People are entitled to (and do) vote with their feet. The vast majority of competitors who enter the Ceroc Champs will be aware that most of the judges are Ceroc teachers, with a few exceptions invited to judge a limited number of categories. They will also be aware that the names of the judges are not published and that the judges are not formally introduced to the audience. That's just the way the Ceroc Champs are run (and have been for years) - nothing sinister about that. The judges can be clearly seen 'judging' at the event and anyone who wishes to know their names (and qualifications) need only go up to them and ask. If people do not like this, they do not have to enter the comp or attend the event - simple as that.
Other MJ competitions are run differently - I am aware of at least one where the judges' credentials are listed on the event programme. At some comps, the judges are formally introduced to the audience at the start. I am not aware of any MJ comp (in the UK at least) where the judging panel is named in advance of the event date. In some comps, the organisers have even been prepared to provide competitors with detailed breakdown of their marks. Some comps appoint one of the judging panel to liaise with competitors who seek feedback.
Every competition is run differently. People can choose to compete at or attend only those competitions whose rules, procedures and organisation they approve of. Hopefully then they will never, ever, have cause to complain afterwards.
GOOD TOPIC
Here's my tuppence worth...
1) Having competed in numerous competitions it is a total bummer when all your practice & effort seems to be unrecognized...
a) All Judges suck!
2) If it makes you go off, work harder, seek advice & try to expand your dance-ability - it may be a blessing in disguise
a) All Judges are really Zen-like mystics who only want you to achieve Dance-Nirvana (click finger-cymbals here...)
3) If after much trying, you do win a competition, or even a medal it is a feeling that will have you "dancing-on-the-ceiling" for months...
a) All Judges are Lionel Ritchie...
As it happens tho, the number of competitions I have attended is only low for someone who has danced the number of years I have. Compared to a person who has only been dancing 5/6 years, the number of comps I have attended is probably quite high. *shrug*
Whatever. It's enough to form an opinion and that's all I need...
Also, it doesn't help that so much secrecy surrounds some judging, like that at the Ceroc champs. Given Ceroc's behaviour as a company sometimes, would you trust them ? I believe it's justified to ask the question at least. Although, I want to make it clear I am not talking just about the Ceroc champs in my comments.
Weellll, I nearly wrote here "Sorry to disagree...." but actually, I didn't say 'rigged'. That is your choice of words. Interesting...
If I was to give thought to a reason why judging is so crap at competitions, I would almost certainly would not go beyond 'subconcious effects' or possibly bad judging instructions or a bad judging process, but I would have to say in truth, I don't actually know the reason. Being 'rigged' never actually crossed my mind.
So I find it interesting that when I say the judging is 'crap', you immediately leap to the conclusion I mean 'rigged'.
I would say that is possibly a damming indictment of the Ceroc judging that even you, a Ceroc stalwart, should come to the conclusion when someone says 'crap' they mean 'rigged'. How do you know that? What do you know we don't ?
Err... it wasn't the 'crap' comment that made me 'leap to the conclusion you meant rigged' it was these comments where you proclaim that 'major mistakes are ignored' obviously inferring that they are delibrately ignored, that the judges had a 'tangible bias towards London and Ceroc dancers' and also that the judges 'patently fall foul of such basic problems of bias towards dancers associated with those who appoint them/pay their wages...'
Yup, what a 'damning indictment of Ceroc judging' that someone would want to point out what you actually said..
What I said is what I said. No more, no less.
Nowhere did I use the word 'Rigged'. So I dunno what your slapping your head for, does it help?
That was your choice of word, which, as I said, I found incredibly interesting.
It's like that psychologists word game, the one where you say something and the other person has to say the first thing that pops into their mind. It's not foolproof of course, but if I say "Economic idiot" and you reply "Gordon Brown", I think I would be most times justified in assuming you think Gordon Brown is an economic idiot.
When I say "Champs judges make major mistakes" and "Champ judges are biased" and you reply "Rigged". I just find that interesting, cause it sure as hell never occurred to me.
I can't help it if you (and apparently Robd) both have the common forum disorder that (amongst other almost infinite variations) allows you to... ...without me ever actually using the word 'Rigged'
The word I used was 'crap'. Judging is crap, not judging is rigged. Do you see the difference ?
If either of you wish to ask me the reason behind those symptoms I listed rather than "leaping to a conclusion" I would say I have no idea, quite possibly it's many different reasons. Possible (note the use of the word "possible" here, don't want you leaping to conclusions again do we?) reasons include: "Subconcious need to please Ceroc bosses", "Bad hair day", "Insufficient knowledge of MJ", "subconcious bias towards hat wearers"... the list is prolly quite large.
Last edited by TA Guy; 7th-May-2009 at 12:41 PM.
The answer is obvious; get Danni Minogue in to do it next year - rumour is she won't be on t'telly so she'll be cheap, she won't know MJ from BJ so will judge purely on how much she likes what she sees in front of her. Outfits will count for a lot, as will hair and teeth. Sorted.
To be honest, i found your choice of words to imply a bias on the part of the judges - so "rigged" would be a reasonable single word to use to desribe what you seemed to be saying - so I cant disagree with Rocky here.
Rather than berating, at length it seems, Rocky for his "incredibly interesting" use of certain words, you could have just said "well i didn't quite mean that" and then explained why You are not a psychologist with Rocky on the couch, thats one session none of us want to be spectators to
I can't disagree with "flange of baboons" either
Yes.
No.
(You claim the judges are) Bias'ed would be a more sensible "reasonable single word to use" dotcha think ?
Well, I have done, twice now. How did you miss it, or maybe you didn't, but pretending you did allows you to write a longer post ?
I dunno, from what I have seen on this forum, I think I would find it "incredibly interesting". And I don't mean that in a derogatory way before somebody "leaps to a conclusion" again, he seems like an interesting guy. I'll use the slaphead smilie here cos I like it:
Last edited by TA Guy; 7th-May-2009 at 02:18 PM.
Well, considering your choice of words..."tangible bias towards London dancers, tangible bias towards 'Ceroc' dancers" it does suggest that, as these are judges you are talking about, their willingness to "manipulate dishonestly" would give "rigged" as a perfectly good dictionary description that someone directly involved with the company in question is likely to infer.
This sort of blahblahblah is exactly what Rocky gets criticism for. Notice I said you "could have JUST said", you didn't "just" say that, you complained at length about everything else in an annoying psychanalysing styley.Well, I have done, twice now. How did you miss it, or maybe you didn't, but pretending you did allows you to write a longer post ?
I'm sure you don't, but your choice of words make it sound like arrogant amateur psychology. Although, with much less of an air of superiority than when Rocky does itI dunno, from what I have seen on this forum, I think I would find it "incredibly interesting". And I don't mean that in a derogatory way
To me, and to my dictionary, "rigged" implies intent. Bias is something that is often unintentional and often unrecognised by the biased.
Thing is, of course the judges are biased: because you want the judges to have a bias for good dancing over bad.
Of course, the question then becomes "what is good dancing?"
Looking at what did well at the Ceroc champs, I have to say that I think the judges value different things than I do (in particular, I don't like the seeming emphasis on "energy"). Which doesn't mean they're wrong. But it does tend to reward the 'classic Ceroc style' dancers over, say, the 'psuedo-Westies'.
Actually, the biggest complaint I had with the champs was the music. If I go to my local Ceroc venue, I'd guess there won't be a single track over 135 bpm per minute. Many tracks at the Champs were a lot faster than that. I think the music should be representative of what gets played socially.
Bias is not something that is 'often unintentional' it is something that is sometimes unintentional and something that is sometimes unrecognised by the biased - you're making a sweeping statement with no foundation in fact.
Besides, the context in which TA Guy made his statement about bias clearly inferred manipulation - as has been noted by pretty much everyone else who has commented on his post, despite him trying to weasel word his way out of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks