Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Competition Categories

  1. #21
    The Oracle
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,263
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    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.
    ???

    I must be missing something.

    You have 100 couples total. (Lets say 50 would have done the intermediate, 25 the advanced and 25 the open. And lets suppose that everyone actually knew their correct level.)

    Your first round of the overall 100 knocks out 50 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Plate. They are the same 50 who would have done the 'Intermediate' in a normal competition.

    Your 2nd round of the overall knocks out 25 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Intermediate. Again these are the same 25 who would have gone straight into the 'Advanced' in a normal comp.

    The 25 who go through are the same 25 who would have entered the Open.

    So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.

    Good discussion though.

    David

  2. #22
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by Andy McGregor
    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.
    Sorry, but I don't see your reasoning here. For example - suppose 80 intermediate, 20 advanced, and a max of 10 competitors on the floor at once. Old way: 8 intermediate heats, 2 advanced heats. New way: 10 first round heats, 10 second round heats, plus at this stage all you've done is work out who your 20 advanced dancers are, so you need another 2 heats there to get to the same point (ready for 2nd round of advanced). That's 22 heats instead of 10!

    The only way you're going to get a "saving" is to (as you suggest) "pack them in"; but as you could (and to some extent in practice do) do this in the current system anyhow, it's not going to help much...

    Dave

  3. #23
    The Perfect Woman!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapo
    Posts
    978
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by DavidB
    ???

    I must be missing something.

    You have 100 couples total. (Lets say 50 would have done the intermediate, 25 the advanced and 25 the open. And lets suppose that everyone actually knew their correct level.)

    Your first round of the overall 100 knocks out 50 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Plate. They are the same 50 who would have done the 'Intermediate' in a normal competition.

    Your 2nd round of the overall knocks out 25 couples. These go into the 'first' round of your Intermediate. Again these are the same 25 who would have gone straight into the 'Advanced' in a normal comp.

    The 25 who go through are the same 25 who would have entered the Open.

    So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.

    Good discussion though.

    David
    The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... !

  4. #24
    Registered User ChrisA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,830
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by foxylady
    The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... !
    You also wouldn't get people entering with more than one partner at multiple levels.

    Chris

  5. #25
    The Oracle
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,263
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by foxylady
    The advantage is that you wouldn't get pages of pages of forum devoted to whether couple a, b or x should be entering competition category b d or y... Their own dancing on the night is self selecting... !
    Instead we would just get pages and pages on the forum saying that couple a, b and x should or shouldn't have got through. Or couple z deliberately danced bad so they could get into the intermediate.

    You could easily end up with advanced dancers winning every division - they just had a bad dance, or an unsuitable track in one of the 'selection' rounds.

    David

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by DavidB
    I must be missing something.
    ~snip~
    So you have had 2 rounds of competition just to get to the same starting point as you would have had.
    Yes. Assuming that the people who entered themselves as "advanced" were, actually advanced; and those who entered "intermediate" were of that standard. (etc.)

    It does two main things that the current system does not:
    - eliminates the competitors deciding which level of competiton to enter themselves. (as per foxy's post)
    - does not simply have people turning up for one dance to be knocked out in the first round. (they can be knocked out in the second round instead )

    It also has the added advantage as Chris points out that you can only enter one competition. {...although this may be a fiscal dissadvantage to the organisers.}

    You could easily end up with advanced dancers winning every division - they just had a bad dance, or an unsuitable track in one of the 'selection' rounds.
    You could, yes. But you could also have an "intermediate" dancer dance their socks off and win the "advanced": It is all about how you compete on the day.
    If the "Advanced" dancers are having an 'off' day, then why can't an intermediate who is having an 'on' day replace them?

    I also agree that the prizes for the levels should be appropriate.
    Last edited by Gadget; 24th-March-2004 at 05:04 PM.

  7. #27
    The Oracle
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2,263
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by Gadget
    Yes. Assuming that the people who entered themselves as "advanced" were, actually advanced; and those who entered "intermediate" were of that standard. (etc.)
    And how many intermediates at Blackpool were in the wrong division for their standard of dancing? Don't forget that if you say couple 'x' were advanced (and they didn't make any mistakes) you are by definition saying that everyone who beat them is also advanced.
    eliminates the competitors deciding which level of competiton to enter themselves.
    And instead has a judge determining what level you are on the basis of 5 seconds of your dancing. Neither way is ideal.
    does not simply have people turning up for one dance to be knocked out in the first round.
    I do like this. But there are other common ways of doing this - eg a repercharge.
    It also has the added advantage as Chris points out that you can only enter one competition
    Why is this an advantage?
    But you could also have an "intermediate" dancer dance their socks off and win the "advanced".
    Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.

    But I have seen plenty of advanced couples have one bad dance in a competition. Normally that means they don't go through, which is fair enough. But under this system, they would be in the intermediate competition. Surely the idea is to have the winner of the intermediate competition being an intermediate dancer who danced their best, not an advanced dancer who had one bad dance.

    To me there is little difference between the two systems. Both have advantages, and both have disadvantages. The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.

    David

  8. #28
    Registered User Daisy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    397
    Rep Power
    11
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DavidB
    Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.
    __________________________________________________


    I would agree with this. I think in general that most of the couples reaching the higher rounds of the advanced would be doing more technically demanding moves, along with musicality etc. A couple in the final of the intermediate may be dancing really well, but have not yet have attempted to use any of these moves in their repertoire.

  9. #29
    Registered User David Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,426
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by DavidB
    To me there is little difference between the two systems. Both have advantages, and both have disadvantages. The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.
    I have to say, I'm quite intrigued by spindr's suggestion; true, everything being equal, it has more rounds than the current system, but I think his format would allow quite a harsh cut without feeling unfair (because you get two chances at each cut), so you could balance things out a bit. The problem is the time spent waiting for judging decisions. But on the other hand, if you do as he describes:

    Round 1a: Top 25% go through, Bottom 25% are eliminated
    Round 1b: middle 50% dance again, top half go through, bottom half eliminated.

    Then the 1a judging is only really to mark the people who are "definitely through" or "definitely not through", and a mistake here is unlikely to affect the results after round 1b. So the judging doesn't have to be too precise - could even be "tap on the shoulder" ala Blackpool.

    In some ways, this just makes explicit what I believe most judges do in practice - most time is spent judging the borderline cases.

    I think the "dance offs" would have a lot of added tension - probably good for the spectators, less so for the competitors! Realistically, I don't see it replacing the current system - not enough advantage to make it worth taking the risk...

    Dave

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cider with Rosie l
    Posts
    1,314
    Rep Power
    11
    Thought I would re-post my earlier suggestion and see what you all think!!

    I used to do a lot of riding and competed at dressage, including dressage to music (gave up 'coz the horse got too heavy to carry!

    In that world, they have a national database on which every 'affiliated' horse accumulates points for their placings or winning at competitions. Once they have so many points, they are then moved up a level.

    If this was introduced for dancers, there could be a set number of points awarded to each dancer for a win or a place Say as follows:

    Win: 30 points
    Second 20 points
    Third 10 points.

    This could be amended according to the level, perhaps increasing for advanced or open levels.

    The criteria to enter intermediates could be that EACH COUPLE have under a certain number of points between them - say a maximum of 90 points and after that, they have to move up a level (hopefully into advanced and then open sections as previously mentioned).

    If a person is a 'qualified teacher' or perhaps has taken place in the Masters, then a nominal number of points would be attached to them (that is if they haven't already received some through competition).

    Perhaps if someone with points hasn't competed for a number of years, they could apply to be downgraded?

    Obviously there would have to be discussions between the various Federations. There may have to be some consideration to the 'non national' competitions as well as extending to overseas.

    To pay for the database, there could also be a small levy added to the entry fee for each of the competitions.

    To start this up, it would be quite simple when applying for a competition to disclose previous competition history. Points could then be added onto the database. At the end of a comp, the organisers send the results into the database and so on.........

    I know that this may sound complicated, but dressage has thousands of horses registered, now going back some years and everyone knows where they stand!

    Elaine

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13
    Originally posted by ElaineB
    I used to do a lot of riding and competed at dressage,
    ~snip~
    In that world, they have a national database on which every 'affiliated' horse accumulates points for their placings or winning at competitions. Once they have so many points, they are then moved up a level.
    Horses are a big investment, both in training time (esp dressage) and financially - if dancers put in the same ammount of training and investment into their dancing before competing we would have even more fantastic dancers. I see several dissadvantages (and impracticalities) to this scheme {Which I outlined in the other thread...hmmm in drawing the comparrison, does that mean that the leads are riders and the followers horses? I don't think I want to follow that line of thought }

    Originally posted by David B
    And how many intermediates at Blackpool were in the wrong division for their standard of dancing?
    Don't know: wasn't there. But on the same argument, wouldn't the judges know who was advanced and put them through? Surely 99% of the "advanced" dancers are known on the scene? It's only the first three rounds that seperate the cattegories. The only 'real' solution to this argument I can see is to have winners (or placed dancers}from previous competitions get a "by" from the first selection rounds into the desired round.
    I do like this.{getting another dance} But there are other common ways of doing this - eg a repercharge.
    wassat?
    Why is this{only entering one comp} an advantage?
    Because I (and others) are/am still uncomfortable with the same people competing in both the "advanced" and "intermediate" cattegories even with other partners.
    {Intermediate winners may be...}Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.
    But which is better? to get to the semi's in "Advanced", or win the "Intermediate"? I would like to think the former, but this is the same argument for making the prizes reflect the competition.
    The only deciding factor to me is the time taken, and Andy's idea would take a lot longer for a big competition. It would seem far more suited to a small competition.
    True, but you can't have everyone having (at least) two dances without adding more time.
    I do like SpinDr's method of having the dance-off's and agree with David Franklin's comments. However this does mean that the bottom 25% still only get one dance. (which is better than the current 50% admittedly.)

  12. #32
    B.T.C.
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    North Queensferry
    Posts
    2,161
    Rep Power
    12
    Originally posted by DavidB
    Highly unlikely. I have yet to see any national competition where the winners of the intermediate were comparable to the winners of the advanced. Better than some of the advanced entries, and maybe good enough to make the semi, but not to win.

    David
    Agreed ........but the finalists, and certainly the winners in many Intermediate comps are often better than a number of the couples in the Advanced. Certainly this year I think Mel & James were as good as quite a number of the couples in the Advanced and could possibly have made the semi of the advanced.

    Nothing useful to say on a scoring system or numebr of heats......... I rarelyget past double figures

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Bill
    I rarely get past double figures
    Do you run out of fingers/toes to count with?

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cruden Bay (Aberde
    Posts
    7,053
    Rep Power
    13
    I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners


    As a small aside: Do the judges look for different things in the "advanced" as opposed to the "intermediates"; or the same things, just done better?
    Last edited by Gadget; 25th-March-2004 at 03:44 PM.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Gadget
    I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners
    Maybe he was and I should be the one ing

  16. #36
    B.T.C.
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    North Queensferry
    Posts
    2,161
    Rep Power
    12
    Originally posted by Gadget
    I thought he was referring to his double-trouble partners


    I can just about cope with 2 ......but sometimes have to close my eyes

  17. #37
    B.T.C.
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    North Queensferry
    Posts
    2,161
    Rep Power
    12
    Originally posted by Aleks
    Do you run out of fingers/toes to count with?

    Why do you htink I'm sitting here with no shoes and socks on have been getting funny looks though..............nice drak purple tie to go with the dark suit and white shirt and bare feet. But I made it to 21

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    959
    Rep Power
    11
    AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH, what's with all the numbers......... I can't cope with anything mathematical........it's just tooooooooo much.

    I have an idea...... Why don't we have a DWAS category, an Intermediate Category, an Advanced Category, a Showcase Category, a Double Trouble Category, a Seniors Category and maybe an Open Category?????

    .......what's that????? We do already?????

    ..........that must be why it works fine now then eh!!!!

    Maybe all we need to do is to ensure people correctly categorise themselves......... If it's sooooooooo hard for them to do that then they could just ask a helpful teacher, I'm sure they would tell them what they think.

    Just an idea though.

    James........

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tarbrax
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    11
    Originally posted by Bill
    But I made it to 21

    20 + 1?

  20. #40
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14
    Originally posted by Bill
    But I made it to 21
    Bill was fibbing.

    He actually made it to 20.5

    Trampy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. One last Competition
    By Keith in forum Social events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th-September-2005, 06:54 PM
  2. Competition Categories
    By Gus in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 11th-March-2004, 07:30 PM
  3. Intro of New Categories.
    By Keith in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 31st-October-2002, 07:50 PM
  4. MAd. Competiton categories
    By filthycute in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 31st-October-2002, 07:16 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
  •