Yorkvillain Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 16 hours ago, Yorkvillain said: 97.65 is no 98.4 I'm sure some people understood why I typed this. 98.4 at DCI Finals: 85 Cadets 86 BD 89 Phantom 94 BD 97 BD 98 Cadets 99 SCV 99 BD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoaDci Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Yorkvillain said: I'm sure some people understood why I typed this. 98.4 at DCI Finals: 85 Cadets 86 BD 89 Phantom 94 BD 97 BD 98 Cadets 99 SCV 99 BD Whoa. I guess I only realized 97.65 becuause it was recent. 98.4 pops up up alot also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbandguy Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 On January 8, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Jurassic Lancer said: Thank you, Lloyd Bentsen. No politics allowed here 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Depends on the year & judging system. 88.1 did it for Anaheim in 1972. But, they would not score well under today's judging system; by the same token 2016 Bluecoats would not score well in the 1972 system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: by the same token 2016 Bluecoats would not score well in the 1972 system. Especially under the VFW rules. For that matter, no corps would. Edited January 10, 2017 by Ghost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tad_MMA Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 1:31 PM, ouooga said: I've said it before on these boards, but scores are all dependent on the competing corps (which is why you can't compare scores from year to year). The better the top 12 (top 6?), the lower the final score, and vice versa. I absolutely love years where the top score is in the 97s. To answer the question, 97.X is probably the lowest score anyone would accept as championship. If someone won in the modern era (now/last 30 years) with a 96 or lower, we'd all probably scratch our heads and/or say it was a down year. Why the .65? That part, I've got nothing. Given that, would you say that 1991 was the "worst" year (1984-2016 inclusive)? Star won with 97.0; one in the 96 range; one in 95 range. It IS all relative. For fun, compare 2014 with 2005. Which 2nd/3rd place pair was better? 2014 Bloo/Cadets (97.1+/96.8+) or 2005 Cavies, Phantom? (97.6+/96.8+)? I say 2005. Had 2014 competed against 2005 #2/3, might Felliniesque have scored higher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Tad_MMA said: Given that, would you say that 1991 was the "worst" year (1984-2016 inclusive)? Star won with 97.0; one in the 96 range; one in 95 range. It IS all relative. For fun, compare 2014 with 2005. Which 2nd/3rd place pair was better? 2014 Bloo/Cadets (97.1+/96.8+) or 2005 Cavies, Phantom? (97.6+/96.8+)? I say 2005. Had 2014 competed against 2005 #2/3, might Felliniesque have scored higher? Re: '91, I hadn't thought of that. Honestly I'm most familiar with Star from that year, not the others, so I can't comment much on shows. But looking at scores, I'd probably argue down year. Ya, 97.X (x=0 though, so it's close), but then you look at the spreads and it hurts it the feel of the season. If someone's winning with a 97.0, I'd hope the second and third place corps were in the top half of the 96 range at least. That said, man, 91 must have been an exciting season. Going into Final night, none of the corps in medal contention had won a championship before. That would be like going into this year's Finals night with the top 3 being Bloo, Blue Knights and Blue Stars. Re: 05, that's the year that made me come to this conclusion. Also the last time I marched, so I always feel bad that I don't consider my final year to be a strong year for the activity. Cadets had an awesome show, I'm not denying that, but I remember being very confused about the 99.15 when it was announced. The more I thought about it, I realized that they scored that high because Cavies had a weaker show design. They played the crap out of it, but My Kind of Town just wasn't as engaging as 007 or Machine, and in comparison a show like The Zone got pushed up a notch. If you put Feliniquese into the '05 season, I predict Cadets would have come in second with a 98.4 and Feliniquese would have scored about the same as it did. That show's an anomaly of cleanliness, and yes I know I have no clue how to spell it. '14's such a weird year. Feliniesque I actually consider to be scored correctly. If you could somehow take Blue Devils out of that season, Bluecoats would have won with a high 97/low 98. All of this is just an opinion based on nothing more than my obsession with the activity, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 I like to move it, move it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tad_MMA Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Cadets 2005 was incredibly clean. Probably their cleanest overall effort since 1983 (with an astronomically improved drumline). As great as BD '14 was (it jumped to my #2 favorite show of all time), it's major "accomplishment" was the record score. SCV still holds the record for margin of victory (ok, 2.5 vs 2.475 is splitting hairs, but it IS the record); somehow the threepeat has eluded BD after FIVE shots at it (SCV had one shot---nobody else won twice in a row other than the 2 threepeaters); and that huge margin of victory in 2014 still couldn't get them 1st place in every subcaption (let alone a caption award sweep). '05 Cadets are the only corps to do that (with marginally interesting music). The fact that the last two winners dropped 2 full points after BD's incredible score might be a conscious effort or just that the groups have been "1991" good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoaDci Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 On Mon Jan 09 2017 at 0:31 PM, ouooga said: I've said it before on these boards, but scores are all dependent on the competing corps (which is why you can't compare scores from year to year). The better the top 12 (top 6?), the lower the final score, and vice versa. I absolutely love years where the top score is in the 97s. To answer the question, 97.X is probably the lowest score anyone would accept as championship. If someone won in the modern era (now/last 30 years) with a 96 or lower, we'd all probably scratch our heads and/or say it was a down year. Why the .65? That part, I've got nothing. Perfect ge and perfect visual, a true bd score... 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.