MikeD Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Still think they should use some form of a "tick" system. It seems that if the judges like the show, they will give it a high score Regardless of how clean the show was. Since you have just accused "the judges" of being dishonest...care to give some examples where corps received high performance scores in spite of being dirty, in your view? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77kingsmensnare Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Since you have just accused "the judges" of being dishonest...care to give some examples where corps received high performance scores in spite of being dirty, in your view?Mike Where in any part of that post does he "accuse " the judges of being dishonest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn craig Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I had a friend who believed (and this was on the old tick system) that every member makes AT LEAST one mistake, 100 members times -0.1 point each means no one should score over a 90. (not saying I agree, just a fun thought to post) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louielouie Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 100.005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyASU Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Since you have just accused "the judges" of being dishonest...care to give some examples where corps received high performance scores in spite of being dirty, in your view?Mike Cavies guard in 2002? I think they deserved their caption, but can you honestly watch the last 10 seconds of the show (try it from high cam) and tell me that it deserved a perfect score? There was massive phasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckid80 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I actually agree with that. No one can go through a show perfectly. However the judges can't possibly catch everything. I had a friend who believed (and this was on the old tick system) that every member makes AT LEAST one mistake, 100 members times -0.1 point each means no one should score over a 90. (not saying I agree, just a fun thought to post) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_S Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Cavies guard in 2002? I think they deserved their caption, but can you honestly watch the last 10 seconds of the show (try it from high cam) and tell me that it deserved a perfect score? There was massive phasing. It might not matter. I can't find a recap from that night online, but can someone post what the next highest scores were in the guard caption, probably from Blue Devils or Cadets? A 'perfect' score is not indicative of a perfect performance, so the only question that should be asked is "were they the best guard that night?". If you say yes, then that's all you need. Especially if the Cadets or Devils were scored as high as I'm guessing they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BennyASU Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) It might not matter. I can't find a recap from that night online, but can someone post what the next highest scores were in the guard caption, probably from Blue Devils or Cadets? A 'perfect' score is not indicative of a perfect performance, so the only question that should be asked is "were they the best guard that night?". If you say yes, then that's all you need. Especially if the Cadets or Devils were scored as high as I'm guessing they were. well i cant find a recap either but i know that BD got 2nd in guard, and im pretty sure they didnt score a 19.9, so the Cavies could still have been the best guard without getting a perfect score. Sorry, i know that "scores are relative" and blah blah blah but anytime you award a 20.0 there is some element of perfection assumed IMO. The sheets do call for some element of cleanliness, and id venture to say that if the entire Cavies guard show had resembled that last statement they wouldnt have even broke an 19, thats how out of sync it was. Id also call it bad numbers management if a judge has "no choice" but to award a 20.0 because they overscored the 2nd place guard. Now, let me add that I am not anti-giving out perfect scores. I thought that the Cadets 20.0 in visual in 1998 was very deserved. I have yet to see a show since with that much demand and that ridiculously clean. I just think that its happening too often now, and i only see more of them being given out in the future with scores on the rise. Edited October 12, 2005 by BennyASU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Where in any part of that post does he "accuse " the judges of being dishonest? Well he said...."It seems that if the judges like the show, they will give it a high score Regardless of how clean the show was." To me that means that as long as the judge "likes" a particular show, he/she will give it a high score, even if they know the show is not clean...hence...giving a dishonest score...not judging by what is being presented at that moment. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Ah, but if it becomes impossible to score a 20, then 19.9 becomes the perfect score, and we have the same arguments about a different number with the same meaning attached to it. I could see that happening. Wasn't the same argument used when Nadia Comenich (sp?) was awarded perfect 10s in the olympics? 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.