JMS0527 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 To me, 10 means perfection on an almost un-Godly level. It is as close to perfection as one can get. These are contradictory.....is a 10 perfection, or is it as close to perfection as one can get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted August 12, 2006 Author Share Posted August 12, 2006 (edited) These are contradictory.....is a 10 perfection, or is it as close to perfection as one can get? I think we are getting off point here. At no time have I argued that 10 is prefection (at least I don't think I have). But 10 is a special number to give, and in IMO I have not witnessed what I would consdier to be a 10 on the field this season. The quality of the shows this year has been a bit below the 98 or 99 marks we have seen in recent years. That's not a bad thing at all, but I believe when you start getting into the upper 90's, it should be considerably more difficult to raise your scare a tenth than it was in the low 90's or high 80's. It just seems to me that these number were "given out" last night rather then earned. Regiments visual scores should have been lower as well as BD's and Cavi's. If I was the judge(s) in question, my scores would have looked like this Regiment 9.2 BD 9.3 Cavaliers 9.6 Edited August 12, 2006 by Newseditor44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadep66 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 As I had stated in another thread, the judging is rather inconsistent, and is based partially on preference and opinion. The colorguard scores are what really stick out to me because the rankings jump around so much. I refuse to believe that a guard can jump from 2nd or 3rd on one night to 6th on another, and it isn't because of execution, because the Cont score drops as well. The colorguard judges are rewarding their preference in things like writing, flag and weapon choice, etc. This should not be as different as it is from one judge to another according to what DCI says about how the judging is done. As far as ranking, it has to be going on. The score is supposed to be based on standards, not the other corps. The judging information says that theoretically any corps can win on a given night, but we know that is NOT the case. Just like in figure skating or gymnastics, the judges hold points, give the benefit of the doubt based on history, overlook some errors while penalizing bigtime for others, etc.. This even went on with my high school band in the caption judging system. We would sometimes get 3 judges put us in first, and the other would put us dead last (like 12th). THat is NOT possible unless something besides standard measures for excellence are coming into play. I don't know what can be done about it, if anything, other than to track a judges history and screen them based on that. I think the collective corps should have a voice in this. Maybe they do??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sluggo Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 (edited) Didn't we go over all this 10 crap 4 years ago? I thought everyone agreed to disagree that when the scores are started a little higher, and each corps gets better, then obviously, when you get to the better corps of the night, and all you have left is a 10, then that's what you get. Yes, we have all agreed that a 10 should be preserved for that perfect performance, but what happens when the previous corps was a tenth lower? Get over the 10 score. I agree with Stef and J.C. Taylor, if it were any other corps, we wouldn't be having this discussion. didn't Star get a perfect brass score in prelims in '91 or '92? I currently can't find the recaps from those years, but I do remember them getting a perfect score one night, then not the next night. Same thing as John said, BD got perfect score in '96 too....but no one complained, or did they?.... Edited August 12, 2006 by Sluggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil-galad Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 In my opinion '10' doesn't mean perfect. After all-- why have an UNREACHABLE goal. I mean there's no noint in setting an unreachable goal. 10's should be given to absolutely phenomenal parts of a show-- and if the judges think those parts of the Cavie's show are really that good-- then they deserve those tens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS0527 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 didn't Star get a perfect brass score in prelims in '91 or '92? I currently can't find the recaps from those years, but I do remember them getting a perfect score one night, then not the next night.Same thing as John said, BD got perfect score in '96 too....but no one complained, or did they?.... I looked this up....Paul Hinman was the Ensemble Brass judge and gave Star a 10 at the '92 semis The Field Visual Monterastelli score was from '95 quarters... IF I remember correctly (not sure), Gene said nothing into the tape recorder except "Thank you" at the end Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS0527 Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 AND Monterastelli did the same thing with the Blue Devils in the '97 semis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBob Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 They got 10s in the top half of the sheet -- the "what are you doing" part. They didn't get 10s in the "how well are you doing it" part. The top half of the sheet for every caption is a "what are you doing" category, whether it's what work the guard is doing, what technique the hornline has been taught, what visual style is being utilized by the corps, or whatever. The only way in which execution is involved in the top half of the sheet is how well the corps communicates what that work/technique/style/etc. is supposed to be. A judge can get an idea of what a corps is trying to do even if the corps doesn't do it perfectly. How well they do it, however, is the province of the bottom half of the sheet. To repeat: the 10s the Cavies received in GE Visual and Visual Performance are not based primarily on their execution, but on what they're being asked to do. Design elements on the juding sheets? Egad! Gasp! Shock! It's been a part of judging at least since the inception of the build-up scoring method was adopted. It's nothing new. Ten is not perfection and it's not "off limits." I realize some of you see it that way, but it's not how the judges see it, and I don't see a practical reason to hold them accountable to your standards. If a corps can get a zero in a sub-subcaption (and it's happened this season), then another can certainly get a 100 in a sub-subcaption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBob Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 I looked this up....Paul Hinman was the Ensemble Brass judge and gave Star a 10 at the '92 semis That I can believe. That hornline. Whew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted August 12, 2006 Author Share Posted August 12, 2006 (edited) Get over the 10 score. I agree with Stef and J.C. Taylor, if it were any other corps, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why do I have a feeling you, wouldn't be saying get over it if it wasn't the Cavaliers? I will agree to disagree with you. We are each entitled to our opinions, and I respect yours. Edited August 12, 2006 by Newseditor44 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.