PDA

View Full Version : Competition Categories



Andy McGregor
24th-March-2004, 12:44 PM
I have been thinking about competition categories a lot recently. There has been some heated debate on here about who is and is not an intermediate, etc. Here are my thoughts and my proposal.


THOUGHTS & QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

Why do we have the current categories?
I believe the current categories are a continuation of those started by LeJive. I've no idea why these categories were chosen but my guess is that the idea was to maximise the number of entries by giving lesser dancers a different category to dance in. I believe that organisers should abandon any association with the LeJive comp as I am 100% certain that, at the very least, the 1998 competition was fixed.

Should we expect competitors to categorise themselves as intermediate/advanced?
It is impossible for a competitor to decide where they should compete as it is difficult to judge their own ability and impossible to know, before the day, the ability of those people entering each category. It is unfair and, as we have seen, devisive to expect a competitor to place his or herself in a category.

Should teachers have their own category?
Teachers may be better than beginners, but being a teacher is no indication of dancing skill or predictor of competition success. In fact, I believe that teaching, night after night, probably reduces an individuals chances of competition success. Therefore I believe that competitors should not be placed in categories based on being or not being teachers as it would be unfair.

Why have categories at all?
This is the most difficult question. If the objective of the competition was to select the best couple then we would not need more than one category. But I think we need categories based on dance ability to encourage us normal (me? normal?) mortals to compete at a lower level with some expectation/hope of getting through the first round. And to do this we need categories.

PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.

Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!

Round 2 - promoted competitors compete for further promotion. Those knocked out at this half-way stage would go on to compete against each other - let's think, half way up the competition, what could we call this category? How about intermediate?:devil:

Round 3 - depending on numbers this could be the final or the semi-final.

N.B. For the 'Plate' and the 'Intermediate' competition the number of rounds would depend on the time available, number of competitors, etc.

I think this method would be totally fair, give everyone an opportunity to compete at their own level and stop dead any debate about who should compete at what level - it would even mean that dancers would be able to compete in the same competition as and beat their teachers:devil:

ChrisA
24th-March-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
N.B. For the 'Plate' and the 'Intermediate' competition the number of rounds would depend on the time available, number of competitors, etc.

What's the 'Plate' ?

Chris

Gadget
24th-March-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.[/B]
{Can tell you were a fencer :wink:}
I think that you're right (I'm sure that I proposed this earlier somewhere...;)) But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"

I also think that sub-categories like "OAP's" and "Juniors" should just be the top placed people who meet the criteria instead of having a seperate competition.

I think that you would still have to have DWAS (Poss using the same splitting into two divisions depending on numbers), DT, Showcase (allowing air-steps) and Caberet categories.

{The "Plate" is a term derived from the etched silver platter that was won for the 'lower' competition as opposed to the cup/trophy that the main competiton awards.}

eastmanjohn
24th-March-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor

PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.

Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!

Round 2 - promoted competitors compete for further promotion. Those knocked out at this half-way stage would go on to compete against each other - let's think, half way up the competition, what could we call this category? How about intermediate?:devil:



Hi Andy

This is exactly how we run our local competition in Bristol, and have done so for the last 10 years!!

Admittedly it is a smaller scale competition with usually about 20 couples on the night, however it works really well.

It also means that in the final stages you have more time so you can also allow less couples on the floor. We only have 2 couples dancing at any one time and do it in 3 groups for the final. Then they all come back on together for one last track. I always think it is a shame that when you watch the final you have to try and watch 6 couples and you usually end up missing all the good bits as you are concentrating on the wrong couple!! Makes it easier for the judges too.

It also means that if you perform badly in the first round you can still make the grand final, as what we do is allow the winners of the plate to also go into the main final. A second chance if you like. I think one year the winners of the plate also came second overall after dancing off their nerves!


As for dance with a stranger I would still prefer to go back to the original format of keeping the best dancers on the floor. I think we want to watch the best for longer.

Showcase should stay, but I think ceroc have the right idea in making you send in videos. Some danger then of excluding on political grounds, but the list of entries should be displayed including those who didn't make it to the final show.


Only other thing about comps is the time keeping of the events. I think Graham did the best job of keeping to time in Brighton last year. Blackpool just went on too long for me this year.

Andy McGregor
24th-March-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
{Can tell you were a fencer :wink:}
I think that you're right (I'm sure that I proposed this earlier somewhere...;)) But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"

Yes, Gadget did propose this earlier. It pretty much matched the idea I'd alreday had but I didn't comment at the time because I was hoping that other ideas/proposals would come forward.


Originally posted by Gadget
But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"


I'm proposing 3 levels

1 - Championship

2 - Intermediate

3 - Plate - this could be another name but should, I think describe what is being competed for rather than any description of the level of competitor as the most obvious one is 'losers' or some variant of that:tears:

spindr
24th-March-2004, 01:55 PM
Andy asks "Why have categories at all?"

Presumably from a commercial perspective they are a necessity to encourage sufficient attendance? (well at least until a competition becomes more of a social event).

More from a philosophical perspective -- what do people expect to get from the competition? (aside from fun! :) )

If it's commercial gain: I could certainly imagine the commercial benefit of being the winner of a "teacher" category. And yes I know that you shouldn't confuse teaching and performance abilities -- but it's such a common misconception that it could be useful.

If it's to find the best social dancers / freestylers: then surely extending the DWAS (maybe mixing partners) is the best idea?

If it's to find the best fixed partners (semi-choreographed?): then Andy's idea has some merit.

If it's to provide something more like a coarse ranking as well as finding the best partners to a variety of music-- then it *could* be fun to have some element of promotion / demotion -- during the competition. E.g. top 25% stay up, bottom 25% stay down, middle 50% dance again pref. to a different musical style and get remarked -- this would mean that if you're not good at say hip hop, but brilliant at swing, you might still get through.

Would be nice to have a few spot prizes -- couple having most fun, etc.

SpinDr.

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Why have categories at all?
This is the most difficult question. If the objective of the competition was to select the best couple then we would not need more than one category. But I think we need categories based on dance ability to encourage us normal (me? normal?) mortals to compete at a lower level with some expectation/hope of getting through the first round. And to do this we need categories.Not sure I agree with this (on two levels).

When it comes to getting through the 1st round: don't forget, around half the intermediates are eliminated in the 1st round currently. Some people never get past the 1st round in several years of trying! It's a risk you have to take.

And I think there's another main reason for categories - you might want to have different rules for different categories. What appeals to me is to give the advanced/open categories extra "privileges". These might be: more prize money, more space (i.e. less dancers per heat); two tracks / round; a less harsh "cutting" between rounds (e.g. bottom quarter cut / round v.s. bottom half in intermediate). You could also only allow certain moves (e.g. airsteps) in advanced, and possibly limit the degree of costuming in intermediate. (c.f. Ceroc 2003 Open v.s. Intermediate)



PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.

Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!I really like the idea of everyone getting at least 2 dances. But the problem is that you're significantly extending the length of the competition. On one level, it's only the fact that most people only get to dance once that lets the organisers fit everything into 1 day!

If you count the number of "couple heats on floor", you'll find your suggestion ends up with a lot more than the current system (assuming equal proportions of competitors cut per round). I'm sure that by adjusting those proportions, or having more competitors on the floor at once you could get something like this to work. But I'm not sure the people currently entering advanced would appreciate the result if it meant the first three rounds were extremely crowded and 60% of the dancers were cut during each round.

Let's run the numbers: Suppose 80 intermediate, 20 advanced, intermediate has 50% cuts, advanced goes 20->15->10->5
Currently have:
80+40+20+10+5 = 155 "heats" for intermediate (the actual number of heats will depend on how many people you can fit on the floor)
20+15+10+5 = 50 "heats" for advanced
Total: 205
Your system (if I understand what you mean!):
100 (1st round)
40 (plate - I'll suppose only 1 round!)
60 (2nd round - to split Intermediate + Advanced)
40 + 20 + 10 + 5 = 75 (to decide intermediate)
20+15+10+5 = 50 (decide advanced)
Total: 325

Note that what really causes the extra here is everyone getting at least 2 dances - by itself that's nearly as much dancing as the whole competition under the current system.

Dave

Gadget
24th-March-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I'm proposing 3 levels:
1 - Championship
2 - Intermediate
3 - Plate
Don't get how this could be worked: would the judges just wander round all the dancers and say "up"/"down" untill a number has been reached; those who remain are in the middle section?
The only other way I can think of is to mark/rank everyone and split it into thirds.


Originally posted by SpinDr
More from a philosophical perspective -- what do people expect to get from the competition? (aside from fun! )
I think that people compete to test themselves against other dancers - get an idea of what "level" they are at.
They may also compete to see how much they have improved from the previous year.
There is also the peacock element of "showing off" to everyone and being appreciated for your 'art'.
I don't think that the actual method of running the competition, or even the level of competitors really matters that much; as long as the entrants know what they are up against, how they will be expected to perform and how the day should progress.

I know that there are some competitors who look for prestige; I would imagine that the "show case" cattegory would be for them.
I also see how a seperate "teachers" competition would perhaps boost this; but how about having a "teachers" cattegory where the teachers put forward a pupil of theirs to compete?

spindr
24th-March-2004, 02:27 PM
Ok, trying a very rough idea with Dave's numbers, where middle 50% danceoff again:

Heat#1: 100 couples (25 + 50 danceoff + 25 go through)
Danceoff#1: 50 couples (25 + 25 go through)

Heat#2: 50 couples (13 + 25 danceoff + 12 go through)
Danceoff#2: 25 couples (13 + 12 go through)

Heat#3: 24 couples (6 + 12 danceoff + 6 go through)
Danceoff#3: 12 couples (6 + 6 go through)

Heat#4: 12 couples (3 + 6 danceoff + 3 go through)
Danceoff#4: 6 couples (3 + 3 go through)

Heat#5: 9 couples (2 + 5 danceoff + 2 go through)
Danceoff#5: 5 couples (3 + 2 go through)

Final 4 couples
--------------------------------------------------
Total: 100 + 50 + 25 + 24 + 12 + 6 + 9 + 5 + 4 = 235
--------------------------------------------------

If you really want everyone to get 2 dances, then a wooden spoon danceoff would take another 25 "slots".

The great thing is that there's built in incentive to dance well in the Danceoff heats -- 'cause you might actually get through to the next "real" round. There's also incentive to get into top 25%, as you get a rest for the danceoff.

SpinDr.

Andy McGregor
24th-March-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
Don't get how this could be worked: would the judges just wander round all the dancers and say "up"/"down" untill a number has been reached; those who remain are in the middle section?
The only other way I can think of is to mark/rank everyone and split it into thirds.


My proposal is that people eliminated from the championship in the first round become 'plate' competitors and have their own competition. Then people that are eliminated from the next round of the championship become the intermediate competitors and have their own, also separate, competition.

This could be done with no appreciable increase in the number of heats with careful planning of the number of competitors in each heat.

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by spindr
Ok, trying a very rough idea with Dave's numbers, where middle 50% danceoff again:
~snip~The problem I see here is that you now have 11 rounds, each dependant on the results of the previous one. Going by previous competitions, it takes well over an hour to collate the results, distribute them, make sure everyone has seen them and is ready for the next round etc... Not sure whether it could be done quickly enough for this not to be a problem.

Dave

Andy McGregor
24th-March-2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by David Franklin
The problem I see here is that you now have 11 rounds, each dependant on the results of the previous one. Going by previous competitions, it takes well over an hour to collate the results, distribute them, make sure everyone has seen them and is ready for the next round etc... Not sure whether it could be done quickly enough for this not to be a problem.

Dave

This could be fully computerised, either with each judge given a networked computer or by the judges using OCR readable forms. The results could then be displayed on monitors rather than a runner rushing off to stick bits of paper on notice boards.

Additionally, the new system should take no longer than the old one as all you're doing is listing the losers as well as the winners - those that aren't winners are obviously entered into the plate/intermediate:waycool:

Boomer
24th-March-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
This could be fully computerised, either with each judge given a networked computer or by the judges using OCR readable forms. ...

With lots of tiny robots running/rolling around serving drinks and going 'meep meep', and the big daddy of all computers - Metal Micky teaching an advanced class during the break.

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
This could be done with no appreciable increase in the number of heats with careful planning of the number of competitors in each heat. Care to give an example of the planning? My gut feeling is that you're going to end up with more crowded heats than, say, the current open competitors would consider acceptable, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[Even though it would have meant going out in the 1st round, I'd rather have done the Open than the Intermediate at Ceroc 2003 - talk about over-crowded!].

Dave

DavidB
24th-March-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.
A few problems I can see:

Fatigue. If everyone at Blackpool enters, I think you would have something approaching 100 couples entered. That would take at least 5 rounds to get to the final (100 > 50 > 25 > 12 > 6). You would have tired competitors, tired judges and tired spectators.

Time wasted. The only purpose of the first two rounds is to decide which division to enter. With 100 couples, 10 couples per heat, and 2 tracks per heat, you have added approx 2 hours of extra heats - just to replace ticking a box on an entry form that 95% of people get right anyway.

Personal time management. A competitor would have no idea at the start of the day when they are going to be dancing. If you are doing a showcase or team event as well, you might want to know in advance when you can eat, or relax, or go back to the hotel etc.

Allowed moves. I know at least one couple who entered the Open at Hammersmith last year because it was their only chance of doing aerials. They didn't care about getting through. Restricting the moves completely, or just in the early rounds, would have meant they didn't enter.

Spectator event. Lots of people want to watch the Advanced, and not be competing against them.

Aims. Some couples aim to do well at a particular level, and use this as a stepping stone in their development. But a single division makes this completely different. Instead of hoping to win the intermediate division, you are more likely just to make the last 25 of the open.

I could not deny that this type of competition would increase the chances of finding the best couple in the 50th percentile, the 75th percentile and the overall best couple. But would it make the competition more enjoyable?

Some things I definitely like.
- You should get the chance to dance at least twice.
- There shouldn't be any assumption that teachers are in the most advanced group.

My own suggestion for making a big competition more enjoyable would be to have it over a whole weekend, not just on one day.

David

Gus
24th-March-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by spindr
Andy asks "Why have categories at all?"


Maybe the first question is why have Competitions?

Ignoring the cynical answer ... that they are there either to make money or increase the profile of the Competition organisers .... the more useful answer may be its because people want to compete .. (yup, I know, statement of the blindingly obvious).

So ... from that point why do people want to compete? It could be that they simply wish to be seen, they want to win something (anything) or they want to be seen as the best etc. etc. The reasons for someone wanting to compete will have a very direct bearing on potential entrants view as to categories. If you want to win something, anything .... a number of subdivisions will give these people a competition they can feel motivated by. However, the base line is that these categories are literally for those "how aren’t good enough to compete with the best" .... a bit like the FA Cup versus the (now defunct) FA Vase. Maybe that should be reflected in the prizes that are given out. I seem to remember that the Ceroc prizes for Intermediate and Advanced used to be the same ... scant incentive or reflection on the skill level.

So .... if you want a ‘true’ competition ... no categories and everyone fights it out to the death ..... if you want to motivate the less experienced or the Crewe Alexander’s of dance, then smaller, ‘less good’ categories are the way forward ... as long as you accept from the start that you are never going to get it perfectly right :wink:

Gadget
24th-March-2004, 03:26 PM
I see the format now, but as well as having eleven rounds, you would also need to take into account the number of dancers the floor could hold (and judges be expected to watch)

I think that this was the original proposal: three "competitions" from the one starting point - (A = "advanced": B = "intermediate": C = "plate")

100 competitors:

1st A (100) - 60+ 40->C

2nd A (60) - 30+ 30->B
2nd C (40) - 20+ 20->out

3rd A (30) - 15+ 15->out
3rd B (30) - 15+ 15->out
3rd C (20) - 10+ 10->out

4th A (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th B (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th C (10) - 4+ 6->out

5th A (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th B (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th C (4) - Final

6th A (4) - Final
6th B (4) - Final

But if you played with the numbers getting through to the next round, you could reduce the number of rounds :

1st A (100) - 60+ 40->C

2nd A (60) - 35+ 25->B
2nd C (40) - 15+ 25->out

3rd A (35) - 15+ 20->out
3rd B (25) - 10+ 15->out
3rd C (15) - 4+ 11->out

4th A (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th B (10) - 4+ 6->out
4th C (4) - Final

5th A (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th B (4) - Final

6th A (4) - Final

Andy McGregor
24th-March-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
A few problems I can see:

Fatigue. If everyone at Blackpool enters, I think you would have something approaching 100 couples entered. That would take at least 5 rounds to get to the final (100 > 50 > 25 > 12 > 6). You would have tired competitors, tired judges and tired spectators.

Time wasted. The only purpose of the first two rounds is to decide which division to enter. With 100 couples, 10 couples per heat, and 2 tracks per heat, you have added approx 2 hours of extra heats - just to replace ticking a box on an entry form that 95% of people get right anyway.David

The difference would be that you wouldn't have separate rounds for the first heats of the intermediate and advanced so there would be a saving there.

Also, the first heats of the 'Plate' and 'Intermediate' could be as busy as the semi-final of the DWAS and have just 8 people qualify for the next round which could be the final.

I really don't think that this system would result in much more time spent on the competition and people would still get to dance twice - which is nice after all that practicing, costume design and glueing on of wigs, etc.

Pammy
24th-March-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
glueing on of wigs, etc.

you mean ear-wigs... right? :confused: :wink:

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
I see the format now, but as well as having eleven rounds, you would also need to take into account the number of dancers the floor could hold (and judges be expected to watch)Yes, that's the purpose of counting the number of "couple heats" - it's easy to estimate the total number of heats from this number. E.g. if we eliminate 80->40->20->10->5 for a total of 155, and we're prepared to have at most 8 couples on the floor at once, then we will have (roughly) 155/8 = 19 heats. [The actual number of heats required will be slightly more than this estimate - 21 in this case].

The thing is, all the heats for a round can be close together, because you don't need to wait for results, or to let competitors rest. But you will need a gap between rounds for analysis of marks etc...

Anyone else sad enough to see the similarities between this and optimizing for a superscalar CPU?

Dave

DavidB
24th-March-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
The difference would be that you wouldn't have separate rounds for the first heats of the intermediate and advanced so there would be a saving there. ???

I must be missing something.

You have 100 couples total. (Lets say 50 would have done the intermediate, 25 the advanced and 25 the open. And lets suppose that everyone actually knew their correct level.)

Your first round of the overall 100 knocks out 50 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Plate. They are the same 50 who would have done the 'Intermediate' in a normal competition.

Your 2nd round of the overall knocks out 25 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Intermediate. Again these are the same 25 who would have gone straight into the 'Advanced' in a normal comp.

The 25 who go through are the same 25 who would have entered the Open.

So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.

Good discussion though.

David

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Andy McGregor
The difference would be that you wouldn't have separate rounds for the first heats of the intermediate and advanced so there would be a saving there.Sorry, but I don't see your reasoning here. For example - suppose 80 intermediate, 20 advanced, and a max of 10 competitors on the floor at once. Old way: 8 intermediate heats, 2 advanced heats. New way: 10 first round heats, 10 second round heats, plus at this stage all you've done is work out who your 20 advanced dancers are, so you need another 2 heats there to get to the same point (ready for 2nd round of advanced). That's 22 heats instead of 10!

The only way you're going to get a "saving" is to (as you suggest) "pack them in"; but as you could (and to some extent in practice do) do this in the current system anyhow, it's not going to help much...

Dave

foxylady
24th-March-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
???

I must be missing something.

You have 100 couples total. (Lets say 50 would have done the intermediate, 25 the advanced and 25 the open. And lets suppose that everyone actually knew their correct level.)

Your first round of the overall 100 knocks out 50 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Plate. They are the same 50 who would have done the 'Intermediate' in a normal competition.

Your 2nd round of the overall knocks out 25 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Intermediate. Again these are the same 25 who would have gone straight into the 'Advanced' in a normal comp.

The 25 who go through are the same 25 who would have entered the Open.

So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.

Good discussion though.

David

The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... !

ChrisA
24th-March-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by foxylady
The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... !
You also wouldn't get people entering with more than one partner at multiple levels.

Chris

DavidB
24th-March-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by foxylady
The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... ! Instead we would just get pages and pages on the forum saying that couple a, b and x should or shouldn't have got through. Or couple z deliberately danced bad so they could get into the intermediate.

You could easily end up with advanced dancers winning every division - they just had a bad dance, or an unsuitable track in one of the 'selection' rounds.

David

Gadget
24th-March-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
I must be missing something.
~snip~
So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.
Yes. Assuming that the people who entered themselves as "advanced" were, actually advanced; and those who entered "intermediate" were of that standard. (etc.)

It does two main things that the current system does not:
- eliminates the competitors deciding which level of competiton to enter themselves. (as per foxy's post)
- does not simply have people turning up for one dance to be knocked out in the first round. (they can be knocked out in the second round instead :innocent: )

It also has the added advantage as Chris points out that you can only enter one competition. {...although this may be a fiscal dissadvantage to the organisers.}


You could easily end up with advanced dancers winning every division - they just had a bad dance, or an unsuitable track in one of the 'selection' rounds.
You could, yes. But you could also have an "intermediate" dancer dance their socks off and win the "advanced": It is all about how you compete on the day.
If the "Advanced" dancers are having an 'off' day, then why can't an intermediate who is having an 'on' day replace them?

I also agree that the prizes for the levels should be appropriate.

DavidB
24th-March-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
Yes. Assuming that the people who entered themselves as "advanced" were, actually advanced; and those who entered "intermediate" were of that standard. (etc.)And how many intermediates at Blackpool were in the wrong division for their standard of dancing? Don't forget that if you say couple 'x' were advanced (and they didn't make any mistakes) you are by definition saying that everyone who beat them is also advanced.

eliminates the competitors deciding which level of competiton to enter themselves.And instead has a judge determining what level you are on the basis of 5 seconds of your dancing. Neither way is ideal.

does not simply have people turning up for one dance to be knocked out in the first round.I do like this. But there are other common ways of doing this - eg a repercharge.

It also has the added advantage as Chris points out that you can only enter one competitionWhy is this an advantage?

But you could also have an "intermediate" dancer dance their socks off and win the "advanced".Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.

But I have seen plenty of advanced couples have one bad dance in a competition. Normally that means they don't go through, which is fair enough. But under this system, they would be in the intermediate competition. Surely the idea is to have the winner of the intermediate competition being an intermediate dancer who danced their best, not an advanced dancer who had one bad dance.

To me there is little difference between the two systems. Both have advantages, and both have disadvantages. The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.

David

Daisy
24th-March-2004, 07:30 PM
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DavidB
Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.
__________________________________________________


I would agree with this. I think in general that most of the couples reaching the higher rounds of the advanced would be doing more technically demanding moves, along with musicality etc. A couple in the final of the intermediate may be dancing really well, but have not yet have attempted to use any of these moves in their repertoire.

David Franklin
24th-March-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
To me there is little difference between the two systems. Both have advantages, and both have disadvantages. The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.I have to say, I'm quite intrigued by spindr's suggestion; true, everything being equal, it has more rounds than the current system, but I think his format would allow quite a harsh cut without feeling unfair (because you get two chances at each cut), so you could balance things out a bit. The problem is the time spent waiting for judging decisions. But on the other hand, if you do as he describes:

Round 1a: Top 25% go through, Bottom 25% are eliminated
Round 1b: middle 50% dance again, top half go through, bottom half eliminated.

Then the 1a judging is only really to mark the people who are "definitely through" or "definitely not through", and a mistake here is unlikely to affect the results after round 1b. So the judging doesn't have to be too precise - could even be "tap on the shoulder" ala Blackpool.

In some ways, this just makes explicit what I believe most judges do in practice - most time is spent judging the borderline cases.

I think the "dance offs" would have a lot of added tension - probably good for the spectators, less so for the competitors! Realistically, I don't see it replacing the current system - not enough advantage to make it worth taking the risk...

Dave

ElaineB
24th-March-2004, 10:52 PM
Thought I would re-post my earlier suggestion and see what you all think!!

I used to do a lot of riding and competed at dressage, including dressage to music (gave up 'coz the horse got too heavy to carry!

In that world, they have a national database on which every 'affiliated' horse accumulates points for their placings or winning at competitions. Once they have so many points, they are then moved up a level.

If this was introduced for dancers, there could be a set number of points awarded to each dancer for a win or a place Say as follows:

Win: 30 points
Second 20 points
Third 10 points.

This could be amended according to the level, perhaps increasing for advanced or open levels.

The criteria to enter intermediates could be that EACH COUPLE have under a certain number of points between them - say a maximum of 90 points and after that, they have to move up a level (hopefully into advanced and then open sections as previously mentioned).

If a person is a 'qualified teacher' or perhaps has taken place in the Masters, then a nominal number of points would be attached to them (that is if they haven't already received some through competition).

Perhaps if someone with points hasn't competed for a number of years, they could apply to be downgraded?

Obviously there would have to be discussions between the various Federations. There may have to be some consideration to the 'non national' competitions as well as extending to overseas.

To pay for the database, there could also be a small levy added to the entry fee for each of the competitions.

To start this up, it would be quite simple when applying for a competition to disclose previous competition history. Points could then be added onto the database. At the end of a comp, the organisers send the results into the database and so on.........

I know that this may sound complicated, but dressage has thousands of horses registered, now going back some years and everyone knows where they stand!

Elaine :)

Gadget
25th-March-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by ElaineB
I used to do a lot of riding and competed at dressage,
~snip~
In that world, they have a national database on which every 'affiliated' horse accumulates points for their placings or winning at competitions. Once they have so many points, they are then moved up a level.
Horses are a big investment, both in training time (esp dressage) and financially - if dancers put in the same ammount of training and investment into their dancing before competing we would have even more fantastic dancers. I see several dissadvantages (and impracticalities) to this scheme {Which I outlined in the other thread...hmmm in drawing the comparrison, does that mean that the leads are riders and the followers horses? I don't think I want to follow that line of thought :devil:}


Originally posted by David B
And how many intermediates at Blackpool were in the wrong division for their standard of dancing?
Don't know: wasn't there. :innocent: But on the same argument, wouldn't the judges know who was advanced and put them through? Surely 99% of the "advanced" dancers are known on the scene? It's only the first three rounds that seperate the cattegories. The only 'real' solution to this argument I can see is to have winners (or placed dancers}from previous competitions get a "by" from the first selection rounds into the desired round.

I do like this.{getting another dance} But there are other common ways of doing this - eg a repercharge.
wassat?

Why is this{only entering one comp} an advantage?
Because I (and others) are/am still uncomfortable with the same people competing in both the "advanced" and "intermediate" cattegories even with other partners.

{Intermediate winners may be...}Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.
But which is better? to get to the semi's in "Advanced", or win the "Intermediate"? I would like to think the former, but this is the same argument for making the prizes reflect the competition.

The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.
True, but you can't have everyone having (at least) two dances without adding more time.
I do like SpinDr's method of having the dance-off's and agree with David Franklin's comments. However this does mean that the bottom 25% still only get one dance. (which is better than the current 50% admittedly.)

Bill
25th-March-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by DavidB
Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.

David

Agreed ........but the finalists, and certainly the winners in many Intermediate comps are often better than a number of the couples in the Advanced. Certainly this year I think Mel & James were as good as quite a number of the couples in the Advanced and could possibly have made the semi of the advanced.

Nothing useful to say on a scoring system or numebr of heats......... I rarelyget past double figures :na:

Aleks
25th-March-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Bill
I rarely get past double figures :na:

Do you run out of fingers/toes to count with?

Gadget
25th-March-2004, 03:39 PM
I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners :blush:


As a small aside: Do the judges look for different things in the "advanced" as opposed to the "intermediates"; or the same things, just done better?

Aleks
25th-March-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners :blush:

Maybe he was and I should be the one :blush:ing

Bill
25th-March-2004, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Gadget
I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners :blush:




I can just about cope with 2 :na: :D ......but sometimes have to close my eyes :wink:

Bill
25th-March-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Aleks
Do you run out of fingers/toes to count with?


Why do you htink I'm sitting here with no shoes and socks on :D have been getting funny looks though..............nice drak purple tie to go with the dark suit and white shirt and bare feet. But I made it to 21 :D :rolleyes:

Jive Brummie
25th-March-2004, 06:05 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH, what's with all the numbers......... I can't cope with anything mathematical........it's just tooooooooo much.

I have an idea...... Why don't we have a DWAS category, an Intermediate Category, an Advanced Category, a Showcase Category, a Double Trouble Category, a Seniors Category and maybe an Open Category?????

.......what's that????? We do already?????

..........that must be why it works fine now then eh!!!!:wink:

Maybe all we need to do is to ensure people correctly categorise themselves......... If it's sooooooooo hard for them to do that then they could just ask a helpful teacher, I'm sure they would tell them what they think.

Just an idea though.:whistle:

James........

Aleks
25th-March-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Bill
But I made it to 21 :D :rolleyes:

:whistle:
20 + 1?
:whistle:

TheTramp
25th-March-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Bill
But I made it to 21 :D :rolleyes: Bill was fibbing.

He actually made it to 20.5 :whistle:

Trampy

Bill
26th-March-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Bill was fibbing.

He actually made it to 20.5 :whistle:

Trampy


20.35 actually....................................... :sick: :innocent: :whistle:

Bill
26th-March-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Bill
20.35 actually....................................... :sick: :innocent: :whistle:


but I'm a bloke and I can boast :wink: :D

Daisy
26th-March-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Jive Brummie
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH, what's with all the numbers......... I can't cope with anything mathematical........it's just tooooooooo much.

I have an idea...... Why don't we have a DWAS category, an Intermediate Category, an Advanced Category, a Showcase Category, a Double Trouble Category, a Seniors Category and maybe an Open Category?????

.......what's that????? We do already?????

..........that must be why it works fine now then eh!!!!:wink:

Maybe all we need to do is to ensure people correctly categorise themselves......... If it's sooooooooo hard for them to do that then they could just ask a helpful teacher, I'm sure they would tell them what they think.

Just an idea though.:whistle:

James........

I have been desperate for someone to say what I have been thinking! Well done James for stating the obvious!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Someone give this guy a medal.:flower:

Jive Brummie
26th-March-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Daisy
I have been desperate for someone to say what I have been thinking! Well done James for stating the obvious!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Someone give this guy a medal.:flower:

Glad to hear I'm not alone.....cheers Daisy:flower:

James....x

Tiggerbabe
26th-March-2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Daisy
Someone give this guy a medal.:flower:
Too late Daisy, but I think it was a trophy :clap: :clap:

Jive Brummie
27th-March-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Sheena
Too late Daisy, but I think it was a trophy :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :flower:

Graham W
3rd-April-2004, 01:58 PM
... thought a bit about this inter - adva thing, (got medals in both in sep comps in 2002) thu initially sceptical of Andy M doing inter I think the showmanship & showing off aspect of what he did in Blackpool is great - its pure theatre & its 2 be applauded..

G

Jive Brummie
3rd-April-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Graham W
[B I think the showmanship & showing off aspect of what he did in Blackpool is great - its pure theatre & its 2 be applauded..

G [/B]

Yes, it is to be applauded and would have been, and deservedly so...............in the showcase category:wink: