- Feb 20, 2011
- 939
- 2,306
For the sake of analysis, I looked at our gym's results at Indianapolis vs. Chicago. And while we had some admittedly better performances (and results), our raw scores were consistently higher across the board for what I'd assume were "comparable" performances. It's possible that we tweaked routines to maybe squeeze another point of difficulty out of them, or our technique was better - but there was nothing I saw personally that made me think that the judging was tighter this weekend.
So again, I wonder if this is a specific judging panel thing. The way they throw teams in and out of those sessions, I have to think there's a panel A and panel B, so even teams in the same session might be scored by different judges. I can't imagine those judges have time to score a team, write comments, and then immediately start watching another team 30 seconds later unless they're savants. Maybe I'm completely off-base about that, though.
I should have been more specific. The judging panels that our program encountered this weekend and at Supernationals were a bit tighter with the points than the ones we had at GLCC Milwaukee, Jamfest Dekalb, and Jamlive Chicago. I use the example of our J2 because they have hit their routine in all but one competition and there have been few changes, so it's easier to compare across competitions. Different panels score differently, and I am happy with tough judging as long as it's consistent across the whole division, which it definitely was.
Also, there is a panel A and panel B judging at these events. The judges score alternating routines so they have time to make comments and score accurately.