judges

[littlebirdy]

That's why there are captions. A judge should have no memory when judging a corps. Report what you see, no more, no less. GE is probably the most subjective category but, again, can be more consistent. If it takes bringing the old system back, then so be it.

But again, you NEED numbers management. Imagine if at Finals judges really did reset after each show and judged without numbers management. By the time the 3rd to last corps come on, the judge may say "Hey, that was nearly flawless. They achieved everything they need to. 10 in both sub captions!" Then, the next corps comes out: "Hey, they were even better. Well, I already gave a 10 in both sub-captions. I guess they get perfect 10s as well."

Now the last corps comes out. They are better than my first example, but worse than my second. What do you do? You HAVE to give them a 10. They weren't perfect, because they were LESS perfect than the corps right before them, yet the two corps score the same.

This is why judges leave room. They need spaces in case a corps is better. If a corps isn't better, than no one scores higher and the corps wins. Yay for them! Any time a judge has given a perfect 10 in a caption, it is because they believe that there is no way a corps could be better. The corps doesn't have to be completely and totally without flaw, but it would certainly help. They just have to be undeniably better than the other corps.

[Ed from Kansas]

What I'd like to see happen is more awareness of what the crowd is indicating. If there is a noticeable, tangible reaction from the audience, note it and give it the credit it deserves. You don't have to have a doctorate in music or art to know what "effect" means. It's visceral. You sense it with your eyes and ears, but you feel it in your gut when you witness something that moves you. Our audience is pretty knowledgeable. Judges shouldn't discount (or ignore) what is happening in the seats in front, and sometimes behind, them.

And I agree with many others that there is NO room for bias in this activity. If you can't set your personal connections aside, then it's time to step away. You CAN'T let personal bias affect the numbers you assign to any group.

Garry in Vegas

Couldn't agree with you more.

[ShortAndFast]

But again, you NEED numbers management. Imagine if at Finals judges really did reset after each show and judged without numbers management. By the time the 3rd to last corps come on, the judge may say "Hey, that was nearly flawless. They achieved everything they need to. 10 in both sub captions!" Then, the next corps comes out: "Hey, they were even better. Well, I already gave a 10 in both sub-captions. I guess they get perfect 10s as well."

Now the last corps comes out. They are better than my first example, but worse than my second. What do you do? You HAVE to give them a 10. They weren't perfect, because they were LESS perfect than the corps right before them, yet the two corps score the same.

This is why judges leave room. They need spaces in case a corps is better. If a corps isn't better, than no one scores higher and the corps wins. Yay for them! Any time a judge has given a perfect 10 in a caption, it is because they believe that there is no way a corps could be better. The corps doesn't have to be completely and totally without flaw, but it would certainly help. They just have to be undeniably better than the other corps.

It's also why you pretty much have to win Semis to have a chance at a 10 at Finals - few judges would back themselves into the corner littlebirdy describes by giving a 10 before they've seen the top-seeded group.

[Liahona]

Wait, what? 2003? Actually, try 1999 when SCV and BD tied.... because since then we've seen just the Cavaliers, Blue Devils, Cadets, and Phantom (4).

And since 1991 when SOI won (19 seasons!), we've seen just 5 different champions.

Not arguing to or for the judging point, as I could write a novel about it, but just wanted to clarify your point.

What causes this non-parity in the judging system then? Perhaps those groups are JUST THAT DARN GOOD.

[ContraFart]

make me a judge so I can give Teal perfect scores for the awesome guitar playing

[Ed from Kansas]

But again, you NEED numbers management. Imagine if at Finals judges really did reset after each show and judged without numbers management. By the time the 3rd to last corps come on, the judge may say "Hey, that was nearly flawless. They achieved everything they need to. 10 in both sub captions!" Then, the next corps comes out: "Hey, they were even better. Well, I already gave a 10 in both sub-captions. I guess they get perfect 10s as well."

Now the last corps comes out. They are better than my first example, but worse than my second. What do you do? You HAVE to give them a 10. They weren't perfect, because they were LESS perfect than the corps right before them, yet the two corps score the same.

This is why judges leave room. They need spaces in case a corps is better. If a corps isn't better, than no one scores higher and the corps wins. Yay for them! Any time a judge has given a perfect 10 in a caption, it is because they believe that there is no way a corps could be better. The corps doesn't have to be completely and totally without flaw, but it would certainly help. They just have to be undeniably better than the other corps.

This is a ridiculous example. It couldn't or wouldn't happen. Look at the history of drum corps back to the 1950's. In those days a 75 had a chance of winning. Maybe I don't give judges much credit, but I give them a heck of a lot more than that. Numbers management is absolutely another name for slotting.

[littlebirdy]

This is a ridiculous example. It couldn't or wouldn't happen. Look at the history of drum corps back to the 1950's. In those days a 75 had a chance of winning. Maybe I don't give judges much credit, but I give them a heck of a lot more than that. Numbers management is absolutely another name for slotting.

Umm... tic system? It was a whole different judging sheet. Different points awarded for different actions with different caption arrangements and entirely different productions on the field. Year-to-year comparison has absolutely no bearing in drum corps.

Good job revealing your age, though

Edited July 25, 2010 by littlebirdy

[Lord Denning]

This is a ridiculous example. It couldn't or wouldn't happen. Look at the history of drum corps back to the 1950's. In those days a 75 had a chance of winning. Maybe I don't give judges much credit, but I give them a heck of a lot more than that. Numbers management is absolutely another name for slotting.

This is a ridiculous response.

[AlexL]

Phantom going all over the place in the past few years is a great example of slotting.

They didn't drop from 1st to 9th in one year because there was a marked difference in the quality of their show. It was a conspiracy to get Crown into the top 3 and keep them there this year.

Actually, it WAS a great example of slotting. Not based on finals scores, but look at their scores early in the season. Judges put them right up there with the top 5, when they had no business being there with the design they had at the beginning of the season.

[Lance]

Actually, it WAS a great example of slotting. Not based on finals scores, but look at their scores early in the season. Judges put them right up there with the top 5, when they had no business being there with the design they had at the beginning of the season.

Phantom's huge strength in music captions kept them ahead of Boston and Blue Stars for a little while there. By the first week of July, both of those corps had closed the gap considerably thanks to the relative strength of their visual produts to Phantom...by the 2nd week, both had pulled ahead of Phantom.

And Phantom never beat any of the eventual 5 in H2H competition.