Bob Cole Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 One of the advantages of having been a member of a "hotdog corps" when I was a kid was the fact that we didn't care one bit about the tick system. Quite honestly, my Jr. corps considered itself blessed above all others when we began with 100 points and managed to retain 19 of them by the time we arrived at the opposite side of the field! If There would have been a "build-up" system in place, in those days, well then we would have prayed to all that was holy that the judges gave us credit for tying our shoelaces correctly!When human beings are part of the system, just about EVERYTHING is subjective. When you lose a game or a contest, you have to live with it. When you win, you have to live with that too. and you have to live with the derision from the guy who placed just below you. LOL!!! The first place corps is happy... because they won! The tenth place corps is happy too.... because they made it into the night show. Everyone ELSE ...... has "issues"! Please take none of the above seriously. It's very late and I am tired and old. As a public service, I have attempted to inject a bit of humour into this thread. And now: Back to the debate at hand Amen! Judging is subjective and corps have good days and bad days. Some corps are just better than others. And, many fans will always disagree with the final placements. That's just the nature of the sport. When I was DM of my old corps I used to hear members #####in about "pre-judging" after every show. "We got screwed" and "the judges were out to get us." Finally I got sick of keeping my mouth shut and blew up at them all one day. I told them, if you think you're "getting screwed" EVERY WEEK than you're the ones with the problem... not the judges! If you don't like the judging, then go out there next week and put on a show SO #### GOOD that the judges HAVE to give you a good score. If they don't, then the audience will boo them off the field. And, do that EVERY WEEK and, sooner or or later, they will HAVE to give you the good scores. Own up to your own problems and quit blaming them on everyone else! If you don't like your scores every week, then GET BETTER! After that, many people began to buckle down at practice and scores started to rise! Gee... what a surprise! Judging is subjective... always will be. But, the judges are honest and do their best within the system they have. Corps are out there to entertain the people, compete with others in their sport, and have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cole Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 "Perfection":"IF" and it's a mighty big "IF" the much maligned "Tick System" we resurectedby DCI , the "Execution" scores would most likely plummet. As a result the overall "Feelgood" stratospheric numbers of the competitors would also head south, and "Reality" would kick in. It would not "Look As Good" to "Win" with 89+ as it does with a 98+. Being a very old witch, and a "Fossil" I well remember Blessed Sacrament and the Chicago Cavaliers winning "Nationals" with numbers that nowhere nearly approached the fantasyland tallies of today. The "90" that the 1961 Undefeated Chicago Cavaliers tallied at VFW Nationals was seen as "Unreal". I also remember the old Connecticut Hurricanes winning DCA in 1969 with a 79+. A very far cry from the "99" Reading was awarded this season past. Just an old witch ranting. Elphaba WWW Keep on ranting Elphaba! I agree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairbear Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 A little full of yourself, aren't you Tom?I'm happy you have all these "credentials." It's too bad all the fans mean nothing to you. That's one problem I have always had with "some" corps. Some seem to be performing for the judges and ignoring the audience. At least it seems that way to me. But, my opinion must not count for much. I'm just a long time marching member and fan. I pay for the tickets to go see the shows and support my local corps (and other musical organizations). I obviously don't have all your "credentials." By the way, I would also like to see some combination of the "buildup" form of judging, along with some return of the "tick". Although I also marched in the old "tick" days, I wouldn't want to see those dark ages come back. But, some additional emphasis on execution would be my preference. Judge the corps on their musicality, but also recognize execution. Now just a minute here... Tom is not "full of himself".. that was out of line! Tom simply has a substantial amount of experience dealing with the subject being debated. And to say that He doesn't consider the fans is way off base! DCA is "fan oriented" always has been always will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsksun4 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 "Perfection":"IF" and it's a mighty big "IF" the much maligned "Tick System" we resurectedby DCI , the "Execution" scores would most likely plummet. As a result the overall "Feelgood" stratospheric numbers of the competitors would also head south, and "Reality" would kick in. It would not "Look As Good" to "Win" with 89+ as it does with a 98+. Being a very old witch, and a "Fossil" I well remember Blessed Sacrament and the Chicago Cavaliers winning "Nationals" with numbers that nowhere nearly approached the fantasyland tallies of today. The "90" that the 1961 Undefeated Chicago Cavaliers tallied at VFW Nationals was seen as "Unreal". I also remember the old Connecticut Hurricanes winning DCA in 1969 with a 79+. A very far cry from the "99" Reading was awarded this season past. Just an old witch ranting. Elphaba WWW BRAVO! This is so true. The 1965 Chicago Royal-Airs won the AL Nat's with an 84.510. This was a SUPER CORPS from that era. And that title was won on August 22. late in the season when they were super polished. While with the Sunrisers, we took second at DCA's in 68 with an 80.116. And that was on September 1st. If you scored above 93 back in the tick system, people would have had heart attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Matczak Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 BRAVO! This is so true. The 1965 Chicago Royal-Airs won the AL Nat's with an 84.510. This was a SUPER CORPS from that era. And that title was won on August 22. late in the season when they were super polished.While with the Sunrisers, we took second at DCA's in 68 with an 80.116. And that was on September 1st. If you scored above 93 back in the tick system, people would have had heart attacks. Yes, but back in the real old days,.............at AL Nats in 1936, Erie took 30th place out of 54, with a score of 89.20,.............Commonwealth scored a 94.80 to win it....................I'm pretty sure it was a tic system then also,............the last place score was just over 80,................54 corps spread over less than 15 points,................or something.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donincardona Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes, but back in the real old days,.............at AL Nats in 1936, Erie took 30th place out of 54, with a score of 89.20,.............Commonwealth scored a 94.80 to win it....................I'm pretty sure it was a tic system then also,............the last place score was just over 80,................54 corps spread over less than 15 points,................or something.............. i always wondered how they got high scores like that back in those day's. even in the 50's. how did they judge them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Matczak Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 i always wondered how they got high scores like that back in those day's. even in the 50's. how did they judge them? I have an Erie Cadets scrapbook from the era, and it includes photos from inspections, and mentions tics in some of the photo captions,..................I'll have to pull it out and look for some sheets,.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsksun4 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes, but back in the real old days,.............at AL Nats in 1936, Erie took 30th place out of 54, with a score of 89.20,.............Commonwealth scored a 94.80 to win it....................I'm pretty sure it was a tic system then also,............the last place score was just over 80,................54 corps spread over less than 15 points,................or something.............. It was a tight race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melligene Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes, but back in the real old days,.............at AL Nats in 1936, Erie took 30th place out of 54, with a score of 89.20,.............Commonwealth scored a 94.80 to win it....................I'm pretty sure it was a tic system then also,............the last place score was just over 80,................54 corps spread over less than 15 points,................or something.............. KUDO'S to the Judges (back then) "Ticking" before the invention of the pencil HAD to be difficult Seriously folks........a member of the Erie Cadets (Mr. Jim McMichael) is still around. Great sop. player and also played with the Northeast Shoreliners and the Meadville/Erie Thunderbirds for many years. Gotta be in his early '80s or close to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsksun4 Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 i always wondered how they got high scores like that back in those day's. even in the 50's. how did they judge them? Don, You have to factor into account, the music was a tad easier to play back then. In the 30's half the corps played "Chop Sticks" for an OTL. It wasn't out of place to hear "A Hundred Bottles of Beer On the Wall" for concert. Just sayin.......... 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.