The tick system from BITD

[jordsterr]

OK, so remember, I'm a drummer (I can hear "Oh, THAT explains it!"). A diddle is a diddle. There's no fudginess about it. If the execution across the line is out of time it will be mushy. If the judge is in front of a player who's faking it and never touches the head the GE judges may never know, but the tick judge would. The BU judge may say "No harm, still sounds clean." But a tick judge would knock off a tick for the faker.

LOL. I'ne heard hundreds of (ostensibly) build up tapes. I can tell you that no qualified judge has ever given groups I teach credit for having fakers. In fact, just the opposite is true. Big or small, if I've got fakers on the field and a field judge catches them, it really doens't matter what system they use...we get a ding.

The honest truth is that the eventual winner would probably win in either system because the people who are best at playing the game will still figure out the game. And truthfully, I've never seen anybody in build up system try something new and get credit for trying. If they pull it off, they get credit. If they don't, no one really talks about it. And to be clear, if a drum corps tries something different and ends up fifth place in the world, by any standard that's still going to have to be considered successful. So yes, the buidl up system works for ground breakers but only if they pul it off. I'm glad Phantom felt free to try Spartacus. If they hadn't won, I still think it would be what people talk about.

[84BDsop]

The punative nature of the tick (start with a score of 100 and take deductions) DID make corps prior to 1983 play the same song multiple times (repeated tunes from year to year was very common...83 BD was a HUGE rehash of the 82 show, for example)...it allowed the corps vets to further perfect charts they knew (with occasional modifications). It was safe...the really snazzy stuff generally didn't happen until the 11:30 gun...after which ticks didn't matter (fortunately for 82 SCV!).

The scoring change starting in 84 was what allowed corps to expand to more ambitious programs (although Garfield didn't wait for the change, really....witness teh 83 show). Had we stayed on the tick, many of the shows in teh last couple of decades would never have seen the light of day.

[garfield]

From the prior two posts:

And truthfully, I've never seen anybody in build up system try something new and get credit for trying.

and

The scoring change starting in 84 was what allowed corps to expand to more ambitious programs

Don't they contradict?

And if Garfield was able to expand to a more ambitious program prior to "the change", who says the expansion wouldn't have continued without eliminating ticks?

And, really, isn't it kind of hard to say what would have been? Kind of tuff to tell, isn't it?

[IllianaLancerContra]

Again -

A mistake should be recognized as such.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

[ItsOnTheField]

Again -

A mistake should be recognized as such.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

What are the parameters of "right" and "wrong" ?

[IllianaLancerContra]

What are the parameters of "right" and "wrong" ?

A crooked line that is supposed to be straight is wrong.

Horn angles that are not consistent are wrong.

Uneven intervals within a set are wrong.

etc.

[dcsnare93]

From the prior two posts:

and

Don't they contradict?

And if Garfield was able to expand to a more ambitious program prior to "the change", who says the expansion wouldn't have continued without eliminating ticks?

And, really, isn't it kind of hard to say what would have been? Kind of tuff to tell, isn't it?

Taken in full context

And truthfully, I've never seen anybody in build up system try something new and get credit for trying. If they pull it off, they get credit. If they don't, no one really talks about it.

So, no. Not really a contradiction. No one explicitly said credit was being given for simply taking a risk. Instead, corps were given a bit more room to try these more ambitious shows without being ticked to death, though that doesn't necessarily mean they were rewarded (e.g., scored higher than their competitors) for doing so either.

Edited January 17, 2010 by dcsnare93

[dbc03]

A crooked line that is supposed to be straight is wrong.

Horn angles that are not consistent are wrong.

Uneven intervals within a set are wrong.

etc.

Is this not happening now?

[tommyfromhowardst]

I always felt that a system that incorporated both a give and a take away would be a fair assessment--give points where due and take away as needed. Balance.

[ItsOnTheField]

A crooked line that is supposed to be straight is wrong.

Horn angles that are not consistent are wrong.

Uneven intervals within a set are wrong.

etc.

The last 2 are obvious, but how do you know a crooked line isnt the way it was written without having the drill charts in front of you? Do judges need to have drill and scores in front of them, too?

Kind of being devils advocate here, but the tick system only seems to address "big picture" concepts and not details and specifics that go into the production.

There seem to be so many variables that the tick system does not take into consideration. It's very black and white in an activity that isn't.