Do only Ceroc Dancers win Ceroc champs?

[straycat]

What's that if it's not a suggestion that the event organisers are conspiring with the judges to create a required outcome then?

[translation mode]
I'd say (purely in the McDonalds context) that it's a suggestion that no matter how scrupulously fair and well-run / judged the event was, and how deserving the winner, the more cynical elements of the viewing public would be very inclined to believe that something underhand went on. It implies nothing about actual conspiracy being the reality - the reverse, if anything.
[/translation mode]

[Andy McGregor]

What we've seen is that the independent' competitions produce broadly the same results anyway, so they are all as credible as each other.

To repeat what Stray says, they are not as credible as each other. It doesn't matter what the reality is, a competition run by Ceroc will never have the credibility of a competition that is totally independent of commercial interest. Please note, this is not me knocking Ceroc - if I ran a competition under a Rocsters banner I think it would also suffer from the same credibility problem. I'm talking about reality - something Rocky seems to need to touch base with every once in a while

[Rocky]

if I ran a competition under a Rocsters banner I think it would also suffer from the same credibility problem.

I'm not talking to you anymore, you dis me even though I gave you the name of your dance company...how easily people forget..

[David Bailey]

To repeat what Stray says, they are not as credible as each other. It doesn't matter what the reality is, a competition run by Ceroc will never have the credibility of a competition that is totally independent of commercial interest.

I disagree - Ceroc as an organisation itself has some credibility "built-in", by name-recognition, commitment to standardisation and so on. Whereas the organisers of the other competitions have to pretty much start from scratch in that area - most MJ dancers haven't heard of them.

Depends what you mean by "credibility" of course...

But I think the original question's been well-answered - it's not just Ceroc dancers that win Ceroc competitions.

[Lee Bartholomew]

But of course it's a ceroc event, of course ceroc people would place, of course it wouldn't happen at a Rocster, of course Andy would be able to tell ceroc how to do it properly if they paid him.

[Andy McGregor]

But of course it's a ceroc event, of course ceroc people would place, of course it wouldn't happen at a Rocster, of course Andy would be able to tell ceroc how to do it properly if they paid him.

|Wrong again - nothing new there. Just in case I change my signature, I'm posting it below.

No longer "helping" Ceroc by telling them where they're getting it wrong - if they want to know they'll have to pay me

Telling Ceroc how to do it properly is completely beyond me. I simply do not know without a huge amount of market research, testing, focus groups and all those other things a good business does to increase the chances of success - if Ceroc wanted me to do this for them it would really cost them

This is, yet another example of Lee/woodface completely mis-quoting people

[Achaeco]

I don't have to put words into your mouth, you've put them there already..



What's that if it's not a suggestion that the event organisers are conspiring with the judges to create a required outcome then?

What we've seen is that the independent' competitions produce broadly the same results anyway, so they are all as credible as each other.

I think, NO, i know you are wrong.
I know two independents that use a scoring system that is used world wide and is a way of not letting one persons favourite to win.

Does Ceroc??? No

Im not saying Ceroc favour anyone so please dont think that but independents are not all the same.

[David Bailey]

I know two independents that use a scoring system that is used world wide and is a way of not letting one persons favourite to win..

Out of interest, do you know how it works?

[Achaeco]

I don't have to put words into your mouth, you've put them there already..



What's that if it's not a suggestion that the event organisers are conspiring with the judges to create a required outcome then?

What we've seen is that the independent' competitions produce broadly the same results anyway, so they are all as credible as each other.

Out of interest, do you know how it works?

Regretably not. i only help run a comp, i am far from being able to judge.

[David Franklin]

Out of interest, do you know how it works?

I would guess we're talking about the Relative Placement scheme. For an explanation try Relative Placement or do your own google search (basically because the link I've given is the best I found on a quick search myself, but I don't think it's exactly definitive).

Interestingly, Relative Placement used to be the standard system for figure skating, but was changed. First to the "one-by-one" system (OBO: A Detailed Analysis) and then to a system based on numerical scores (code-of-points: see ISU Judging System.)

[Andy McGregor]

I would guess we're talking about the Relative Placement scheme. For an explanation try Relative Placement or do your own google search (basically because the link I've given is the best I found on a quick search myself, but I don't think it's exactly definitive).

Interestingly, Relative Placement used to be the standard system for figure skating, but was changed. First to the "one-by-one" system (OBO: A Detailed Analysis) and then to a system based on numerical scores (code-of-points: see ISU Judging System) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As I'm adjudicator at Britrock, I can tell you that the relative placement method is used there. I've no idea what method Ceroc use

[DavidB]

All judging systems have problems.

The relative placement scheme has 2 elements. The judges rank all the couples in the final, and collating thse ranks is done by a majority system (basically the couple with the most first places wins). Each of these elements has problems. Only assigning a rank makes the difference between each couple the same. So if you thought the top couple were way ahead, but the next two were very close, your rankings of 1-2-3 don't reflect this. Also by collating marks on a majority system, you are completely ignoring the views of the minority on the judging panel.

A 'marks out of 10' scheme does allow a judge to reflect the differences more accurately, but it is possible for one judge to have a disproportionally large say by giving a couple an exceptionally high (or low) mark. You also have to work out how to compare marks between judges, for example by agreeing a standard to judge to, or rebasing the marks to a standard range.


However I believe these problems are not that important in Modern Jive. I've collated the marks at several different competitions over the last few years, and I've yet to see a rogue judge (ie one whose marks are so out of line with everyone else) have an effect on the result. Also the collation of the marks by totalling or by majority would not have affected any of the top 3 placings.

The most important thing though is that unlike other competitions, the final result is not the only thing that matters. Far more people take part in MJ competitions as a way of improving their dancing than those that take part to win. If all you find out at the end is that you made the quarter final, it doesn't help you improve much.

It would be far better to have some idea
- where the judges think your strengths and weaknesses are (according to the judging criteria)
- how close you were to progressing further (or not making it as far as you did).
- the range of marks across the judges (it is nice to know someone likes you, even if most of the judges don't)
- and to get this info for each round you were in

Yes - I do have a vested* interest. I set up the marking scheme for Weston this year to do exactly this. To date, 20 couples have asked for and received this level of feedback on their marks.

*But not a financial interest. I don't get paid to judge, or collate the marks, or setting up the system, or giving the feedback. I have no involvement in organising the competition. I don't do it to promote my events, because I don't run any events. I do it just because I enjoy it.

[Minnie M]

............ I don't get paid to judge, or collate the marks, or setting up the system, or giving the feedback. I have no involvement in organising the competition. I don't do it to promote my events, because I don't run any events. I do it just because I enjoy it.

and not a lot of people know that

[Martin]

and not a lot of people know that

They do now

[Rocky]

I think, NO, i know you are wrong.
I know two independents that use a scoring system that is used world wide and is a way of not letting one persons favourite to win.

Does Ceroc??? No
.

Regretably not. i only help run a comp, i am far from being able to judge
.

And your statement of 'Does Ceroc??? No' is based on what exactly? You don't even know how the scoring system in the comps you help organize work!

[David Bailey]

And your statement of 'Does Ceroc??? No' is based on what exactly? You don't even know how the scoring system in the comps you help organize work!

Dear Deidre

I find Rocky's posts are now consistently making sense, and I find myself agreeing with them on a regular basis. Am I turning into a weirdo? Should I seek therapy?

Worried of Finchley


Anyway, Rocky, do you / anyone know what system Ceroc uses in the champs?

Obviously, in an ideal world*, all MJ competitions would use a consistent scoring system, so we could provide an overall comparison between competitions, and that'd allow some kind of grading or ranking systems to be made - which would be a starting point for MJ becoming a sport / "proper dance" / whatever. But I can't see that happening.

* OK, in an ideal world there'd be no competitions - let's call it the "ideal world with competitions"

[Cruella]

[Obviously, in an ideal world*, all MJ competitions would use a consistent scoring system, so we could provide an overall comparison between competitions, and that'd allow some kind of grading or ranking systems to be made - which would be a starting point for MJ becoming a sport / "proper dance" / whatever. But I can't see that happening.

But surely the fact that the comp isn't run as a "proper dance" competition, i.e Ballroom, is the appeal to us that pretend to be dancers. It means that the people that enter for fun, rather than because they are desperate to be crowned champ, don't feel unworthy to do so.
I've always thought of the Champs more as a vehicle for Ceroc to talent spot potential teachers, than promoting their existing ones.

[dave the scaffolder]

But surely the fact that the comp isn't run as a "proper dance" competition, i.e Ballroom, is the appeal to us that pretend to be dancers. It means that the people that enter for fun, rather than because they are desperate to be crowned champ, don't feel unworthy to do so.
I've always thought of the Champs more as a vehicle for Ceroc to talent spot potential teachers, than promoting their existing ones.

I am with Cruella on this one i look at champs as a way of improving your dancing and having fun, and not to be taken too serious.

XXX XXX DTS Dave

[Andy McGregor]

All judging systems have problems.

The relative placement scheme has 2 elements. The judges rank all the couples in the final, and collating thse ranks is done by a majority system (basically the couple with the most first places wins). Each of these elements has problems. Only assigning a rank makes the difference between each couple the same. So if you thought the top couple were way ahead, but the next two were very close, your rankings of 1-2-3 don't reflect this. Also by collating marks on a majority system, you are completely ignoring the views of the minority on the judging panel.

I am confused by this. Firstly, you are not ignoring the views of the minority of the judging panel. The decisions of the whole judging panel are taken into account when calculating the positions. Also, what exactly is wrong with the majority of judges deciding who came first?

The other thing to consider is that people come first, second, third, etc. They do not come "a close second" or "first by a massive margin" - you do not receive a guilded silver medal, you just receive that medal. Therefore I can see no use in finding out how far ahead first place was, or how far behind 6th place was.

On the subject of finding out how you could improve your dancing, I would say that competing was a very blunt instrument compared to private lessons. I would say that designing a judging method which majors on coaching and improving the dancing of competitors has rather missed the point - the point being that the judging method must be the best way to select the best dancers. Saying that a judging method had the potential to be skewed by one judge and defending that method by saying it has never happened is, IMHO, missing the point. Why not use a method that does not have the potential in the first place?

For those that don't know, I do have a vested interest. I wrote the judging method that is used at Britrock. However, I didn't do it on my own. I consulted many people, including David B.

[Martin]

I do like judging which places 5 couples, on a 1 to 5 basis, the person with the lowest score overall wins.

No interference by the organisers, all put into the computer and the results come out.

One thing I hate is when the judges and organisers get together in a room and discuss placings Which has happened in the past in some comps.... how can this be impartial and fair...