Do you think that DCI should "LIMIT" the amount of years, A ju

[GUARDLING]

I have been going to some DCI shows this summer. The corps are getting BETTER and BETTER each year. However, i would say, that beside BLUE DEVILS who are awesome, there are 6-7 corps than are VERY, VERY GOOD. I am wondering if DCI Limited Judges for NO LONGER than 10 years, would there be a BETTER CHANCE for Corps to UPSET the TRADITIONAL Strong holds?

I see judges out there for more than 15 years, and yes granted: They usually pick the right winner, but is there a bigger opportunity for ALL the CORPS if they get NEW BLOOD in the ranks of DCI JUDGING?

Thoughts/

MrBud

if as you say they are picking the right corps then what are you asking? Do you want new judges to pick the wrong corps just for variety? You say corps are getting better and better every year and for a some this is true but because lower corps are improving doesnt mean the top stood still.

[HornTeacher]

if as you say they are picking the right corps then what are you asking? Do you want new judges to pick the wrong corps just for variety? You say corps are getting better and better every year and for a some this is true but because lower corps are improving doesnt mean the top stood still.

Just asking...could it be that the perception of the top corps "standing still" (and no, I certainly am not an advocate of that viewpoint) lies in the fact that they are already far closer to the mathematical ceiling, and hence have less mathematical room to "grow??" When you are at 82 or 83 one year, there is always the possibility of coming out the next year with a show that is suddenly an 87, 88, or 89 -- thus indicating a sudden 5-7 point improvement. A top corps, who might be currently at 93, 94, or 95 is will most likely not show that same numerical improvement -- thus giving the impression that they are not improving at the same rate as the lower corps. As I said...just asking.

(Also just hoping that the readership isn't sitting there going through a "no s###, Sherlock" moment!!)

Edited August 1, 2014 by HornTeacher

[GUARDLING]

Just asking...could it be that the perception of the top corps "standing still" (and no, I certainly am not an advocate of that viewpoint) lies in the fact that they are already far closer to the mathematical ceiling, and hence have less mathematical room to "grow??" When you are at 82 or 83 one year, there is always the possibility of coming out the next year with a show that is suddenly an 87, 88, or 89 -- thus indicating a sudden 5-7 point improvement. A top corps, who might be currently at 93, 94, or 95 is will most likely not show that same numerical improvement -- thus giving the impression that they are not improving at the same rate as the lower corps. As I said...just asking.

yes of course. when a corps at the bottom improves by many points there are many points to get there. If you are at the top there is far less room. I said I think in another thread , IMO the bottom corps getting better drives the tops corps higher. It also changes the dynamics of what 1 point means or what a few tenths mean. As things improve and things get higher what a spread of a point means is one thing BUT a few tenths is as good as points at some point.

Look at the guard caption , not alot of points SO some will say well this guard now is only 5 tenths from that guard...well 5 tenths in the guard caption might as well be 5 points.

Edited August 1, 2014 by GUARDLING

[jjeffeory]

Look at the guard caption , not alot of points SO some will say well this guard now is only 5 tenths from that guard...well 5 tenths in the guard caption might as well be 5 points.

That must be VERY difficult to judge too. Where in WGI, the guards get 5 judges to judge their work ( which aren't shows shorter?), DCI only gets 1 judge that focuses specifically on them. Yes, I know they're a part of the other captions too ( not directed towards Guardling, just a general acknowledgement). Must be VERY tough to explain Why someone is where they are compared to WGI where the scoring is much more granular.

Edited August 1, 2014 by jjeffeory

[GUARDLING]

That must be VERY difficult to judge too. Where in WGI, the guards get 5 judges to judge their work ( which aren't shows shorter?), DCI only gets 1 judge that focuses specifically on them. Yes, I know they're a part of the other captions too ( not directed towards Guardling, just a general acknowledgement). Must be VERY tough to explain Why someone is where they are compared to WGI where the scoring is much more granular.

yes it does make it hard to judge. I do think most guard staff realize the importance and distance at times a few tenths mean. A guard can be a 18.5 which is a great score and another at an 19.5 well you might as well be 10 points away, especially if its this time of the year

Edited August 1, 2014 by GUARDLING

[critter]

The tops corps get there because they are highly professional and organized in what they do. If you were to go to the rehearsal of any one of the top tier corps and ask any of their staff members to describe the back of the judges sheet, a majority of them would be spot on. A few would not quite be there, but most would. If you do the same to mid to lower tier corps, quite a few of the staff members wouldn't be able to even tell you what the subcaptions are on the sheet.

Then there is how efficient rehearsals are organized. Last summer I had the chance to watch a semi finalist rehearse one day. After each ensemble rep, they would pass around the mic to each caption head who would then take a minute or two speaking to individuals about things that popped up in the rep. So each member had 30 seconds of rep and 5 minutes of standing around. The next day I watched Crown rehearse. After each rep they would only spend about 1 minute, if that, giving feedback. That little difference effectively created about 2 extra weeks of rehearsal time between the two corps.

The judges had nothing to do with it.

[GUARDLING]

The tops corps get there because they are highly professional and organized in what they do. If you were to go to the rehearsal of any one of the top tier corps and ask any of their staff members to describe the back of the judges sheet, a majority of them would be spot on. A few would not quite be there, but most would. If you do the same to mid to lower tier corps, quite a few of the staff members wouldn't be able to even tell you what the subcaptions are on the sheet.

Then there is how efficient rehearsals are organized. Last summer I had the chance to watch a semi finalist rehearse one day. After each ensemble rep, they would pass around the mic to each caption head who would then take a minute or two speaking to individuals about things that popped up in the rep. So each member had 30 seconds of rep and 5 minutes of standing around. The next day I watched Crown rehearse. After each rep they would only spend about 1 minute, if that, giving feedback. That little difference effectively created about 2 extra weeks of rehearsal time between the two corps.

The judges had nothing to do with it.

youre right but also people have to teach to the level of who they are teaching....but i get ya and its true for many

[critter]

youre right but also people have to teach to the level of who they are teaching....but i get ya and its true for many

Ain't that the truth. That becomes SO much more difficult with younger members. They can be so inconsistent and you end up being in a reactive mode, and that makes planning such a beast.

[crfrey71]

Limit the judges on the field.

[BoyWonder1911]

So basically you're saying you want to compromise the judging system to make the judging less effective, so that your favorite corps might rank higher.

Just think about what you proposed for a minute, let it sink in, and then tell me you still want this to happen.