Jump to content

grand prix


Recommended Posts

People can have a show that's a worse run than their last one for a lot of reasons. Jeff's spot on. I think people expect growth every week- but if you want growth, you have to EARN it. Something that some people miss the boat on.

I think you all missed the point on what I said. I wasn't comparing the scores to last week's show...I was comparing them to WILDWOOD, the FIRST show of the year. If you can tell me honestly that Sunrisers music ensemble were 27 points WORSE this weekend than in Wildwood, then I can buy your "earned" argument. That's a different BOX, not just number. Same with Windsor's 13 point drop from their very first show to this one. Same with Fusion's 17 point drop from their first show to this one.

If you want to tell me that Bucs and Cabs music ensemble presentations were better in Wildwood, their first show, than they were here, then by all means do so. That would indeed explain the drop in scores.

However, given that the music ensemble caption is rather new, my guess is that judges are still trying to figure it out and that the corps numbers, especially the smaller corps, could continue to wildly fluctuate. In an activity where composite scores determine prelims placement, this is a legit concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can have a show that's a worse run than their last one for a lot of reasons. Jeff's spot on. I think people expect growth every week- but if you want growth, you have to EARN it. Something that some people miss the boat on.

At each show there has been a different Music Ensemble Judge. So no mater if the Corps improves or not the "new judge" does not have any reference to what the Corps did at their past shows.

Plus I'm glad to see that the judge or judges are not looking at recaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scores are RELATIVE..relative to each other. There is a certain amount of weekly "creeping" that seems to be applied across the board. However, the first corps on the field gets a score from each judge. Assuming the judges cannot go back and adjust that score, each corps that performs on the field after the first corps gets a score that is relative to all other corps that have already performed.

This explains how, I think at 2009 finals, the first corps (Vigilanties???) had a smoking HOT drum line, resulting downstream in the Bucs scoring 99+

the better the FIRST corps performs, the higher ALL scores will be. Plus, if there is any gap between the initial corps and the top corps (Bucs, Hurcs, Cabs), the scores become disjointed from each other and the initial corps score lower than Wldwood, while the top three score higher.... This is NOT ticks..this is relativity (which is sometimes confusing even to Einstein). It (the gap) will close again when the Kilties, MBI, Renegades, CV, Alliamce, etc.... fill in a full contest line up.

Joe in NJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you all missed the point on what I said. I wasn't comparing the scores to last week's show...I was comparing them to WILDWOOD, the FIRST show of the year. If you can tell me honestly that Sunrisers music ensemble were 27 points WORSE this weekend than in Wildwood, then I can buy your "earned" argument. That's a different BOX, not just number. Same with Windsor's 13 point drop from their very first show to this one. Same with Fusion's 17 point drop from their first show to this one.

If you want to tell me that Bucs and Cabs music ensemble presentations were better in Wildwood, their first show, than they were here, then by all means do so. That would indeed explain the drop in scores.

However, given that the music ensemble caption is rather new, my guess is that judges are still trying to figure it out and that the corps numbers, especially the smaller corps, could continue to wildly fluctuate. In an activity where composite scores determine prelims placement, this is a legit concern.

actually, they could be. if they hadnewer material on the field that was shaky, as well as loss of rehearsal time on older stuff to get newer stuff on the field, well yes, they can go down.

we hear all this boo hoo slotting stuff,and complaining people dont judge the show of the day...well guess what?? this judge did just that. as a result,the numbers on his sheet went down.

i mean ya cant haveour cake and eat it too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, they could be. if they hadnewer material on the field that was shaky, as well as loss of rehearsal time on older stuff to get newer stuff on the field, well yes, they can go down.

we hear all this boo hoo slotting stuff,and complaining people dont judge the show of the day...well guess what?? this judge did just that. as a result,the numbers on his sheet went down.

i mean ya cant haveour cake and eat it too

No fair, you had cake? :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your theory doesn't hold up to the scores of the last 6 seasons. If so, the Buccaneers would have scores about a 101.5 in 2007. Personally, I think that Reading scored a 99+ in 2009 because they were the best corps that DCA has ever seen. I saw that show live and was blown away, and I can say that I haven't always felt that way about them (although I usually do). I doubt it had very much to do with the first score of the evening, which actually was the lowest of all 6 years that Reading has won DCA's.

2005 Finals - Lowest score= 77.450 Alliance ; Highest score= 98.450 Buccaneers ; Differemce= 21.000

2006 Finals - Lowest score= 76.113 So Cal Dream ; Highest score= 97.238 Buccaneers ; Difference= 21.125

2007 Finals - Lowest score= 82.513 SoCal Dream ; Highest score= 98.313 Buccaneers ; Difference= 15.800

2008 Finals - Lowest score= 77.438 SoCal Dream ; Highest score= 97.913 Buccaneers ; Difference= 20.475

2009 Finals - Lowest score= 76.063 Carolina Gold ; Highest score= 99.025 Buccaneers ; Difference= 22.962

2010 Finals - Lowest score= 81.013 Govenaires ; Highest score= 98.263 Buccaneers ; Difference= 17.250

Scores are RELATIVE..relative to each other. There is a certain amount of weekly "creeping" that seems to be applied across the board. However, the first corps on the field gets a score from each judge. Assuming the judges cannot go back and adjust that score, each corps that performs on the field after the first corps gets a score that is relative to all other corps that have already performed.

This explains how, I think at 2009 finals, the first corps (Vigilanties???) had a smoking HOT drum line, resulting downstream in the Bucs scoring 99+

the better the FIRST corps performs, the higher ALL scores will be. Plus, if there is any gap between the initial corps and the top corps (Bucs, Hurcs, Cabs), the scores become disjointed from each other and the initial corps score lower than Wldwood, while the top three score higher.... This is NOT ticks..this is relativity (which is sometimes confusing even to Einstein). It (the gap) will close again when the Kilties, MBI, Renegades, CV, Alliamce, etc.... fill in a full contest line up.

Joe in NJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your theory doesn't hold up to the scores of the last 6 seasons. If so, the Buccaneers would have scores about a 101.5 in 2007. Personally, I think that Reading scored a 99+ in 2009 because they were the best corps that DCA has ever seen. I saw that show live and was blown away, and I can say that I haven't always felt that way about them (although I usually do). I doubt it had very much to do with the first score of the evening, which actually was the lowest of all 6 years that Reading has won DCA's.

<snip>

2009 Finals - Lowest score= 76.063 Carolina Gold ; Highest score= 99.025 Buccaneers ; Difference= 22.962

<snip>

While I fully accept and understand your argument, you changed my 2009 point from the Vigilante's drum line to Gold's overall score. Vigilantes scored VERY HIGH in drum execution as well as percussion effect, putting upward pressure on all following music scores. THIS, I believe, is what made the excellent Bucs performance worth 99 points. They still would have dominated even with a 97...... but the first corps in appearance applied the initial musicality score pressure.

That is merely my belief......NOT a fact at all.....

I accept all figures you quoted.....(Gold appeared AFTER Vigilante) you've done your homework well and the gaps you quote speak for themselves...... my point involved the Vigalante's drum scores.

Regards,

Joe in NJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...