Can't we all just get along?

[iamnivtop]

Alright. I mostly accept the evolution that has brought DC to the point it is today. But I have one point that I would like to bring up for discussion, judging. Many posters have stated that the old 'tic' system was too arbitrary, certain judges would be harder on one corps over another. However, my contention is that, since scoring has gone to a 'merit' system, this just makes it way too easy for judges to give merit based on previous placements and keep certain corps from coming up in the ranks regardless of how clean they execute their show. Again, this is just my opinion, but why not give us old school guys some love and put a portion of the scoring back to a 'tic' system. IOW if a corps has a hyper show but can't perform it cleanly, they get marks against them based on some basic captions. If a corps executes cleanly but has a real snoozer of a show, they don't get the merit points.

This would differ from the old system in that the current way of judging would be dominant, there would only be a maximum of let's say five points each for brass and percussion. Obviously the old rules for judging marching and guard can't apply any longer, but should promote corps to play as clean a show as possible. This would also allow for some surprises when it comes to the final outcome of each show.

Hope I expressed this clearly. How about some discussion?

Oh, and let's leave out the usual pro-anti-amp out of this for now. They're here, they're judged under presentation categories or somewhere, deal with it. I'm just trying to look forward to DCI again and knowing that the results would have some basis on execution would be a real bright spot for me.

[JohnZ]

purely my opinion, but I miss the unpredictability of the tic system - you didn't know who was going to win on any given night until the scores were announced....at retreat, all corps present on the field. No question that 'judging preference' sometimes came into play, but overall I believe that everyone could tell when one corps was 'off', and another one was 'on', and the placements were generally accepted. and on any given night or day, someone could jump several placements from a previous show.

Now, it just seems as though once the placements are set, nothing much changes night to night exept for the spreads. I think adding a judging dimension that allows for unpredictability would be refreshing.

just my opinion.

[euponitone]

Now, it just seems as though once the placements are set, nothing much changes night to night exept for the spreads. I think adding a judging dimension that allows for unpredictability would be refreshing.

just my opinion.

To be fair, this past season was not a good example of your point. Any one of the top 7 could have won on a given night early in the season, and the top 3 moved around a lot too. Most years arent like that however, but hopefully we are seeing the start of a trend.

[BST07]

To be fair, this past season was not a good example of your point. Any one of the top 7 could have won on a given night early in the season, and the top 3 moved around a lot too. Most years arent like that however, but hopefully we are seeing the start of a trend.

I agree with your point, however I think that is only because the quality of the top corps is becoming more and more consistent, and more corps are starting to "figure it out." Not so much a factor of the judging system

[juice]

no

[TerriTroop]

yes

and to elaborate: I would really like this as it takes away a little bit of the design reward and gives something back to the kids on the field in a very direct way.

[MikeD]

yes

and to elaborate: I would really like this as it takes away a little bit of the design reward and gives something back to the kids on the field in a very direct way.

That's what happens today, in a more complete and accurate manner than the old tick system.

[TerriTroop]

That's what happens today, in a more complete and accurate manner than the old tick system.

Anyone care to post PDF's of the current sheets to see if we all agree with that? (I would if I had them in my possession)

I don't think accuracy can be fully discerned from a "build up" system. I think a hybrid system would give greater feedback, including some concrete technical details that seem largely missing from the current system. Then again, I haven't seen a judging sheet in a few years, so it could be true what you say. I'd just like to see it for myself.

Here is an article completed in 2000. Although it is a bit out of date it has some good information about the evolution of the judging system. Of particular interest to me are the quotes from a GE judge about how hard it is to do their job because they are trained to listen and watch critically for errors but as a GE judge they are supposed to be a FAN of every corps and listen and watch from that perspective. That says to me that GE is, by nature, a very subjective area and is very difficult to measure accurately.

Another point: phrases from the quoted Box 5's such as "flaws are minor" have a LOT of room for subjective interpretation. A "minor" flaw in a Blue Devils show would be pretty major in the context of the quality of that particular ensemble. I'm sure training around this issue happens, but what is that training like? What is a "minor" flaw in the context of a particular show/ensemble/venue?

[kusankusho]

That's what happens today, in a more complete and accurate manner than the old tick system.

How is deciding the cumulative level of flaws at the end of the performance more accurate than recording each one you hear/see as it happens?

[wishbonecav]

Remember when 27th Lancers took 7th place (Allentown?), 15 points behind the Garfield Cadets, yet took high drums?

Or when the Bridgemen pulled off nearly the same trick at DCI?

Clean beats used to be the measuring stick with ensemble contribution a secondary or "separate" consideration.

The criteria today (since 1984, really, and evolving to 2007) has changed, whereby musicality and ensemble is absolutely emphasized and the "clean beats" portion is wrapped into effect.

Is that a "bad" thing from a production, programming and achievement standpoint? I don't think so, and for several reasons.

First, and foremost, the separate captioning for "horns" and "drums" may have created different goals for these sections WITHIN THE CORPS ITSELF, perhaps fragmenting the true "team" dynamic and creating separate "sections" within the ensemble. Even if this only existed by suggestion, it is counterproductive to cohesive effort and achievement.

IMO, not hearing about "who took high drums" and, instead, seeing, hearing, evaluating and appreciating the ensemble as a whole magnifies the experience.

Second, the top down approach (start at 10.0 and "tic" your way down or separating sections by "performance, a la the 1988 sheet) means the risk-reward equation is tilted towards "not making errors". This system encouraged "watering down" difficult parts, passages and transitions late in the season rather than searching for "added effect." I remember Boston Crusaders snareline (at their home show in July) dropping to one knee to play an extended roll and paradiddle passage and the place went crazy. By DCI, that "effect" was taken out...sacrificed in the name of "clean beats."

The bottom up approach to the sheet provides a better incentive for achievement. If you start at ZERO, but can EARN a 10.0, there is an inherent desire to aim high. The risk-reward equation keeps asking for MORE (a good thing!). And the combination of demand and cleanliness produces effect which moves you up a box.

And at that point, the real "judging" of achievement ends, and ordinals begin. Isn't that cool?