I am writing a paper for class stating that ballroom dancing isa sport. But I can't find any information regarding how people train to help prove my point. Please, if you dance competively let me know how you train. Thanks!

The most difficult part of that assertion lies in developing your definition of what "sport" is. IMHO...sport is any athletic activity that is done competitively. Then of course you have to define "athletic". That's easier however, as most people accept that "athletic" means at the least that something is a physical activity involving some coordination.

Can you think of any non-sports that would meet this definition? Can you think of any sports that would NOT meet this definition? I haven't been able to yet. This is a broad categorization that would include such things as log throwing , bowling, and the like.

Some people would like to exclude some "sports" like bowling or curling, that they do not think are physically challenging enough. That's difficult because top bowlers have developed a very specific set of muscles to their peak performance. Who is to say that those small muscles are less important than say the more overall muscle use of a skiier? Both people trained long hours to reach a high level of mind-body coordination, both strove to increase the strength and stamina in the muscles that they needed to be competitive. So...in my mind, ya gotta count the bowlers too (and the other similar sports).

Ballet is not a sport, because it is not competitive. Some opponents of dance being a sport would argue that it is not sport because the judging process is purely subjective. However, many accepted "sports" such as ice skating, gymnastics, and springboard diving are also judged subjectively. In addition, many traditional sports are subjective as well. How many football, hockey, or baseball games (no one would argue that these aren't sports) have been decided by the subjective calls of referees or umpires??

I believe that most people who would classify dancesport as a NON-SPORT simply have not been exposed to it in person. Television broadcasts simply do not convey the physical power, precision, and speed that happens on the floor. We need dancesport to be more accesible throughout the US, and then we will see who can argue that it is not a sport. Sitting 6 feet away from a professional latin dancer you can see the attention to costuming, grooming and emotive presentation. But you are also likely to get hit by the sweat, see the incredible flexibility, muscular coordination, and intense concentration that truly makes it danceSPORT!

To curious. Re training. A 20 minute brisk walk to the studios latin practice night. 10 Rumbas.10 Samba. 10 Cha's. 10 Paso. 10 Jive. all the full disc. Then 5 Rumbas to warm down. Then a slow jog home. This happens 6 days out of 7 when in full training. Some girls wear a pair of shoes out every two weeks. With Modern Ballroom a top professional competitor was interviewed . He and his partner practice 7 hours 7 days a week. This is what it takes to get to the top and hopefully stay there. As well as this Pilates is also being used.I hope this information helps.Incidently the latin couple spoken about are friends of mine. The modern couple was in an interview with Donnie Burns on TV.

Hello KC – not to throw TOO big a monkey wrench into the system, but yes, I can think of something that (in some quarters at least) is considered a sport, and yet does not meet your definition thereof! Sports Illustrated seems to think it's a sport, because they've covered every world championship that I can recall. I tend to agree with that view, though I can certainly see where some would not. I am referring to what has been called the “Olympics of the Mind:” chess.

But, to return to the original question – why are we taking an “either-or” approach? At times, such as when struggling for technical exactness in competition, dance is a sport. And yet, does it ever lose the quality of self-expression, the communication of thought, idea or emotion – the hallmark of art? Even in a “drill and practice” session, are we doing anything different than the watercolorist learning the subtlety of different brush techniques?

If we become so fascinated with the idea of dance as an Olympic sport so as to draw recruits and attention to our passion, and thereby lose the perspective of it as an art, God help us. It is the ability to express, to create something new, that keeps dance from stagnation. Dance can be art, sport, or both, depending on its context and execution. JMHO.

Ralph

P.S. Remembering we have an international audience, I suppose I should explain Sports Illustrated in the US's leading sports periodical.

[This message was edited by Ralph on 12-16-03 at 09:49 AM.]

KC - you've made a very good argument here. One particular point you made has sort of changed my view on this. "Ballet is not a sport because it's not competitive" I was one who said that dancing is like ballet and therefore an art form. However, you've moved this crusty old (well - oldish) wrinkly off that position - some achievement!.

Interesting thread and lots of valid opinions. I would tend to agree with KC that the biggest hurdle to dancesport being considered a legitimate sport is the truly subjective nature of the judging - even compared with ice skating and gymnastics.

At least those sports contain some kind of required elements that give some commonality to judge competitors. Dancesport does not have any of this.

Your comment about football, hockey and baseball referees influencing outcomes is somewhat valid but these instances are definitely the exception. By in large any "traditional" sport event outcomes are determined by a point system that is connected to specific activities involved in the sport (like scoring goals, or runs). Even ice-skating and gymnastics start from a perfect score and have a public system of deductions that generally determine the winner.

I've been to quite a few dancesport events, the biggest being the Emerald Ball here on the west coast of the U.S.. To me a dancesport spectator crowd seems to care very little about the outcome of a dancesport event. Everyone is just there to see all the couples do their thing and at the end there is really no vested interest on the part of the spectator in a couple winning or losing. This is of course barring some kind of personal connection with the competitors. Compare this to say football, baseball, or basketball where die-hard fans throw themselves into deep depressions for weeks after a loss. There is so much at stake for a hardcore fan in the outcome of a traditional sporting event.

Whether it be because of the perception that the judging is too subjective or whatever the reason may be, this is something that is dancesport lacks. The spectators seem much more like a group of people seeing a musical and experience the event on that level rather than on a level that is almost entirely based on the outcome.

I agree with Ralph's assertions that the artistry in dancing is something that we do not want to eliminate because of the dancesport format. To me the dancesport format is a rather limited way to showcase the strengths of partner dancing. The emphasis on precision and speed and other athletic aspects takes away from the aspects of partner dancing that really make it unique among sports and artforms - the partnership skills, the emotional depth, the storytelling capabilities. I think the emphasis on the dancesport format has limited the growth of people interested in partner dancing as spectators. With all the couples on the floor at once and random music being played, the format seems to emphasize aspects that make dancesport the same as other sports not the apsects that make it unique. It is a shame that dancers with such immense talent basically spend years perfecting a handful of routines that have to be general enough so that they would be meaningful to whatever music was being played at the competition.

As much as I love the format of dancesport as a competitor and the access to a certain romanticized lifestyle that it offers. I believe that ballroom's emphasis on this format continues to limit its popularity in the United States.

Ballroom dancing is a physical activity that is artletic.

Up to now we have not considered the nature and source of the energy employed.

I did not say athletic, I said artletic.

eluck - I also like the unique aspects of ballroom in competitive dancing and would like to retain them. I think, though, that the present format - with multiple couples on the floor at a time - is an important part of that. Without others on the floor, it would be easy for couples to simply dance a routine memorized by each partner, reducing the need for lead and follow. Having other couples adds the element of floorcraft, emphasizing partnering skills.

Having the focus on one couple at a time might indeed increase the activity's popularity to spectators on the mass market. I think it would make the link to actual dancing in ballrooms more tenuous, though - and therefore decrease competitive ballroom dance's popularity as a participatory activity.

Besides, we already have Theatre Arts for those who want to do or watch the 'one couple at a time' thing.

Warren J. Dew