I just did my first competition (american style) at intermediate level (associate bronze and full bronze)
I really wonder how they judge. I thought that they will look at students and check for the posture, footwork, what we (as student) do... However, i'm rather under impression that they look at what the couple are doing, mostly at the lady movement .... in that case, if a guy happens to be with a very good female teacher, they can almost stand there and the teacher do all beautifull movement ... and you can get away with a good mark/rank. Is my impression correct ? does anyone have that impression as well ? could anyone having experience with competition tell me what judges are looking for ? all comments are appreciated. thanks

In closed and open single-dance freestyle categories, men and ladies are judged separately. You may be dancing on the same floor at the same time, but you are not being judged against each other. So this should not be an issue for you yet -- at least, not until you start dancing in the multi-dance categories such as scholarships and championships, which start at the full Bronze level.

In the unisex categories, each couple is to be judged as a whole, regardless of whether the teacher is the man or lady. In theory, therefore, the male students shouldn't have any advantage. A lady teacher may look better than a lady student, but then again, a male teacher also looks better than a male student. When all is said and done, the couples with the greatest advantage are those that contain the most talented student AND teacher together.

Now in reality, you may be right that the male students have a very slight advantage. Or at least, the good ones. Competing pro-am ladies probably outnumber men by 5 to 1 (no hard data here, just a rough estimate off the top of my head for the sake of argument). A reasonably talented male student is even more of a rarity. So when one does see a talented competing male student, one does tend to be impressed. The novelty factor may be enough to cause a slight imbalance in the judging standard. It's nothing official, it's just human nature.

But if such an advantage does indeed exist, it's fairly insignificant. There are other factors which can skew otherwise perfect imaprtiality... A judge may simply recognize one competitor from previous competiton, while another competitor may have taken lessons with the judge. Another competitor may be the most attractive, while still another may have the best looking costume. All of these factors will tend to carry some weight. In the end, being a male student ranks pretty low on the list of things that'll give you the competitive edge. Being a good dancer is still the best way I know to win dance competitions. Everything else is peripheral.

Regards,
Jonathan Atkinson

To Been Around:



What makes a competition a competition and not something else?

Here is a dictionary definition:



From this definition, I think the main thing that makes an event something to be called a competition is the "contest between rivals". Now, of course, what we call competition today has added an artificial element of scarcity. Prizes such as first place and cash awards (offering recognition and money) are the things that are in scarce supply. But the only reason it is in scarce supply is because the producers of the competition have set up the game that way.

I personally think that you can have a contest between rivals without the artificial scarcity. So in answer to your comment, no I don't agree with you that it is silly to have more than one first place or none at all, as the situation merits it. Nor do I think that setting up the game this way would take away the "sport" element or the fun of the event, if it were designed correctly.

And yes, I am examining all sports that are set up this way, so the excuse that just because other sports do it this way is a reason why everyone has to do it this way seems a weak argument.

In order to figure out what a competition is, it is helpful to first figure out what elements don't make an event a competition.

I will list those I see. I am sure there are others I haven't mentioned here.

1. The gathering together of dancers of various levels to perform for each other and for judges.

2. The dressing up in costumes and performing for an audience.

3. The training that goes into each dancer's performance.

4. The support that fellow dancers can show for each other.

5. The support that teachers show for each other and the recognition they give to each other for the progress of their students and their hard work.

6. The showcase part of the event where a couple that is accomplished comes to perform for the rest of the dancers.

7. The recognition that studios receive for the accomplishments of their teachers and students.

I enjoy and appreciate all of these elements that are included in today's ballroom competitions. But, I do not acknowledge that any of these elements are essential to an event being called a competition or even qualifying as a competitive event.

Now, why am I questioning the concept of artificial scarcity being part of our modern day competitions? Basically because I feel that artificial scarcity and a lack of declared standards by the judges actually defeat some of the major purposes that a competition is set up for, at least from what I gather a competition's goals are. These are some of the goals I would imagine a competition would have:

1. To make the competition owners financially successful and recognized. Actually, this would have to be an important goal for a small business owner who is producing a competition. If they don't succeed, the event will die. I actually think that modern competitions do this pretty well, at least the one's that are surviving. They would only benefit by more participation and recognition of their event.

2. To support commercial ballrooms and teaching. Because teachers get paid by their students and sometimes by the competition for entering their students in events, it is mutually beneficial for competitions and commercial ballrooms to see to each other's financial success and recognition. I actually think that modern competitions do this pretty well. Teachers, ballrooms and competitions will only benefit by ways that promote their interests even better than they do today.

3. To inspire dancers to dance. It is essential to have dancers participate in competitions for the above two purposes to be accomplished. In addition, I think that most people would agree that inspiring dancers to dance is a worthy and essential goal. I think that today's competitions fall short of this goal when they do not make it clear as to what standards the judges are using to make their choices. I have seen many dancers give up dancing because of competitions, and I don't think it is just because they lost, it is primarily because the judging seemed to be arbitrary to them (whether it was or not).

4. To inspire dancers to achieve their very best. This is the purported major reason that competitions always use to justify the giving of first prizes. But, how is this accomplished when a couple is uncontested? I have seen time and again at smaller competitions, especially where there are several divisions and levels, that at least 1/3 of the couples are uncontested and win first place. How is this going to help the couple to achieve their very best? The judges aren't giving feedback on how the couple danced, only a rating of first or second. There is no declared judging standard. If there were, it would be possible for a couple to be uncontested and still not win first and to be able to interpret the results to see how they were doing with their own personal mastery.

5. To push forward the standards of mastery for the whole industry, causing dancers to achieve greater achievements than their predecessors. This is usually the goal of other competitive sports, especially in the Olympics. It is easy to measure when the desired result is clear, like running a mile in the shortest time. But, with dancing, judging events is not very clear. Even were standards created for individual competitions by a panel of judges, it would only serve to reveal the weaknesses inherent in making judgments between an event that straddles the fence between sport and art.

I am going to stop here, because I would love to get some feedback from others and hear their comments on any part of this discussion. I certainly don't feel I have all the answers. I am not putting my ideas forth as the "best". I am just thinking out loud and encouraging others to look at things and explore their questions and ideas on the subject.

Dancing and loving it,

Karen

To answer your question as to what judges are looking for, I can boil it down to a very simple conecpt: They want to see pretty much the same things your teacher does.

One of the advantages to being a pro-am student is that you have an experienced mentor to hold your hand and walk you through the entire process. You never have to be in the dark about anything. If your teacher is good, he or she will give you exactly the information you need to win the next competition, from good dancing to good costuming and grooming.

We could tell you that judges look for good posture and correct footwork. We could tell you that timing is important, or that you should never look down at the floor. But I would guess that your teacher has already covered these topics many times over.

Assuming your teacher is doing a good job, there's really nothing else we can offer you. However, if there is a specific matter or point about which you are confused, feel free to ask... we will be happy to clarify. Of course, so will your teacher, I'd bet.

Regards,
Jonathan

I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but you can try:
http://www.ballroomusa.com/radham/howjudged.htm . That should help give you an idea of what judges look for. I'm not sure if it's written with a particular level of dancer/dancing in mind though. Every judge has his/her own preference though. Some may put a bit more emphasis on say proper footwork while another might want to see more musicality, making your dancing match the phrasing in the music. Whether they look more at the man or woman in making their decision probably varies a bit, too. *shrug* I've been out of competitions for years and even then only did college level comps where you get judge by who's the least bad. Maybe that link will help though. Good luck.

--
James Marshall
marshall@astro.umd.edu
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall

I choose to compete. But that doesn't mean I have to worship the game, even if I do play by the rules. I don't want to take it so seriously and unquestioningly that I forget who I am and what my own personal goals are.



I like to think about things. That is obvious by the fact that I have spent so much time posting on this disucssion board. Mostly, though, the thing I love about dancing is the non-verbal part of just performing and practicing. It is an outlet for an overactive mind like mine.

Thanks for you comments, Been There, and for letting others know of the other venues that exist for them.

Dancing and loving it,

Karen

What makes a sport competition a competition is the understanding that people are showing up to play some sort of game according to some set of rules, and that winners and losers are decided. There are rules for dancesport: the IDSF, the NDCA, and USABDA all have them. At all but local club competitions judges have to be certified, certification is achieved by passing a series of judge's exams.

There are other ways to get feedback about one's dancing besides entering competitions. Aside from the scored showcases and performance showcases I mentioned below, there are also medalist exams for amateurs, run by the ISTD. You study each level (Bronze, Silver, etc.) and take an examination and receive a grade and comments from a special ISTD examiner. Like scored showcases, you are judged on a standard for the level, and you receive actual feedback rather than just a set of recalls and marks.

People do have choices, it's not like the organized competitions are the only opportunity. If you don't hear about these other opportunities it could be because they just aren't advertised well enough in your circle or that there aren't enough people in your area interested in them to make them economically feasible.

My perceptions about the Judging at Competitions:

I have appreciated everyone's comments in this discussion so far. I am sure that there are people more experienced than myself at stating what the judges want and how they judge. I will just give you my impressions from having observed competitions for many years and having participated in them for the past year.

First of all, I have yet to see a competition that has a published standard or criteria by which they judge the competitors. If I were to design a competition, I would call together a panel of judges and have them come up with a standard to judge by, then make that list public before competitors enter a competition. This would become the standard against which the competitors were graded and the judges would need to justify their judgment based upon that standard. Also, I would have that standard have various levels of achievement. If there were four people who attained the highest level in a category, there might be four first places. If there were none who attained the highest level, there may only be a third place, a second place and no first places.

Now, from my observation, this is not the way it is done. Instead, each judge has their own criteria by which they judge a competitor and there are several judges. Each judge makes their marks and then those marks are tallied and a sum (depending upon the formula) is the competitor's score. In many competitions, the results are posted on a wall or available in a binder so the competitors can see how each judge has ranked them. The first round only has an "R" for recall, if the judge says the competitor is to go to the next round. Then for the finals, there are specific ratings for positions. For example, if there were 6 finalists, then they would be rated 1-6. I won't go into further detail here, because each competition has its variations. But, from what I can see, the most a competitor can learn from their rating is which judges favor what they do and to try to guess the judges' criteria. Or they might take a lesson with that judge and pay to get specific feedback on their dancing and to see how the judge thinks.

In my opinion, the ways things are done in the status quo are easier on the judges and harder on the competitors. Not to say that either job is easy. The competitor is left trying to understand why they have been judged as they are, without a clear concept of what the judges' goals are. They may find themselves competing for a long time before they finally figure out that what a particular group of judges are looking for is not what they want for themselves.

There is an element of mystery that leaves the judges some room to make arbitrary decisions, if they are pressed for time.

If there were a published standard for each competition, it would be better for the competitors. Competitiors could understand the judging system before deciding to participate and they could understand the results better. It would be more work for the competition. The competition itself would have to set the standard (with an initial panel of judges) and all subsequent judges would have to adhere to that standard. Many judges might not like that system, because they are independent minded folks. But as a competitor, I would far prefer it.

Next is the issue of first, second, third place, etc. Everyone goes into our modern day competitions with the agreement that there is a scarcity of places available. For example, rarely is there more than one first place, one second place, etc. So, if you have a competition with five extremely gifted dancers all worthy of first place, the judges, would be required to rate them 1 through 5. To me, this is setting up a situation of artificial scarcity. In other words, the first place is the scarce resource. Also, I have noticed that if there are not any dancers dancing at top level in a competition, the judges still award 1-5 prize, in most cases. This means that the standards that the individual judges use to rate the finalists is variable, depending upon who enters the competition. The higher caliber the contestants, the higher standards the judges have to use to differentiate between the competitors and place them 1-6.

So, with these things in mind, it might be wise for someone who is a competitor to think carefully about their personal goals for competitions.

For example, if you are a competitor and your primary goal is to win first place, then you are going to have a certain degree of frustration, under the current system figuring out how to do that and there is going to be a certain expense and time required to try to figure out the mysteries of how it is done. And when it comes down to it, a lot will depend upon the luck of the draw, when it gets to the top 10%.

My personal goals as a competitor are to improve my dancing, gain performance experience and achieve the highest mastery that I can achieve, in keeping with how I want to portray myself on the dance floor. Although I appreciate the role of the judges in a competition, unless I know them and their standards, it has not been extremely meaningful for me to receive 1st place, even though I have done so a number of times. I can accomplish more by hiring a coach to critique my dancing who gives me specific feedback. But, I go to competitions because I enjoy watching others dance, I enjoy performing and I am glad that I don't have to produce the events. Also, I like to support my friends. Competitions also give me goals to strive for, as in moving from one level of dancing to the next (i.e. from Bronze, to Silver, to Gold, to Novice to Pre-Championship to Championship levels). But, when it all comes down to it, the trophies in my room are just pretty decorations and the real value I get is in the people I meet, the time I enjoy practicing with a partner and the fun of performing. I do appreciate the feedback of the judges, even though I don't always understand it. It is especially hard to know what it means when you didn't see the people who competed against you, because you were all competing at the same time.

Even though I propose changes for the way competitions could be run, I realize that the current system solves a myriad of problems and that any of these changes would present other problems to be solved. So, really, as long as competitors are happy with the current system, the competition producers will probably not make any radical changes. The bottom line is whether there are enough contestants to pay the bills. When a better alternative comes up, and people start flocking to it, then some changes may occur in that established system. But, people generally don't like to initiate change or take big risks...

Well, I am stepping off my soapbox now.

Thanks for listening..

Dancing and loving it,

Karen

[This message was edited by KarenL on 08-23-03 at 03:09 PM.]

A few points:

I agree that a published standard or at least a list of judging criteria would be useful and instructive. I don't know if it makes sense for the 'open' levels, but it would be helpful on the syllabus levels. I also know that each competition has a "chairman of judges" who is responsible for referreeing the event (as in interpreting rules and make sure they are applied) and also for instructing the judges. For example, a judge might say "this is a Junior-level event, and costumes are optional, so please make sure that your judging isn't being influenced by the costuming."

As for the awarding multiple first places, etc. I think that's a little silly. It is a dance SPORT competition, and in competitive sports there are winners and losers and one place per team. That's the way it goes, that's the nature of competition. Competition isn't for everyone. Fortunately there are other performance venues for people who don't like the structure of competitions. There are scored showcases, there are pure performance showcases, and of course there is social dancing.

If a couple is "competing for a long time before they finally fingure out what a particular group of judges is looking for" then I'd say that they don't have a very good coach. A good coach should be able to tell you what you should be working on, what the judges want to see, and to explain why your marks went a certain way.

Hi,
many thanks for such valuable comments.

There are few reasons why I'm confused and ask such question.

The first thing is I notice that one male student, not having such great posture comparing to others (men or women) in the same heat (according to my observation), but having a very good teacher doing all nice and fancy work while he's almost in place, gets many first place. (i would rather give that to other candidates).

Another thing is, coming to the end, I notice that (almost all) students winning are with the same teachers. That's why I beleive having very good teacher as parner make big difference.
Also, as mentionned by Jonathan, "greatest advantage are those that contain the most talented student AND teacher together", a good/better teacher will make the difference when 2 competitors are about the same level, or teach can even offset the performance of students. Couldn't it ?

Also, a choregraphie built by more experience/better teacher do have big influence. Doesn't it ?

All that being said, please correct if I'm wrong, other than working hard and being good dancer/student, students need to find a very good teacher (as parner) to have more chance for pro-am competition.

Best regards,