"What you are missing is that the people committing "abuses" in favor of the cash reward are largely speaking not the people who are of any use as trainers for amateur couples anyway.

You are asserting a distinction that is notexistent. The studios who exploit the ignorance of newcomers and the laziness of others do not post a "caveat emptor" sign in their windows."

I'm pointing out that the existence of these places is largely irrelevant to the real dance world.

Once beginners discover that what goes on there is useless (and I agree it's unfortunate that it costs many too much money to discover this), those studios no longer exist for them.

"The point has already been made that pro/am is a vastly inferior strategy for training students to dance."

This is mistaken - in the right situation pro/am can be quite effective. But generally in these situations its only used temporarily as a bridge.

"Nobody has missed anything."

What you are missing is that you can't project experiences in any form of dance guided by teachers who are functionally useless for any serious dance purpose, onto what would happen with good teachers.

Good teachers will improve the dancing of both their amateur and their pro am students - and they will generally push them in the amateur direction where possible.

Bad teachers cannot really help dancers in either category. They are in the business of dance, not in the art of dance.

No, it is not mistaken; it is a demonstrated fact. With teachers of any given level of expertise, from mediocre to the coaches of world chanmpions, amateurs are always better off working with an amateur partner than doing pro/am.


Nobody is doing so. This is not a dispute about good teachers versus bad teachers; it is a debate about developmental paths for amateurs.

You are ignoring the point that pro/am is an inherently inadequate method of training students because there is no partnership and Ballroom is partner dancing. The entire focus of pro/am is an individual, not a couple. The best teacher on earth cannot make pro/am better than am/am.

The only thing at which pro/am is "effective" is teaching the amateur to accompany the pro around the floor.



jj

"No, it is not mistaken; it is a demonstrated fact. With teachers of any given level of expertise, from mediocre to the coaches of world chanmpions, an amateurs are always better off working with an amateur partner than doing pro/am."

This ultimately becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

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.

To some extent, followers have more to learn in the first category and leaders in the second, but that's only very approximate.

It is pretty safe to say though, that a lady will learn more about, say foxtrot movement, from an hour of practicing it with a top professional, than she will from an hour of practicing it with an amateur partner who is less expert at it than that teacher. But of course that is not the only skill to be learned in dancing - indeed, it could be well argued that the most important skill is not dancing at all, but learning to survive a partnership.

"This is not a dispute about good teachers versus bad teachers; it is a debate about training paths for amateurs."

If you refer your own posts, you will find that what you have largely been doing is complaining about the practices of bad teachers, while failing to acknowledge how different things can be with good teachers.

"You are ignoring the point that pro/am is an inherently inadequate method of training students because there is no partnership and Ballroom is partner dancing."

It's an incomplete method, yes. But that does not mean that it is not useful, either as a goal in and of itself or a temporary stage in an otherwise amateur path. If you are not aware of the examples of this happening, it's only because you have not been paying enough attention to the community of active amateur competitors to notice the cases where someone has detoured into pro/am and then returned to the amateur ranks at an entirely different level of capability. (Of course numerically, more detour never to meaningfully return).

"The only thing at which pro/am is "effective" is teaching the amateur to accompany the pro around the floor."

This is far from true. But even if it were, what makes you so sure that accompanying a professional around the floor is so radically different from accompanying a highly skilled amateur around the floor? In the dancing sense, unless the pro is using shortcuts (in which case see the 'bad teacher' argument) it actually isn't very different. Where it is different is in the life-as-a-dancer sense - and that is where pro/am is most incomplete.

In the context of the development of the student, the two different methods are legitimately comparable.


I don't believe this statement to be true but I'll humor you. Please name one Ballroom skill in each category.


You are trying to make a straw man argument by implying that the comparison which I've made is between a woman dancing with a pro and a woman dancing with an amateur man without the presence of an instructor. I have made no such claim and you know it. Students learn better from a pro when they learn as a couple.


This statement would only be true if one accepts your own peculiar interpretation of my posts. None of my posts in this thread have centered on the technical skills of the teacher.

Many teachers who abuse pro/am know how to teach; they're just greedy or lazy or both. Your argument that only poor teachers abuse pro/am is nonsense. Teachers of all ability levels can get dollar signs in their eyes.


I'm not aware of such a situation because no such situation exists. On the other hand, you clearly spend your time solely in pro/am - you don't have an amateur partner, after all - and have no idea how an amateur couple progresses. In fact, you've never really been aprt of a couple.

And before you make your tired whine about assumptions, allow me to point out that the quotation above is an assumption and a very foolish one.

An incomplete method is no method at all.


The difference is that the amateur couple do so under the observation of their instructor while there is no one to observe the pro/am couple because the instructor is dancing. And don't try to tell me that the pro can watch his partner in the mirror. Anyone who's actually tried to do so knows that that tactic doesn't work.



jj

""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."

I don't believe this statement to be true but I'll humor you. Please name one Ballroom skill in each category."

Quite obvious - swing, especially for the lady is in the first category, best picked up from a pro. Floorcraft, for the man, is in the second.

"You are trying to make a straw man argument by implying that the comparison which I've made is between a woman dancing with a pro and a woman dancing with an amateur man"

You may not have meant it that way, but demographically that is often the comparison. Pro/am is mostly a ladies game, and it has more to offer them than it has to offer to the development of male dancers.

"without the presence of an instructor."

There is a big difference between training with your partner in the presence of an instructor and actually dancing with an instructor. For learning the character of physical movement as a lady, actually dancing with the instructor is going to beat words or dancing with a partner who is still struggling to figure it out himself. But that is only one skill, and this approach to learning it works better for the lady student than for the leader student.

"I have made no such claim and you know it. Students learn better from a pro when they learn as a couple."

This is false as a general statement, because while true for some skills it is untrue for others - examples already provided above.

"If you refer your own posts, you will find that what you have largely been doing is complaining about the practices of bad teachers, while failing to acknowledge how different things can be with good teachers.

This statement would only be true if one accepts your own peculiar interpretation of my posts. None of my posts in this thread have centered on the technical skills of the teacher."

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.

"Many teachers who abuse pro/am know how to teach; they're just greedy or lazy or both."

Sigh, there's knowing a few things about teaching, and then there's really knowing how to teach. I'll tell you a secret though - the lazy pros don't do lots of pro/am - because it's TOO MUCH WORK. Why drag lots of bad students around for a living, if you have the skills to direct good ones with your voice, and then take one or two rich, skilled students into a minimum number of entries at a premium price and pay your bills that way? The reason everybody doesn't do this is that they lack the dance skills to earn a living that way.

"Your argument that only poor teachers abuse pro/am is nonsense. Teachers of all ability levels can get dollar signs in their eyes."

But what you are ignoring is the economics of it - it's more lucrative to do a few entries at a premium price with one or two good students (which means not abusing pro/am, but making the best of it), than it is to wear out your body doing hundreds of entries with bad students. Most pros who are serious about their own competitive career attend a competition with only one, or at most two, pro/am students - and often of course they take none.

"I'm not aware of such a situation because no such situation exists."

If you were actually following the amateur dance world, you would know exactly which recent example of someone leapfrogging many amateur levels I am thinking about. But you aren't following it, so you are ignorant of this.

"On the other hand, you clearly spend your time solely in pro/am - you don't have an amateur partner"

Ignorance.

"And before you make your tired whine about assumptions"

As long as you prefer to post things you have no means of knowing, I'll continue to call you on it.

"An incomplete method is no method at all."

Then you had better give up, because no method is complete. Instead you have a range of tools, and you pick the mix of them that best suits the job at hand.

"The difference is that the amateur couple do so under the observation of their instructor while there is no one to observe the pro/am couple because the instructor is dancing."

This can certainly be an issue, but it has common solutions such as the teacher's pro partner or the comp video. But you also have to consider the means of applying corrective input - by dancing with the student, the teacher applies it directly. By coaching the couple, it is applied only indirectly. Of course couching couples today usually involved dancing some with both partners - which is beneficial in that setting for the same reason that doing a lot more of dancing with the student can be beneficial in the setting called pro/am.

"And don't try to tell me that the pro can watch his partner in the mirror. Anyone who's actually tried to do so knows that that tactic doesn't work."

I've used it many times this week...

Did i read somewhere here that dancing in a Pro Am is useless, or words to that effect. If that were the case then having lessons one to one would also be useles.

I had a feeling that if I kept you making posts that you would expose yourself for the fraud that you are. You just did.

This statement is based on two completely false assumptions. First, it assumes that partnership is transferrable. Second, it assumes that the basic elements of swing are different for the lead and follow. You seem to have forgotten that both partners must learn to execute swing and other basic movements in both directions so saying that pro/am works better for a woman than for a man just shows a lack of amateur experience.

A woman with an amateur partner may learn to perform the swing action when lead by a pro but she'll have to learn to do it all over again with her partner. The basic unit of partner dancing is the couple, not a lead or a follow.

When a pro teaches an amateur couple, he does NOT teach the lady by demonstrating the man's actions with her; he executes the lady's actions with her in the lead position. No matter how good he is, no pro can show a lady what she should be doing by demonstrating the man's role with her. I'm referring to the pro as a man because my instructor is male. A good female pro should be able to do the same thing.

You would know this stuff if you worked with an amateur partner. You have accused me of ignorance several times is this thread. What a lovely irony to see you expose your own lack of knowledge so clumsily.

Of course, your kneejerk response will be to claim that the instructional technique that I have described is used only by very poor instructors and not those at the highest level.

Floorcraft is actually a set of skills which can be learned only when other couples are on the floor. Just following a memorized pattern of steps is not floorcraft.

I accuse you of creating a straw man and you admit it. How big of you. And look up the word "demographic."

Then why do you do it?

Again, you're looking at the lady as an individual and not as a member of a couple. It doesn't matter if the pro dances with her; she must still learn to execute from her partner's lead.


I've pretty much wiped my rear end with your examples.


-response continued-

"Quite obvious - swing, especially for the lady is in the first category, best picked up from a pro.

This statement is based on two completely false assumptions. First, it assumes that partnership is transferrable. Second, it assumes that the basic elements of swing are different for the lead and follow. You seem to have forgotten that both partners must learn to execute swing and other basic movements in both directions so saying that pro/am works better for a woman than for a man just shows a lack of amateur experience. "

No, I did not make either of those points - you imagined them, while overlooking what was actually said.

The action of swing is a physical feeling and skill which must be developed. The simple fact is that the best way to develop that is to practice it with someone who is really, really good at it.

I made no suggestion that the basic elements of swing are different for lead or follow.

What I did implicitly suggest is that the job is a different - the leader has more responsibility for picking it, the follower for going along with it. This means that while it's still very useful for a leader to experience swing with a world class lady, it's not going to be quite as much a learning tool for him as it would be for a lady student, because he would not be fully doing his usual job when trying to absorb his teacher's interpretation - instead, he would be collecting information for later.

"A woman with an amateur partner may learn to perform the swing action when lead by a pro but she'll have to learn to do it all over again with her partner. The basic unit of partner dancing is the couple, not a lead or a follow."

I take it you have never had an amazing dance with someone you just met? Basic dance skills are not unique to a partnership, they are skills that each partner brings to the table each day - regardless if they were learned together or on opposite sides of the world.

"When a pro teaches an amateur couple, he does NOT..."

When a pro teacher, he or she does whatever the heck he or she feels will be most effective - with the result that a wide variety of different things are done. If you had more experience of this, you would not be making such ignorant statements that reveal your lack of experience.

"Floorcraft is actually a set of skills which can be learned only when other couples are on the floor. Just following a memorized pattern of steps is not floorcraft."

I said absolutely nothing about following a memorized pattern of steps - that is another of your classic wild assumptions. What I said was that floorcraft is an example of a skill that a leader may learn better with an amateur partner - implicitly because he would get more chances to practice it under real conditions with full responsibility.

""Pro/am is mostly a ladies game, and it has more to offer them than it has to offer to the development of male dancers."

Then why do you do it?"

What makes you so sure that I do?

"Again, you're looking at the lady as an individual and not as a member of a couple. It doesn't matter if the pro dances with her; she must still learn to execute from her partner's lead."

Again you are forgetting that basic dance skills are not unique to a particular partner. The lady is both an individual and a member of a couple, and both aspects will need some unique attention.

You are also ignoring how little difference there ultimately is between a pro/am teacher and a top amateur competitor - I'll give you a hint - what's the most common occupation of the male dancers in the amateur champ division?

"I've pretty much wiped my rear end with your examples."

Nope - realizing that you had no rejoinder to my actual examples, you changed them into things I had never suggested, and argued against those invented claims instead. A sneaky debate tactic if you can get away with it, but you didn't.

"I've pretty much wiped my rear end with your examples."

No, what you've done is realized that you could not refute my actual points. Instead, you invented things that I never said, and argued against those instead - a sneaky tactic if you could get away with it, but you didn't.

"Quite obvious - swing, especially for the lady is in the first category, best picked up from a pro.

This statement is based on two completely false assumptions. First, it assumes that partnership is transferrable. Second, it assumes that the basic elements of swing are different for the lead and follow."

I made neither assumption - you invented them yourself.

What I said was that swing was best picked up from someone who is expert at it. This is true for both man and lady.

What is different is that when practicing swing with an expert, the lady can be fully doing her job. In contrast, when picking it up from an expert, the man is merely collecting information to later use when doing his job.

"Floorcraft is actually a set of skills which can be learned only when other couples are on the floor. Just following a memorized pattern of steps is not floorcraft."

I said nothing about following a pattern of memorized steps - you invented that yourself, to hide the fact that you have no response to the example I actually made.

"Then why do you do it?"

Since this is your assumption with no relevance to me, the answer to the question exists only in your imagination.

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-