Coaster Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Andy has been around for over 10 years as a judge, so i would give him the benefit of the doubt...plus...he's a GATOR! b**bs And he marched Suncoast! Listen, I played with Andy at Disney World and know his views on hornlines. He played in some of the best SOUNDING lines in Suncoast and I trust what he hears. He has heard these corps all season and if he thought Bluecoats were on fire, he should have given them the score. I trust his judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGreen Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 you people amaze me Bluecoats have been winning brass most of the season. Maybe, just maybem, Andy heard their performance and thought, this deserves to be near the top of the sheets, and if someone else comes by and makes him go higher, he would deal with that. I think it's sad when a corps who isn't in the top 3 or so is deserving of a caption title and gets denied. This year you are seeing corps rewarded for their section achievement, Crown in guard, SCV in GEV, etc. even when the rest of the captions could be holding the corps down. It's amazing to read about slotting, and then read about judging inconsistencies, about how *on any given night* matra followed by 'how can the first place corps be 5th in this caption* crap. This is the best top 7 ever IMHO, and I am glad the race is tight, I actually think it's tighters than last night's scores reflected, but a little space in the ranking and rating is good at this level IMO. I may disagree with some of this judge's placements from my theater seat, but he was there on the field, and he's been an outstanding judge for several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I think singling out a judge by name is a little bush league. These people do this, probably for peanuts, for love of the activity. I doubt anyone gets into judging to screw over a particular corps or, conversely, to promote a particular corps. You don't like judging? Fine. Apparently nobody does. But can you refrain from publicly trashing people by name? And no, I don't know this person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victorcoly Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Andy Poor is one of the best judges in the activity -- NOT afraid to call a spade a spade!! If you tank a show, no matter if it's mid June or DCI week, he'll give you a number based on your performance!! A previous poster was right saying Andy has been around for a long time -- long enough that there used to be MORE ROOM for number mgmnt rather then 10.0 points!!!! That being said, the title of this thread, "Activist Judge," is absolutely correct! He's ACTING line a judge should!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csugrad Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I think it has been discussed in recent years that perfect scores do NOT mean a corps is perfect in that category. My best recollection of this account was in regards to either BD or Cavies in the last few years. There was a perfect score given out when we as spectators could pick out flaws. It was defended as so the corps was better than all the previous corps and the only other number to give them was the next available number higher than corps b. Yet because of that it does not mean corps A was perfect. Did I confuse anyone? All I can take of this is that if we want the highest caption score to equal perfection then the numbers must ALL be brought way down within the scale of judging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davhen Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 (edited) I think it has been discussed in recent years that perfect scores do NOT mean a corps is perfect in that category. My best recollection of this account was in regards to either BD or Cavies in the last few years. There was a perfect score given out when we as spectators could pick out flaws. It was defended as so the corps was better than all the previous corps and the only other number to give them was the next available number higher than corps b. Yet because of that it does not mean corps A was perfect.Did I confuse anyone? All I can take of this is that if we want the highest caption score to equal perfection then the numbers must ALL be brought way down within the scale of judging. I think another way to put it is this: everyone on this thread seems to be aware that judges "manage" their numbers, meaning they try to keep headroom available just in case each remaining unit is better than the last. So, I think that the real discussion is whether or not that is the only consideration in number management. I tend to think it is a little more complicated. say for example: <YOUR FAVORITE CORPS NAME GOES HERE> scores a 9.9 to win field brass on Friday night, but their total score earns them 5th. They come out on Saturday and play even better. The panel has rotated, and they get a 9.5. ARe you willing to accept the .4 drop, for a better performance, even when the judge defends it by pointing out that he saved 4 tenths "just in case" the other four lines played better? AND. . . don't forget, that as recently as the night before they did not? Which judge would you rather have on your next panel? Judges have to be prepared for EVERY possible situation that can arise, and each successive corps topping the one before is only ONE possible outcome. So, while highly unlikely, there is a small probability that a hypothetical-10th place corps, who performs 3rd at finals, might have a "perfect" show in a particular caption. ARe we really for the kind of number management philosophy that makes a judge feel the best number he can give in this situation is a 9.1, simply because he has to view 9 more units? I sure hope not. Edited August 11, 2007 by davhen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhsalan Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 So, while highly unlikely, there is a small probability that a hypothetical-10th place corps, who performs 3rd at finals, might have a "perfect" show in a particular caption. ARe we really for the kind of number management philosophy that makes a judge feel the best number he can give in this situation is a 9.1, simply because he has to view 9 more units? I sure hope not. Dave, Logical thought is kind of scary sometimes isn't it..... Hope things are well in Dalton, AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davhen Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 I think most of the judges get it right, most of the time. Andy included. its really just a case of "hair-splittin'" when it gets up in that range of numbers anyway. I can't imagine why anyone would want the job of facing staffers from the 2 top corps, and try to explain to them why one is a couple of tenths ahead of the other! to steal a line from "Spinal Tap" . . . we need the sheets that go to "11"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) Delurking to add...for what it's worth, I have huge confidence in Andy Poor's judgment. I echo what others who know him have said. He's been around forever and isn't afraid to call it like he sees it...too rare these days. An aside: wish there would've been more like him (& (Save) Bill Doyle) in 1986! Sally Edited August 16, 2007 by Sunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein On The Beach Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 People on this board seriously give a majority of the judges way too much credit. Seriously, they aren't the demi-gods you make them out to be. 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.