socaldrills Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 (edited) Hi! king_leonides! That was in 2008! It's 2010! I think you need to get over it! Edited October 11, 2010 by socaldrills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socaldrills Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 (edited) Hi! king_leonides! It's also a different judge in Finals! You should do more research before complaining! Edited October 11, 2010 by socaldrills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king_leonides Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Hi! king_leonides! It's also a different judge in Finals! You should do more research before complaining! Again, Clements' Area 3 finals scores in 2008 were: 22233 That means all 5 judges rated them in the top 3 at Finals. That doesn't explain how that 1 judge moved them 15 to 2 or 3, after preliminaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Again, Clements' Area 3 finals scores in 2008 were: 22233 That means all 5 judges rated them in the top 3 at Finals. That doesn't explain how that 1 judge moved them 15 to 2 or 3, after preliminaries. He changed captions from Marching in Prelims to Music in Finals. Maybe he legitimately thought they were really really really bad in Marching but were really really good in Music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socaldrills Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Hi! king_leonides! Why are you mad all the time? You should have a cookie cake to make you smile! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salas Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Lawrence Central 2001: Won Grand Nationals without winning any caption awards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFadrian10 Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Sam Houston State Marching Festival 2007, Cypress Falls HS winning all captions (best drum major, colorguard and percussion) and taking 3rd place in prelims and then 4th in finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Sam Houston State Marching Festival 2007, Cypress Falls HS winning all captions (best drum major, colorguard and percussion) and taking 3rd place in prelims and then 4th in finals. Those aren't all the captions. Those are actually just the minority captions. The vast majority of the scores came from the Music, Marching, and GE captions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TromboneTM Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 To further elaborate on that year's UIL music caption: Yes, one judge, who was a last minute replacement for Richard Saucedo gave us dead last at 33rd I think. Alfred Watkins, Lassiter band director, gave us 3rd or 4th. The other judge was in the middle at 16th or 17th. After that, it's no wonder SFA doesn't give a rip about UIL anymore. it's funny you should mention Watkins' score being so different. in the 2009 state contest, he placed Dawson at 23 when mr bertman placed us 5th, keeping us out of finals by 4 points. i think the variation in scoring is due to different concepts of sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king_leonides Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Ordinal systems are a joke. They should not be used for judging, period. They are used by judges, so they can judge relatively, not objectively. If they had to judge objectively, they would have to work a lot harder, because there would be much greater precision and accountability. They would have to objectively state, that your corps/band/guard is box 5/4/3/2/1, because of these criteria - and because of that, your score is a 91.5, not "first place." Judges wouldn't be able to hide behind excuses, such as "Well, I thought your band looked great, but I still placed you 16th." Then we would have a lot less Doyle Gammills in the world. Ordinal systems really should be banned. After 31 years of competing in, and watching, marching competitions, it is one of the few things that I am 100% convinced of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socaldrills Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 (edited) Ordinal systems are a joke. Hi! king_leonides! I have a joke for you! What do you have when you have 100 Spartan fans covered up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand! Edited October 13, 2010 by socaldrills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Ordinal systems are a joke. They should not be used for judging, period. They are used by judges, so they can judge relatively, not objectively. If they had to judge objectively, they would have to work a lot harder, because there would be much greater precision and accountability. They would have to objectively state, that your corps/band/guard is box 5/4/3/2/1, because of these criteria - and because of that, your score is a 91.5, not "first place." Judges wouldn't be able to hide behind excuses, such as "Well, I thought your band looked great, but I still placed you 16th." Then we would have a lot less Doyle Gammills in the world. Ordinal systems really should be banned. After 31 years of competing in, and watching, marching competitions, it is one of the few things that I am 100% convinced of. Ordinal systems are nothing like what you said one single bit. They are not used for ranking without need to score. They are used to evenly weight judges so that one judge that over/under spreads himself doesn't over/under weight his judging spot. See the parts titled "Fun With Band Math" and "Even More Fun With Band Math" http://www.txbands.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwood69 Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 Ordinal systems are nothing like what you said one single bit. They are not used for ranking without need to score. They are used to evenly weight judges so that one judge that over/under spreads himself doesn't over/under weight his judging spot. See the parts titled "Fun With Band Math" and "Even More Fun With Band Math" http://www.txbands.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3007 I don't know if that is truly the concern (over/under weighting scores from a single judge). I think the concern is with bands having a section of their ensemble carrying them to the next place up (or down) because they are exceedingly better/worse than the next best/worse section in the other band (which in my opinion is not a sin), not just because a judge scores them much higher/lower. For example, a contest has 5 categories: Music, Marching, Percussion, Guard, and GE. Band A has placement scores (in that same order) of 6 (91), 2 (97), 9(77), 1(95), and 3 (96) to make 21, and a average score of 91.75. Band B receives a 3 (93), 4 (93), 7 (78.5), 3 (90), and 4 (95.5) to make 21 and an average score of 90.75. If you were to look at the raw placement scores, both bands are equally good, however if you look at the mean of the actual scores, Band A clearly is a more well rounded band than Band B. Ordinal scoring systems are not representative of how well bands actually perform, period. It doesn't make sense to evenly weight the judges' scores when the execution of certain sections of bands are not just as proportionally discrepant. Luckily the highest tier of marching music understands this. **The example I talked about above actually happened at Westlake this year between Anderson and Dripping Springs. The same occurred between RR and Bowie. Had it gone by an ordinal scoring system, RR and Bowie would have tied for first, instead of RR beating them by .30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwood69 Posted October 13, 2010 Report Share Posted October 13, 2010 (edited) And for what it's worth, the example given in that article regarding wide ranging scores from a judge (in the band math fun thing) is far too extreme to be representative of a real world situation, nor does the situation itself actually exist. Edited October 13, 2010 by mrwood69 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 And for what it's worth, the example given in that article regarding wide ranging scores from a judge (in the band math fun thing) is far too extreme to be representative of a real world situation, nor does the situation itself actually exist. You don't know anything about judging do you? That sort of stuff happens all the time. Sure it may have been exaggerated a little bit but its an example! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwood69 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 You don't know anything about judging do you? That sort of stuff happens all the time. Sure it may have been exaggerated a little bit but its an example! It was exaggerated A LOT. Besides, there are several different categories that make up overall scores, not several judges making out their own general score for each band... at least at serious contests. I think the misinterpretation here is when a judge (judging a separate category than the others) has a wide discrepancy between EVERY band he judged, not just one or two like in the example. Regardless of the discrepency between scores, a judge for whatever category will place a band ahead of another if he/she feels they are better than those behind it (and vice versa). Generally those discrepencies will be consistent too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titancoaster Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Band is a subjective art...it will always be viewed differently from person to person. When you choose to judge something that is subjective judging controversies will ALWAYS occur (find me one sport or art that requires subjective judging that hasnt had a controversy and ill bake you a cookie). The BOA system is no better, its just as other people have said, its just harder to detect as each judge is judging completly different aspects of the performance (minus GE Music Judges), so no one questions the judges scores. I have seen bands miss finals at various BOA events due to one of the two music GE scores being 2 to 3 points lower bringing the band down from 10th to 15th. No system is perfect, you dont like the way the UIL system works than dont go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRaider13 Posted October 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Band is a subjective art...it will always be viewed differently from person to person. When you choose to judge something that is subjective judging controversies will ALWAYS occur (find me one sport or art that requires subjective judging that hasnt had a controversy and ill bake you a cookie). Can I just have the cookie? And I agree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sousapwn Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 2010 BOA Arlington, Mansfield HS got eleventh by .7 of a point. Then the next week at The Carrollton Tournament of Champions we got first place over Colleyville Heritage, who was 8th in finals at BOA the week before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sousapwn Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 On my last post about Collyville Heritage, I'm not meanning to cut them down and am gonna say good job at BOA. I'm only talking about the judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titancoaster Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Can I just have the cookie? Sure just give me your address and Ill mail it to you...and the white powder is just flower not anthrax..I promise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous11 Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 the woodlands placing first overall in grand nats semis in 2006. beating bands like ld bell and avon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtxtrmpt Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 DCI 2008 Finals 01. 98.125 - Phantom Regiment 02. 98.100 - Blue Devils 03. 97.325 - The Cavaliers Semifinals 01. 98.050 - Blue Devils 02. 97.675 - Phantom Regiment 03. 97.550 - The Cavaliers 04. 96.700 - Carolina Crown Quarterfinals 01. 97.375 - Blue Devils 02. 97.000 - The Cavaliers 03. 96.575 - Phantom Regiment 04. 96.075 - Carolina Crown The most amazing crowd reaction ever. Phantom Regiment beating BD by .025 of a point. The crowd flipped as BD was announced in second, and continued freaking out as Phantoms score was announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenon Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 The roar of that was so humongous that I felt it all the way down here in Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRaider13 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 Yeah it was, we were standing in formation in Cavy, and I couldn't hear what my friend was saying because the crowd was so loud. That was a fun year to be in DCI 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.