Do judges reward corps who are much stronger than the previous season?

[theCHEZman]

If two corps are competitively close, do judges inadvertently reward the corps who has made dramatic improvements from

the year before? Any examples where you can argue this may have or is happening?

[taters]

having spoke to judges this is not supposed to be the case. They are supposed to adjudicate purely on "The Now" however one cannot account for bias and perception that creeps in. It is after all the great unknown.

[contrajedi8]

I think to an extent, yes. Look at the Madison Scouts for example. They are drastically better than last year. Hence, they are in 10th-11th place right now. Last year at this time, they were scratching to make Friday night.

[perc2100]

I think to an extent, yes. Look at the Madison Scouts for example. They are drastically better than last year. Hence, they are in 10th-11th place right now. Last year at this time, they were scratching to make Friday night.

But Scouts have also been better than their competition from last year. Judges don't arbitrarily think, "wow; Scouts are a lot better than last year, so they MUST be Top 10 this year!" They rank/rate based on a) the rubric on the sheets and b) their competition.

Of course, "Scouts being better than last year" probably means that they are better than some of their competition (it would be difficult to be better than last year without being better placement/score-wise than previously as well). Obviously EVERYONE could be better than last year thus leaving Scouts on the outside looking in.

But generally, judges rank/rate based on the immediate performance(s) at any given show, and no in any way based on improvement from one year to the next.

[theCHEZman]

But Scouts have also been better than their competition from last year. Judges don't arbitrarily think, "wow; Scouts are a lot better than last year, so they MUST be Top 10 this year!" They rank/rate based on a) the rubric on the sheets and b) their competition.

Of course, "Scouts being better than last year" probably means that they are better than some of their competition (it would be difficult to be better than last year without being better placement/score-wise than previously as well). Obviously EVERYONE could be better than last year thus leaving Scouts on the outside looking in.

But generally, judges rank/rate based on the immediate performance(s) at any given show, and no in any way based on improvement from one year to the next.

I guess my question is, if all else being the same, for instance, lets say Glassmen (2009 finalist) and Madison (16th?), is there a tendency at the end of the season for judges to be abit more generous since Madison really kicked it up this year vs a group that has not really gotten any better ALL ELSE BEING THE SAME BETWEEN

THE TWO CORPS. (im using Madison/Glassmen as an example, not saying Glassmen aren"t good etc).

[perc2100]

I guess my question is, if all else being the same, for instance, lets say Glassmen (2009 finalist) and Madison (16th?), is there a tendency at the end of the season for judges to be abit more generous since Madison really kicked it up this year vs a group that has not really gotten any better ALL ELSE BEING THE SAME BETWEEN

THE TWO CORPS. (im using Madison/Glassmen as an example, not saying Glassmen aren"t good etc).

I would think if all else is exactly the same between the corps, Glassmen has been remarkably consistent the last several years in their ability to be clean enough to be finalists: Madison has not. From my experience, judges are more willing to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the corps who have proven consistent higher-caliber execution/design. Judges have said before that if execution is exactly the same between one corps and the next they would be more likely to give the nod to the corps with what the judge perceives as the most difficult book.

But ALL things being equal I personally think that a judge would be more likely to reward consistency, and might think, "Madison coming in 13th is better than the last couple of years, but they need to prove to me they're good enough to be in Finals before I bump another proven finalist out of Saturday's show."

[ElSuarez]

I would think if all else is exactly the same between the corps, Glassmen has been remarkably consistent the last several years in their ability to be clean enough to be finalists: Madison has not. From my experience, judges are more willing to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the corps who have proven consistent higher-caliber execution/design. Judges have said before that if execution is exactly the same between one corps and the next they would be more likely to give the nod to the corps with what the judge perceives as the most difficult book.

But ALL things being equal I personally think that a judge would be more likely to reward consistency, and might think, "Madison coming in 13th is better than the last couple of years, but they need to prove to me they're good enough to be in Finals before I bump another proven finalist out of Saturday's show."

Well I would hope that a judge would always give the nod to the corps that had the more difficult (or more depth of design) between two groups that had the exact same level of execution.

[supersop]

In yesteryear, it usually took half a season before a corps who was markedly improved to get the credit they deserved ..... this required consistant improvement and polish ... and the old touring schedule offered alot more head to head with the same corps for 1st tour. I recall 1989 specifically .... Bluecoats had a very fine hornline but didn't get it's credit until the beginning of 2nd tour when they finally pulled ahead of Scouts hornline and remained ahead the rest of the season. This is a middle of the pack example but it speaks to the OP's question.

I think when you're looking at the corps beating it out for the top 3 in early season ..... we've come to an age where 7 or 8 corps have proven within the past 5 years that they can knock one out of the park. So anything goes and anyone who is bringing it can get early credit where they wouldn't have in the past. I would say this could finally be the year where you will see 3 corps who are normally in the 5-7 slots bumping into the top 3 and a new champion emerging. It's taken several years to get to this point but there were glimpses of this happening in the past couple years with Coats drumline and hornline ... and then Crown knocking down a top 3 spot last year.

Moving up in DCI is a VERY long process .... whether credit is deserved at an earlier time or not truly is the bigger question. At least for now .... the new kids are ruling the school and I applaud the judges for sticking to their guns. Doesn't mean they'll end up top 3 ... but they're being given their chance right now ... so the kids better take it and run with it or they might not see the opportunity again for another 5-10 years.

[soccerguy315]

having spoke to judges this is not supposed to be the case. They are supposed to adjudicate purely on "The Now" however one cannot account for bias and perception that creeps in. It is after all the great unknown.

the fact that the judges need multiple viewings and the corps staff has to explain the shows during critique do not lend well to the view that the judges are coming up with their number in "the now"

[supersop]

the fact that the judges need multiple viewings and the corps staff has to explain the shows during critique do not lend well to the view that the judges are coming up with their number in "the now"

I've seen this point in several threads about having to explain a show. The fact of the matter is, it has always been this way. Explaining portions of a show and the intent of the design is in an effort to elicit help and outside opinions on how to make the design better in order to generate the intent or effect at a higher level. We're not talking about libretto's here ... just the finer points of sub segments of a particular show. Multiple viewings are always needed in order to see the changes in design or the increase in execution of the intent/design.

Given that ... judging "THE NOW" falls back to execution and questioning the intent. If it's clear it's rewarded. If it's not, then it falls into question and that affects the box scoring (or at least it should). However, if execution is already at a high level but the segment still isn't working from a design standpoint, that's not always clear to the judges .................. because they don't get it yet. Critique is a wonderful thing if used properly..... even for the best designers in the world. If they don't get it, then t he judge should be offering up advise and will look to find corrections or adjustments at the next viewing and reward if applicable.

Again, point overused and under-supported. Critique and explaining ones self is critical at this stage of the season. End of story.