Does Competition Decide Your Dance Level??

[westcoastjunkie]

OMG! :eek:
YIKES! :eek:
The WSDC sending out enforcers to events? :confused:

I going to say something that is probably very unpopular: I think this whole divisional J&J thing has gotten waaaay out of hand. I think people are taking J&J contests waaaay toooo seriously, and as a consequence, sometimes themselves.

First, let's acknowledge that the guidelines and point system has been effective is achieving its goal of having mostly novice dancers in the Novice divisions, intermediate dancers in the Intermediate divisions and advance dancers in Advance. Mission accomplished. In fact, we as a community were so successful in creating those 3 classes of dancers we kept at it and created a few more: Newcomer, All-Star and Champion. Can it possibly get more divisive?

"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going."

I'm going to make a counter proposal to the WSDC:

1) The WSDC will no longer govern, sanction, regulate or endorse divisional level "Jack & Jill" (J&J) competitions. A J&J is a test of a dancer's social dancing skills, the key word and emphasis being "social". Going forward, all J&Js at WSDC events will be OPEN to ALL DANCERS not competing in Classic, Showcase or an Invitational category. This is to reinforce and maintain the emphasis on the "social" element of swing dancing.

2) The WSDC will no longer award "points" to J&J contestants. J&J contestants will be eligible for cash prizes, trophies and bragging rights, as determined by the event directors. (In other words, the only point to a social dance, including J&Js, will be to have fun!)

3) Pursuant to items 1 and 2 above, the WSDC will no longer sanction, regulate or endorse the terminology "Novice", "Intermediate" and "Advance", or any other classification as it applies to J&J contestants. Henceforth, J&J contestants shall be referred to as "Swing Dancers".

Proposed closing statement:

The WSDC is committed to promoting swing dance events and providing structure and guidelines to competition categories and dancers. Over the years the number of events and competitive categories has grown substantially. As such, WSDC will focus its attention on Strictly Swing, Pro-Am, Rising Star, Classic and Showcase categories. The WSDC believes that those competitive categories more than adequately provide dancers who wish to compete, perform and/or entertain opportunities to do so. The WSDC believes that the above changes in the J&J category will better help the WSDC support its entire mission statement, in particular, to "[p]romote the GROWTH of ALL Swing Dancing to the general public at large."

[bethany]

This thread is listed in the section "Competition Corner". Naturally, the topic of competitions will be discussed here. Your opinions are fine, but whether you like it or not, competitions will be out there for dancers in wcs. I like that Doug is seeking out people's thoughts for the wsdc that will help foster and strengthen the competitions.

[westcoastjunkie]

This thread is listed in the section "Competition Corner". Naturally, the topic of competitions will be discussed here. Your opinions are fine, but whether you like it or not, competitions will be out there for dancers in wcs. I like that Doug is seeking out people's thoughts for the wsdc that will help foster and strengthen the competitions.

Since J&J is a competitive category, and since someone suggested making suggestions to the WSDC regarding the structure of J&J contests, I hope I am posting in the proper thread, even if my point of view is not the prevailing one. I also mean no disrespect Doug. My post was not directed to him specifically but to the community at large. My expression of my counter-point of view is not meant to be an attack on Doug or anyone who agrees with him. It is meant to offer something else for consideration.

I have no problem with competition. I was a competitive athlete for many years. And I never suggested eliminating competitions at the swing dance events. To the contrary, I specifically pointed out the opportunities available in Strictly Swing, Pro-Am, Rising Star, Classic and Showcase (not to mention Cabaret). That's quite a few. I was specifically focusing on the J&J category.

Am I suggesting that levels or divisions be eliminated from swing dance competitions entirely? Not at all. There is the Strictly Swing category and also the Pro-Am. (Yes I know Pro-Am generally uses the terminology of "Gold", "Silver" and "Bronze", but I believe it provides the appropriate feedback and distinction to the competitors for them to gauge how they are doing individually and relative to their fellow competitors.)

Do I understand the desire to improve and have some measurement of that endeavor? Of course. Do I understand the desire to see how one might measure up next to one's peers? Of course. Do I think either of those pursuits are bad or wrong? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I believe competition does offer value. I'm also NOT suggesting that there never, ever be a J&J event with divisional levels. Phoenix has been holding its event long before the current guidelines were put in place and with great success. I also believe there were a few other similarly structured "Jack-n-Jill-orama" type events here and there. Keep 'em.

I'll be more clear on my position. Do I believe the current structure and guidelines fulfill on the intention to as best possible have novice dancers in the Novice division, advance dancers in the Advance division, etc., etc.? Yes. Do I believe the current structure and guidelines to be fair in achieving that end? Yes. Do I believe the current structure of the J&J category (and only the J&J category) is going in the right direction? No. Do I think it might be, possibly, going to far? Yes.

I'm suggesting that a J&J competition may not warrant such significance as to require on-site WSDC representatives to enforce compliance. I'm suggesting that the "Advance" or "All Star" divisions (as currently defined) are not under threat and in need of the WSDC's action to preserve the sanctity of the distinction "Advance" and "All Star". (Seriously??? Ok, now I'm being sarcastic, sort of.)

Consider this point of view: If a J&J is a contest of a dancer's social dance skills, then doesn't logic dictate that a J&J should be conducted as an "Open" category? Isn't that how social dancing really works? When you social dance, do you only dance with people of the approximate same "level" as you? Would doing so make you a better social dancer? What if we actually put our money were our mouths are (~lacking a better metaphor at the moment~) and really test our ability to dance well with anyone. One definition of Integrity is when one's words are aligned with one's actions. So, If a J&J is a contest of social dancing skills then shouldn't the structure of the contest reflect that?

Will some people opt out of J&J contests if the current carrot is not at the end of the stick any more? Probably, but I hope not. I've done Open J&Js and they are a lot of fun. Is there the possibility that an Open J&J may be more enticing to some dancers? ??? The few Open J&Js that I've seen had lots of competitors. I also think an Open structured contest at events provides an alternative (dare I say it, perhaps even a balance) to the other competitions offered, maybe, even be the cornerstone of what this dance is about and why we dance this dance.

:D

[jmatthew]

Consider this point of view: If a J&J is a contest of a dancer's social dance skills, then doesn't logic dictate that a J&J should be conducted as an "Open" category? Isn't that how social dancing really works? When you social dance, do you only dance with people of the approximate same "level" as you? Would doing so make you a better social dancer? What if we actually put our money were our mouths are (~lacking a better metaphor at the moment~) and really test our ability to dance well with anyone. One definition of Integrity is when one's words are aligned with one's actions. So, If a J&J is a contest of social dancing skills then shouldn't the structure of the contest reflect that?

That's awesome.

I totally agree that people freak out way too much about J&Js. There's just no practical way to make them "fairer." (I think they're pretty fair, their's just a large randomization component. Completely random is fair, 20% skill, 80% random is still fair, the 50/50 breakdown we probably currently have is still fair, it's just rough on the psyche).

I think we need to refocus on what the point of dancing is: To have fun. jack and jills are supposed to be entertaining, end of story. They aren't a good measure of skill. They never will be, there's just too much variation.

[dancin_weezie]

I think we need to refocus on what the point of dancing is: To have fun. jack and jills are supposed to be entertaining, end of story. They aren't a good measure of skill. They never will be, there's just too much variation.

OK, now it's my time to disagree. You don't think J&J's are a good test of skill? Can I ask why?

I earned my way in this community by doing J&J's - not routines or even SS. I believe that J&J's are a test of your leading & following capability. Anyone can learn a routine and anyone can get used to dancing with the same person over, and over, and over, and over.... but can everyone dance well with 50-70 different dancers. I think that is a test of your true skill as a WCS dancer.

This is why the WSDC tracks J&J points - not SS points... I connect amazingly well with certain people better than others (our fearless Westie Wire Admin - Faust for example). He and I usually tear up the floor together. Would it be fair if we entered every SS together? We get yelled at enough as it is when we dance together once or twice a year Tongue Out.

So, I could climb to the top of the heap and win consistently with the same person - whereas I am forced to be a responsive follower in J&J's and hope to still have the same ability. That in my opinion is the test of a good dancer.

[Kelly]

Consider this point of view: If a J&J is a contest of a dancer's social dance skills, then doesn't logic dictate that a J&J should be conducted as an "Open" category? Isn't that how social dancing really works? When you social dance, do you only dance with people of the approximate same "level" as you? Would doing so make you a better social dancer? What if we actually put our money were our mouths are (~lacking a better metaphor at the moment~) and really test our ability to dance well with anyone. One definition of Integrity is when one's words are aligned with one's actions. So, If a J&J is a contest of social dancing skills then shouldn't the structure of the contest reflect that?

I'm going with Dance Weezie and completely disagreeing with you. IMO, JnJ is not a contest of "social dancing" I think you are confusing social dancing with the emphasis on "Lead And Follow". JnJ is a competition that tests your ability to lead and follow. Which the ability to Lead/Follow comes from connection, technique and teamwork. And of course its luck of the draw and so forth.

If there were no distinction between a "beginner" follower and an "advanced" follower than I would agree with you that a JnJ could be open and mix the levels. But thats not true.....there is a clear distinction that separates beginners from advanced dancers. I do social dance with many levels at events, and as an advanced/all star dancer of course i'm going to follow a Novice dancer while social dancing with no problem and probably compensate for the lack there of. (as mentioned in this thread). So how would an Open JnJ test my ability to follow according to your opinion??? It doesn't. JnJ have levels for a reason and as your climb up those levels you develop as a dancer. Its not about social dancing, again it connection, technique and teamwork and each of these develope and improve with each level of JnJ.

[jmatthew]

OK, now it's my time to disagree. You don't think J&J's are a good test of skill? Can I ask why?

I think there are a few things that make Jack and Jills a bad test of skills.

1) No reliable metric. We can't even agree what the dance should be or look like, let alone how the dance should be judged. We have some guiding principles, but in application they're hard to quanitify and change priority based on the judge, level, temperature in the room...

2) No reasonable sample. We've all heard the standard lecture... "The judges get to see you for 12 seconds..." while not strictly true, it does illustrate the problem that judges don't get a representative sample of your dancing, they get a very small subset.

3) There's a contradiction between what teachers want to feel, and what judges want to see. That is, a highly skilled dancer will feel a certain way, but a less skilled dancer can feel much worse, but that can be masked and as such is unavailable information to the judges.

4) There's way more competitors than winners. This is true in all competitive sports of course, but in WCS the issue becomes more tied to the levels of dance that we use. Basically it gets harder and harder to get out of each division as the dance gets more popular (on one hand a great problem to have)... but this means that todays Novice's are more skilled than they were X years ago.. How often at events do you hear the announcer talk about how the novice finalists look like intermediate dancers? There's a reason for that (besides announcer fawning), a lot of them should be.

5) There's skill in dancing, then there's skill in performing. Obviousely both come into play for any dance, but in social dancing the emphasis is certainly more towards the former than the latter, while in jack and jills, depending on the judges, the reverse may be true. If jack and jills are a test of skill in social dancing, then one's performance skills would be a non-issue. How we'd score this, who knows...

Obviousely (I hope), Jack and Jills aren't completely independent of skill. There's certainly some connection. But one shouldn't define one's skill level entirely based on what level of Jack and Jill you participate in, any more than you would base it on what level of workshop you attend (yay, everyone's advanced!).

I was very hesitant to participate in Jack and Jills for a long time. I came out of the Lindy Hop Exchange universe, which is all about social dancing and looks down on comps as something that promotes elitism. If you've never been to an exchange, basically it's 300-1200 lindy hoppers dancing for about 12 hours a day for 3 days, no comps, no workshops, just lots and lots of dancing with strangers. They're awesome. Portland's is particularly good.

Now I think of Jack and Jills as a reason to push myself. Lindy Hop has the problem that people get their place in the scene and then quit really growing as dancers, because there's no outside push. Jack and Jills in WCS provide that push for me. Even if I'm a very popular dancer in town, J&Js remind me that there's a lot of room for growth. :) And the occassionaly placement DOES indicate some personal skill growth, it just doesn't indicate that I'm more skilled than anyone else on the dance floor.

[westcoastjunkie]

IMO, JnJ is not a contest of "social dancing" I think you are confusing social dancing with the emphasis on "Lead And Follow". JnJ is a competition that tests your ability to lead and follow.

Not sure what you mean by that :confused:

Which the ability to Lead/Follow comes from connection, technique and teamwork. And of course its luck of the draw and so forth.

I agree completely.

If there were no distinction between a "beginner" follower and an "advanced" follower than I would agree with you that a JnJ could be open and mix the levels. But thats not true.....there is a clear distinction that separates beginners from advanced dancers. I do social dance with many levels at events, and as an advanced/all star dancer of course i'm going to follow a Novice dancer while social dancing with no problem and probably compensate for the lack there of. (as mentioned in this thread). So how would an Open JnJ test my ability to follow according to your opinion??? It doesn't.

I disagree. There is of course the luck factor, but a competent judge will see your solid technique and following, and the lack thereof in a beginner, and know you are being somewhat limited. I've had conversations with a few of the Pros who judge and they told me they can tell quite easily. Besides, I believe that is why the dancers rotate partners. ;) But in that instance you will also be judge on how good of a partner your are being (your post about showing your emotions?), are you doing your best to make your partner look his best, are you expressing your musicality, etc.

JnJ have levels for a reason and as your climb up those levels you develop as a dancer.

Hmmm. I think they go hand in hand. For some dancers it could even be the other way around; as dancing and partnering skills improve then so does competition placement.

Its not about social dancing, again it connection, technique and teamwork

To me they are the same. This may be a generational thing. When I was starting out J&Js used to be for "non-competitors". It would actually be worded that way on the registration form. If you were competing in Strictly Swing, Classic or Showcase you could not sign up for the J&Js. I usually don't show up in the competition room until 9 or 10 pm and then hang out for the late night dancing, so maybe I'm missing something, but I've only ever heard of J&Js as a contest of WCS social dance skills.

and each of these develope and improve with each level of JnJ.

I agree.

I agree that to succeed consistently in J&Js is a valid marker or indicator of good dancing skills (that is, partnering, musicality and technique), relative to the level in which you are competing.

The point system utilized to distinguish the J&J levels is arguably fair but also arguably arbitrary. Does having X points mean you are an "insert name" dancer? No. It means you have competed successfully in enough J&Js to earn X points. Does logic dictate that the better dancers will rise to the top? Yes. But what some competitors forget is that it is Relative Placement. The key word there is Relative. If a "novice" dancer beats other "novice" dancers enough to move into the Intermediate division, does that mean the dancer's overall skills are no longer at the novice level (whatever that means)? Maybe, maybe not.

I remember watching the J&J finals at SwingDiego a few years ago and I thought that the "Intermediate" finalists danced very similarly to the "Novice" finalists (just my personal opinion here) and then there was a huge difference between the "Advance" finalists and "Intermediate". Meanwhile, according to the point system, there is the possibility that the Intermediate winners may have qualified for Advance with that win. Who knows? The follower was head and shoulders above everyone else in the finals; the leader, well....But they were judged as a couple so he gets the points and the "win" too.

However, I believe the Pro-Am category is intended to acknowledge dance levels. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Gold, Silver and Bronze designations are determined by the level of difficulty in the routine and how well it was executed. I also believe that in Ballroom and Country Western there is a written standardization for what constitutes Gold, Silver and Bronze. Not sure about WCS.

[Arjay]

I wanted to ask, maybe I didn't read it and scanned way too fast to make note...

Does anyone know why the point system was implemented in the first place?
I've heard many reasons but haven't read any specific documentation.

I think the point system is as good as it's going to get for a while because it's kinda deadlocked...

Even if we made a change for the better...whatever that means improving the system or abolishing it....damage has been done...

My biggest issue with eliminating the point system is two major issues....

1. Sure there is a test of lead and follow based in competition but part of the reason point system was implemented was A)eliminate piggybacking(that's what i call it) too many dancers trying to dance higher levels before they're ready, and too many dancers dancing lower than they are because they want to sandbag B)more mismatches of higher and lower level dancers might have a reverse effect on competitors having "good lead and follow" dances and actually encouraging poorer lead and follow skills and having more "flash and trash" dances just to get noticed

2. Another thread posted relating to this now is assessing your dance ability by the number of points you possess and the dance division you currently reside in.....

The current dance community is extremely extremely competitive...I've seen many people "Scavenge" attend small events to collect points so they can advance to higher levels later at the bigger events. (not as easily with the rating system)

But abolishing the point system could fuel this fire...even more people that are hungry to climb the ranks would jump as frequently as possible....

then again with no "ranking" to climb does that eliminate the problem? maybe maybe not

[westcoastjunkie]

I wanted to ask, maybe I didn't read it and scanned way too fast to make note...

Does anyone know why the point system was implemented in the first place?
I've heard many reasons but haven't read any specific documentation.

Great question. I'd love to know the answer to that from someone on the WSDC Board or from someone who was directly involved in the process that led to the current system.

My recollection of that time frame, from the "Earn Your Way" thread,

"God knows I've killed a lot of brain cells over the years, buy my memory is that the point system was instituted as an objective measure of competitors' skills in a rather subjective event....Before the point system was instituted, events had started offering different levels of J&Js but competitors put themselves in whatever division they felt like. I recall there being plenty of complaints ... So then how does anyone determine or decide which dancers are at what level? How do you decide that? Well the decision was not to make that call. Instead, it was decided that it made more sense to create a system to measure competitive levels with a supporting but secondary reasoning that the cream will rise to the top."

The current dance community is extremely extremely competitive...I've seen many people "Scavenge" attend small events to collect points so they can advance to higher levels later at the bigger events.

Kinda speaks for itself. :confused:

P.S. I'm having a very slow day at work today. : )

[lrsd]

Reading the post and threads its amazing that I have not seen anyone focus on what the dance is. WCS or swing in general is a social dance and therefore any competition should be judged based on your social ability to provide three things. The basis of the dance the 3 t's. In relation to a JNJ I agree on the open concept as a good WCS dancer should be able to dance with someone of any level, make the dance look good while not over dancing or making their partner feel as though they are not equal....this would be called team work. After all a JNJ is purely luch of the draw so in some cases you may wind up with someone that is at your same level, above or below you. The same concept with regard to the music played during the JNJ..however thats a different topic as the arguement can be(and I agree) that there are songs that are maybe to much for some lower level dancers but then thats where your skill as an advance dancer takes them in and guides them through the dance. This is easier for a leader then a follower, but an arguement can be had for any situation.

After so many years in this community the biggest comment I have is that people do take competion to seriously. They spend huge amounts of dollars on competing, why, because the dance and event as we know it are pushing comps more then anything. Question: which events are more fun? The ones that are comp based or the ones that are social based? If you had to spend your money would you rather spend it having fun, or stressing about a comp you may or may not win or even place? Lets get back to the fun of the dance..

[Cooley]

In relation to a JNJ I agree on the open concept as a good WCS dancer should be able to dance with someone of any level, make the dance look good while not over dancing or making their partner feel as though they are not equal....this would be called team work.

Have you ever noticed that it's always the males/leaders who feel that 'open' is a good category or that good dancers should be able to dance with anyone. That may be true for a male/leader, but it's no where near true for a female/follow. When you lead, you have control. If you get a bad follow, you can 'dumb' down your dance and lead her through the bare basics and make that look good. As a follower, we don't always have that luxury. If we get a guy who can't lead, there's only soo much we can do to make the dance ok, particularly if he doesn't even really know the basic lead-and there are many of them! I've been paired with some of these guys before, guys who can't even handle counting to 6. Yea, I can adjust, I can stop trying to finish my anchor and go straight to 1, but that can't look good to someone watching who knows what it supposed to look like. In the least, it'll look like I'm missing the whole anchoring concept, which as we know is also a bad mark for many judges.

[bethany]

I guess I'll be the female who's good with open divisions. In fact, John Wheaton hosts open division of competitions, and they are a blast, even if you get a bad draw. That's how it goes. Then again, I come from the open division background of the lindy world. I competed in open division first, long before wsdc divisions of wcs.

Cooley, your comment seems more in response to the results you find in the judging. Do judges truly judge the teamwork, or do they rank based on the leads? That's a heavy topic right now with some friends I've talked with. Can you control how a judge judges? Not really. The only thing you can do is go out, realize it's a crap-shoot, take it for what it's worth, and move on.

[Alina]

I guess I'll be the female who's good with open divisions.

Count me in as another follower who is into the whole open competition idea:) To me getting a horrible lead in intermediate is just as bad as getting a horrible lead in open - each one sucks equally. Except in open, I know what I am in for - I can get a really god lead or a really bad one. In intermediate, I expect the leads I get to be "intermediate competent" and when they are not, it's way more disappointing than it would be to get an incompetent lead in open.

[Cooley]

I'm not against Open divisions. I'm actually fine with them, because like Alina said it is way more disappointing to get an incompetent lead in my actual division, than an incompetent one in open. I guess, my experience has just been too much of the bad luck of the draw. I always seem to get the guy that does not even know the basic and has no interest in any anchoring. Yes, I can get through it, might even make it look ok, but it's not really fun and this is supposed to be kinda fun, aint' it? And no, I'm not saying it's not fun cuz I have no chance of winning-it's just not going to be a good dance if I have to constantly stop doing the actual dance to follow something else. I can get that socially-I'd rather not pay to do that! lol

My response wasn't about judging either. It was just about how easily male/leaders seem to think it is to dance with anyone 'well', that if you're a good dancer, that it shouldn't be a problem and in the discussions I've had with my female friends-most females understand that it's not. Sure, I can adjust to someone who doesn't know the dance, but that's not what I really want to do in a comp...

[derbyhat]

I like the novelty of an Open competition, but I'd loathe to be at an event where the only J&J was an Open.

Why?


The competition would probably be too big. A whole bunch of people wouldn't compete b/c they aren't "good enough" even though they'd want to. If I'm in another Open Strictly with 47 couples and it's a final, I'm going to scream.
Relative placement would be all over the map
The competition would take a very long time.
Other reasons that I'm sure will be obvious to other people.

----------
The leveling of competitions provides 2+ very important functions.

It sizes the competitions into manageable groups for the event organizer.
It provides a box for shy people to enter. (Not everyone, myself included, has the ego to place themselves.)
Other reasons that I'm sure will be obvious to other people.


Just my 2 cents.

[whipdancer]

In the really old good ole days, there was one level, "Open" (but Open wasn't really a level, but that's a different story). But people complained, because they didn't want to compete against <insert name here>. So they created "Novice" to go with "Open" (this is the time where I started). I won in Novice, so I started to compete in Open.

But when I started, J&J were for fun! ****, our State/Regional organization is still "discussing" even recognizing J&J as anything beyond "a fun Friday night contest". That's how embedded the "J&J don't count, they are just for fun" mentality is here.

The first time I travel out of state, they asked me what level I was and I said "Open". Then they asked me what my WSDC number was, and I said, "What's that?" (Mind you, I had been teaching, judging, and competing for over 15 years at this point.)

The reason I say all that, is to give some background when I say, I just don't get the rabid concern that so many seem to have with how well they do in a J&J. I thought they were for fun.

So add me to the Open category. I was dancing in it before I knew I wasn't supposed to. I hope to continue for another 100 years.

But my cynical side looks at this differently.

The points won't go away. That would be throwing an income stream for someone away. And the people that control that stream are going to surrender it nearly so easily. We're not nearly as bad as the country world (thank goodness for that), but I can easily see it going there if we're not diligent in keeping this dance a social entity first (some would argue it's too late for that - but that's a different story).