gellio Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) I think Hop raises a great point about judging in one of his recent Blog entries. I don’t think he raised his question about judging because he thinks the Cadets are getting screwed. Rather, I think he questions it, because it doesn't make sense. Here's what the same Visual Ensemble judge did two nights in a row (from Hop's Blog): Cadets Visual Ensemble. Aug 3 Cavies --- 19.0 Cadets --- 17.5 Aug 2 ---- Same Judge Cavies -- 18.7 Boston -- 17.7 Glassmen -- 17.5 This doesn't make sense to me, at all. Now, as much as I like Boston and Glassmen this year (I like them A LOT more than the Cadets), there's no way in #### these two should be scoring this close to the Cadets in Visual Ensemble, no way. I know, I know - different shows. But, it still doesn't make sense. Here's why: As far as I understand it, the judges are supposed to judge by boxes of specific criteria on the score sheets. Therefore, that leads me to believe a 17.5 is rewarded based on a corps performance based on a set of criteria. If that's the case, how can one explain those numbers? If I understand this correctly, the 17.5 Glassmen earned on the 2nd, should mean that the 17.5 the Cadets earned on the 3rd was because this judge judged the performances of the Glassmen and Cadets as equal. In other words, based on his criteria, he judged the shows at the same level, albeit at different shows on different nights. These numbers lead me to believe that they don't mean anything and are merely given as place-markers and increase over the course of the season to keep in line with a corps natural progression of improvement, rather than being a well thought out, sensible and realistic number. It just doesn't make sense. How could the same judge score Glassmen .2 higher than the Cadets if he is using this so-called box criteria? Basically, I feel like these judges just throw those numbers out based on nothing more than place-markers. If not, how do you explain those numbers? It's like the judge thinks, "Hmmmmm, Corps B (who just performed) was pretty good. I think they should score in the lower 18s. Let's see, I gave Corps A (who performed earlier) a 18.3 - okay, Corps B gets an 18.5!" Rather than using a specific set of criteria to award the 18.3 and 18.5. Why did he pick an 18? Why not 17? Why not 19? I conclude an 18 because judges in the previous nights gave high 17s or low 18s. And they gave those marks based on the marks given by judges early, and so on - back to the beginning of the season. How'd the first judge to judge these corps pick his number? If not, how do you explain the lower corps experiencing sometimes-large score drops from Semis to Finals. If Corps A comes into finals in 4th place with an 94.8 and Corps B comes into finals in 11th with an 85.2, and both corps perform at the same level in finals, we should see an 94.8 and an 85.2. Instead, we are likely to see something like an 95.8 and an 82.3. It doesn't make sense. So, instead of these corps being separated by 10 points, there is a 13-point gap, and that isn't fair to the 11th place corps. If a corps deserves a 95, they should get a 95 regardless of who performed before or who is yet to perform. If the 11th place corps deserves an 87, they should get an 87 regardless of who is to perform after then. Instead, why do we see this drop? If they're really judging based on box criteria, then why do we see these drops with the lower placing corps, when the performance level doesn't drop? Another argument is these corps that are within tenths of each other, with the same corps winning show after show after show. It doesn't add up. If two corps are less than a point apart they should be flip-flopping from night to night, with one corps winning by a larger margin one night (over a point) and losing the next night. That hardly ever happens anymore. It happened in my day. But, in 2003 Phantom topped SCV by less than a point show after show after show. Bluecoats are now beating the Cadets by about 5 tenths show after show after show. SCV topped BK early in the season by less than a point show after show after show. Clearly, it doesn't make sense! There is no way one corps is better than another, by such a small margin, night after night after night. I hope I'm being clear. It just doesn't make sense to me. If they are judging based on criteria and not just throwing numbers out there to keep places, then how do you explain the visual ensemble scores above? How do you explain the lower corps significant score drop? How do you explain one corps beating another by tenths night after night after night? You can't. Overall, I think the judges get the placements right, but I am not convinced that they actually have any type of criteria to judge by, other than their own opinions of who was better than who. And, they get it right in terms of who is better than who, but I feel there numbers make no sense and essentially do not mean anything. Sorry this is so long. If someone can explain why I am wrong, I would appreciate it…but I agree with Hop - the numbers don't add up. Edited August 5, 2006 by gellio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arno0940 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Something is very fishy here. The spread to the Cavies I think is the key number...Had Glassmen and Boston been at the show on the 3rd where would they have fit into this equation?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arno0940 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Last night Cadets where 1.20 ahead of Glassmen in Visual Ensemble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted August 5, 2006 Author Share Posted August 5, 2006 Last night Cadets where 1.20 ahead of Glassmen in Visual Ensemble. Exactly, you raise good points. I understand the "different judges" argument, but if they are judging based on criteria, there should really be no such thing. How would two judges, judging the same caption, judge two corps at the same show? They should score the corps within tenths of one another if they are really judging based on criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgo Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 From looking at the complete show courtesy of one of the Season Pass show vids (and it wasn't from that long ago), I saw quite a number of spacing and vis dirt issues. The scores I am seeing are not so surprising given that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted August 5, 2006 Author Share Posted August 5, 2006 Something is very fishy here. The spread to the Cavies I think is the key number...Had Glassmen and Boston been at the show on the 3rd where would they have fit into this equation?? I see that...but the Cadets were further down in vis ens from Cavies than Glassmen and Boston were. Granted the Cavies could have improved drastically between the two nights, or had an off-show on the 2nd...but I dont' think the judges even take "off shows" into account. Frankly, it's all getting bit boring and predictable. Phantom will probably finish 2nd to Cavies by less than a point all week in Madison. There's little excitement today in judging. Remember the DCM judge who had previous nights numbers on him at a show a couple years ago? If he's using set criteria, why did he need to have those numbers on him? In my opinion, a judge should be able to be able to score a corps correctly at finals if he didn't judge any shows all season, didn't see or hear the corps all season and didn't know who was beating who. I bet things would go crazy upside down if a blind panel came in and judged finals. People were up in arms over the 1988 format, but it work, and IMO it should be standard today. The judges in semis and finals HAD TO give the right numbers because they didn't know what the other panel was going to do and it could have turned the activity upside down if say we won Semis and landed in 5th in finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlosvi7 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Basicly sounds like an overanalyze, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantombari1 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) It's another one of those "It's not possible for any other corp below us to have a good night" comments George is good for when he isn't making ground on the leaders. He did this last year and their scores went up but I don't think it will work this year! You never hear him saying this when the cadets are in the lead! Edited August 5, 2006 by Phantombari1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted August 5, 2006 Author Share Posted August 5, 2006 It's another one of those "It's not possible for any other corp below us to have a good night" comments George is good for when he isn't making ground on the leaders. He did this last year and their scores went up but I don't think it will work this year! I don't think that's what he's saying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gellio Posted August 5, 2006 Author Share Posted August 5, 2006 Basicly sounds like an overanalyze, nothing more. Then please explain to me how judging works and how a judge that awards a corps, say a 19.3, arrives at a 19.3. 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.