Teachers in the OPEN category?

[Gus]

Now that the competition season has finished , I thought the time was right to raise a still unresolved (IMHO) issue, the requirement for Teachers to compete at the OPEN level.

Lets start by agreeing the basics of the situation. With the exception of Blackpool, all the competitions seem to have 3 categories; Intermediate, Advanced and Open. The reason for the differentiation is, to be blunt, to ensure that dancers can compete with a chance of wining something without having to dance with the best dancers. The reason for this are legion, and have been discoursed many time son the Forum so I wont go further on about this.

So, 3 categories .. so who ‘should’ be in them?

INTERMEDIATE This is the entry level, the ‘have a go’ category. You would expect to see dancing to time, few good moves, but generally a level of competency rather than much ‘wow’ factor.

ADVANCED These are the really good guys, as the name implies. If you went to a club and saw these guys dancing they would really stand out. They have masters the main moves and are now demonstrating musical interpretation, clean movement, style.

OPEN The best of the best. These dancers should clearly be demonstrating styles, moves, interpretation at a level well above anyone else in the country. The Elite …. Few and far between.

So … if we can agree that the OPEN is the ‘elite; standard, how can you then say that all 200+ MJ teachers in the UK meet this criterion???? Look at your local Instructor. Do you think that as a DANCER they are one of the elite? Do yo9u think a one week TEACHER training course turns a good dancer into an awesome performer. Of course not! So why do the organisers insist on lumping all instructors with the elite?

Lets burst a few myths about why teachers should be in the Open category, much based on my personal experience.

1. At the top level all the couples now are putting in 5+ hours a week, some a LOT more. If I’m teaching once or twice a week and having to run workshops that is time I simply don’t have.
2. Nearly all the successful Open level females have come from a 'proper' dance background. Being an instructor is irrelevant.
3. In the last two years mainstream MJ instructors have been in the minority of the competition success. At the moment I believe Simon Rich is the only instructor to make any impact.
4. Teachers are taught many moves to teach their students. At open level these are not the moves you need. The standard is such is that the moves that impress are being culled from other dance styles or are the result of a lot of development and hard work.

I could ramble on more so about the standard of Advanced declining (relatively) while the standard of Intermediate and Open skyrocketing etc (and that is NOT saying that there are not some very talented dancers in the Advanced) ... buts its about time the Advamnced competition became was it says!

Let the flaming begin but I REALLLLLLY would love somone form C2D, Ceroc, Bitroc etc to state why the current rules exist.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Now that the competition season has finished , I thought the time was right to raise a still unresolved (IMHO) issue, the requirement for Teachers to compete at the OPEN level.

{snip}

I could ramble on more so about the standard of Advanced declining (relatively) while the standard of Intermediate and Open skyrocketing etc (and that is NOT saying that there are not some very talented dancers in the Advanced) ... buts its about time the Advamnced competition became was it says!

Let the flaming begin but I REALLLLLLY would love somone form C2D, Ceroc, Bitroc etc to state why the current rules exist.I found on an rec.arts.dance archive a comment from Franck justifying why (in 1998, this was, presumably before the Open category had its present entry rules) teachers weren't permitted to compete at all. He was basically saying that for a teacher to enter a competition they were saying "this is how Ceroc must be danced best", which was at odds with the "we show you the basic moves, you add your own style" ethos of Ceroc. I'm not sure how much weight to give that argument - or even whether I've understood it right. But I'd be interested to know how if that explanation still rings true for anyone.

The view from over here, very much reading between the lines, is that teachers weren't allowed to compete at all because competitions were for amateur, ordinary punters but that this was later changed only for the Open category. If that is the case, why were they permitted to compete at all?

[Andy McGregor]

I thought about this long and hard before creating the categories for Britroc (please note, I'm nothing to do with the current Britrock competition).

I agree with Gus on this subject. In an ideal world you'd have an amateur and professional competition with different levels within that based on previous competition success. By professional I mean people who make their living wholly or mostly from dance - either perfomance or teaching. People who get paid a few quid to teach a couple of nights a week would not be professionals.

However, there are not enough 'professionals' who want to compete at MJ. Therefore organisers seem to have taken a pragmatic approach and categorised based on what they will get. This penalises dancers like Gus and me who have proper day jobs and teach a bit of MJ for fun (and questionable profit). We're too old and infirm (although undeniably gorgeous) to do the lifts and showy moves with enough ease to really make them look part of the dance, fit the music and beat those young fit things to reach the level required to achieve success at the Open level :tears: In my experience it's not doing the moves that takes it out of you, it's practicing them. Doing the same lifts over and over to make them look slick is very hard work and the lightest lycra clad dancer weighs very heavy the 10th time you've lifted them onto your shoulders :tears:

My own proposal for Britroc was outvoted. I proposed that there was only one category at the start of the day. Competitors spent the first part of the competition competing for promotion into the next category. After two rounds of competing the field could be divided into 3 categories which would then proceed in the usual manner to a final with 1st, 2nd, 3rd place etc. This means that nobody would have to worry about which level to compete at. It would be decided by the judges. And the advantage is that people would get to dance at least 3 times in the competition. The argument against my proposal was that it would take longer - my answer was to have more dancers in each heat (they'd only need to be voted through/not through) or to start the day earlier - or even run the competition over a weekend(er).

So, Gus, rather than saying (again :yawn: ) what you think is wrong with the current categories in competition, how about you telling us how you think it could be improved.

[El Salsero Gringo]

So, Gus, rather than saying (again :yawn: ) what you think is wrong with the current categories in competition, how about you telling us how you think it could be improved.How about by allowing teachers into the Advanced category, for a start?

On the other hand - is the system as it stands actually broken? Is there a problem with those 200+ teachers not being permitted to compete (You choose to teach... you accept the rules yada yada yada) unless they fancy themselves at the very highest levels?

[ChrisA]

How about by allowing teachers into the Advanced category, for a start?

.... :yeah:

Definitely. Given, as Gus as pointed out, there isn't necessarily any connection between being a teacher, and a successful competition dancer, why shouldn't the discrimination be on the basis of ability, rather than something as arbitrary as whether you teach MJ or not.



On the other hand - is the system as it stands actually broken? Is there a problem with those 200+ teachers not being permitted to compete (You choose to teach... you accept the rules yada yada yada) unless they fancy themselves at the very highest levels?
I think there is.

It's indicative of the way MJ comps have evolved, but not very far - you get anomalies like this.

Look at it a slightly different way... suppose someone competes at Advanced level, hasn't done fantastically well yet, doesn't expect ever to get good enough to do well at Open level. Then they get the opportunity to do some beginners level teaching. If they take it up, they are straight away banned from all competitions except the Open (or Advanced at Blackpool, which amounts to the same thing, since there is no Open at Blackpool).

Their dancing hasn't improved, and yet their competition career is over. Is it fair to make them choose between teaching and competing?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Their dancing hasn't improved, and yet their competition career is over. Is it fair to make them choose between teaching and competing?In true amateur dance competitions, you can't even help out in dance classes in return for free tuition and be eligible to enter, regardless of your level of skill at the actual dance.

It's hardly a life-threatening loss of privilege. If you want to teach, then teach. If you want to compete, then compete. Enough influential people thought the two were incompatible a few years ago - has that changed?

[ChrisA]

If you want to teach, then teach. If you want to compete, then compete.

This is just a restatement of the (legitimate) view that the rules should remain as they are.

My view is that they shouldn't - the rules as they stand allow well-known, excellent competition dancers to compete at the lower levels, and prevent far less good dancers that just happen to teach, from entering at a level that matches their ability.



Enough influential people thought the two were incompatible a few years ago - has that changed?
Why is there anthing special about the view from 1998? There will always be those that take the legitimate view that competitions are evil... but for those that don't share it, there will inevitably be an evolution of how they think the comps should be run.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy towards those that don't compete, yet still come out with the "why do you treat it as if it's so important" kind of line. The point is that it's important to those that do it. So if there is perceived injustice in the way the rules are drafted, it will be debated.

That's all this is.

I just happen to share Gus' view that separating people into teachers and non-teachers is a bit arbitrary, given that the whole point of the categories is to give people a chance to compete at different ability levels.

The more I think about it, the more I like Andy's proposed system, with one category only.

[MartinHarper]

I just happen to share Gus' view that separating people into teachers and non-teachers is a bit arbitrary, given that the whole point of the categories is to give people a chance to compete at different ability levels.

To split people into categories, you need simple, objective criteria. Being a teacher, previously placing, or being over a certain age - these are all things that are easy and uncontroversial to judge. Deciding whether someone is "at a level well above anyone else in the country" is much more subjective.

[Andy McGregor]

Deciding whether someone is "at a level well above anyone else in the country" is much more subjective.
This is, of course, what the judges do when deciding the winner. What point is MH trying to make :confused:

[El Salsero Gringo]

I don't have a great deal of sympathy towards those that don't compete, yet still come out with the "why do you treat it as if it's so important" kind of line. The point is that it's important to those that do it. So if there is perceived injustice in the way the rules are drafted, it will be debated.

That's all this is.I'm not trying to stifle debate, or stop anyone from changing the rules. As you allude, I don't compete at the moment, so it's unlikely to affect me. The reason I was asking about whether things had changed from 1998 was that at least one person had then bothered to put forward an argument as to *why* teachers shouldn't compete. Moving on from a simple-and-not-very-interesting "I disagree with you; you disagree with me", let me invite you for instance to say why the argument that was put forward then was wrong, or why it might have been right then but is no longer so.

If you want to change the rules, or just have an interesting debate, then please try to engage the interest of the vast majority of dancers who aren't interested in both teaching and competing by telling us how it will make difference to anyone outside the fraction of those 200+ teachers Gus was talking about.

[Paul F]

I definately agree that just because someone teaches MJ deos NOT mean they are an 'elite' dancer. Far from it.

It has been mentioned before but I am all in favour of the points system that is used in other comps in the states and elsewhere.

[Andy McGregor]

It has been mentioned before but I am all in favour of the points system that is used in other comps in the states and elsewhere.Which particular points system? For judging or deciding which category?

[Paul F]

Which particular points system? For judging or deciding which category?

Ah! Sorry. I meant for deciding on who goes into which category. The option of seperating pro and amateur wouldnt be too useful in Mj as far as I could tell due to the number of 'professionals' out there.
Of course, the points system would require a national register to be maintained.

I havnt thought out the pros and cons of such a system but it just seems pretty logical to me. We need to ascertain divisions. The only way to do this accurately is to base it on past performances.
This way EVERYONE starts at the lowest level. Only those that truly are elite can rise to the top.

Personally I would have much more respect for anyone having to work their way through the levels rather than simply applying direct to the advanced level.

Im sure there will be many many issues and problems with this but is there any other way!?

[Russell Saxby]

Now that the competition season has finished , I thought the time was right to raise a still unresolved (IMHO) issue, the requirement for Teachers to compete at the OPEN level.

Lets start by agreeing the basics of the situation. With the exception of Blackpool, all the competitions seem to have 3 categories; Intermediate, Advanced and Open. The reason for the differentiation is, to be blunt, to ensure that dancers can compete with a chance of wining something without having to dance with the best dancers. The reason for this are legion, and have been discoursed many time son the Forum so I wont go further on about this.

So, 3 categories .. so who ‘should’ be in them?

INTERMEDIATE This is the entry level, the ‘have a go’ category. You would expect to see dancing to time, few good moves, but generally a level of competency rather than much ‘wow’ factor.

ADVANCED These are the really good guys, as the name implies. If you went to a club and saw these guys dancing they would really stand out. They have masters the main moves and are now demonstrating musical interpretation, clean movement, style.

OPEN The best of the best. These dancers should clearly be demonstrating styles, moves, interpretation at a level well above anyone else in the country. The Elite …. Few and far between.

So … if we can agree that the OPEN is the ‘elite; standard, how can you then say that all 200+ MJ teachers in the UK meet this criterion???? Look at your local Instructor. Do you think that as a DANCER they are one of the elite? Do yo9u think a one week TEACHER training course turns a good dancer into an awesome performer. Of course not! So why do the organisers insist on lumping all instructors with the elite?

Lets burst a few myths about why teachers should be in the Open category, much based on my personal experience.

1. At the top level all the couples now are putting in 5+ hours a week, some a LOT more. If I’m teaching once or twice a week and having to run workshops that is time I simply don’t have.
2. Nearly all the successful Open level females have come from a 'proper' dance background. Being an instructor is irrelevant.
3. In the last two years mainstream MJ instructors have been in the minority of the competition success. At the moment I believe Simon Rich is the only instructor to make any impact.
4. Teachers are taught many moves to teach their students. At open level these are not the moves you need. The standard is such is that the moves that impress are being culled from other dance styles or are the result of a lot of development and hard work.

I could ramble on more so about the standard of Advanced declining (relatively) while the standard of Intermediate and Open skyrocketing etc (and that is NOT saying that there are not some very talented dancers in the Advanced) ... buts its about time the Advamnced competition became was it says!

Let the flaming begin but I REALLLLLLY would love somone form C2D, Ceroc, Bitroc etc to state why the current rules exist.

**** me, a long post to start a thread

.....and I had a thought when I started typing but it has gone I am afraid

[Andy McGregor]

Ah! Sorry. I meant for deciding on who goes into which category. The option of seperating pro and amateur wouldnt be too useful in Mj as far as I could tell due to the number of 'professionals' out there.
Of course, the points system would require a national register to be maintained.

I havnt thought out the pros and cons of such a system but it just seems pretty logical to me. We need to ascertain divisions. The only way to do this accurately is to base it on past performances.
This way EVERYONE starts at the lowest level. Only those that truly are elite can rise to the top.

Personally I would have much more respect for anyone having to work their way through the levels rather than simply applying direct to the advanced level.

Im sure there will be many many issues and problems with this but is there any other way!?I believe this system would be good if there were plenty of competitions in MJ - which there aren't! If fencing we have a national points system which grades competitions by having a points multiplier using the number of top fencers entering. But there are fencing competitions most weekends during the season so you find your level in no time at all. With MJ there's only a handful of competions and not many people enter them all so a national ranking scheme would be flawed.

My suggestion that people find their level in a single day fits the model much better in the circumstances we find with the current MJ scene. Maybe one day it will be different with 20 competitions a year - but I doubt we'll ever see that day as MJ competitions do not have a single governing body to manage any ranking system*. One option is that MJ gets recognised as a dance by the IDTA and assimilated into the ballroom scene. There would be a MJ category at competitions just like there's other categories of dance at a single competition.

My personal preference is that MJ continues to run competitions in the way it has done for the last few years. All the regular competitors know each other and welcome new people onto the competition scene :flower:

*Ceroc wouldn't do it because some of the competitions would be outside the collective and LeRoc would be unlikely to agree on anything in the next millennium :whistle:

[ChrisA]

I'm not trying to stifle debate, or stop anyone from changing the rules.

Then why say things like:

It's hardly a life-threatening loss of privilege. If you want to teach, then teach. If you want to compete, then compete.
:confused:

I think it stifles debate to reduce it to that level.



let me invite you for instance to say why the argument that was put forward then was wrong, or why it might have been right then but is no longer so.

Well I think that the idea that seeing a Ceroc teacher dancing a particular way will make anyone think that it has to be done that way, just because they're a Ceroc teacher, is just naive now. It might not have been in 1998, but I don't feel qualified to comment on things as far back as that.

But there is this undertone, still quite prevalent, of James Cronin's original view that comps had no place in the Ceroc world. This, I believe, stems from the notion that MJ is a mainly social dance, and that consequently, anything that makes people compete and be judged against each other is "a bad thing". I reject this, since I see no contradiction in a dance that is both social and competitive.

The idea that competing make it less sociable is nonsense - in fact in some ways it makes it more sociable. And years ago, it was far more elitist than it is now, since the good dancers became so by a process that was much less accessible to the average club dancers. The proliferation of competitions is part of a wider picture, which includes weekenders, workshops, cross-pollination from other dance forms, which makes the whole "get better if you want to" philosophy much more accessible.




If you want to change the rules, or just have an interesting debate, then please try to engage the interest of the vast majority of dancers who aren't interested in both teaching and competing by telling us how it will make difference to anyone outside the fraction of those 200+ teachers Gus was talking about.
I think the rules should be changed because they are unfair and arbitrary. I think that competions would be richer if teachers that stood no chance at Open level, could compete at Advanced.

I don't think it needs to make a difference to lots of people for it to still be worth talking about.

In fact, I'd prefer to hear arguments from those that have reasons for not making it fairer and more genuinely merit-based.

[Gus]

This penalises dancers like Gus and me who have proper day jobs and teach a bit of MJ for fun (and questionable profit). We're too old and infirm (although undeniably gorgeous) to do the lifts and showy moves with enough ease to really make them look part of the dance, fit the music and beat those young fit things to reach the level required to achieve success at the Open level :tears:Urr sorry mate, speak for yourself. I still can do lifts etc ..... just rarely think they fit the music ... matter of personal choice. I think you are missing the piont. If I take a choice NOT to put in the effort it takes to be at the top level, then thats my choice and those that do make that commitment should be hailed not berated.


So, Gus, rather than saying (again :yawn: ) what you think is wrong with the current categories in competition, how about you telling us how you think it could be improved.Thought I made it quite clear. If the idea of the three levels is to differntiate skill levels, then Teacher should strart in the Advanced level, and progress to Open like anyone else ... when they eithert win/get placed or demonstrate by their standrad of dance that they are better.

Tempting fate, I think I've made a number of compelling reasons why Teachers should be in the Advanced level. I'm still waiting for a cogent reason why they shouldn't! Lets put it another way. If we take the view that the Intermediate dancers relate to the bottom 2 leagues of the Football league, and the Advanced relate to the Premiership and Champions league, then the Open would equate to the European Champions league. Fair comment?

Oh ... re ESG's point re teachers automatically ruling themselves out of compettions because they choose to teach .... does that mean that you would prefer advanced dancers NOt becoming teachers and passing on their skills so that they can compete at the level they think fair?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Oh ... re ESG's point re teachers automatically ruling themselves out of compettions because they choose to teach .... does that mean that you would prefer advanced dancers NOt becoming teachers and passing on their skills so that they can compete at the level they think fair?You see Chris - there is a perfectly valid reason why competitors should be allowed to teach, without whinging about "unfair" and "arbitrary."

Something I find interesting is the different reaction I have from the two questions "should teachers be allowed to compete?" (Um, well, arguments for and against etc etc.) and "should competitors be allowed to teach?" (Definitely!)


On the subject of people being placed in different categories on the day according to performance - there might be a temptation for some to "dance down" early on so they get placed in a lower category in which they have a chance of winning. Taking this to its logical extreme, people can choose their category (up to their best performance level) in this way - so why not just save the hassle and ask them instead, like we do now?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Following on from that previous post, and to answer ChrisA here's a possible reason why you might not want teachers to compete in anything but the highest category: suppose you're an 'average' (no disrespect intended) teacher and you want to enhance your CV so you get extra bookings for workshops, classes whatever. You might be good enough to get through to the semi-final of an Open category, but if there's money involved in having a long CV of medals then someone is going to be tempted to enter the Advanced category and try for first place. Which sounds better (unless you're really in the know) "Semi-finalist, Open Category", or "First Place, Advanced Category"?

Of course, you might not see it as a problem because then the Advanced section will fill up with better dances who avoid the Open category.

Just a thought.

[Gus]

suppose you're an 'average' (no disrespect intended) teacher and you want to enhance your CV so you get extra bookings for workshops, classes whatever. You might be good enough to get through to the semi-final of an Open category, but if there's money involved in having a long CV of medals then someone is going to be tempted to enter the Advanced category and try for first place. Which sounds better (unless you're really in the know) "Semi-finalist, Open Category", or "First Place, Advanced Category"?HEY .. that happens already!! There are teachers on the circuit who made a lot out of getting placed at the Minors (especially in the early years) when the competition was minimal. I know at least one Instructor who claims to be a "Championship Winner" after winning the Team Cabaret at Blackpool .... in the year when they were the only team. There are 'Champions' from events with only 6 or so competitiors .... There are a couple who claimed to be "The 5th best in the UK" when they were placed 5th in a competition with nearly no known names competing (that year) .... etc .etc. (Get the feeling that this is a real sore point):angry:

So ... that ainr going to make much difference ... besides which .. if you were clearly 'Open' and competed at Advanced ... I'm sure that it would be a phyric victory 'cause I'm sure that the Forum and opther channels would be used to heap on abuse :devil:

[El Salsero Gringo]

So ... that ainr going to make much difference ... besides which .. if you were clearly 'Open' and competed at Advanced ... I'm sure that it would be a phyric victory 'cause I'm sure that the Forum and opther channels would be used to heap on abuse :devil:I'm sure it would get worse, if, for instance, the Ceroc Champs at Hammersmith or other big eventshad teachers in the Advanced category!

As for abuse on the Forum - I too would love to think that this august body of opinion formers mattered one whit in the real world...

[David Bailey]

I've been biting my tongue, but it's no use, I can't keep out...


But there is this undertone, still quite prevalent, of James Cronin's original view that comps had no place in the Ceroc world.
Possibly not a great shock to anyone that I'm with James on this one...


This, I believe, stems from the notion that MJ is a mainly social dance, and that consequently, anything that makes people compete and be judged against each other is "a bad thing".
I think that's a massive oversimplification. My main argument (and I know I'm tilting at windmills here, but I can't help it) is the "fixed-partner" path competitions engender is detrimental to the "dance-with-everyone" MJ ethos which I love. And when you introduce points and levels and cr&p like that, you're just furthering these viewpoints - MsFab's point about dancing in Oz, where she kept getting asked where she placed in competitions, sticks with me.


I see no contradiction in a dance that is both social and competitive.
I do - to me, this means you have two different dances - one is the social club dance, and one is the visual competitive one.


The idea that competing make it less sociable is nonsense - in fact in some ways it makes it more sociable.
?? Howzat then? Are you more likely to go up to someone to ask them to dance if you know they're a competition winner? If anything, I'd say less, but maybe I'm just a wussy wuss man. I'd like to hear some reasoning here...


And years ago, it was far more elitist than it is now, since the good dancers became so by a process that was much less accessible to the average club dancers.
I don't believe the scene has got significantly less elitist, there were ceroc snobs when I started, they're still around. Again, I'd like to hear some justification for this.

[Andy McGregor]

Thought I made it quite clear. If the idea of the three levels is to differntiate skill levels, then Teacher should strart in the Advanced level, and progress to Open like anyone else ... when they eithert win/get placed or demonstrate by their standrad of dance that they are better.

Tempting fate, I think I've made a number of compelling reasons why Teachers should be in the Advanced level. I'm still waiting for a cogent reason why they shouldn't! IMHO being a teacher is absolutely NO indicator or level of a dancer. Saying that someone should compete at Open or any other level because they are a teacher is complete rubbish. There are teachers who are fabulous, there are teachers who think they are fabulous and there are teachers who are rubbish at dancing - and teaching for that matter. They've chosen to teach and in many cases have set up their own classes to facilitate their desire to teach. This has absolutely no bearing in their dance ability and it is completely wrong of dance competition organisers to base any measure of dancing skill on a person being a dance teacher - does that state my position clearly enough?

[El Salsero Gringo]

IMHO being a teacher is absolutely NO indicator or level of a dancer. Saying that someone should compete at Open or any other level because they are a teacher is complete rubbish. There are teachers who are fabulous, there are teachers who think they are fabulous and there are teachers who are rubbish at dancing - and teaching for that matter. They've chosen to teach and in many cases have set up their own classes to facilitate their desire to teach. This has absolutely no bearing in their dance ability and it is completely wrong of dance competition organisers to base any measure of dancing skill on a person being a dance teacher - does that state my position clearly enough?Let's just see if I've got this straight - you're saying that you definitely think teachers should be forced to compete in the Open category, right?

[Andy McGregor]

Let's just see if I've got this straight - you're saying that you definitely think teachers should be forced to compete in the Open category, right?:rofl:

[Easter Bunny]

[QUOTE=Andy McGregor]
My own proposal for Britroc was outvoted. I proposed that there was only one category at the start of the day. Competitors spent the first part of the competition competing for promotion into the next category. After two rounds of competing the field could be divided into 3 categories which would then proceed in the usual manner to a final with 1st, 2nd, 3rd place etc. /QUOTE]

Me thinks this would mean a lot of couples would not bother to enter if they thought they had to dance in the same group as far superior dancers to themselves and that could possibly have a knock on effect of the competition being a viable event financially.:eek:

Having said this, I do agree the "teachers in the OPEN rule" can be unfair. I have in the past spoken to several people who 'teach' but will not enter the Open, because they are either not as flambouyant as the main Open competitors, or as you mentioned Andy, cannot compete with the very showy lifts and aerials performed in the Open, so they end up not entering anything, except possibly dwas.

Also the time that would be needed to operate the system of 'One Category' you suggest, would not leave much free time for non-competitors freestyle so that group would probably complain also.:mad:

Sorry can't say what the answer is, but no doubt some Jive Master will come up with it one day.:worthy:

[Lindsay]

GUS:
So … if we can agree that the OPEN is the ‘elite; standard, how can you then say that all 200+ MJ teachers in the UK meet this criterion???? Look at your local Instructor. Do you think that as a DANCER they are one of the elite? Do yo9u think a one week TEACHER training course turns a good dancer into an awesome performer. Of course not! So why do the organisers insist on lumping all instructors with the elite?

In the 'Open' categories, generally speaking, aerials & crowd-pleasers seem to do best, so if teachers don't do 'flash stuff' it's quite difficult to get placed.

Having said this, I do agree the "teachers in the OPEN rule" can be unfair. I have in the past spoken to several people who 'teach' but will not enter the Open, because they are either not as flambouyant as the main Open competitors, or as you mentioned Andy, cannot compete with the very showy lifts and aerials performed in the Open, so they end up not entering anything, except possibly dwas.

:yeah:

[Lindsay]

error

[Paul F]

GUS:

In the 'Open' categories, generally speaking, aerials & crowd-pleasers seem to do best....
:yeah:


:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Dont mean to hijack this thread but this is the singular most frustrating thing about the dance world IMO. Happens many, many times. People who have absolutely no style or carry winning comps :mad:

Anyway, back on topic. Teachers who have never competed (and placed) before should start at advanced and progress. Job done.

[ChrisA]

Teachers who have never competed (and placed) before should start at advanced and progress. Job done.
Why shouldn't they be able to start at Intermediate level?

[ChrisA]

My main argument (and I know I'm tilting at windmills here, but I can't help it) is the "fixed-partner" path competitions engender is detrimental to the "dance-with-everyone" MJ ethos which I love.

Well if this is your main argument, it's rubbish :)

I defy you to name a single successful competition dancer who is in any way snobbish, or doesn't dance with anyone, regardless of whether they compete or not. There are a few wannabees that don't - I can think of a couple - just as there are wannabees that think they're much better than they are in the non-competing world.

But the fact is that the folk that compete are just as (and in plenty of cases, more so) nice, friendly, sociable, and, in general, giving, as anyone else.

[ChrisA]

You see Chris - there is a perfectly valid reason why competitors should be allowed to teach, without whinging about "unfair" and "arbitrary."

Would you care to explain why you disallow "unfair" and "arbitrary" as objections to a rule?

[Paul F]

Why shouldn't they be able to start at Intermediate level?

Funny that. I had typed the word "intermediate" and then erased it and typed "Advanced"

Teachers should be able to enter anywhere they want, just like normal people :wink: . If they choose to enter intermediate and dont win then fair enough. They have to deal with that.
If they choose to enter intermediate and win then, again, fair enough. They may have to deal with the possibility of pressure from their peers or dancers in general for entering a category that is beneath their expected level but they would be aware of that. No different from a non-teacher doing the same.
If they enter the Open and win then, again, fair enough.

The general spread of MJ teachers' competition ability is no different than that of the dancing public IMO. Let them enter where they want.

[MartinHarper]

Why shouldn't they be able to start at Intermediate level?

Whatever the merits of having teachers in Advanced or not, I think there are benefits in having a purely amateur category - one which folks who make money teach dancing may not join. It may not guarantee a "fair" competition, whatever that means, but it does guarantee a like-for-like competition. As a spectator (albeit only via internet clips and the like), that interests me.

Incidentally, as well as folks who have made money by teaching dance (MJ or not), I'd also want to bar folks who've made money in other ways: competition prizes, teaching, stage, TV, movies, choreography, etc.

[Gus]

Whatever the merits of having teachers in Advanced or not, I think there are benefits in having a purely amateur category - one which folks who make money teach dancing may not join.Am I a 'professional'? I make less than 5% of my income from teaching!

[MartinHarper]

Am I a 'professional'? I make less than 5% of my income from teaching!

For the purposes of the hypothetical competition that I won't be running, you would be prevented from entering in the "Intermediate" category, and would have to enter into the "Advanced" category, along with folks who've won more than (say) £50 in prizes. If it bothers you that much, you could donate all your earnings from dance to charity, which would suffice to re-establish your amateur status in my eyes.


The general spread of MJ teachers' competition ability is no different than that of the dancing public IMO.

If I understand what you're saying, Paul, the average MJ teacher is no better at dancing than the average MJ dancer. Indeed, by the law of averages, 50% of the people at an MJ class will actually be better at dancing than the guy/gal on stage.

Hmm. I guess that might explain a few things. Maybe folks would learn to dance more effectively if we hired teachers who were, you know, better than the people they're teaching? Just a thought.

[David Bailey]

Well if this is your main argument, it's rubbish :)
No, come on, tell me what you really mean.


I defy you to name a single successful competition dancer who is in any way snobbish, or doesn't dance with anyone, regardless of whether they compete or not. There are a few wannabees that don't - I can think of a couple - just as there are wannabees that think they're much better than they are in the non-competing world.
Much as I love being defied, two points:
- I'm pretty sure I didn't say competition dancers are snobbish.
- I'm a bit leery of publicly naming people snobs after the last time for some reason, tempting though it'd be.

My point was that: "the "fixed-partner" path competitions engender is detrimental to the "dance-with-everyone" MJ ethos which I love."

That is, if you're dancing with a fixed partner, you're not mixing as much, and there develops an ethos that you can only improve, or that it's better, to dance with fixed partners.

I'm not even sure if this ethos is technically wrong - practice does indeed make perfect - but I do think it damages the sociable and happy-go-lucky atmosphere of MJ, which to me is more about having fun and meeting people than trying to achieve any competitive status.

I do other dances to improve my technique - I do MJ to have fun.

[spindr]

Hmmm, I think it's pragmatics on the part of the organiser.

To make a profit -- must have nice lot of entrants.
If teachers compete at a level, then obviously they'll be better than their students (discuss :)) -- so their students won't bother competing at that level.

Hence, make a level where teachers *can* compete -- and it's known that that's the level teachers will compete at. Whether you call it "Open", or "Teachers and anyone who thinks they're better than the teachers" doesn't really matter.

SpinDr

P.S. I think a teachers *only* level would solve things nicely -- or maybe even grades -- but then which of the teachers is going to enter at "Beginner teachers" level?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Would you care to explain why you disallow "unfair" and "arbitrary" as objections to a rule?I don't disallow them, just like I wasn't saying the issue shouldn't be debated (now it's my turn to feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I write). But it's pretty trite unless you say why those two words apply. For I see nothing summarily arbitrary or unfair about dividing out those who teach a skill from those who are allowed to compete with each other since I've heard some cogent argument that justifies it.

If you want tell me why you think it's unfair, or why you think it's arbitrary, or why it would be better otherwise (like Gus has done), I'm all ears.

[David Bailey]

If teachers compete at a level, then obviously they'll be better than their students (discuss :))
Well, OK then. :innocent:


Hmm. I guess that might explain a few things. Maybe folks would learn to dance more effectively if we hired teachers who were, you know, better than the people they're teaching? Just a thought.
Hey, are you chanelling me or something?

I don't know what the exact criteria for hiring teachers are - but being a very good dancer is definitely not enough, I know several superb dancers who haven't got through the interview stage. I also don't believe that becoming a CTA-approved teacher necessarily helps you as a dancer [insert discussion on clones here].

I also know teachers who have been fast-tracked; for example, just been dancing over a year and encouraged to apply for teacher-dom, presumably on the basis of other qualities apart from dancing.

So the correlation between teaching and dance "ability" seems very loose to me - it's there, but it's not exact or precise. Being a teacher assumes a certain minimal level of competence at dancing, but that leaves a massive amount of scope for difference above that level.

But, what's wrong with that? If I'm a better dancer than someone teaching me, I can still learn from their class, surely?

[ChrisA]

If you want tell me why you think it's unfair, or why you think it's arbitrary, or why it would be better otherwise (like Gus has done) and I'm all ears.
Well very early on in the thread, I attempted to do exactly that, when I said


Look at it a slightly different way... suppose someone competes at Advanced level, hasn't done fantastically well yet, doesn't expect ever to get good enough to do well at Open level. Then they get the opportunity to do some beginners level teaching. If they take it up, they are straight away banned from all competitions except the Open (or Advanced at Blackpool, which amounts to the same thing, since there is no Open at Blackpool).

Their dancing hasn't improved, and yet their competition career is over. Is it fair to make them choose between teaching and competing?

But you just replied with:


It's hardly a life-threatening loss of privilege. If you want to teach, then teach. If you want to compete, then compete.

... which, as I said, is nothing more than a restatement of the rules.

And the rules are in my view, an ass. Any rules system that ends up with anomalies like Clayton and Janine being eligible to enter Ceroc Intermediates is just ridiculous (not that they would, of course). And, though not as obviously so, stopping teachers from entering a category just because they teach, but whose dance ability is not necessarily related to their teaching ability, is equally ridiculous.

Banning teachers from the lower levels of competitions is just a clumsy attempt at enforcing a categorisation based on ability. It might not have been, back in 1998, but as I've said, the idea that people would think that seeing a teacher dance a particular way would make them think it was supposed to be done that way, is pretty naive now.

Nowadays it is so well known that there are great dancers that aren't teachers, and teachers that aren't great dancers, that the teacher/non-teacher split is a bit of a dinosaur.

Removing it would cause problems, as well as solve them - not least because there would always be a minority of unscrupulous trophy hunters that would hang out at the lower levels rather than compete at their proper level. But this would encourage a redrafting of rules that would reflect performance in dance competitions, rather than something else.

As I've said, I think Andy's proposal would be the best. It would make it possible to discriminate based solely on merit on the day, without any complicated points system, and without any cheating. I don't understand why there's so much resistance to it.

[Paul F]

If I understand what you're saying, Paul, the average MJ teacher is no better at dancing than the average MJ dancer. Indeed, by the law of averages, 50% of the people at an MJ class will actually be better at dancing than the guy/gal on stage.

Hmm. I guess that might explain a few things. Maybe folks would learn to dance more effectively if we hired teachers who were, you know, better than the people they're teaching? Just a thought.

I was waiting for that :nice:
I actually said 'competitive' dancing. Big difference in my eyes.

[ChrisA]

My point was that: "the "fixed-partner" path competitions engender is detrimental to the "dance-with-everyone" MJ ethos which I love."

And this is the point is that I'm saying is rubbish :)

Because your premise:


That is, if you're dancing with a fixed partner, you're not mixing as much, and there develops an ethos that you can only improve, or that it's better, to dance with fixed partners.

... is fundamentally not true.

People that compete seriously with a fixed partner do virtually all their practising away from the freestyles. At the freestyles, even quite close to the comps, you still see them, dancing with everyone.

This notion that the majority of people that compete are not just as sociable as those that don't, is just a myth. It was probably born like the hotshot myths are born - maybe someone turned down a dance because they didn't want to get injured just before a competition, and the whole thing got taken out of context and everyone got tarred with the smae brush.

But it doesn't make it any less wrong.

[David Bailey]

This notion that the majority of people that compete are not just as sociable as those that don't, is just a myth. It was probably born like the hotshot myths are born - maybe someone turned down a dance because they didn't want to get injured just before a competition, and the whole thing got taken out of context and everyone got tarred with the smae brush.

But it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Grr, and double-grr...

OK, one more time, I'm not saying that competitors are less (or more) sociable than non-competitors. And I'm pretty sure that I've never said that.

I'm saying that there's grown up an idea for some people in MJ that the "natural progression" of dance improvement is to get yourself a fixed partner, that everyone else is doing it, and that this idea is something I'm not keen on.

To me, the unique identifying point about MJ is the fact that fixed-partners (up until now) are not part of the scene; it's a big free-for-all, nice and democratic. And no-one (up until now) should care if you're a championship winner or whatever - all that matters is how good the dance you're dancing now.

I'm not saying competitors are evil people (well, obviously, they are, but that's another point), but that simply by pursuing a "competitive career" (!), they're setting an example.

[MartinHarper]

I was waiting for that :nice:
I actually said 'competitive' dancing. Big difference in my eyes.

ok then - I'll rephrase my comment:
"If I understand what you're saying, Paul, the average MJ teacher is no better at competitive dancing than the average MJ dancer. Indeed, by the law of averages, 50% of the people at an MJ class would place higher in a dance competition than the guy/gal on stage."
I'm not convinced that this is any more flattering...

So, would 50% of your class beat you in a dance competition?

[Paul F]

ok then - I'll rephrase my comment:
"If I understand what you're saying, Paul, the average MJ teacher is no better at competitive dancing than the average MJ dancer. Indeed, by the law of averages, 50% of the people at an MJ class would place higher in a dance competition than the guy/gal on stage."
I'm not convinced that this is any more flattering...

So, would 50% of your class beat you in a dance competition?

After watching some of the competitions over the last couple of years I am not sure. :sick:

I would hope not :blush: but I totally see what you mean. I think the point I was (badly) trying to make is that competitions are, in my eyes, a great leveller. Coupling that with the fact that a lot of MJ teachers are there to teach and/or entertain, and may not be especially brilliant dancers, quite a number of their students would stand a very good chance at beating them.

Im just not very good at this argument lark :sad:

[Gus]

I'm saying that there's grown up an idea for some people in MJ that the "natural progression" of dance improvement is to get yourself a fixed partner, that everyone else is doing it, and that this idea is something I'm not keen on.David, dear boy ... the above is aid BECAUSE ITS TRUE. The amjority of the best dancers on the circuit have progressed because they put time into developing with a regular partner. This does NOT mean they have ceased to become 'socialable' dancers or would you like to say that to the face of FC & James, Will & Kate, Phil & Yuko etc?. I speak from exeprience that my own dancing moved up an order of magnitude when I starting dancing regualrly with Zambo, and my current decline is in part due to the lack of a regular partner.

Plesae dont belittle the commitement and contribution made by these fixed partners. The moves and style they develop today is what we teachers will be (trying) to teach the likes of you in the years to come. Its a natural osmosis, the way that MJ progresses.
{Here endeth the Sermon}

[David Bailey]

David, dear boy ... the above is aid BECAUSE ITS TRUE.
Maybe - but as I said up there somewhere, that's kind of not even the point...


This does NOT mean they have ceased to become 'socialable' dancers or would you like to say that to the face of FC & James, Will & Kate, Phil & Yuko etc?.
I don't know, I dunno who they are, they never ask me to dance :whistle:

(Oh, and to keep my Pedant Points out, I have to ask what "socialable" means... :innocent: )


Plesae dont belittle the commitement and contribution made by these fixed partners. The moves and style they develop today is what we teachers will be (trying) to teach the likes of you in the years to come. Its a natural osmosis, the way that MJ progresses.
{Here endeth the Sermon}
Well, that's me told. I'll just have to await with bated breath the wisdom of the Ancients, handed down to little old me. Although I'll probably be too bloody-minded to ever learn anything new of course. And it'll probably only ever be taught at Jango.

Seriously, I am amazed that people are taking this to mean "You're insulting people's sociability and commitment" - point me to where I've done this, please?

I've said (several hundred times, it feels like) that I like the idea of a decently-organised DWAS comp, that seems like something more in tune with the MJ ethos. And if most comps were (rolling) DWAS, I'd be happy. But as it is, I think competitive dancing and club dancing are clearly diverging, and I don't want MJ to turn into another ballroom-dancing type of environment.

And of course, I've no problems with people improving, as long as they don't viciously then try to help me improve.

[Gus]

Well, that's me told. I'll just have to await with bated breath the wisdom of the Ancients, handed down to little old me. And it'll probably only ever be taught at Jango.Actualy I was thinking about the CTA ... I remember the inclusion of moves from Dan Baines(hiphop) and Viktor(Salsa Fusion) being taught at updates.

[Gus]

OK ... time for a REAL rant.

We KNOW that the organisers of these competitions read the forum, and here we have had an earnest discussion of a farily important topic relating to them. So how many responses have we had from any of those in charge. NOT ONE!!:angry: Come on guys, you could at least PRETNED you listen to what is said, or is it all as some unkind soul previously said, you're all just in it for the money.:(

[El Salsero Gringo]

OK ... time for a REAL rant.

We KNOW that the organisers of these competitions read the forum, and here we have had an earnest discussion of a farily important topic relating to them. So how many responses have we had from any of those in charge. NOT ONE!!:angry: Come on guys, you could at least PRETNED you listen to what is said, or is it all as some unkind soul previously said, you're all just in it for the money.:(As far as I know, Bradders organises the Ceroc champs at Hammersmith. From what little I know of him I'm sure he'd be happy to hear of anything anyone has to say on this or any other subject if they're polite enough to email or telephone him. I'd be willing to bet that the same would apply for any other company that organises competitions.

In general we treat this like a private forum, where we're free to speak our minds about all sorts of commercial organisations in a way we probably wouldn't do if it were some kind of 'official' channel. I'm not really sure you can draw any conclusions when those same organisations are reticent about spending time in public debate just because someone here deems it especially important.

If you poke a big animal with stick to get some reaction, you shouldn't be particularly surprised when it wanders off in the other direction to avoid you.

[DavidB]

If you poke a big animal with stick to get some reaction, you shouldn't be particularly surprised when it wanders off in the other direction to avoid you.
Why does that never work with a donkey?

[Gus]

If you poke a big animal with stick to get some reaction, you shouldn't be particularly surprised when it wanders off in the other direction to avoid you.Hmmmm to echo The Oracle, you still seem to keep coming back for more :whistle:

[Tessalicious]

Why does that never work with a donkey?I would have thought that by now it would be obvious to all that this particular donkey likes being poked 'with stick'...:whistle:

[El Salsero Gringo]

Hmmmm to echo The Oracle, you still seem to keep coming back for more :whistle:That's because I'm too dumb to care.

In any case, what's wrong with "being in it for the money"?

[stewart38]

HEY .. that happens already!! There are teachers on the circuit who made a lot out of getting placed at the Minors (especially in the early years) when the competition was minimal. I know at least one Instructor who claims to be a "Championship Winner" after winning the Team Cabaret at Blackpool .... in the year when they were the only team. There are 'Champions' from events with only 6 or so competitiors .... There are a couple who claimed to be "The 5th best in the UK" when they were placed 5th in a competition with nearly no known names competing (that year) .... etc .etc. (Get the feeling that this is a real sore point):angry:

So ... that ainr going to make much difference ... besides which .. if you were clearly 'Open' and competed at Advanced ... I'm sure that it would be a phyric victory 'cause I'm sure that the Forum and opther channels would be used to heap on abuse :devil:


Hey I won my first dance competition many years ago must have been 45 couples taking part. we came 1st 1st ,top ,nos 1, numero uno ,top dog etc

The fact it was joke comp re the worse danicng to ceroc moves is by the by :whistle:

I still say I was runner up in DWAS but thats getting a bit in the past now :sad:

Nothing wrong in exaggerating the truth if you want to make a living out of dancing,wrong of course but i can see why

Hey I was in final 20 of dance with a stranger at Hammersmith in 2004 out 350,000 regular cerocers

On serious point bring back beginners caterory at Hammersmith , i want to go for that

The more comps the better , ive def changed my mind on that. I was from the school (ceroc) where comps were seen as bad (mid 90s)

[Russell Saxby]

As far as I know, Bradders organises the Ceroc champs at Hammersmith. From what little I know of him I'm sure he'd be happy to hear of anything anyone has to say on this or any other subject if they're polite enough to email or telephone him. I'd be willing to bet that the same would apply for any other company that organises competitions.

In general we treat this like a private forum, where we're free to speak our minds about all sorts of commercial organisations in a way we probably wouldn't do if it were some kind of 'official' channel. I'm not really sure you can draw any conclusions when those same organisations are reticent about spending time in public debate just because someone here deems it especially important.

If you poke a big animal with stick to get some reaction, you shouldn't be particularly surprised when it wanders off in the other direction to avoid you.

:yeah: :yeah:

and wot's more I am sure David is busy with lots of other stuff at the mo

well there is Storm for a start... and the next Ceroc comp is at least 6 months away