Corps in the Heat at Mesquite (TX) - July 24, 2023

[spacewill]

I don't mind last nights scores (even as we all know I cheer for PC).  I think PC had a decent run with a lot of holes from the injuries/illness and Crossmen looked/played clean.  Do I think a 3 pt jump in 1 day is valid, heck I dunno, maybe they didn't deserve the 78 in SA.  I think things like what J. Webb did 2 weeks ago was more of a "WTF" moment than last night.  What I hope for with the judges is that with these scores they also gave valuable feedback for the corps on how or why they didn't score as high as they could have or what they have been scoring.  If you look at last nights scores it was the first time PC has had such huge gaps between what the show can be scored as and what they did which leads me to believe the judges saw some execution flaws.  I think Friday will be a big night to see if this is 2 shows in a row with this same judges perspective or if the 3 will continue to jump each other.  Also, will Madison be the next jump?  We saw in Canyon that all it takes is one judge to change a rank (for any and all corps) so the only thing any of these corps can focus on is being a better version of themselves the next show, execute as they can, and don't do things to give judges reason to take points away.  

I wish I was more proficient on percussion as I am dying as to why PC is dropping so much on their scores versus their similar competitors.  

Edited July 25, 2023 by spacewill

[Euph74]

18 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

That's my point. They have better talent than 11th in brass. I just don't think their show is letting this talent shine just yet. 

Agree with this re: The Cavaliers. Standing still, the boys seemed to have a good approach to playing with regard to quality (and talent) since pre-season. Unfortunately, it has not consistently translated to the field/on the move.  Some of this is surely due to visual demand, some is due to a lack of reps on the field (air quality issues earlier and heat more recently have interrupted field rehearsals), and I think some is due to the approach to design (staging in the drill). It looks as if more thought was given to recreating (at least the essence of some) classic Cavalier drill "moves" rather than ensuring staging of voices/travel pathways that enhance the music design. Also, Saucedo's books are usually extremely demanding with regard to voicing etc. All that to say, the brass talent is likely well above 11th place, but performance levels have definitely been of 11th-place quality (or lower). I have no doubt the boys will continue to work hard when healthy, and performance levels will continue to strengthen.

[BlueStainGlass]

1 hour ago, spacewill said:

I don't mind last nights scores (even as we all know I cheer for PC).  I think PC had a decent run with a lot of holes from the injuries/illness and Crossmen looked/played clean.  Do I think a 3 pt jump in 1 day is valid, heck I dunno, maybe they didn't deserve the 78 in SA.  I think things like what J. Webb did 2 weeks ago was more of a "WTF" moment than last night.  What I hope for with the judges is that with these scores they also gave valuable feedback for the corps on how or why they didn't score as high as they could have or what they have been scoring.  If you look at last nights scores it was the first time PC has had such huge gaps between what the show can be scored as and what they did which leads me to believe the judges saw some execution flaws.  I think Friday will be a big night to see if this is 2 shows in a row with this same judges perspective or if the 3 will continue to jump each other.  Also, will Madison be the next jump?  We saw in Canyon that all it takes is one judge to change a rank (for any and all corps) so the only thing any of these corps can focus on is being a better version of themselves the next show, execute as they can, and don't do things to give judges reason to take points away.  

I wish I was more proficient on percussion as I am dying as to why PC is dropping so much on their scores versus their similar competitors.  

The thing is we can't hear exactly what that judge hears. You have difficulty in rhythms, listening difficulties, front to back, and more that go into that score. I think percussion is one of the hardest captions to give content scores without achievement being high since so many rudiments are just one little thing different. But they are also visual since I can look at sticks and tell if it's together vs horns playing different parts and rhythms. 

[MGCpimpOtimp]

6 hours ago, Vuitton said:

Seriously, how can you possibly say that? Were you down on the field last night or are you basing that on music that is being transmitted over the internet? 

We all, me included, don't always agree with scores and placements, but I always give myself the reality check that I'm not a judge. I can't judge. I don't have the skills, knowledge, experience or expertise to judge. I doubt you do either. Few of us on here do. Therefore, we have no choice but to trust the judging. It's either that, or get frustrated and angry, and to me that's not worth it. None of us have any control over a number someone is going to write down.

I liked the scores last night. I feel there should be a lot more fluctuation than their is. With largely subjective judging, people are going to have differing opinions, and people here seem to agree with those opinions when it matches theirs and disagree when it doesn't. It doesn't work that way.

Look at this entire thread during the show. Pretty much everyone said that every performance was not as good as SA...and while yes that might be judged over the internet, but they were comparing it to a show they ALSO watched over the internet...

I have no rooting interest, just having been a part of the activity for a long time, these numbers/movement are WAY outside the "this corps played better/worse than two days ago". 

Here is the official DCI Judge philosophy on what spreads mean in a caption:

 

• Overall total score spreads of 1, 2 or 3.5 tenths: The units are essentially equal except for minor issues; the units might have differing strengths in the two sub-captions, leading to a narrow spread; there could be reversal from night to night, depending on performances and possible changes.
• Overall total score spreads of 4, 5 or 6.5 tenths: The units have identifiable, objective narrow differences and varied nuances that make it clear that one unit is better than the other. The judge should always be prepared to identify the narrow differences between the units.
• Overall total score spreads of 7, 8 or 9.5 tenths: There are at least 1-2 more significant differences in the descriptive words or common questions that detail the sheet. These are easily identifiable and may include but not limited to overall state of completion, quality and completion of one section of the unit, large variations in performance achievement areas and other qualities. The judge should always be prepared to identify those more significant differences.
• Overall total score spread of ONE point or more: There are multiple significant differences between the units. 
  
  Generally, anything .2 and lower is what we call "show of the night". Where tonight one group was ahead, but on another night with different levels of performance, the results could flip.

In SA, PC bested Xmen in GE by the following:

.35, 1.4(!), .5, .35 for an average spread of .625. That's at the top end of "clear that one unit is better than the other", and very close to "multiple significant differences".

Last night Crossmen beat PC in GE by .1 and .5 for an average of .3. That is just under a full point delta in two days, one of which was a free day. The odds of that happening are extremely low.

Edited July 26, 2023 by MGCpimpOtimp

[skevinp]

In 1996, Phantom tied BD for the gold on finals night.  At quarterfinals just 2 night earlier, they were 3.7 points behind BD. 

[HockeyDad]

11 hours ago, MGCpimpOtimp said:

Look at this entire thread during the show. Pretty much everyone said that every performance was not as good as SA...and while yes that might be judged over the internet, but they were comparing it to a show they ALSO watched over the internet...

I have no rooting interest, just having been a part of the activity for a long time, these numbers/movement are WAY outside the "this corps played better/worse than two days ago". 

Here is the official DCI Judge philosophy on what spreads mean in a caption:

 

• Overall total score spreads of 1, 2 or 3.5 tenths: The units are essentially equal except for minor issues; the units might have differing strengths in the two sub-captions, leading to a narrow spread; there could be reversal from night to night, depending on performances and possible changes.
• Overall total score spreads of 4, 5 or 6.5 tenths: The units have identifiable, objective narrow differences and varied nuances that make it clear that one unit is better than the other. The judge should always be prepared to identify the narrow differences between the units.
• Overall total score spreads of 7, 8 or 9.5 tenths: There are at least 1-2 more significant differences in the descriptive words or common questions that detail the sheet. These are easily identifiable and may include but not limited to overall state of completion, quality and completion of one section of the unit, large variations in performance achievement areas and other qualities. The judge should always be prepared to identify those more significant differences.
• Overall total score spread of ONE point or more: There are multiple significant differences between the units. 
  
  Generally, anything .2 and lower is what we call "show of the night". Where tonight one group was ahead, but on another night with different levels of performance, the results could flip.

In SA, PC bested Xmen in GE by the following:

.35, 1.4(!), .5, .35 for an average spread of .625. That's at the top end of "clear that one unit is better than the other", and very close to "multiple significant differences".

Last night Crossmen beat PC in GE by .1 and .5 for an average of .3. That is just under a full point delta in two days, one of which was a free day. The odds of that happening are extremely low.

Your assertion seems to be based on the assumption that they got it right in San Antonio and Mesquite therefore was wrong. But, what if the San Antonio adjudication was wrong and Mesquite was the correction?  🧐

This is not an objective activity. Therefore there is no such thing as “odds”. You cannot  assign mathematical probability to a beauty contest. No matter how hard you try with page after page of judging guidelines. 

[Vuitton]

13 hours ago, MGCpimpOtimp said:

In SA, PC bested Xmen in GE by the following:

.35, 1.4(!), .5, .35 for an average spread of .625. That's at the top end of "clear that one unit is better than the other", and very close to "multiple significant differences".

Last night Crossmen beat PC in GE by .1 and .5 for an average of .3. That is just under a full point delta in two days, one of which was a free day. The odds of that happening are extremely low.

And perhaps Crossmen had a great night and Pacific Crest had an off night. As someone else said, perhaps the judges at SA were wrong. It's subjective, espeically GE. 

Whether one has a free day or rehearsal day, it doesn't matter. Free days give the members a rest. Rest is very important and just because someone rehearses all day doesn't mean they are going to be better than night or the next night. As someone who marched, off nights happened and they were inexplicable. 

[MGCpimpOtimp]

4 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Your assertion seems to be based on the assumption that they got it right in San Antonio and Mesquite therefore was wrong. But, what if the San Antonio adjudication was wrong and Mesquite was the correction?  🧐

This is not an objective activity. Therefore there is no such thing as “odds”. You cannot  assign mathematical probability to a beauty contest. No matter how hard you try with page after page of judging guidelines. 

Sample size. SA had DOUBLE panels for GE AND MA captions. They were unanimous, as were the other 5 judges all had PC up in BOTH subcaptions. 11 judges, all unanimous.

Plus, you can be sure that DCI is putting its "best" judges on a regional vs a small show on a Monday.

[HockeyDad]

1 hour ago, MGCpimpOtimp said:

Sample size. SA had DOUBLE panels for GE AND MA captions. They were unanimous, as were the other 5 judges all had PC up in BOTH subcaptions. 11 judges, all unanimous.

Plus, you can be sure that DCI is putting its "best" judges on a regional vs a small show on a Monday.

Then why did you let yourself get worked up about a “small show on a Monday”?

[wvu80]

On 7/24/2023 at 9:49 PM, BlueStainGlass said:

the mic in front of speakers is normally Flo mics so they can pic front ensemble in their mi from the mics in the air.

The Blu-rays are mixed in 5.1 with discrete (separate)  mics, so L/C/R and Surround L & R.  I can hear clearly the separation when the battery for instance is on the left 40 and the horns for instance on on the right 40.  The pit has discrete content (not a blend of combining L&R) coming 90% from the center speaker.  Applause/crowd noise is (correctly) very light and comes out of the SR and SL. 

The .1 channel is usually the sub bass and you can hear all the thunderous goo coming out of the subwoofer. 

For those listening on headphones the sub bass is what you will NOT hear because the headphones don't dig deep enough.  Even tubas are mid bass and don't don't go down to sub bass probably because of the way the field is mic'd.

For the Flo broadcasts I would say the mix is about the same as the BD (Blu-ray Disc, not the drum corps).  If the corps is moving L to R for instance I can hear them move from the L speaker to the C and then to the right R.

IMO that's what a quality well thought out set of mic's and mixing will do for your home audio playback.

Edited July 26, 2023 by wvu80