2023 Scores Question

[DudleytheWest]

1 hour ago, Chief Guns said:

The right corps won. 

Perhaps the right corps won. It was certainly my favorite show of the decade, but with a 0.025 spread the win was winning a numbers game, not a performance (although they certainly won the performance with the fans and that matters most).

Few champions win a performance, they win a numbers game. And, I'm a champion. It was the most thrilling night of my life. I was so happy. I still cry when I watch the retreat on YouTube. But, now that years have passed and I have more clarity around it, I understand that a lot of that win was luck, with subjective judging favoring us and us just winning a numbers game. There was one other worthy champion that year, so I will never say "the right corps won" or "we won, fair and square, no excuses." We won a numbers game, that is all. The numbers worked in our favor, that is all. If the other corps had won that night, I wouldn't be saying we got screwed. Sure, I would have been disappointed, but like I said, most years there is more than one corps that is worthy of winning and only didn't because of subjective judging and numbers not working out in their favor.

One judge does something differently, and I wouldn't be a champion. One judge does something differently, and Regiment '08 wouldn't be champions. One judge does something differently, and several of our champions wouldn't be champions. 

So many people get riled up over the scores, when it really doesn't matter. Scores aren't given without bias, subjectivity or politics, so that makes them irrelevant. Bias, subjectivity and politics are all human nature. They are instinct. They cannot be discarded or overridden. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by DudleytheWest

[TheOneWhoKnows]

10 minutes ago, DudleytheWest said:

Thank you for your post. It was very informative.

I have to say I find the whole content and achievement component to be silly. There is never much of a spread between the two. In the beginning of the season there should be a significant spread between the two, with content scores being much higher than achievement. I've heard the argument that as a corps performs better the clarity of the difficulty and complexity becomes clearer. I am not buying it. If a high school symphony attempted to play Bruckner's 8th Symphony, I would understand it's an extremely difficult piece (high demand, insane content) even though they would likely not play it very well.

While achievement may not be so subjective, content certainly is. Corps are doing different things, all of which are difficult, but someone is giving their opinion that one thing is more challenging than the other, yet that may not be the case. 

The scoring system doesn't work. It can't. It never could. It's not like figure skating (which certainly has some subjectivity) where there are comparable elements with skaters required to do many of the same things, or gymnastics, or a handful of other sports that actually have comparable elements. Although drum corps is certainly athletic and doing it takes much of the same training and stamina that an athlete would require, it's art, not sport. Art can only be judged subjectively.   

I do understand what you are saying and there is components of truth to what you've pointed out here. 

The spread between the two components is something I argue over a lot. We are given tons of descriptors to justify what a .1-.3 spread is, .4-.6 spread, .7-.9, and a 1.0+ should look like. I have long said in order to award the performers we must be extremely deliberate with how we treat that content/achievement spread. And the spread of achievement scores amongst other groups. 

I think there are objective and subjective components to content. I think we can all agree that someone throwing a 6 on rifle with a triple turn underneath and catching it one handed behind the back is more difficult than throwing a 6 on a rifle flat footed, stationary, and catching it with both hands. Now, both of these can be achieved very well and I will want to award the achievement of the second one just as much as I can the first one while understanding the first one is more difficult. Or a band that is exploring various step sizes, interval sizes versus a band that solely marches 8-5 the entire time. You're looking at one skill versus many. Again, the 8-5 can be done impeccably and should be rewarded for such. And the band that does many skills, may only do one of them very well and the others good enough. I will reflect that in an achievement score.

I think the most successful organization at awarding content objectively is WGI (meaning colorguard). Their classes are broken out based on complexity and development of design. Now within classes it's more subjective, but as to what class you are in there is clear intent on making that objective. Is it perfect? No, but there is intent that to make sure it's more objective. 

I do take it a bit to heart when the masses just call judging purely subjective and get upset about it, because we work very hard at making this objective as possible. We have clinics, trainings, we are constantly watching and listening and expanding our knowledge in these activities to make sure we are awarding the best. 

[DudleytheWest]

38 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

I do understand what you are saying and there is components of truth to what you've pointed out here. 

The spread between the two components is something I argue over a lot. We are given tons of descriptors to justify what a .1-.3 spread is, .4-.6 spread, .7-.9, and a 1.0+ should look like. I have long said in order to award the performers we must be extremely deliberate with how we treat that content/achievement spread. And the spread of achievement scores amongst other groups. 

I think there are objective and subjective components to content. I think we can all agree that someone throwing a 6 on rifle with a triple turn underneath and catching it one handed behind the back is more difficult than throwing a 6 on a rifle flat footed, stationary, and catching it with both hands. Now, both of these can be achieved very well and I will want to award the achievement of the second one just as much as I can the first one while understanding the first one is more difficult. Or a band that is exploring various step sizes, interval sizes versus a band that solely marches 8-5 the entire time. You're looking at one skill versus many. Again, the 8-5 can be done impeccably and should be rewarded for such. And the band that does many skills, may only do one of them very well and the others good enough. I will reflect that in an achievement score.

I think the most successful organization at awarding content objectively is WGI (meaning colorguard). Their classes are broken out based on complexity and development of design. Now within classes it's more subjective, but as to what class you are in there is clear intent on making that objective. Is it perfect? No, but there is intent that to make sure it's more objective. 

I do take it a bit to heart when the masses just call judging purely subjective and get upset about it, because we work very hard at making this objective as possible. We have clinics, trainings, we are constantly watching and listening and expanding our knowledge in these activities to make sure we are awarding the best. 

I'm sorry if I upset you or have offended you. But, I thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgable reply.

I think part of a problem is the lack of understanding and the lack of skills that most of us (non-judges) have. I always laugh when people say the right corps one or so and so shouldn't have won, like they have the knowledge and skills to judge all captions simultaneously and from a video at that. It sounds like you are a guard judge, which may qualify you to judge other captions, but could you judge brass or percussion? I would guess the answer would be "no" but somehow everyone on here is qualified to judge all captions. 

What I really struggle with is how anyone can get past their bias or politics. It's so ingrained in us. I had a friend who used to judge but quit because they got flak from other judges and a corps for scoring that corps lower than another corps in their caption. They didn't feel like they could judge based on their knowledge, expertise and assessment of that performance, but were rather pressured to judge one way or another. I have heard this from others too.

I have heard countless stories over the years, and have witnessed things myself, that do lead me to believe politics plays a big part in judging.

When I look back over all the years, there is only one champion I strongly disagree with winning. Therefore, at the end of the day, I think you all get it right, but I also think it's an impossible job. I just wonder how big a role politics plays in deciding who is 1st, 2nd or 3rd, when many years any of them could win.

Edited June 21, 2023 by DudleytheWest

[TheOneWhoKnows]

2 minutes ago, DudleytheWest said:

I'm sorry if I upset you or have offended you. But, I thank you for the thoughtful and knowledgable reply.

I think part of a problem is the lack of understanding and the lack of skills that most of us (non-judges) have. I always laugh when people say the right corps one or so and so shouldn't have won, like they have the knowledge and skills to judge all captions simultaneously and from a video at that. It sounds like you are a guard judge, which may qualify you to judge other captions, but could you judge brass or percussion? I would guess the answer would be "no" but somehow everyone on here is qualified to judge all captions. 

What I really struggle with is how anyone can get past their bias or politics. It's so ingrained in us. I had a friend who used to judge but quit because they got flak from other judges and a corps for scoring that corps lower than another corps in their caption. They didn't feel like they could judge based on their knowledge, expertise and assessment of that performance, but were rather pressured to judge one way or another. I have heard this from others too.

I have heard countless stories over the years, and have witnessed things myself, that do lead me to believe politics plays a big part in judging.

When I look back over all the years, there is only one champion I strongly disagree with winning. Therefore, at the end of the day, I think you all get it right, but I also think it's an impossible job. 

Oh, no offense taken at all so no need to apologize. I'm more thrilled we can have a substantive conversation about this. 

I am a visual judge. I typically judge visual ensemble for outdoor and design analysis for indoor. The thing is, I actually am a percussionist and brass player as well. Percussion is my main instrument. Being a instrumentalist has given me background to appreciate visual demand on a full ensemble and not just colorguard. I have trained for years to understand visual technique, dance, and equipment choreography. I do not claim to know everything and I'm still learning everyday. 

I won't say there aren't politics involved. I will say it's actually one of the reasons I became an adjudicator was to prove there aren't politics involved or at least be a force for being non-political or bias in this role. I am entirely unapologetic when it comes to my scores. I am not afraid to break the mold and put a group up or down if they deserve it and not just because they are "so and so" or such and such is on their staff. Makes no difference to me. But that is me and I can't speak for everyone. I have judged with many many different people. There are judges who I will never question ever because I know where their heart is and they will back up their scores and placements with detailed explanations. There are other judges who I don't always trust completely. Not to say they are wrong, but I will go toe to toe with them and debate a placement or score. 

I'd be honest in saying I wish every competition could have a double panel because a consensus would be more accurate than just one person on a caption. The truth is, while it's very important to have multiple captions in adjudicating as we can't all adjudicate everything, even on one caption we can't see everything through one performance. I can't have my eyes on every single performer 100% of the time. But we do the best we can. 

[saxfreq1128]

8 hours ago, Tenoris4Jazz said:

########.  A gack is a gack... that's not an opinion.  Go listen to BD '89 and tell me that's an opinion.  Dropping a rifle is a measurable fact.  Screwing up an interval, not having a straight line, missing a rest, blowing an entry, phasing... all objective mistakes that can be judged objectively.

But how much each error’s deduction should be worth, in the scheme of the full performance, is definitely subjective.

Which is why modern judging values consistency of technique. It’s more grey but it does make sense. A guard with a dropped weapon here or there is still superior to a guard with 0 drops but a handful of wobbly catches every time. The difference is that wobbly catches every time speak poorly to the guard’s technique, which is a systemic problem, but a single drop is easier to blame on a single person. It feels like splitting hairs but it makes sense to me. It’s a very human call though — not the kind if thing you can measure with fixed scoring deductions.  

Edited June 21, 2023 by saxfreq1128

[DWW11]

Maybe the best part about being a clueless fan is that I don’t get all wound up about how things are scored.  I don’t care about the scores nearly as much as placement.  My ONLY thought about scoring is that i am grateful that fan reaction doesn’t factor in, or at least it doesn’t factor in MUCH!  I am so sick of going to shows where a whole block of spectators will flood empty seats for ONE performance, scream bloody murder throughout the entire show, and then leave when the corps is finished.  Basing a score on audience response would just make those occurrences even more obnoxious.

[karuna]

9 hours ago, Tenoris4Jazz said:

########.  A gack is a gack... that's not an opinion.  Go listen to BD '89 and tell me that's an opinion.  Dropping a rifle is a measurable fact.  Screwing up an interval, not having a straight line, missing a rest, blowing an entry, phasing... all objective mistakes that can be judged objectively.

But whether the judge considers something a tic was completely subjective and changed judges to judge, show to show , and corps to corps.   So again just humans and their subjective estimation of what may or may not have been a tic.    

[Jeff Ream]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:42 PM, MikeN said:

Honestly, I'd rather the judges just award straight up ordinals, and rigidly enforce the captions to avoid Caption Bleed.  Right now, everything is driven by visual design and visual performance, including music captions.  And (echoing others) trying to tell us that X corps is 0.02 better than Y corps in percussion performance is stupid beyond belief.  

Mike

If music was considered on visual captions the way it’s required on music captions some things would be adjusted 

[Jeff Ream]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:00 PM, Grandpa Joe said:

I'd be a fan of just axing the decimals and having whole number scores, or at least not going past tenths of a point. I can justify .2, but I can't justify .02.

But .02 isn’t a score a judge alone can give. The averages and total get us that

[Jeff Ream]

22 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

Not my problem people aren't willing to think intellectually. 

The constant tinkering strained coherent intellectual thought