Spartacus Effect?

[MikeD]

or in many cases, they are, but you'd disagree with anything that isnt pro DCI. IMO

I can't think of any threads indicative of some problem within DCI. Some gripe about changes passed to improve the activity, like multi-key, amps, electronics, micced vocals, etc...but that's just griping that accompanies any changes made, going back even before my time, from reading NanciD's historical site.

[bawker]

I can't think of any threads indicative of some problem within DCI.

I didn't see that coming.

Not at all.

[kusankusho]

I didn't see that coming.

Not at all.

What's the line from Itchycoo Park?

Oh yeah...

It's all too beautiful.....

[byline]

despite my views at times on DCI, the system is working.

here's why...the corps that get votes make the system. they enforce what is wanted. and since the corps vote on it, what they deem to be the criteria is it. whether fans find it entertaining or not.

But I do believe that's a bit self-serving. After all, isn't it only the DCI member corps that get to vote? And so aren't they going to vote for the system that best serves their interests, but not necessarily those of the rest of the corps that have to compete within the same system? It basically results in a self-perpetuating system that continually rewards the corps that do well under the system that they voted for. If that doesn't meet the "conflict of interest" standard, it certainly does create the perception of one. Throw in critique, and we're pretty much there.

to be honest...many of my favorite skating programs didnt score well either.

My favorites don't always win, either . . . but just because I like them best doesn't mean they really are best. For example, I have a hard time spotting -- unless it's pointed out -- when a jump is cheated, meaning that it's landed but under-rotated. Or when it's landed on the wrong edge of the blade. (As small as that sounds, it's still an error.) A technical judge knows that, and scores accordingly (and there are safeguards in place to ensure that the judge does give the mandatory deductions for failure to fully rotate or land a jump). So just because I like something doesn't mean it was executed and performed according to the judges' criteria.

The system that exists in skating for technical scoring is, IMO, where the DCI and WGI systems are lacking. There's still too much room for personal interpretation of what is or isn't executed. In skating, a jump, spin, footwork series, etc., either is or isn't executed, and now the scoring has to reflect that. The skater who achieves the highest level of footwork (which gets back to artistry) is rewarded the highest number of points for having executed that. Same with spins, same with jumps. There's no longer any wiggle room for whether a skater does or does not execute his/her/their (in the case of pairs) program. The points must be awarded or deducted based on a preset number for successful execution of all those elements . . . or lack thereof.

Edited May 26, 2009 by byline

[MikeD]

I didn't see that coming.

Not at all.

[MikeD]

The system that exists in skating for technical scoring is, IMO, where the DCI and WGI systems are lacking. There's still too much room for personal interpretation of what is or isn't executed. In skating, a jump, spin, footwork series, etc., either is or isn't executed, and now the scoring has to reflect that. The skater who achieves the highest level of footwork (which gets back to artistry) is rewarded the highest number of points for having executed that. Same with spins, same with jumps. There's no longer any wiggle room for whether a skater does or does not execute his/her/their (in the case of pairs) program. The points must be awarded or deducted based on a preset number for successful execution of all those elements . . . or lack thereof.

As I understand it..and it's just from watching on TV every now and then...skating has very sharply defined maneuvers and jumps, etc...and it is just one performing person (or two in pairs) being evaluated...a lot easier to see just what that person is doing.

I don't see the relevance to trying to create some sort of comparison between the skating system and drum corps where there are 150 people on the field. And...instead of just focussing on skating...in drum corps there is both the music and the visual to evaluate acorss 100 yards by 53 yards of turf...and not just an ice rink.

[perc2100]

The system that exists in skating for technical scoring is, IMO, where the DCI and WGI systems are lacking. There's still too much room for personal interpretation of what is or isn't executed. In skating, a jump, spin, footwork series, etc., either is or isn't executed, and now the scoring has to reflect that. The skater who achieves the highest level of footwork (which gets back to artistry) is rewarded the highest number of points for having executed that. Same with spins, same with jumps. There's no longer any wiggle room for whether a skater does or does not execute his/her/their (in the case of pairs) program. The points must be awarded or deducted based on a preset number for successful execution of all those elements . . . or lack thereof.

In skating, we're looking at the same 1 or 2 people ALL THE TIME; in drum corps, we're looking at up to 150 people at one time, usually doing many different things at once (one section might be jazz running, one might be marching forward at 8-5, one might be marching backward at 6-5, drumline might be crabbing, etc). It would be virtually impossible to have a technical judge see everything at all times, which is why DCI moved away from a tick judging system in the first place. All of the judges, to some extent, evaluate technical abilities according to the criteria of their sheets (even GE). If someone is not executing a jazz run correctly, or a snare roll, or four mallet ostinato, or double tounging, or an 8 w/rifle, etc, the corps is scored appropriately. Judges don't ONLY look at the "what" when judging a caption (i.e. they're attempting something 3-5 marching @250 while playing a 16th note run), but also look at the "how" (meaning, how well are they executing what they are attempting). I would say that through out the entire existence of DCI (pre and post tick judging) the cleanest corps wins nine times out of ten while also executing the most effective show. In years when the margin of victory was the smallest margin possible (last year, 84, 93, etc), or a tie, you can argue who was cleaner/more effective. But usually cleanest wins which is why most corps water their show quite a bit finals week to make sure they are as clean as possible.

[dbc03]

The system that exists in skating for technical scoring is, IMO, where the DCI and WGI systems are lacking. There's still too much room for personal interpretation of what is or isn't executed. In skating, a jump, spin, footwork series, etc., either is or isn't executed, and now the scoring has to reflect that. The skater who achieves the highest level of footwork (which gets back to artistry) is rewarded the highest number of points for having executed that. Same with spins, same with jumps. There's no longer any wiggle room for whether a skater does or does not execute his/her/their (in the case of pairs) program. The points must be awarded or deducted based on a preset number for successful execution of all those elements . . . or lack thereof.

Should marching styles be standardized then?

I don't see how else you would be able to judge the way you seem to think is the best way to judge.

[Pinwiz]

The system that exists in skating for technical scoring is, IMO, where the DCI and WGI systems are lacking. There's still too much room for personal interpretation of what is or isn't executed. In skating, a jump, spin, footwork series, etc., either is or isn't executed, and now the scoring has to reflect that. The skater who achieves the highest level of footwork (which gets back to artistry) is rewarded the highest number of points for having executed that. Same with spins, same with jumps. There's no longer any wiggle room for whether a skater does or does not execute his/her/their (in the case of pairs) program. The points must be awarded or deducted based on a preset number for successful execution of all those elements . . . or lack thereof.

The difference is that in a skating routine there's a finite amount of scoring moves that are counted. In drum corps, there are an infinite number of items that could be considers "scoring" actions.

Do you provide an execution score from a drum solo based on the phrase, measure, beat, or rudiment?

How do you rank the elements in order of difficulty?

How do you score a triple rifle toss when the member stands still through the entire process? If they bend their knees? If there's a two step move programmed into the toss? Three steps? What if two guard members switch locations and catch the other item? What if half the guard does a triple and the other half does a four?

Can the judges accurately track the insane list of scoring requirements? How do they verify them? What keeps any corps from "padding the list"?

And would any defined list of technical scoring be less interpretation than what currently happens?

The idea is okay, the reality is impossible.

[Jeff Ream]

I can't think of any threads indicative of some problem within DCI. Some gripe about changes passed to improve the activity, like multi-key, amps, electronics, micced vocals, etc...but that's just griping that accompanies any changes made, going back even before my time, from reading NanciD's historical site.

some?

wow,