DWAS Judging

[Robin]

Something thats always puzzled me is the title "Dance with a Stranger" for a competition - lucky dip is probably more appropriate on the grounds that
a) the percentage of people dancing with someone they don't know is usually very small - especially when you go through to the higher rounds
b) most people aren't *that* strange :wink:

That aside, how do you think judges should award marks? This obviously differs from judging other types of competition but what do you think is a fair way to ensure everyone gets a fair crack of the whip ?

Can't say that this would happen at next Mondays DWAS (£200 prize money *shameless plug*) at Finchley but who knows - it may influence the rules which are passed out to the judges !!!

[Clive Long]

Something thats always puzzled me is the title "Dance with a Stranger" for a competition - lucky dip is probably more appropriate on the grounds that
a) the percentage of people dancing with someone they don't know is usually very small - especially when you go through to the higher rounds
b) most people aren't *that* strange :wink:

That aside, how do you think judges should award marks? This obviously differs from judging other types of competition but what do you think is a fair way to ensure everyone gets a fair crack of the whip ?

Can't say that this would happen at next Mondays DWAS (£200 prize money *shameless plug*) at Finchley but who knows - it may influence the rules which are passed out to the judges !!!
Interesting post.

There has been much complaint about the "secretive" nature of judging in competitions.

All I can suggest is the old approach used in ice-skating, gymnastics, maybe even dance ..

Technical complexity - how many well executed "complex" or "advanced" moves (OK, OK let's not reignite that debate again). I would broadly say a pretzel is more complex than first move and gets more marks. But technical complexity gets lowest "weighting"

Artistic impression - did the dancers respond to changes in mood in the music, respond to breaks? Did they seem to enjoy themselves and convey that to the audience? All subjective stuff.

and some kind of "intersection" between the two e.g. how well did the dancers move from a spin to a "block" to a sway etc. This is a measure of the dance as a "whole". How "well" were the moves executed irrespective of their difficulty? In this case a well executed First move gets more marks than a clumsy pretzel. This part gets most "weighting".

That's my opinion.

Oh, and the points awarded must be public and the judges decision must be absolutely final, no complaints

Any result could be affected be a contestant complaining "their" track was "worse" than a competitor etc. etc. complaints about favouritism etc.

Who would be a judge?



Clive

[El Salsero Gringo]

And the 2005 Forum award for the most shamelessly contrived topic created simply to plug a dance event goes to ...

[Robin]

And the 2005 Forum award for the most shamelessly contrived topic created simply to plug a dance event goes to ...
:rofl:

Not true ... but could've been !

Its just something I've always been curious about - especially after previous experience of judges and competitors disagreements. I was wondering if it might be possible to do sort of a rules "RFC" that everyone would be happy with.

For those not ubergeek type, RFC = Request for comments = old school internet way of drafting standards which works well!

[David Bailey]

Something thats always puzzled me is the title "Dance with a Stranger" for a competition - lucky dip is probably more appropriate on the grounds that
a) the percentage of people dancing with someone they don't know is usually very small - especially when you go through to the higher rounds
b) most people aren't *that* strange :wink:
Well, I've ranted on enough about this elsewhere, but why stop now... I'm not desperately worried about the name, but yes, lucky dip may be a little more appropriate. I presume Dance With A Stranger sounds more glamorous or something...


That aside, how do you think judges should award marks? This obviously differs from judging other types of competition but what do you think is a fair way to ensure everyone gets a fair crack of the whip ?
Well, obviously, people with names starting "D" should be given bonus marks.

It's a can of worms, but, considering my comments (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=122526&postcount=26) in the other thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5411), I'd best be consistent, and say that judging should be based on two components:
- "Technique": the standard stuff about posture, rhythm, frame, connection, musical interpretation, all that jazz. Basically, same stuff as other competition judging.
- "Adaptability": something based on the allowance that these two people have been randomly thrown together, and a judgement of how well they can quickly adapt to each other's style. Having said that, I've no idea how that factor could be judged... :blush:

I disagree slightly with Clive (sorry :flower: ) about complexity of moves, but I realize that crowd-pleasers are there for a reason.

(Hmmm, maybe I should put my money where my mouth is, enter it, and just do first move variants all the time... ).


In this case a well executed First move gets more marks than a clumsy pretzel.
:yeah: many times over!


And the 2005 Forum award for the most shamelessly contrived topic created simply to plug a dance event goes to ...
Hey, if that's not a real BFG award, it damned well should be. :clap:

P.S. Is this a "Open" comp, or a "Amateurs only"? For example, do teachers get to compete? Also, I think demo's should be banned... :whistle:

[Clive Long]

<< snip >>
I disagree slightly with Clive (sorry :flower: )
<< snip >>
Disagree away dear boy.

As my mother always says, "Better to be disagreed with than ignored"

[Robin]

P.S. Is this a "Open" comp, or a "Amateurs only"? For example, do teachers get to compete? Also, I think demo's should be banned... :whistle:
:rofl:
I agree !

However, my thoughts were more that perhaps there needs to be a nice set of rules that effectively mean that irrespective of your dancing "level" you have an equal chance of winning - perhaps some sort of handicap system ? (marks deducted for obvious quips)

[David Bailey]

:rofl:
I agree !

However, my thoughts were more that perhaps there needs to be a nice set of rules that effectively mean that irrespective of your dancing "level" you have an equal chance of winning - perhaps some sort of handicap system ? (marks deducted for obvious quips)
Interesting... Dunno how it'd work, but it may make sense. Although I'm not sure about an ethos of "We're giving you extra points because you're not very good" - sounds very British to me :rofl:

It sounds like our Down Under friends know quite a bit about this sort of thing (especially rolling DWAS's) - maybe one ot them could comment? As has been pointed out, I know very little about competitions... :tears:

[Lou]

I've been a judge for one fun DWAS.

The first thing I looked for was the connection between the two dancers - how well each had adapted to the other's dance style, and how much did they appear to be enjoying themselves.

Then I looked at musicality - if they did flashy crowd pleasing moves, was it actually appropriate to the music? Did they acknowledge breaks, etc...

And then I looked at complexity of the moves, and how well they were performed in terms of technique.

But the emphasis on this comp was "fun", so perhaps in a more serious competition there would be more weighting towards the technique and complexity of the moves...

[David Bailey]

I've been a judge for one fun DWAS.

The first thing I looked for was the connection between the two dancers - how well each had adapted to the other's dance style, and how much did they appear to be enjoying themselves.

Then I looked at musicality - if they did flashy crowd pleasing moves, was it actually appropriate to the music? Did they acknowledge breaks, etc...

And then I looked at complexity of the moves, and how well they were performed in terms of technique.

But the emphasis on this comp was "fun", so perhaps in a more serious competition there would be more weighting towards the technique and complexity of the moves...
In my (obviously, extremely limited and unworthy) opinion, that sounds like exactly the right approach. Except that a DWAS is pretty much always fun, we hope - I don't see how it could really get to be very serious without changing its nature...

[Lou]

Except that a DWAS is pretty much always fun, we hope - I don't see how it could really get to be very serious without changing its nature...
There's fun, and then there's fun... People do take it more seriously at the Champs, etc. This was just part of the entertainment at a local freestyle...

[Robin]

I've been a judge for one fun DWAS.

The first thing I looked for was the connection between the two dancers - how well each had adapted to the other's dance style, and how much did they appear to be enjoying themselves.

Then I looked at musicality - if they did flashy crowd pleasing moves, was it actually appropriate to the music? Did they acknowledge breaks, etc...

And then I looked at complexity of the moves, and how well they were performed in terms of technique.

But the emphasis on this comp was "fun", so perhaps in a more serious competition there would be more weighting towards the technique and complexity of the moves...

My point is that although how well people dance together and the musical interpretation is important, should we be looking for something more to allow all levels of dancers to have a fair chance. Seems to me that by all current DWAS judging, there is absolutely no way that 2 relatively new or beginner dancers could ever win a DWAS/Licky dip.

That said, doe it imply that the handicap system would work but needs some way of applying it or that the entry rules themselves need to change?

Maybe some form of fun "self certification" for handicaps might work ?

[David Bailey]

Seems to me that by all current DWAS judging, there is absolutely no way that 2 relatively new or beginner dancers could ever win a DWAS/Licky dip.
Well, if paired together, probably not - I mean, it is a competition, and you are judging on ability to dance, and beginners aren't likely to have so much, as that gets honed with experience.

Competitions by their nature mean judges are biased towards the most experienced dancers.

But, maybe there's a way of fiddling, it so that a beginner paired with an experienced dancer could have their inexperience noted?


Maybe some form of fun "self certification" for handicaps might work ?
That's quite original - I like the concept.

Just don't forget the vital names-beginning-with-D rule :whistle:

[Lou]

My point is that although how well people dance together and the musical interpretation is important, should we be looking for something more to allow all levels of dancers to have a fair chance.
And it's a good point. However, as someone's already said, it seems somewhat odd to give people marks for not dancing as well as others. I don't like the idea of "handicaps", as it takes away from the "fun" aspect by giving people something more to gripe about if their handicap is perceived as unfair. (And you know how we all love a good gripe.... :whistle: )

What you can do is change the weighting of what you think is important in the dance. For instance, mark people higher if they look like they're having fun.

[bigdjiver]

I've been a judge for one fun DWAS.

The first thing I looked for was the connection between the two dancers - how well each had adapted to the other's dance style, and how much did they appear to be enjoying themselves. ....My favourite DWAS comps were won by the competitors having most fun. One winner would have been disqualified several times over in any normal competition.

[Mary]

I think a fairer system is Jack & Jill. Can't remember exactly how it works, but it means you get more than one crack of the whip with different partners. You dance with a 'stranger', then couples are re-paired at random so they get to dance with another partner. Sounds complicated but it works quite well. You are then judged on indivual ability rather than the luck of having the 'right' partner at that time.

Ask Nigel or Nina - they can explain the system if you were to think of running it that way.

M

[Robin]

I think a fairer system is Jack & Jill. Can't remember exactly how it works, but it means you get more than one crack of the whip with different partners. You dance with a 'stranger', then couples are re-paired at random so they get to dance with another partner. Sounds complicated but it works quite well. You are then judged on indivual ability rather than the luck of having the 'right' partner at that time.

Ask Nigel or Nina - they can explain the system if you were to think of running it that way.

M
I did mention that I was purely interested - I don't really have much input in the scheme of things - thats down to Tezi & Adam.

However, one of the issues with the "Jack & Jill" or the ilk is that its a logisitcal nightmare when you have 100 or more entrants. You then also need to think about whether you judge the couples on the man basis, woman basis or both.

[Mary]

I did mention that I was purely interested - I don't really have much input in the scheme of things - thats down to Tezi & Adam.

However, one of the issues with the "Jack & Jill" or the ilk is that its a logisitcal nightmare when you have 100 or more entrants. You then also need to think about whether you judge the couples on the man basis, woman basis or both.

Quite understand. However, went to a Jack & Jill a couple of years ago, and there must have been approx. 100 entrants, and it didn't eat into too much freestyle. Tony did quite well, but I was pants despite having quite a good partner in my first dance :tears: Don't think it was too much of nightmare to organise - just in case you were going to get involved in running a DWAS. :wink:

M

[Yogi_Bear]

It should be quite easy to organise. When you come to repair the couples simply get them to line up in two rows, move either leaders or followers on by x places, and pair up.....just like you probably would have done at the start. Repeat as required. If you have judges lookin at leaders, at followers and at couples you can get a good idea of who is best. Seems much better to me than having a fixed partner the whole time....

[Gadget]

You then also need to think about whether you judge the couples on the man basis, woman basis or both.
? Why - you have a lead winner and a follower winner: they may not have even danced together in the whole competition.

[El Salsero Gringo]

? Why - you have a lead winner and a follower winner: they may not have even danced together in the whole competition.... and if they did they might be terrible together.

[ElaineB]

I have been dancing for three years now and have taken part in a number of local and national competition. I know whether or not I have a chance as soon as my partner takes hold of me........something intuitive happens and we dance for and with each other. Those are the Guys who are genuinely good leads and who do not take you aside and try to show you in ten minutes all their flashy moves that they can't lead!

So, to echo Lou, it has to be lead/follow first, then musicality and complexity (IMHO!)

Re Jack and Jill, I think that is a wonderful idea, but suggest the replacement name of Bill or Ian for Jack!! :wink: :worthy:


Elaine

[MartinHarper]

Should DWAS judges give marks differently in a DWAS competition? Or is good dancing always good dancing?

[Robin]

Sorry - but couldn;t help noticing that my thread title has been "moderated"

nice one franck :wink:

[Robin]

Should DWAS judges give marks differently in a DWAS competition? Or is good dancing always good dancing?

exactly my point - I personally feel that as dwas is open to all, there should be some way to "even" the scores so to speak.

[Gadget]

exactly my point - I personally feel that as dwas is open to all, there should be some way to "even" the scores so to speak.
What's the point of the competition then? What are you going to judge if ability is all leveled out? May as well just freestyle and award everyone first place for turning up.
Asides from that, in order to level things out, you have to first judge the ability of the competitors... erm... and that's judging. ie you have to hold a competition to determine the levels people are at so that your competition has an even bias. :confused:

[El Salsero Gringo]

What's the point of the competition then? What are you going to judge if ability is all leveled out?People's "extra" quality on the day. Amateur golfers have a handicap so that players of unequal ability can go out in competition and the result isn't going to be a foregone conclusion - that works well.

And the point of the competition? To have a fun event that many people want to take part in. It encourages 'inclusivity' and makes more money for the franchisee.

[David Bailey]

What's the point of the competition then? What are you going to judge if ability is all leveled out? May as well just freestyle and award everyone first place for turning up.
Asides from that, in order to level things out, you have to first judge the ability of the competitors... erm... and that's judging. ie you have to hold a competition to determine the levels people are at so that your competition has an even bias. :confused:
:yeah:

Good grief, that's the second time Gadget's said exactly the same as I'm thinking, maybe he's using Gadget Mind Tricks on me or something.

DWAS is not inherently a level playing field, just because it's DWAS - that just describes the format of the competition.

So (separate from the whole DWAS debate) what you're probably asking is: "How can we encourage beginners to enter competitions"?

And that's an interesting point - if you have Open competitions, they'll usually be won by professionals (typically teachers), because they're better, being professionals. Which may discourage others, and may create a ballroom-dancing "spectator" culture, which I for one wouldn't like.

Up until now, this has been solved by just having different categories, as in the Ceroc Champs - allows everyone a chance to enter, albeit in different categories. However, that's a lot of organising, and isn't ideal - i.e. I get the feeling that the Open Champs are seen as more important than, say, the Beginner champs.

So, a handicapping system could be one way of doing this. But, as Gadget says, you still want to keep it a competition - i.e. you want to ensure that the best people win. Hmmm, tricky one...

[Yogi_Bear]

You can allocate golf handicaps easily because it's a purely statistical exercise, but you can't do that in MJ / DWAS because it requires subjective judgment. In the standard DWAS set-up, it's likely that one or more of the pairings will contain a couple of really good dancers, and other thhings being equal they will go on to win. In my view introducing any element of partner changing will help to equalise chances. It would be good to see some of the dancers of lesser ability doing well because they connected with someone / each other in terms of lead and follow, connection, musicality etc. It would also give the less experienced dancers more opportunity of dancing competitively with a very good dancer....surely one of the aims and benefits of DWAS....

[bigdjiver]

Modern Jive is all about winning, in the sense that I have never been to an event that I have wished I had not attended. Every night I feel like a winner. Appoint some judges that have some experience of the dance and the "scene", and let them judge on whatever criteria they feel like applying. If they decide that two fumbling beginners that make everybody laugh are the victors, then they are, and so are we. I would be just as happy if it is masterpiece of elegance that wins, or a masterclass in back-leading. And if it should happen that nearly everybody disagrees with the judges, we still win, diversity is the soul of our dance.

[Yogi_Bear]

Modern Jive is all about winning, in the sense that I have never been to an event that I have wished I had not attended. Every night I feel like a winner. Appoint some judges that have some experience of the dance and the "scene", and let them judge on whatever criteria they feel like applying. If they decide that two fumbling beginners that make everybody laugh are the victors, then they are, and so are we. I would be just as happy if it is masterpiece of elegance that wins, or a masterclass in back-leading. And if it should happen that nearly everybody disagrees with the judges, e still win, diversity is the soul of our dance.Surely not? The competitors need to know by what criteria they will be judged. What sort of competition would it be where top marks went for comedy above dancing ability? :tears:

[Gadget]

Good grief, that's the second time Gadget's said exactly the same as I'm thinking, maybe he's using Gadget Mind Tricks on me or something.:what::strain:{wibble effect}... eat that sandwich... get some chocolate... time for a cup of coffee... send Gadget money... pay Franck for Gadget's place at the Tango weekend... {/wibble effect} Is it working?


Up until now, this has been solved by just having different categories, as in the Ceroc Champs - allows everyone a chance to enter, albeit in different categories. However, that's a lot of organising, and isn't ideal - i.e. I get the feeling that the Open Champs are seen as more important than, say, the Beginner champs.? I don't get "more important". They are for different levels of ability. Winning a 'lower' level just implys that you are the best at that level and should now be in the next level up. "Importance" is up to an individual to decide.

Modern Jive is all about winning..."Winning" - :( poor terminology. "Having fun". MJ is all about dancing and having fun. If that's the same as 'winning' to you, then :flower:.
Competitions may be all about winning, but I think that they are more about an internal pride and accoumplishment than proving to everyone else that you are the best. This sense of acheivement can be gained by any dancer anywhere and is what I think you are referring to.


Surely not? The competitors need to know by what criteria they will be judged. What sort of competition would it be where top marks went for comedy above dancing ability? :tears:You may even get people dressing up in silly costumes, school uniforms, acting out being kicked in the privates, cross dressing, wearing Mr Blobby suits, wearing HATS! Even when not competing!! Seas boiling! Cats and dogs living together! the world may end! :waaaaaa:

Is there a place for such antics in competitions? I suppose, it is dance with a stranger... and you couldn't get much stranger than some of these folks.

[David Bailey]

Well, I'm not paying, but I'm still agreeing with way too many of your points, it's a bit spooky certainly.


? I don't get "more important". They are for different levels of ability. Winning a 'lower' level just implys that you are the best at that level and should now be in the next level up. "Importance" is up to an individual to decide.
Aha, a point of disagreement at last! :clap:

I vaguely recall reading that only the "Open" winners could use "Official Ceroc Champs" as their title, or something... OK, it's not a major thing, but it shows a little bit of bias.

[stewart38]

If your a name you will get through to the final at least ,even if you dance with a Turnip

I would like a DWAS or lucky dip that encourages local people to have a go but excludes Taxi dancers /teachers or comp entrants and then see what happens (just a few like that)

Judge then and not on a 'name' .

Some of the names are not local and turn up no doubt because of the prize money or ego, rant over

[TheTramp]

If your a name you will get through to the final at least ,even if you dance with a Turnip
Blatently not true. Sorry.....

In fact, I'd say that this happens much more in freestyle events, than it does in DWAS events - a number of times, I've seen one of the 'named' partnerships dance badly in lower rounds, and not been eliminated, and then gone on to dance better in later rounds, and do well.

But I've seen many big names not make it through to the final of DWAS events. Many times....

Though (of course), the 'names' are usually the best dancers, so it is reasonably likely that they will be able to 'up' their partners dancing, even if they have someone who isn't quite in that naming category, and hence make it through on merit....

[Simon r]

Blatently not true. Sorry.....

In fact, I'd say that this happens much more in freestyle events, than it does in DWAS events - a number of times, I've seen one of the 'named' partnerships dance badly in lower rounds, and not been eliminated, and then gone on to dance better in later rounds, and do well.

But I've seen many big names not make it through to the final of DWAS events. Many times....

Though (of course), the 'names' are usually the best dancers, so it is reasonably likely that they will be able to 'up' their partners dancing, even if they have someone who isn't quite in that naming category, and hence make it through on merit....

well said Trampy

(slap of the head as i read phone book 38's comments) do you really believe this or are you just stirring to get a reaction,,,,

[stewart38]

well said Trampy

(slap of the head as i read phone book 38's comments) do you really believe this or are you just stirring to get a reaction,,,,

Phone book ? That’s going back away lol

I believe some not all DWAS or lucky dip comps should be open to non teachers and Taxi dancers or those who have entered other comps (accept lucky dips etc)

Taxi dancer exclusion I agree more problematic and maybe not always fair

As more and more DWAS attract £500, £200 or what ever winnings to suggest it’s just for fun is not accurate

But this is going of thread

Don’t forget though many years ago you had worst dancer comps and beginners dance comps how do encourage that ??

[Robin]

How about this for a new slant on DWAS judging ?

Type of dancer :-

Once a weeker
2-3 Times a week - I need my fix
4+ Complete addict

Then either :-

handicap on that basis
ensure like does not go with like in the partner selection
Have 3 mini DWAS's based on the groups above

Comments on a postcard :whistle:

[DavidB]

However, one of the issues with the "Jack & Jill" or the ilk is that its a logisitcal nightmare when you have 100 or more entrants. You then also need to think about whether you judge the couples on the man basis, woman basis or both.You have half the judges marking the men, and the other half marking the women. Then after each round you take through the men and women with the most individual marks.
The only logistical problem is when you get the numbers don't match - ie you get 20 men marked through by 3 judges, but 22 women.

You can make it interesting by getting the male judges to mark the female competitors in the first round, and the male competitors in the second round etc.

Personally I would then have the final without changing partners, and marking as a couple.



The main idea of separate judging/rotating partners is to make the final full of the best lead/follow dancers. That is great for spectators, and the best dancers, but it does not encourage beginners to have a go.

A handicap system might work eg 10 points for a previous competition winner down to 1 point for an absolute beginner. Then a maximum of 11 combined points for each couple. But you would have to get the entries and draw the partners in advance. obviously rotating partners would be nearly impossible. This might be fair, but I don't know if it would encourage people to take part. Some beginners might be scared knowing they would draw a top dancer (and some top dancers wouldn't take part knowing they would be drawn with a beginner.)

I think separate DWAS divisions would be more successful than a single handicapped division at attracting new dancers. The number and definition of each division is always a favourite subject on this forum...

Although I would like to see a competition organised like this, I would hope that the traditional DWAS with everyone in gets retained as well. It seems to be something unique to MJ, with everyone from beginners to teachers taking part.

[Robin]

Although I would like to see a competition organised like this, I would hope that the traditional DWAS with everyone in gets retained as well. It seems to be something unique to MJ, with everyone from beginners to teachers taking part.

So , will you be taking part on Monday then ? :wink:

[David Bailey]

You have half the judges marking the men, and the other half marking the women. Then after each round you take through the men and women with the most individual marks.
The only logistical problem is when you get the numbers don't match - ie you get 20 men marked through by 3 judges, but 22 women.
Unless you tell the judges to just pick the top 20? Or, eliminate the bottom X, whichever is easiest. Although eliminations and handicapping would be tricky... err, head hurts...


...
{ snip lots of excellent and knowledgeable points }
...
Although I would like to see a competition organised like this, I would hope that the traditional DWAS with everyone in gets retained as well. It seems to be something unique to MJ, with everyone from beginners to teachers taking part.
:yeah:

Although, to be fair, some salsa comps have been organised like that in the past. But MJ is the only dance I know which does these regularly.

[DavidB]

Unless you tell the judges to just pick the top 20? Or, eliminate the bottom X, whichever is easiest.That assumes all the judges agree.

What usually happens is 20 couples on the floor, and each judge recalls 10 to go through. You count up how many recalls each couple gets, and the ones with the most recalls go through. You might have 7 couples with 4 or more recalls, and 12 couples with 3 or more. You select the cut-off point that gives you the closest number to 10 - so in this example you would recall 12 couples.

But when you mark the men and ladies separately, you are likely to get a difference. You might get 12 men with 3 or more recalls, but 13 ladies. So how do you decide which lady does not get through? (or which extra man gets in?)