LabMaster Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Right, but DCI is (for better or worse) oriented towards scores, as well as rank. And, of course RANK is determined by scores. BAC was RANKed 13th at San Antonio, 14th at Atlanta, 12th (by .05) at Allentown, and currently RANKS 13 (by scores [yeah, I know, different contests, different judges]). I hope you are right, that they are improving (in RANK, relative to their competitors), but you have not cited, nor has DrumManTx any OBJECTIVE measure to suggest that they are peaking at the right time. It is you subjective opinion that they will be rewarded (more than their competitors) and you are entitled to it. I hope you are correct. But the objective evidence suggest otherwise. Again, I like the show and have since I first saw it. I was surprised that it was not scoring (or RANKing) as well as I thought it should. But there is a lot I don't understand about how things are scored (and RANKed). I'm hoping to see BAC improve. I'm not so sure DCI is so score oriented, evidenced by what I think was a contrived holding back of scores early on. I think fans and followers are far more score oriented as evidenced by the passionate and occasional irrational comparisons, corps to corps and show to show. The objective of DCI and judges is supposed to be that when all is said and done, they get the right corps in the right placement. RANKED correctly. Most often if looked back objectively, they get it right.My belief today is that Boston is improving, they have not performed their best show just yet. They haven't peaked. There was more to be had in their show and they are going to achieve the most this show has to give. People saw it in Allentown and again in Erie, whether a score indicated it or not in Erie. Here's to the MM's of Boston! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 BAC always stayed in hotels (at Nationals) through the 70's and 80's....I think the last hotel stay was in 1989 or 90...I was on staff then, but I don't recall which year it was. It was NOT 1990 Craiga...I would have remembered a hotel stay....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Right, but DCI is (for better or worse) oriented towards scores, as well as rank. And, of course RANK is determined by scores. BAC was RANKed 13th at San Antonio, 14th at Atlanta, 12th (by .05) at Allentown, and currently RANKS 13 (by scores [yeah, I know, different contests, different judges]). I hope you are right, that they are improving (in RANK, relative to their competitors), but you have not cited, nor has DrumManTx any OBJECTIVE measure to suggest that they are peaking at the right time. It is you subjective opinion that they will be rewarded (more than their competitors) and you are entitled to it. I hope you are correct. But the objective evidence suggest otherwise. Again, I like the show and have since I first saw it. I was surprised that it was not scoring (or RANKing) as well as I thought it should. But there is a lot I don't understand about how things are scored (and RANKed). I'm hoping to see BAC improve. This is a false assumption IMO...I can understand how you can view it score oriented...Scores though are less important than spreads...Unfortunately this season we haven't been able to VIEW these details with any regularity..besides the occasional leaked recap...Hope this excerpt below better explains what I mean... excerpt from...A System of Inequality...By Kent and Keith Baker Often, objectivity in judging is an oxymoron. We who are long-time members of the pageantry arts are encumbered by the baggage of past years, which affects our perspective in the judging process. Any competition must be adjudicated subjectively with a critical eye/ear, and yet the numbers must be assigned on a basis that is 1) understandable to all, 2) reproducible, and 3) unbiased. These are the reasons that judges of any activity must be trained to understand numbers management, the process of placing the correct numbers the correct distance from all other numbers. This often sounds unethical, but it is not the manipulation of numbers that put some at an advantage and others at a disadvantage. Numbers management is the process by which a judge is able to place numbers in a subjective system in an objective manner using an “impression, analysis, comparison” method. It is the “comparison” portion of the process that the competitors are interested in above all others. The process of assigning not only scores, but assigning spreads between the numbers is an important part of the process. A judge cannot simply place the groups in ranked order (you must rank 8 [corps] in order, 1 through 8), and place them a tenth apart and call it a good night. If seven [corps] play poorly, and one corps plays well, then the musical group should be significantly separated, score-wise, from the seven less musical [corps], who may end up tenths apart. It’s a question of “spreads.” If the visual judges place large spreads between their numbers, and the music judges put groups within tenths, obviously the visual judges have virtually determined not just who wins, but the rankings for the whole show. So while a music number is given, it is rendered meaningless by judges who rank accurately, but put no meaningful spreads between groups. Visual judges have assumed increasing power over corps. It is not that the music judges have voluntarily abdicated this responsibility. They are simply not aware that this process has been occurring. They haven’t been students of the activity like the visual people have been. Oh, they have degrees, and thank God for that. We don’t want a cheese and sausage salesman giving a music score. But while they may be good at their tape commentary and critique, they have rendered their own caption less meaningful, ciphers within a supposedly balanced system, by failing to apply the responsibility of numbers management in the same fashion as the visual judges. There are some shows where musical spreads of tenths are warranted, but this is the exception rather than the rule. The unfortunate truth is that inconsistent application is happening systemically throughout our activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamahoNow Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Yes, I'd like to see how each of the various part are scored as well. And I think that the lack of full recaps available to the public is a failure. I don't think it has changed anything, except maybe very early in the season, but I could easily be wrong about that. However, the "spreads" are "spreads of scores (each partial score divided into demand and execution)". Now are you able to point to anything objective that says those who are doing the scoring (of each element, divided as they are), are indicating that BAC are "peaking at the right time"? Maybe they are getting better, and you are able to see it. But if you can see it, why cannot the judges see it and reward it in the last 5 contests. Maybe the panel in Quincy got it right, but three panels of judges since then didn't see it. What (objectively ... or even subjectively) are they missing? Seems that BAC and MS are in a virtual tie and BAC is pretty close to where they have been since San Antonio. Some folks seem to see BAC "peaking". Whatever criteria they are using, seems that it could be used for all of the corps (maybe almost all). But then "peaking" is meaningless in a competitive environment. Maybe not in some artistic environment, but I'm not qualified to comment on that. Tell us all what this criteria is that you are using, and how it will determine the results we will see Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Will they stay in 13th place? Move to 12th on Thursday, 11th on Friday and 10th on Saturday? Or do you mean something that their scores will improve each day? And making no claim about the RANKing. Can this criteria be applied to any corps other than BAC, say Cadets? Or Crossmen? Or Scouts? I'm lost in determining anything meaningful. Maybe you are saying "I'm rooting for BAC" or Cadets or Crossmen. But that's what we all are doing, something internal to us, not to the outside world. From what I can tell, in this competitive environment, the only thing we have to go by is what the judging community has said, and will say. Be it scores, RANK, or spreads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Yes, I'd like to see how each of the various part are scored as well. And I think that the lack of full recaps available to the public is a failure. I don't think it has changed anything, except maybe very early in the season, but I could easily be wrong about that. However, the "spreads" are "spreads of scores (each partial score divided into demand and execution)". Now are you able to point to anything objective that says those who are doing the scoring (of each element, divided as they are), are indicating that BAC are "peaking at the right time"? Maybe they are getting better, and you are able to see it. But if you can see it, why cannot the judges see it and reward it in the last 5 contests. Maybe the panel in Quincy got it right, but three panels of judges since then didn't see it. What (objectively ... or even subjectively) are they missing? Seems that BAC and MS are in a virtual tie and BAC is pretty close to where they have been since San Antonio. Some folks seem to see BAC "peaking". Whatever criteria they are using, seems that it could be used for all of the corps (maybe almost all). But then "peaking" is meaningless in a competitive environment. Maybe not in some artistic environment, but I'm not qualified to comment on that. Tell us all what this criteria is that you are using, and how it will determine the results we will see Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Will they stay in 13th place? Move to 12th on Thursday, 11th on Friday and 10th on Saturday? Or do you mean something that their scores will improve each day? And making no claim about the RANKing. Can this criteria be applied to any corps other than BAC, say Cadets? Or Crossmen? Or Scouts? I'm lost in determining anything meaningful. Maybe you are saying "I'm rooting for BAC" or Cadets or Crossmen. But that's what we all are doing, something internal to us, not to the outside world. From what I can tell, in this competitive environment, the only thing we have to go by is what the judging community has said, and will say. Be it scores, RANK, or spreads. Let me get out my crystal ball and I'll see if I can tell you how the next few days will shake out....LOL...I really don't have a clue personally... When folks speak of peaking they are usually referring to a group "peaking early" or in this case the opposite of that...just the right time. I see it down to basically one of two things. The first is the show was under-designed for it's membership/performers...that is basically it was way too easy. The second refers to a staff mistakes. that is, the performers have their best show before Indy, performers are way too comfortable with the show, and/or the staff fails to keep the performs actively engaged or busy (complacency comes to mind here)... People are basically saying that Boston are peaking at the right time...and have not "peaked early"... Although this has been the recent sentiment of many...I actually don't care for peak early concept because I don't think that happens much at all with any of the corps. Just because scores dip on a certain night or corps A passes corps B doesn't indicate someone peaked. Some judges are more reserved in the numbers they give out and if you get the right combination of several judges that all tend to score their caption lower you will see a dip. As I've said in my previous posts...the spreads between corps is a more accurate indicator of where a corps is competitively speaking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 C'mon Boston!!!!!! I know you can still do this!!!! You have one more show to squeeze into 12th and make Saturday night...It is not impossible...You are just .788 behind Madison....This is not an impossibility!!!! Put your heart and soul into that performance Friday as I know you can and put it all out on the line!!! If for some reason you fall short...at least you will have ZERO regrets that you didn't do your best... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamahoNow Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 As I've said in my previous posts...the spreads between corps is a more accurate indicator of where a corps is competitively speaking. At Allentown, the spread was BAC +.05 over MS ... right? Tonight, the spread was MS over BAC by .788 ... right? So what does this indicate? I'm still hoping that BAC can improve. But it is just that .... a hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrow Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 At Allentown, the spread was BAC +.05 over MS ... right? Tonight, the spread was MS over BAC by .788 ... right? So what does this indicate? I'm still hoping that BAC can improve. But it is just that .... a hope. No need to be cynical. Positive thoughts are more productive from us here in the sidelines. And plus, anything less than a point is easily recoverable. Boston ain't going down without a fight, just like every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamahoNow Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 No need to be cynical. Positive thoughts are more productive from us here in the sidelines. And plus, anything less than a point is easily recoverable. Boston ain't going down without a fight, just like every year. Not cynical at all. BAC has been among my 5 or 6 favorite shows all year. I've wished and hoped that they would improve. And some have said there are objective reasons to believe that they are peaking in score, rank, or spreads. I question that. And I don't think my (or your) positive thoughts will do anything. That's too woo woo for me. I'm sure they are working as hard and as smart as they can, their staff is doing all they can and the MMs are more than doing their part. I can still hope, I just don't think my thoughts, hopes, prayers or whatever will do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbeau Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 One thing is for certain. This corps of Giants will throw down a memorable performance at semis.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.