ApocalypseTissue

Part 2 this year was hardly a sequel if anything. It was just a reuse of some familiar gimmicks, I consider it a completely different show. It should have just been called Alice in Wonderland.

I think that's a little exaggerated to make that trend. Since 1996, they were only 0.5 away from the leads, I wouldn't consider them to be low... They were pretty much expected a second place, had it not been for phantom to jump and tie. But every year that the Cadets have an "off" year they come back very very strong the next 1986 - 4th 1987 - 1st 1989 - 5th 1990 - 1st 1991 - 6th 1992 - 2nd 1999 - 4th 2000 - 1st 2004 - 4th 2005 - 1st

The shows are great, 2005 is my favorite of their productions. However I feel that their program is not "safe" but not a risk-taking statement either. I don't know how to say it but I'd like a little more "umph" in their programs.

things change, people come in and leave, nothing out of the ordinary, the corps keeps movin on anyway

I'm pretty sure 1990 Star will be on it. Hmmm there might be a tossup between 1983, 1987, 1993 Cadets Blue Devils, I'm hoping for either 1986, 1994, or 2003 SCV hmm 2000, 1992, 2004, 1987

I'm pretty sure you need a food truck and equipment truck to move up

that must have taken a lot of concentration, 2004 finals was kinda windy in the stadium that's no easy job.

Madison Scouts 1999 The Cadets 1983 The Cadets 1987 Santa Clara Vanguard 1989 Santa Clara Vanguard 1999 Winner: 2000 The Cadets

HOLY CRAP 2006 PHANTOM REGIMENT'S OPENER Invocation of Veles and Ala from Scythian Suite.

If it's anything that stands out to me it would be the sabre unison tosses in the ballad of Blue Devils 99. My favorite toss and guard of all time: 2005 The Cadets, the cleanest thing I've ever seen with the most amazing book I've ever seen written. The medea toss was absolutely astounding with it's precision and rotation. The poles of every flag was in flawless sync.

Likes: The non charactered guard of the cadets, phantom regiment Dislikes: Blue Devils, the feature characters of the Cadets

Exactly, because the fact that anyone can argue what a 20 means, is a big reason to stay away from that number. If you go to any judges training and or meeting, when they talk about 20/20, there is only one explanation, if a judge ever decides to put that number down. And that is, bad number management, you gave scores that were too high early in the show and you were forced to give such a number.

I don't think you get the situation. I wasn't talking about performances that are independent of other peoples score. Lower corps' starting scores are incredibly important because they serve as a baseline for the judge to compare oncoming performance, thus giving an indication of how well they would perform, invariably how many digits there are left to give to a higher scoring corps later in the show. At every show, the judges will meet about a recommended starting score so that there is enough room for the highest score, that will still not allow boxing in the certain captions. So it is infact acknowledged by judges, that starting scores are very important. The judges all major marching and guard pagentry does this to avoid boxing in. TOB, USSBA, BOA, WGI, MANE, DCA, DCI...

Like I stated before. There isn't a tick system meaning general errors are not considered. Now, "flukes" are not considered, however breaks in the ensemble are considered because it deals with the quality of training and achievement. Dropping is one thing that will be avoided from the tape. Dropping because of bad hand coordination and posture will be mentioned. So when someone tells you that dropping isn't considered, it's not the whole story. That's the basic reason why judges try at all costs to avoid a perfect 20/20. The number is a paradox in that situation.

I don't think it's arguing, we're just explaining.

20.0/20.0 is perfect, there's no rewording of it. At judge training, in competitions, 20.0/20.0 is what it says by perfect. We don't like this word in the judging community because it gives us no baseline of comparison. Yes you have achieved consistent mastery, execution, recovery of uniformity of technique, difficult vocabulary as well as repretoire. But 20.0/20.0 is perfect, and is the number that every judge should avoid. 20.0/20.0 on the sheets mean perfect but it does not mean in actuality it was either. With this ambiguity, this is why judges avoid giving the perfect 20. 2002, the 12th place corps was at an 89.10. That's a good enough warning that you started too high. There was a 10.05 spread between 12th and 1st, the number that really matters. This is with capping, however since 3 captions were boxed in because they gave themselves no room to move, you can't really compare. So in conclusion and a future heads up: a judge that gave a 20.0/20.0 in a show was boxed in, was forced to give that 20 because of unwise number managing. 2002 Cavaliers is one of my favorite shows along with its other record counterpart of 2005 Cadets. I can't complain about the 99.15 with the Cadets because no caption was boxed in. The judges gave themselves all enough room to achieve those high scores, not perfect, but high. Note: The guard judge is in the press box and is almost never focused on one area, he's looking at the poles of the ensemble. There had to have been 0 visibility for him to miss all 5 drops that night.

Exactly, the fact that you can't tell a number is mismanaging. Also remember that This year's 97.200 Cavaliers, in 2002 could have been a 99.15. And last year's Cadets could have been a 96.525 in this year's competition. Judging number recommendation, don't compare scores from different nights. Division 2/3, and even division 1 is a great testament to that. Gaps are what you should compare not the numbers. But only with the same corps in the same competition. If you go to judges training, you are warned multiple times to avoid giving a full score multiple multiple times.

For DCI errors and flukes are completely different entities. Flukes are told to be ignored. Errors, also known as, breaks in the ensemble are considered when judging. Breaks/Errors can be due to poor achievement and training. The dci performance value base is to tell the quality of training and excellence in each category. (Flukes: Not considered): A guard member drops a toss which the judge considers to be a fluke. The idea is that drops happen even with the most well trained of members. (Break: Considered): A unison quad toss of several members in which many members have incorrect posture, hand coordination, or bad timing. Though only 3 of the 15 rifles dropped, the judge will comment that those three dropped because of their training and that the other 12 caught it poorly with bad training. So in sum, ticking is not gone, ticking when there is training issue is in the performance captions. Box five describes a range of scores that apply to consistency and mastery of a technique, where breaks in the ensemble are quick, almost unnoticeable. The actual number itself, when being given reflects how much they are better or worse they are COMPARED to the other corps in the same competition. In any type of judging, giving the full score is described, right off the bat for the judge to have been "boxed in" Lets show an example of 2002's music ensemble score of the top 4, which are all box 5 scores that demonstrate consistency and mastery of that caption. 4th (19.3) - The Cadets 3rd (19.5) - Santa Clara Vanguard 2nd (19.7) - Blue Devils 1st (20.0) - The Cavaliers Even though this corps, even in my opinion had great great music ensemble, giving a 20.0 was forced because Blue Devils already achieved a 19.7. The judge was forced to give The Cavaliers a 20.0 because, the cavies gap in their music ensemble score was possibly 0.3+ (could have been 0.4, 0.5, etc...) points better than the Blue Devils' music ensemble score. Why not give them a 20.2, or a 23.6? Well because the maximum score is a 20.0, and the judge was literally boxed in, or forced to give a perfect score because there was no where else to move. This is why it's better to start lower in numbers so that you are given some room to compare. Without comparison, no judge can just jut a number out on a sheet. This goes a little beyond the matter in that we are all human, we make mistakes, The Cavaliers' guard did as well, so a 20.0/20.0 is not fitting for such a title. (I'm just using 2002 Cavaliers as an example, they deserved the title, however I'm commenting on the judges handling on the sheets)

Judges have a meeting before each competition, where they do discuss the lowest range that they should give so that there are enough numbers to prevent capping. I'm sure the judges in 2002 could have done the same, noticed that the previous nights score of 99.05 with the Cavaliers in semifinals should have given them a red flag to bump some scores down. Scores on finals night can drop comparitive to semifinals, there are multiple examples of it. Giving three 20.0s is pretty bad number managing there on three accounts. Those three judges did not start low enough with the beginning of the lineup to give room. In judging a lineup, it's better to start lower than higher.

This is why I have a very big problem with The Cavaliers' 99.15 in 2002. 3 judges started scoring way too high that night and the final corps, The Cavaliers got that high score because of bad number management. They should have won, but having 20.0 in 3 captions gives you no idea about the gap between scores. In other words, the cavies could have gotten a 20.3 or a 21.4, but no one knows because it'd have to cap at 20.0

I care very little about scores, but I think that's one of the cleanest shows I've seen in the 2000s.

Does anyone love this show as much as I do? What a smoking percussion line and a really loud hornline. Classic classic songs and my favorite remixed version of Malaguena. Great great things done with Rocky Point Holiday and the Zpull

Finals week was absolutely gorgeous weather.

I believe Surf a few short of a full corps with a massive brassline. You could hear them practicing quite far away in madison.

Holy Crap 2005 finals!~