All-Star Les Response To James Speed Reaction

[King]

I think the issue comes if there were ever a "code of points." Not every team, but I think the majority of teams, would come out with very cookie cutter routines that only do what they have to, and not necessarily routines that push the boundaries and go above and beyond. Someone in another thread suggested 2 point skills, 3 point skills, 4 point skills, etc. So let's say the maximum was 5 points, and a double up from squish/sponge whatever you call it was worth 5 points, what would be the point of a team like Great Whites coming out with a double up from plank, or Brandon Senior Black with those beautifully executing double arounds at the top?
Not saying I agree that rubric scoring gets rid of choreography/creativity, I just think maybe that's where people are getting that.

The thing is creativity comes from a box, not a wide open space with no rules. People get creative within the restrictions of what is allowed. People always say they want a blank canvas to paint on, but even a canvas has restrictions. There is an end to where you can paint, and you must use something that will stick to a canvas, and then you decide your subject. (yes this is all philosophical, but it has a point). If everyone has to do switchups to score high people will come up with creative ways to do and present those switchups.

 

[flcheermom]

I don't disagree, but you still have a section for choreography, performance, etc. I have no problem with some of the score sheet being subjective, but to promote a "blank canvas" and EP choice for bids just makes no sense to me. I also had an issue with the fact that they stated they were "experimenting" with the score sheet this year and recognized there was a lack of judges training. If that is the case why am I paying thousands of dollars in comp fees for "on the job" research and training?
I don't know why a code of points is so difficult. There are only so many skills you can do. The motions, transitions, dismounts etc can be added bonus points to your start value.

I think the creativity aspect could be added to how you got to the skill. If a double up is worth 5 points - then the creativity comes into play in how a team decided to add that skill into the routine. Not every team will do the double ups the same as we have seen - certain skills themselves could be worth "set points", then motions, dance, overall creativity, transitions, entry/exit of stunts, flow of routine - all that is still subjective and left to the creativity of the coaches/choreographer. There is still a way to have skills in a routine worth points, and still have creativity.

 

[12stepCheermom]

"Too many coaches are asking for paint by number instead of a blank canvas. Unless you are a true artist, anyone will do a better job with a paint by number system. It tells you what color to use, where to put the color and what the picture will look like in the end before you ever get started."

I don't believe coaches are asking for a paint by number. If a team goes out there, has a jam packed skilled routine, and hits clean, and then another goes out and takes out a few skills but, has awesome audience appeal with choreography and motions, and hits clean, coaches, and everyone else, wants to know which one is going to win. That isn't paint by number, it's defining what is more important, increasing skill difficulty or audience appeal. I appreciate both but, I still want to know what the judges are going to prefer. Sorry they are so large but, which painting do you prefer? The top went for 79.7 million, the bottom went for 80 million. Even those that appreciate art want to know what made that painting more valuable.

Monet got the shaft! He's my favorite painter and I love Impressionism, it's my favorite style. Which means he edges out Jack Vetttriano, but he's still better than 80m here...guess he just didn't come to that competition.

 

[chyeeaaa69]

I don't disagree, but you still have a section for choreography, performance, etc. I have no problem with some of the score sheet being subjective, but to promote a "blank canvas" and EP choice for bids just makes no sense to me. I also had an issue with the fact that they stated they were "experimenting" with the score sheet this year and recognized there was a lack of judges training. If that is the case why am I paying thousands of dollars in comp fees for "on the job" research and training?
I don't know why a code of points is so difficult. There are only so many skills you can do. The motions, transitions, dismounts etc can be added bonus points to your start value.

Whereas a code of points may not be difficult per say, it would be extremely lengthy and difficult to use with live judging. I'll try and explain.
In level 5, you can do a standing full, a one to full, a two to full, a three to full, you could do a four to full but I doubt anyone has. You could do a one to whip full, a two to whip full, a three to whip full. You could do a bhs whip bhs full, a bhs whip bhs bhs full, a bhs whip bhs bhs bhs full. You could do a bhs bhs whip bhs full, a bhs bhs whip bhs bhs full, and so on and so forth, and that's just standing tumbling to a full. All of those things could then be done into doubles. Then you look at running tumbling. Punch fronts, arabians, whips, 1 1/2s, front handsprings, Onodis, front layouts, front fulls, front doubles, all specialties, each needing a point value. Add in connection values if an athlete does more than one, plus an additional connection value if they're directly connected. But then you get into assigning far too many points to a team because individual athletes are throwing crazy specialty passes, so in my opinion, if there were a code of points and it applied to tumbling, it could only apply to group tumbling. Individual/specialty tumbling would have to be judged subjectively and comparatively.
Now think about all those different little things that would need points assigned to them and that's the easy part. Next comes judging a routine with those things. For live judging, the judges would need to know exactly how many are performing those skills, the point values assigned to those skills, and come up with a difficulty score on the spot. It's do-able, but it would take a long time.
So people have suggested video reviews before competitions to assign a difficulty score. In theory it could work but the judges at the competition would have to know exactly who threw what in the video in order to see if skills were omitted. Then you'd probably be looking at an entire panel/committee of people in charge of coming up with a difficulty score at competition based off how it has changed between the video and the competition, so you're spending just as much time reviewing two videos as you'd take to assign a difficulty score on the spot. Either way you're looking at an incredibly long amount of time between performance and receiving your scoresheets/placements. In my opinion at least.

 

[cheerKT]

Whereas a code of points may not be difficult per say, it would be extremely lengthy and difficult to use with live judging. I'll try and explain.
In level 5, you can do a standing full, a one to full, a two to full, a three to full, you could do a four to full but I doubt anyone has. You could do a one to whip full, a two to whip full, a three to whip full. You could do a bhs whip bhs full, a bhs whip bhs bhs full, a bhs whip bhs bhs bhs full. You could do a bhs bhs whip bhs full, a bhs bhs whip bhs bhs full, and so on and so forth, and that's just standing tumbling to a full. All of those things could then be done into doubles. Then you look at running tumbling. Punch fronts, arabians, whips, 1 1/2s, front handsprings, Onodis, front layouts, front fulls, front doubles, all specialties, each needing a point value. Add in connection values if an athlete does more than one, plus an additional connection value if they're directly connected. But then you get into assigning far too many points to a team because individual athletes are throwing crazy specialty passes, so in my opinion, if there were a code of points and it applied to tumbling, it could only apply to group tumbling. Individual/specialty tumbling would have to be judged subjectively and comparatively.
Now think about all those different little things that would need points assigned to them and that's the easy part. Next comes judging a routine with those things. For live judging, the judges would need to know exactly how many are performing those skills, the point values assigned to those skills, and come up with a difficulty score on the spot. It's do-able, but it would take a long time.
So people have suggested video reviews before competitions to assign a difficulty score. In theory it could work but the judges at the competition would have to know exactly who threw what in the video in order to see if skills were omitted. Then you'd probably be looking at an entire panel/committee of people in charge of coming up with a difficulty score at competition based off how it has changed between the video and the competition, so you're spending just as much time reviewing two videos as you'd take to assign a difficulty score on the spot. Either way you're looking at an incredibly long amount of time between performance and receiving your scoresheets/placements. In my opinion at least.

I don't think comparative score is the answer, but I also don't think a code of points is either. I agree with what you're saying here. @King and some others brought up some big points in their Overstretch video on this topic. The issue on a code of points is where to cap it. Take level 5 stunting for example. Say you assign a .75 value to a 1.5 up and a 1.0 value to a double up (I'm just making up these numbers). Then you have a team perform a 1.5 up to immediate body position. Should that increase their value to .8? .9? Is a 1.5 to stretch harder than a 1.5 up to scorp? How about a bow, since it's technically more intricate than a stretch. Now what about something like a free stretch? That's clearly harder. Do we value all immediate body positions the same? If so, what's the reward in performing a harder one? If we value them differently, suddenly we run into a team performing 1.5 ups to something and getting rewarded higher than teams doing the 1.0 valued double ups. But I thought double ups were harder than all of that?

See what I mean? The issues are limitless here. Particularly in level 5, where there's no real "cap" on the stunting allowed (other than the legalities)

 

[tumbleyoda]

It is not worth it to spend all this money to try to hit a moving target that moves from week to week. It is not worth the hassle and stress of explaining to parents and athletes a system that no one can agree what the outcome should be and why. It is not worth it to try to figure out the bias and preferences of a west coast judge flying to the east coast to judge a competition, or a judge that prefers NCA style routines that is scheduled to judge an UCA type competition. Gyms can handle not winning. What we can not handle is not truly knowing the reasons why, being told one thing one week and another totally different thing next week, the idiotic comments on score sheets that prove you didn't watch our routine or wrote the wrong comments on the wrong teams sheet, the condescending attitudes when we are asking for information and clarification, and the unwillingness to stand behind scores when they are openly revealed with deductions.

 

[alexamarysouza]

It is not worth it to spend all this money to try to hit a moving target that moves from week to week. It is not worth the hassle and stress of explaining to parents and athletes a system that no one can agree what the outcome should be and why. It is not worth it to try to figure out the bias and preferences of a west coast judge flying to the east coast to judge a competition, or a judge that prefers NCA style routines that is scheduled to judge an UCA type competition. Gyms can handle not winning. What we can not handle is not truly knowing the reasons why, being told one thing one week and another totally different thing next week, the idiotic comments on score sheets that prove you didn't watch our routine or wrote the wrong comments on the wrong teams sheet, the condescending attitudes when we are asking for information and clarification, and the unwillingness to stand behind scores when they are openly revealed with deductions.

THIS. I don't think it could have been said any better.

 

[quitthedrama]

It is not worth it to spend all this money to try to hit a moving target that moves from week to week. It is not worth the hassle and stress of explaining to parents and athletes a system that no one can agree what the outcome should be and why. It is not worth it to try to figure out the bias and preferences of a west coast judge flying to the east coast to judge a competition, or a judge that prefers NCA style routines that is scheduled to judge an UCA type competition. Gyms can handle not winning. What we can not handle is not truly knowing the reasons why, being told one thing one week and another totally different thing next week, the idiotic comments on score sheets that prove you didn't watch our routine or wrote the wrong comments on the wrong teams sheet, the condescending attitudes when we are asking for information and clarification, and the unwillingness to stand behind scores when they are openly revealed with deductions.

I have so much respect for your values and thought process!

 

[cupieqt]

I would love if people started putting out cookie cutter routines. All the better for me. PLEASE, everyone go back and redo your routines and make them boring. My teams will win by default simply because we snapped instead of clapped.

Creativity isn't going anywhere. The code of points isn't necessary. Competitive scoring will always exist at some level even if we have rubrics because there will always be a certain amount of subjectivity to our sport. Champions are made in the gray areas of the rules. @King is 100% on point about that and that is not new knowledge.

There is a battle amongst EP's in our industry to win the scoresheet war. Varsity has made a very strategically savvy move to change back to the system they used last year. Kind of a risky move mid-season....Unless you knew it would be coming before it was ever called for. Kudos to them on making sure to cater to their customers. I'm happy. I don't think I've spoken to ANYONE that is unhappy with their decision. I am feeling much better about Cheersport Nationals now.

I wonder what Jamfest and the IEP's will do? They may be feeling a bit patsy about their involvement. But now the cheer world is waiting. This whole issue was such a win win situation for Varsity from the start.

Now, about that Unified Scoresheet...

 

[KPep]

It is not worth it to spend all this money to try to hit a moving target that moves from week to week. It is not worth the hassle and stress of explaining to parents and athletes a system that no one can agree what the outcome should be and why. It is not worth it to try to figure out the bias and preferences of a west coast judge flying to the east coast to judge a competition, or a judge that prefers NCA style routines that is scheduled to judge an UCA type competition. Gyms can handle not winning. What we can not handle is not truly knowing the reasons why, being told one thing one week and another totally different thing next week, the idiotic comments on score sheets that prove you didn't watch our routine or wrote the wrong comments on the wrong teams sheet, the condescending attitudes when we are asking for information and clarification, and the unwillingness to stand behind scores when they are openly revealed with deductions.

Well, you put the Yoda in tumbleyoda. You sir are a master.

 

[CoachMandiCF]

I would love if people started putting out cookie cutter routines. All the better for me. PLEASE, everyone go back and redo your routines and make them boring. My teams will win by default simply because we snapped instead of clapped.

Creativity isn't going anywhere. The code of points isn't necessary. Competitive scoring will always exist at some level even if we have rubrics because there will always be a certain amount of subjectivity to our sport. Champions are made in the gray areas of the rules. @King is 100% on point about that and that is not new knowledge.

There is a battle amongst EP's in our industry to win the scoresheet war. Varsity has made a very strategically savvy move to change back to the system they used last year. Kind of a risky move mid-season....Unless you knew it would be coming before it was ever called for. Kudos to them on making sure to cater to their customers. I'm happy. I don't think I've spoken to ANYONE that is unhappy with their decision. I am feeling much better about Cheersport Nationals now.

I wonder what Jamfest and the IEP's will do? They may be feeling a bit patsy about their involvement. But now the cheer world is waiting. This whole issue was such a win win situation for Varsity from the start.

Now, about that Unified Scoresheet...

And this is why I <3. PS - yay for getting to see you at Cheersport!!

 

[AScheer]

I would love if people started putting out cookie cutter routines. All the better for me. PLEASE, everyone go back and redo your routines and make them boring. My teams will win by default simply because we snapped instead of clapped.

Creativity isn't going anywhere. The code of points isn't necessary. Competitive scoring will always exist at some level even if we have rubrics because there will always be a certain amount of subjectivity to our sport. Champions are made in the gray areas of the rules. @King is 100% on point about that and that is not new knowledge.

There is a battle amongst EP's in our industry to win the scoresheet war. Varsity has made a very strategically savvy move to change back to the system they used last year. Kind of a risky move mid-season....Unless you knew it would be coming before it was ever called for. Kudos to them on making sure to cater to their customers. I'm happy. I don't think I've spoken to ANYONE that is unhappy with their decision. I am feeling much better about Cheersport Nationals now.

I wonder what Jamfest and the IEP's will do? They may be feeling a bit patsy about their involvement. But now the cheer world is waiting. This whole issue was such a win win situation for Varsity from the start.

Now, about that Unified Scoresheet...

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought there was a lot more to this from varsity. They sure did have a lot to gain in this situation!

 

[Cheerfan1234]

"Too many coaches are asking for paint by number instead of a blank canvas. Unless you are a true artist, anyone will do a better job with a paint by number system. It tells you what color to use, where to put the color and what the picture will look like in the end before you ever get started."

I don't believe coaches are asking for a paint by number. If a team goes out there, has a jam packed skilled routine, and hits clean, and then another goes out and takes out a few skills but, has awesome audience appeal with choreography and motions, and hits clean, coaches, and everyone else, wants to know which one is going to win. That isn't paint by number, it's defining what is more important, increasing skill difficulty or audience appeal. I appreciate both but, I still want to know what the judges are going to prefer. Sorry they are so large but, which painting do you prefer? The top went for 79.7 million, the bottom went for 80 million. Even those that appreciate art want to know what made that painting more valuable.

Your artist's painting analogy was great, and it made me think about the importance of branding in this industry. Maybe the pricing difference had nothing at all to do with the value of the art, but rather the value of the "name brand" within the art community (France's Monet v. America's Jasper Johns). This analogy also made me think of a slogan I've seen on a particular program's t-shirts: "Wearing the name gets you in the game." Of course the tshirt is harmless, but its possible validity in our industry is a fear that has come screaming to the surface with the implementation of comparative judging, primarily on the universal scoresheet.

“A brand is the set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer’s decision to choose one product or service over another.” – Seth Godin

Specifically for this reason, I think it is essential for judges and coaches to have a set, universal rubric. Judges are human beings with feelings, emotions, and memories all tied to the teams they are judging. If they are to walk into a sneaker store and mindlessly choose the Nike Swoosh even if the $50 sneaker is just as reliable, just like millions of Americans do, then it's not so far fetched to believe that some judges might approach their job in the same fashion even when their honest intent is to be objective. The brain works in mysterious and powerful ways that cannot always be controlled with the flip of a switch.

A rubric approach doesn't completely eradicate subjectivity and bias, but at the very least it narrows the wide parameters of the current universal scoresheet - parameters that are too far-reaching for an untrained, unknowledgeable, and/or biased judge to play with. They are out there. While I do feel that a universal approach is the way to go, the definition of it needs to change and the judge's training our industry provides needs to improve.

From a coaching perspective, a rubric-based scoresheet is a much more valuable tool than one filled with ambiguous scores that fluctuate from week to week and generic comments that serve to fill space rather than to inform. Point your toes, fulls have bent legs...We got it, thanks. And for everyone who thinks that rubrics prevent creativity, I beg to differ. Lack of creativity prevents creativity.

 

[BlueCat]

Even though I believe a fully objective grid for difficulty of skills is theoretically possible, I don't think it is practical or necessary given how many possible combinations of skills there are.

I have proposed simply having "anchor points" or milestones within the scoring range. Using a very rough, arbitrary example: if squad tumbling difficulty were on a 0-10 range, for L5 you could define that full squad round-off back-handspring fulls was a "4" and full squad RO BHS Doubles was an "8". (again, just examples) The judges could determine whether what you did was harder or easier than those anchors and give you a score accordingly. Other skills, repeated skills, percentage of squad performing them would all factor in your difficulty score going up or down related to those predefined scores.

The "anchors" would help keep scores from drifting too much.
The "anchors" could be redefined annually (or as needed) without requiring a major overhaul of the system or significant re-training of judges/coaches.

Execution, creativity, choreography, etc are still subjective and would be scored accordingly. No one is suggesting we get rid of the subjective elements of the sport.

 

[Official OWECheer]

Even though I believe a fully objective grid for difficulty of skills is theoretically possible, I don't think it is practical or necessary given how many possible combinations of skills there are.

I have proposed simply having "anchor points" or milestones within the scoring range. Using a very rough, arbitrary example: if squad tumbling difficulty were on a 0-10 range, for L5 you could define that full squad round-off back-handspring fulls was a "4" and full squad RO BHS Doubles was an "8". (again, just examples) The judges could determine whether what you did was harder or easier than those anchors and give you a score accordingly. Other skills, repeated skills, percentage of squad performing them would all factor in your difficulty score going up or down related to those predefined scores.

The "anchors" would help keep scores from drifting too much.
The "anchors" could be redefined annually (or as needed) without requiring a major overhaul of the system or significant re-training of judges/coaches.

Execution, creativity, choreography, etc are still subjective and would be scored accordingly. No one is suggesting we get rid of the subjective elements of the sport.

Based on that system, how would execution be scored?