jpaul

Another way to look at it is that the corps who had the 5th place musical program came in third. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. I thnk we disagree on what "very high visual marks" means. Apparently, there were enough people who felt that it needed to change to make it happen. The fact that it worked one way for 30 or 40 years doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Someday another group with new idea will lobby for another change. Are any of your "many other Hall of Fame" friends visual people? A little deeper analysis shows that the tie in GE was the result of Cavies winning music and Phantom winning visual (with Cavies in 3rd). Cavies lost the overall music caption, but 2 of the 4 judges had them 1st. It's not quite the runaway train that you suggest. How do you know the motivations of the music judges? Or are you making assumptions? If judges are not applying the system correctly, that's a training issue for DCI to address. I don't disagree with your assertions here, as I have no knowledge of the situation, nor do I care to research it. I wasn't very clear in my wording. Of course judges are influenced by everything they see and hear. My point is that a music judge will never judge visual performance, and a visual judge will not judge brass. Each judge has an area of expertise, and by balancing the panel you should end up with a good evaluation of the entire product. It seems reasonable that there is more tendency for crossover in the efffect captions because coordination is so integral to the caption. If it's true that music judges are abandoning their captions, that's different issue. I don't know why that would happen. What if it was the percussion score that was a "home run"? Is that OK because they're musicians? If a corps is significantly better than it's competitors in one caption, why shouldn't there be an appropriate spread? During a contest no judge knows (or should know) what the other judges are doing with their numbers. How would the Vis Performance judge know that the group they put in 1st is going to place 3rd or 4th in some other caption? OK. That's an opinion (to which you're entitiled). But, as I said, there is nothing built into the scoring system that prevents it. Why do you think that the 30+ kids in the guard, who devote the same time/effort/money/skill/etc., don't deserve the same scoring consideration as the rest of the corps. Both the brass and percussion sections receive input from a judge qualified in their specific skill set and a numerical valuation of their achievement. Why doesn't the guard deserve the same. Apparently, you feel they're LESS important than the rest. I don't agree with that.

There's no answer to your question because the judging process is subjective. The only "right" answer is the one made by the panel judging on finals night.

From last night's recap, the spreads from 1st - 5th were GE Vis: .8, GE Mus: .6, Vis Perf: .7, Vis Ens: .9, CG: .7, Brass: .6, Mus Ens: .7, Perc1: .7, Perc2: .65. Visual spreads: .8, .7, .9, .7 Music spreads: .6, .6, .7, .7 The visual spreads are slightly larger than music, but when you consider a difference of 2 tenths spread over 5 corps it doesn't seem quite as drastic as you make it sound. Can't the activity also promote the visual arts? Why do you assume that one is more important than the other? My understanding of the way the scoring system was developed is that it is to give balanced weight to ALL aspects of a corps performance. At last year's finals the Cavaliers won GE Music, Brass and Music Ensemble. They were 3rd in GE Visual and won Visual Performance by .1. Even with the .4 spread in Vis Ens, this doesn't support your argument. I would never recommend this approach. The spreads that a judge creates are intended to be an accurate reflection of the differences between units. If you try to inflate spreads artificially to create some desired outcome, you're really playing with fire. I'm really not trying to be a jerk about this, but I have have a concern that your personal point of view may be driving this more than a flaw in the system. You note that you are a music person, and that's fine. I, by nature, am a visual person. I will always prefer a group with a stronger visual program, almost regardless of what or how they play. For some reason, most judges also fall into those 2 categories. You never find a judge that crosses over between the music and visual sides. That's why there are experts on both sides, judges in their area of expertise. Again, the scoring system was designed to create balance, and if everyone does their job, the right corps wins. It's possible that corps play more similarly than they look. I haven't seen/heard most of the Div 1 corps yet this year, so I don't know. I'm always a little skeptical when people start blaming the judges for getting it wrong. Maybe they're right, and you're just seeing/hearing it from a different perspective. There is no place in the scoring system that guarantees that the winner needs to be "in the top 3" in any caption. All groups have strengths and weaknesses, and different judges will perceive things differently from one night to the next. The winning score is the sum total of all 8/9 judges opinions, based on the numerical values that are built into the system. No scoring system ever used has been perfect, and the scoring process is, by it's nature subjective. That's why we have forums where people can argue about what should have happened and who should have won. My advice is take it for what it's worth, agree or disagree with the scores, and enjoy the show.

Why do you assume that because spreads are small that judges lack courage? The point of scoring is not to create spreads, but to accurately reflect the relative quality of corps performances. Maybe they really are all achieving at a very similar level. I would bet that those judges are wishing there was more separation between them, because when they're that similar it's really hard to find distinctions.

I realize that I'm coming late to the party, but . . . Has it occured to anyone that were talking about processes that are controlled by different areas of the brain? Marching is a physical process. Explaining is a verbal process. Notice that there were several people who wrote "I can show you." - a visual process. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses. That's why some excel in writing a novel and others excel in throwing a ball. I've taught for many years (including the Cavaliers - Don't ask me about their technique. I have no idea what they do do now.) and I don't necessarily EXPLAIN to my students all of the reasons and methods for everything I have them do., I take them through a series of PHYSICAL exercises that train their muscles to perform the set of skills I want them to have. Some things I explain, and others I don't. Some students can't interpret a verbal explanation, and I have to physically move them through the motion so they can feel what I'm asking them to do. Let's take the "showing your work on the math problem" example a step further. For each step of the solution, explain how you knew or decided which function to apply and in what order to do them. Now it becomes a different issue. Some things happen intuitively, and some become so ingrained through rote repetition that you don't think about them. At a certain point, you don't really remember anymore how you know something, you just know. Maybe the process of remembering or figuring it out to the extent that you can explain it is just more work than someone wants to do. While I'm not a professional teacher, I do have some fomal training in education and, in my opinnion, all of this "if you can do this then you should be able to do that" is way off the mark. We all process information differently and we all communicate differently (both on the intake and the output). So let's get back to argung over who's technique is better!

The Cavaliers didn't come to California in '88. Their frist trip was in '93, and again in '97. Never heard any stories about them getting sick. I also prefer the '97 version.

Mystikal will hold color guard auditions at their full corps camp on April 28-30. We have an exciting show planned and are looking forward to our appearance at the DCI World Championships in August! Please visit www.mystikal-corps.org for more information.

For those of us using the 2006 calendar, January 29 is a Sunday.

Auditions for the 2006 Mystikal Color Guard will be held on Sunday, January 29, from 10-5 at Newbury Park HS. There will be a follow-up audition at the full corps camp on April 28-30. Please visit www.mystikal-corps.org for more information.

Auditions for the 2006 Mystikal Color Guard will be held on Sunday, January 29, from 10-5 at Newbury Park HS. There will be a follow-up audition at the full corps camp on April 28-30. Please visit www.mystikal-corps.org for more information.