What's the 'Plate' ?Originally posted by Andy McGregor
N.B. For the 'Plate' and the 'Intermediate' competition the number of rounds would depend on the time available, number of competitors, etc.
Chris
I have been thinking about competition categories a lot recently. There has been some heated debate on here about who is and is not an intermediate, etc. Here are my thoughts and my proposal.
THOUGHTS & QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS
Why do we have the current categories?
I believe the current categories are a continuation of those started by LeJive. I've no idea why these categories were chosen but my guess is that the idea was to maximise the number of entries by giving lesser dancers a different category to dance in. I believe that organisers should abandon any association with the LeJive comp as I am 100% certain that, at the very least, the 1998 competition was fixed.
Should we expect competitors to categorise themselves as intermediate/advanced?
It is impossible for a competitor to decide where they should compete as it is difficult to judge their own ability and impossible to know, before the day, the ability of those people entering each category. It is unfair and, as we have seen, devisive to expect a competitor to place his or herself in a category.
Should teachers have their own category?
Teachers may be better than beginners, but being a teacher is no indication of dancing skill or predictor of competition success. In fact, I believe that teaching, night after night, probably reduces an individuals chances of competition success. Therefore I believe that competitors should not be placed in categories based on being or not being teachers as it would be unfair.
Why have categories at all?
This is the most difficult question. If the objective of the competition was to select the best couple then we would not need more than one category. But I think we need categories based on dance ability to encourage us normal (me? normal?) mortals to compete at a lower level with some expectation/hope of getting through the first round. And to do this we need categories.
PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.
Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!
Round 2 - promoted competitors compete for further promotion. Those knocked out at this half-way stage would go on to compete against each other - let's think, half way up the competition, what could we call this category? How about intermediate?
Round 3 - depending on numbers this could be the final or the semi-final.
N.B. For the 'Plate' and the 'Intermediate' competition the number of rounds would depend on the time available, number of competitors, etc.
I think this method would be totally fair, give everyone an opportunity to compete at their own level and stop dead any debate about who should compete at what level - it would even mean that dancers would be able to compete in the same competition as and beat their teachers
What's the 'Plate' ?Originally posted by Andy McGregor
N.B. For the 'Plate' and the 'Intermediate' competition the number of rounds would depend on the time available, number of competitors, etc.
Chris
{Can tell you were a fencer }Originally posted by Andy McGregor
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.[/B]
I think that you're right (I'm sure that I proposed this earlier somewhere...) But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"
I also think that sub-categories like "OAP's" and "Juniors" should just be the top placed people who meet the criteria instead of having a seperate competition.
I think that you would still have to have DWAS (Poss using the same splitting into two divisions depending on numbers), DT, Showcase (allowing air-steps) and Caberet categories.
{The "Plate" is a term derived from the etched silver platter that was won for the 'lower' competition as opposed to the cup/trophy that the main competiton awards.}
Last edited by Gadget; 24th-March-2004 at 01:28 PM.
Hi AndyOriginally posted by Andy McGregor
PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.
Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!
Round 2 - promoted competitors compete for further promotion. Those knocked out at this half-way stage would go on to compete against each other - let's think, half way up the competition, what could we call this category? How about intermediate?
This is exactly how we run our local competition in Bristol, and have done so for the last 10 years!!
Admittedly it is a smaller scale competition with usually about 20 couples on the night, however it works really well.
It also means that in the final stages you have more time so you can also allow less couples on the floor. We only have 2 couples dancing at any one time and do it in 3 groups for the final. Then they all come back on together for one last track. I always think it is a shame that when you watch the final you have to try and watch 6 couples and you usually end up missing all the good bits as you are concentrating on the wrong couple!! Makes it easier for the judges too.
It also means that if you perform badly in the first round you can still make the grand final, as what we do is allow the winners of the plate to also go into the main final. A second chance if you like. I think one year the winners of the plate also came second overall after dancing off their nerves!
As for dance with a stranger I would still prefer to go back to the original format of keeping the best dancers on the floor. I think we want to watch the best for longer.
Showcase should stay, but I think ceroc have the right idea in making you send in videos. Some danger then of excluding on political grounds, but the list of entries should be displayed including those who didn't make it to the final show.
Only other thing about comps is the time keeping of the events. I think Graham did the best job of keeping to time in Brighton last year. Blackpool just went on too long for me this year.
Yes, Gadget did propose this earlier. It pretty much matched the idea I'd alreday had but I didn't comment at the time because I was hoping that other ideas/proposals would come forward.Originally posted by Gadget
{Can tell you were a fencer }
I think that you're right (I'm sure that I proposed this earlier somewhere...) But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"
Originally posted by Gadget
But I don't think that the 'upper' half should be named anything other than by the competition's name, but the 'lower' half should be identified as the intermediate {or similar}; ie "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Competition" and "Winners of the Modern Jive Master Intermediate Comeptition"
I'm proposing 3 levels
1 - Championship
2 - Intermediate
3 - Plate - this could be another name but should, I think describe what is being competed for rather than any description of the level of competitor as the most obvious one is 'losers' or some variant of that
Andy asks "Why have categories at all?"
Presumably from a commercial perspective they are a necessity to encourage sufficient attendance? (well at least until a competition becomes more of a social event).
More from a philosophical perspective -- what do people expect to get from the competition? (aside from fun! )
If it's commercial gain: I could certainly imagine the commercial benefit of being the winner of a "teacher" category. And yes I know that you shouldn't confuse teaching and performance abilities -- but it's such a common misconception that it could be useful.
If it's to find the best social dancers / freestylers: then surely extending the DWAS (maybe mixing partners) is the best idea?
If it's to find the best fixed partners (semi-choreographed?): then Andy's idea has some merit.
If it's to provide something more like a coarse ranking as well as finding the best partners to a variety of music-- then it *could* be fun to have some element of promotion / demotion -- during the competition. E.g. top 25% stay up, bottom 25% stay down, middle 50% dance again pref. to a different musical style and get remarked -- this would mean that if you're not good at say hip hop, but brilliant at swing, you might still get through.
Would be nice to have a few spot prizes -- couple having most fun, etc.
SpinDr.
Not sure I agree with this (on two levels).Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Why have categories at all?
This is the most difficult question. If the objective of the competition was to select the best couple then we would not need more than one category. But I think we need categories based on dance ability to encourage us normal (me? normal?) mortals to compete at a lower level with some expectation/hope of getting through the first round. And to do this we need categories.
When it comes to getting through the 1st round: don't forget, around half the intermediates are eliminated in the 1st round currently. Some people never get past the 1st round in several years of trying! It's a risk you have to take.
And I think there's another main reason for categories - you might want to have different rules for different categories. What appeals to me is to give the advanced/open categories extra "privileges". These might be: more prize money, more space (i.e. less dancers per heat); two tracks / round; a less harsh "cutting" between rounds (e.g. bottom quarter cut / round v.s. bottom half in intermediate). You could also only allow certain moves (e.g. airsteps) in advanced, and possibly limit the degree of costuming in intermediate. (c.f. Ceroc 2003 Open v.s. Intermediate)
I really like the idea of everyone getting at least 2 dances. But the problem is that you're significantly extending the length of the competition. On one level, it's only the fact that most people only get to dance once that lets the organisers fit everything into 1 day!PROPOSAL
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.
Round 1 - every competitor dances in Round 1. Competitors are then promoted if they are judged good enough or placed in a new category to compete for the 'Plate' prize. This means that even the worst dancer gets to dance in 2 rounds - which is nice when you've paid around £35 to be there and enter!
If you count the number of "couple heats on floor", you'll find your suggestion ends up with a lot more than the current system (assuming equal proportions of competitors cut per round). I'm sure that by adjusting those proportions, or having more competitors on the floor at once you could get something like this to work. But I'm not sure the people currently entering advanced would appreciate the result if it meant the first three rounds were extremely crowded and 60% of the dancers were cut during each round.
Let's run the numbers: Suppose 80 intermediate, 20 advanced, intermediate has 50% cuts, advanced goes 20->15->10->5
Currently have:
80+40+20+10+5 = 155 "heats" for intermediate (the actual number of heats will depend on how many people you can fit on the floor)
20+15+10+5 = 50 "heats" for advanced
Total: 205
Your system (if I understand what you mean!):
100 (1st round)
40 (plate - I'll suppose only 1 round!)
60 (2nd round - to split Intermediate + Advanced)
40 + 20 + 10 + 5 = 75 (to decide intermediate)
20+15+10+5 = 50 (decide advanced)
Total: 325
Note that what really causes the extra here is everyone getting at least 2 dances - by itself that's nearly as much dancing as the whole competition under the current system.
Dave
Don't get how this could be worked: would the judges just wander round all the dancers and say "up"/"down" untill a number has been reached; those who remain are in the middle section?Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I'm proposing 3 levels:
1 - Championship
2 - Intermediate
3 - Plate
The only other way I can think of is to mark/rank everyone and split it into thirds.
I think that people compete to test themselves against other dancers - get an idea of what "level" they are at.Originally posted by SpinDr
More from a philosophical perspective -- what do people expect to get from the competition? (aside from fun! )
They may also compete to see how much they have improved from the previous year.
There is also the peacock element of "showing off" to everyone and being appreciated for your 'art'.
I don't think that the actual method of running the competition, or even the level of competitors really matters that much; as long as the entrants know what they are up against, how they will be expected to perform and how the day should progress.
I know that there are some competitors who look for prestige; I would imagine that the "show case" cattegory would be for them.
I also see how a seperate "teachers" competition would perhaps boost this; but how about having a "teachers" cattegory where the teachers put forward a pupil of theirs to compete?
Ok, trying a very rough idea with Dave's numbers, where middle 50% danceoff again:
Heat#1: 100 couples (25 + 50 danceoff + 25 go through)
Danceoff#1: 50 couples (25 + 25 go through)
Heat#2: 50 couples (13 + 25 danceoff + 12 go through)
Danceoff#2: 25 couples (13 + 12 go through)
Heat#3: 24 couples (6 + 12 danceoff + 6 go through)
Danceoff#3: 12 couples (6 + 6 go through)
Heat#4: 12 couples (3 + 6 danceoff + 3 go through)
Danceoff#4: 6 couples (3 + 3 go through)
Heat#5: 9 couples (2 + 5 danceoff + 2 go through)
Danceoff#5: 5 couples (3 + 2 go through)
Final 4 couples
--------------------------------------------------
Total: 100 + 50 + 25 + 24 + 12 + 6 + 9 + 5 + 4 = 235
--------------------------------------------------
If you really want everyone to get 2 dances, then a wooden spoon danceoff would take another 25 "slots".
The great thing is that there's built in incentive to dance well in the Danceoff heats -- 'cause you might actually get through to the next "real" round. There's also incentive to get into top 25%, as you get a rest for the danceoff.
SpinDr.
Last edited by spindr; 24th-March-2004 at 02:35 PM.
My proposal is that people eliminated from the championship in the first round become 'plate' competitors and have their own competition. Then people that are eliminated from the next round of the championship become the intermediate competitors and have their own, also separate, competition.Originally posted by Gadget
Don't get how this could be worked: would the judges just wander round all the dancers and say "up"/"down" untill a number has been reached; those who remain are in the middle section?
The only other way I can think of is to mark/rank everyone and split it into thirds.
This could be done with no appreciable increase in the number of heats with careful planning of the number of competitors in each heat.
The problem I see here is that you now have 11 rounds, each dependant on the results of the previous one. Going by previous competitions, it takes well over an hour to collate the results, distribute them, make sure everyone has seen them and is ready for the next round etc... Not sure whether it could be done quickly enough for this not to be a problem.Originally posted by spindr
Ok, trying a very rough idea with Dave's numbers, where middle 50% danceoff again:
~snip~
Dave
This could be fully computerised, either with each judge given a networked computer or by the judges using OCR readable forms. The results could then be displayed on monitors rather than a runner rushing off to stick bits of paper on notice boards.Originally posted by David Franklin
The problem I see here is that you now have 11 rounds, each dependant on the results of the previous one. Going by previous competitions, it takes well over an hour to collate the results, distribute them, make sure everyone has seen them and is ready for the next round etc... Not sure whether it could be done quickly enough for this not to be a problem.
Dave
Additionally, the new system should take no longer than the old one as all you're doing is listing the losers as well as the winners - those that aren't winners are obviously entered into the plate/intermediate
With lots of tiny robots running/rolling around serving drinks and going 'meep meep', and the big daddy of all computers - Metal Micky teaching an advanced class during the break.Originally posted by Andy McGregor
This could be fully computerised, either with each judge given a networked computer or by the judges using OCR readable forms. ...
Care to give an example of the planning? My gut feeling is that you're going to end up with more crowded heats than, say, the current open competitors would consider acceptable, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.Originally posted by Andy McGregor
This could be done with no appreciable increase in the number of heats with careful planning of the number of competitors in each heat.
[Even though it would have meant going out in the 1st round, I'd rather have done the Open than the Intermediate at Ceroc 2003 - talk about over-crowded!].
Dave
A few problems I can see:Originally posted by Andy McGregor
My proposal is that we use the rounds of the competition to create the categories.
Fatigue. If everyone at Blackpool enters, I think you would have something approaching 100 couples entered. That would take at least 5 rounds to get to the final (100 > 50 > 25 > 12 > 6). You would have tired competitors, tired judges and tired spectators.
Time wasted. The only purpose of the first two rounds is to decide which division to enter. With 100 couples, 10 couples per heat, and 2 tracks per heat, you have added approx 2 hours of extra heats - just to replace ticking a box on an entry form that 95% of people get right anyway.
Personal time management. A competitor would have no idea at the start of the day when they are going to be dancing. If you are doing a showcase or team event as well, you might want to know in advance when you can eat, or relax, or go back to the hotel etc.
Allowed moves. I know at least one couple who entered the Open at Hammersmith last year because it was their only chance of doing aerials. They didn't care about getting through. Restricting the moves completely, or just in the early rounds, would have meant they didn't enter.
Spectator event. Lots of people want to watch the Advanced, and not be competing against them.
Aims. Some couples aim to do well at a particular level, and use this as a stepping stone in their development. But a single division makes this completely different. Instead of hoping to win the intermediate division, you are more likely just to make the last 25 of the open.
I could not deny that this type of competition would increase the chances of finding the best couple in the 50th percentile, the 75th percentile and the overall best couple. But would it make the competition more enjoyable?
Some things I definitely like.
- You should get the chance to dance at least twice.
- There shouldn't be any assumption that teachers are in the most advanced group.
My own suggestion for making a big competition more enjoyable would be to have it over a whole weekend, not just on one day.
David
Maybe the first question is why have Competitions?Originally posted by spindr
Andy asks "Why have categories at all?"
Ignoring the cynical answer ... that they are there either to make money or increase the profile of the Competition organisers .... the more useful answer may be its because people want to compete .. (yup, I know, statement of the blindingly obvious).
So ... from that point why do people want to compete? It could be that they simply wish to be seen, they want to win something (anything) or they want to be seen as the best etc. etc. The reasons for someone wanting to compete will have a very direct bearing on potential entrants view as to categories. If you want to win something, anything .... a number of subdivisions will give these people a competition they can feel motivated by. However, the base line is that these categories are literally for those "how aren’t good enough to compete with the best" .... a bit like the FA Cup versus the (now defunct) FA Vase. Maybe that should be reflected in the prizes that are given out. I seem to remember that the Ceroc prizes for Intermediate and Advanced used to be the same ... scant incentive or reflection on the skill level.
So .... if you want a ‘true’ competition ... no categories and everyone fights it out to the death ..... if you want to motivate the less experienced or the Crewe Alexander’s of dance, then smaller, ‘less good’ categories are the way forward ... as long as you accept from the start that you are never going to get it perfectly right
I see the format now, but as well as having eleven rounds, you would also need to take into account the number of dancers the floor could hold (and judges be expected to watch)
I think that this was the original proposal: three "competitions" from the one starting point - (A = "advanced": B = "intermediate": C = "plate")
100 competitors:
1st A (100) - 60+ 40->C
2nd A (60) - 30+ 30->B
2nd C (40) - 20+ 20->out
3rd A (30) - 15+ 15->out
3rd B (30) - 15+ 15->out
3rd C (20) - 10+ 10->out
4th A (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th B (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th C (10) - 4+ 6->out
5th A (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th B (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th C (4) - Final
6th A (4) - Final
6th B (4) - Final
But if you played with the numbers getting through to the next round, you could reduce the number of rounds :
1st A (100) - 60+ 40->C
2nd A (60) - 35+ 25->B
2nd C (40) - 15+ 25->out
3rd A (35) - 15+ 20->out
3rd B (25) - 10+ 15->out
3rd C (15) - 4+ 11->out
4th A (15) - 8+ 7->out
4th B (10) - 4+ 6->out
4th C (4) - Final
5th A (8) - 4+ 4->out
5th B (4) - Final
6th A (4) - Final
The difference would be that you wouldn't have separate rounds for the first heats of the intermediate and advanced so there would be a saving there.Originally posted by DavidB
A few problems I can see:
Fatigue. If everyone at Blackpool enters, I think you would have something approaching 100 couples entered. That would take at least 5 rounds to get to the final (100 > 50 > 25 > 12 > 6). You would have tired competitors, tired judges and tired spectators.
Time wasted. The only purpose of the first two rounds is to decide which division to enter. With 100 couples, 10 couples per heat, and 2 tracks per heat, you have added approx 2 hours of extra heats - just to replace ticking a box on an entry form that 95% of people get right anyway.David
Also, the first heats of the 'Plate' and 'Intermediate' could be as busy as the semi-final of the DWAS and have just 8 people qualify for the next round which could be the final.
I really don't think that this system would result in much more time spent on the competition and people would still get to dance twice - which is nice after all that practicing, costume design and glueing on of wigs, etc.
you mean ear-wigs... right?Originally posted by Andy McGregor
glueing on of wigs, etc.
Yes, that's the purpose of counting the number of "couple heats" - it's easy to estimate the total number of heats from this number. E.g. if we eliminate 80->40->20->10->5 for a total of 155, and we're prepared to have at most 8 couples on the floor at once, then we will have (roughly) 155/8 = 19 heats. [The actual number of heats required will be slightly more than this estimate - 21 in this case].Originally posted by Gadget
I see the format now, but as well as having eleven rounds, you would also need to take into account the number of dancers the floor could hold (and judges be expected to watch)
The thing is, all the heats for a round can be close together, because you don't need to wait for results, or to let competitors rest. But you will need a gap between rounds for analysis of marks etc...
Anyone else sad enough to see the similarities between this and optimizing for a superscalar CPU?
Dave
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks