Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: Retired from Competitions?

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by TheTramp
    98.....99....100.

    Okie. Now, does she need a new one?

    Steve
    Keep counting, try 10,000

  2. #62
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by Martin
    Keep counting, try 10,000
    9,998......9,999......10,000

    (I'm dead fast)

    (And I also cheat)

    Steve

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    One of the Blackpool judges once commented to me that a result of calculations for the winner of one category looked odd to him. When they looked at the individual scores they found that nobody had placed the 'winners' in first place. Each judge had placed someone else in first place but most of them had placed the 'winners in 2nd place. And nobody had placed them first! Should someone who no judges think should have won be given the first prize - personally, I don't think so!

    And that is one of the key reasons I did loads of research into judging methods before I proposed mine
    This can happen, as scores are accumalated, even in the 1,2,3,4,5 as in placings method. Would be interested to hear how to avoid this either here or on PM

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by TheTramp
    9,998......9,999......10,000

    (I'm dead fast)

    (And I also cheat)

    Steve
    Always protect the lady, especially from "The Tramp"...

    Everyone else caught on to you now then?


  5. #65
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by Martin
    Always protect the lady, especially from "The Tramp"...

    Everyone else caught on to you now then?
    Oh. You know me. Very shy and innocent.

    Steve

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by TheTramp
    Oh. You know me. Very shy and innocent.

    Steve
    Can ANYONE agree with this statement?

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fleet, Hampshire
    Posts
    534
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Martin
    This can happen, as scores are accumalated, even in the 1,2,3,4,5 as in placings method. Would be interested to hear how to avoid this either here or on PM
    Coming from a Ballroom background (both as a competitor and having scrutineered competitions) I have to say that the Skating method used in ballroom competitions seems the fairest (and easiest to implement from a judges perspective). It doesn't use a scoring system like most MJ competitions seem to have adopted, the judges simply place the dancers 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc and pass the results to the scrutineer.
    The scrutineer then has the task of accumulating the results and working out the overall positions. To describe what happens (over simplified), the scrutineer looks to see which couple has the most number of 1st places - they are the winners. If two or more couples have the same number of 1sts, then the scruntineer will look at the number of 2nd places (for those tied for 1st place) and assign the overall 1st/2nd places. If those couples are still tied (have equal number of 1st & 2nd places from the judges), he will look at the number of 3rd placings, and so on and so on. Once the overall first place has been assigned, the scrutineer will look to see who has the next highest number of 1sts etc.

    (If anyone would like me to go into this further - I can give examples of judges marks and how the scrutineer will work out the final results - PM me)

    When AndyMcG first mentioned he was organising a competition, I tried my hardest to get him to adopt the Ballroom skating method, but to no avail. The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories....

    Rob

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fleet, Hampshire
    Posts
    534
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Martin
    Can ANYONE agree with this statement?
    What, the shy or the innocent bit ? I would have to say that it depend on how well you know the Tramp

  9. #69
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by RobC
    What, the shy or the innocent bit ? I would have to say that it depend on how well you know the Tramp
    Well. I know him really well, and I can confirm both!!

    Steve

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gold Coast, Austra
    Posts
    2,345
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by TheTramp
    Well. I know him really well, and I can confirm both!!

    Steve
    I would agree, but not for want of dreaming...

  11. #71
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally posted by RobC
    When AndyMcG first mentioned he was organising a competition, I tried my hardest to get him to adopt the Ballroom skating method, but to no avail. The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories....

    Rob
    The eventual method I published does both. In the final the judges use scoring against set criteria to find, for each judge, the position of each competitor. This produces the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc placed competitor for each judge. After this has been found I apply what Rob C calls the Skating Method and I call the Relative Placement Method - it's exactly the same thing!

    Here is the method as it currently stands. It's currently 13 pages long and took me ages so please be gentle with your critique. I know it needs polishing in a few areas such as definition of the judging criteria but I rather like the purity of the mathematics and will be robust in my defence of these
    Attached Files Attached Files

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fleet, Hampshire
    Posts
    534
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    After this has been found I apply what Rob C calls the Skating Method and I call the Relative Placement Method - it's exactly the same thing!
    I'm Sorry Andy, having taken the time to read through your document, I have to strongly disagree.

    I have to stress that scrutineers for Ballroom competitions have to take an exam and be properly qualified, and I have not actually sat the exam myself, however in applying my understanding of how the skating system works to the sample results you have used in appendix 3 of your document, apart from 1st place I have come up with completely different results.

    Your results: [list=1][*]4[*]3[*]5[*]2[*]6[*]1[/list=1]
    My results: [list=1][*]4[*]2[*]3[*]5[*]1[*]6[/list=1]
    To explain, both couples 2 & 4 have been judged 1st by 2 judges, however couple 4 has also been judged 2nd by 2 judges, while couple 2 has no 2nd places - so 1st is couple 4 and 2nd is couple 2. To look for 3rd place, couples 1,3 & 5 have all received 1 1st, but couple 3 has 2 2nds while 1 & 5 only have 1 2nd, so couple 3 is 3rd. so for 4th and 5th places, couples 1 & 5 both have 1 1st and 1 2nd, but couple 5 has 2 3rds, so couple 5 is 4th and couple 1 is 5th, leaving couple 6 6th.

    To be fair though, in the ballroom world, it is not as likely for that many judges to disagree on placings - all ballroom judges are highly qualified dancers that have passed examinations to qualify them to judge.

  13. #73
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally posted by RobC
    I'm Sorry Andy, having taken the time to read through your document, I have to strongly disagree.
    I love this kind of debate - mostly when I'm right like I am just about to prove

    Originally posted by RobC
    I have to stress that scrutineers for Ballroom competitions have to take an exam and be properly qualified, and I have not actually sat the exam myself, however in applying my understanding of how the skating system works to the sample results you have used in appendix 3 of your document, apart from 1st place I have come up with completely different results.

    Your results: [list=1][*]4[*]3[*]5[*]2[*]6[*]1[/list=1]
    My results: [list=1][*]4[*]2[*]3[*]5[*]1[*]6[/list=1]
    To explain, both couples 2 & 4 have been judged 1st by 2 judges, however couple 4 has also been judged 2nd by 2 judges, while couple 2 has no 2nd places - so 1st is couple 4 and 2nd is couple 2. To look for 3rd place, couples 1,3 & 5 have all received 1 1st, but couple 3 has 2 2nds while 1 & 5 only have 1 2nd, so couple 3 is 3rd. so for 4th and 5th places, couples 1 & 5 both have 1 1st and 1 2nd, but couple 5 has 2 3rds, so couple 5 is 4th and couple 1 is 5th, leaving couple 6 6th.
    The mistake Rob is making is to forget that there are 7 judges and the majority of them must have voted for a place to be given to a couple. As 4 out of the 7 judges in my example voted for couple 2 to be placed 4th, 5th or 6th they could hardly be placed in the top 3. It stands to reason that a judge placing someone last must have an equal vote to someone placing that person first. In RobC's example the second position would be given on the say-so of only 2 judges - hardly fair when there are 7 judges! The other 5 judges did not think so highly of couple 2 and their opinion needs to be taken into account. As well as 2 judges placing couple 2 in first place 2 other judges placed them last - which sort of balances it out (maybe I was part of couple 2 )

    Also, the Skating method is given here it clearly states that a couple must have a 'majority' of judges voting that couple into their eventual rank. The 2 judges voting couple 2 into 2nd place do not form a majority.

    Originally posted by RobC

    To be fair though, in the ballroom world, it is not as likely for that many judges to disagree on placings - all ballroom judges are highly qualified dancers that have passed examinations to qualify them to judge.
    I agree that in the world of ballroom judges positions would be much less diverse than in my example. I used an example with a high level of variation in judges opinion to prove the method works no matter what the score.

    N.B. To understand what RobC and I are going on about you will really need to donwload the method I posted above.
    Last edited by Andy McGregor; 30th-December-2003 at 08:38 PM.

  14. #74
    The Oracle
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,263
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by RobC
    The BritRoc competition still went with the over-complicated and easily-skewed method of scoring competitors on different categories....
    It can be argued that each judge producing a simple placing, and collating the overall result based on this, is also skewed. It makes the assumption that the difference between each couple is the same, and does not allow the judge to say how much better, or how closely matched some couples are.

    It is actually impossible to come up with a fair way of collating individual preferences to generate an overall preference. Don't take my word for it - it was proven by a mathematician called Kenneth Arrow, and he won a Nobel prize for it.

    But please don't let a mathematical fact spoil a good argument.

    Seconds out.... round 2

  15. #75
    Registered User Daisy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    397
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by JamesGeary
    A day out. A chance to see people from far away you haven't seen for ages. A chance to see your friends strut their stuff. An excuse to learn some new moves, and sharpen up ones you know. An excuse to learn a routine, and a motivating deadline. A chance to have some friendly rivalry with a competitor. An excuse to showoff.
    ____________________________________________

    Couldn't agree more James. Comps have always been a good excuse for raising our game and keeping our interest going. MJ could become quite boring if you allow yourself to fall in a rut and keep dancing the same 8 moves you learned 3 years ago!

    We, Ray & I, do comps. for fun, all be it serious fun, and to have a good time with friends. Yes it can be a bit stressful but I'd rather be there taking part than just watching.....call it natural competativeness. Andy Mac is right when he says we are being judged all the time and we also judge ourselves against others we are watching....ie. I wish I could do this or that, then we go away and learn how.

    The only comp. that Ray and I have retired from is the Ceroc comp. Our reason is simply that we feel we do not fit the pre-requisit of...youth & beauty.....well Ray doesn't! Maybe this will change with the new management of Ceroc but I for one am not going to waste my hard earned cash entering a comp. where I will be bumped out in the first round because I am not a bright young thing.

    Daisy

  16. #76
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally posted by DavidB
    It can be argued that each judge producing a simple placing, and collating the overall result based on this, is also skewed. It makes the assumption that the difference between each couple is the same, and does not allow the judge to say how much better, or how closely matched some couples are.
    Correct. But what we're looking for is winners. We don't need to know how close the second placed couple were. They were still second.

    Originally posted by DavidB
    It is actually impossible to come up with a fair way of collating individual preferences to generate an overall preference. Don't take my word for it - it was proven by a mathematician called Kenneth Arrow, and he won a Nobel prize for it.
    Having looked at the example I think my old statistics lecturer would have said that the study was designed to compare 3 ice creams. If you wanted to compare 2 ice creams you should have designed a study that achieved that objective (he never actually said that, what he actually said was "Andy, I don't want you skipping any more of my lectures" - and I didn't ").

    But we can apply the 'McGregor Judging Method' to the example if we make a few reasonable assumptions.

    1. Call the flavour competing dance partners in the national finals.

    Vanilla = England
    Chocolate = Scotland
    Strawberry = Wales/Ireland (amalgamated as Irish are just Welsh that are good swimmers )

    2. Call groups X, Y and Z the judges with Z being the chief judge or chair of the judging panel.

    Applying the 'Relative Placement Method' to the results, initially it is a draw for first place as each country scores equally. But there is a tie breaker built into the method, here it is;

    In the unlikely event that the use of ordinals for two or more competitors still results in a draw the tie is broken by applying the relative positions given by the chief judge.

    So the final positions are;

    1st Scotland
    2nd Wales/Ireland
    3rd England

    Of course this requires the Chief judge to be the most experienced judge - and the assumption must be that they are.

    As RobC says, most experienced judges will not vote so differently from each other so it is likely that some judges will agree with each other, and it is highly unlikely that there will be no common rankings of competitors as there was with the ice cream example - especially when there are 6 finalists and 7 judges

    N.B. Does Arrow's Imposition mean that the General Election result is invalid? :vain hope:

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fleet, Hampshire
    Posts
    534
    Rep Power
    11

    Fair Cop ....

    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    Also, the Skating method is given here it clearly states that ......
    OK, hands up - according to your link, I may have misinterpretted how to apply the skating system. However, in all the ballroom competitions that I have scrutineered, I have never had to deal with a real life situation as twisted as your example, and since I have previously mentioned that I have not actually sat the scrutineers exam, it's a fair cop.

    However, it is precisely this misunderstanding of the competition's rules and judging criteria which leads to the majority of disgruntled competitors and rumours of biased results etc. After all, if I was couple 2 and later talked to a couple of the judges and they said that they thought that I ought to have won, yet I was unplaced in 4th place, I would want to know why !

    Can I make a public request to ALL competition organisers, be you Ceroc, Chance 2 Dance, BritRoc, Bristol LeRoc or whoever, to publically publish, both in advance on a website, and on the day of the competition on a notice board, exactly how the competition is to be judged. To simply state that you will be awarded points based on style, presentation and musical interpretation is not enough. The sort of thing I would expect to be in the public domain is something like the description of the skating system in the link above, or the document Andy produced on the McGregor marking system.

  18. #78
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Fair Cop ....

    Originally posted by RobC
    OK, hands up - according to your link, I may have misinterpretted how to apply the skating system. However, in all the ballroom competitions that I have scrutineered, I have never had to deal with a real life situation as twisted as your example, and since I have previously mentioned that I have not actually sat the scrutineers exam, it's a fair cop.
    Thanks Rob. For a moment there I was worried that I'd got it wrong :phew:

    You are right that my example is twisted. I made it that way so it wasn't obvious who the winner was. If it was obvious people would think you didn't even need a mathematical method at all

    Originally posted by RobC
    However, it is precisely this misunderstanding of the competition's rules and judging criteria which leads to the majority of disgruntled competitors and rumours of biased results etc. After all, if I was couple 2 and later talked to a couple of the judges and they said that they thought that I ought to have won, yet I was unplaced in 4th place, I would want to know why !

    Can I make a public request to ALL competition organisers, be you Ceroc, Chance 2 Dance, BritRoc, Bristol LeRoc or whoever, to publically publish, both in advance on a website, and on the day of the competition on a notice board, exactly how the competition is to be judged. To simply state that you will be awarded points based on style, presentation and musical interpretation is not enough. The sort of thing I would expect to be in the public domain is something like the description of the skating system in the link above, or the document Andy produced on the McGregor marking system.
    Wow! Thanks for the praise Rob.

    When I was involved with Britroc I had the method put on the website, it's still there . I was expecting the scores to be published on the website too. I notice that they haven't been. I expect this is just due to time pressure rather than any desire to keep things hidden. I'll see if Graham will put up the scores next time I see him.

    Anyone is welcome to use this method. It isn't the property of Britroc, it's mine to give to anyone who'd like to use it - and I'd be delighted if every competition used the method as it would expose it to further development and testing. If anyone is interested they can always PM me if there's anything they'd like expanding on.

  19. #79
    The Oracle
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,263
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    As RobC says, most experienced judges will not vote so differently from each other
    You would be surprised. At the Twyford DWAS comp a couple of weeks ago, I think every single judge had a different top 3. I know my marks at Britroc were completely different to some other judges.

    I think this variation is a good thing. If all the judges gave the same result, then you start thinking that people are marked on reputation, and not performance. I would hate it to be like a Ballroom competition, where you can almost guarantee the finalists, and the order, before the first round has even started.

    The 'relative placement system' is not perfect, but it seems to have fewer faults than the others I've seen used.

  20. #80
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally posted by DavidB
    The 'relative placement system' is not perfect, but it seems to have fewer faults than the others I've seen used.
    You just wonder why it isn't used at Blackpool, Bristol, Ceroc/Hammersmith, Jive Masters, etc. Have they considered and rejected the method, what do you think?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MJ Competitions: why bother?
    By David Bailey in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10th-May-2005, 02:28 PM
  2. Mini-competitions
    By El Salsero Gringo in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 30th-March-2005, 06:49 PM
  3. Competitions
    By Paul in forum Social events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st-January-2005, 01:49 PM
  4. How to Win Competitions!!!
    By Amir in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 18th-January-2004, 05:54 PM
  5. Competitions
    By skippy in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th-September-2003, 07:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •