All-Star Is It The Judges Fault That There Is No Change At The Top

[Coach Troy]

agreed. If a team has a major fall and still wins, kudos to them for having an overall difficult, well performed and executed routine that could take a major deduction and still win it all.

But some teams can take that hit and still be called "clean" and others cannot. Are they clean or does the years of having that "opinion" about that team make them clean??? That IMO is what we are left with because the judging panels are so old and set in thier ways.

I am sorry but you cannot say in one breath that team x fell, then in the next say "they had a well executed routine". It's one or the other....for some.

 

[Tealxblack25]

First I want to state for the record this is not a post against any team that took home the gold this weekend.....

This is my first question...

The skills are the same..the execution is the same...so what will it take for another name outside of the Cheer Athletics, World Cups, Top Guns, or place name of mega program here...to win ????

My answer to this delima is we are stuck with the same teams at the top not because others cannot do it better but because in the end we have a pool of judges that only know and respect one style and until they leave or are replaced we will always have very little change at the top.
We have a judges "overall impression" problem. The impression of the judges and thier opinion of who should "win" has not changed in the last 6-7 years, because the same "opinions" are still sitting in the same chairs....

Others can do it just as good as the household names so my 2nd question is this......

Can anyone hope to succeed if the majority of judging panels have not changed for almost a decade????

Two words.. *SOUTH*ELITE*

 

[socratesofcheer]

This topic is so tiring. A team with a drop CAN win. They can be so great at the other 20 something sections of the scoresheet and beat another team. That's why dance and jumps and synch and details matter.
I think the BIG gyms study score sheets, objectively look at their own flaws, and work hard to fix them.

I think a better question would be:
If the Top Gun, WC, CA, etc coaches went to another gym, would that gym now move to the top. (I know the answer, do you?)

 

[tucknduck]

I understand your point and your question. If you always have the same panel judging subjective portions according to what they personally prefer to see (the definition of subjective), you will always have the same results and it isn't really subjective at all.

Does this become yet another portion of the scoresheet that you can target with some accuracy? Yes. Is it weighted in favor of certain 'styles', of course - it must be. Is it right or the best way to do things? I would say no because it actually suppresses creativity and international/regional uniqueness, but I would also assume that those who consistently score high in those subjective areas would certainly disagree.

A fall does not make a well executed routine. It's a busted routine. A clean routine is a well executed routine. A difficult with a minor bobble is a near perfect routine. If the whole premise to winning is to have the most difficult moves, you'll wind up with a ton of major injuries just to try and win a piece of hardware and perform with reckless abandon knowing there'sa no penalty to perform the routine correctly.

However, I don't make the rules so teams should know what they have to do if they want to score well.

 

[fiercerando88]

But some teams can take that hit and still be called "clean" and others cannot. Are they clean or does the years of having that "opinion" about that team make them clean??? That IMO is what we are left with because the judging panels are so old and set in thier ways.

I am sorry but you cannot say in one breath that team x fell, then in the next say "they had a well executed routine". It's one or the other....for some.

In the case of SoT, yes you can say they had a fall but were still clean. Were they perfect? Obviously not, but the fact of the matter is the other parts of their routine were clean. People have the opinion that Spirit's clean because they are. It's a known fact, spirit and rays will serve you clean, and well executed routines. Yes they fell, but the rest of that routine was pretty dang well executed.

 

[Coach Troy]

How can you say in one breath "they had a fall" and in the next " perfectly executed routine"???

But this is an example of what we see in judging today. Your opinion of them has nothing to do with what you witnessed at the moment and everything to do with your perception.
You call them perfect .. Because that is what you perceive them to be so no matter the flaw you always bring them back to perfect.

This is the point of my thread...not who won what at worlds 2012....but what, if anything, can be done to see diversity in judging since we never have a changing of the guard.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

A fall does not make a well executed routine. It's a busted routine. A clean routine is a well executed routine. A difficult with a minor bobble is a near perfect routine. If the whole premise to winning is to have the most difficult moves, you'll wind up with a ton of major injuries just to try and win a piece of hardware and perform with reckless abandon knowing there'sa no penalty to perform the routine correctly.

However, I don't make the rules so teams should know what they have to do if they want to score well.

I'm not clear on the relationship between your response and my post. Falls and execution of a specific skill are generally not subjective measurements. They are skills hit or n0t hit and there is little room for subjective interpretation. 'Difficulty' can be somewhat subjective, but only marginally since any judge at Worlds should know how difficult any given skill is to execute relative to another.

 

[Coach Troy]

I think a better question would be:
If the Top Gun, WC, CA, etc coaches went to another gym, would that gym now move to the top. (I know the answer, do you?)

The answer is no...

 

[Mclovin]

In the case of SoT, yes you can say they had a fall but were still clean. Were they perfect? Obviously not, but the fact of the matter is the other parts of their routine were clean. People have the opinion that Spirit's clean because they are. It's a known fact, spirit and rays will serve you clean, and well executed routines. Yes they fell, but the rest of that routine was pretty dang well executed.

As was T&S and South Elite and Gymtyme...just sayin...

 

[BlueCat]

If I tell you that it is all politics, will that keep you from spending month after month studying scoresheets & videos to figure out the minute details that separate the winners from the others? If so, then yes - it is all political.

 

[xpressjag]

1-2 groups ARE part of the team. You should be as strong as your weakest link. To me, a fall is a failed stunt in the routine and should be heavily penalized. Otherwise, scoring is subjective and the favorite teams can win all the time. being technically sound and doing the more difficult moves in the routine should be rewarded, they also should be penalized should a stunt or a difficult tumbling pass fail.

I do agree that a team so strong in their routine should have room for minor mistakes but a fall is a major failure and should be costly. The only time the stunt fall shouldn't hurt is if other teams in the same division make mistakes as well. I can see awarding a team a higher rank if a team has only one fall with high difficulty over a team who made a bunch of technical mistakes but no major fall or if the team isn't performing all the skills necessary at their level to play it safe.

You are correct that 1-2 stunt groups are part of the team, but you are being judged on what the majority of the team is doing. When groups bobble or fall, then deductions take that into account. Otherwise you are being judged on what the remaining groups are doing.

 

[SarahS]

How can you say in one breath "they had a fall" and in the next " perfectly executed routine"???

But this is an example of what we see in judging today. Your opinion of them has nothing to do with what you witnessed at the moment and everything to do with your perception.
You call them perfect .. Because that is what you perceive them to be so no matter the flaw you always bring them back to perfect.

This is the point of my thread...not who won what at worlds 2012....but what, if anything, can be done to see diversity in judging since we never have a changing of the guard.

...So, in your estimation, less-experienced judges at the premier event in all star cheer would somehow be less biased? It seems to me that every judge will have some sort of bias, and you'd just be trading in experience and a certain, known set of biases for less experience and an unknown set of biases. How is that better? I'd prefer experienced judges any day of the week.

Now, if you want to attack the problem of subjectivity inherent in the current scoresheets or the way judging is done ( kingston 's idea of video replay judging of difficulty comes to mind as one solution), then I'd say you're onto something.

 

[xpressjag]

As was T&S and South Elite and Gymtyme...just sayin...

I think everyone's definition of "clean" is different. I read on these boards all weekend about how Team A and Team B were so clean and so perfect and you watch the video and displays otherwise.

Personally in the medium coed division I thought that Twist and Shout and Gym Tyme should have been 2nd and 3rd. I thought South Elite was GREAT in stunts, but their other areas were not as strong compared to other programs.

 

[we_stand_alone]

I don't think it matters
I actually am a fan of it being all or nothing on day 2.

There are lots of things still to be perfected about our scoring but the bigger question is if we do all of that but just put the same people in charge of it will it matter ...

And this is why the same people are in charge year after year, because if you know about the new deductions this year, I think the smart thing to do would be to throw your safer skills, not just saying "ok let's go all in and throw everything we have." Throw the doubles that you know your kids will land correctly instead of under rotating them. This is what I mean by execution. Those "small" parts of the scoresheet are important. Especially if are looking for a worlds title. Those same group of people are judging because they are well aware of the scoresheet. They know what proper execution is supposed to look like. To me there are 2 types of gyms in this industry. Gyms that go for perfect and clean. And gyms who go for difficulty and that wow factor. 99 % of the time the team that throws the 7 well executed doubles will beat the gym that throws the 12 under rotated doubles. And I think that is fair. It seems like people always want to just forget that execution is STILL an important part of the scoresheet. Not only does it make teams look more polished, it lowers the risk of injury. So to answer your question, no I do not think someone with the "all or nothing" attitude should be judging worlds. I like the wow factor and difficult skills as much as the next person, but I believe that seeing 7 well executed doubles is better than full squad under rotating doubles.

 

[fiercerando88]

How can you say in one breath "they had a fall" and in the next " perfectly executed routine"???

But this is an example of what we see in judging today. Your opinion of them has nothing to do with what you witnessed at the moment and everything to do with your perception.
You call them perfect .. Because that is what you perceive them to be so no matter the flaw you always bring them back to perfect.

This is the point of my thread...not who won what at worlds 2012....but what, if anything, can be done to see diversity in judging since we never have a changing of the guard.

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I didn't say a perfectly executed routine, I said it was 'well executed'... there's a difference IMO. Besides the fall it was well executed.

As far as a changing of guards... I think it was Jennaw , who is a judge, but wasn't at worlds and knows the scoresheets, in the updates threads predicting winners and top teams left and right. They look for certain things, and the teams that win have those certain things. I feel like I'm :deadhorse: with this topic.

Lastly, in your response to socratesofcheer I disagree. I think if all those coaches went to a Suzie's Allstars, they could turn it into a winning gym. How do you think they started? They read and understand the scoresheets, learn, study, practice, and talk to others in the industry. They didn't just get to the top overnight. It's a process, and they've mastered it.