.85 from perfection

[xelanosa]

Scores must always be seen as relative. Typically, scores are higher during years when the competition is keen. I think the Cadets' score reflects the fact that there were so many good corps this year.

[ScribeToo]

It's really quite simple.

If the "high" score given out before the Cadets took the field in each caption was a 9.8 or 9.9, and each judge felt the Cadets had the best performance of the night, they have no other choice but to give out a 9.9 or 10.0, which is exactly what they did tonight.

It's all relative, if the judging community had a meeting before finals and decided that an 8.5 would be the best number they could give out all night, than the corps overall score would obviously be lower.

99.15 tied for the highest score in DCI history, that's a fact.

Was it the best performance in drum corps history?

Maybe, maybe not.

Scores can be deceiving, but they do ultimately decide who wins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well.. if the scores on the recaps are x.xxx -- why, then, do we not see 9.95 instead of 10s? There were an AWFUL lot of 10s in that top box last night... One I can buy.. even two.. but what did they have.. 4 or 5? Come on.

Stef

[jonnyboy]

I agree with Stef....lets go to hundreths in scoring. 9.90, 9.91, 9.92 etc. or maybe hundreds by fives? 9.90, 9.95, 10

In other sports we go to hundreths if not thousanths (albeit timing). For example, imagine how many short distance swimming or running races in the Olympics would all be ties if we just measured in seconds. "In a tie with 10 seconds for the hundred meter run....EVERYONE!"

[LanceARoo]

CONGRATS CADETS!!!

Your show friggin' rocked the house...no matter what others may think!

And congrats to the other corps as well!!! What a wonderful year for drum corps!!!

[MDempsey]

Sad (but inevitable)that someone started a thinly veiled sour grapes thread.

It doesnt matter that someone doesnt "buy" the high score, or that someone else tags the show as boring, or that a "trumpet" was deemed out of tune.

Cadets won. Congrats to CBC.

End of whine-fest. B)

[OhioStateTad]

Well..  if the scores on the recaps are x.xxx -- why, then, do we not see 9.95 instead of 10s?  There were an AWFUL lot of 10s in that top box last night... One I can buy..  even two..  but what did they have.. 4 or 5?  Come on.

Stef

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No No... Don't mess with a GREAT judging system. Listen here:

All nine judges are on the same track.. in the same boat.. whatev. They EACH have 20 points w/ which to work. The last system (1994-1999) had some with 20 while others with 15 or 10 total points. THIS way, subcaptions are CONSISTENT. And they ALL still only work with 10th's of points.. 9.0 9.1 9.2 etc....

Mathematically, they arrive at the THIRD decimal place because of the drum scores. Both drum judges work with the standard 20-pt. sheet, but in essence, his score is divided by 4. All other PERFORMANCE judges' scores are halved. So in drums, it takes two judges to numerically equal the brass, color guard, etc. which is what the drum community asked for.

Incidentally, NO judge awarded Cadets a complete 20. SUBcaptions of 10? So what? Do you then blame Phantom or Cavies for being rewarded 9.9's? Only once was there a jump from 9.8 to 10. That tells us that Cadets were AT LEAST 2 tenths more effective than Cavies.. IN that learned judge's mind.

Did you complain when Cavies received three 20's in '03, one being a "perfect" color guard score?

[IRMO]

Did you complain when Cavies received three 20's in '03, one being a "perfect" color guard score?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 14, 2005 by IRMO

[ScribeToo]

Did you complain when Cavies received three 20's in '03, one being a "perfect" color guard score?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, as a matter of fact. I did.

I said the EXACT same thing.. one 10, I can buy.. two, maybe.. but three or four? No way.

Next?

Stef

[OhioStateTad]

Next?

Stef

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You answered one question. Fine. You don't like judges using the "scoring cap."

So.. you tell me. Should 9.9 then be the top number any judge should be able to use? If so, wouldn't that constitute a "perfect" score, if that's as high as the judge is allowed to go? 9.8? 7.6? Please give us a number. Nixon's price-fixing didn't work in the 70's...please give us the ideal judging criteria for the ...the.. aughts?

[ScribeToo]

You answered one question. Fine. You don't like judges using the "scoring cap."

So.. you tell me. Should 9.9 then be the top number any judge should be able to use? If so, wouldn't that constitute a "perfect" score, if that's as high as the judge is allowed to go? 9.8? 7.6? Please give us a number. Nixon's price-fixing didn't work in the 70's...please give us the ideal judging criteria for the ...the.. aughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you read what I said in the beginning of my first post here?

Why are we seeing 10s and 9.9s when the recaps show that judges have the ability to give scores down to the hundredth? Why aren't we seeing 9.98 or 9.92? They expanded the scoring down to the hundredth, they've been using it all season long .. why aren't they using it now?

I understand that you get to a certain point of the season and the other corps are so good that you give them a certain number and you sort of "box yourself in" at the top -- but I sincerely doubt .. at ANY point .. that a corps is TRULY scoring 4 or 5 perfect subcaptions.. it's just not humanly possible for 135 people to be doing something completely perfect -- particularly when we already know that the judge has only given himself .1 worth of score left to work with.

I'm sure the judges know that it wasn't "perfect" -- so why then, don't we see 9.98 or 9.99 instead of a 10 -- not to mention 4 or 5 of them?

Stef