Jayman, you should change your username to speechguru.
And I do agree with the sporadic ranking. However, a good performer is able to grab the audience with charisma and speaking ability, no matter if the audience is familiar with speech or not (which I'm pretty sure most of the judges are). The ranks may be all over the place, but that could be for a variety of reasons. Some pieces work well with younger judges, some work well with females/males, some work well with judges of different races, but none of this is in anyone's control.
To Ieader, that has been happening all season. People have gone 1 2 7 and won tournaments at invitationals. It isn't just confined to sectionals. And ranking someone down because of their topic/piece is a legitimate thing. If you have a DI about drinking a glass of water and burping, but it's performed well, you can't expect to make it to state. Same thing with written events, your topic and writing ability has a great deal to do with how well you will do. When it comes down to a tough round and all of the performers are very talented, as it often does with sectionals, people need to look to something else for ranking.
There isn't an event where there's no room for subjectivity. For example, someone judging prose may see a piece about rape, and possibly they were abused. They could relate and it was well performed so they got the performer got the one. Then another judge, offended by a scene in the piece, could give them a 6. Speech in general is subjective, and I don't think that will ever change.



Reply With Quote

Bookmarks