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

[Guard-ian]

What he said!

For example, Blue Stars Houdini show. What does a key have to do with it? I for one did not know that it is theorized that the kiss his wife gave him prior to each illusion also was a means of slipping him a key to open the lock.

I heard their staff explaining it to one of the judging panels and one judge saying he'd never heard of that story. A crucial point in their show that might not have been appreciated had they not explained their reasoning.

[soccerguy315]

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.

the judges shouldn't need to see changes in design or increases in execution. Because it shouldn't matter what was done previously. It shouldn't matter to the judge if they go "I know what this was like last week, now it is better." Last week doesn't matter!

[soccerguy315]

What he said!

For example, Blue Stars Houdini show. What does a key have to do with it? I for one did not know that it is theorized that the kiss his wife gave him prior to each illusion also was a means of slipping him a key to open the lock.

I heard their staff explaining it to one of the judging panels and one judge saying he'd never heard of that story. A crucial point in their show that might not have been appreciated had they not explained their reasoning.

if that's a crucial part of the show, don't you think it should be clear? Do they pass out that information to the audience as well?

[supersop]

the judges shouldn't need to see changes in design or increases in execution. Because it shouldn't matter what was done previously. It shouldn't matter to the judge if they go "I know what this was like last week, now it is better." Last week doesn't matter!

But that is not reality. It's the same judges at the same shows over and over and over. Every judge finals week has gotten a viewing of every show they're about to judge at least 5 times. Each time they see it is a measurement of growth and achievement as compared to the last viewing.

Your statement assumes judges should be doing their job in a vacuum with unlimited powers of understanding ............... it's a fallacy.

[supersop]

BTW ... to further my point .. I have about 50 judges tapes over decades of adjudication ... and almost every one of them sites a previous performance ... a change that was recognized ... and segment that is now more clear than the last viewing. It's just a part of the judging process and part of how they derive their numbers. It might not be ideal but it's the reality of the situation.

[TomVV]

What he said!

For example, Blue Stars Houdini show. What does a key have to do with it? I for one did not know that it is theorized that the kiss his wife gave him prior to each illusion also was a means of slipping him a key to open the lock.

I heard their staff explaining it to one of the judging panels and one judge saying he'd never heard of that story. A crucial point in their show that might not have been appreciated had they not explained their reasoning.

If you watch the flags during the ballad, which depicts the romance and partnership between Houdini and his wife, there are multiple (8? 9? 10?) dramatic exchanges of the "key" flag between pairs of guard member.

---tom

[jwillis35]

If this happens at all, and it's not supposed to, it would be during the early stages of the competitive season. The "shock" or surprise of seeing a corps that has been down take the field with a much better product and performance can initially bring a nice result.

As the season progresses, a fair and more competitive approach takes place. After all, it is a competition. The point of the score is to reflect placement (ranking) and competency (rating). Ranking requires that a judge compare the contestants abilities in order to place them appropriately amongst their competitors. Rating requires that the judge assign value (a number) to a specific content area that reflects the corps abilities and deficiencies.

The process is really not easy, so I definitely feel for judges. But as you can see, it would be difficult for a judge to just assign numbers based on how much they like a corps or how good they feel about the show.

[soccerguy315]

But that is not reality. It's the same judges at the same shows over and over and over. Every judge finals week has gotten a viewing of every show they're about to judge at least 5 times. Each time they see it is a measurement of growth and achievement as compared to the last viewing.

Your statement assumes judges should be doing their job in a vacuum with unlimited powers of understanding ............... it's a fallacy.

so you agree that they aren't judging the "now" then... they already have preconceived notions and ideas about what is going to happen.

I agree this is reality. I also agree that it is not ideal.

[supersop]

so you agree that they aren't judging the "now" then... they already have preconceived notions and ideas about what is going to happen.

I agree this is reality. I also agree that it is not ideal.

Agreed. It's impossible to judge "THE NOW" because we're not doing shows based strictly on prerequisites or ordinals. It's not the tick system. The current system and style of judging has no way of judging "THE NOW" until it's finals night. That's just about the only night that ever can happen.

[perc2100]

so you agree that they aren't judging the "now" then... they already have preconceived notions and ideas about what is going to happen.

I agree this is reality. I also agree that it is not ideal.

I'm not quite sure you're understanding.

Say Cadets have a portion in their ballad that doesn't quite make sense to the GE Visual judge. Maybe Cadets are trying to portray a certain meaning that isn't quite coming across as well as possible. The GE Vis judge scores them justly, and comments on the tape supporting his score that he's not getting what Cadets are trying to do. Cadets listen to the tape, their staff realizes they could do a better job conveying the specific intent during the ballad, and they make the necessary changes. The judge sees them again two days later after Cadets have had time to clean a few things and tweak a things. When the ballad is performed, the judge likes the changes and feels Cadets are communicating and conveying their idea much better. Then the judge gives Cadets an improved score because Cadets satisfy the rubric on the sheets better than they did last time the judge saw them.

While judging is mostly about "the now" (if you're not clean you're not getting credit), but as we get later into the season judges will be seeing a show for the third or fourth (or more) time and will have seen/noticed the natural progression of a show: what aspects were tweaked for clarity, what aspects are cleaner and thus read better, etc. As an intelligent, rational person, it would probably be impossible for judges to not take any previous viewing of the show into account when viewing in the now. They will naturally remember what they like about the show, what didn't work, etc. and hope that things are better this time than last. Most times if a corps has a product that is good, and they perform it well, it is to their benefit to see judges multiple times.

But ranking and rating is almost exclusively based on "in the now," and it's natural for judges to take past shows from a season into consideration when judging: when show aspects are cleaner and clearer they read better and thus get more credit.