This study was designed to determine forensics students' ability to predict accurately how judges they knew from previous tournaments would rank them in rounds of competitive individual events. The study examined the following hypotheses: (1) contestants can predict how they will do in rounds of competition; and (2) contestants in prepared oral interpretation or public speaking events are more likely to predict successfully their ranking than are contestants in limited preparation events. Fifty-seven contestants of the American Forensic Association's National Individual Events Tournament, all of whom were familiar with a tournament judge, predicted their rank from that judge in a given section of the tournament. After matching their predictions with the actual rankings received from the judges, a t-test analysis generally indicated a significant difference between prediction and actual rankings, with contestants tending to predict higher rankings than they actually received. Neither hypothesis was supported by the data: students were not good predictors of their rankings, and contestants in prepared events were not better predictors than those in limited preparation events. Moreover, knowing a judge did not help the contestants' ability to predict their ranking. Since one justification for eliminating the low rank and low rating at national forensic tournaments rests on the premise that students can predict when they will receive a low ranking from a judge they know (contributing to psychological distress), this study suggests that the procedure is unnecessary. (JG)