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

[CoachKelly]

I don't see how you can say its about Judges seeing the "name" and that's why they are winning. You have to look at the big picture between all the teams at Worlds, you have to go back to tryouts that season or even further back if you want. Its about everything that happens that season, how they train, do you or can you max out every inch of the score sheet. Is your choreographer capable of bringing out every persons full potential, the ability of your Coaches/Choreographer to place every team member where it best suits the routine. Not to mention, all the team members being 110% commited to every inch of the program and winning. You have to look at how every team trains. You are not going to find two teams that have all this and do it the same. Asking this question is like asking if the Yankees were called by another name would they still win like they do? Or why do the Steelers have so many Super Bowls wins but Phildelphia doesn't? I think trying to compare teams is like comparing apples to oranges. They are in the top spots for a reason and when other teams figure out what they need to do to get there they will. And it seems like a few teams are so maybe in the next few years we will see top names changing.

 

[Coach Troy]

So we just keep getting side tracked and makeing this about big verses small that is the wrong path

So let's establish a base line here....

1. Every so called "big name" has earned that name through great coaching, knowledge of scoring systems, and execution on the floor.

2. The human element of judging I.E. personal preference, past experience, etc is a fact that cannot be changed and influences the overall outcome.

So the question is starting from today can we expect others to earn that same name recognition if the judges are not recycled.???

 

[socratesofcheer]

So we just keep getting side tracked and makeing this about big verses small that is the wrong path

So let's establish a base line here....

1. Every so called "big name" has earned that name through great coaching, knowledge of scoring systems, and execution on the floor.

2. The human element of judging I.E. personal preference, past experience, etc is a fact that cannot be changed and influences the overall outcome.

So the question is starting from today can we expect others to earn that same name recognition if the judges are not recycled.???

I disagree with #2. I think judges set a new baseline every performance. Unlike stunt difficulty, execution is the only thing that is comparative. If team A performs a skill, then team B performs a skill better they should score higher in the execution portion. I really don't think changing judges changes the perception of what is good.

 

[MissCongeniality]

I don't see how you can say its about Judges seeing the "name" and that's why they are winning. You have to look at the big picture between all the teams at Worlds, you have to go back to tryouts that season or even further back if you want. Its about everything that happens that season, how they train, do you or can you max out every inch of the score sheet. Is your choreographer capable of bringing out every persons full potential, the ability of your Coaches/Choreographer to place every team member where it best suits the routine. Not to mention, all the team members being 110% commited to every inch of the program and winning. You have to look at how every team trains. You are not going to find two teams that have all this and do it the same. Asking this question is like asking if the Yankees were called by another name would they still win like they do? Or why do the Steelers have so many Super Bowls wins but Phildelphia doesn't? I think trying to compare teams is like comparing apples to oranges. They are in the top spots for a reason and when other teams figure out what they need to do to get there they will. And it seems like a few teams are so maybe in the next few years we will see top names changing.

I totally agree that training and dedication and everything is what makes the biggest difference out there. But, you can't see how human emotions can also play somewhat of a role? I'm not saying that it is the reason for "the win", but that human emotions can factor in when scoring is subjective.

You can't compare football or baseball to cheer (team name wise), because sports like football and baseball aren't subjective. You either have the skills to make the touchdown and score or you don't. You either hit the ball and run to the base or you don't. There is rarely (though some might occasionally argue some calls) subjective judging on whether someone crossed home plate or ran with the ball into the end zone.

 

[BlueCat]

So we just keep getting side tracked and makeing this about big verses small that is the wrong path

So let's establish a base line here....

1. Every so called "big name" has earned that name through great coaching, knowledge of scoring systems, and execution on the floor.

2. The human element of judging I.E. personal preference, past experience, etc is a fact that cannot be changed and influences the overall outcome.

So the question is starting from today can we expect others to earn that same name recognition if the judges are not recycled.???

Yes. Even assuming #2 is true (which I don't think it is - at least not in any significant way), your stated pathway for getting name recognition doesn't rely on competition results. You say to those big names have gotten that way through "great coaching, knowledge of scoring systems, and execution". There is nothing theoretically stopping an up-and-coming gym from having all of those things. (Except perhaps the perception that the main reason they are losing is because of biased judging.)

So, by your own logic, a gym could hire great coaches who study and put that into action, become a "big name" and then reap the benefits of a skewed scoring system. Once they have that big name, they can just relax, sit back, and let the scores and trophies roll in.

 

[ultimatelegacy]

Speaking of, does anyone have the scores for large coed? I would love to see how some teams matched up in difficulty to ours.

 

[Coach Troy]

What I am after is the current alumni of judges are left in place using a scoring system that allows thier perception to dictate what is the "winning formula".
So then a double full is not the baseline for scoring it is the judges perception of the skill that dictates the score. A high to high, full up to two feet, a switch up with great flexibility in body positions these skills are scored through the judges personal preferences and not buy what is more difficult. Pyramids, baskets, dance and choreography, jumps are awarded based on opinions....etc. So can we expect any change???

 

[Alyssa Bell]

I agree with what everyone says about the big names having better technique and execution, but not even just at worlds but when a team that is not a well known team competes against a power house, they usually can't push ahead of them. Even if the well known team drops stunts and tumbling and the other team hit. I just don't see how that is right. So i agree what is it going to take for someone that isn't well known to get above the power houses.

I'm not saying anything bad about the big gyms, I love them. I also think though that there is really good gyms out there that are not known because they can't score higher than a well known gym. People can't say that they don't get a small edge because of there name.. Even as spectators when a well known gym comes on EVERYONE watches and watches every aspect, but when a smaller team comes on you watch but its not like OMG ITS .......!

But cheerleading unlike basketball,football,soccer, etc. isn't something with a precise score, its an opinion sport, and when you are in a sport that is based a lot on opinion and what people think when score, you are going to run into problems like this.

 

[ultimatelegacy]

I'm just putting it out there...

UA Prodigy had 11 stunt groups for elite, out of the 11, 10 of them did full up to immediate stretch. Granted there was a major bobble, I believe the execution and body positions of the other groups were on par with great double downs as well.

For tumbling they had 12 standing to doubles, 2 of them being double punch doubles. They also threw 17 running doublefulls.

I understand that these are not the only parts of the scoresheet and that they had a few mistakes, but they still only placed 10th in finals. It was disappointing, and I would like to know what separated them from the top 3 so significantly far, when I believe the difficulty was up there with the 2nd or at least the 3rd place team. It just seemed like such a large gap and I want to hear opinions about this. I know UA is not a big name gym yet, so I want to know if from an outsiders perspective that their name came into play when it came to placements.

 

[MissCongeniality]

I'm just putting it out there...

UA Prodigy had 11 stunt groups for elite, out of the 11, 10 of them did full up to immediate stretch. Granted there was a major bobble, I believe the execution and body positions of the other groups were on par with great double downs as well.

For tumbling they had 12 standing to doubles, 2 of them being double punch doubles. They also threw 17 running doublefulls.

I understand that these are not the only parts of the scoresheet and that they had a few mistakes, but they still only placed 10th in finals. It was disappointing, and I would like to know what separated them from the top 3 so significantly far, when I believe the difficulty was up there with the 2nd or at least the 3rd place team. It just seemed like such a large gap and I want to hear opinions about this. I know UA is not a big name gym yet, so I want to know if from an outsiders perspective that their name came into play when it came to placements.

It's because you are from Illinois (sorry.... couldn't resist)

 

[ztaprincess]

I'm just putting it out there...

UA Prodigy had 11 stunt groups for elite, out of the 11, 10 of them did full up to immediate stretch. Granted there was a major bobble, I believe the execution and body positions of the other groups were on par with great double downs as well.

For tumbling they had 12 standing to doubles, 2 of them being double punch doubles. They also threw 17 running doublefulls.

I understand that these are not the only parts of the scoresheet and that they had a few mistakes, but they still only placed 10th in finals. It was disappointing, and I would like to know what separated them from the top 3 so significantly far, when I believe the difficulty was up there with the 2nd or at least the 3rd place team. It just seemed like such a large gap and I want to hear opinions about this. I know UA is not a big name gym yet, so I want to know if from an outsiders perspective that their name came into play when it came to placements.

I am wondering it at well. Overall there is only 1 division where I have an issue with, any most others do as well, but I am not even going to get into it because it isn't worth my time. Large Coed though just confused me as far as the placements outside of the top 3. It seems as though in some divisions you could have issues, even a complete fall, and score in the top 3 or closer to the top 3. In Large Coed though UA had a few issues and placed 10th. To me it is as if it depended on the division as to how hard the deductions were going to impact where you placed.

I also noticed Day 1 (prelims on Friday) that some of the divisions haf scores coming out where maybe 4 or 5 teams out of the top 10 broke into the 200s, but the divisions right after all top 10 teams were in the 200s. Now I know that scoresheets vary, but do they vary so much that the difference in scores would be that great? Would the total scores not be out of the same points so it would balance out? The fact that teams who go in the morning almost always get lower scores then the teams in the same division who go at 2 pm. Things like this is the only time I have an issue with judging, but it has nothing to do with the name attached to the gym. The way that it is set up, a lot of scores are opinion based whether we like it or not. Sure they are given a range of numbers something could score in, but it is still up to those judges to decide where they fall in that range. That is pretty clear in some of the scores for stunts this past weekend.

 

[yojaehs]

I'll say that I agreed with about 90% of the placements. For the most part I feel that the placements were correct, however there were some scores that I questioned. But I'll take it, I feel that we have come a long, long way in improving the scoring system. I learned so much as a coach this weekend, I really enjoyed watching and listening to other coaches in warm-ups (that is where I think I learn the most as a coach at a competition). I challenge all who are questioning these scores/placements to print out a copy of the World's score sheet and score the entire division (even if it's just those that made finals) and see how close you come. I try and do this from time to time because I feel it helps me see my teams better. But more often than not I come up with similar placements with varying scores. Just a fun little "challenge" that might help you see other points of view.

 

[Hi! It's me!]

I think, emphasis on the word think, that sometimes it is VERY hard to see our own teams with clear eyes. However if your goal is to really understand the WHY of it all then show your routine to experts. Not someone from your gym but a completely unbiased person. Have them evaluate your tumbling, stunts, jumps, dance and transitions. LISTEN to their advice. This year is over all you can do is move forward to next year.

 

[King]

Out of curiosity does anyone have a psychology degree? I have a minor and remember some of the stuff of memory bias with recency and what not.

My personal preference is that every judge approaches every single performance as an individual event. That team should be able to get the same score whether they compete alone or in a row of 300 teams at the beginning or the end. If the same score cannot be achieved each time a team performs (meaning they do the EXACT same performance) then it must be looked at what is changing each time and how to make that more consistent.

 

[Coach Troy]

We all can use routine critiques and get help form friends and colleagues in the industry that is a great idea..
I have great respect for those that came before me...as a student of this sport since 1995 I love the first memories of NCA and UCA and watching Club Cheer, Cheer Athletics, World Cup, Top Gun, Miss Tammy's all- stars, Laredo All- American, American Cheer, Champion Cheer Outlaws, North County Bullets, Kentucky Elite, Turners, River Cities, Tampa Bay All-Stars, and a whole host of amazing programs...some still around and others just a fond memory......

Still the question remains with judges being allowed to score skills through their less then clear, unbiased eyes, are we just left with copying the status quo and that is how you get recognized?? If that is the case then my question is answered it is not the innovation of skills and choreography that will ultimately prevail, since most of these judges are still stuck in their own personal time warp. So my----place name of skill here----will be placed in the right "range" but never be judged against my competitor equally, only compared to that judges personal history with the sport.....

That is why I hope that we can have some attrition in our judging ranks to allow for more diversity, recognition of difficulty, and less and less of the old guard of judges......