"Cont" vs "Achv"

[Kamarag]

The two concepts are so different that they don't belong on the same sheet, much less being evaluated by the same judge.

I'd like to see them experiment with a system that assigns one group nothing but execution and technique, and another nothing but design. But trying to evaluate HOW WELL the performers are doing something at the same time you're trying to be reflective enough to evaluate the content of what they're doing calls on different mental attitudes toward the work to be happening at the same time.

Put the 'content' captions up in the box exclusively, where they can see big picture (literally), and have the field crew focused exclusively on execution, and let the judges be specialists in one form of reasoning at a time.

The performance captions have been judged this way since 1984. The sheets have changed, the number weighting has changed, but it's still essentially "what" and "how". The difference is that they finally call a spade a spade.

If you unlike the two, you invite disaster. Those judging only the "what" will have no frame of reference, because they cannot evaluate the "how" to decide if the "what" is achieved. If they don't, they are just guessing.

[soccerguy315]

I still struggle to understand Cont. Say corps X makes no changes at all to their show and by the end of the season the Cont is at an even 8. Should this mean their Cont. stays at an 8 all season (assuming no changes) and performance is the variable?

I also think along these lines, and this is the answer I have come up with overtime:

in theory, yes. In theory, the content score in June should be the content score at Finals, assuming there are no changes. Now, the first issue is that there will obviously be changes. But more importantly, the issue is that in the beginning of the season, corps are not achieving at a high enough level to make the content clear. So, as the content becomes more clear, the judges can tell what it is, and the corps will be rewarded.

Say the horn line has a company front. Early in the season, they miss it every show and instead of making a company front, they make a blob with people where they are supposed to be, people that are up to 2 steps in front of where they are supposed to be, and people that are up to 2 steps behind where they are supposed to be. As a result, the company front looks like crap and you might not even be able to tell that is what it is supposed to be. As the season goes on, and it becomes cleaner, the corps now hits the company front. So, in content, even though the drill wasn't changed, what the judge is seeing has changed from "giant blob" to "effective company front, good writing"

[jwillis35]

The Content rating can be tricky. Others have accurately described what it is about. The judge has to determine the depth of the material given the corps. Is it artistic, what is the demand level, does it make sense, and is it representative of the corps' talents.

Theoretically you could say Carolina Crown's brass content was a 10 from day one, but as someone also stated here, the cont number will go upward as the corps proves they can handle that content (achievement). This aspect and total GE are probably the most debated when we talk about scoring. It's tough stuff.

The Olympic model is often brought up, but remember that the Fine Arts are much more difficult to judge, rate, and rank. It will always be subjective to some extent. If my mom were judging, Madison Scouts would have 20 world titles. N

Edited July 15, 2012 by jwillis35