Early Draw - Urban Myth or Fact?

Discussion in 'The Adjudicators' Comments' started by DaveBBb, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong any band adjudicators out there, but I believe the most commonly employed method of scoring points is to first place all the bands in order, then decide how many points the winner deserves. Only from that reference are points then spaced out down the field, mostly one point between successively placed bands - more indicates a bigger gap in quality.

    It is certainly true that fewer contests these days allocate points, with an increasing number simply giving placings.
  2. DocFox

    DocFox Retired

    Hmmm…. You would know better than I would as a Yank. I don't think it is done that way a NABBA. If what you say is true, it is a bit more fair and eliminates some of the problems of an early draw ….

  3. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    NABBA employs multiple judges giving separate points, which are then combined. Not saying that never happens here, but it is not so common.
  4. DS2014

    DS2014 Active Member

    Go for it, please!!! It would be fascinating to see a proper statistical analysis.

    I think the hypothesis that an early draw is a disadvantage would prove correct, but only to a very limited degree (smaller than expected). The reason for this weak conclusion, I think, would be that the data set is very small (even though the competitions have been running for a hundred years or more), and also because, with some exceptions, the competing bands are quite different (bands that were once heavyweights are now gone, and new ones have arrived on the scene) making comparison across decades a little unreliable. Add into that the difficulty in establishing which bands were at their peak and for how long, as well as which bands were on a downward trajectory, and it becomes even more difficult.

    Personally, I would say that, if one were to conduct such a statistical analysis and wanted to ascertain the form of each band in any given year, then the previous 3 years' performances at the Areas, Open, and Nationals would suffice, since they are probably the only competitions that have remained the same over an extended period and which every band enters, and because they are still very much the gold-standards against which bands measure themselves and others.

    Now, you could open a new can of worms by asking how to weight each competition: perhaps something like a weighting of '1' for the Areas, a weighting of '2' for the Nationals, and weighting of '3' for the Open.
  5. Statto

    Statto Member

    Happy to oblige, with the rankings data at least:) - bands ranked on 3-year data here since October 1991. By definition, the method underlying this ranking (and maybe all rankings?) is reactive rather than proactive.
  6. tsawyer

    tsawyer Member

    Rankings are hard to do.

    http://brassbandresults.co.uk/rankings/ is something I put together a few years back - it lets you develop your own rankings rules and lets you mess with them. It's a bit slow, and not enough people liked it enough for me to carry on developing it further...

  7. Euphman2

    Euphman2 Active Member

    Just to add my two "pennorth", I have played in bands that have won off a number one draw AND off last band on as well as numbers in between. These were not at any exalted level, but at rated contest nonetheless.
    Does this add to or subtract from the initial entry to this forum
  8. iancwilx

    iancwilx Well-Known Member

    I thought the 4brest rankings were just a Welsh Fairy tale, pure fiction !

    ~ Mr Wilx
  9. DS2014

    DS2014 Active Member

    Thank you very much for this. Such an interesting website.
    Well, a very quick use of your current stats for September with respect to the British Open results last week, suggests that the Open pretty much went to form, with only Flowers, Desford, and Hammonds significantly doing better than form predictions going into the competition. And two of those, Flowers and Desford, had an early draw (5 and 4, respectively). On form, Hammonds should have come in the bottom 6, but actually just made the top 6, but hardly earth-shattering.
  10. Sandy Smith

    Sandy Smith Member

    My own totally unscientific thoughts on this subject. Actually these are not neccessarily my own opinions but the sort of perceptions I have heard in conversations over the years.

    In general the no.1 draw seems not to be quite as much of a problem in section 1-4 contests. Would it be reasonable to suggest that there have been a fair number of 1st places from No.1 draws at the areas, for example, over the last few decades ?

    Are the judges in these events -
    A) more open minded to the perception that the draw doesn't matter ?
    B) not trying to pick out certain bands ?
    C) less worried about the aftermath of the result if they "get it wrong" ?
    D) None of the above ?

    I am sure that Statto can supply the statistical evidence but it seems that in the heavyweight contests ( RAH, Open ) drawing no.1 has a disproportionate effect on the chances of a no.1 placing.

    Are adjudicators more reluctant to commit to a performance drawn no.1 in these events because of the perceived importance of these "pinnacle" events ?

    Two of the most startling examples of bands suffering from the no.1 draw I can remember are with the Leyland Band at the 1995 Open and Black Dyke at the 1996 Open. Leyland had won the Open in 1994, drew no.1 in 1995 and were placed 19th. Dyke won the 1995 Open, drew no.1 in 1996 and were placed 14th.

    Are adjudicators at these flagship contests wary of the fact that there are potentially going to be 4,5 or 6 real challangers for the title in the contest and are therefore more cautious of over rewarding the band drawn no.1 ?

    N.B. - please don't get the wrong end of the stick with what I have written above. In no way am I trying to denegrate the different standards of bands or importance of various contests. Just a few thoughts on some conversations I have had over the years.
  11. Well in the 4th section midlands area, the band drawn number 1, won. The other bands in the top 5 were drawn 3, 4 ..... 19, 20 out of 20 bands. So I guess the adjudicators listened for a few thought "yep, we know this piece now" and then had a snooze for the next 14 bands and then woke up again for bands number 19 and 20 and just placed the ones they had heard in the top 6.
    I wonder if adjudicators start off all positive and then get a bit bored of hearing the same piece, particularly in the 4th section, where there are often basic errors and tuning issues and start feeling a bit less happy, and then cheer up near the end when there are only a few bands to go and it is almost all done for another year, so they place the bands that played when they felt most happy - i.e. at the beginning and end of the contest ! Certainly appeared that way last year.
  12. Ianroberts

    Ianroberts Well-Known Member

    I did mention thatbin post 3 of the thread, if you play well, you will be rewarded.
  13. So what would remove the bias? Is there a way to fix this?
  14. DocFox

    DocFox Retired

    I think all in all, judges do a reasonably good job. Like a football match, you will disagree with some of the referee's calls, but all and all they generally do a good job. I do believe it is slightly harder to win from an early draw -- but that most judges know that and keep it in mind.

    This is probably for a different thread, but 12-15 test pieces are LONG. I think asking a judge to listen to 10 to 20 of them and concentrate on the small things is asking a lot of any adjudicator.
  15. nigeb12

    nigeb12 Member

    One additional problem with a very early draw is how you feel in the morning. How "awake" are you and your lips? What time did you get to bed the night before? etc etc If drawn later you have time to come round (if needed) and to loosen up. Having won a few titles none of them came from an early draw that said I think the worst draw we had was having to play twice from number 2 (same year coincidentally) so we didn't play from an early draw often.
  16. Ianroberts

    Ianroberts Well-Known Member

    I can remember playing in (I think the area contest) at Preston Guildhall 4th section probably early 80's and there was 36 bands, we were drawn 36th and guess wot ? Yes we came 36th. Its about being prepared and playing well not when you play.
  17. stevetrom

    stevetrom Well-Known Member

    Midlands Area 1996, drawn 17 came 18. Most of the preparation was in the pub :)


Share This Page