PrfctTimeOfDay Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Fact: They finished 4th in Movement Excellence. So this discussion of how they did what they did wrong seems... well, wrong. The 2 sub captions aren't always mutually exclusive, though in a perfect world they would be. The movement judge measures the depth, range and variety of the movement challenges, commonly referred to as the movement vocabulary. At the same time, the students are credited based on the depth of their technical and expressive training and the degree of achievement of the material they are performing. The discussion has nothing to do with anyone being wrong, but how they ended up with the 11th place finish in that sub-caption. . .and I think it has been done in a very respectful way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackiedude Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 The 2 sub captions aren't always mutually exclusive, though in a perfect world they would be. The movement judge measures the depth, range and variety of the movement challenges, commonly referred to as the movement vocabulary. At the same time, the students are credited based on the depth of their technical and expressive training and the degree of achievement of the material they are performing.The discussion has nothing to do with anyone being wrong, but how they ended up with the 11th place finish in that sub-caption. . .and I think it has been done in a very respectful way. So you're saying they were credited for their technical and expressive training.. what some have just argued against in this post. Furthermore, to be .5 above vocab in excellence is (to me, maybe I'm wrong) not just saying they're achieving really well what they have, but they're achieving it really freaking well and that they're extremely well trained. That's a pretty huge gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrfctTimeOfDay Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 So you're saying they were credited for their technical and expressive training.. what some have just argued against in this post. Furthermore, to be .5 above vocab in excellence is (to me, maybe I'm wrong) not just saying they're achieving really well what they have, but they're achieving it really freaking well and that they're extremely well trained. That's a pretty huge gap. If you're given a mediocre book and you execute it, you get credit for it. . .if you're given a fantastic book and execute it you get more credit for it. I also said somewhere in this thread that those with a dance background would argue with the execution number (as being to high) Make of it what you will. I still stand by initial statement that they were adjudicated properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flboi04 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Lets just leave it at, we all agree nei is a great program, has great staff ( 3 people, two directors and a consultant) and we can't wait to see what great things they will bring out this season. I think that is what the original post was about. As for movement I find it so incredible how some people can down something so much, and not teach the activity. If you feel so passionately about movement then I encourage you to be a judge in the movement caption. Lets just agree to disagree. I can't wait to see what Northeast puts out this year I'm sure it will have me sitting on the edge of my seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musical_Spinner Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Excellent point Zack... IT'S ALL MUSICAL SPINNER'S PERSONAL OPINION. It's clear that they have nothing good to say about NEi from a movement standpoint. Even if he/she did give their credentials, it would still just be an opinion not a fact. Here are the facts, NEi is an extremely sucessful top 5 world guard. NEi puts out entertaining shows to the majority of the winterguard world, ask any person who actually spins in the activity. Lets return this thread to it's ORIGINAL intent, complimenting the guard on their accomplishments instead of personally attacking them based on a closed minded opinion. You've gone from saying you just dont like the movement, to it being stiff, to poor technique, then to good choreography but sacraficing safety for effect, your opinion seems to shift with the winds. Who is attacking them based on a close minded opinion? I was originally agreeing with the judges placement in contrast to another person's opinions, while providing a dancer viewpoint that could explain the placement. Funny you mention going back to original thread intent and leave a snarky comment directed towards me, when I have not done such to you, THANKS. My opinion has not changed: They are stiff. They sacrifice technique (which is a key tool for safety) for an effect moment (i.e. a big soloist leap....see NEI 06) which is unsafe. -I never said the choreography was good or bad but the vocab sub caption speaks for itself, I said Mia was probably critiquing the choreography in relationship to its function to the performance/show and not the principles of kinesiology.....such a critique and given knowledge of such things would improve safety and performance in movement the performers. correct technique which is key for safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastGuard Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 OK....last post. Just clarify a few things: You said they had poor training and technique and that they were judged properly. The judge said they had great training and technique and rewarded them a 4th place excellence ranking. Which is it? Is the judge correct or not? Who is attacking them based on a close minded opinion? I was originally agreeing with the judges placement in contrast to another person's opinions, while providing a dancer viewpointthat could explain the placement. Funny you mention going back to original thread intent and leave a snarky comment directed towards me, when I have not done such to you, THANKS. My opinion has not changed: They are stiff. They sacrifice technique (which is a key tool for safety) for an effect moment (i.e. a big soloist leap....see NEI 06) which is unsafe. -I never said the choreography was good or bad but the vocab sub caption speaks for itself, I said Mia was probably critiquing the choreography in relationship to its function to the performance/show and not the principles of kinesiology.....such a critique and given knowledge of such things would improve safety and performance in movement the performers. correct technique which is key for safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musical_Spinner Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 (edited) OK....last post. Just clarify a few things:You said they had poor training and technique and that they were judged properly. The judge said they had great training and technique and rewarded them a 4th place excellence ranking. Which is it? Is the judge correct or not? Scores aren't indicative of technique since WGI doesn't account directly for dance technique but rather the variety of movement on the floor (which can be in poor technique) and the uniformity of it (if everyone does it wrong and looks the same, it is still clean and functions, but it's still wrong) The tenth place overall ranking they received from the movement judge is correct in that theory that WGI uses. My problem is their vocabulary that they achieved while using dance elements was in poor technique but it was uniform throughout the guard, hence the excellence score. I am highly doubtful that ALL the WGI judges have the training to recognize when a dance element is achieved in a wrong way, if they had the vocabulary score might have been the same (which I agree with) but the excellence score would have been affected but not much because dance elements only make up so much of a show along with other movement aspects (uniformity of feet in time etc.) So then, to me, a dancer and dance teacher, the excellence score should have been lower based on the dance elements they achieved in a bad way. Re-cap WGI got it right in the theory they use......... Had they directly incorporated an official acknowledgment of dance as a base for movement, they would have scored even lower. But it's not that way now is it? Does that clarify anything at all? I know that's a complicated way to look at it. Edited December 12, 2007 by Musical_Spinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackiedude Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Well I'd love to see you at a cheerleading competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musical_Spinner Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 (edited) Well I'd love to see you at a cheerleading competition. Haha....hyperextension at the elbows is the enemy! Edited December 13, 2007 by Musical_Spinner 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.