2023 Scores Question

[ContraFart]

8 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

they do  but never mean perfect

No, they don't, by your definition, the numbers are nothing but an arbitrary value to separate the ordinals. 

Edited June 25, 2023 by ContraFart

[GUARDLING]

7 hours ago, ContraFart said:

No, they don't, by your definition, the numbers are nothing but an arbitrary value to separate the ordinals. 

I've judged and taught under both.....they do. 

I'll use them as I always have as a tool as well as commentary .( when teaching ) Always proved useful over the years

But of course you are always entitled to your own opinion😁

Edited June 25, 2023 by GUARDLING

[cixelsyd]

6 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

Although BITD the tic system was also subjective and a mess there was no consistency. Some loved the excitement BUT there also was no accountability , A corps could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next. Often it had nothing to do with the corps but the whim of a judge.

Two things:

1.  Judging accountability is provided by scores, recaps, written sheets, recorded commentary, in-person communication in critique, and whatever procedures a circuit has for assignment and/or removal of judges.  Every one of those methods of accountability has been employed with both the teardown (tick) and buildup systems of subjective judging.  Any remaining frustrations with the imperfection of accountability (yours or mine) are an unavoidable consequence of the subjective nature of judging.

It is incorrect to say there was "no" accountability under the tick system.

2.  Consistency in contest results is a product of both judging and the performances of the corps.  And in the days of the tick system, no corps moved in by Memorial Day to do drum corps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 11 straight weeks.  There were also more corps back then, making for a more crowded field of competitors.  So a corps really could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next night (or afternoon).  You say "often" it had nothing to do with the corps.  I say more often it did.  When performers discuss the relative ups and downs of their results in the 1970s, the clear majority point to performance differences that are reflected in the resulting scores/placements.

Problem is, this overarching desire for judging "consistency" breeds slotting.  Corps are certainly more consistent today than in past centuries, but not perfectly so.  When a judge is confronted with a relative inconsistency in performance on a given night, they are strongly incentivized against calling it out in their results, or even believing their own eyes/ears.

[GUARDLING]

20 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Two things:

1.  Judging accountability is provided by scores, recaps, written sheets, recorded commentary, in-person communication in critique, and whatever procedures a circuit has for assignment and/or removal of judges.  Every one of those methods of accountability has been employed with both the teardown (tick) and buildup systems of subjective judging.  Any remaining frustrations with the imperfection of accountability (yours or mine) are an unavoidable consequence of the subjective nature of judging.

It is incorrect to say there was "no" accountability under the tick system.

2.  Consistency in contest results is a product of both judging and the performances of the corps.  And in the days of the tick system, no corps moved in by Memorial Day to do drum corps 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 11 straight weeks.  There were also more corps back then, making for a more crowded field of competitors.  So a corps really could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next night (or afternoon).  You say "often" it had nothing to do with the corps.  I say more often it did.  When performers discuss the relative ups and downs of their results in the 1970s, the clear majority point to performance differences that are reflected in the resulting scores/placements.

Problem is, this overarching desire for judging "consistency" breeds slotting.  Corps are certainly more consistent today than in past centuries, but not perfectly so.  When a judge is confronted with a relative inconsistency in performance on a given night, they are strongly incentivized against calling it out in their results, or even believing their own eyes/ears.

HMMMM i dont think i was ever told or encouraged to do anything except be accountable. With that said BITD it mostly had to do with the dumb saying of " I saw it as I called it, end of story " no accountability and very much as subjective as today , if not more. Were corps less consistent ? Yeah probably, to the point of some of the crazy things one night to the next? I don't think so..Again my observation and experience and opinion. I do remember way more than 2 point difference some times..lol

I would also agree when you have human judging there will always be the happy , the unhappy , the skeptical, the conspiracy"s and of course at times even the dishonest. I guess it always has come with the territory 

I would agree corps are so consistent today and hard to separate,  not just at the top but the middle groups and even lower groups

I do agree with #1 always been far from " Perfect"....see what  i did there?...lol....thanks for the conversation. Always nice to talk, debate with one who may have had a different experience or at least saw it different BITD or did I just assume...lol...If I did...sorry 

Edited June 25, 2023 by GUARDLING

[cixelsyd]

10 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

but is a drum judge say judging the entire section at once? no, they're checking out sections at times, not just everything. same for brass or field visual. even upstairs, youre not looking at the big picture every single second. youre looking at different places at times because of how things develop.

I am glad you raised this point.  Realizing that some judges are sampling different sections at different times in different performances, we should logically expect some degree of fluctuation in scoring from day to day on that account.

[ContraFart]

5 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I am glad you raised this point.  Realizing that some judges are sampling different sections at different times in different performances, we should logically expect some degree of fluctuation in scoring from day to day on that account.

Or maybe we should have 2 field percussion judges, one that concentrates on battery and the other on front ensemble 

[ContraFart]

1 hour ago, GUARDLING said:

I've judged and taught under both.....they do. 

I'll use them as I always have as a tool as well as commentary .( when teaching ) Always proved useful over the years

But of course you are always entitled to your own opinion😁

If the numbers actually meant something, then you wouldn't be forced to have ordinals. It is completely unfeasible that 2 groups achieve at the exactly the same rate on a given night? 

[GUARDLING]

5 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

If the numbers actually meant something, then you wouldn't be forced to have ordinals. It is completely unfeasible that 2 groups achieve at the exactly the same rate on a given night? 

What I will say because sometimes debates like this can go in circles and go nowhere page after page is that at the top level, mid level and even lower level corps can be so close in almost all areas. That can mean an extremely high level or even have some of the same issues at a lower level.

Thanks as always for the conversation. I actually do enjoy it 😊

Edited June 25, 2023 by GUARDLING

[ContraFart]

On 6/25/2023 at 9:38 AM, GUARDLING said:

What I will say because sometimes debates like this can go in circles and go nowhere page after page is that at the top level, mid level and even lower level corps can be so close in almost all areas. That can mean an extremely high level or even have some of the same issues at a lower level.

Thanks as always for the conversation. I actually do enjoy it 😊

My wish is to not make this conversation circular, however the reason I think it can get that way is I am not necessarily commenting on why things are the way they are, but more why I think a layman who never heard of drum corps would think that current reality is absurd. 

The very fact that a major event such as a fall can happen and that can have no impact on the final visual score is absurd. I see where is can have little impact on placement, but I am talking particularly about the visual score. Would a gymnast falling off a balance beam or a figure skater falling on a triple axle not have their technical score affected by the fall? The only retort I hear is that a judge cannot be everywhere at once, but to that I say that there should be more judges. 

But think of the layman who is seeing this system for the first time. group A and group B are almost equal. Group A has a fall and Group B does not, but Group A has the "maximum" visual score, how do you explain that? You can say "well the maximum score does not mean perfect blah blah blah", but people are going to relate a 20 in a caption as perfect, whether it is or not. 

I think the following reasons are why I have pretty much given up on the judging system:

1. Numbers do not have the same value from year to year, or even show to show. Is BD 2014 the best show of all time or it is a result of bad numbers management? Would a show that got a 97.3 get that same score with the same performance any other year? No, and reason why is because it depends on the other groups. 

2. Ordinals are forced. A judge cannot tie any group, even if they are giving different comp and achievement scores. At that point the numbers have less meaning because its not about the value, but its about the spread. 

3. Major events can be ignored. "The recovery is more important than the fall". If this were not a competitive activity, I would agree, but sometimes crap happens. Is it really about the performance of that night, if the unexpected is ignored? 

Apparently I am in a minority here, but this is why I think the way I do. 

[GUARDLING]

5 hours ago, ContraFart said:

My wish is to not make this conversation circular, however the reason I think it can get that way is I am not necessarily commenting on why things are the way they are, but more why I think a layman who never heard of drum corps would think that current reality is absurd. 

The very fact that a major event such as a fall can happen and that can have no impact on the final visual score is absurd. I see where is can have little impact on placement, but I am talking particularly about the visual score. Would a gymnast falling off a balance beam or a figure skater falling on a triple axle not have their technical score affected by the fall? The only retort I hear is that a judge cannot be everywhere at once, but to that I say that there should be more judges. 

But think of the layman who is seeing this system for the first time. group A and group B are almost equal. Group A has a fall and Group B does not, but Group A has the "maximum" visual score, how do you explain that? You can say "well the maximum score does not mean perfect blah blah blah", but people are going to relate a 20 in a caption as perfect, whether it is or not. 

I think the following reasons are why I have pretty much given up on the judging system:

1. Numbers do not have the same value from year to year, or even show to show. Is BD 2014 the best show of all time or it is a result of bad numbers management? Would a show that got a 97.3 get that same score with the same performance any other year? No, and reason why is because it depends on the other groups. 

2. Ordinals are forced. A judge cannot tie any group, even if they are giving different comp and achievement scores. At that point the numbers have less meaning because its not about the value, but its about the spread. 

3. Major events can be ignored. "The recovery is more important than the fall". If this were not a competitive activity, I would agree, but sometimes crap happens. Is it really about the performance of that night, if the unexpected is ignored? 

Apparently I am in a minority here, but this is why I think the way I do. 

I can understand totally how you feel the way you do. Even decades of teaching and judging I have questions. For me it is a constant and never-ending learning process. Just a thought though, the comparison to the world of gymnastics or even may other judged comparisons, that's 1 person to gain back momentum with drum corps there are 164 others to  rise above even an obvious error. Multiple captions can also do it including the show as a total can do it .

All I can do is explain from my point of view. Is it a flawed system, yes, the best we can do as a judge is judge from a standpoint of providing solid commentary to actually help a group and as a teacher LISTEN to those offering ways to make your product better.

But I actually do understand how you feel the way you do and I'm probably not explaining my view good enough.