Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. This description of pro/am instructors is yours, not mine.


Oh, right, like you know any secrets.

Lazy pros do not, in fact, "drag lots of bad students around." They perform with students who have all learned to do the same routine with them. To accommodate this practice, pro/am competitions do not have, for example, one level of silver; they have several (using various qualifications).


What you are ignoring is the fact of the cash rewards given at pro/am competition, rewards which can run into thousands of dollars. These rewards are based on the number of entries that the pro gets his students to buy. As I pointed out above, these pros are just doing the same routine over and over; they're on cruise control. They aren't wearing out anything except the soles of their shoes.


First, at amateur competitions, competitors can enter any level that they want so they can jump from bronze in one competition to pre-champ in the next. They make look foolish doing their bronze routine in open competition but there are no rules that prohibit them from doing so.

Of course, you mean the amateur competition at the kind of events which you attend. We've already dealt with the judging racket in past threads.

Second, your statement is just ridiculous on its face. No amateur is going to improve his or her ability to dance with an amateur partner by dancing with a pro.


I've already exposed your ignorance in this post and I'll show some more.

I find it odd that someone would so strenuously avoid answering a question about his actual status. What possible reason could you have for refusing to disclose whether or not you have an amateur partner? I already know that you don't but I'd like to hear your reasons for trying to keep your situation a secret.


I notice that you failed to respond to my point about your own assumptions. Also, your answers - the ones that you give as well as those that you don't - are my "means of knowing." I take it that English is not your first language.


Again, another statement which shows that you do not work with an amateur partner. An amateur couple working with a pro on a floor with other couples practicing and taking their own lessons is a complete method because all of the elements of Ballroom are there.

-response continued-

"Your comments have centered on the habits of teachers who lack the skills to get into any better part of the dance world, and so are stuck in the unfortunate abuse-of-pro/am part. These people are not going to be of any more help to amateur couples than they are to pro/am students.

Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. This description of pro/am instructors is yours, not mine."

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am providing the information that was missing in your analysis of the situation.

"I'll tell you a secret though - the lazy pros don't do lots of pro/am - because it's TOO MUCH WORK."

Oh, right, like you know any secrets.

Since you persist in your ignorance, I'm going to have to assign you some homework:

1) Name the dancers who appeared in the 2008 pro standard final.

2) Name and count the pro/am students that each appeared with during 2008.

#2 will be a surprisingly short list, typical 0, 1, or 2 per pro. You might find a 3, but I wouldn't count on it.

"What you are ignoring is the fact of the cash rewards given at pro/am competition, rewards which can run into thousands of dollars."

As can the fees from dancing with one good student, which is a heck of a lot less work, and unlike going for the top salesman award leaves time for your own partnership and amateur coaching efforts. Quick quiz: when was the last time a pro finalist took a top teacher award? Those who are in the art of dancing can't be bothered - that award exists for those who are in the business of dancing instead.

"First, at amateur competitions, competitors can enter any level that they want so they can jump from bronze in one competition to pre-champ in the next. They make look foolish doing their bronze routine in open competition but there are no rules that prohibit them from doing so.

Second, your statement is just ridiculous on its face. No amateur is going to improve his or her ability to dance with an amateur partner by dancing with a pro."

Homework #3: research the background over the dancers likely to be champ finalists this year. Since you claim to be an expert in training methods that do and do not work, you will surely be interested in researching the reality of what has and hasn't worked.

"Again, another statement which shows that you do not work with an amateur partner. An amateur couple working with a pro on a floor with other couples practicing and taking their own lessons is a complete method because all of the elements of Ballroom are there."

You just proved that you've never trained in an amateur partnership beyond a casual scope - because if you had, you would realize that often a partnership limits your development as you need to work on long-range skills which your partner cannot yet physically accommodate your need to explore. That doesn't mean that it's not still the best overall approach - it is - but it does mean that it's not a complete approach, and there is room to achieve progress in certain areas by other means.

Oh, great! In addition to all of the other expenses of pro/am, the student now gets to pay two lesson fees instead of one.


Dancing with the student is just one way to apply corrective input and it is not the best way. A good pro demonstrates to the student first the action as performed incorrectly by the student and then the action as it should be performed. When teaching an amateur couple, the pro can observe their subsequent performance and immediately assess their grasp of the correction. When the pro must dance with the student himself, he cannot.

According to you, a pro corrects a follow's errors by leading her.


That statement pretty much says it all about you, doesn't it? Mirrors can be useful but that usefulness is limited to one isolated aspect at a time.

You can have the rest of this thread to yourself. You're making the same overwrought arguments that you always make. You accuse me of making assumptions while making them yourself. Any argument with which you cannot deal - and that's most of them - you try to label as false.

See you in the next thread when I catch you trying to disseminate more of your nonsense.



jj

"Dancing with the student is just one way to apply corrective input and it is not the best way."

Your ignorance of the real teaching methods is showing again.

"A good pro demonstrates to the student first the action as performed incorrectly by the student and then the action as it should be performed."

This method is used when what is to be communicated is a "thinking" skill. But not all skills are thinking skills, or are best approached at any given time as thinking skills.

Many skills are best approached as feeling skills, and to do that the teaching is accomplishing by physically sharing the action with the student - ie, dancing with them.

The reality is that there are many methods in use, and a skilled teacher will vary the method, picking what works in each case over what doesn't.

"According to you, a pro corrects a follow's errors by leading her."

This is indeed one of the many methods used - especially when what is being taught is not specific errors ("you did a toe instead of a heel"), but actual dancing ("you've got the footwork now, but the overall effect should feel like this")

"That statement pretty much says it all about you, doesn't it? Mirrors can be useful but that usefulness is limited to one isolated aspect at a time."

No, I think it says a lot more about you - yesterday you dismissed it out of hand, saying "Anyone who's actually tried to do so knows that that tactic doesn't work." and today you admit that i can be useful. Meanwhile, I never said it was the perfect answer, what I said - after giving two additional methods in common use - was that I had made use of it.

what you have been argueing this whole time is if tiger woods is at your local 18 hole par three and standing next to him is me who get on the golf course maybe twice a year you would chose to golf with me instead of golfing with him and then claim that you are the best on the course because you golfed par with a 50 handicap and tiger golfed three over par with no handicap?

"There are skills that are best learned by practicing them in concert with someone who is highly expert at them, and there are other skills that are best learned by going out and making learning mistakes on your own or in concert with a peer."

anymouse, I agree very much with the balance of your post. I am finding that time spent with a good professional brings me up in skills; but that dancing with my own partner develops those skills so that I can hold on to them even with different partners.

In my personal experience both approaches have been instrumental in helping me to improve.

I know another gal who also combines both because she finds it helps her grow in her dancing.

Also, sometimes it is just a blast to dance with someone who is so skilled they could lead a waterbuffalo and make her look good.

Then there is the keen pleasure of getting it right with your own partner. That feeling of connection that comes from being equals working together.

But to stick with only one or the other when one could do both....why only eat vegetables when one can have steak and desert as well?

I enjoyed your post on this subject.

"But to stick with only one or the other when one could do both....why only eat vegetables when one can have steak and desert as well?"

Hi Kaiara,

The argument with jofjonesboro is really centered on his inability to recognize that pro/am can ever be a beneficial method for building real dance skills, but it should not be read as a general recommendation of pro/am.

There are some real issues with the practice, beyond just cost. Especially at intermediate levels, the difference between the comfort provided and embellishments possible when dancing with a pro, vs. the remaining need to strengthen basic skills so apparent when dancing with an intermediate amateur partner can make switching back and forth very hard. So I would not generally recommend pursuing both pro/am and am/am at the same time. (A 1-on-1 lesson now and then, especially with your partnership's coach or her partner, can be interesting though)

Where pro/am does seem to be useful is in an interlude in amateur development. But there too, it is risky - in the majority of cases, what happens is that the student ends up wanting a near-pro-quality partner, but such a partner will want a partner who is also near-pro-quality. In effect, the student can end up pricing herself out of the amateur market - and quite possibly get to the point where she's discovered the limitations of the teachers that are within her budget, too.

It can work - that is my argument with jofjonesboro - but it fails more often than it works.

jofjonesboro.I suppose it depends on where you live. Where i live in a Pro/Am competition there would be only one and sometimes possibly two couples. Most times there are none. Those who do compete in Pro/Am are very highly trained. Being that in most cases it is a demonstration.Nobody would be fool enough to take to the floor unless they were near perfect.
What is simular to Pro/ Am where i live is Individuals.Both are amateurs neither have to be registered dancers and the one being judged either lady or man wears the number. There is nothing stopping the best Amateur in the country from dancing with a comparitive beginner or anything in between. These events are usually run at the beginning of a Competition. These individual events are for juveniles as well as juniors and adults.Originaly they were for people looking for a partner putting themselves on show. These events have been around as long as i can remember

What you describe in the second is known as "mixed proficiency" in USA Dance competitions.



jj

""But to stick with only one or the other when one could do both....why only eat vegetables when one can have steak and desert as well?"

"The argument with jofjonesboro is really centered on his inability to recognize that pro/am can ever be a beneficial method for building real dance skills, but it should not be read as a general recommendation of pro/am......It can work - that is my argument with jofjonesboro - but it fails more often than it works.""

I can see how that could be. Is your argument with him is less that you disagree with the idea than that you disagree with the rigid polemic in which he steeps his argument? Also, Perhaps jj just likes to argue?