by the same token 10th place at championships with a low 60/high 50 number is kind of adding insult to injury. The placement speaks for it's self. No need to hammer a number to overstate the point. agre. I mean look at some late 60's early 70's scores. winning with a 79 or 80? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.