The tick system from BITD

[drumno5]

Again -

A mistake should be recognized as such.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

Yeah, that's a great platitude, very straightforward and unyeilding- just like the tick system! But what about back in the day, when one execution judge would give a corps a 12.0 and the other guy on the same caption would give them an 8.8 (and it happened more often than you ticksters would like to admit)? If a mistake is a mistake, how can that be? There goes your objectivity...

Many of us cut our teeth in the activity under the watchful eyes and ears of adjudicators with a sharpened pencil at the ready. And the tick system served the activity well in its time, defining excellence and choosing many great champions along the way. But today's shows are too complex; there's way too much going on to be adequately assessed by a guy running around with a clipboard looking for individual errors.

just my $.02 - peace!

Fred O.

Edited January 19, 2010 by drumno5

[lindap]

Yeah that's a great platitude, very straightforward and unyeilding- just like the tick system! But what about back in the day, when one execution judge would give a corps a 12.0 and the other guy on the same caption would give them an 8.8 (and it happened more often than you ticksters would like to admit)? If a mistake is a mistake, how can that be? There goes your objectivity...

Many of us cut our teeth in the activity under the watchful eyes and ears of adjudicators with a sharpened pencil at the ready. And the tick system served the activity well in its time, defining excellence and choosing many great champions along the way. But today's shows are too complex; there's way too much going on to be adequately assessed by a guy running around with a clipboard looking for individual errors.

just my $.02 - peace!

Fred O.

if you're looking at the clipboard; how can you watch or listen?

Edited January 18, 2010 by lindap

[flugelswerebugels]

I have no real preference for either - I marched under the tick system, and we knew what was and was not a tick. However, there's no reason a build-up judge can't give a proper score based on both difficulty and execution. As has been stated here, most keep a mental list of ticks anyway.

What I'd like to hear (maybe from Mr. Peashey?) is, when the new system was designed, did it occur to the designers that corps would be scoring over 99? Is it really possible that several corps have performed shows worthy of being deemed almost perfect? In other words, is this system is working as it was envisioned to work?

[Jeff Ream]

Having had the misfortune to march under both systems as a snare drummer ages ago, IMO, there are a lot of fallacies in this thread.

Tick system was just as subjective

Sorry, I call bs.

As a drummer, standing in the line, when there was a tick, you knew there was a tick. As a drummer, standing in front of a line -- any line, when there was a tick, you knew there was a tick. Listening to tapes while viewing the execution sheets after a show, you might feel like you got bagged by a certain judge or a judge was more lenient with others. However, if there was a mark on the sheet, you generally heard the corresponding tick on the tape.

This notion that there were personal biases i.e. tuning that bastardized the process and results, or that a person's position could heavily impact the scores. Sorry... I don't buy that either.

Were there biases? Probably. But, you had 2 Ex. judges on the field. So, any invidiual bias would be consistent across corps, and the 2 Ex. judges -- provided they were selected appropriately -- would cancel/average out. And, really, we're talking about end of season judging, no? End of season judging when every judge knows where to be, and the panel consists of the best judges with hopefully a good mix.

Was it subjective at all and were the scores impacted as a result? Of course, but not to the degree of possibility a build-up system allows.

Put it this way... when Goodhart stood out in front of the line and marked the sheet, it was a tick.

Does that mean that every judge marked down every tick he/she heard? Definitely not. Yet, if that kind of stuff is happening, it's pretty easy to confirm given the tape.

Tick system did not include build-up

That's false. In the drum caption, it was a combination of the two (see PA/Exp). In fact, in the tuning examples given above, those low tuned lines were generally knocked in the PA/Exp caption, not in ticks.

The activity would not have evolved under the tick system

See '82 Garfield... the Genesis of modern day corps, IMO. I think they'd disagree with that assessment.

Lines today don't play nearly as many notes as those old lines in the '70s/'80s

I'm not sure why I see this quoted so much. I played in some of those referenced lines, won drums in one of 'em, and came close in a few others. Some of 'em played some notes. But, I can't understand how anyone would watch/listen to the stuff these young guys are playing today and come away thinking they're not playing much.

BS! These kids are playing their arses off, extended solo or no extended solo. Nothing's straight... everything's difficult sticking purely for difficulty sake, blind diddle/roll attacks all over the place, ridiculous timing patterns, hybrid rudiments... all on top of absolutely nutty movement.

When I listen to what these kids are playing today, it doesn't remind me of what we used to play in lines back in the day. It reminds me of what we used to play when we broke and went off and rammed on our own. A lot of these books sound like ###### individual solos.

These kids get knocked way too much. IMO, collectively, they're better than we were... and it's not even close. And, they should be... just like 10 years from now, the kids then should be better than the guys playing today. We all build on what came before... natural progress.

Tick system or no tick system.

Tick system is better than build-up

My pref is the combo tick/build up as I think it's much less subjective. Yet, there's a difference between subjective and creative application of a non-subjective system. It's pretty easy "not" to hear a tick, regardless of how concrete it is. Regardless of the system, I think judges will find a way to award those they believe are best. Likewise, the corps that are successful now under a purely subjective system would find a way to be exactly where they are today, regardless of the system.

the problem is, and you don't admit it, is every judge had their own tolerance of what was a tick. you could go back to those days and i guarantee you if you asked 3 different judges, you'd get 3 different answers. I know, i have asked many guys who judged then and judge now.Even they will tell you they like build up better

[Jeff Ream]

I have no real preference for either - I marched under the tick system, and we knew what was and was not a tick. However, there's no reason a build-up judge can't give a proper score based on both difficulty and execution. As has been stated here, most keep a mental list of ticks anyway.

What I'd like to hear (maybe from Mr. Peashey?) is, when the new system was designed, did it occur to the designers that corps would be scoring over 99? Is it really possible that several corps have performed shows worthy of being deemed almost perfect? In other words, is this system is working as it was envisioned to work?

aside from too many visual comments on music tapes, i think the theory is fine.

[SomeOtherJoe]

the problem is, and you don't admit it, is every judge had their own tolerance of what was a tick. you could go back to those days and i guarantee you if you asked 3 different judges, you'd get 3 different answers. I know, i have asked many guys who judged then and judge now.Even they will tell you they like build up better

I don't disagree that different judges allowed diff levels of gray (see, I "do" admit it). However, if one's personal tolerance was consistent across corps, then it shouldn't truly be a problem. Taken a step further, if the panel mix was selected appropriately for Finals, then there's even less room for a problem.

I hope my response didn't come off as advocating the return to the tick... I'm not. It's "my" preference, but who cares. This isn't life or death stuff, it's DC. Kids would adapt regardless of the system.

[SomeOtherJoe]

Thanks for the insight. I marched well after the tick system, and I appreciate the opinions of those who marched back with the tick.

My question:

Having marched under both the tick and build-up, which judging system as a performer did you think was more indicative of your performance? Do you feel like tick was better, since you lived and died by your performance? Of did you appreciate the build-up system better, feeling it was a little bit more forgiving/rewarding?

Personally, I hated the switch... with a passion. Likewise, the majority of drummers I knew hated it as well. And, there "were" a few lines here and there that would have been killed prior to the switch yet did quite well. Keep in mind there "was" build up in the tick sys. Prior to the switch I believe Ex. was worth 12 points, and build-up 8 (but don't quote me on that).

I came from a culture that judged everything based on the number of marks on the sheet. After the switch, the marks meant nothing (and scores ballooned immediately as a result... by about a solid point). So, to be honest, it was actually pretty depressing at the time... but that's a cultural thing.

I suspect folks who marched in the current system might feel the same way about marching under the Tick system. Doesn't necessarily mean right or wrong, or better or worse... just different.

At the end of the day, I thought the folks that should have been on top "were" on top. IMO, you were spot on with your assertion that kids/corps will adapt, regardless of the system, and the successful will continue to succeed.

I know folks are religious about the topic, and, no doubt, I much prefer the combo tick/build-up sys. But, judging turnover is real, and you've got to be practical about being able to handle the churn. If the current sys is easier to teach and ensures more consistent, integral results, then it's a better system.

[tommytimp]

Would Garfield have bagged a perfect 30 in drums if there had been a tick system in 1987?

Of course, some might argue that therey never would have been a show like that in1987 if the tick still existed.

I started marching in 1983. That year and years after (ie before and after the tick) I heard tapes with judges saying "effort appreciated, credit awarded" as well as "effort appreciated, credit not given." So it happened.

[SomeOtherJoe]

Would Garfield have bagged a perfect 30 in drums if there had been a tick system in 1987?

Not a chance... not even close. In fact, I stated that I thought scores were inflated by about a solid point at the top... probably more down through ordinals.

That is, definitely, one thing you lost the moment the switch happened... historical relevance in terms of comparing scores across years.

I'll use my own line as an example (and hopefully some of my older BD brothers won't jump on me for doing so). In '84, I believe we pulled a 19.8... year one of the abolished tick. The prior year, I believe they failed to crack 19... think it was about an 18.9 or so (a bogus score, imo... but I digress:) Now, there's no way '84 was a point better than '83. Not a chance.

In fact, out of the 4 consecutive drum trophy lines from '83 to '86, that '83 line was probably the cleanest out of 'em all. IMO, they were the best of the 4... yet they scored the lowest by a long shot.

The abolishment of the tick system absolutely ballooned scores. But... so what?

[bluecoats88]

I'm not a drummer, but it seemed to me that the Bridgmen had some pretty tight drum lines in the late '70's and early '80's. They weren't "playing it safe", not by drumming blindfolded, or doing the multiple roto-tom solos they invented!

you do know those "blindfolds" were see thru right? Not that it makes what they were playing any less difficult, because those were some meaty books, but they weren't really blindfolded.