Three T's: Timing, Teamwork & Technique

[Alan Doyle]

In your typical modern jive class, is enough being taught about:

Timing
Teamwork
Technique

Do you think the teaching of these can be improved and how would you go about it.

[FoxyFunkster]

In your typical modern jive class, is enough being taught about:

Timing
Teamwork
Technique

Do you think the teaching of these can be improved and how would you go about it.


Hmmmm....good question.

In simple terms if i`m teaching Ceroc then i`ll include some technique, it`s difficult enough teaching 3-4 moves in 30 mins during a regular class night, however in a Weekender hour lesson or a workshop i`ll go into more depth....

If i`m teaching WCS then the 3 T`s are taught in vast quantities as they are the essential components people need to know IMHO.

I`s love to be able to teach more technique at Ceroc but time and class standard constraints prevent this to a degree....

[Phil_dB]

Here's my 0.2p (which in the current climate is probably bugger all, and, as a teacher, i'm sure you know far better than me anyway, but fwiw)



Timing
Definitely not enough being taught on this AFAIC.
Apart from "which part of the movement you need to be on which beat" timing is hardly mentioned. Last week an instructor invited us to play with the timing on one of the moves being taught, which I thought was great, but in her attempt to get accross the message a couple of partners I was with rolled their eyes & laughed as if to say "what is she babbling on about" - personally I wish more was said on this subject.


Technique
Some, but no, not enough is taught on this either IME.
Basic connection is often taught and practiced before teaching the moves at the very start of the beginner lesson... - and yet straight after this exercise I often find myself partnered up with a flimsey armed follow who seemingly hasn't bothered to listen or understand a single word the instructor has been saying. Traversely, - I remember one follow, who, after being told to push her hand against the mans hand to build a degree of tension was FORCEFULLY trying to push me over, (she wasn't playing either) - I couldn't believe it!



How would I go about it? I've been in the occasional class where lots of technique is taught, - basically integrated at the same time of teaching the moves. Eg, instead of saying, "the man moves his hand from A - B", - the instructor would say "the man steps back and places his weight onto his right foot and by keeping some tension in his frame automatically leads the lady backwards through the transfer of his body movement", - by incorporating technique when describing the actual moves it shouldn't take up too much extra time? The same can be said for timing, - just throw in snippets of information / other options / things to think about and be aware of / a little demo of variations, here and there, - the people who want to learn this extra stuff will be listening :nice:




Sorry, stupid question, can you give me an example of what is meant by teamwork in a dance context?

[NZ Monkey]

Sorry, stupid question, can you give me an example of what is meant by teamwork in a dance context?Firstly, I think you'll fine Alan is referring to the judging categories for J&J competitions in WCS with all of this, so that context might be useful.

Secondly, teamwork is the ability to work with your partner. You could look at it as a measure of how evenly balanced the conversation is if you like to view a dance as that particular analogy. Essentially, it's a measure of how much attention you're both paying to each other and you feed off each in the dance.

[Alan Doyle]

Firstly, I think you'll fine Alan is referring to the judging categories for J&J competitions in WCS with all of this, so that context might be useful.

Secondly, teamwork is the ability to work with your partner. You could look at it as a measure of how evenly balanced the conversation is if you like to view a dance as that particular analogy. Essentially, it's a measure of how much attention you're both paying to each other and you feed off each in the dance.

Yes you're right I am referring to this.

The GSDTA & WSDC judge on Timing, Technique, Teamwork, Content & Showmanship

These can be separated into their separate elements:

Timing
- On Downbeat
- Pulsing
- Aware of Breaks
- Degree of Critical Timing (Rolling Count)

Teamwork
- Couple Centering
- Action - Reaction
- Connection
- Compatibility
- Harmonious Adjustment

Technique
- Individual Centering
- Body Alignment
- Foot Placement
- Hand Placement
- Leverage - Compression

Content
- Variety &/or Contrast
- Musical Interpretation
- Continuity & Flow
- Respect: Of partner - and age appropriate attire
- "Essence" of the dance (Dance Identification)
- Opening and Closing

Showmanship
- Charisma - Dynamics
- Energy (Fire)
- Projection
- Entertainment Appeal

At a basic level you're judged on 3 T's (Timing, Technique & Teamwork). If you don't have the basics it doesn't matter how much content &/or Showmanship you have - you need the basics.

Content & Showmanship are judged at higher levels

[CheesyRobMan]

Technique
- Leverage - Compression


How can this be judged?

[Alan Doyle]

How can this be judged?

In the apprentice judging training & teacher training, you learn to separate the elements and eventually integrate all the elements at one time.

but I feel not enough is taught about timing, technique & teamwork in MJ.

[robd]

but I feel not enough is taught about timing, technique & teamwork in MJ.

Hold on, weren't you convinced that applying the rolling count to MJ tuition would be a panacea for all its current deficiencies?

[Alan Doyle]

Hold on, weren't you convinced that applying the rolling count to MJ tuition would be a panacea for all its current deficiencies?

I wouldn't say 'all it's current deficiencies' but it would help. There's a lot that is currently not taught that I think would benefit modern jive.

[David Franklin]

I can't be bothered to find and dig it up, but there was a thread on either StrictlyWestie or WestieWire, partly about "where MJ lies on the WCS spectrum". 4 clips were given, one of which was MJ. People were pretty unanimous in saying MJ "came third". That is, there was a WCS clip that was "less like WCS ought to be than the MJ couples".

Main reason: complete lack of teamwork and communication between the WCS couple. And these were professional dancers, too.

[ducasi]

I wouldn't say 'all it's current deficiencies' but it would help. There's a lot that is currently not taught that I think would benefit modern jive.
How would more emphasis on the "three T's" benefit Modern Jive? While it might make MJ dancers do better in competition, would it increase folks' enjoyment, and classes' retention rates?

[Alan Doyle]

How would more emphasis on the "three T's" benefit Modern Jive? While it might make MJ dancers do better in competition, would it increase folks' enjoyment, and classes' retention rates?

I've changed the way I teach Modern Jive. I teach using Skippy's Universal Unit System.

It makes it easier and quicker to learn but it does have more emphasis on three T's. Lessons should be fun, exciting, and still relaxed and comfortable.

If it makes it easier and quicker to learn while having fun, I think that would benefit MJ.

[NZ Monkey]

I can't be bothered to find and dig it up, but there was a thread on either StrictlyWestie or WestieWire, partly about "where MJ lies on the WCS spectrum". 4 clips were given, one of which was MJ. People were pretty unanimous in saying MJ "came third". That is, there was a WCS clip that was "less like WCS ought to be than the MJ couples". If you can remember the name of the thread in question I’d be happy to try ferreting it up. It sound like an interesting read.


How would more emphasis on the "three T's" benefit Modern Jive? While it might make MJ dancers do better in competition, would it increase folks' enjoyment, and classes' retention rates?It’d make things more fun for some, and less so for others. Whether making those changes would be good for the MJ scene as a whole is anyone’s guess. I suspect that it’d work better in some places and would be terrible in others, depending on the personal qualities of the teacher and the expectations of the punters more than any particular teaching methodology.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – a really good teacher can teach technique without it feeling like a chore. I’ve seen it done. The “problem” is that the overwhelming majority of teachers aren’t really good. They’re average. As much as we may like and respect them for what they do, chances are they’re not going to be able to do everything well.

In my experience it takes someone with a very acute awareness of technique and communication to deliver the essence of it in small, easily understandable chunks. If you don’t have both may well end up doing more harm than good. I suspect that’s why so many “technique focused” MJ classes have failed.

[David Franklin]

If you can remember the name of the thread in question I’d be happy to try ferreting it up. It sound like an interesting read.Ha! If I could remember the name of the thread I'd have ferreted it up myself! No idea on the thread name (I don't think it started as a MJ/WCS discussion), no real idea what you might even try to search on.

I remember that the MJ clip had 3 or 4 couples, one of which was Woodface, and that the "bad" WCS clip had a fairly young couple. (I think this might be the WCS performance in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiD9fxSI6fg).

Thinking a bit more about it, my memory is saying "StrictyWestie" but also thinking it was in their "old" bulletin board format (that looked like vBulletin or whatever, as opposed to their customised "you can only read things in the reverse" piece of cr1p that they have now). In which case you'd have to somehow search their archives.

[Caro]

Ha! If I could remember the name of the thread I'd have ferreted it up myself! No idea on the thread name (I don't think it started as a MJ/WCS discussion), no real idea what you might even try to search on.

(...)
Thinking a bit more about it, my memory is saying "StrictyWestie" but also thinking it was in their "old" bulletin board format (that looked like vBulletin or whatever, as opposed to their customised "you can only read things in the reverse" piece of cr1p that they have now). In which case you'd have to somehow search their archives.

I think it was on strictly westie, on a thread talking about swing content... if I remember well it was sometime after BbB 2007. Possibly even after april 2008 as I remember thinking at the time about something Kyle had said at the UK champs, something about the fact that MJ could possibly be included in the definition of swing.

[Geordieed]

I remember that the MJ clip had 3 or 4 couples, one of which was Woodface, and that the "bad" WCS clip had a fairly young couple. (I think this might be the WCS performance in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiD9fxSI6fg).


It is not really fair to comment on things if you don't understand what is in front of you. Knowing the progression and understanding of both dancers in the clip within Swing and are incredibly well known on the Swing circuit would help. If MJ dancers have seen a lot of YouTube footage and base what this clips shows against that then yes it does not fit with the programme. Pete as a dancer and his quest for knowledge is pretty evident if you have been doing Swing for some time. Lacy is also experiementing within her progression as a dancer. Looking at the clip they play so much and push the boundries within their dance to the point that they loose connection a few times in the first half of the dance.

Knowing that these two are pretty special dancers and that they will be even more special for the work that they put in then I can overlook what is in this clip as a work in progress. They challenge their knowledge and the dance. Pete and Lacy have danced too many hours dancing together. Put it another way you can see the chemistry they have in the dance together. The timing is still respected. The technique is being used to challenge the teamwork that they are putting into the dance. Pete Green is known for being an amazing dancer and an incredible lead in the States. Lacy's acheivements both on TV and on the competition floor speaks for itself.

Then again if you don't know of these guys you may get lost on what you see in front of you as with my original statement.

[David Franklin]

It is not really fair to comment on things if you don't understand what is in front of you.I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I think I've made it fairly clear that I am merely relaying the comments of WCS posters on StrictlyWestie/WestieWire (which are WCS specific forums).


Knowing the progression and understanding of both dancers in the clip within Swing and are incredibly well known on the Swing circuit would help. If MJ dancers have seen a lot of YouTube footage and base what this clips shows against that then yes it does not fit with the programme. Pete as a dancer and his quest for knowledge is pretty evident if you have been doing Swing for some time. Lacy is also experiementing within her progression as a dancer. Looking at the clip they play so much and push the boundries within their dance to the point that they loose connection a few times in the first half of the dance.The specific argument being made was a lack of teamwork. So yes, the lost connection was an issue, but more in a context of "Standing there strutting your funky stuff while your partner is standing there wondering where your hand went isn't teamwork".

Personally it hadn't bothered me, but once it was pointed out (by these WCS dancers), I could see where they were coming from. If nothing else, it emphases how subjective a lot of this stuff can be.

[NZ Monkey]

It is not really fair to comment on things if you don't understand what is in front of you. Knowing the progression and understanding of both dancers in the clip within Swing and are incredibly well known on the Swing circuit would help. If MJ dancers have seen a lot of YouTube footage and base what this clips shows against that then yes it does not fit with the programme.As David Franklin has pointed out it was WCS dancers making the observations. If it really was on Strictly Westie then odds are it was someone quite involved in the WCS scene in the USA making them.



Pete as a dancer and his quest for knowledge is pretty evident if you have been doing Swing for some time. Lacy is also experiementing within her progression as a dancer. Looking at the clip they play so much and push the boundries within their dance to the point that they loose connection a few times in the first half of the dance.Yeah, but if you really value connection then that’s a pretty serious lapse. If you’re being judged on your connection then you’ll be punished for things like that.



Knowing that these two are pretty special dancers and that they will be even more special for the work that they put in then I can overlook what is in this clip as a work in progress. They challenge their knowledge and the dance. Pete and Lacy have danced too many hours dancing together. Put it another way you can see the chemistry they have in the dance together. The timing is still respected. The technique is being used to challenge the teamwork that they are putting into the dance. Pete Green is known for being an amazing dancer and an incredible lead in the States. Lacy's acheivements both on TV and on the competition floor speaks for itself.First of all – this is a single J&J clip from a competition that neither of them seem to be taking that seriously. I very much doubt that the use of that clip was intended as some sort of attack on either Pete or Lacey, but rather that it was used because it illustrated some general point whoever posted it was trying to make. Pete and Lacey don’t need defending because nobody is really attacking them.

Your point of view does raise an interesting question though. Essentially you’re saying that because they’re good (or perhaps it’s just that they’re famous) dancers they should be able to get away with things that “lesser” dancers wouldn’t be allowed to. At least that’s the case in competition where these things matter.

I know that the WCS competitions do this deliberately. Alan Boyle has posted the judging criteria for J&J comps above, and we can see that there are categories in the judging that only apply to higher levels. It seems to me that in practice those extra categories carry more weight than the “3 T’s” for those competitions. I would think that if Kyle and Sarah jumped into a novice competition and danced exactly the way they normally do they should probably not win according to the judging criteria.

That isn’t a suggestion that their basics aren’t good, which would be crazy. It’s a suggestion that what the judges are looking for is very solid vanilla flavored WCS at that level, and K&S don’t match any description that involves the word vanilla to my mind.

I can see the reasoning for having different criteria at different levels, but I think in practice what happens is that sometimes the “3 T’s” (especially lead and follow) really are being stretched a little in favour of showmanship at the top end. From what I’ve read online over the last year it seems many of the judges and the GSDTA seem to think the same thing. Even J&T bought their current routine more into line with traditional swing values this year and have been pushing the introduction of a formal set of official basics.

Personally I don’t mind the emphasis on showmanship because the top guns are good enough to make it work and provide me with many more entertaining Youtube clips, but I have to admit that it also seems bizarre to me to have double standards in competitions.

[NZ Monkey]

Found it!

http://www.strictlywestie.com/forums/forumtopicview.php?topicpage=5

That’s a link to the first post. If you can’t work our how the rest of the forum works……you’re not alone. The discussion regarding Ceroc and those clips is three or four pages into the thread.

[NZ Monkey]

It has been pointed out to me that the link I posted above isn't doing what it should. Here's another one:

http://www.strictlywestie.com/forums/forumtopicview.php?topicpage=2

It should take you directly to the page where Ceroc is discussed. Unfortunately the Ceroc videos have been removed, but you can still see the comments.

I don't know what happened with my last link. Perhaps IE8 did something tricky to it. Stupid IE...... Alternatively I'm an idiot.

Edit: This link works for me, but apparently not for some other people, or possibly anyone else. I'm sure one of you guru's can tell me why that is and what I can do to correct it. I'll leave it up anyway on the off chance someone get's some useful information out of it before I can post something more useful. I have a puppy who desperately needs to go for a run right now.

[David Franklin]

I think StrictlyWestie is doing something nasty with internal state (possibly using cookies), so that when you go to the second page of a thread, the URL becomes essentially "strictlywestie/page=2". That is, the URL in such a scenario doesn't actually specify a thread at all! (It's something like the 2nd page of whatever thread you were reading most recently).

I believe (hope) that this link will work better:

http://www.strictlywestie.com/forums/forumtopicview.php?topicsrc=1&topicid=3048

it does mean you end up at the "end" of the discussion, due to SW's retarded decision to make you read all threads backwards.

[The SW forum revamp really p1sses me off. It used to be a really good, interesting forum. Then they reworked it so they could change people money to post about events (with clear internal visions of being the dance equivalent of facebook). Since then, traffic has probably dropped over 90%, but the site owners still think what they've done is an improvement. If what you want is to make money, possibly it is. The community has died, however].

[Lee Bartholomew]

It should take you directly to the page where Ceroc is discussed. Unfortunately the Ceroc videos have been removed, but you can still see the comments.


Im assuming it was one of my old vids? Can you post the youtube url up as I can't seem to find that page on their back to front forum :grin:

[Lee Bartholomew]

It should take you directly to the page where Ceroc is discussed. Unfortunately the Ceroc videos have been removed, but you can still see the comments.


Im assuming it was one of my old vids? Can you post the youtube url up as I can't seem to find that page on their back to front forum :grin:

[Lee Bartholomew]

Ah found it :nice:

I think it was one we done at a fitness weekender. The vid was removed and I don't have the orig to post back up.

Lol at the spinning comment though. Me, Jamie and Alex F were in the vid so it could have been any one of us (or all three :nice: )


On a side note, It was interesting to read that some WCS dancers think that WCS is going the way of MJ when there are several of us pushing MJ in the way of WCS. Maybe one day they will meet in the middle and there will be no difference between them :what:


We teach what Alan refers to as the Three T's in our SJ classes. I firmly belive that dancers should be taught how to dance rather than just how to do moves.

[Agente Secreto]

I've changed the way I teach Modern Jive. I teach using Skippy's Universal Unit System.

It makes it easier and quicker to learn but it does have more emphasis on three T's. Lessons should be fun, exciting, and still relaxed and comfortable.

If it makes it easier and quicker to learn while having fun, I think that would benefit MJ.

Am I just that age - when Alan mentions Skippy all I can think of is 'the Bush Kangaroo'.

OK Alan, show and tell time.

Let's see an example of the Universal Unit System for one of the MJ beginner moves - how about the Octopus - and then use this to justify your comments above (RobD might even be happy for you to show us the UUS in action in a video). I've never detected any difficulty in learning MJ, and it doesn't seem to take a long time so I'm intrigued how UUS can truly be quicker and easier than something that seems very quick and easy already!

Back to the point though, your three Ts are important in learning to dance as opposed to going through moves by rote. My local venue already does a good job with this by mixing extra messages in around the moves but I'd be keen for you to explain how the UUS can add something additional.

Agent 000
Licensed to Dance

[Geordieed]

I hope that wasn't directed at me,


No David it wasn't just to make it clear. Apologies if there is any confusion...

[Geordieed]

As David Franklin has pointed out it was WCS dancers making the observations. If it really was on Strictly Westie then odds are it was someone quite involved in the WCS scene in the USA making them.

Just because it is on Strictly Westie does not make it a better or worse opinion by default. Additionally there is a great of debate going through every level on what is right and wrong with WCS currently.



First of all – this is a single J&J clip from a competition that neither of them seem to be taking that seriously.

Does appear that way but then a lot of the pros do that and have been slapped on the wrist for doing it and many still continue. Just thought that is not me justifying anyone not taking a comp seriously.:doh:


Your point of view does raise an interesting question though. Essentially you’re saying that because they’re good (or perhaps it’s just that they’re famous) dancers they should be able to get away with things that “lesser” dancers wouldn’t be allowed to. At least that’s the case in competition where these things matter.

No I am just saying that I appreciate that they are exploring the dance and having fun. Yes there are lines that are crossed. Sometimes I would rather see dancers pushing the boundries.


I would think that if Kyle and Sarah jumped into a novice competition and danced exactly the way they normally do they should probably not win according to the judging criteria.

But they would probably win all the same. And that would not be on reputation. Kyle and Sarah are very, very focused on keeping the integrity of Swing. Plus I have seen many a dancer win Novice competitions while not dancing some of the requirements of the Novice division. The reasons they won were evident and on merit. Having spoken to judges at some of the American comps and asked for advice I have begun to understand what does well and what doesn't.



I can see the reasoning for having different criteria at different levels, but I think in practice what happens is that sometimes the “3 T’s” (especially lead and follow) really are being stretched a little in favour of showmanship at the top end. Even J&T bought their current routine more into line with traditional swing values this year and have been pushing the introduction of a formal set of official basics.

Not sure what you mean by the 'especially lead and follow' comment regarding the 3 T's. Would you explain it again please. I can't see top end dancers doing well in a Strictly without any of the 3 T's. What part is being stretched for showmanship. When I first started learning WCS I watched the Strictly's amoungst other comps and watched their timing and teamwork and technique and as time goes on and still now am amazed how they apply those 3 elements to a pro level.

I can't see that much of a difference in the concepts that J&T have used in this years routine. It still pushes some of the concepts of Swing and the shapes and uses of Swing concepts on a competition floor. There is a great deal of case for pushing the idea of what makes Swing a Swing dance. Openly again I welcome what you meant by your comment.




but I have to admit that it also seems bizarre to me to have double standards in competitions.

On the double standards idea I can offer part of an explanation. To begin with at Newcomer and Novice level dancers are required to show their understanding for the dance whether it be using triple steps anchoring (with triple steps) and being able to dance with a partner and respect the dance that they are dancing. Once that has been demonstrated it is assumed that at the next level up that because a dancer knows what a triple an anchor and general connection is then they have the knowledge to add and take away elements. As they progress the same concepts apply. Dancing with a room full of Novice to Pro dancers in America you can see how this works on the social floor. WCS is more a social dance than anything else which the numbers will back up. On a social floor I feel at ease with an All-Star dancer (just as an example) that the understanding of the dance and connection etc will mean that we can dance certain things that a true Novice wouldn't. I say true Novice as in Novice, Intermediate etc there are dancers who clearly are moving their way up quickly through the divisions.

[NZ Monkey]

Just because it is on Strictly Westie does not make it a better or worse opinion by default. No, but it does mean the comments were made by people with some experience with WCS, and not MJ dancers who don’t understand what they’re looking at when they watch youtube clips – which was the implication several of us read in your post.



But they would probably win all the same. And that would not be on reputation. Kyle and Sarah are very, very focused on keeping the integrity of Swing. Plus I have seen many a dancer win Novice competitions while not dancing some of the requirements of the Novice division. The reasons they won were evident and on merit. Having spoken to judges at some of the American comps and asked for advice I have begun to understand what does well and what doesn't.I did say shouldn’t :wink:



Not sure what you mean by the 'especially lead and follow' comment regarding the 3 T's. Would you explain it again please. I can't see top end dancers doing well in a Strictly without any of the 3 T's. What part is being stretched for showmanship. When I first started learning WCS I watched the Strictly's amoungst other comps and watched their timing and teamwork and technique and as time goes on and still now am amazed how they apply those 3 elements to a pro level.I’m thinking specifically of some comments made by Arjay Centano on that same forum (It may have been Westiewire, but I don’t think so), and reinforced by some of the others there who seem to be well known in the USA. I’ll dig the quotes up when I get a chance, but that’s not likely to be until after work tonight :sad:


I can't see that much of a difference in the concepts that J&T have used in this years routine. It still pushes some of the concepts of Swing and the shapes and uses of Swing concepts on a competition floor. There is a great deal of case for pushing the idea of what makes Swing a Swing dance. Openly again I welcome what you meant by your comment.The choreography has much more of an emphasis on the basics, including a unusually large number of absolute basics (is that what they call them? I mean the no-frills beginner versions of side passes and the like) than their previous routines have had. In my opinion it also looks much more like you’d expect social WCS to be like (tricks and incredible skill of J&T aside of course) when compared to any of their last three routines. The overwhelming impression I’ve heard from those I know personally about that particular routine is that it’s very slick, but hasn’t grabbed people the way their previous routines have. That comes from westies and non-westies alike.

Considering they’ve got a long history of taking infractions for lack of swing content in the past, and they’ve been extremely influential in the evolution of WCS to what it is today I don’t think its just a co-incidence they’ve done what they have with their newest routine. I wouldn’t exactly call it an about face, but I think they’re trying to lead WCS back a little bit more toward the older values than perhaps it is at the moment (in part thanks to them). Purely speculation on my part at the moment of course.



On the double standards idea I can offer part of an explanation. To begin with at Newcomer and Novice level dancers are required to show their understanding for the dance whether it be using triple steps anchoring (with triple steps) and being able to dance with a partner and respect the dance that they are dancing. To go back to my earlier point, if I signed up to a novice competition and danced exactly like Kyle, I doubt I’d win. Or at least I doubt I should win given the judging criteria. If I stopped triple stepping for minutes at a time, danced off the slot for some sort of dramatic effect and showboated everything I could possibly find in the music I wouldn’t be doing a very good job of displaying my solid basics. I’d be doing a great job of showing what an awesome dancer I was, but the judging criteria are a lot more specific than just that.



Once that has been demonstrated it is assumed that at the next level up that because a dancer knows what a triple an anchor and general connection is then they have the knowledge to add and take away elements. As they progress the same concepts apply. Yeah – like I said I can see why it happens. From the outside looking in though it does seem somewhat contradictory. It’s as if you’re telling the novices that they should “respect the dance” by doing X,Y and Z, but then put the Pro’s on the stage doing something that looks quite different. I’m not complaining, just pointing out the inconsistency.

[NZ Monkey]

It turns out that particular post I was talking about was from Westie Wire after all. Here it is in full, and note that he has plenty more to say than just what I was highlighting:


It's always been said that the Pros have much influence on the community both positively and negatively. mostly negative...that's why i'm bringing it up...how to make it more positive

Do you agree? think this is true? how much of it is true?


From what I see, I feel that the community has an issue with seeing what they want to see. Even some Pros making you see what they want you to see(not always a bad thing). And perhaps poor judging that reinforces the negative elements to the dance.

An example of each of these mentioned:

Seeing what they want to see:
As mentioned by Deborah in another thread...people seeing or wanting a formula on how to dance or compete. monkey see monkey do right?

I think it's taken too literally when most people don't try to comprehend the philosophy behind some of the actions by the pros....
Most of our growing rising stars are more in a trial and error learning process...
if I do this she does this and vice versa...if i do this when he does this...
(folks, that's like playing chess only one move ahead)

Pros making you see what you want to see
I think the best way to describe this without stepping on my colleagues' toes...our community sometimes loses sight of the functionality of something because we make the aesthetic form of something a priority. was that actually lead and follow or was that a visual lead and visual follow? I think too much emphasis on something not truly lead and not truly followed

Perhaps poor judging reinforcing negative elements of this dance:
How many times I've seen leaders and followers that look pretty good or even just okay, but people complain about not being able to really follow or lead that person. Then again what does that individual care? they made it to finals right? Even choosing a path that gets progressively worse...

I think some judges also go just by instinct how to judge. I think instinct is good but it has to be also reinforced by an understanding of why is something is the way it is.... as mentioned before... functionality and philosophy...not just form...
(I might even go out on a limb here and say this might be one reason to abolishing judges seminars after scoring has been posted)


What I'd like to see and how to make it perhaps a positive influence:

I'd like to see judges and pros working more together to understand each others point of views on the dance to solidify a consistent system and eliminate as many discrepancies as possible.

I'd like to see the community look at this dance more as an art form not as a mathematical equation or formula. Art is not right or wrong... art is not being a cookie cutter of the previous.(I think this can dramatically improve the situation from being a negative influence)More people will then look to being unique

I think I'd like to see people appreciate a little bit more that they get to spend their time on a dance floor rather than any other place in this world...both socially and especially competitively...
Too many people worrying about what other people think... people worrying too much about how many points they have and what division they're dancing in...too many people thinking politics plays a huge part in their development...too many people worried about having a "bad" dance(remember? art...no right or wrong)

Somewhat tangentially the "anchoring at the end of the slot" thread in the Teacher Talk section shows some very interesting differences of opinion between some of the older (and very well known) dancers and the newer ones.

[David Franklin]

The choreography has much more of an emphasis on the basics, including a unusually large number of absolute basics (is that what they call them? I mean the no-frills beginner versions of side passes and the like) than their previous routines have had. In my opinion it also looks much more like you’d expect social WCS to be like (tricks and incredible skill of J&T aside of course) when compared to any of their last three routines. The overwhelming impression I’ve heard from those I know personally about that particular routine is that it’s very slick, but hasn’t grabbed people the way their previous routines have. That comes from westies and non-westies alike.It didn't do a lot for me, but not, I think for the reasons you suggest.

These routines don't live in a vacuum - there is always comparison against prior routines (as you've done yourself). And even subconciously, that affects how we perceive it.

For me, this routine felt like a 'compromised' version of their 2008 routine. The 2008 routine has a very atypical feel for WCS - it's very lyrical, and although it's not 'trick-heavy', there's a lot of nuance (looks and gestures) that doesn't feel socially leadable. I thought it was a fabulous routine, but something that actually belonged more as a cabaret piece than a classic routine.

Moving on to 2009, you have a track which again has a strong lyrical feel, only this time there is also quite a strong driving beat. To my mind, it doesn't work nearly as well as a piece of music (although it is certainly catchy). And I felt the routine reflects this - it seems like J/T are trying to convey deep emotion, but then they get back into dancing to the beat and it's lost. <ObFlashGordan>: "Jordan, I love you! But we only have 14 beats to do a quadruple spin into a behind the back neck drop!"

I agree that it comes across as more socially leadable, but to me this is far less about the number of basics, and far more about the lack of those 'unleadable' nuances.

Just my 2c...

[Geordieed]

Maybe the judges stateside should come and read this thread to help them:doh:

[NZ Monkey]

Maybe the judges stateside should come and read this thread to help them:doh:Now it's my turn to ask you to clarify what you mean here.

[David Franklin]

Now it's my turn to ask you to clarify what you mean here.:yeah: