PDA

View Full Version : Retired from Competitions?



Gus
22nd-December-2003, 07:30 PM
OK .... its nearly that time of year when we have the annual 'Competitions ... Good or Evil' debate again:devil: Not quite ready to resurrect last years thread (yet) but thought I'd raise a slightly different slant.

Who out there has previously been into competitions and now, for whatever reason, decided its not for them ... or at least don’t take them as seriously as before?

The reason I'm interested is ... to cut a VERY long story short ... I was really into the whole concept of competitions, as a way of encouraging dancers to improve their style etc. I always maintained the party line .... given the big rep of the judges (at Blackpool) you have to accept their decision or else you shouldn't compete. Unfortunately, after two years in the competition I came to the conclusion that I was still none the wiser as to what the judges were/are looking for. So, I took my own advice and decided to give it all a miss. There is a bit more to it that that ... but thats even more boring. What I'm interested in is there anyone else out there who vehemently won’t compete ... not because they really don’t think they are good enough, but for other reasons.

HRH
22nd-December-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Gus
.... given the big rep of the judges (at Blackpool) you have to accept their decision or else you shouldn't compete. Unfortunately, after two years in the competition I came to the conclusion that I was still none the wiser as to what the judges were/are looking for.

Maybe they are looking to choose winners that can teach lessons at their own events afterwards? :wink:

JamesGeary
23rd-December-2003, 08:01 AM
I have never agreed with the all the results in any competition I've seen. But I think that judges all try to give their most honest opinion at any competition.

I think most anyone would, given the publicity of the results and the hassle they get from people if they make a decision that doesn't agree with the majority of the crowd. The 'what were you thinking' from every man and his dog, for a whole year. I think most people's pride is put ahead of any possible minor fiscal gain.

As we know from talking with our friends, opinions on results will always disagree, as there are so many different styles. Experienced dancers disagree just as much as people who have never danced.

I personally think a person who has never danced has as accurate and valid an opinion on quality of dancing as the most experienced dancer in the world. They can be just as critical, and are, when they choose where to spend their money at for example the musicals. I know people who have never danced yet point out all sorts of things i never saw when watching a dance video.

But I much prefer the idea of being judged by top-notch and experienced dancers though, because as you say, if you respect their ability then you have to respect their decision even if it disagrees with your own.

I agree, sometimes you just don't know why a couple was placed where they were. I've seen couples that I just loved get knocked out in the first round. A score breakdown, at least for the finals, would be interesting.

I think a bit of randomness makes it fun anyway. If you knew what the results were before they came out there wouldn't be any excitement.

Martin
23rd-December-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Gus
OK .... its nearly that time of year when we have the annual 'Competitions ... Good or Evil' debate again:devil: Not quite ready to resurrect last years thread (yet) but thought I'd raise a slightly different slant.

Who out there has previously been into competitions and now, for whatever reason, decided its not for them ... or at least don’t take them as seriously as before?



Seriously, well I seriously train and I seriously want to dance the best I can (normally in teams or showcases) to make sure those watching get a good show and I can be proud of my performance.

As to taking the judging seriously - most of the top experienced comp goers know which comps are "level playing fields" and which have underlying agendas




Originally posted by JamesGeary
I think most anyone would, given the publicity of the results and the hassle they get from people if they make a decision that doesn't agree with the majority of the crowd.

I could name a few who do not, only on a PM though:blush:
[Yes I can back it up having judged extensively myself and many of my personal friends being judges]


Originally posted by JamesGeary
It'd be great to have a breakdown from the judges of score in areas, at least in the finals, so you could see exactly what areas people had done well or what things they didn't address. And maybe learn something too!

This was covered before, still a good point, in Canberra they did that. On the board they had posted the judging criteria and they offered to all competitors to post them the marks they recieved in the various category areas. - There was also a space for comments in each area. - Incedently that comp was the best ever in my opinion as the true top dancers "on the night" got to the finals.

When I judge I am also happy to give honest personal feedback and genuine improvement points (if requested).

Gus
23rd-December-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I have never agreed with the all the results in any competition I've seen. But I think that judges all try to give their most honest opinion at any competition.
.......But I much prefer the idea of being judged by top-notch and experienced dancers though, because as you say, if you respect their ability then you have to respect their decision even if it disagrees with your own.


Aye ... sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post. I'm not 'dissing' the judges ... it was more of a personal comment .. if you dont know what the criteria are ... I'm not sure how you can try to win. Oh .. and forget the 'official' criteria ... I'm yet to see a competition where 'musical interpretation' has held sway against flash moves:sad:

Martin
23rd-December-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Gus
Aye ... sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post. I'm not 'dissing' the judges ... it was more of a personal comment .. if you dont know what the criteria are ... I'm not sure how you can try to win. Oh .. and forget the 'official' criteria ... I'm yet to see a competition where 'musical interpretation' has held sway against flash moves:sad:

Musical interpretation is ONE category, not the only category (although it did win through in Canberra)

If musical interpretation is number 1, stick to social dancing on the whole. It is commendable and a number one skill in social dancing, I love it.

For comps, wow the judges in ALL catogories if possible.

At University I was told, to get a 1st you have to tell me something more than I have taught you...
:D

New inventive stuff and some element of wow factor, otherwise it gets plain boring.

Viktor did win the Aussies purely on musical interpretation IMHO, that was a rarity though.

Dreadful Scathe
23rd-December-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I personally think a person who has never danced has as accurate and valid an opinion on quality of dancing as the most experienced dancer in the world.

but I think 'Quality' will be very general, they are very unlikely to analyse and break down a performance. I think this was shown in the recent Jivemasters judging where the results were the weirdest i've seen in any competition bearing in mind the criteria for voting was a very clear 4 sections. Jivemasters was quite an interesting video though. Judging - like anything else, becomes better with experience.

Martin
23rd-December-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
but I think 'Quality' will be very general, they are very unlikely to analyse and break down a performance. I think this was shown in the recent Jivemasters judging where the results were the weirdest i've seen in any competition bearing in mind the criteria for voting was a very clear 4 sections. Jivemasters was quite an interesting video though. Judging - like anything else, becomes better with experience.

Interesting and I do not fully dis-agree.
Should a performance be analysed and broken down or should it be "an overall impression" as in watching a play, show or film?
True less experienced dancers are more likely to be wow'ed by the wow factor. In that case David and Lily would have won in Aussie.
Do we want WOW factor or do we want technical breakdowns?

Questions, not personal opinions here:D

JamesGeary
23rd-December-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Martin

Do we want WOW factor or do we want technical breakdowns?


How about both? Say 4 categories as per Jivemasters, and then a double weighted category for 'overall impression' where you put how cool you thought it was.

JamesGeary
23rd-December-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Martin

As to taking the judging seriously - most of the top experienced comp goers know which comps are "level playing fields" and which have underlying agendas


I guess politics and egos come into it. In fact I remember someone years ago showing me a video once of an old competition, and there you could see that the results were nonsense. I was told that the winners got booed by the crowd.

TheTramp
23rd-December-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I guess politics and egos come into it. In fact I remember someone years ago showing me a video once of an old competition, and there you could see that the results were nonsense. I was told that the winners got booed by the crowd. I think that the 3rd placed couple (in blue I believe) were quite good. :wink:

Well, the girl was anyhow :devil:

Steve

Gus
23rd-December-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I guess politics and egos come into it.

Maybe ... but my intention for the North West event is to invite up a couple of DANCERS (not instructors) and a few teachers from outside our area. also, at least one of the judges will be someone 'from the floor' ... not a recognised star.

My preference would be (not withstanding a consensus opinion)

3 Categories: DWAS, Improvers/Intermediate, Advanced

If there are a lot of entries … tap on the shoulder (for ALL three comps) to go through in the opening round (a la DWAS at Blackpool)

3 winners to go through (with repercharge)

NO rule re teachers … if they want to dance in Improvers … its up to them … let decorum be their guide

As the idea is mainly for fun .. no cash prizes, some sort of medals, minimal entry fee.

Format .. dunno but like the Bristol approach

Promotion … tie in with Blackpool … this event should not been seen as a competitor to the Big events, but a way of encouraging more grass roots dancers to engage in competitions.

Comments?

stewart38
23rd-December-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I guess politics and egos come into it. In fact I remember someone years ago showing me a video once of an old competition, and there you could see that the results were nonsense. I was told that the winners got booed by the crowd.

Happened at ceroc championships this May some of the decisions were a joke (so I was told)

Geordieed
23rd-December-2003, 04:44 PM
:kiss: Someone remind me why we compete in the first place. Do people do competitions because of their growing dance addiction or is the competition with ourselves not enough.

When only a small percentage of competitors acheive above or beyond what they set out to do why enter in the first place. And that does not even begin to address the stress involved with practise and preparation.

Why do we have to test ourselves in this negative way.

LilyB
23rd-December-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Happened at ceroc championships this May some of the decisions were a joke (so I was told) Were you there? Which category are you referring to?

It is all too easy criticising judges' decisions. If the judges' decisions did not concur with yours, are you suggesting that you (or someone with the same views as you) would have done a "better" job?

Let us not forget - where there is a panel of 3 or more judges, the overall results quite often do not reflect the decisions of individual judges. Yet individual judges are often subjected to questioning (and sometimes abuse) from competitors unhappy with the overall results. Publishing the judges' marks is not a solution either, as it will lead to the judges being "judged" - competitor X will say A is a better judge than B because he has marked him higher. Following from that, it will encourage more accusations of bias and judges being targetted for abuse - if stewart38's quote above is anything to go by.

It is only when you have experienced it from all sides, ie. as a competitor, a judge and a member of the audience, that you get a clearer perspective of how difficult the job of judging a Modern Jive competition is. An excellent example was at the JiveMasters competition where many forum members (some of whom have competed before) who did attend and judge the competition felt that the results did not agree with their own views.

LilyB

stewart38
23rd-December-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Geordieed
:kiss:
set out to do why enter in the first place. And that does not even begin to address the stress involved with practise and preparation.

Why do we have to test ourselves in this negative way.

Tell me about it, trying to park at Hammersmith on that sunday and trying to get in to the venue :sick:

lily they were not my views I know judging is like air conditioning you will never keep everyone happy

Andy McGregor
23rd-December-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I guess politics and egos come into it. In fact I remember someone years ago showing me a video once of an old competition, and there you could see that the results were nonsense. I was told that the winners got booed by the crowd.

If it's the competition I'm thinking about, I was there. The result was announced for 2nd or 3rd place (can't remember exactly, I think it was 3rd, but they should definitely have won) and the crowd booed the decision - then when the competitors appeared to receive their prize they were cheered, it was really wierd, like the sun shining through the rain. I was very near the stage and I heard the judge giving these particular competitors their prize apoligise for what had happened.

Word got around about that particular championships...

I'm not so sure about the Ceroc champs in Hammersmith. I think the changing over of judges is wrong, and I think there is an overrepresentation of youth/beauty in the prizewinners rather than talent. But then who would you prefer to back Kylie, Justin Timberlake and Gareth Gates dancing badly or me and the Tramp dancing brilliantly?:devil:

DavidB
23rd-December-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Gus
I'm yet to see a competition where 'musical interpretation' has held sway against flash moves I've yet to see a competition where any couple has actually done enough 'musical interpretation' to be noticed.

Now I don't like the 'competition technique' of throwing in every trick you can do, especially when they don't go with the music. But I understand why they do it. With 6 or more couples on the floor, you are only going to get looked at for a few seconds. So you have to make those seconds count.

But too many of the 'musical' couples restrict their interpretation to the breaks, or a bit of solo improvisation. This is not enough. To have any chance of the judges noticing you, you have to interpret the music all the time, from the start to the end, and whilst doing Modern Jive at the same time.

The first couple to do this will wipe the floor against the trick merchants.

David

JamesGeary
23rd-December-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Happened at ceroc championships this May some of the decisions were a joke (so I was told)

Debatable decisions, but hey, they all are. I do believe that they used canned cheering in 2003 to ensure that the crowds decision agreed with the judges. I guess thats easier than the other way around. :wink:

JamesGeary
24th-December-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by DavidB

To have any chance of the judges noticing you, you have to interpret the music all the time, from the start to the end, and whilst doing Modern Jive at the same time.

The first couple to do this will wipe the floor against the trick merchants.


I don't know. They probably should. I usually like watching interpretation more than flash moves too. But in the Jivemasters competition I gave all the 5 finalists an almost perfect score in almost all of the 4 categories. If RobertC and Deborah had entered I would have given them a fairly humble score in the complexity of moves category (they don't churn out tricks really) while perfect scores in the rest of the categories, putting them squarely last of all the finalists. It would be a bizzare placing, because I would have felt they were the best there, but thats where they would be.

If you are weak in one area of a scoring system you get an overall poor score, no matter how fantastic you are in the others. Which can knock out the brilliant specialists (drop merchants, aerialists, amazing interpreters), whose brilliance in 1 or 2 specialty areas should more than make up for areas they ignore because, for them, they don't consider them important. This can interesting results. Such as my hypothetical RobC & Deborah coming last in the Jivemasters.

A categorised scoring system can thus lead to 'Microsoft' dancers being produced. Where everyone focusses equally on all categories.

Gadget
28th-December-2003, 12:06 AM
Nevermind the critera or the judge's interpritation of the criteria, but getting back to the root of Gus's question: Why compete?

I think that we want to rate our level of dancing ability against our fellow dancers. Prove how good we are, see how good everyone else is, see if we have improved, gleam some inspiration to improve...

But how do you judge ability on the dance floor? Judges generally mark on two areas (or sub-divisions of the same areas...)
Showmanship - the flashy moves and styling that appeal to the audience.
And musical interpritation - expressing the music through movement and forms created within the dance.
The final part that is hardest to judge and observe from the sidelines is the connection with your partner. This is who I dance for. This is what the majority of my dancing is based arround. I don't dance for spectators; I dance for me and my partner, and I dance to the music. :waycool:

I think that past winners of competitions concentrate on the first area unless they 'specialise' in the second. But IMHO, the true test of ability as a dancer is the last part. DWAS is closest we have to compete in this {and probably the only competition I would judge myself by.} And the Ozzy version sounds like an even better way to judge it.

JamesGeary
28th-December-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Gadget

Judges generally mark on two areas (or sub-divisions of the same areas...)
...The final part that is hardest to judge and observe from the sidelines is the connection with your partner.
...I don't dance for spectators; I dance for me and my partner, ...


I agree with everything you write from a social dancing perspective. But not when done in front of a crowd.

But if you are producing a show for an audience of thousands, I find it just looks interoverted if the dancers are only dancing with each other.

When people first start doing demonstrations and shows they only dance with each other out of habit because thats all they know. Half the time they aren't even facing the audience (been there done that), or wander off to an edge of the stage. After some time of doing shows they realise that the audience is who the show is for. They start to open up and interact with the audience. This requires a lot more confidence.

I was just watching J&C's routine on video and 25% of their interaction is aimed at the audience, keeping the audience interested and entertained. As a result the audience loved it.

Gus
28th-December-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
I agree with everything you write from a social dancing perspective. But not when done in front of a crowd.

Interesting and pretty fundamentl point. Is the assertion then that a competition winner is not neccearily the best dancer but the best PERFORMER? A very important distinction. To me, the best dancers could only be assesed by dancing with them as social dance, by definition, is for the entertainment/pleasure of your dancing partner.

TheTramp
28th-December-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Interesting and pretty fundamentl point. Is the assertion then that a competition winner is not necessarily the best dancer but the best PERFORMER? A very important distinction.Absolutely. Although they could well be the best dancer too. It's not an either/or situation...

Steve

Andy McGregor
28th-December-2003, 01:53 PM
When it comes to social dancing, I think we are all judged every time we dance. Whether we like it or not our partners are judging our performance as a dancer and comparing us to the others. How often have you heard someone say "you must dance with Gus (for example) he's one of the best dancers here tonight"? Also, how often have we been told "wow, you've really improved"? They might even be judging you on how much fun you are to dance with - whatever you do you will be judged, it's a jungle out there...

The above statements are measurements of performance and they're also ranking performance against others or your previous performance. It's a bit like a competition - the only difference is that we only get to hear the good news. Unlike competitions, nobody gets knocked out in the first round:tears:

If we wanted an organised competition where people judged 'social dancing ability' the judges would have to dance with every competitor. That would be difficult, but could be done - you could even call it an exam and give competitors a score (but only after you'd trained and calibrated the judges/examiners). The much more difficult bit would be getting an audience to pay to watch the competition. A competition is a show, people pay to watch it, that's what pays for the day. Therefore the competitors need to be encouraged to put on a show by being told they will be judged on showmanship as one of the criterias of the competition.

So, in my opinion, it's impossible to be "Retired from Competitions". You'd have to give up dancing. All you can retire from are the ones where you're judged on showmanship and you win prizes:wink:

DavidB
28th-December-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
But how do you judge ability on the dance floor? Judges generally mark on two areas (or sub-divisions of the same areas...)
Showmanship - the flashy moves and styling that appeal to the audience.
And musical interpretation - expressing the music through movement and forms created within the dance.
The final part that is hardest to judge and observe from the sidelines is the connection with your partner.Are you counting 'connection' as a third judging criteria, along with 'showmanship' and 'musical interpretation'?

And what is so difficult about judging either musical interpretation or connection? As long as you accept that the judges can only base their opinion on what they see, then there is more than enough to mark either category.

For me the hardest typical category to judge is 'variety of moves'. In the 20 seconds or so I get to look at a couple, then they may only get to do 3 or 4 moves at the most. Most people will do 4 different moves, with at least one of them being 'interesting'. Perhaps the only thing I do notice is couples who repeat the same big tricks - then I start thinking "don't they know anything else?"



Originally posted by Gadget
Is the assertion then that a competition winner is not necessarily the best dancer but the best PERFORMER?Sometimes. The winner is just the couple that looks to be dancing best on that day. Both the performance, and the dancing count.


David

Martin
28th-December-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
For me the hardest typical category to judge is 'variety of moves'. In the 20 seconds or so I get to look at a couple, then they may only get to do 3 or 4 moves at the most.
David

Why enter comps, because after a while you need new challenges...


As to the 20 second rule, I always tell couples, if you do a big move (which is likely to catch attention) make sure the exit and the next couple of moves are your best possible, that is when the main impression is made.

My first comp was enlightening I did the "dance connected with your partner thing", in 1997, that's the way Kylie and I danced as if we were one. I did notice though that the likes of Nigel (I think his first comp too, you can correct me here) and Sherif from Bristol kept giving big grins and showing moves directed towards the judges and I thought, OK maybe it is not about dancing but about showing off to those judges?:blush:

Either way comps are a great thing to work towards, regardless of result.

Gus
28th-December-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Either way comps are a great thing to work towards, regardless of result.

Sorry .. not sure that I think that is alwys true. The vast majority of dancers will never enter a competition but that doesn't mean they are any less a dancer. As with all art forms, the tendancy towards competition can be detrimental. In martial arts the competition aspect brought out some attitudes that were far removed from the original ethos of martial arts. Even in my short time competing I realised that to beat my opponent it wasn't alwys the cleanest etchnique that would win but more often managing to hurt them enough to rattle their concentration ... and that was supposedly in the 'non-contact' division.

The general perception is that flash move win competitions ... yet that is diametricly opposite to what can make for a good dance with someone.

I'm not saying that competition is TOTALY bad ... but I'm not sure that its entirely good.....

(oops .... seem to have drifted into a debate form 6 months or so ago:blush: )

JamesGeary
28th-December-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Gus
...Even in my short time competing I realised that to beat my opponent it wasn't alwys the cleanest etchnique that would win but more often managing to hurt them enough to rattle their concentration, and that was in the non-contact division
Reminds me never to compete against you in a dance competition! :sick: :sick:

Father Christmas
28th-December-2003, 05:26 PM
Oops!

Anyone got any turkey left?:devil:

Martin
28th-December-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
Reminds me never to compete against you in a dance competition! :sick: :sick:

Hey Gus being a FULL-CONTACT competetor and watching my "technically brilliant" friend do so much agressive good work and then "free-fight like a pussy"(non- contact).... (and still get a black belt - so SAD :blush: ) I say show it or shut up... :cheers:

Sorry :what: wondered off Ceroc into the wonderful world of the arts (for all you artists out there...)
:kiss:

Gadget
28th-December-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Interesting and pretty fundamentl point. Is the assertion then that a competition winner is not neccearily the best dancer but the best PERFORMER? A very important distinction.
I would say that this is true. At least this is my perception of it. How can judges rate anything other than the performance being given to them?

To me, the best dancers could only be assesed by dancing with them as social dance, by definition, is for the entertainment/pleasure of your dancing partner.
This is why I think th majority of dancers will never compete - they are not out to perform for an outside audience.

Originally posted by DavidB
Are you counting 'connection' as a third judging criteria, along with 'showmanship' and 'musical interpretation'?
I don't think so; I'm saying that you can (and currently do) judge the last two as "showmanship", but the connection between two dancers is more (to me) what dancing is about - and would be very hard to judge.

And what is so difficult about judging either musical interpretation or connection? As long as you accept that the judges can only base their opinion on what they see, then there is more than enough to mark either category.[b][quote]
But what they see is a crafted performance, staged to entertain them - how can you show how good your lead is and how well you convey your intent to your partner? Anyone could practice a 'winning routine', but it does not make them a great dancer.
[quote][b]For me the hardest typical category to judge is 'variety of moves'. this always puzled me; mainly because when in 'freestyle', so many moves run into each other, or are variations of each other, that I wouldn't be able to tell. Unless they did an identical move with almost identical timing.

Gus
28th-December-2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
but I think 'Quality' will be very general, they are very unlikely to analyse and break down a performance.

I can go with this. the more you 'dance' the less it is about 'moves'. I've been trying to improve my dancing and realiaed that the better I dance its more about how I move rather than the standard move sI'm trying to slot together ... but where would this appear on a scorecard?? A persons movement, musical interpretation, innovation and improvisation are quite frakly above the ken of a lot of the judges (but not all) on the circuit because they dont come from a musical/dance background.

Case in point. Knowing the judges involved, how could the Ceroc 2003 judges put themselves up to judge Nina if she really let fly? One of the few 'dance' teachers Ceroc had was Sue Freeman and even she has left Ceroc now ... so who would put themsleves forward to step up to the mark?

Andy McGregor
29th-December-2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Gus
Case in point. Knowing the judges involved, how could the Ceroc 2003 judges put themselves up to judge Nina if she really let fly?

As Nina's partner in the Ceroc champs I can tell you that she wasn't holding back - although I may have held her back a bit :tears: After the comp I had dozens of people tell me that if it had been judged on musical interpretation we would have placed much better - but that it seemed the judges were looking for 'big', 'flashy' moves.

Also, in the semi-final round Nina and I were in the DJ actually finished the track in a break rather than playing the track to the end - for us people listening to and dancing to the music this caused a significant problem with how we finished off - even the compere said something like 'shouldn't there have been a bit more of that track?'.

I've actually danced with one of the Ceroc judges and he took no notice of the music at all - but then I might have been putting him off a bit:devil:

This brings us onto the selection of judges, completely off topic I know. I selected (with Graham's agreement) all but one of the judges for the Britroc competition. In making my selection I looked for people who were either dance trained or very seasoned competitors or judges. But also I looked for people who had different styles of MJ as to have them all as clones of one type would have been biased towards a certain type of dancer and also have required a lesser number of judges as there would have been duplication. To my mind, the clear definition of judging criteria and the quality of judging is what makes a competition fair. But for most people that attend a competition the reason they're there is to watch.

To those of you who have retired from competitions I say - don't enter to win, enter to enjoy yourself and when you become a spectator enjoy that more because you are watching and supporting the people who beat you.

Gus
29th-December-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
To those of you who have retired from competitions I say - don't enter to win, enter to enjoy yourself and when you become a spectator enjoy that more because you are watching and supporting the people who beat you.


Ahh ... there lies the crux of the problem. If I was just entering as a dancer, yup I could do it for fun. However, rightly or wrongly, every time I step out on a competition floor my rep as a instructor is on the line aswell. Say I went out first round but a rival instructor went through to the final? That puts me at a big disadvantage when it comes to promoting my workshops/classes, even though perfomance at a competition has nothing to do with teaching ability:sick:

Andy McGregor
29th-December-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Ahh ... there lies the crux of the problem. If I was just entering as a dancer, yup I could do it for fun. However, rightly or wrongly, every time I step out on a competition floor my rep as a instructor is on the line aswell. Say I went out first round but a rival instructor went through to the final? That puts me at a big disadvantage when it comes to promoting my workshops/classes, even though perfomance at a competition has nothing to do with teaching ability:sick:

At last I've caught the ODA being completely wrong:devil:

There is no evidence that being beaten in competitions will reduce the numbers attending a particular teachers classes

And I can't even find much evidence that the winners do that well out of it either! The only exception is the visiting freelance and occasional workshop teacher such as Amir who needs to have something to promote themselves with like competition success.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that competition success increases the numbers of people attending classes. In our area Graham LeClerc has won or been placed in competitions for the last few years, his classes get between 15 and 40 people at them! On the other hand, Julian Handford, another local teacher, gets up to 150 people and has never entered a competition - and, to be realistic, I don't think he would place if he did enter. And the most extreme example is Jeff Jasper, the guy can't even do modern jive very well at all and he gets more people than Mr LeClerc. The most successful teacher in our area is Katie Baxter of RebelRoc - she gets up to 250 people at her classes and she never mentions that she came 3rd in the LeJive intermediate in 1996:wink: And by her own admission, she's not an especially good dancer - but she is a good teacher and gives a fun lesson and comes across as a nice person.

So, from my observation, the evidence points to competition success making no difference to the popularity of teachers - in fact, you could argue that the reverse is true (although I don't think that is the case). It is unlikely that a rival teacher would say 'come to my classes rather than Gus's because I beat him in Blackpool'. that would be a sure way to lose friends and make enemies.

I think the success or failure of a dance class or regular teacher has nothing much to do with competition successes - and IMHO absolutely nothing at all to do with failure to place in competitions.

So come on Gus, if you think you'd enjoy participating in a competition just enter, the evidence is that you've got nothing to lose:waycool:

Gus
29th-December-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
So come on Gus, if you think you'd enjoy participating in a competition just enter, the evidence is that you've got nothing to lose:waycool:

I suppose I ommitted to say that I've got no inclination to compete. If I was doing MJ as a sport then competition would be a good way to calibrate how good I was against other dancers. However, I dance for enjoyment and my main motivation is to teach. Neither of this aspects would be improved by 'showing off' to a whole bunch of people I've never met. Those that enjoy taking centre stage ... may they enjoy it. Me ... I'm just a quite little mouse enjoying the dance scene from the floor not under a spotlight:nice:

TheTramp
29th-December-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Gus
I suppose I ommitted to say that I've got no inclination to compete. If I was doing MJ as a sport then competition would be a good way to calibrate how good I was against other dancers. However, I dance for enjoyment and my main motivation is to teach. Neither of this aspects would be improved by 'showing off' to a whole bunch of people I've never met. Those that enjoy taking centre stage ... may they enjoy it. Me ... I'm just a quite little mouse enjoying the dance scene from the floor not under a spotlight:nice: Weren't you the one that deliberatly ripped Helen's top off while strutting your stuff at Bristol?? :cheers:

Steve

TheTramp
29th-December-2003, 01:33 PM
*sigh*

I really did mean to hit the edit post button :tears:

Steve

Gus
29th-December-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Weren't you the one that deliberatly ripped Helen's top off while strutting your stuff at Bristol?? :cheers:

Steve

I think it would be more accurate to say that Helen was strutting her top, especially sans top:what:

Actually, after the experience of the judging at that event (which really was a crock of sh*t) I should have taken the hint and given it up as a bad job there and then. However, in my young naive youth it seemed like a bit of a laugh ... how things change:sad:

JamesGeary
29th-December-2003, 02:54 PM
In the end though, it has to be more about how much the audience, your partner and your friends enjoyed it then a score an arbitrary group of people give.

TheTramp
29th-December-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
In the end though, it has to be more about how much the audience, your partner and your friends enjoyed it then a score an arbitrary group of people give. Does it?

That sounds more like a cabaret (or just normal dancing) to me, than a competition.

Surely the point of entering competitions is to see what score the arbitrary group of people do give you. Else there's not really any point in entering a competition (although, I would say that you probably should only ever do it for enjoyment, rather than a serious desire to win).

Steve

JamesGeary
29th-December-2003, 03:12 PM
A day out. A chance to see people from far away you haven't seen for ages. A chance to see your friends strut their stuff. An excuse to learn some new moves, and sharpen up ones you know. An excuse to learn a routine, and a motivating deadline. A chance to have some friendly rivalry with a competitor. An excuse to showoff.

You can still take your performance seriously without getting too hung up on the results, just base it on what moves you manage to execute flawlessly or interpretations moments you manage to get. And then ignore the result.

If you base your enjoyment on winning you're probably doomed to be miserable. I've not won 9 of the 10 competitions I've entered, and I think my odds have been better than most.

So enjoy the show and ignore the results! :grin:

TheTramp
29th-December-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
A day out. A chance to see people from far away you haven't seen for ages. A chance to see your friends strut their stuff. An excuse to learn some new moves, and sharpen up ones you know. An excuse to learn a routine, and a motivating deadline. A chance to have some friendly rivalry with a competitor. An excuse to showoff.

You can still take your performance seriously without getting too hung up on the results, just base it on what moves you manage to execute flawlessly or interpretations moments you manage to get. And then ignore the result.

If you base your enjoyment on winning you're probably doomed to be miserable. I've not won 9 of the 10 competitions I've entered, and I think my odds have been better than most.

So enjoy the show and ignore the results! :grin: Being pedantic (!), you can do most of the above, without actually entering the competition. I do agree with almost all you said though - but there has to be some aspect of wanting to be judged (which doesn't have to include winning - people's aspirations might be to reach the second round, or get to the final, or get a placing etc.), else there would be no point in paying the additional entry fee for the competition.

Steve

Andy McGregor
29th-December-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Neither of this aspects would be improved by 'showing off' to a whole bunch of people I've never met.

The funny thing is that all those people you've 'never met' feel that they know you after you've shown off to them. It's a fantastic feeling although quite humbling too.


Originally posted by Gus
Me ... I'm just a quite little mouse enjoying the dance scene from the floor not under a spotlight:nice:

Let me see...

..no, doesn't sound like Gus. Yet another Forum member has given his password away to a 3rd party who has no idea about the person they're impersonating:devil:

Martin
29th-December-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
And I can't even find much evidence that the winners do that well out of it either! The only exception is the visiting freelance and occasional workshop teacher such as Amir who needs to have something to promote themselves with like competition success.


Winners do well if they want to freelance, take Nigel and Nina, who won 1997, then started workshops and classes, and are still going…
That was their platform to cash.
Luckily at the champs I persuaded then to teach and workshop for me before the results!:D


Originally posted by Gus
I suppose I ommitted to say that I've got no inclination to compete. If I was doing MJ as a sport then competition would be a good way to calibrate how good I was against other dancers. However, I dance for enjoyment and my main motivation is to teach. Neither of this aspects would be improved by 'showing off' to a whole bunch of people I've never met. Those that enjoy taking centre stage ... may they enjoy it. Me ... I'm just a quite little mouse enjoying the dance scene from the floor not under a spotlight:nice:

I do suspect this is because of your lack of consistent success at champs, do correct me if wrong. :what:

Get to know the criteria and work HARD and it can be fun and rewarding:cheers:


Originally posted by JamesGeary
In the end though, it has to be more about how much the audience, your partner and your friends enjoyed it then a score an arbitrary group of people give.

Precisely why people spend so much time, money and effort


Originally posted by TheTramp


Surely the point of entering competitions is to see what score the arbitrary group of people do give you. Else there's not really any point in entering a competition (although, I would say that you probably should only ever do it for enjoyment, rather than a serious desire to win).

Steve

In 2001, as a team we did have a serious desire to win, we were pumped up and worked solidly for 3 months to achieve it. Fortunately (or by shear hard work and effort) we did.

In our lead up we did say goodbye to a couple who were not making the grade. A new experience in Aus and it did cause a stir. The end result did prove the decision correct.

In the last comp we performed ( won 3, which was the grand total we entered) we added 2 couples and had one “weak link” couple, but went for it “for the fun of it and for team spirit” – luckily still won.:D

Mostly people who do not get the results, go on the defensive and say “all for fun” ... (Gus is this you?)

It is fun and it is hard work. If what you do is truly "out there" you have every chance of winning – regardless of your opinion of the judges…

Andy McGregor
29th-December-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Mostly people who do not get the results, go on the defensive and say “all for fun” ... (Gus is this you?)


Of course, there is an argument that says 'If you only do it for the fun of it you are unlikely to win - but you will have fun'.

Speaking personally, I don't have the time to commit to the work required to win a competition - and I'm not naturally good/young enough to come anywhere without loads of work on my dancing. Also, the huge amount of work required would make it less fun for me even if I had the time.

So I enter for fun - and I have loads of it. And people usually remember my "performance" and join in with the fun I'm having:waycool: But I would be amazed to win - I'm even surprised when I get to a final - and a little worried as the performances I'm involved with only work the first time you see them:sorry

So come on Gus, enter for the fun. Don't listen to those people who say you have to work hard to win. You only need to do that if you need to win:D

Martin
29th-December-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Of course, there is an argument that says 'If you only do it for the fun of it you are unlikely to win - but you will have fun'.

Speaking personally, I don't have the time to commit to the work required to win a competition - and I'm not naturally good/young enough to come anywhere without loads of work on my dancing. Also, the huge amount of work required would make it less fun for me even if I had the time.

So I enter for fun - and I have loads of it. And people usually remember my "performance" and join in with the fun I'm having:waycool: But I would be amazed to win - I'm even surprised when I get to a final - and a little worried as the performances I'm involved with only work the first time you see them:sorry

So come on Gus, enter for the fun. Don't listen to those people who say you have to work hard to win. You only need to do that if you need to win:D

So enjoyed that Popeye routine, well done Andy (oh and that girlie you were dancing with as well)

Andy McGregor
29th-December-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Martin
So enjoyed that Popeye routine, well done Andy (oh and that girlie you were dancing with as well)

Nina will be so please to be a 'girlie'. You'll soon know if she isn't:wink:

Martin
29th-December-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Nina will be so please to be a 'girlie'. You'll soon know if she isn't:wink:

Sure she will forgive me :kiss:

If not she will soon tell me:hug:

When we coached up to London in the early days it was always the Brighton boys, and the Brighton girlies, maybe she can become an honorary London girlie?:cheers:

Bill
30th-December-2003, 01:31 AM
Thought I'd add a few words as someone who has indicated he will be retiring from competition soon. In fact I've already been reminded that I've said I wouldn't compete again a few times recently.

I may well go to Blackpool with Fran and with Denise to see if I can better the two second places I've had in double trouble but I still don't really like competing mainly because I just get too stressed and worried and all the moves I'd like to do disappear from my head when the music starts :tears:

Also I don't have the time to practice and if I'm going to compete, even though I'l never win a freesthyle event I want to at least look competent. Fran and I have had some terrific dances and on occasions danced pretty well ....but never at a competition. We are bad comp. dancers because we dance for each other and forget about judges and audience but in DT it's more about having fun and so a little less stressful for me.

I'd love to go back to LOndon and defend the DT title but I have a feeling that after Blackpool I'll call it a day as I can't really be bothered and I don't need the hassle. Perhaps if I lived closer to Fran and we could practice each week rather than a few times before a comp. it could be different. I could of course 'rest' for a couple of years and come back for the Blackpool seniors event !!

Although I've agreed with many of the recent results I still have some issues with some decisions which I think are based on 'names' rather than on who is really dancing well on the night and I've seen a few well know dancers going through even when they've danced poorly on the basis, I assume , that the judges know them and realise they can do better.

I'll still go along for a while and watch expecailly at Blackpool as it is such a great weekend.:cheers:

Gus
30th-December-2003, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Martin

I do suspect this is because of your lack of consistent success at champs, do correct me if wrong. :what:


Nope ... sorry to disappoint ... only entered 3 comps with Helen ... and the motivation was purely to try to get known as a teaching couple ... not as competitors. Luckily, managed to get a reputation by other avenues so I don’t need to compete. I don’t regard me and Helen as potential winners and I don't feel the need to compete ... so I don't .. its that simple.

It seems to be a worrying trend that if you dont want to enter competitions people interprest it as being a sore loser .... there are some people who really dont see the point ... someone once said to me that the whole purpose of dancing is to show-off. I REALLY hope they are wrong ... there are enough egos on the circuit without everyone being labelled with the same brush. Despite the fact that I teach in our area, its still nice to be able to go to a club where people dont know who you are and just dance with no pressure to 'perform' to some mythical teacher standard. I started MJ just to have a social night out and enjoy dancing and nothings changed:grin:

PS ... I've got nothing against those who do like to compete and be in the spotlight ... its good entertainment and can be good motivation for others.

Martin
30th-December-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Gus
Nope ... sorry to disappoint ... only entered 3 comps with Helen ... and the motivation was purely to try to get known as a teaching couple ... not as competitors. Luckily, managed to get a reputation by other avenues so I don’t need to compete. I don’t regard me and Helen as potential winners and I don't feel the need to compete ... so I don't .. its that simple.

It seems to be a worrying trend that if you dont want to enter competitions people interprest it as being a sore loser .... there are some people who really dont see the point ... someone once said to me that the whole purpose of dancing is to show-off. I REALLY hope they are wrong ... there are enough egos on the circuit without everyone being labelled with the same brush. Despite the fact that I teach in our area, its still nice to be able to go to a club where people dont know who you are and just dance with no pressure to 'perform' to some mythical teacher standard. I started MJ just to have a social night out and enjoy dancing and nothings changed:grin:

PS ... I've got nothing against those who do like to compete and be in the spotlight ... its good entertainment and can be good motivation for others.


Opps my quote could have been taken a bit harsly, maybe I could be "UNofficial devils advocate" :blush: :blush:

Glad you responded in a positive spirit and did not flame me :devil:

I do not often compete in the advanced freestyle section (only in the minor comps for fun if a girl is really keen to take part and she asks me), because frankly I do not like the "I am better than you" thing (probably because I know I am not better than a lot of the dancers competing), and to be honest the chances of me winning are very slight.:sick:

As to teams though:cheers: , so much fun and a great team spirit can be built, you also get to know the other dancers so much better. As to winning with teams a lot of it is down to the skill of the corriographer. It is much more fun to say "look at what we can do as a team".

If it were not for the huge popularity of team events in Australia and a focus on routines for balls and shows, (which can get a bit addictive due to the constant new challenges, it also is a great way to thouroughly learn those new moves) I too would be "retired from competitions":D


One consistancy though is that you also entered a comp "to get known". In 1997 I did not place, but I did get through to the final, which gave myself and Kylie a higher profile - we did not expect to win, we were very pleased and suprised we got as far as we did.

Andy McGregor
30th-December-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Martin
In 1997 I did not place, but I did get through to the final, which gave myself and Kylie a higher profile - we did not expect to win, we were very pleased and suprised we got as far as we did.

I remember a Kylie, looks a bit like Lydia, blonde, tanned, great dancer, wore very little - did she have a partner?:wink:

Martin
30th-December-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I remember a Kylie, looks a bit like Lydia, blonde, tanned, great dancer, wore very little - did she have a partner?:wink:

Yes she had a "dance partner"... me:grin: :grin:

Gus
30th-December-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Martin
One consistancy though is that you also entered a comp "to get known". In 1997 I did not place, but I did get through to the final, which gave myself and Kylie a higher profile - we did not expect to win, we were very pleased and suprised we got as far as we did.

Martin, no worries ... agree with a lot of what you said. Had a similar experience. In the 2002 UK (Blackpool) Champs Helen and I got through to the final but weren't placed. Had a question over the judging in the Final, BUT had more of a question over the judging in the 2nd round. Felt the same at the time and was even more certain after I saw the video. In the 2nd round we SUCKED big time ... and went through at the expense of friends of mine who went out. Appalling decision and one I still feel embarrassed about. Though we benefited I still couldn't see the logic of why we should get through to the final.

ANYWAY ... the debate over judging criteria belongs elsewhere.

I think that the innovation that competitions inspire is a GOOD thing. What can be hard though is sitting on the sidelines watching when not competing .... but like watching live football ... would always prefer to be on the pitch:grin:

PS Will be a shame if Fran and Bill call it a day ... has always been a delight to watch them compete though I can appreciate the point that all the worry and nerves aren't worth it!

TheTramp
30th-December-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I remember a Kylie, looks a bit like Lydia, blonde, tanned, great dancer, wore very little - did she have a partner?:wink:
Originally posted by Martin
Yes she had a "dance partner"... me:grin: :grin: Does she need a new one?? :wink:

Steve

Martin
30th-December-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Does she need a new one?? :wink:

Steve

Boys, boys... deep breaths, count to 100 :wink:

TheTramp
30th-December-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Boys, boys... deep breaths, count to 100 :wink: 98.....99....100.

Okie. Now, does she need a new one? :wink:

Steve

Andy McGregor
30th-December-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Gus

ANYWAY ... the debate over judging criteria belongs elsewhere.



One of the Blackpool judges once commented to me that a result of calculations for the winner of one category looked odd to him. When they looked at the individual scores they found that nobody had placed the 'winners' in first place. Each judge had placed someone else in first place but most of them had placed the 'winners in 2nd place. And nobody had placed them first! Should someone who no judges think should have won be given the first prize - personally, I don't think so!

And that is one of the key reasons I did loads of research into judging methods before I proposed mine:waycool:

Martin
30th-December-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
98.....99....100.

Okie. Now, does she need a new one? :wink:

Steve

Keep counting, try 10,000:drool:

TheTramp
30th-December-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Keep counting, try 10,000:drool: 9,998......9,999......10,000

(I'm dead fast)

(And I also cheat) :D

Steve

Martin
30th-December-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
One of the Blackpool judges once commented to me that a result of calculations for the winner of one category looked odd to him. When they looked at the individual scores they found that nobody had placed the 'winners' in first place. Each judge had placed someone else in first place but most of them had placed the 'winners in 2nd place. And nobody had placed them first! Should someone who no judges think should have won be given the first prize - personally, I don't think so!

And that is one of the key reasons I did loads of research into judging methods before I proposed mine:waycool:

This can happen, as scores are accumalated, even in the 1,2,3,4,5 as in placings method. Would be interested to hear how to avoid this either here or on PM

Martin
30th-December-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
9,998......9,999......10,000

(I'm dead fast)

(And I also cheat) :D

Steve

Always protect the lady, especially from "The Tramp"...:na:

Everyone else caught on to you now then?:sick:

:rofl: :rofl:

TheTramp
30th-December-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Always protect the lady, especially from "The Tramp"...:na:

Everyone else caught on to you now then?:sick: Oh. You know me. Very shy and innocent. :innocent:

Steve

Martin
30th-December-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Oh. You know me. Very shy and innocent. :innocent:

Steve

Can ANYONE agree with this statement?:confused:

RobC
30th-December-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Martin
This can happen, as scores are accumalated, even in the 1,2,3,4,5 as in placings method. Would be interested to hear how to avoid this either here or on PM
Coming from a Ballroom background (both as a competitor and having scrutineered competitions) I have to say that the Skating method used in ballroom competitions seems the fairest (and easiest to implement from a judges perspective). It doesn't use a scoring system like most MJ competitions seem to have adopted, the judges simply place the dancers 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc and pass the results to the scrutineer.
The scrutineer then has the task of accumulating the results and working out the overall positions. To describe what happens (over simplified), the scrutineer looks to see which couple has the most number of 1st places - they are the winners. If two or more couples have the same number of 1sts, then the scruntineer will look at the number of 2nd places (for those tied for 1st place) and assign the overall 1st/2nd places. If those couples are still tied (have equal number of 1st & 2nd places from the judges), he will look at the number of 3rd placings, and so on and so on. Once the overall first place has been assigned, the scrutineer will look to see who has the next highest number of 1sts etc.

(If anyone would like me to go into this further - I can give examples of judges marks and how the scrutineer will work out the final results - PM me)

When AndyMcG first mentioned he was organising a competition, I tried my hardest to get him to adopt the Ballroom skating method, but to no avail. The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories.... :sad:

Rob

RobC
30th-December-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Can ANYONE agree with this statement?:confused:
What, the shy or the innocent bit ? I would have to say that it depend on how well you know the Tramp :wink:

TheTramp
30th-December-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by RobC
What, the shy or the innocent bit ? I would have to say that it depend on how well you know the Tramp :wink: Well. I know him really well, and I can confirm both!! :na:

Steve

Martin
30th-December-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Well. I know him really well, and I can confirm both!! :na:

Steve

I would agree, but not for want of dreaming... :blush:

Andy McGregor
30th-December-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by RobC
When AndyMcG first mentioned he was organising a competition, I tried my hardest to get him to adopt the Ballroom skating method, but to no avail. The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories.... :sad:

Rob

The eventual method I published does both. In the final the judges use scoring against set criteria to find, for each judge, the position of each competitor. This produces the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc placed competitor for each judge. After this has been found I apply what Rob C calls the Skating Method and I call the Relative Placement Method - it's exactly the same thing!

Here is the method as it currently stands. It's currently 13 pages long and took me ages so please be gentle with your critique. I know it needs polishing in a few areas such as definition of the judging criteria but I rather like the purity of the mathematics and will be robust in my defence of these:waycool:

RobC
30th-December-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
After this has been found I apply what Rob C calls the Skating Method and I call the Relative Placement Method - it's exactly the same thing!
I'm Sorry Andy, having taken the time to read through your document, I have to strongly disagree.

I have to stress that scrutineers for Ballroom competitions have to take an exam and be properly qualified, and I have not actually sat the exam myself, however in applying my understanding of how the skating system works to the sample results you have used in appendix 3 of your document, apart from 1st place I have come up with completely different results.

Your results: [list=1]
4
3
5
2
6
1
[/list=1]
My results: [list=1]
4
2
3
5
1
6
[/list=1]
To explain, both couples 2 & 4 have been judged 1st by 2 judges, however couple 4 has also been judged 2nd by 2 judges, while couple 2 has no 2nd places - so 1st is couple 4 and 2nd is couple 2. To look for 3rd place, couples 1,3 & 5 have all received 1 1st, but couple 3 has 2 2nds while 1 & 5 only have 1 2nd, so couple 3 is 3rd. so for 4th and 5th places, couples 1 & 5 both have 1 1st and 1 2nd, but couple 5 has 2 3rds, so couple 5 is 4th and couple 1 is 5th, leaving couple 6 6th.

To be fair though, in the ballroom world, it is not as likely for that many judges to disagree on placings - all ballroom judges are highly qualified dancers that have passed examinations to qualify them to judge.

Andy McGregor
30th-December-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by RobC
I'm Sorry Andy, having taken the time to read through your document, I have to strongly disagree.


I love this kind of debate - mostly when I'm right like I am just about to prove:wink:


Originally posted by RobC
I have to stress that scrutineers for Ballroom competitions have to take an exam and be properly qualified, and I have not actually sat the exam myself, however in applying my understanding of how the skating system works to the sample results you have used in appendix 3 of your document, apart from 1st place I have come up with completely different results.

Your results: [list=1]
4
3
5
2
6
1
[/list=1]
My results: [list=1]
4
2
3
5
1
6
[/list=1]
To explain, both couples 2 & 4 have been judged 1st by 2 judges, however couple 4 has also been judged 2nd by 2 judges, while couple 2 has no 2nd places - so 1st is couple 4 and 2nd is couple 2. To look for 3rd place, couples 1,3 & 5 have all received 1 1st, but couple 3 has 2 2nds while 1 & 5 only have 1 2nd, so couple 3 is 3rd. so for 4th and 5th places, couples 1 & 5 both have 1 1st and 1 2nd, but couple 5 has 2 3rds, so couple 5 is 4th and couple 1 is 5th, leaving couple 6 6th.


The mistake Rob is making is to forget that there are 7 judges and the majority of them must have voted for a place to be given to a couple. As 4 out of the 7 judges in my example voted for couple 2 to be placed 4th, 5th or 6th they could hardly be placed in the top 3. It stands to reason that a judge placing someone last must have an equal vote to someone placing that person first. In RobC's example the second position would be given on the say-so of only 2 judges - hardly fair when there are 7 judges! The other 5 judges did not think so highly of couple 2 and their opinion needs to be taken into account. As well as 2 judges placing couple 2 in first place 2 other judges placed them last - which sort of balances it out (maybe I was part of couple 2:tears: )

Also, the Skating method is given here (http://laurent.riesterer.free.fr/skating/rules.html) it clearly states that a couple must have a 'majority' of judges voting that couple into their eventual rank. The 2 judges voting couple 2 into 2nd place do not form a majority.


Originally posted by RobC

To be fair though, in the ballroom world, it is not as likely for that many judges to disagree on placings - all ballroom judges are highly qualified dancers that have passed examinations to qualify them to judge.

I agree that in the world of ballroom judges positions would be much less diverse than in my example. I used an example with a high level of variation in judges opinion to prove the method works no matter what the score.

N.B. To understand what RobC and I are going on about you will really need to donwload the method I posted above.

DavidB
30th-December-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by RobC
The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories.... It can be argued that each judge producing a simple placing, and collating the overall result based on this, is also skewed. It makes the assumption that the difference between each couple is the same, and does not allow the judge to say how much better, or how closely matched some couples are.

It is actually impossible to come up with a fair way of collating individual preferences to generate an overall preference. Don't take my word for it - it was proven by a mathematician called Kenneth Arrow (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/arrow.htm), and he won a Nobel prize for it.

But please don't let a mathematical fact spoil a good argument.

Seconds out.... round 2

Daisy
30th-December-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by JamesGeary
A day out. A chance to see people from far away you haven't seen for ages. A chance to see your friends strut their stuff. An excuse to learn some new moves, and sharpen up ones you know. An excuse to learn a routine, and a motivating deadline. A chance to have some friendly rivalry with a competitor. An excuse to showoff.
____________________________________________

Couldn't agree more James. Comps have always been a good excuse for raising our game and keeping our interest going. MJ could become quite boring if you allow yourself to fall in a rut and keep dancing the same 8 moves you learned 3 years ago!

We, Ray & I, do comps. for fun, all be it serious fun, and to have a good time with friends. Yes it can be a bit stressful but I'd rather be there taking part than just watching.....call it natural competativeness. Andy Mac is right when he says we are being judged all the time and we also judge ourselves against others we are watching....ie. I wish I could do this or that, then we go away and learn how.

The only comp. that Ray and I have retired from is the Ceroc comp. Our reason is simply that we feel we do not fit the pre-requisit of...youth & beauty.....well Ray doesn't! Maybe this will change with the new management of Ceroc but I for one am not going to waste my hard earned cash entering a comp. where I will be bumped out in the first round because I am not a bright young thing.

Daisy

Andy McGregor
31st-December-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by DavidB
It can be argued that each judge producing a simple placing, and collating the overall result based on this, is also skewed. It makes the assumption that the difference between each couple is the same, and does not allow the judge to say how much better, or how closely matched some couples are.

Correct. But what we're looking for is winners. We don't need to know how close the second placed couple were. They were still second.


Originally posted by DavidB
It is actually impossible to come up with a fair way of collating individual preferences to generate an overall preference. Don't take my word for it - it was proven by a mathematician called Kenneth Arrow (http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/arrow.htm), and he won a Nobel prize for it.

Having looked at the example I think my old statistics lecturer would have said that the study was designed to compare 3 ice creams. If you wanted to compare 2 ice creams you should have designed a study that achieved that objective (he never actually said that, what he actually said was "Andy, I don't want you skipping any more of my lectures" - and I didn't:wink: ").

But we can apply the 'McGregor Judging Method' to the example if we make a few reasonable assumptions.

1. Call the flavour competing dance partners in the national finals.

Vanilla = England
Chocolate = Scotland
Strawberry = Wales/Ireland (amalgamated as Irish are just Welsh that are good swimmers:devil: )

2. Call groups X, Y and Z the judges with Z being the chief judge or chair of the judging panel.

Applying the 'Relative Placement Method' to the results, initially it is a draw for first place as each country scores equally. But there is a tie breaker built into the method, here it is;

In the unlikely event that the use of ordinals for two or more competitors still results in a draw the tie is broken by applying the relative positions given by the chief judge.

So the final positions are;

1st Scotland
2nd Wales/Ireland
3rd England

Of course this requires the Chief judge to be the most experienced judge - and the assumption must be that they are.

As RobC says, most experienced judges will not vote so differently from each other so it is likely that some judges will agree with each other, and it is highly unlikely that there will be no common rankings of competitors as there was with the ice cream example - especially when there are 6 finalists and 7 judges:waycool:

N.B. Does Arrow's Imposition mean that the General Election result is invalid?:devil: :vain hope:

RobC
31st-December-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Also, the Skating method is given here (http://laurent.riesterer.free.fr/skating/rules.html) it clearly states that ......
OK, hands up - according to your link, I may have misinterpretted how to apply the skating system. However, in all the ballroom competitions that I have scrutineered, I have never had to deal with a real life situation as twisted as your example, and since I have previously mentioned that I have not actually sat the scrutineers exam, it's a fair cop. :sad:

However, it is precisely this misunderstanding of the competition's rules and judging criteria which leads to the majority of disgruntled competitors and rumours of biased results etc. After all, if I was couple 2 and later talked to a couple of the judges and they said that they thought that I ought to have won, yet I was unplaced in 4th place, I would want to know why ! :what:

Can I make a public request to ALL competition organisers, be you Ceroc, Chance 2 Dance, BritRoc, Bristol LeRoc or whoever, to publically publish, both in advance on a website, and on the day of the competition on a notice board, exactly how the competition is to be judged. To simply state that you will be awarded points based on style, presentation and musical interpretation is not enough. The sort of thing I would expect to be in the public domain is something like the description of the skating system in the link above, or the document Andy produced on the McGregor marking system.

Andy McGregor
31st-December-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by RobC
OK, hands up - according to your link, I may have misinterpretted how to apply the skating system. However, in all the ballroom competitions that I have scrutineered, I have never had to deal with a real life situation as twisted as your example, and since I have previously mentioned that I have not actually sat the scrutineers exam, it's a fair cop. :sad:

Thanks Rob. For a moment there I was worried that I'd got it wrong :phew:

You are right that my example is twisted. I made it that way so it wasn't obvious who the winner was. If it was obvious people would think you didn't even need a mathematical method at all:wink:


Originally posted by RobC
However, it is precisely this misunderstanding of the competition's rules and judging criteria which leads to the majority of disgruntled competitors and rumours of biased results etc. After all, if I was couple 2 and later talked to a couple of the judges and they said that they thought that I ought to have won, yet I was unplaced in 4th place, I would want to know why ! :what:

Can I make a public request to ALL competition organisers, be you Ceroc, Chance 2 Dance, BritRoc, Bristol LeRoc or whoever, to publically publish, both in advance on a website, and on the day of the competition on a notice board, exactly how the competition is to be judged. To simply state that you will be awarded points based on style, presentation and musical interpretation is not enough. The sort of thing I would expect to be in the public domain is something like the description of the skating system in the link above, or the document Andy produced on the McGregor marking system.

Wow! Thanks for the praise Rob.

When I was involved with Britroc I had the method put on the website, it's still there (http://www.britroc.co.uk/judging.html) . I was expecting the scores to be published on the website too. I notice that they haven't been. I expect this is just due to time pressure rather than any desire to keep things hidden. I'll see if Graham will put up the scores next time I see him.

Anyone is welcome to use this method. It isn't the property of Britroc, it's mine to give to anyone who'd like to use it - and I'd be delighted if every competition used the method as it would expose it to further development and testing. If anyone is interested they can always PM me if there's anything they'd like expanding on.

DavidB
31st-December-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
As RobC says, most experienced judges will not vote so differently from each other You would be surprised. At the Twyford DWAS comp a couple of weeks ago, I think every single judge had a different top 3. I know my marks at Britroc were completely different to some other judges.

I think this variation is a good thing. If all the judges gave the same result, then you start thinking that people are marked on reputation, and not performance. I would hate it to be like a Ballroom competition, where you can almost guarantee the finalists, and the order, before the first round has even started.

The 'relative placement system' is not perfect, but it seems to have fewer faults than the others I've seen used.

Andy McGregor
31st-December-2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by DavidB
The 'relative placement system' is not perfect, but it seems to have fewer faults than the others I've seen used.

You just wonder why it isn't used at Blackpool, Bristol, Ceroc/Hammersmith, Jive Masters, etc. Have they considered and rejected the method, what do you think?

David Franklin
31st-December-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by RobC
OK, hands up - according to your link, I may have misinterpretted how to apply the skating system. However, in all the ballroom competitions that I have scrutineered, I have never had to deal with a real life situation as twisted as your example, and since I have previously mentioned that I have not actually sat the scrutineers exam, it's a fair cop. :sad: Having done some web-browsing, and having some knowledge of the skating situation, here's my understanding of the various rules:

Ballroom is ranked as RobC describes (see How Ballroom Competitions are Judged (http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcountry/how_ballroom_competitions_judged.htm)) - the error was in describing it as the Skating system. Under this system, the number of 1st places is the prime decider of placement (ties broken by # of 2nd places etc...)

Figure skating used to use the system described by Andy McGregor, generally called "majority ordinal". This system tries to make sure a majority of judges "agree" in some sense about the rankings. It is somewhat more complicated than the ballroom system.

Around about 1998, there was a change to OBO ("one-by-one") ranking - a (much) more complicated system which takes account of every "1 vs 1" comparison (i.e. the ranking is based upon looking at each pairing of competitors and which each of the judges preferred). OBO was sufficiently complicated that a lot of competitions didn't go over to it.

In the last year or so, the system has been changed again - this time to a "directly scoring" system (i.e. marks count, rather than just placements) - the whole 6.0 scoring system is now deprecated.

Dave

Andy McGregor
31st-December-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by David Franklin
Having done some web-browsing, and having some knowledge of the skating situation, here's my understanding of the various rules:

Ballroom is ranked as RobC describes (see How Ballroom Competitions are Judged (http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcountry/how_ballroom_competitions_judged.htm)) - the error was in describing it as the Skating system. Under this system, the number of 1st places is the prime decider of placement (ties broken by # of 2nd places etc...)

I've had a look at the site and it seems to be the same as the one I call 'Relative Placement'. The only difference is that it goes on to consider more than one dance before deciding the overall winner - something we don't need to do in MJ.


Originally posted by David Franklin
In the last year or so, the system has been changed again - this time to a "directly scoring" system (i.e. marks count, rather than just placements) - the whole 6.0 scoring system is now deprecated.

Dave

The website David gave us the link to is titled "How ballroom dancing competitions are judged" it then goes on to describe the "Skating System" which seems to me to be the same as I'm calling "Relative Placement". This is clear evidence that some people in ballroom are using the 'Skating System. Does David or anyone else have a link to a site explaining the "directly scoring" system as, if it's fairer we should be encouraging MJ comp organisers to use it.

I have placed below my argument against direct scoring of MJ comps but I'd love to see the argument for a better system than the one I've written - because I can always change it!

In my whole method the judges do directly score couples. But only to find individual judge's rankings of couples. I think it would require a huge judges training programme to ensure that judges scored consistently if raw scores were used to calculate the final placings of competitors. To use raw scores in the absence of this cosistency would be to give some judges many times the influence than others. For instance, if a judge marked couples A and B with 9 and 2 and another 6 judges marked those same couples 7 and 8 respectively the final score would be A=51 B=50. So, even though 6 judges had marked B as the winner A had the highest score!

The above example is extreme but it must happen to some extent or other where raw scores are used. Judges who give bigger differences in scores will always have a bigger influence - but they will be able to defend their scoring as they truly did score the better couple higher - at least in their opinion.

Because MJ is not as formal as Ballroom in terms of exams for dancers and exams for judges there is no consistency of scoring. In this situation it is, in my opinion, COMPLETELY UNFAIR to calculate the winners of a final using raw scores!

David Franklin
31st-December-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
The website David gave us the link to is titled "How ballroom dancing competitions are judged" it then goes on to describe the "Skating System" which seems to me to be the same as I'm calling "Relative Placement". Um... I screwed up :blush: - that's not the site I was looking at when I decided ballroom judged things differently. But I can't find the site I was looking at...


Does David or anyone else have a link to a site explaining the "directly scoring" system as, if it's fairer we should be encouraging MJ comp organisers to use it.I think it's on the ISU website but it's highly technical and I don't think it's relevant - basically because like you I don't believe in direct scoring for dance. The OBO solution is "supposed by some" to be better than majority ordinal, but is sufficiently compilcated to require computers IMHO.


I have placed below my argument against direct scoring of MJ comps but I'd love to see the argument for a better system than the one I've written - because I can always change it!I think the more "objective" the sport, the more sense direct scoring makes. It also makes a difference if the number/difficulty of "scoring opportunities" might vary between competitors. The advantage is in allowing results to be combined. It also makes it much more explicit how you judge between three easy tricks performed flawlessly and four difficult tricks performed with mistakes.

In modern jive, I don't believe it makes much sense (because it's not all about tricks), with the possible exception of airsteps...

Another big difference is that in skating you combine the scores of two routines. The way the scoring worked under ordinals, you could be a clear 3rd after the short program, win the long program by an infinitesimal amount, and that would win the gold medal. It didn't make an awful lot of sense.


In my whole method the judges do directly score couples. But only to find individual judge's rankings of couples. I think it would require a huge judges training programme to ensure that judges scored consistently if raw scores were used to calculate the final placings of competitors. To use raw scores in the absence of this cosistency would be to give some judges many times the influence than others. For instance, if a judge marked couples A and B with 9 and 2 and another 6 judges marked those same couples 7 and 8 respectively the final score would be A=51 B=50. So, even though 6 judges had marked B as the winner A had the highest score!This is where the whole "arrow theorem" thing of no solution being perfect comes in. Because even if that judge really and truely believes scores of 9 and 2 are appropriate, his score isn't going to matter. In general, this is a feature not a bug. But suppose couple B made a serious rules infringement that should be an automatic disqualification, but only one judge saw it. Under an ordinal scheme, it is very unlikely for that judge to be able to affect their position.

FWIW, most "direct" scoring systems will discard the 'outlier' results. Typically the lowest and highest scores are discarded, so a single rogue judge cannot easily affect the results. This is (essentially) the system used in gymnastics and diving. If one judge is significantly outside the other scores, the theory is that someone will hopefully report/investigate it. [With the exception of the ISU, where it seems the plan is generally to cover it up as best as possible :devil: ].

Anyhow, I'm certainly not advocating this for Modern Jive.

Dave