Jump to content

2005 - Great year for lower corps?


Recommended Posts

I had an original post, but deleted everything and started from scratch. I forgot to include the following:

I'm only talking about the top 12 because that's all that I listen to (not that I don't appreciate what is being offered outside of the top 12 {and the cascades, just because those are some really great kids}, it's just that I know only the top 12 corps, and I'm only going to talk about what I know).

Thanks for quickly jumping on a flaw in my post instead of praising the activity - which was the original intent of this thread.

<**>

Regardless of your soap box, you still have to talk accuracy. Sorry you dont like the "lower" corps that place outside the top 12, but corps IN the top twelve are not considered lower corps regardless if 12th place is your cut off or not..sheesh.

~G~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regardless of your soap box, you still have to talk accuracy. Sorry you dont like the "lower" corps that place outside the top 12, but corps IN the top twelve are not considered lower corps regardless if 12th place is your cut off or not..sheesh.

~G~

Yeah, what were you thinking having a different opinion than the majority of DCP?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of your soap box, you still have to talk accuracy. Sorry you dont like the "lower" corps that place outside the top 12, but corps IN the top twelve are not considered lower corps regardless if 12th place is your cut off or not..sheesh.

~G~

So, if you had to rate 5th place through 9th place (out of 1-12) where would it fall...more on the HIGHER end, or the LOWER end??

And if that doesn't do justice to what you haven't belittled of what I thought was going to be an inspirational, complimentary discussion:

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't like the corps that aren't in the top 12 - ever. I said I just don't listen to them. Matter of factly, I even mentioned that one of my more favorite corps are the Cascades, who if I'm correct, did not place in the top 12 this summer. I used the term "lower" (STILL referring to only top 12 - as mentioned) only for readers to perceive where in the top 12 I'm referring to. In no way, shape, or form, was I referring to their talent level, staff's ability to teach, quality of food, or bus height from the ground. It's pretty ridiculous that I had to defend myself in a thread that I started to compliment corps' achievments this summer. If I had known that I had to defend myself everytime I post....oh wait, that's why I never post on here.

NOW I'm off my "soap box."

Swing away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lower place corps I would love to finish 9-12 unless you are SCV, then it's a disgrace and the corps director must step down.

:blink: The director kept them in the top 5 before, there could just be B-graded years here and there.

Edited by TommySopranoContra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, wow. Poor guy (?) makes an honest post, and rather than respond to it, everyone attacks him over the choice of the word "lower"! :blink:

DCP, what a place. :blink:

corps IN the top twelve are not considered lower corps regardless if 12th place is your cut off or not

Actually "lower" is a relative term, and is accurate depending on the context. Even the second place corps can be a "lower" corps, if the other corps being discussed was the champion. Since the original poster stated that the context was corps within the top twelve - and especially since within the top twelve corps there's been an elite top four for many years now - then yeah, in that context corps placing 5-9 could indeed be labeled "lower". The usage is correct. Now can we please actually discuss the topic? :)

I agree with the poster, this year especially. Bluecoats in fifth had one of my very favorite shows this year, and I had more fun with Boston than I've had since 2000. 'Coats and Scouts stepped it up to make an elite top six, but I think Boston, Crown, SCV, and BK all had very entertaining shows as well, despite placing 7-10. 2005 will definitely go down as one of the deepest years in a while, maybe since 1999 or 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...