competing for numerical score rather than placement

[cl5814]

Someone made the comment in quitting competition thread, and while i was reading the thread, was thinking, but why not compete for someting other than placement ? Till i read the "numerical score" idea. This is probably only applicable to amateurs.
Part of this system is implemented by dancing for medal system. As close to the Pro-Am field as you will find in a country like South Africa. You are basically awarded with percentage; but dance alone with your instructor during evaluation session.

[saludas]

Where would the competitive aspect of multiple couples on the floor come in?

Otherwise, you're right, it would be easier to do it as a medals test.

[caityrosey]

You need a category in your poll for those who are ambivalent

[wyllo]

Why not both? You could have a numerical score that determines your overall placement.

[waltzgirl]

Where would the competitive aspect of multiple couples on the floor come in?

The studio I go to uses scores rather than placements for showcase competitions, but still schedules multiple dancers for each heat. Using scores makes it possible for an instructor with several students at the same level to dance with them all, and it gives more meaningful feedback if there aren't other students dancing in your level. For in-studio harmony, they play down the competitive aspect, but trust me, everybody knows how their scores compare to everyone else's.

My sister competes in Country Western and, at the one CW comp I went to, they must have been using some kind of a score system to determine their placements, because they had multiple heats of the same dance at the same level (to limit each heat to no more than 3 couples on the floor at any one time) and only announced the placements at the end of the comp. Scoring that way seems to me like a much better system than the way ballroom comps work.

[yanka]

I kind of like the idea of numerical scores. Sometimes I'll get the same ranking a few comps in a row, and I can't help but wonder whether or not I'm getting better...

[Laura]

I think the whole concept of a numerical score is pointless until and unless the judging rules assigned point values to moves and deductions to faults. Until and unless this is codified, the numercial score will totally depend on who is judging you and what they consider to be a base value. It could be as bad as the silly numerical scores on "Skating with Celebrities" or "Dancing with the Stars."

[yanka]

I think the whole concept of a numerical score is pointless until and unless the judging rules assigned point values to moves and deductions to faults. Until and unless this is codified, the numercial score will totally depend on who is judging you and what they consider to be a base value. It could be as bad as the silly numerical scores on "Skating with Celebrities" or "Dancing with the Stars."
I agree. I was going to mention that in my post, but then didn't have time to think through the possible alternatives...

[waltzgirl]

I think the whole concept of a numerical score is pointless until and unless the judging rules assigned point values to moves and deductions to faults. Until and unless this is codified, the numercial score will totally depend on who is judging you and what they consider to be a base value. It could be as bad as the silly numerical scores on "Skating with Celebrities" or "Dancing with the Stars."

Yes, unfortunately, that's what actually happens at the studio showcases. Out of a supposed 100 point scale, judges give everyone scores in the 90s. One judge's scoring range was actually about 94-99. I'm sure it's understood that they should do that so the studio's students don't get pissed off and discouraged. Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, for that judge, 94 is a bad score and get pissed off anyway!

On the other hand, I'd hate to see what's happening to ice skating under their new scoring system happen to dancing. I have always loved to watch ice skating, but I found both the recent Nationals and the Olympics very boring, because the skating seemed so uniform and impersonal.

I'm afraid the bottom line is, dance isn't a sport (IMO). But it is an industry and the industry is largely based on the economics of competitions.

[musicchica86]

Here's where the dancesport world could take some cues from the equestrian showing world. In dressage competitions, each horse and rider pair are scored based on different aspects of their performance on a scale of 1-10 I think (with points being deducted for mistakes or mishaps), then the scores from each section are totaled and the rankings in each class are based off of that numerical score.

It's very fair--every performance is judged totally on its own, regardless of whether the horse or rider is a well-known Olympic athlete or a brand-new competitor. Obviously there's still room for human error with disparity between judges' scores, but this way rank is much more based on individual performance instead of who else is in the playing field. The only theoretical way for someone "famous" to rank higher than you is if they had a solidly better performance that day.

[Joe]

I'm with Laura.

[Purr]

Yes, unfortunately, that's what actually happens at the studio showcases. Out of a supposed 100 point scale, judges give everyone scores in the 90s. One judge's scoring range was actually about 94-99. I'm sure it's understood that they should do that so the studio's students don't get pissed off and discouraged. Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, for that judge, 94 is a bad score and get pissed off anyway!


Sometimes a judge can go too far in the other direction, as happened at one studio event 3 years ago. I got a whopping 66 out of 100 in Waltz, which was my low score. My high score was an 81 out of 100 in Hustle.

I didn't receive the scores at the event, my teacher gave them to me on my next lesson. I was very, very upset. It turned out the judge was somewhat out of it during the event, and apparently scored everyone else just as critically. That didn't make me feel any better. Giving a student scores like that would make them want to quit.

[Laura]

I can understand your disappointment, but it makes me wonder about scoring scales in general. So please don't take this as a way of belittling your feelings about that event.

The way I'm thinking, on a scale of 1-100, a 50 would be average, so a 66 would be better than average and an 81 much better than average. To me, a 50 should mean "meets expectations, performs everything as required of a dancer at this level."

But then, I suppose people could take 100 to mean "meets expectations, performs everything as required of a dancer at this level," but then what do people that truly exceed expectations get?

What's the point of putting "meets expectations" at 75 or 80 anyway? For me, there's no point -- it just serves vanity to have "average" at something higher than 50, but in the US we are so conditioned to reject anything below 80 as horrible due to the traditional grading system used in schools.

Perhaps a first step for scale-scored dancing would be to establish what the scale means. If "average, nothing wrong but nothing exceeding expectations" was put on a standard point on the scale that everyone knew and used as their base, then people's opinions would change. Then a 70 would be really good, a score in the 80's would be fantastic, and scores in the 90's range would be reserved for true prodigies and future World-championship-bound talent.

[Purr]

You've got some great ideas, Laura. Until there's a way to standardize such scores, I don't think the numbers themselves mean a whole lot, although perhaps the rankings do over time. I participated in 3 such events from 2002 to 2003, the 1st and 3rd with the same judge, and the 2nd with another judge. Consistently, the scores from the smooth dances were lower than the rhythm dances. Usually waltz was the lowest, but once foxtrot was. With the rhythm dances, the scores for hustle was the highest, with east coast swing and mambo not too far behind. I would have to say the ranking of the dances were an accurate reflection of my abilities at the time.

[musicchica86]

I can understand your disappointment, but it makes me wonder about scoring scales in general. So please don't take this as a way of belittling your feelings about that event.

The way I'm thinking, on a scale of 1-100, a 50 would be average, so a 66 would be better than average and an 81 much better than average. To me, a 50 should mean "meets expectations, performs everything as required of a dancer at this level."

But then, I suppose people could take 100 to mean "meets expectations, performs everything as required of a dancer at this level," but then what do people that truly exceed expectations get?

What's the point of putting "meets expectations" at 75 or 80 anyway? For me, there's no point -- it just serves vanity to have "average" at something higher than 50, but in the US we are so conditioned to reject anything below 80 as horrible due to the traditional grading system used in schools.

Perhaps a first step for scale-scored dancing would be to establish what the scale means. If "average, nothing wrong but nothing exceeding expectations" was put on a standard point on the scale that everyone knew and used as their base, then people's opinions would change. Then a 70 would be really good, a score in the 80's would be fantastic, and scores in the 90's range would be reserved for true prodigies and future World-championship-bound talent.
That's the way scoring for dressage competitions work--mid-to-high 60s are average or slightly above average, 70s are really good, and 80s are nearly unheard-of great.

Of course, categories would also help even the playing field. Instead of giving a single overall score on a 0-100 scale, there could be, say, 10 different categories with a score of 0-10. Some examples would be a category for posture, one for connection, one for heel leads/toe releases in standard/smooth or toe leads in rhythm/latin, one for musicality, possibly one for difficulty of movement, and so on and so forth. That way if a couple's really weak in one area but really strong in another, it won't impact their overall score that much.

[Laura]

By the way, I used to do dressage when I was in Junior High (Novice level, or whatever it was that they call the lowest level -- we just did circles and figure eights and serpentines with different gaits, nothing fancy). I don't recall anyone ever being as angst-ridden about the judging and scoring system as people are in dancesport. I'm guessing that's because what is scored and what the scores meant were a lot clearer to everyone there. I used to score in the high 60's and once in the low 70's...that day we got a 72 I remember being incredibly excited, and the people around me were all like "wow, you did great!" In current dancesport showcase scoring, a 72 would be a complete and utter embarassment!!

[musicchica86]

*nods head* A 72 is great. Now if only we could get a scoring system like that in place in dancesport competitions...

[alemana]

isn't dressage much more empirical than dancesport, though? the angst with scoring in dancing is connected to its subjectivity, methinks.

[yanka]

That's the way scoring for dressage competitions work--mid-to-high 60s are average or slightly above average, 70s are really good, and 80s are nearly unheard-of great.

Of course, categories would also help even the playing field. Instead of giving a single overall score on a 0-100 scale, there could be, say, 10 different categories with a score of 0-10. Some examples would be a category for posture, one for connection, one for heel leads/toe releases in standard/smooth or toe leads in rhythm/latin, one for musicality, possibly one for difficulty of movement, and so on and so forth. That way if a couple's really weak in one area but really strong in another, it won't impact their overall score that much.

I think the Brown competition this year tried something like this - not the numberical score but the different judges looking for different aspects (I think the 3 categories they had were technique, presentation and partnering). While it sounded like a good idea, it didn't work very well. The judges had a hard time adjusting to it (eg. imagine instead of looking out at the dance floor until a couple captures your attention, you actively had to look at everyone's feet), and the results were not at all consistent from round to round as far as marks based on the 3 aspects go. The judges themselves were a much better predictor of the results. In other words, if judge A was told to look for X in round 1 and Y in round 2 and judge B was told to look for Y in round 1 and X in round 2, you were much more likely to end up with to marks from judge A than with 2 marks for category X. Furthermore, so many of the possible categories overlap that it's tough to judge them separately (eg. emotion & partnering, or posture & technique).
But maybe with clearer definitions, the system could work.