"Your entire argument against this suggestion is that it would take too much time. Because such a thing has not been done, you have no background on which to base such a claim.

You also have provided no logical reason to believe that this policy would be impractical."

You ignore the basic math I set out for you. 5 judges (minimum) * 40 couples = 200 potential relationships. But it's actually closer to 400 because the couples might have been with a different partner when they might have studied with a judge.

Stop and THINK for a minute how long it is going to take to remember and declare all of that.

"I did not say "round"; I said "heat," meaning - with a few exceptions - eight to ten couples."

It's you still have the same number of couples time the same number of judges to announce - it doesn't matter if you do it all at once or 12 couples at a time.

"In another post, you made this claim:

It is no great mystery to those in the midst of things who various couples are studying with.

Now, suddenly everyone forgets who is working with whom? Even the judges themselves?"

The difference is that between the lower and upper bounds. It's no great mystery to determine a number of the judges that a number of the competitors work with a lot, because people see each other's lessons, talk about what they are doing, etc - word gets around. That's enough to amply demonstrate the utilization of expert coaches.

But for your proposal, we need to determine ALL of these relationships - we don't need to just prove that most top dancers study with top experts, we need to declare ALL of the combinations - that's a whole other order of challenge.

"People tend to remember things that matter. If this policy becomes a rule and both competitors and judges know that there would be consequences for faulty disclosure, they will remember."

Everyone? No way. And now way you'd get such an impractical policy enacted.

"his scores for different couples over a series of heats would still establish a pattern if he is not basing those scores on performance."

How? All you can do is do statistical analysis of one judge against the panel as a whole - that's the hard part. But you can do that already. If you find a case that's actually interesting, you can ask around and find out if there's a relationship.

What you find when you look at real results though is that some judges are just plain individual in their views. There are couples they mark better than the others do, and couples they mark worse, and many times there is no personal relationship at all.

"You seem to be forgetting that the results don't really change at competitions where their coaches are not judging.

I'm not forgetting anything because I have never known that claim to be true and I still don't."

Then you have little knowledge of actual results in the real world of seriously contested professional and amateur competition.

"It's genuinely fun to imagine a scenario under my proposal in which every judge in a panel called out the same number. If that couple received first place, the raising of eyebrows among everyone in the hall would create a breeze."

Don't you think it would matter how they danced?

"Your only objection to my idea is based on nothing more than supposition."

No, it's based on knowledge of actual event sizes and results in the real world, things that you don't seem to have known enough about to consider.

and you're making no more sense than you ever did.


Every competition of any size (and size is a big part of your objection) prints a program which lists all competitors for each heat. It would be nothing to require each judge to read the program and pick out his clients before the competition even began.

I have pointed out how the actual announcements would take very little time. Your claim that they would take too much time is based on nothing - absolutely nothing.

Unless someone gets married, I've never heard of people changing their names when they change partners.


This statement is utter nonsense. The judges would have predetermined their relationships to the competitors. Declaring it would require very little time.


Statistical analysis for what? The purpose of the policy is to make these relationships public. Once they are announced, there is no "analysis" to be made. The patterns will make themselves obvious.

But here's the essence of your dishonest schtick:



You always resort to your appeals to authority, in this case yourself.

Isn't it strange how you claim that you have this "knowledge of actual event sizes and results in the real world," but refuse to share any details about your experience? Perhaps you do so because you actually lack such experience.

You have still failed to raise any reasonable objections to my suggestion. Your assertions that people can't remember things and that it would take too much time are just that - assertions, with no substance.

What are you afraid of?



jj

"Stop and THINK for a minute how long it is going to take to remember and declare all of that.

Every competition of any size (and size is a big part of your objection) prints a program which lists all competitors for each heat. It would be nothing to require each judge to read the program and pick out his clients before the competition even began."

If you were experienced in the real world of competitions, you'd know that many couples register too late to make it into the program. That's especially true of some of the top competitors.

"I have pointed out how the actual announcements would take very little time. Your claim that they would take too much time is based on nothing - absolutely nothing."

You obviously do not have much experience with events that have large numbers of couples, or you would realize how impractical your idea of querying the judges really is. Competitions already struggle to meet schedules while keeping all the important events in prime time schedule slots.

"It's you still have (sic) the same number of couples time the same number of judges to announce - it doesn't matter if you do it all at once or 12 couples at a time.

This statement is utter nonsense. The judges would have predetermined their relationships to the competitors. Declaring it would require very little time."

You ignore the plain fact of my statement: it takes the same amount of time regardless if you run through all 40 couples at once or if you do them 12 at a time. All you do by breaking it up is shift that time around.

"Statistical analysis for what?"

To determine if there's any fire behind your smokescreen.

"The purpose of the policy is to make these relationships public."

You keep demonstrating that you care about appearance but are happy to remain ignorant on the issues of underlying substance.

"Once they are announced, there is no "analysis" to be made. The patterns will make themselves obvious."

The patterns of who studies with whom are of no concern in relation to who is winning - the students of the stronger teacher tend to win even when those teachers are not on the panel, after all. These relationship are only of concern if you can demonstrate a correlation between studying with a judge and marks from that judge which show a pattern of inconsistency to marks from the rest of the panel.

I suggested you start by trying to find patterns of outlying marks, and then ask around to see if there is a relationship. You could do this investigation without having to rewrite the rulebook, but you don't seem interested in it because you are more content to make armchair proposals than to actually research the substance of the matter.

"You always resort to your appeals to authority, in this case yourself."

No, I resort to the common experience shared by all of us who are involved in the real dance world. Those who are more casual participants on the fringe won't have these experiences first hand, but can readily confirm them if they become more involved.

"You have still failed to raise any reasonable objections to my suggestion."

You've simply ignored point after point...

"Your assertions that people can't remember things and that it would take too much time are just that - assertions, with no substance."

No, they are based on the reality of the real dance world, which you continue to demonstrate that you have no involvement with.

The stupidity of all of your objections is evident in the ease with which you're purported "problems" are solved. In this particular case, apparently all of your judges are illiterate. They can't read what is printed and can't write notes with, oh, say, a pen?

Besides, Sir Look-how-much-I-think-know, so much of competition operations and presentations are computerized that a simple facility could be developed (I could do it myself but Jonathan would probably do a better job) by which a judge would simply enter his list of clients from the CD in his satchel or memory stick on his keychain and the system would create the list.

In this case, the judge would be automatically notified and would simply have to read his list from the device screen.

That sound you hear is 99% of your arguments being flushed down the toilet.

But, you know, I've been going about this all wrong. Instead of simply forcing you to confront serious and counterproductive tendencies in the competitive dance world, I simply need to let you demonstrate your lack of knowledge.

Your entire position in this exchange has been based on the premise that the outrageous fees that you pay to what you call "high-level" or "world-class" are justified by the enhanced knowledge which you are allowed to share.

Please describe for all of us one specific lesson (skill, resolution, strategy, tactic, etc.) that helps to justify that extra expense. In other words, what have you learned from one of your "advanced coaches" that the average dancer (myself, for example) could not or would most likely not learn from a "local teacher"?

Just one simple one, mind you, and not too detailed. I'd hate to see you whine about my trying to benefit from your expenditures.


You might also try confirming the existence or non-existence of your amateur partner. However, I'll be happy with an brief description of one of those skills.



jj

""If you were experienced in the real world of competitions, you'd know that many couples register too late to make it into the program. That's especially true of some of the top competitors."

The stupidity of all of your objections is evident in the ease with which you're purported "problems" are solved. In this particular case, apparently all of your judges are illiterate. They can't read what is printed and can't write notes with, oh, say, a pen?"

If the program does not accurately represent the couples (which is more often than not), then they will have to declare their relationships as the couples take the floor - they can't work it all out in advance.

"Besides, Sir Look-how-much-I-think-know, so much of competition operations and presentations are computerized that a simple facility could be developed (I could do it myself but Jonathan would probably do a better job) by which a judge would simply enter his list of clients from the CD in his satchel or memory stick on his keychain and the system would create the list."

Competition operations are in the stone age of computerization - it's a world of badly written systems that are incompatible with each other, crash at the worst possible moment, etc. And now you want to force all judges to carry a common recording PDA or laptop whenever they travel??? Get real.

"That sound you hear is 99% of your arguments being flushed down the toilet."

Nope, the sound I hear is the ranting of someone with no knowledge of the real dance world sitting in his armchair proposing things that those involved can only laugh at.

Face it - you have no chance of enacting your crazy ideas. But do go ahead - you seem to be in the US so the NDCA would be the appropriate governing body for competitions you might attend. Write to them and see what they say...

"Your entire position in this exchange has been based on the premise that the outrageous fees"

Your entire premise has been based on the fallacy that twice the usual rate for something exceptional is "outrageous".

"In other words, what have you learned from one of your "advanced coaches" that the average dancer (myself, for example) could not or would most likely not learn from a "local teacher"?"

This message board is bursting with such content that I have posted over the past few years. Some key points: the reality of how cbm works in reverse turns. How a HT foot action is actually danced. Timing of body movement relative to foot movement. And on and on... there are hundreds of posts on those topics here. Local teachers may occasionally attempt to address these, but the experts have a clarity of their own understanding which enables them to develop these skills in students more practically than other teachers. Many of these lessons transcend the level of the student - from beginner to national finalist, they all have the same things missing and sometimes get essentially the same lesson, because their local teachers have been unable to effectively communicate these points to any of them.

Anonymous. You wrote that many couples register too late. There is always a closing date for entries. This should be enforced. On another site it is written Thank heavens for Blackpool Assen and the UK. No entries taken after the due date. Do you think that that is as it should be. Why have a due date if you are not going to stick to it. I suppose we should all join in one chorus of Money Money Money Its a Rich Man's World.
Heres one for the panel. Does it sometimes happen that four of the judges are pupils of the couple they are judging. I could re-phrase that so that it reads. How many judges are judging their own teachers. Which means more than one judge is involved.

"Anonymous. You wrote that many couples register too late. There is always a closing date for entries. This should be enforced."

A competition is in large part defined (for both audience and other competitors) by the number and strength of the couples who shows up to dance at it. It's not in the organizers interest to turn them down if they can be accommodated without ruining the schedule. This is especially true as many of those who register late are the couples who are likely to win or take top places - the competition benefits a lot in reputation if they are there and looses a lot if they are not.

Anonymous. Those who enter after the closing date . Their names and numbers will not be in the program. It is anoying to see couples dancing and not to know their names.

"Anonymous. Those who enter after the closing date . Their names and numbers will not be in the program. It is anoying to see couples dancing and not to know their names."

Avoiding such minor audience annoyances is hardly the most important guiding principal in running a competition.

Many of the couples who enter late are also quite well known from their leading position in the field, and can make a large difference in the prestige of a competition by their presence.

This statement more than any other shows that you do not know what's going on.

The remote-driven scoring software is a fully fledged application that I've seen in use in at least two different amateur competitions (perhaps pro/am competitions are behind the curve). The handheld devices are provided by the competition. The actual roster for each heat is projected on the wall.

Do you know what a memory stick (also called a flash drive or a USB drive) is? It's not even as large as a man's thumb. I honestly don't think that it would impose a burden on anyone.

Will the NDCA go for my idea? Of course not. The current system serves their membership very well and they want nothing to stem the flow of those outrageous fees.

Anyone looking at the calendar of NDCA-sanctioned events will see that they are almost exclusively those competitions that are dominated by pro/am.



jj