OMello1 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Now you're just making things up. Never once did I mention which error is most noticeable...[EDIT]... It doesnt matter where the 'form' arc ended up, but that people are cooperating and see errors occur and will respond accordingly. Ultimately, Im not sure why you're picking a fight that doesnt exist..... We're fighting? That's news to me. You asked me to clarify my opinions and I'm doing that. I'm still referencing the original comparison, in which we were asked to decide which type of error is more noticable. But the comparison, in my opinion, is flawed and really had no merit. It could be boiled down to say "which is more noticable, an arc that has flaws or an arc that doesn't have flaws?". Why even ask the question? That is why I didn't respond directly to the comparison. yes, you are right on the money! you nailed it! Good...that is what I thought you were getting at. And that also shows how much you do not understand the dot system and what tools are available to them for recovery. G-Cym, Omello1, both of you at some point in this thread continue to say that in a 'form only' group, that an image will be ruined because one person is out of the form and everyone else robotically follows. Are you serious!?!? Since we are talking in absolutes here, yes. We've all seen many many performances where the front guide point blows off a set and the 7 dudes behind follow, and then the lines are not evenly spaced. So yes, it does happen. Does it happen in every "form" system corps? Of course not, most of them nowadays are smart enough to let the one dude be wrong. Thats just silly to assume that everyone would robotically follow no matter what happens. It doesnt work that way. If 'form' marching was a computer program, and we were all robots, then yes, the one bug (out of form marcher) in the program would cause all the other robots behind to follow suit. Thankfully Joe wont 'jump off the bridge' just because the guy in front of him did. Unfortunately, it is not silly, because it still happens. Some groups just have not figured that out yet... Thats rather naive. I love how people think that "youve nailed it!!!" when they agree with you. hah! b**bs I still don't understand why you are getting so worked up about this. I'm not really debating the merits form vs. dot--each has benefits and drawbacks. Most of this conversation, from my end, is regarding the original comparison posted by Phantom&whatever. I've been debating the merits of that comparison, since you busted my balls about it in the first place... M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Rather than debating which method gets cleaner, I think we should focus on what is really important. That is the difference in "clean" and in "achievement"I'm pretty sure that none of the judges sheets have the words "CLEAN" on them. But they all talk about achievement. Here is an example, using the arc scenario aforementioned: Dot-arc: 1 guy REALLY out....rest of arc hit dots...appears NOT CLEAN Form-arc: No one out....however, arc has that "form" look about it. And you all know what I mean....its smooth, but not shaped quite right. Flatter here, rounder there, several points of inflection. Appears CLEAN. Which has achieved more? The 63 right people, or the 64 people that kind of formed a shape that kinda looks like its right. Another example: Cadets performed a move in Liquid where 4 BIG arcs parallel to each other sort of move and then reverse arc (change inflection), convex to concave. Now at first glance, it looks pretty $#&* clean. But when you look closer, you see that the arcs aren't the same shape, there are several flat, straight portions on some, and the ARCS CHANGE INFLECTION AT DIFFERENT TIMES (notice by watching when the center of each flattens and inverts) I doubt Sacktig wrote for that to happen. So, its clean, but how much has it achieved? If all we talk about is clean, we'll be in 1975 again. Same with Phantom. They form many big, loping curves across the field that look pretty clean. But when you ANALYZE and look it terms of achivement, there is not much integration, much dimension, much exposure, or much opportunity to look dirty. Same with Cadets. How many people when watching them can really tell what a shape is supposed to be? And no, I don't mean a shower head...I mean pure intent of shape. I think Blue Devils expose their corps more than many groups. Same with Cavaliers. You see more dirt in them sometimes because they offer more opportunity to see dirt...which is ATTEMPTING....which is WHAT.....which is the first and primary aspect of ACHIEVEMENT. THEN you look at how its done....which is where the cleanliness aspect comes into play. The activity will move forward when these conversations change from CLEAN to defining what achievement is, what difficulty is (not speed), what exposure is, what integration is, what variety is, etc..... Cadets were pretty $#& clean though. Congrats to them on a great year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clean. Who is cleaner? The corps that hides their mistakes better than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZSDAvenger Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 We're fighting? That's news to me. You asked me to clarify my opinions and I'm doing that. Wow...um ok...I didnt think you would take that literally....anyways..... I'm still referencing the original comparison, in which we were asked to decide which type of error is more noticable. well, for our convenience, here is the original comparison: what do judges notice more... lets use an arc for example 1) an arc where everyone is in it except for 1 person who missed their dot, or 2) an arc that might not be where the drill writers wrote it, but its still an arc.. But the comparison, in my opinion, is flawed and really had no merit. It could be boiled down to say "which is more noticable, an arc that has flaws or an arc that doesn't have flaws?". Why even ask the question? That is why I didn't respond directly to the comparison. So, as you can see from Phantoms quote, the issue still is 'which is more noticeable?' Im not sure where the confusion comes from. Good...that is what I thought you were getting at. And that also shows how much you do not understand the dot system and what tools are available to them for recovery. Ya know, the funny thing is...is that i can say that EXACT same thing to you in regards to understanding the form system. Kinda ironic. Since we are talking in absolutes here, yes. We've all seen many many performances where the front guide point blows off a set and the 7 dudes behind follow, and then the lines are not evenly spaced. So yes, it does happen. Does it happen in every "form" system corps? Of course not, most of them nowadays are smart enough to let the one dude be wrong. Do followers jump off the cliff occasionally? Of course...but for future reference, understand that ive been basing my arguments off of good drum corps, not anything else less than that. At least now you admit or acknowledge that, as I have previously mentined in earlier posts....that the better corps will indeed let the tick'er go off by himself and guide through the error. Still what ive been saying. Thats just silly to assume that everyone would robotically follow no matter what happens. It doesnt work that way. If 'form' marching was a computer program, and we were all robots, then yes, the one bug (out of form marcher) in the program would cause all the other robots behind to follow suit. Thankfully Joe wont 'jump off the bridge' just because the guy in front of him did.Unfortunately, it is not silly, because it still happens. Some groups just have not figured that out yet... oook....going in circles now....see above.... I still don't understand why you are getting so worked up about this. I'm not really debating the merits form vs. dot--each has benefits and drawbacks. Most of this conversation, from my end, is regarding the original comparison posted by Phantom&whatever. I've been debating the merits of that comparison, since you busted my balls about it in the first place...M <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dont worry, Im not worked up in the least. And regarding your so-called original comparison...refer a couple of quotes up if youd like. I hope you're not upset. Im not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayM Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 cavies really haven't won taken visual since 2002? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, someone is misinformed. The last time the Cavaliers won visual was 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommySopranoContra Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 You have a dot. That is point A. Your next dot is Point B. Guiding to the form is what you do between Point A and Point B. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep yep yep! I agree! That's the way I learned it. And I learned good. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom&Phitch Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) No, someone is misinformed.The last time the Cavaliers won visual was 2004. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the only person misinformed is you... they lost music and visual on finals night... 3rd in 03 2nd in 04 2nd in 05 the only years in the 2000s they have won it outright have been 2000 and 2002 still not bad, but its not like they're untouchable... Edited September 16, 2005 by Phantom&Phitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZSDAvenger Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) Phantom...I believe Jayzer is referring to winning the Visual Caption award for having the highest average score for all 3 nights.....not who won finals night only. In which case the results differ. And I would trust jayzer on this one...... Edited September 16, 2005 by ZSDAvenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idontwan2know Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Most people that try to adopt a "pure" dot system(even though in reality there is no such thing, even Cavies talk form at the end of tour), simply don't understand what's required to make it work. It requires a level of talent and personal responsibility that not all corps can count on, and it requires a drill writer who is willing to go out of his way to be meticulous about the way they write their drill. With a Cavies-type dot system, you also give up parts of the visual vocabulary. Because the performers always take a straight line path from one set to the next, certain types of moves are difficult/impossible to create. Any move that would normally require a performer to take a "path" requires multpile subsets, or simply can't be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoast7 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Most people that try to adopt a "pure" dot system(even though in reality there is no such thing, even Cavies talk form at the end of tour), simply don't understand what's required to make it work. Really? Are you sure about that? I might double check your sources..... With a Cavies-type dot system, you also give up parts of the visual vocabulary. Because the performers always take a straight line path from one set to the next, certain types of moves are difficult/impossible to create. Any move that would normally require a performer to take a "path" requires multpile subsets, or simply can't be done. Now thats just absurd. If anything, the Cavaliers have MORE visual vocabulary BECAUSE of their system. Look at the drill they've put on the field in the past decade.....it doesn't look like there's anything they can't do. Which would mean that a dot-system only ENHANCES what a corps can do. And you can try to debate that point, but there's no evidence to support it....select some FORM-system moves that can rival Cavies' drill of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 For us... Pete Emmons passed out poker chips to mark our spots. Different colors for different forms. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what we use with the band I teach...the more things change...etc! :) I'm the one that bought them for the kids. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.