Print Article
“Judging at this tournament is screwy, in fact, it’s the worst I’ve ever seen it,” is echoed within the hallways of high schools on Saturday mornings across the nation. Since I’ve heard similar outcries on poor judging at virtually every tournament, regardless of location, attended, I am convinced that it is worthwhile to address this concern. Does every tournament have ‘poor judging’? On the other hand, do people use ‘poor judging’ as an excuse to rationalize defeat? Has ‘poor judging’ inflicted forensic tournaments in recent years or has it always been this way? From my observations this past season, I’ve gathered that ‘judging’ at tournaments seems relatively consistent from one tournament to the next. It has been consistent in that it is usually inconsistent. Basically, whenever competition is heavy, varied results are expected. Inconsistency within subjective assessments such as speech judging seems normal to me. However, if you keep your ears open at tournaments, you frequently hear coaches and students argue that the judging at a ‘particular tournament’ is ‘way off’ or that the entire season has been plagued, ‘judging has gone down the tubes this year’. When coaches disagree with rankings, it is easy to discard the judging as poor and point fingers at the judges as ignorant. Instead of using that energy to bitterly demean judges, it might be more effective to use the energy to accept that subjectivity is ‘the nature of the beast,’ and then move forward to study and learn from this. While speaking styles differ across the nation, there are at least three commonalities that always ring true. First, competitors are ranked subjectively. Secondly, since competitors are ranked subjectively, they frequently board the school busses headed home some exhilarated while others devastated in utter confusion. Thirdly, coaches and students have difficulty handling defeat. In a society, in which, at every corner wishes to identify people as ‘winners’ or ‘losers,’ it’s easy to understand why defeat is uneasy to deal with or value. When one watches ‘The Academy Awards,’ ‘American Idol,’ or the recent NCAA men’s basketball tournament, we are consumed on choosing the ‘winners’ and easily disregard the ‘losers’. Likewise, the desire to win that ‘blue ribbon,’ is an important aspect in speech competition, but the majority of competitors suffer ‘defeat’ at tournaments. By evaluating the following tips on approaching poor rankings, one will gain insight in how to touch on loss for the coach personally and for the coach to use with the student, which ultimately may lead the student to receive better rankings. More importantly than better rankings, these tips may help coaches turn confusion into some sort of sense.
Tip 1: FOCUS ON WHAT YOU CAN CONTROL
Coaches should have a dialogue with students reinforcing that they can control performance only. Students are able to control performance and/or necessary improvement from the last tournament, but they have no control on a judge’s assessment (rank). When you place energy on things you cannot control, you drain yourself mentally and emotionally which can lead to not only mental burn out but potential health risks as well. Prior to a tournament, remind the student that they have no control on the rankings, so it is illogical to set goals on ranks. Instead, set goals relating to performance.
Tip 2: REMAIN POSITIVE
Negative energy leads to more negative energy, so coaches must remain positive at all times. Discuss with your student the power of positive thinking and remain enthusiastic at all times. Being enthusiastic is a choice and coaches might ease the pressure by making light of the meet, reminding children to focus on having fun. Remember, this is not life or death. It’s a forensics tourney. When approaching a student, who just suffered a defeat, do not dramatically engage the student with your own feelings of fear, despair, or worry. Instead, positively remind the student of their strengths and encourage them with words of inspiration. For example, it is more effective to say, “You are doing wonderful, and we will make some changes” versus saying “The judging here is terrible, and I feel awful right with you”. The coach should guide the despaired student back to a new burst of hope, which can be accomplished with enthusiasm and positive attitude.
Tip 3: DO NOT TAKE RANKS PERSONALLY
While a ranking is supposed to help the student assess their performance, a low ranking is not a value judgment on the student. Reinforce to the student that a low ranking is one person’s opinion, which is not to be taken personally. Focus on using the ranking to understand where the performance needs improvement by either analyzing critiques, discussing the ranking with the judge (in an ethical manner), or looking for patterns.
Tip 4: DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
Do not assume that you know why the ranking was given. It is not useful to think that a judge personally dislikes the student or a piece. If you are unsure why the ranking was given, find out directly (if appropriate). Otherwise, focus on areas to tweak the performance to appease a great number of judges. Remind students that ‘you never know what a judge thinks’ based on their reactions. Students enjoy playing a ‘guessing game,’ in which they guess or assume which judge liked their performance and which didn’t. Often, this guessing game distracts students and shakes their performance. Train children to be ‘in the zone’ and not focus on judge reactions, thus, assumptions will be reduced. If you are unsure as to what exactly is not working, it is most logical to pay close attention to common critiques or ask others for further feedback.
Tip 5: LEARN FROM MISTAKES
There is an old adage that if you don’t change what you’re doing, you’ll receive the same results. Effective competitors are students of forensics, evaluating which aspects of the performance work and which do not. For example, successful performers use pieces ‘that work’. For example, there is a trend in duo interpretation that entire ‘stories’ do better than ‘scenes’. With this trend I have noticed that obscure, made for forensics pieces, which tell an entire story, receive much better rankings than Neil Simon scenes. There is a reason why the successful coaches shy away from certain material, perhaps they realize that it does not effectively display the range of emotions that other pieces do. On the other hand, these coaches might be following a trend that has been successful recently. By analyzing the trends of an event, a coach can assist the performer to learn and grow as the seasons unfold.
‘Poor rankings’ are much more prevalent than good marks, so it seems worthwhile to evaluate how to handle this necessary element of forensic competition. Hopefully, coaches might gain insight in dealing with ‘poor rankings’ in order to place everything in an educational perspective. It is perfectly OK to be defeated as long as you are constantly asking the following questions. How do the student and I grow from this experience? What are these rankings telling me? What can I do to tweak the performance to change the results? Remember, the blue ribbon is a wonderful goal, but the ultimate goal is to learn, grow, and discover. If the ribbons and trophies are mere ‘bonuses’ to the educational experience that each tournament brings, the coach must remember to place energy into using defeat as well as victory as a time for ‘coachable moments’. While it’s nice to take a picture of your champion with the Kodak, it’s equally satisfying to teach and encourage young ones to bounce back up after a defeat, only this time with a smile and renewed energy. By focusing on what you can control, remaining positive, not taking rankings personal, not making assumptions, and learning from mistakes, forensic tournaments are positively embraced as educational experiences for all with trophies and accolades serving as mere by products to the core value-growth.
(Jordan Mayer is a forensics coach at Munster High School in Munster, Indiana, having coached multiple state finalists including the 2005 state champ in duo interpretation. )
