Essentially, I vehemently agreed with Chris’s notion that players not capable of performing in the sport at a desireable level, or players taken from the sport due to other responsibilities, will leave or be removed appropriately. This is the assumed solution to most to most of the proposed problems.

Most of the arguments behind this, though, are supported by the notion of PI access due to geographical restrictions. I participate in a top PIO group, though I have no realisitic access to a PIW group. By placing age limits only on PIA and PIO groups, players with no access to PIW groups that wish to continue competing are cheated.

I propose a limit to the number of players beyond the age of 23 on each PI group. For example, there can be no limit applied to PIW groups, a limit of 6, say, to PIO groups, and a limit of 3, say, to PIA groups. This would ecourage youth performance as well as provide opportunity for performers of all ages to compete, provided they have the talent.

I explained this in great detail, but that post has since dissapeared. I’ll have a decent computer one day. I’ll explain the rationale if readers desire.

First, thanks for you thoughtful response. I’ve been monitoring the interweb channels discussing this proposal all week and yours is one of, if not the most, substantiated argument I’ve heard yet.

I did some thinking about this while in the shower (I get my best thinking done there), and the best response I can give is: you’re right. This would likely have an impact on the leadership dynamic you’re referring to.

But the question is: would it affect it in a good way, or a bad way?

Both? It probably depends on the group more than anything else (by group I don’t mean how they run their ensemble, but the chemistry of the players within it).

My experience being in a leadership position was invaluable. It even shaped my life. But when you’re learning how to lead, one of the best things you can do is observe those who are damn good at it.

I’ve been in drumlines that were only held together by the leadership of the drum sergeant. His leadership kept the line intact. Unfortunately, I can recall more times in other lines when it was the poor leadership that held the group back. These people were given leadership positions because there was no one else to do it. Everyone else had aged out.

Of course you can argue that an age limit would filter these guys out. But if the leadership position isn’t working for someone, the staff will intervene and do what’s right.

To borrow Tim Jackson’s argument from DrumHard, not having an age out rule would only give PIW groups some sharper tools to work with. This doesn’t only apply to just hands, but also to the leadership.

Being a good leader is about putting your faith and trust in others so they can reach their full potential. If someone is coming up in an ensemble and displays good leadership skills, a good organization will give them the opportunity they deserve.

–

I still don’t anticipate guys staying in lines for “decades.” Priorities in life change and the physical demand of PIW shows isn’t getting any easier. People’s bodies and responsibilities will tell them when it’s time to leave.

Which is also why I don’t think a new class would work. The demand would have to be there to create a new class, and no one can say with confidence if it’s there or not. Even more importantly, a new class would be a huge undertaking for WGI in terms of money, time, and resources. I don’t think this is something they’re interested in pursuing.

Allowing age-outs to continue playing is a fantastic idea, in my opinion. I just feel that the balance of PIW and all of the PIx classes must be kept in mind here.

Maybe it wouldn’t be that huge of a deal. I guess none of us really knows, huh?

sincerely, your favorite jerrrrrrk!!!

“Once they’ve seen it in action, they will have a much better idea as to how it would affect the A and Open classes.”

I see, good point.

Devil’s Advocate (James) posed the same question on the Facebook group. This was my response:

“Your points are all solid. My guess is the proposal only applies to PIW because it’s easier to make a small change rather than a big change (at least at first), i.e. less shock to the system. Besides, if it passes (crossing my fingers) and it’s successful, someone can propose the entire elimination of the age rule across all classes next year.

For those who are apprehensive of this change, they can take comfort in knowing it only applies to a portion of the ensembles. Once they’ve seen it in action, they will have a much better idea as to how it would affect the A and Open classes.”

I 2nd the question above my comment: Why doesn’t this count for other classes? It would be equally as beneficial for PIO. In fact, it would be very good for PIO. I also agree with there being more geographical availability to march PIO/PIA. Also, even with older, experienced members in, for example a PIA line, it doesn’t mean they have to be promoted to PIO for being so good, it just means that’s a really good PIA line, unless the ensemble wanted to be promoted.

I’m all for this poll for PIW, it’s a great idea, but would be even more for it if it were extended to PIO and hopefully PIA.

1) Why not remove the age restrictions on all Independent classes? (i.e. What makes PIW so special?)

This question makes sense for various reasons, most of which are already in the proposal; a) age is not part of the WGI Mission Stmt, b) will increase the talent pool (and financial pool), c) there’s more geographic availability and talent opportunity for people to march PIO/PIA than there is PIW.

2) What happens if a PIO organization is promoted? Having started with a smaller talent pool would be a huge disadvantage. (Also, what if a PIW gets demoted?)

Lastly, I think the “physical prime” section isn’t applicable in regards to the front ensemble. There’s plenty of adult percussionists that could handle the “physical rigors” of a PIW pit.