Question on scores and judging

[glory]

So the general consensus here is that design drives the score, but how much of that actually figures into the overall score? If corps A had a show that was an 8 in difficulty (out of 10) and Corps B had a show that was a 10 in difficulty and Corps A performed slightly better than Corps B, but Corps B performed extremely well for that difficult of a program, would the judges reward Corps B more with the benefit of the doubt and give a higher score?

Or would Corps A come out on top because they performed better?

BD would win.

HH

[bluecoats88]

The judging rubrics, in regards to design and performance standards, are CONSTANTLY changing: sometimes even from one week to the next. As staff members argue their points on quality of design and/or performance, judges alter their perception on what is and isn't effective and what level of execution clarity is at the upper level.

Critiques no longer occur in DCI from what I understand, so the staff arguing their points to the judges is no longer the case as it was in the past.

[Joe Salvatore]

Critiques no longer occur in DCI from what I understand, so the staff arguing their points to the judges is no longer the case as it was in the past.

Phil, they don't exist as an after performance gripe session as we knew it in our day.

They changed to a before show design session to help judges to better understand the design intent and modifications made.

[Joe Salvatore]

So the general consensus here is that design drives the score, but how much of that actually figures into the overall score? If corps A had a show that was an 8 in difficulty (out of 10) and Corps B had a show that was a 10 in difficulty and Corps A performed slightly better than Corps B, but Corps B performed extremely well for that difficult of a program, would the judges reward Corps B more with the benefit of the doubt and give a higher score?

Or would Corps A come out on top because they performed better?

Bruckner8 Competitive Inertia theory of DCI judging addresses some of what I believe happens.

Also relevant is order of appearance in a show and prior recent head to head results.

It is not often that you find a huge discrepancy of opinion in a given caption among judges (happens but is not a huge pattern of deviation).

So in your example what was the history of say the performance percussion judges the prior 2 nights when Corps A and B were competing head to head. Did Corps A consistently have the same spread of score with Corps B?

I realize the performance of the performers on a given night "should" be evaluated for that particular effort; however, that type of adjudication in a vacuum does not seem to happen as you yourself seem to have also concluded.

Also as others have noted (with few exceptions e.g. Cadets 1987 field percussion perfect score with 2 corps left to perform at finals) judges have to "leave room" to have scores available for better performing corps that will be performing later in a show.

Design absolutely must factor in otherwise we'd get a tasty C chord salute coupled with mark time move forward 4 mark time.

That said, I agree with Jeff that design (IMO) seems to factor too much into the adjudication and so we get shows that require 10+ viewings to understand all of the subtleties. I do appreciate some of the designs but to have all corps attempt designs that are this complex (IMO) fails the fans and performers.

[Bruckner8]

Bruckner8 Competitive Inertia theory of DCI judging addresses some of what I believe happens.

Also relevant is order of appearance in a show and prior recent head to head results.

In BooWorld, performance order doesn't matter.

In RealWorld, everyone knows that it does.

I'll repeat: This doesn't mean the judges are unfair. It only means that we recognize the difficulty of their jobs, and they use whatever information they can to make their jobs easier. Successful corps have learned to work within this framework.

The CI Theory formalizes this process (using Scientific Method: Observation/Data/Hypothesis/Test), and then draws some easily falsifiable conclusions, most notably: No one can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd.

Other people have called it "building credibility" or "earning one's stripes" or "paying your dues."

The first corps to win w/o first coming in 2nd or 3rd will disprove the theory. So it can't be Crown or Bloo, because they've already finished 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Someone that has never been 1st, 2nd or 3rd is going to have to jump from 4th (or lower) to 1st. If the theory is going to be debunked in 2011, it's going to take a win by Boston, Blue Stars, Blue Knights or Glassmen.

Does anyone see that happening, even if one of them finds lightning in a bottle? Just think for a second, how much improvement one of them will have to make, to beat the consistency of the current top 5. Maybe that can happen in BooWorld, but not RealWorld.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Bruckner8

[glory]

...The first corps to win w/o first coming in 2nd or 3rd will disprove the theory. So it can't be Crown or Bloo, because they've already finished 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Someone that has never been 1st, 2nd or 3rd is going to have to jump from 4th (or lower) to 1st. If the theory is going to be debunked in 2011, it's going to take a win by Boston, Blue Stars, Blue Knights or Glassmen...

As I've said before, I accept the CI theory to the extent that the process awards its ultimate prize in general to corps who have established their credibility.

After that, CI isn't so simple to apply. Take SCV as an example. SCV hasn't finished in the top three since a third in 2004, it's best (only) CI placement in more than a decade. I'd argue Vanguard doesn't have CI at this point. If SCV were to win next year having placed no higher than fifth since 2004, the CI explanation would seem a stretch, wouldn't it? What's the time limit on CI? Surely Madison doesn't have it today any more than Star or Kingsmen would if they return. Bluecoats could easily loose their CI/credibility if they finished sixth or lower for the next few years.

There is another variable. It is entirely possible in any given year that BD, Cadets and Cavies could all choose clunker programs. Think about it. Dance Derby (BD 05), Zone II (Cadets 06) and Billy Joel (Cavies 07) happened in three years but might easily have landed in just one. If all three throw out clunkers next year, a Bluecoats or Crown victory might not actually prove CI.

HH

[Bruckner8]

(snip)

Take SCV as an example. SCV hasn't finished in the top three since a third in 2004, it's best (only) CI placement in more than a decade. I'd argue Vanguard doesn't have CI at this point.

SCV has an entirely new brass staff, one that is completely in line with CI, having won brass titles at Cavaliers.

SCV has Rennick, including all of the vets from 2010. Another proven commodity.

SCV still has Poulan and Webber. Consistency is also one of the observations of CI.

SCV has plenty of CI. It's totally within the realm of possibility that they win soon.

Now I'm not even sure if you were being serious...

[corpsband]

The CI Theory formalizes this process (using Scientific Method: Observation/Data/Hypothesis/Test), and then draws some easily falsifiable conclusions, most notably: Now one can win without first coming in 2nd or 3rd.

Don't get too carried away. You've created a nice vocabulary that people can generally agree to use.

Data?

I'm still waiting for the www.ci.info site with actual numbers for the current and historical "CI index" of every corps to appear.

You have a very nice theory.

Edited January 4, 2011 by corpsband

[dcialumni1989]

SCV has an entirely new brass staff, one that is completely in line with CI, having won brass titles at Cavaliers.

SCV has Rennick, including all of the vets from 2010. Another proven commodity.

SCV still has Poulan and Webber. Consistency is also one of the observations of CI.

SCV has plenty of CI. It's totally within the realm of possibility that they win soon.

Now I'm not even sure if you were being serious...

The only thing I agree with in here is your statement about Rennick. He has not only proven he can win, but he has proven he can win when the rest of the corps is nowhere close to being a championship contender in their respective captions (see 2010).

The SCV brass staff is not the exact same brass staff from the years of dominance. Mainly the caption head is missing (David Bertman). The later years in Bertman's time with The Cavaliers he spent less and less time with the corps and in those years they finished lower in brass each year. Typically, the corps finished lower in horns than they did overall. IN 2007 the corps took 3rd overall, but 5th in brass. In 2008, the corps took third overall and 4th in brass. In 2009, the corps took 4th overall and 5th in brass. As a matter of fact, the only years that the corps won brass were the years where the corps won overall (2002 & 2006). So, that whole brass team in place has only shown me that they can consistently place lower than the rest of the corps and can only win their caption when the whole corps wins. Now I am sure these guys will be fine, but they are not really proven (YET) like Matt Harloff, Gino Cipriani, Wayne Downey, & John Meehan. BUT, Jeff Feidler understands the importance of staff consistency (i think) and these guys will get time to prove themselves.

As far as Weber and Poulan go, I have never seen any show that they have written that can be considered of championship calibre. The best shows for them IMO were 2004 and 2009 (a third place show and a fourth place show). I also thought that 2006 was a great show, but it was not a championship calibre program. Both of them are very good designers, but they have not shown that they can put together a program that can win and without that, you have no chance.

[roosevelt]

Just a small question on how exactly corps are judged - Lets say hypothetically, that this year's top 12 corps played their programs completely and utterly perfectly. Every rifle was caught, every move was in time, every page of drill was perfect, and every note was played completely in tune and with the most balanced sound and with the perfect intonation... ect ect.

What would happen with placement/scores? Would the scores become based purely off of the program design/difficulty? I only say this because it is just ridiculous how good the top 5 (and to a lesser extent all the corps) are every year. Owning the DVD's and having watched every corps multiple times it just astounds me how clean and balanced their shows are.

Im not trying to start any "Corps X was soooo much better than Corps Y" here, but there has to be a point where corps become so good that the judging gets, well, funky. Looking at Bluecoats, Cavaliers, and Blue Devils, I honestly have no clue how the Devils took the colorguard caption, and if bluecoats took it, I wouldnt have a clue how they got it either because all three of them had just fantastic colorguards.

Any enlightenment?

It is all about achievement. It is not so much about perfection, but about what and how much is achieved. If a corps has an easy show and plays it perfectly and another corps has a difficult show and performs it very well (reasonably close to perfection) and the more difficult show will get more credit because more was achieved. Now, if a corps has a really difficult show and they can't do it then very little is achieved an the cleaner corps will win.

There is a saying in the judging community that "you can't argue with clean" and that is very true. BUT you have to take into account the what, the how, and the how much in the equation. Typically the blue devils don't have the most difficult shows, but they are miraculously clean. Conversely, you have groups like the cavaliers and the cadets who typically do have really really difficult shows, but have noticeable flaws. BD wins more often because they are usually much cleaner, but the years where the cadets or the cavaliers are pretty close to (or are on par with) the blue devils, they are pretty tough to beat.