We've all had one. The ballot in
extemp that comes back with comments like,
"why are you in extemp?" or perhaps, "what
are you talking about?" and the extempers
death sentence, the much feared, but all
too well known, "I think you should switch
to interp." Well, maybe we haven't all had
such troubles with judges, but I have.
Through four years of extemp, I have encountered
a wide variety of judging styles,
and the attempt to reconcile their expected
style to the speech I presented was often
not a pretty situation. Extemp is an event
that at times, more than any other event,
there is the possibility for variation in style
and content that ends up with results that
are less than pretty, for the judge and the
extemp contestant. We can all complain,
claim that the judge was inexperienced, or
just plain stupid--but in the end, they have
the ballot, the pen, and all the power. It is,
therefore, vital for an extemp contestant to
have a comprehensive understanding of the
scary realities they may face out there in
the world of extemp.
In this article, readers will be introduced
to the most significant of judging
styles in extemp; both on the national and
regional levels. This article will attempt to
outline the impact various judging styles
have on extemp, and how extempers may
more effectively adapt to meet the challenges
posed by variant judging paradigms.
By doing this, extempers may have the opportunity
to develop a more proficient way
to win the ballot, the round, and the tournament.
A difficult task when studying judging
in extemp is to classify the many styles
of judges out there, especially to then fit it
into a short article. But so are the burdens
of the extempers, fitting a lot of important
information into a space that is far too small
for the issues we deal with. It is our cross
to carry (hmmm... the religious touch?). Dr.
Steve Moss, a well-traveled judge (having,
this year, been in the pools at Princeton,
Harvard, Stanford, NFL Nationals, TOC,
and the MBA round robin, to name a few)
presented the idea of a few of the most nationally
successful styles of extemp speaking8.
He typified judging styles by the style
of extemp contestant that they prefer. The
easiest way to discuss styles for extempers
is the balance of content/analysis and the
'personality' and oratorical part of extemp.
Both play an integral role in extemp, but
the balance between those two parts of
extemp contestant usually says a lot about
the style of judge, and will aid in a discussion
to equip extempers with the tools to
succeed.
Equipping extempers with the tools
to succeed is the business that William
Bennett is in, a former national debate champion,
coach of 23 national champions and
director of the CDE national institute, so of
course he has a lot to say. Bennett clarified
that the best extempers are those that can
have a diverse style that fits to the various
styles of judging9. Bennett argues that
each extemper should have the ability to
meet the requirements that are put forth by
any judge. The styles of judging presented
in extemp are the determining factor in how
extempers perform, what they put in their
speeches, and the direction of the art. A
really great extemporaneous speaker
should be able to 'pick up' any judge.
Sadly, as any extemporaneous
speaker who is used to taking 30 minutes
to devise a way to explain a solution to
poverty in seven minutes knows that the
ideal is not always translated in reality. And
the reality of limited time speeches means
that extempers often can't have enough in
their speeches. Two-time NFL national finalist,
twice champion of the Montgomery Judging Styles
Bell Academy round robin in extemp, and
winner of countless nationally recognized
tournaments, Josh Bone clarified this in a
February interview, "I mean, giving seven-
minute speeches without notes answering
current event questions sounds amazingly
daunting."10 This observation related to
how novices view extemp is one that can
be used to further understand the impact
that judging has on extemp. Bone went on
to explain that the solution to his problem
of being limited by the seven-minutes time
limit was speeding up, and that wasn't well
received by judges at times. The problem
that extempers confront with the seven-
minute time limit, and often 'narrow' judging
styles is a limit to the possibility for
extempers to analyze the topic they have
chosen. Beyond that, the requirements in
the minds of many judges that an extemporaneous
speaker 'must' have some component
to their speech is often pinned as another
cause of the limit on the ability of
extempers to deal fully with topics (or at
least use as much of their time as they want
on analysis).
It is important to note, however, that
while analysis is often limited by various
judging styles, extempers can be similarly
limited in performance, or oratorical style
by other benchmarks that judges feel they
should meet. Unfortunately, this is one of
the hardest difficulties that extempers have
to deal with, and many will never overcome
the difficulties posed by variant critic
styles. Bone elucidates on the judge reaction
when he introduced a new structural
element to his speeches, "Most competitors
really liked what I did and thought that
it was a cool new approach. Many coaches
were surprised, believing that what I did
"wasn't extemp." Unfortunately, the
coaches were on the panel"11 The judging
panel was not receptive to the new style,
and may in the end discourage such change
in the extemp community as was offered by
Bone's new structural technique. At the
same time, this isn't a hopeless battle
against the unpredictability of judging
pools: Extempers can follow some guidelines
to win the ballot of more judges.
The first of these techniques is one
that can be labeled the 'self-centered approach.'
Former national champion, Geof
Brodak, who is currently working on his
doctorate in communication from the European
Graduate Schools, clarified this in a
July lecture last year. Brodak advocated
extempers should know that there are various
styles of judging, and many different
things will be expected of them, but each
individual should be individually driven to
have their own style of extemp12. By doing
this, your ranks may be affected at first,
but later you can see change, or, on the
most base level, you have not compromised
yourself by adapting too much to a judging
pool that may not share your opinions.
Secondly, the strategy known as 'the
defensive approach' is one clarified by
Tony Myers, coach of Durango High
School's forensics program, multiple state
champions, and three NFL national finalists
in the last two years. Myers' strategy
is based on the idea that an extemporaneous
speaker can take certain moves to avoid
losing points in a judges' mind, and in so
doing, may place higher than his/her competition13.
The strategy is typified by the
phrase known well to those on Durango
High School team: "Don't give them a reason
to vote you down.'14 Using this strategy
is often highly effective for extempers
in general, but does have some downsides:
It is more limiting on the risks extempers
can take in-round and inherently limits humor
options and editorial comments.
Finally, the "commonalities of excellence"
is the strategy that is advocated by
William Bennett. Bennett argues that the
best way to deal with judges and the inconsistencies
of what they want to see from
extempers is to study the common components
of the techniques of those who are
the most successful15. By developing a style
based on what has won in the past,
extempers have a more accurate idea of
what judges want. Identifying commonalities,
however takes time and resources. And
relying only on commonalities is limiting, it
does not have room for new tactics or adventurous
strategies. It is crucial, Prof.
Bennett notes, to be especially attentive to
emerging trends and preferences to stay at
least even with, if not ahead of, the curve
in identifying judge desires.
Using one of these three styles can
make the task of adapting to judges a much
more reasonable venture. Variant judging
styles undoubtedly have a great effect on
extemp, and the ways that extempers perform
their art. The best way to deal with the
situation is to understand that each judge
is looking for something different, try to
adapt, but also understand that true success
lies in making the best attempt at
extemping to the best of your abilities. If
you do that, no matter the judge, you
shouldn't worry about the comments waiting
for you in the tab room, just itching to
tell you how to improve.
(Scott Cheesewright is a recent alumnus
of Durango High School (CO). Twice a national
finalist, Scott is now an undergraduate
at Lewis and Clark College. This
article was written as part of the CDE
scholar's seminar on writing.)
8. Moss, Steve. Personal Interview. 12 Feb 2005.
9. Bennett, William. "Introduction to Extemp." CDE National Institute. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Jul. 22 2004.
10. Bone, Josh. Interview, "Bonehead." By Jon Cruz. Cruz, Jon. "VBD Interview." Victory Briefs Daily. 20 Jul. 2005. <http://www.victorybriefs.net/webs/daily/archives/2005/02/24/bonehead.
11. ibid.
12. Brodak, Geof. "NFL Lecture." CDE National Institute. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Jul. 30 2004.
13. Myers, Tony. "Strategies for the State Tournament." DHS Forensics. Greeley Central High School, Greeley, CO. May 12 2003.
14. ibid.
15. ibid.
