PDA

View Full Version : Dancing Leage Table



Gadget
5th-August-2004, 01:43 PM
Sparked by Divisima's comments in another thread...




The only thing I see absent is a "league table". How would you work it? You can't just award points for places, since the level of competition may be harder... I see another thread looming.
Come on Gadget, as a fencer you know where a model for this is - or were you leaving something for me to say British fencing have run a national ranking scheme for years: the, rather complicated, instructions are here . The ranking points you receive for each competition is based on the number of ranked fencers and the ranking of those ranked fencers.

It would probably take a year or two for this kind of thing to pan out and it would be for different categories - which equates to the different weapons in the fencing ranking. In theory, it would be possible to assign scores to competitors based on the last few MJ competitions. Everyone knocked out at each level would get the same score of course. All we'd need would be the lists of competitors and how far they'd got, who'd like to see if they can get hold of it? We'd only need names, not email addresses etc so there'd be no breach of confidentiality. And it would need to be an individual ranking as many couples change - but their individual ranking would need to be based on the position each couple reached.

I think it would work - who's willing to bet the Tramp is the UK No 1 ?

p.s. Enough content?
yea, but in the wrong place :whistle:

One central body (/web page) could be updated with the results from competitions and work out rankings.

OK, so how do you determine the scoring system? Each competition has competitors at a different level. How do you decide how many points to award for placings? Does a winner of five "lower competition" titles pace above a winner of one "main competion"? I think you would need an entry list and full results before you could even start. The how would you work out partners? Would the table be for couples or individuals? Would it be split into lead/follow?...

Is it even a good idea in the first place?

Jayne
5th-August-2004, 02:22 PM
Is it even a good idea in the first place?
Surely a league table of modern jivers would run contrary to the "spirit" of modern jive... :devil:

Well, if you could set it up now, then it might start to be useful in five years time. There are so few MJ comps that it would be hard to gain enough points to differentiate between dancers - unless points awarded for getting through heats/placing are based on a logarithmic scale or summat. Also, you'd need a logarithmic or summat scale otherwise you could have someone who persistently entered as many cattegories (sic) in as many comps as possible, thus getting more points than someone like FC&JB who have entered relatively few comps but had resounding success in the ones they have entered. :worthy:

But then again, if you had a logarithmic or summat scale then after a few years you could quite easily have a couple (like Clayton & Janine) who have so many points that you just couldn't get near them...

And it would have to be on an individual basis (reference to the other "that thread" from earlier in the year...).

Alternatively you could buy a book of raffle tickets and put them all in a bucket. You'd then get all of the entrants to pick a ticket out of the bucket. The number on the ticket would then be the number of points you are awarded for that comp.... :whistle:

Of course, this just focuses on competitors - what about all those fab dancers who don't compete? They'd be right at the bottom of the table. :tears:

J :nice:

Gus
5th-August-2004, 02:34 PM
Of course, this just focuses on competitors - what about all those fab dancers who don't compete? They'd be right at the bottom of the table. :tears:


I would have thought that the dancers who dont compete wouldnt give a monkeys about any League Table. Like the current competition circuit at the moment, I would say that a fair few of the best dancers simply don't compete because they are there for the enjoyment of dance itslef ... not as an ego/marketing thing (IMHO).

Sparkles
5th-August-2004, 02:36 PM
And what about when partnerships break up and people find new people to enter comps with - is the slate just wiped clean and each entrant has to start at the bottom of the table again? Even if they're really good and have won loads of stuff in the past?

TheTramp
5th-August-2004, 02:44 PM
I would say that a fair few of the best dancers simply don't compete because they are there for the enjoyment of dance itslef ... not as an ego/marketing thing (IMHO).
Actually, I generally compete for the enjoyment of dance itself. Or isn't this allowed in your book Gus??

(To explain: I love going to big events - it's a chance to dance with, and see friends from all over the country that also go to big events. If I'm going to be there, then I might as well compete - if nothing else, it's a chance to get a dance with someone that I like dancing with, when there's space on the dance floor :whistle: But I still do it for fun - I haven't really seriously competed (with practise and things) since I had a really stressful time at the Ceroc Champs in 2001 - when I decided that I wasn't going to ever go in for a competition again, unless I enjoyed it).

Trampy

Gus
5th-August-2004, 03:08 PM
Actually, I generally compete for the enjoyment of dance itself. Or isn't this allowed in your book Gus??
Trampy

Wasn't making ANY comment on why people compete ... just that some non-competitors avoid it BEACUSE its seen as an ego or marketing thing. There are a myriad of reasons to compete agreed. Having re-read my original statement I agree that it could have been beter phrased. The key point, in fact the only point, I was trying to make was that not all the best dancers compete.

Andy McGregor
5th-August-2004, 05:44 PM
Surely a league table of modern jivers would run contrary to the "spirit" of modern jive... :devil:


So do competitions, and that's what we're talking about ranking, people who compete. Many people enjoy competitions, others say they're contrary to the spirit of MJ. I say live and let live. People who like to compete can do it, people who don't like to compete don't have to. Now I think about it, the logic couldn't be simpler.



Of course, this just focuses on competitors - what about all those fab dancers who don't compete? They'd be right at the bottom of the table. :tears:


They wouldn't be on the table at all. It would be a table ranking people by their competition results.

Fencing is just the same, some competitions are bigger or more competitive than others. The size/quality of a competition is calculated based on an equation taking into account the number of ranked fencers in the comp - and I think it might also take onto account the number of competitors but I'm not sure. Once the factor for the comp is calculated the individual gets a score based on their placing: easy.

Gadget
6th-August-2004, 12:15 AM
Assuming that people who entered competitions did want a ranking system;
Number of competitors must be taken into account
So, if we say the base number of points to distribute is equal to the number of competitors in that section {eg 30 couples=30 points}


Level of competitors competing against must be taken into account
A couple of ways I can think on doing this;
1 - The top {eg} 20 dancers in the league would cary 'weight' to add to the total points for that competition: 1st in the league would add 20 pts to the competition's value, 2nd 19, 3rd 18...
2 - If you're in the top 10 add 10 points, 10-20 add 5 poins, 20-50 add 1 point...

perhaps it would be better taking the average between the couples rather than individuals - or keeping the points for lead and follow seperate so that it may end up that the point "base rate" would be higher for followers than leads (or visa versa)


Each level of competition must be worth more than the previous level.
Highest level of competition {eg open} would be worth the full value {30 couples, 30pts}
If there were two, then the next level {eg intermediate} would be worth half that value {30 couples, 15pts}.
Three and it would be split into thirds {eg 30 beginners=10pts, 30 Intermediate=20pts, 30 advanced = 30pts}
Only real difficulty would be how to class DWAS, Arials, Double Trouble, ...


Highest placed gets most points, working down the order
Place 1st and you get a percentage of the points on offer, then 2nd and you get the same percentage of the remaining points ...keep as you work down the points untill there is none left to offer.
{eg 30pts, 30%: 1st=9pts, 2nd=6pts 3rd=4pts 4th=3pts, 5th=2pts, 6th=2pts, 7th=1, 8th=1pt, 9th=1pt}


Now all you should need to do would be get a complete ranking list and assign points to them. I think that you would have to have seperate lists for lead and follower (with some people appearing on both :whistle: )
I could program a spread sheet to do all the number crunching and keep running totals, but again it comes down to "is it worth it?"

spindr
6th-August-2004, 01:06 AM
Hmmm, the best measure of a ranking would probably be total prize money won that year -- you could even make it the total net prize money won (you have to subtract the cost of the competition from any prize you received).

If its a high paying competition then it's likely to be a prestigious win, and probably have more competitors -- ranking sorted.

SpinDr.

P.S. Course I like the net scheme 'cause when you start competing you start "halfway" up the league at zero :)

Sheepman
6th-August-2004, 11:32 AM
the total net prize money won (you have to subtract the cost of the competition from any prize you received). No that wouldn't work, it would put Lily at the bottom of the league if you included the cost of those fabulous dresses :wink:
(Is David brave enough to agree with this?)

Greg

ChrisA
6th-August-2004, 11:46 AM
So do competitions, and that's what we're talking about ranking, people who compete. Many people enjoy competitions, others say they're contrary to the spirit of MJ. I say live and let live. People who like to compete can do it, people who don't like to compete don't have to. Now I think about it, the logic couldn't be simpler.

Yeah, but what would happen if everybody competed? How awful would that be?

:confused: Or am I extrapolating too much :innocent:

:devil: :devil:

Andy McGregor
6th-August-2004, 01:59 PM
I could program a spread sheet to do all the number crunching and keep running totals, but again it comes down to "is it worth it?"

You might as well ask if the tennis rankings are worth it?

And, as I said on another thread, it would make classification so much easier. You could exclude people from the intermediate category if they were in the top 100 or 50 or whatever the organisers decided.

Consider the Jive Masters (2003 video available :wink: ). It would be so easy if the top 100 dancers qualifed. Also, there could be a seeding method so that, to take a fantasy example, Clayton and Janine didn't meet Will and Kate and Amir and Lily in one of the early heats.