Who would win of the four 99.0+?

[wilme861]

This is one of those questions that is next to impossible to answer just because of a) how different each show is and b) the time the show was performed. I happened to march the 05 year and saw the Cadets numerous times through the year but have to base the other two years as just a fan. From a drummers perspective, the demand required of percussion sections is higher today than it was 10 years ago. It's also a totally different demand, which is why this is such an apples to oranges argument.

I just think that if you make all 3 corps march each others shows, the 14 Blue Devils show would be the toughest to get as clean as they got it. That's not to say the other corps couldn't do it or weren't talented enough to do it. I just think the demand required during modern shows is just totally different from the shows from even 10 years ago. It's debatable I know, but just an opinion of someone who marched during one of the years...

Much respect to all three of these shows though! I really do like each of them and believe all of them completely deserved the scores they got.

[cfirwin3]

BD 2014 was nearly the most perfect production that I have ever seen. I was actually expecting to see a complete 100.

[cfirwin3]

I understand that every show has its flaws, but BD's 2014 finals performance saw visible early step-offs, and even a quad player falling over. I don't remember miscues that obvious from Frameworks.

Believe it or not, judges tend not to get hung up on anomalies like falls and a drop. An early entrance from a line that "drives like they stole it" is clearly an oddity or rarity more than it is a liability.

Heck, I've seen a corps (first hand as an on field member) win a competitive show having survived through half of the contra line falling on the turf...

I've seen something similar from a Cadet show as well. Stuff happens... but "stuff" doesn't automatically mean points not rewarded.

Now a consistently sloppy show... consistent bad phrasing... consistent phasing...

That's a whole different issue that will be accounted for by the judges.

Edited July 26, 2016 by cfirwin3

[UKSuperman]

1. The Cadets 2005

2. The Cavaliers 2002

3. The Blue Devils 2014

4. The Blue Devils 2009

[oldbandguy]

Which of those four shows faced the stiffest competition from the silver and bronze medalists? I think that enters into the equation.

Did Cadets win every caption/sub caption because of level of competition below it? Did BD get 19.65 due to level of competition below it?

All things considered...I have to go with Cadets.

[N.E. Brigand]

Believe it or not, judges tend not to get hung up on anomalies like falls and a drop. An early entrance from a line that "drives like they stole it" is clearly an oddity or rarity more than it is a liability.

Heck, I've seen a corps (first hand as an on field member) win a competitive show having survived through half of the contra line falling on the turf . . . I've seen something similar from a Cadet show as well. Stuff happens, but "stuff" doesn't automatically mean points not rewarded.

Now a consistently sloppy show, consistent bad phrasing, consistent phasing . . . that's a whole different issue that will be accounted for by the judges.

Well, I think no one is saying that a show with errors cannot nonetheless be the best on the field. But the sheets actually ask judges whether a corps is achieving in its caption "rarely", "infrequently", "sometimes", "usually", or . . .

. . . "always". And always would seem to exclude even the occurrence of "an oddity or rarity".

However, each of those terms itself describes a range not a specific point: "always", aka "Box 5", has an allowance of 10% of the total possible score.

So I would say that, if a a judge sees/hears even one mistake, before awarding the maximum score, she should ask herself, essentially: are there more than 99 other contributing factors to this caption that were "always" achieved?

[cfirwin3]

Which of those four shows faced the stiffest competition from the silver and bronze medalists? I think that enters into the equation.

Did Cadets win every caption/sub caption because of level of competition below it? Did BD get 19.65 due to level of competition below it?

All things considered...I have to go with Cadets.

Isn't it more logical to go with the one that smoked the competition with the biggest margin rather than the one that had to fight to the top.

It just seems to me that the 2005 Cadet show was a show among other contenders... While the BD 2014 was outrageously operating on another level from the rest, as demonstrated by the full season of scores (and the rest were widely powerful programs, nonetheless). Those spots 2 and 3 shows in 2014 weren't sub-par championship shows by any stretch of the imagination... yet they trailed by so much. Follow?

[Lance]

the show i like the best, of course

[George Dixon]

Isn't it more logical to go with the one that smoked the competition with the biggest margin rather than the one that had to fight to the top.

It just seems to me that the 2005 Cadet show was a show among other contenders... While the BD 2014 was outrageously operating on another level from the rest, as demonstrated by the full season of scores (and the rest were widely powerful programs, nonetheless). Those spots 2 and 3 shows in 2014 weren't sub-par championship shows by any stretch of the imagination... yet they trailed by so much. Follow?

I do understand, however stronger corps under cadets would have actually pushed their score higher. Cadets were so dominant at finals it was sick.

[cfirwin3]

Well, I think no one is saying that a show with errors cannot nonetheless be the best on the field. But the sheets actually ask judges whether a corps is achieving in its caption "rarely", "infrequently", "sometimes", "usually", or . . .

. . . "always". And always would seem to exclude even the occurrence of "an oddity or rarity".

However, each of those terms itself describes a range not a specific point: "always", aka "Box 5", has an allowance of 10% of the total possible score.

So I would say that, if a a judge sees/hears even one mistake, before awarding the maximum score, she should ask herself, essentially: are there more than 99 other contributing factors to this caption that were "always" achieved?

Of course, but Box 5 "always" isn't a failed endeavor because the soloist airs out on a high F (or a guard member makes a drop).

It's wrong to think of always as perfect... or even to think of perfect as perfect.

Example: I was shooting trap with a friend last week. I got 23/25 clays and he had 21/25. I shot mine at about 20 yards, but he was obliterating them at 10, right off of the box.

Who is the better shooter?

He is... the errors don't tell the whole story. That's why the judging system is based on positive value and not ticks.