Brit Roc 2005

[Winnie]

2 weeks til Brit Roc... who's going?

Winnie :flower:

[Minnie M]

Well done Winnie :kiss:

Are you competing ??

You should have added that option to your poll

[Winnie]

Thanks for the tip, Lynda. I'll remember that next time.

Look forward to catching up with you.

Winnie :hug:

[Tiggerbabe]

Thanks for the tip, Lynda. I'll remember that next time.

Added the competing option to your poll, Winnie, unfortunately I won't be there, maybe next year *fingers crossed*

[Paul F]

2 weeks til Brit Roc... who's going?

Winnie :flower:


Yep, I will be there. Looking forward to it.

I received an email from Jump'n'Jive i think. Anyway it mentions that there has been a change at the proverbial top.
Looks as if BritRock (as its now called) is being run by Sarah, the original organiser, together with the RockBottoms team. I can only think it will go from strength to strength now :clap:

www.britrockcompetition.co.uk if your interested. Be careful of the 'Aternative Britrock' page. Its rather scary :what:

[Winnie]

Added the competing option to your poll, Winnie, unfortunately I won't be there, maybe next year *fingers crossed*

Thanks, Tiggerbabe. :flower:

... and thanks Paul F :)

[Andy McGregor]

Looks as if BritRock (as its now called) is being run by Sarah, the original organiser, together with the RockBottoms team. I can only think it will go from strength to strength now :clap: Not that it matters to me, but the original organisers were myself and Graham LeClerc. I sold my shares to Sarah and Graham sold his to the Rockbottoms team. You will note that the judging method is still the "McGregor Method" - which I wish other competitions would adopt as it's fair and transparent :wink:

The only thing I don't agree with about the new management is the restriction in sexes of couples - even down to the sex of the leader and follower. This is blatantly sexist and no specification as to the sex of a leader or follower should be made IMHO. This is especially strange as the competition is being held in Brighton where I've even had one guy tell me that he "only knows how to follow" - he can't enter Britroc as, according to their rules, followers must be female :mad:

[filthycute]

even down to the sex of the leader and follower. :mad:

I couldn't see this in the rules.....it only said "couples must be M/F and double trouble must be M/F/F" It didn't specify who should lead and who should follow. Did i overlook it? Can you tell me where to find it?

Ta

fc x

[Paul F]

Not that it matters to me, but the original organisers were myself and Graham LeClerc. I sold my shares to Sarah and Graham sold his to the Rockbottoms team.

Ah! I think I got a bit mixed up there. Sorry about that Andy. Thanks for updating :cheers:

[Andy McGregor]

I couldn't see this in the rules.....it only said "couples must be M/F and double trouble must be M/F/F" It didn't specify who should lead and who should follow. Did i overlook it? Can you tell me where to find it?

Ta

fc xSorry, I didn't get this quite right - but I didn't get it quite wrong either. In the leaflet for this competition the rules for the Double Trouble say "The trio must be made up of one male lead and two female followers". I'd extraplated this to the M/F, lead/follow for couples - but it doesn't say that in the rules, it just says couples must be M/F - which I also believe is wrong.

What I'm saying is that there should be no restriction based on sex. Saying you can't dance with a man because you are a man or you can't dance with a woman because you are a woman is, IMHO, sexists. And certainly the restriction to Double trouble, which allocates roles to the sexes belongs in the 1950s when a woman's place was in the kitchen :angry:

This is a dance competition, dancers should be able to dance either role and choose their partners irrespective of their sex.

Having said all that, I'm going, I think it will be a fabulous competition :clap: and next year, hopefully, the organisers will realise this rule specifying the sex of dancers is wrong.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Andy McGregor
"What I'm saying is that there should be no restriction based on sex. Saying you can't dance with a man because you are a man or you can't dance with a woman because you are a woman is, IMHO, sexists."

Not sure too many people would like this in TAC/DWS part of the competition?
So where do we draw the line with sexism, after all sexism, is sexism? :whistle:

I'm going & I think it's a great competition, look forward to it every year, this will be the first year we compete though :clap:

Pressie to the Judges :flower: :flower: :flower: , not sure what to get the Male judges, can we get a little figure with a bottle of whiskey? or will a couple of beers do :cheers: :cheers:

On the judging side are you still pitched against those in your own group, ie heat 1, 3 groups, rather than averaging the scores between all contestants in that heat? If so, how is this deemed fair, when you may be worthy of a semi final spot, but in round 1 you're pitched against the likes of P & Y, C & J, V & C (example only)?
Keith

[Andy McGregor]

On the judging side are you still pitched against those in your own group, ie heat 1, 3 groups, rather than averaging the scores between all contestants in that heat? If so, how is this deemed fair, when you may be worthy of a semi final spot, but in round 1 you're pitched against the likes of P & Y, C & J, V & C (example only)?
KeithI know the answer to this one - so long as they stick to the method I wrote. In every heat but the final you will be voted "through" to the next round by each judge. Judges will be able to vote through as many couples as they like in each group - although they might be restricted in the total number they vote through for each round. You will only be judged against each couple in your heat in the final.

On the subject of the sexism, there is also an element of realism to take into account. Knowing how squeamish some guys are about dancing with other men, is it realistic to expect a guy to dance with another guy in DWAS? I think not! However, there is no reason on Earth why two guys or two women can't choose to dance together. This makes the rules seem wrong to me - and especially so when you consider that the competition is taking place in Brighton - the European capital of same-sex couples.

[Lou]

And certainly the restriction to Double trouble, which allocates roles to the sexes belongs in the 1950s when a woman's place was in the kitchen :angry:
Ahhh... Little Monkey will be pleased. She was wondering if it was possible to dance whilst baking a cake or ironing.... (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?p=154447#post154447) :whistle:

And will the Britrock organisers introduce testing to ensure that the competitors are the sex that they've claimed to be on their entry form?

[CJ]

the 1950s when a woman's place was in the kitchen :angry:


Why should this be restricted to ten to eight?!? Yes, I enjoy a cooked breakfast, just like the next man, but that shouldn't excuse them for the rest of the day, surely!!

:devil: :whistle: :devil:

:D

[CJ]

And will the Britrock organisers introduce testing to ensure that the competitors are the sex that they've claimed to be on their entry form?

The way the Vatican does with each new pope?!?!?! :eek:

[TiggsTours]

In the leaflet for this competition the rules for the Double Trouble say "The trio must be made up of one male lead and two female followers". I'd extraplated this to the M/F, lead/follow for couples - but it doesn't say that in the rules, it just says couples must be M/F
The Rules on the website actually only say "Couples must be M/F – Double Trouble M/F/F" nothing whatsoever about who should lead or follow, in any catergory.

Although in many ways I agree with what you say, there is another aspect of this that was brought to my attention a little while ago. When you have a same sex couple one of two things tends to happen, either they are not taken seriously, so nobody watches them, which is unfair on them, or they are the focus of attention, purely because of the novelty, which is unfair on other pairs competing. Perhaps competition organisers could introduce a new category of same sex couples. I do think that double trouble shouldn't be limited by sexes, but I also think it should be limited to 3 people! I saw a fantastic salsa routine not so long ago with a guy leading 4 girls, it was amazing! :worthy:

[Andy McGregor]

Although in many ways I agree with what you say, there is another aspect of this that was brought to my attention a little while ago. When you have a same sex couple one of two things tends to happen, either they are not taken seriously, so nobody watches them, which is unfair on them, or they are the focus of attention, purely because of the novelty, which is unfair on other pairs competing. Perhaps competition organisers could introduce a new category of same sex couples.I think the audience can watch who gives them the best spectacle - but this is irrelevant to the actual competition. The judges are there to watch the dancing of the competitors. They watch them all to see how they are dancing - and then they judge their dancing. They don't look to see if one of the couples is a man or a woman, they don't look to see if it's the man leading or the woman following. They judge the dancing - pure and simple.

I like Lou's question about sex testing. It's a tough job but I'm sure there will be plenty of volunteers :wink:

[TiggsTours]

I think the audience can watch who gives them the best spectacle - but this is irrelevant to the actual competition. The judges are there to watch the dancing of the competitors. They watch them all to see how they are dancing - and then they judge their dancing. They don't look to see if one of the couples is a man or a woman, they don't look to see if it's the man leading or the woman following. They judge the dancing - pure and simple.

I like Lou's question about sex testing. It's a tough job but I'm sure there will be plenty of volunteers :wink:
A judge, who is judging at Britrock, told a good friend of mine that they would not be watching him in the competition, as he was entering with another man, so they were obviously the "joke" couple. They had entered seriously together, practised together, and were very good, they judges didn't even give them a second glance.

[Andy McGregor]

A judge, who is judging at Britrock, told a good friend of mine that they would not be watching him in the competition, as he was entering with another man, so they were obviously the "joke" couple. They had entered seriously together, practised together, and were very good, they judges didn't even give them a second glance.It sounds to me like that judge was a bad choice of judge :mad:

The judges are there to judge based on the criteria they have been provided. There was no section in the judging method which allowed them to pre-judge the intent of any couple. I say you should 'out' this prejudiced (as in they pre-judge) judge so that he/she is not selected onto a judging panel that is supposed to be judging dancing ability.

[Andy McGregor]

A judge, who is judging at Britrock, told a good friend of mine that they would not be watching him in the competition, as he was entering with another man, so they were obviously the "joke" couple. They had entered seriously together, practised together, and were very good, they judges didn't even give them a second glance.Now I know a bit more (thanks for the PM) I can say that this will not happen. I thought TT must be talking about a past competition. An all male couple CAN NOT enter Britrock. Therefore, I believe, any, all male, couple who somehow slipped themselves into a heat would be ignored by the judges as they would be disqualified - even though they might dance brilliantly together. If that doesn't show how stupid the new rule is ...

.. all I need to do now is become half of a fabulous male couple. If I could do it I might as well enter the Intermediates as we'd be disqualified anyway and it's £5 cheaper than the Open category :wink:

[TiggsTours]

Now I know a bit more (thanks for the PM) I can say that this will not happen. I thought TT must be talking about a past competition. An all male couple CAN NOT enter Britrock. Therefore, I believe, any, all male, couple who somehow slipped themselves into a heat would be ignored by the judges as they would be disqualified - even though they might dance brilliantly together. If that doesn't show how stupid the new rule is ...

.. all I need to do now is become half of a fabulous male couple. If I could do it I might as well enter the Intermediates as we'd be disqualified anyway and it's £5 cheaper than the Open category :wink:
As I mentioned to you in my PM, this was not a Britrock Competition, and they were, initially, reluctant to enter together, and were encouraged to do so by the competition organisers. Once they had made the decision, they took it seriously, and practiced together, only the be told 5 mins before the competition started that they were the "joke" entry, and would not be taken seriously.

[jockey]

I know the answer to this one - so long as they stick to the method I wrote. In every heat but the final you will be voted "through" to the next round by each judge. Judges will be able to vote through as many couples as they like in each group - although they might be restricted in the total number they vote through for each round. You will only be judged against each couple in your heat in the final.

On the subject of the sexism, there is also an element of realism to take into account. Knowing how squeamish some guys are about dancing with other men, is it realistic to expect a guy to dance with another guy in DWAS? I think not! However, there is no reason on Earth why two guys or two women can't choose to dance together. This makes the rules seem wrong to me - and especially so when you consider that the competition is taking place in Brighton - the European capital of same-sex couples.
I can think of a reason on Earth why there should not be same sex couples: spurious, distracting attention from the audience which is unfair to other mixed sex couples on the floor at the time. Spurious because that attention has nothing to do with dancing ability and every thing to do with sensation seeking on the part of competitors who cant achieve success without it. There is a place for it: showcase. But, of course there (on your own out there) samre sex couple dancing is less effective at its aim (upstaging the other couples) because there arent any couples to upstage.
I know you can dance Andy and have achieved notable success with Lisa dancing straight - so you dont need to put the others off to place. Why do it?
Invoking the term "sexist" (with its overtones of serious political discourse) seems out of place in your argument, which, in my view, should be entitled "In Defence of Exhibitionism" author "Icanthelpmyself". :devil: :yeah:

[Andy McGregor]

I can think of a reason on Earth why there should not be same sex couples: spurious, distracting attention from the audience which is unfair to other mixed sex couples on the floor at the time. Spurious because that attention has nothing to do with dancing ability and every thing to do with sensation seeking on the part of competitors who cant achieve success without it. I am repeating myself, but as Jockey missed it maybe others did too. The attention of the audience has nothing to do with the competition, the selection of the better couple to go through to the next round or even to get a medal is the job of the judges.

The audience at Britrock and most other competitions have attended to be entertained. They have been sold their tickets by the organiser on the premise that there will be something worth watching. The competition couldn't be held if there wasn't an audience as the income from theit tickets is what pays for a huge proportion of the day. By Jockey's account audiences prefer watching same-sex couples. For an organiser to remove a part of the day that the audence prefer to watch is a bit silly IMHO.


As I mentioned to you in my PM, this was not a Britrock Competition, and they were, initially, reluctant to enter together, and were encouraged to do so by the competition organisers. Once they had made the decision, they took it seriously, and practiced together, only the be told 5 mins before the competition started that they were the "joke" entry, and would not be taken seriously.An argument that says you should not have a rule because it does not work is a very weak one - and I don't think it's the one TT is making either - although I'm not sure which way TT is arguing. Is it in favor of single sex couples or against them :confused:. TT has a story to tell. And I think it's an interesting one too. What it does do is provide an example of how a couple of guys were made fools of in another competition. I've entered quite a few competitions with other guys and never been made to feel anything but part of the fun :clap:

Why do I do it? Because Modern Jive is about fun. It's not about the precise angle of an elbow, an exact tilt of the head and a painted on tan and smile. I did enjoy doing well with Lisa in the Advanced last year, but I had far more fun dancing dreadfully in the double trouble with Christine leading as the referee in a kimono and Neil aind I following dressed as mini-sumo.

There are two things that Britrock have done this year, they've stopped single sex couples entering. Even those couples who might have practiced and taken it very, very seriously :mad: And they've reduced the fun by banning silly costumes* :tears: I have done both things in my time. Ben and I entered the intermediate at Blackpool and came 3rd taking it fairly seriously. I've entered the double trouble in outrageuos costumes in trios that included either no women or just one - so far I've had one 4th place and 2 3rd places - the 4th place was out of a lot of trios and was down to the quality of our dancing :clap: the 3rd places were out of 3 :wink:

*They have said you can be silly the night before. This will be funny but very many people will have gone out to dance and will see the competition as an interruption to their dancing. And, part of the fun of the comedy entries is that it's in the more serious competition.

[ducasi]

I am repeating myself, but as Jockey missed it maybe others did too. The attention of the audience has nothing to do with the competition, the selection of the better couple to go through to the next round or even to get a medal is the job of the judges.

[ big snip! ]

And they've reduced the fun by banning silly costumes* :tears: ...
I think an argument could be made that the judges will be looking for how good each couple is connecting with and reacting to their audience. If the audience is distracted by something unusual, such as a same-sex couple, or a silly costume, then isn't that unfair on everyone else?

[David Bailey]

I think an argument could be made that the judges will be looking for how good each couple is connecting with and reacting to their audience. If the audience is distracted by something unusual, such as a same-sex couple, or a silly costume, then isn't that unfair on everyone else?
But you could make that argument about any aspect of presentation or "crowd-pleasers", surely? Should we ban excessively good-looking couples (or fake tan!) because they may distract the audience? Once we start deciding that something is "too extreme" or "not in the rules" or "too distracting", we reward homogeneity and punish experimentation.

And as Andy says, so what? Judges should be judging, not the audience.

Oh yes, and Competitions Are Evil (phew, nearly forgot to add that bit!)

[ducasi]

... Should we ban excessively good-looking couples ... because they may distract the audience? No, I think they should just be banned. End of. :na:

But I think it's possible to make a case for banning anything which is not actually part of the dance that could unfairly distract the audience and judges from the other couples on the dance floor.

So, we don't ban crowd-pleasing snazzy moves, but we do ban gimmicks like silly costumes, props and non-MJ moves from regular competition.

Same-sex couples are tricky... I wouldn't find them distracting for that reason alone, but if they were playing it up, then it has become a gimmick and shouldn't be allowed.

[Andy McGregor]

I think an argument could be made that the judges will be looking for how good each couple is connecting with and reacting to their audience. If the audience is distracted by something unusual, such as a same-sex couple, or a silly costume, then isn't that unfair on everyone else?That might be an argument if the judges were looking for that factor. They are not looking for it at Britrock. Even if the judges were looking for audience reaction there are many things an opposite sex couple can do to get the audience to look that are not available to same sex couples. There are also many things a slim good looking couple can do that a fat, ugly couple can not. Ducasi's argument, taken to it's ultimate conclusion, leads us to the realisation that competition is unfair - and anyone who's been to one of those school sports days where they try to have no losers will realise how DULL a spectator sport results from this flawed logic.

So, I say lets have a competition where there are few rules. The competition is about dancing. What sex you are is nothing to do with your dancing ability. What sex you are is to do with attraction, having babies and perpetuating the species - unless you're gay and then it's to do with a liking for musical cinema and soft furnishing :devil: I still can't see why an opposite sex couple shouldn't compete with a same sex couple in the same competition. All of the arguments so far have been illogical and more to do with how the person making them feels about single sex couples, or how they think the audience or judges will feel - lets hear an argument that's based on logic. I don't think there is one.

[David Bailey]

No, I think they should just be banned. End of. :na:
Well, yeah, fair enough, that's completely reasonable, and I'm sure both myself and Andy would support that point of view.


But I think it's possible to make a case for banning anything which is not actually part of the dance that could unfairly distract the audience and judges from the other couples on the dance floor.
Well, it's a competition - you're supposed to attract the attention of the judges, and distract their attention from the other entrants.

As an entrant, you're not supposed to have a friendly cooperative spirit that provides everyone else an opportunity to shine... Or am I missing something?


So, we don't ban crowd-pleasing snazzy moves, but we do ban gimmicks like silly costumes, props and non-MJ moves from regular competition.
OK, there is a line, sure. But we allow costumes, tans, sparkles and other "enhancements" to gain attention.

And to me, if a couple of same-sex dancers have worked and practiced hard, it's discriminatory not to allow them to enter. I'm not sure, but it's possible that a case could be made under sex discrimination laws even if the rules specified different-gender entrants.

[ducasi]

That might be an argument if the judges were looking for that factor. They are not looking for it at Britrock. From the website, the judging guide you wrote, emphasis mine...

2.6 Showmanship
This is how well you sell what you do. This is the extra polish that makes a couple look professional. This is the ability to entertain, excite and inspire the audience. This entertainment value is in addition to good dancing, not instead of it. There is an energy in the live situation that travels from the performer to the audience. The audience should react to this positively. No category of marks will be awarded specifically for clothing, however, marks will added to the Showmanship score for appropriate and attractive clothing. From my reading of that (and I had read it before I posted) it sounds like the judges are looking for a connection between each couple and the audience.

... Ducasi's argument, taken to it's ultimate conclusion, leads us to the realisation that competition is unfair ... Look DJ, you should have been supporting my argument! :wink:

In other competitive sports, like golf, cricket and tennis, I believe there are rules on dress which presumably exist to stop inappropriate clothing from distracting the opposition and umpires. I think if you're going to make MJ into a competitive sport, then there needs to be rules to avoid these sorts of distractions.

In a same-sex couple, if one of the couples is wearing, say, a red dress or even a tutu, I wouldn't say that that is appropriate (or attractive, though I guess that depends on the individual!) If they are using the novelty factor of being a same-sex couple to distract attention away from other couples on the dance floor, I don't think that's fair.

[ducasi]

Well, it's a competition - you're supposed to attract the attention of the judges, and distract their attention from the other entrants. Yeah, but hopefully by using your dancing, and not gimmicks.

OK, there is a line, sure. But we allow costumes, tans, sparkles and other "enhancements" to gain attention. There is indeed a line... and gimmicky costumes, like a man in a tutu, or clothes which detach (Buck's Fizz style) I would say are over the line.

And to me, if a couple of same-sex dancers have worked and practiced hard, it's discriminatory not to allow them to enter. ... I don't disagree, but I don't think they should make light of being a same-sex couple in order to try to sway the audience's or judge's opinion of their dancing. I'm not saying that's the reason why they have been banned in this competition (as I have no idea...) but it could be one reason...

[Andy McGregor]

If the audience is distracted by something unusual, such as a same-sex couple, or a silly costume, then isn't that unfair on everyone else?

From my reading of that (and I had read it before I posted) it sounds like the judges are looking for a connection between each couple and the audience. The judges are looking for showmanship. That's got nothing to do with a "same sex couple" or "silly costume". It's to do with how the dancers sell their dancing to the audience - the key word is 'dancing'. Walking on in a tutu holding hands with someone of the same sex is not dancing - the judges do not award points for bravery/stupidity.



In other competitive sports, like golf, cricket and tennis, I believe there are rules on dress which presumably exist to stop inappropriate clothing from distracting the opposition and umpires. I think if you're going to make MJ into a competitive sport, then there needs to be rules to avoid these sorts of distractions.The other competitive sports in ducasi's list are not about appearance and how the way you move looks. Dancing is all about that. Clothes can be used to show off how you move so they are much more important to the competitor - rules about clothes will stifle and restrict this element. Although I do think there need to be rules about nudity - nobody wants to see David Barker dancing in a thong :sick:


In a same-sex couple, if one of the couples is wearing, say, a red dress or even a tutu, I wouldn't say that that is appropriate (or attractive, though I guess that depends on the individual!) If they are using the novelty factor of being a same-sex couple to distract attention away from other couples on the dance floor, I don't think that's fair.Competitions are not about fairness. They are about winning. You use every trick you can to win. You will miss out on points if you enter in jeans and a Ceroc t-shirt. You will gain points if you enter in a costume, something glittery, something that matches your partner, something that shows you've thought about it, etc. The judges are not fooled and will not give points to a guy in a tutu who can't dance. I still don't see what the problem is - the judges are looking for dancing, aren't they :confused:

[El Salsero Gringo]

nobody wants to see David Barker dancing in a thong :sick:Don't be so hasty to judge!

[Robin]

Don't be so hasty to judge!

Who said anything about Andy being a judge ?

[Andy McGregor]

Who said anything about Andy being a judge ?I will, of course, be reporting on poise and deportment. David Barker competing in a thong would have a certain poise - but would also be in a small amount of trouble with Lily :whistle:

[Robin]

I will, of course, be reporting on poise and deportment. David Barker competing in a thong would have a certain poise - but would also be in a small amount of trouble with Lily :whistle:


unless of course it was just a ploy for a new s & m dance routine :innocent:

[ducasi]

The other competitive sports in ducasi's list are not about appearance and how the way you move looks. Dancing is all about that. Clothes can be used to show off how you move so they are much more important to the competitor - rules about clothes will stifle and restrict this element. Although I do think there need to be rules about nudity - nobody wants to see David Barker dancing in a thong :sick: Both figure skating and ballroom dancing (http://usabda.org/dancesport_competitors/news/index.cfm) tend to have dress codes in their competitions.

Competitions are not about fairness. They are about winning. You use every trick you can to win. Some people will tell you that not playing fair is unsporting, and equivalent to cheating.

In football, FIFA have the Fair Play (http://www.fifa.com/en/fairplay/index.html) program to encourage fair play in football. As they say "Winning is without value if victory has been achieved unfairly or dishonestly."

[David Bailey]

Both figure skating and ballroom dancing (http://usabda.org/dancesport_competitors/news/index.cfm) tend to have dress codes in their competitions.
I swear to Arioch, if MJ turns into either of those things, I'm quitting it.


Some people will tell you that not playing fair is unsporting, and equivalent to cheating.
Yeah, they're called "amateurs".

Nigel and Nina are running a "how to win competitions" class on Friday - as I said. And believe me, people will go to it. Note: this is nothing about how to dance well, to me - this is about how to win competitions. So is going to this class unsporting? Or cheating?


In football, FIFA have the Fair Play (http://www.fifa.com/en/fairplay/index.html) program to encourage fair play in football. As they say "Winning is without value if victory has been achieved unfairly or dishonestly."
You're kidding, right? Did anybody tell [pick your least favourite Premiership side manager here]?


Competitions are not about fairness. They are about winning. You use every trick you can to win.
:yeah: And those three sentences just so encapsulate why I hate them...

[ducasi]

I swear to Arioch, if MJ turns into either of those things, I'm quitting it. I don't think there's much danger... But they both have good reasons to impose a dress code, and I think those reasons could be applicable for a MJ competition to some extent.

Nigel and Nina are running a "how to win competitions" class on Friday - as I said. And believe me, people will go to it. Note: this is nothing about how to dance well, to me - this is about how to win competitions. So is going to this class unsporting? Or cheating? A month or so before the Scottish Competition there was a day of workshops which included one about how to impress the judges. But from what I know about it, as I didn't do it, it was mainly about how to make yourself look good, including things like poise and presentation. A few of the other workshops were on impressive flashy moves. So, this was also a day of workshops on how to win competitions. Most of the classes were taught by teachers who would be judges at the forthcoming competition. I came out of it knowing how to dance better than I did when I went in, and maybe this helped me win an extra point or two when I was in the Lucky Dip in Musselburgh.

I don't think this was unsporting or cheating. It was about improving your chances by better matching up with what the judges were looking for.

I'm sure Nigel and Nina's workshop is similar.

:yeah: And those three sentences just so encapsulate why I hate them... Maybe I don't yet have the cynicism that you and Andy seem to have...

I did the competition for fun, with no thoughts of winning. Even if I find a partner who wants to dance with me in the intermediates' competition next year, I don't think it'll be about winning then either.

To me it's about testing myself, and finding a bit extra motivation to become a better dancer.

All the competitors that I knew at the Scottish Competition seem to me to be fair people who understand at the end of the day it's just a dance, and that we're all here to have fun. :flower:

[jockey]

I am repeating myself, but as Jockey missed it maybe others did too. The attention of the audience has nothing to do with the competition, the selection of the better couple to go through to the next round or even to get a medal is the job of the judges.

The audience at Britrock and most other competitions have attended to be entertained. They have been sold their tickets by the organiser on the premise that there will be something worth watching. The competition couldn't be held if there wasn't an audience as the income from theit tickets is what pays for a huge proportion of the day. By Jockey's account audiences prefer watching same-sex couples. For an organiser to remove a part of the day that the audence prefer to watch is a bit silly IMHO.

An argument that says you should not have a rule because it does not work is a very weak one - and I don't think it's the one TT is making either - although I'm not sure which way TT is arguing. Is it in favor of single sex couples or against them :confused:. TT has a story to tell. And I think it's an interesting one too. What it does do is provide an example of how a couple of guys were made fools of in another competition. I've entered quite a few competitions with other guys and never been made to feel anything but part of the fun :clap:

Why do I do it? Because Modern Jive is about fun. It's not about the precise angle of an elbow, an exact tilt of the head and a painted on tan and smile. I did enjoy doing well with Lisa in the Advanced last year, but I had far more fun dancing dreadfully in the double trouble with Christine leading as the referee in a kimono and Neil aind I following dressed as mini-sumo.

There are two things that Britrock have done this year, they've stopped single sex couples entering. Even those couples who might have practiced and taken it very, very seriously :mad: And they've reduced the fun by banning silly costumes* :tears: I have done both things in my time. Ben and I entered the intermediate at Blackpool and came 3rd taking it fairly seriously. I've entered the double trouble in outrageuos costumes in trios that included either no women or just one - so far I've had one 4th place and 2 3rd places - the 4th place was out of a lot of trios and was down to the quality of our dancing :clap: the 3rd places were out of 3 :wink:

*They have said you can be silly the night before. This will be funny but very many people will have gone out to dance and will see the competition as an interruption to their dancing. And, part of the fun of the comedy entries is that it's in the more serious competition.
I havent missed anything Andy - my argument does not involve the concept of entertainment for the audience (thats your point, and, as it happens I agree with it - namely it is more entertaining for the audience to watch you and Ben in tights and suspenders than to watch others). My case against it involves the concept of FAIRNESS. Read it again.
I say mixed couple dancing of the sort you indulge in (I choose my words carefully) (and this goes for fancy dress also) is unfair because as a consequence other competitors are put off and thereby are at a disadvantage. The most important criterion for a competition is that it is fair not that it is entertaining, especially a UK Open. (The only exception I can trhink of is Beach Boogie where entertainment is considered very important - but in this case we all know that winning at Beach Boogie is one thing and winning at Blackpool is another.)
So, once again, you have failed to defeat my argument. Yes it is the judges job to judge but all they can see is the dancing - they cant see the thought processes of the couple dancing alongside the two loonies - they have to go on the EFFECTS of the interference to their thought patterns i.e., their resultant bad dancing. I have examples of cases where competitors have complained in private about fancy dress etc e.g.,. the blues comp at B> Boogie where there was a pantomime horse!
It wouldnt happen in Zurich at the Latin American champs nor elsewhere.
I think there should be a rule against it or a separate competition at, say, the Alternative Britrock night on the Friday..what about it Sarah, Hev and Tor et al.? :yeah:

[jockey]

That might be an argument if the judges were looking for that factor. They are not looking for it at Britrock. Even if the judges were looking for audience reaction there are many things an opposite sex couple can do to get the audience to look that are not available to same sex couples. There are also many things a slim good looking couple can do that a fat, ugly couple can not. Ducasi's argument, taken to it's ultimate conclusion, leads us to the realisation that competition is unfair - and anyone who's been to one of those school sports days where they try to have no losers will realise how DULL a spectator sport results from this flawed logic.

So, I say lets have a competition where there are few rules. The competition is about dancing. What sex you are is nothing to do with your dancing ability. What sex you are is to do with attraction, having babies and perpetuating the species - unless you're gay and then it's to do with a liking for musical cinema and soft furnishing :devil: I still can't see why an opposite sex couple shouldn't compete with a same sex couple in the same competition. All of the arguments so far have been illogical and more to do with how the person making them feels about single sex couples, or how they think the audience or judges will feel - lets hear an argument that's based on logic. I don't think there is one.
ANDY - are you really saying my arguments are illogical?
May I remind you that I have a degree in Sociology with Philosophy from Lancaster University and a doctorate in Philosophy of Social Science from Sussex University.
This topic has been discussed before (where we crossed swords) and it has cropped up again; what I post is carefully considered and closely argued and backed up by experience where appropriate; I resent careless allegatiions of this kind - you should know better. I disagree with you on this and agree with you on other things (as you know from our many conversations); it ill becomes a dance organiser and erstwhile competition organiser to claim that competitors in dance competitions can and should resort to "tricks" in order to win (though you have clearly indicated that the real reason for dressing up in outrageous costumes IS indeed a trick designed to help you to win (rather than or as well as a form of entertainment for the crowd?)).

[Lynn]

Just to divert the thread a little here...

Went to this last year and despite nerves affecting my dancing which wasn't terribly good (though I had a great lead :wink: ) I had a fab day and enjoyed every moment!

So I wanted to say to everyone going to Britrock and esp those competing - have a great time and enjoy the day! :hug:

[stewart38]

.

Why do I do it? Because Modern Jive is about fun. It's not about the precise angle of an elbow, an exact tilt of the head and a painted on tan and smile. I did enjoy doing well with Lisa in the Advanced last year, but I had far more fun dancing dreadfully in the double trouble with Christine leading as the referee in a kimono and Neil aind I following dressed as mini-sumo.

There are two things that Britrock have done this year, they've stopped single sex couples entering. Even those couples who might have practiced and taken it very, very seriously :mad: And they've reduced the fun by banning silly costumes* :tears: I have done both things in my time. Ben and I entered the intermediate at Blackpool and came 3rd taking it fairly seriously. I've entered the double trouble in outrageuos costumes in trios that included either no women or just one - so far I've had one 4th place and 2 3rd places - the 4th place was out of a lot of trios and was down to the quality of our dancing :clap: the 3rd places were out of 3 :wink:

*They have said you can be silly the night before. This will be funny but very many people will have gone out to dance and will see the competition as an interruption to their dancing. And, part of the fun of the comedy entries is that it's in the more serious competition.

question

what do you want from double trouble ?

The winner at Hammmersmith was a lady who danced with two men

Im assuming after what happen there, there will be more people entering with two men and one women if its allowed. They were way better then anyone else

why ?

Because the leaps and jumps were aided by having two men

I dont think its a bad thing but maybe organiser dont want 'double trouble' to 'evolve'

[Andy McGregor]

ANDY - are you really saying my arguments are illogical?
May I remind you that I have a degree in Sociology with Philosophy from Lancaster University and a doctorate in Philosophy of Social Science from Sussex University.What I said is illogical was the dullness of school sports days where there are no losers and dance competitions where same-sex couples can not enter. And, in spite of jockey's impressive credentials, I remain unpersuaded. The first about school sports days is well established and needs no further debate. The second, regarding the sex of competitors, is unproven and I stick to my guns. As far as I can see, there is no gender difference in dancing potential - although there seem to be far more women who have had the training to exploit their potential. Therefore I can see no logical reason why dance competition organisers should consider the sex of competitors when writing their entry criteria. Perhaps someone with a PhD could explain it to me using words of one syllable :wink:

[David Bailey]

As far as I can see, there is no gender difference in dancing potential - although there seem to be far more women who have had the training to exploit their potential.
It's a very interesting question - trouble is, there are so few same-sex couple that it's difficult to draw any conclusions about "dancing ability" of different genders.

From casual observation of club dancing SS couples, I've noticed that men dancing (in clubs, not in competitions) tend to be much more physical, more force applied to spins etc. But women dancing together don't seem to be much different to men/women dancing. I've no idea how this would translate into competitive dancing.

And in club dancing, there's a noticeable reluctance to do seducers for some reason... :whistle:

[ChrisA]

Therefore I can see no logical reason why dance competition organisers should consider the sex of competitors when writing their entry criteria. Perhaps someone with a PhD could explain it to me using words of one syllable :wink:
I don't know about one syllable, but I can hazard a guess at why they might, although not why they should.

Just in case there's any misunderstanding, let me say that I have no objection to same-sex couples in serious dance competitions - providing that what they're doing is what I'll call "proper" dancing, and not p1ssing about in pantomime costumes of one sort or another.

But as I say, I can imagine why organisers might consider the sex of the competitors.

Two straight guys dancing together as a performance almost always involves an element of pantomime, as if they're saying "we're dancing, but that's all, ok?", or if one of them is pretending to be camp. If the organisers want "proper" dancing, then I can understand it if they exclude the pantomime element by stopping guys dancing together - although I think it would be much better if they just made the absence of "p1ssing about" an important judging criterion, so that those that muck about just never progress, rather than are excluded from entering.

With straight girls dancing together, it's a bit more subtle - they don't have the same embarrassment factor, so the dancing isn't usually hammed-up. And of course, since some girl leads, such as our very own Sparkles, are much better than a lot of guys, the dancing might be at least as good as a mixed-sex couple.

But I guess if they're going to exclude guy-guy couples then they have to exclude girl-girl ones too.

I've only vary rarely seen two gay guys dancing. It's much more convincing than two straight guys, since it doesn't have the panto element, and yet retains both the "couple" nature, and the physical strength element. It would be a great shame for that to be excluded from a comp IMO.

So, it's not a justification, but maybe it's understandable. I think it would be better, though, as I say, if mucking about meant that you got marked down, rather than excluded from entering by the rules just because it's two guys.

[ChrisA]

Although I do think there need to be rules about nudity - nobody wants to see David Barker dancing in a thong :sick:

Ahem...

How short do you think our memory is, then????

Since you're not hugely fat, the difference between a thong and your double trouble costume last Britroc is pretty marginal, I'd contend... :whistle: :sick:

[Andy McGregor]

Since you're not hugely fat, the difference between a thong and your double trouble costume last Britroc is pretty marginal, I'd contend... :whistle: :sick:That particular costume exposed very little - but it was flesh coloured :devil:

[RobC]

Yes it is the judges job to judge but all they can see is the dancing - they cant see the thought processes of the couple dancing alongside the two loonies - they have to go on the EFFECTS of the interference to their thought patterns i.e., their resultant bad dancing. I have examples of cases where competitors have complained in private about fancy dress etc e.g.,. the blues comp at B> Boogie where there was a pantomime horse!
I'm sorry, but I only have one thing to say to people who complain about fellow competitors distracting them and causing them to dance badly:

boo sux wibble wibble WAaAAAaaaa :tears: :tears: :tears:

When dancing in competitions (any competition - does matter if it is Blackpool or Beach Boogie) the competitor should be trained enough to only focus on 4 (or 6) people - their partner and the 3 (or 5) people judging them. To say that another competitor put them off (short of physical interference, such as crashing into them) and trying to blame the other couple is just sour grapes and a bad workman blaming his tools.

In any competition where you are being judged, and this is not just limited to dancing, competitors will try any trick going to gain the judges attention - whether it is a few extra stones and sparkles glued to a low cut dress to emphasise a cleavage, or a revealing side slit dress or a tight t-shirt to highlight rippling muscles......

The point is, the judges are there to judge against a set criteria. Yes, this might be subjective and dependant on a judges own personal experiences etc, but at the end of the day, you know who they are and have to have faith that they can distinguish between tacky attention grabbing and genuine dancing talent. If you dont have faith in the judges, dont enter the competition. :whistle:

[Andy McGregor]

I'm sorry, but I only have one thing to say to people who complain about fellow competitors distracting them and causing them to dance badly:

boo sux wibble wibble WAaAAAaaaa :tears: :tears: :tears:

-snip-

If you dont have faith in the judges, dont enter the competition. :whistle:
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:


whether it is a few extra stones

tight t-shirt to highlight rippling muscles......
RobC has gone that extra mile and put on those "few extra stones" :wink:

.. and worn the tight t-shirt - I think it was see through mesh too :waycool:

[TiggsTours]

Has anyone received their tickets for this yet?

[ElaineB]

Has anyone received their tickets for this yet?


Yes!! Suggest you 'phone the Organisers if you haven't received yours!!

See you there :clap:


Elaine

[Paul F]

Has anyone received their tickets for this yet?


I only booked this morning so mine will be on the door apparently. Im sure they will have your name on the door if the worse comes to the worse.

Why is it I always leave it until last minute to book these things :confused: :sad:

[Daisy]

Good Luck to everyone competing this week-end and to sarah and the Rock Bottoms team....wishing it all goes smoothly...which of course it will.:worthy: :clap:

It will feel strange not to be with you guys this year :tears: but Ray & I will be thinking of you all as we eat our barbie & sip wine after another exhausting day at the beach!:whistle:

GOOD LUCK and HAVE FUN xxxxx
Jane & Ray:flower:

[Mie]

Is anyone driving to or through west London and have got a space in their car on the way home? I'd pay petrol money, of course. :grin:

[Donna]

JUST WANNA SAY GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE WHO IS COMPETING THIS WEEKEND!!! WISH I WAS THERE TO SEE IT, OR COMPETE EVEN BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY WE CAN'T DO THIS ONE...THE WORST BEING THAT MY DRESS WASN'T MADE UP IN TIME. WE TRAVELLED ALL THE WAY FROM THE WIRRAL TO WREXHAM ESPECIALLY TO PICK IT UP AND GUESS WHAT???? THEY HADN'T EVEN TOUCHED IT!!!!!!!!!!:angry: :angry: Looking on the bright side at least we done the big ones this year and came third twice! :nice: Yeeah, I feel better now.;)

[MartinHarper]

By chance, I recently dug up records of a similar discussion that took place around 100 years ago. Following the discussion of Victorian dance cards, I thought folks might be interested:


If they are using the novelty factor of being a mixed race couple to distract attention away from other couples on the dance floor, I don't think that's fair.

To be honest, I'm more interested in Brit Roc's reasons than the speculation done here on their behalf.

[under par]

Why is it I always leave it until last minute to book these things :confused: :sad:

You wanna dem Fence sitters!:whistle:

[MartinHarper]

I couldn't see this in the rules.....it only said "couples must be M/F and double trouble must be M/F/F" It didn't specify who should lead and who should follow. Did i overlook it? Can you tell me where to find it?

The flyers have been mentioned. You can also check the Categories page (http://www.jivelive.com/britrock/categories.html). Here's the line:


The trio must be made up of one male lead and two female followers.

[Minnie M]

I didn't make it to the pre-comp party last night (was feeling yucky) I heard it was very quiet :blush:

It starts at noon, and as it is now 12:15pm I shall now pop down there, should be there about 12:20pm (he he he) - will pop back to change and will let you know how it is getting on

[Lynn]

It starts at noon, and as it is now 12:15pm I shall now pop down there, should be there about 12:20pm (he he he) - will pop back to change and will let you know how it is getting onHope you are feeling OK now and that you have a good day:flower: - yes, let us know the results later!