Truly serious amateur competitors have amateur partners.



jj

Anonymous. Putting everything else aside and staying with the one question. Answer please. Do you believe that the results of a competition can be fair if one or more of the judges have on the floor in front of them a couple or couples who are having lessons with them.
The other side of this sordid story is that they the judge will be more severe with their markings towards a couple they are teaching. That also would not be fair either would it.
Yet another side to this story is . If as a judge you have two couples before you . One you know and the other you dont know. Dance wise you cannot seperate them. Which one are you most likely to pick.
Explain to me how it can be possibly fair for an ajudicator or adjudicators to be marking their own pupils when on the floor there are others who they dont know from Adam

"Putting everything else aside and staying with the one question. Answer please. Do you believe that the results of a competition can be fair if one or more of the judges have on the floor in front of them a couple or couples who are having lessons with them."

While it's not the ideal situation, I do believe it to be fair in the overwhelming majority of cases, and much superior to a situation in which none of the judges met any of the competitors' standards for being a worthy coach.

Concealing the list of judges won't help, because it is their expertise not their role in judging a particular competition that makes them desirable as coaches.

Anonymous. So you believe that judging ones pupils is correct. If everybody has that attitude it is never going to change.
Nothing to do with the above. Is everyone aware that over three days in Monarco there are free internet access to live broadcasts at the end of this month of the first Ballroom Dancing Championships.
Google thedancingchannel tv.

"Anonymous. So you believe that judging ones pupils is correct."

I believe it is superior to the alternative of not having any judges that any of the competitors consider worth studying with.

"If everybody has that attitude it is never going to change."

Indeed, it probably is not going to change.

And I hope it does not change, as every proposal I have seen would either accomplish nothing, or make the system worse by using less qualified judges in order to exclude those who are desirable as coaches. We already see this in the IDSF refusing to take more than one judge from a country - they ignore the fact that most of the true experts come from one or two countries, because they care more about appearances than expertise in actual dancing.

Regular visitors to this forum know that you have bought into the system of "expert maintenance" by which "high-level" dance professionals are allowed to exploit clear conflicts of interest for financial gain.

Polished is absolutely correct to say that professionals should not be judging their own students when they are competing against other amateurs who are not.

Pro/am is such a racket that this discussion is meaningless in that context.

Terence has pointed out - more than once - that there are plenty of competent judges around. He doesn't say why they are not asked; I suspect that it's because they won't play the game.

Whether a judge would make a good coach - or vice versa - is irrelevant. A good argument can be made that the best judges would not be instructors because their judgment would be uncompromised by their own teaching methods.

In fact, it isn't at all necessary to have professional dancers as judges.



jj

Interesting discussion - one which has continually been discussed for decades.

If people want anonymity of judges there really is only one practical way of doing it and that is for the names not to be advertised.

As for the judging itself, Madam Ilett a former organiser of the British Champs held a meeting for judges prior to the event. She always told the judges they should perform their duty without fear or favour.

I couldn't put it better myself.

Best wishes
Steve

"Polished is absolutely correct to say that professionals should not be judging their own students when they are competing against other amateurs who are not."

You are perfectly right in pointing out that this is not ideal, but neither of you have proposed any workable alternative.

Every alternative I've seen introduces real problems of substance, in an attempt to avoid what are in the majority of cases merely problems of appearance.

Hiding judge identities won't put an end to competitors studying with judges, because competitors study with the best coaches, regardless if they are or are not judges.

Anonymous. It is possible to stalk judges who are judging the events we are entering. We know we are stalking. And the judge and both of us know why. Why else would a couple travel a total of 2000 miles when they are a better dancer than that judge, and there are a lot of excellent teachers nearer home. Excepting of course they are running the mill and already have visited or will visit at least four other judges who will be judging their event. Not a very pretty picture is it..Is there a solution. Of course there is. If a couple are in the event you are judging then you must disqualify yourself from judging that event. If the couple or couples don't make the next round then you are back in. What could be simpler than that.
If Ballroom Dancing ever became an Olympic Event I can guarantee that not one judge will have a pupil in it. But I doubt that it ever will become an Olympic event.

Polished, the problem is this discussion is one of perspective. As many pro/am competitors do, anymouse apparently takes lessons from so many of these different judges that it would be almost impossible for this type of competition to attempt to impanel disinterested judges. This situation did not arise by accident; it is the basis of pro/am.

I - and I think you - are looking at this more from the point of view of purely amateur competitors who, in general, do not use so many different coaches. Your proposal is much more feasible in this type of competition.



jj