2017 PREDICTIONS!

[PresentArms]

10 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Pacific Crest ?

I'd put Pacific Crest in the Legends/SCVC range. Pretty reasonable list overall, but I would flip a few positions.. 

[BRASSO]

Just now, PresentArms said:

I'd put Pacific Crest in the Legends/SCVC range. Pretty reasonable list overall, but I would flip a few positions.. 

 Ok...  I guess thats where I'd put them in a grouping at the moment too.

[Shewhois]

27 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Pacific Crest ?

Dang, sorry! I'd probably but them right below BDB :) 

[cfirwin3]

5 hours ago, LabMaster said:

Nope yourself.  Specificity is not required to offer an educated opinion on when a performance is thought to be dirty.  No one is saying it is saying the performance didn't deserve to win (well maybe some are).  Also offering an opinion that a performance is dirty is not defamatory so let's not overstate this.so there was dirt but it still had sufficient effect and stellar showmanship and a unique design to carry the day.   However, I would agree that a comment devoid of specific examples (calling posters biased and ignorant with no proof of such) couldn't be anything but ignorant. 

Well, double-nope right back atcha!... no give-backs!

C'mon.  The example that I gave is self evident.  People are flippant in their criticism, that's the point.  I spelled out that people say things without giving examples (unlike my specific explanation of what a thoughtful criticism COULD look like).  And truly, if examples can't be given then it IS defamatory.  I would posit that the Bluecoats are a clean drumcorps.  They are, in fact, one of the cleanest in execution, musically and visually.  That's what the scores say, and it lines up with what I see in form guiding, dot accuracy, uniformity of transitional technique, choreography, step/stride and foot placement at various speeds, facing, carriage, and posture... just to name a few elements.  I would be happy to have a discussion with anyone who has a different point of view... but they need to offer an analysis in order to have a discussion.

Don't take it personally if you recall yourself having said "corps X is dirty".  I have no doubt that I have stated similar, unsupported remarks on occasion.  But remarks like that are nonsense without an articulation of meaning or a reference that can be talked about and argued.  Perhaps, that is why we like to say such vague things?... It's hard to argue with a vague comment.

I have seen over and over again, for the past year, posts from a handful of posters that the Bluecoats are "dirty".  Just that and nothing more.  There's just no credibility there without specifics.

But, of course, arguing over what I am saying is a nice distraction from my fairly simple point.

[Eleran]

On 5/26/2017 at 6:08 PM, jjeffeory said:

I believe his child marched/marches The Cadets; it is no surprise that he would say that. I believe I recall him getting very upset when Bluecoats' Tilt show beat Cadets' Promise: An American Portrait show.

In the words of Darth Vader, "Your powers [of recollection] are weak, old man".  

My son was marching with a different corps in 2014 (he didn't join Cadets until 2016), and neither of us gave a fig at the time about Cadets being pipped by Coats during Finals.  

And on a related note, although cfirwin3 ddn't directly call me out by name in his recent comments, "dirt" has never been one of my complaints about Coats, or any corps.  In fact, other that this post, I don't believe I have ever even resorted to the word here on DCP.  I agree with him that it is an evaluation that lacks specificity.

[cfirwin3]

Just now, Eleran said:

In the words of Darth Vader, "Your powers [of recollection] are weak, old man".  

My son was marching with a different corps in 2014 (he didn't join Cadets until 2016), and neither of us gave a fig at the time about Cadets being pipped by Coats during Finals.  

And on a related note, although cfirwin3 ddn't directly call me out by name in his recent comments, "dirt" has never been one of my complaints about Coats, or any corps.  In fact, other that this post, I don't believe I have ever even resorted to the word here on DCP.  I agree with him that it is an evaluation that lacks specificity.

I wasn't calling you out at all (I'm not sure that we have every really interacted in the past).  It is merely a very common complaint that has always bugged me... and not just with reference to last year's Bluecoats.  People have been suggesting that the Blue Devils (for example) are dirty since I can remember.  It was especially bad in the 1990's when the Cadets and Blue Devils were much more of a rivalry.  The threads over at SoundMachine were full of this type of generality back then.  In fact... some of the worst critics in recent memory are Cadets fans... talking about the Cadets (unfairly and inaccurately, in my opinion).

[KVG_DC]

I'm holding on my predictions until all the corps have unveiled their dog pictures.

[LabMaster]

6 hours ago, cfirwin3 said:

Well, double-nope right back atcha!... no give-backs!

C'mon.  The example that I gave is self evident.  People are flippant in their criticism, that's the point.  I spelled out that people say things without giving examples (unlike my specific explanation of what a thoughtful criticism COULD look like).  And truly, if examples can't be given then it IS defamatory.  I would posit that the Bluecoats are a clean drumcorps.  They are, in fact, one of the cleanest in execution, musically and visually.  That's what the scores say, and it lines up with what I see in form guiding, dot accuracy, uniformity of transitional technique, choreography, step/stride and foot placement at various speeds, facing, carriage, and posture... just to name a few elements.  I would be happy to have a discussion with anyone who has a different point of view... but they need to offer an analysis in order to have a discussion.

Don't take it personally if you recall yourself having said "corps X is dirty".  I have no doubt that I have stated similar, unsupported remarks on occasion.  But remarks like that are nonsense without an articulation of meaning or a reference that can be talked about and argued.  Perhaps, that is why we like to say such vague things?... It's hard to argue with a vague comment.

I have seen over and over again, for the past year, posts from a handful of posters that the Bluecoats are "dirty".  Just that and nothing more.  There's just no credibility there without specifics.

But, of course, arguing over what I am saying is a nice distraction from my fairly simple point.

OK fine, until someone submits irrefuteable properly offered specifics to you and you alone, please continue to believe Bluecoats were unlike any other corps; devoid of errors aka dirt.  But you are deluding yourself to believe they were clean because the sheets said so.  The sheets used by humans who may have seen the overall design being so new and unique, gave the benefit of the doubt to the design and disregarded some amount of dirt.  All anyone has been saying is that they weren't quite as perfect as some Blooooo fans initially thought. And in the post nationals euphoria, they and many corps no doubt,  were not so squeaky clean.  For now, let's just agree to disagree.

[Brian Tuma]

1 hour ago, KVG_DC said:

I'm holding on my predictions until all the corps have unveiled their dog pictures.

Match the dog breed with the corps! Could be a fun thread. 

[xandandl]

7 minutes ago, Brian Tuma said:

Match the dog breed with the corps! Could be a fun thread. 

Is one in the dog house if one gets the list wrong?