SPINCYCLE Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Is ANYONE really worth a 99 lets get serious...lol Junior or all age.. alot of times also scores get pushed on the top merely because it started too high on the bottom .......Just another thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbionNY Drum Line Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Is ANYONE really worth a 99 lets get serious...lol Junior or all age.. alot of times also scores get pushed on the top merely because it started too high on the bottom .......Just another thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPeashey Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Put the flack jackets on... Is anyone worth a 99? YES... if they are better than the corps with 98.9... I'm sorry if you don't like the current system of adjudication - but it is tried and tested and represents a successful culmination of decades of experience... it is also the same basic system used by DCI, Marching Bands and a whole bunch of other activities... The judges first 2 priorities are #1 - rank properly and #2 - rate properly (rating being the space between a corps and its next closest competitor) This system screams for 2 words: SHOW DYNAMICS Consequently comparing scores from show to show or year to year is pretty much invalid... Looking at the recap, it's very easy to see how a judge - working with his familiarity with most of the corps - would get bumped up to where they were based on Sunday evenings performance and the culprit? Stand and be recognized EMPIRE STATESMEN... After Hawthorne was given their scores following a good performance, empire came out an definitely outdid themselves. I'm certain everyone on here agrees that a "special" performance MUST be rewarded... and in the appropriate areas - GE for one - they scored a bit higher than in prelims - MOST APPROPRIATELY - Once those Empire numbers were recorded the rest is history... Hurcs were great but fell slightly ... MBI turned on... MUCH better than prelims... so they move over Empire and Hurcs - oh yeah... Empire had already raised the bar higher... so MBI to be properly ranked and rated got a mighty fine score... Then came Bucs... and most judges saw it clear that they were better than all the others.. what do you do?? give them all the system will allow you to give... it has absolutely NOTHING to do with perfection. Let me make this statement and I've been in this position quite a few times... especially in World Class Winter Guard - but in DCA too - I might contend that the system did not give Bucs a gift but rather short changed them... here's why... I'm quite certain that several of those perfect scores were one or two tenths over the next group. I'm also quite certain that at least some of those judges wished they had another tenth or two to give them... Point being... if you give someone 98 and the next group is 4 tenths better - you can only give them 100 and you just screwed them out of 2 tenths... While it's not a perfect system - as one of the few around who has used a large variety of systems... I can say unequivicably that it's the best we have ever had... suck it up and be proud of the performances of all these wonderful corps... it's only a number You may take your flack jackets off now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvt_cairns Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share Posted September 12, 2009 If a 10 or 100 is has "nothing to do with being perfect" then the answer is very simple. Don't limit the scores at 100. To place a limitation on a score sheet, and then proceed to complain that A) the best score that you can be given is a 10, but it doesn’t mean you were perfect" and B) Corps are being short changed due to the limitation of the score" is silly, and more then slightly stupid. With a tick system a limiting score of 100 worked because they took points off for error. With the Achievement system you get points added on for what you've done. Hence a limiting score of 100 doesn’t work. This leaves too much room for bs like "slotting". A judge has to leave room at the top because he/she is limited in the score that they can give for a corps given achievement. Without limitation of numbers judges could properly place corps and give ample credit for a given corps achievement without having to worry about how to jam in the last 3-4 corps. Mathematically if you put a limitation on a number for something like this it does represent a control for perfection. I do realize these points to all sorts of other issues, like box scoring etc. However if corps are not getting credit for the their performance based on your system, then your system on a competitive level is ridiculously flawed. It makes everything arbitrary, and hence in the world of competition fundamentally unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 If a 10 or 100 is has "nothing to do with being perfect" then the answer is very simple. Don't limit the scores at 100. To place a limitation on a score sheet, and then proceed to complain that A) the best score that you can be given is a 10, but it doesn’t mean you were perfect" and B) Corps are being short changed due to the limitation of the score" is silly, and more then slightly stupid. With a tick system a limiting score of 100 worked because they took points off for error. With the Achievement system you get points added on for what you've done. Hence a limiting score of 100 doesn’t work. This leaves too much room for bs like "slotting". A judge has to leave room at the top because he/she is limited in the score that they can give for a corps given achievement. Without limitation of numbers judges could properly place corps and give ample credit for a given corps achievement without having to worry about how to jam in the last 3-4 corps. Mathematically if you put a limitation on a number for something like this it does represent a control for perfection. I do realize these points to all sorts of other issues, like box scoring etc. However if corps are not getting credit for the their performance based on your system, then your system on a competitive level is ridiculously flawed. It makes everything arbitrary, and hence in the world of competition fundamentally unfair. I just said that here: http://www.drumcorpsplanet.com/forums/inde...t&p=2660108 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Bari Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Based on what most are saying here, all the comparing scores from different shows and geographical areas and ranking that goes on all season is truly meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutsCAV Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 in 1st place, with a score of 125.663, the BUCCANEERS No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 That's a real interesting theory. I spent a few minutes thinking about having unlimited scoring. I mean, after all, there's no limit to the number of points you can score in any professional sport, right? At first glance, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with a corps winning the championship 136-124 over the second place corps. Like a basketball game! But when you think it through, drum corps scores are all opinion, pro sport scores are not. You have to cap the scores or chaos would reign. In football, a touchdown is always worth 6 points. It doesn't matter how "GOOD" the touchdown was. In our sport here, every point is someone's opinion of how GOOD this or that was. If we didn't cap the scoring, some judge could hand a corps 250 points in Visual Effect for example, and that could corps would win the championship based on one guy's arguably extreme point of view, when under our current system, that corps might finish 19th. Interesting exercise, though :) If a 10 or 100 is has "nothing to do with being perfect" then the answer is very simple. Don't limit the scores at 100. To place a limitation on a score sheet, and then proceed to complain that A) the best score that you can be given is a 10, but it doesn’t mean you were perfect" and B) Corps are being short changed due to the limitation of the score" is silly, and more then slightly stupid. With a tick system a limiting score of 100 worked because they took points off for error. With the Achievement system you get points added on for what you've done. Hence a limiting score of 100 doesn’t work. This leaves too much room for bs like "slotting". A judge has to leave room at the top because he/she is limited in the score that they can give for a corps given achievement. Without limitation of numbers judges could properly place corps and give ample credit for a given corps achievement without having to worry about how to jam in the last 3-4 corps. Mathematically if you put a limitation on a number for something like this it does represent a control for perfection. I do realize these points to all sorts of other issues, like box scoring etc. However if corps are not getting credit for the their performance based on your system, then your system on a competitive level is ridiculously flawed. It makes everything arbitrary, and hence in the world of competition fundamentally unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucmellow Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Put the flack jackets on...Is anyone worth a 99? YES... if they are better than the corps with 98.9... I'm sorry if you don't like the current system of adjudication - but it is tried and tested and represents a successful culmination of decades of experience... it is also the same basic system used by DCI, Marching Bands and a whole bunch of other activities... The judges first 2 priorities are #1 - rank properly and #2 - rate properly (rating being the space between a corps and its next closest competitor) This system screams for 2 words: SHOW DYNAMICS Consequently comparing scores from show to show or year to year is pretty much invalid... Looking at the recap, it's very easy to see how a judge - working with his familiarity with most of the corps - would get bumped up to where they were based on Sunday evenings performance and the culprit? Stand and be recognized EMPIRE STATESMEN... After Hawthorne was given their scores following a good performance, empire came out an definitely outdid themselves. I'm certain everyone on here agrees that a "special" performance MUST be rewarded... and in the appropriate areas - GE for one - they scored a bit higher than in prelims - MOST APPROPRIATELY - Once those Empire numbers were recorded the rest is history... Hurcs were great but fell slightly ... MBI turned on... MUCH better than prelims... so they move over Empire and Hurcs - oh yeah... Empire had already raised the bar higher... so MBI to be properly ranked and rated got a mighty fine score... Then came Bucs... and most judges saw it clear that they were better than all the others.. what do you do?? give them all the system will allow you to give... it has absolutely NOTHING to do with perfection. Let me make this statement and I've been in this position quite a few times... especially in World Class Winter Guard - but in DCA too - I might contend that the system did not give Bucs a gift but rather short changed them... here's why... I'm quite certain that several of those perfect scores were one or two tenths over the next group. I'm also quite certain that at least some of those judges wished they had another tenth or two to give them... Point being... if you give someone 98 and the next group is 4 tenths better - you can only give them 100 and you just screwed them out of 2 tenths... While it's not a perfect system - as one of the few around who has used a large variety of systems... I can say unequivicably that it's the best we have ever had... suck it up and be proud of the performances of all these wonderful corps... it's only a number You may take your flack jackets off now... You have nailed it, that's exactly what the scoring was all about. I too believe the scoring would have shown a bigger spread between first and second if the judges had had a little more wiggle room Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAFL Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Box 5's description on the sheets is, if I recall correctly, 'consistently' meeting the criteria. So while the individual category might not be perfect, it's meeting the criteria an incredibly high amount of the time. I suppose we could have a Box 5+ with a 'walks on water' description! Allowing for only five grades possible is good for sorting things out on a gross basis--and horrible for sorting things out on a fine basis. When multiple corps can rightly be described as meeting the criteria "consistently" then box 5 does nothing to sort among them. An obvious solution is to double the number of boxes. The box for "consistently" meeting criteria can then become box 7 or 8, and box 10 is reserved for "unwavering in meeting criteria" (or "I didn't see a #### thing wrong"). Thus, all the corps that otherwise would get bunched up in box 5 can now be rated using three or four boxes. Where ratings may range from box 3 to box 5 currently, they'd range from box 4 to box 10, providing a finer look at achievement. Identical ratings for multiple corps in a given sub-caption is just fine. Indeed, identical ratings for multiple corps in a caption is just fine, when it comes down to it. If you have two or three really hot drumlines that all rate the same at the top of the heap--then you've had one hell of a show for drumlines! 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.