New age categories in USA Dance [Archive]

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 08:38 AM

Recently sent to the NJ Dancesport Classic email list:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Competitors,

Recently USA Dance announced the inception of a new age category (Senior 3) and many people wondered 'Why do we need another age category?' Those people affected by it have mostly been positive about it for a couple of reasons; each Senior category only spans 10 years so it creates a more level playing field and it gives older dancers who might have felt uncomfortable entering a Senior 1 event another category to dance.

This started me thinking. I teach many Adult competitors; not those whose goal it is to become professional dancers but people who have professional careers outside of dancing. Over the years I have seen a pattern with these people, many of whom started dancing in college. For several years after college they are extremely keen dancers working their way up through the ranks to usually a very high level in Pre-champ; some have even won the Pre-champ event at Nationals, and then they hit a wall. Once forced to dance only Championship level they find it nearly impossible to break into the 24 at Nationals. They continue to train and usually improve yet at many competitions (especially on the East Coast) they often times can.t make
the semi-final therefore often only dancing one or two rounds. Many I have known will stick with it for quite a few years confident that they are getting better and still enjoying the process, but eventually they become discouraged. Those who are getting close to 35 will often hang on but those who have 5 or more years to have another age category to dance often quit. They usually explain that the payoff for all the time and money spent isn't worth it.

My idea therefore is to try to start an initiative for a new age category; Adult 2 (25 - 34 years). This division will hopefully encourage post-college
dancers to keep dancing even when their jobs and family may cause them to take brief sabbaticals from dancing. With this division they will now have at least two opportunities to dance at any given competition and as we have all seen from collegiate competitions participation is what it is all about. Also this division will probably include very few 'pre-professional' dancers thus leveling the playing field further. I also hope that some Senior 1 competitors who would not dance the Adult category because they feel completely outclassed would dance this Adult 2 category.

I need your help however. In order for USA Dance to take this level
seriously they need feedback from those who would be affected by this change. My plan is to run this division at my upcoming NJ DanceSport Classic
competitions ('Summer Sizzler' July 20-21, 'Fall Frolic' Oct 2007 and 'Spring Fling' March 2008 ).

You can show your support by attending these events and/or writing something to the USA Dance DanceSport VP Ken Richards dancesport-vp.net showing your support of this new division. My hope is that there will be enough support to have USA Dance consider seriously this new division within the next year. So if this is important to you please take a few minutes and respond!

I look forward to hearing from you.

Wendi Davies
--------------------------------------------------------

Discuss. 8)

NielsenE

06-22-2007, 08:42 AM

Interesting..... I like the idea. I think her analysis has a lot to it and it will be interesting how the experiment shakes out.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 08:58 AM

Personally, I think it's a fantastic idea. They attempted to address this very issue by changing proficiency point cap from 3 to 5, but I think this addresses the actual issue much more directly.

Ithink

06-22-2007, 09:00 AM

It's a fantastic idea, I agree, since most of the finalists and semi-finalists are not even close to 25... Thank you Wendi! We'll definitely support this category:)

NielsenE

06-22-2007, 09:01 AM

agreed... the 3->5 point rule I think made the problem worse actually... this looks like it will improve things.... though it'll have to be watched and organizers will need to be aggressive about combining Adult/Adult II in many cases to avoid ending up like the pro-am world of all barely/un-contested events or just doubling the number of events..... (Or restricting it to only Championship (which Brooke's email alluded to, but the registration form and on-line allow all prof. levels)

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 09:02 AM

Personally, I think that the simplest answer would have been to make the 3 to 5 point change for the pre-champ to champ transition only.

Not that I'll mind having the option of an extra age category. But I don't really see it as being fair to those who started dancing in their collegiate years, and are still under age 25.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 09:15 AM

Personally, I don't think changing the proficiency point cap in prechamp from 3 to 5 points helped the situation much at all... except for my own personal interest of getting to dance prechamp just a little bit longer. ;)

I think this new category will be appreciated by a large group of people. I think the number of people who started dancing in college and get stuck in champ before they turn 25 is much lower than the number who get stuck in champ after they turn 25 and before they turn 35. But that's only based on personal observation. And not to mention, they don't have to wait an additional 13 years (if they graduate from undergrad at about 22 yrs) before they can dance in the next age category. Instead, it's only 3 years (usually). So even if they get "stuck" early, there is a light at the end of a much shorter tunnel.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 09:54 AM

this solution does address the problem very directly, but I am not sure it does so in the right way

Disagreeing with IThink: a lot of US finalists and semifinalists and quaterfinalists are over 25.. the preprofessional couples definitely wouldn't dance this category because of prestige..
also this in effect will be another senior category, and I personally 1) don't see how being over 25 is a disadvantage... 29 year olds are in perfectly good shape compared to 21 year olds... the age doesn't kick in until much later... for example, a lot of top professionals are over 30..
2) would not like having a senior category for myself. Only 3 years after I graduate from college... that just seems... wrong

this way to address the problem seems like the ProAm way of making sure there are enough levels so that everyone does well..

To address the issue of couples paying a small fortune, traveling far to compete and only danicng one round, comp organizers could run a rizing star champ category in which the couples making the semifinal at nationals, and last years finalists at this competition would not be allowed to compete.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 09:56 AM

this way to address the problem seems like the ProAm way of making sure there are enough levels so that everyone does well..

To address the issue of couples paying a small fortune, traveling far to compete and only danicng one round, comp organizers could run a rizing star champ category in which the couples making the semifinal at nationals, and last years finalists at this competition would not be allowed to compete.

It sounds to me like creating a rising star, another level between prechamp and champ, is no less like the ProAm way of making sure there are enough level so that everyone does well. ;)

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 09:59 AM

I personally 1) don't see how being over 25 is a disadvantage... 29 year olds are in perfectly good shape compared to 21 year olds... the age doesn't kick in until much later...

I respectfully disagree. I personally require a lot more maintenance at 30 than I did at 21. I feel the impact of what I put my body through much much more. How old are you, Kitty? :tongue:

ACtenDance

06-22-2007, 10:04 AM

I might support this so long as the level only applies to the Championship level. Adding Bronze/Silver/Gold/Novice/PreChamp Adult 2 would be a nightmare.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:04 AM

It sounds to me like creating a rising star, another level between prechamp and champ, is no less like the ProAm way of making sure there are enough level so that everyone does well. ;)

maybe
at least it doesn't label anyone senior when they are 25 (ridiculous!)

also doesn't create unneccessary age categories.. most comps will feel onligated to run it if it is official..
creating an age category 25-34 seems not justified to me.. 28 year olds can move their feet just as fast as 21 year olds..

rising star - is what the name says - to give those not established yet in the national semifinal a chance. works for pros. Works at comps such as blackpool. The winners and participants are selected based on past results and merit. not arbitrary age that doesn't really matter...

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:05 AM

I might support this so long as the level only applies to the Championship level. Adding Bronze/Silver/Gold/Novice/PreChamp Adult 2 would be a nightmare.

I completely agree, this only makes sense at the Championship level. The problem it is meant to address only exists in that category anyway.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:07 AM

I would guess that below 30 in the majority of cases experience still trumps calendar age, even in terms of physical achievement where it would show up as increased efficiency.

I don't think there's going to be a big difference between someone whose total dance experience spans ages 19 to 24 vs. someone whose spans 25 to 30, assuming they've had the same training during those 5 years. The plausability that the've had is the interesting question: the younger adult students tend to have more time and perhaps a better pool of partners, the older ones tend to be in a better position afford private lessons, at least if they have not yet started a family.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:07 AM

maybe
at least it doesn't label anyone senior when they are 25 (ridiculous!)

also doesn't create unneccessary age categories.. most comps will feel onligated to run it if it is official..
creating an age category 25-34 seems not justified to me.. 28 year olds can move their feet just as fast as 21 year olds..

rising star - is what the name says - to give those not established yet in the national semifinal a chance. works for pros. Works at comps such as blackpool. The winners and participants are selected based on past results and merit. not arbitrary age that doesn't really matter...

It's not a "senior" label. It's adult 2. ;)

But what's the point of rising star when we have prechamp? Isn't that exactly what prechamp is for?

NielsenE

06-22-2007, 10:08 AM

Unfortunately, at least the on-line and paper form seem to allow it all all prof levels.....

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:08 AM

I respectfully disagree. I personally require a lot more maintenance at 30 than I did at 21. I feel the impact of what I put my body through much much more.

You might be putting your body through a lot more. that's why the impact is more. (I don't know, but just guessing)
I still think this is minor compared to many other factors... at 30 I dont' believe anyone is at a real age disadvantage... plenty of top pros are over that age, and top amateurs too.. they seem to dance with more energy than the younger competitors, not less

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:11 AM

You might be putting your body through a lot more. that's why the impact is more. (I don't know, but just guessing)
I still think this is minor compared to many other factors... at 30 I dont' believe anyone is at a real age disadvantage... plenty of top pros are over that age, and top amateurs too.. they seem to dance with more energy than the younger competitors, not less

Have you ever asked the top dancers over 30 how much pain they experience as a result of the level they are dancing? How much more they ache after dancing than they did 10 years ago? How much more prone to injury they are? How much greater care they must take of their bodies than before? I think you might be surprised at the answer.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:11 AM

It's not a "senior" label. It's adult 2. ;)

But what's the point of rising star when we have prechamp? Isn't that exactly what prechamp is for?

the reason preprofessional couples over 25 wouldnt' do it? it has a senior label to it.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:12 AM

I completely agree, this only makes sense at the Championship level. The problem it is meant to address only exists in that category anyway.

Don't know that I completely agree. I could make long trips more worthwhile for post-collegiate syllabus dancers who don't feel comfortably dancing up into an open level, even novice.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:12 AM

I completely agree, this only makes sense at the Championship level. The problem it is meant to address only exists in that category anyway.

adding a rising star champ category would affect the problem without having to add an age category to all levels

and without the senior label..:-P

NielsenE

06-22-2007, 10:14 AM

after pondering this I think Kitty is on the right track...

given that there is a need for "something" to fill the space between Adult Pre-Champ and Adult Champ, before people reach Senior I

and given that there is no apparent need to segment Syllabus into more age levels (and in fact doing so would like hurt the competitive community and impose additional hassles on the organizers)

an additional Prof level between Pre-Champ and Champ seems appropriate. In fact I'd suggest that the long term solution would be to introduce a level BELOW pre-championship that takes the place of today's prechampionship, while reserving "Pre-Championship" for this needed penultimate level.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:14 AM

But what's the point of rising star when we have prechamp? Isn't that exactly what prechamp is for?

Maybe they should have "falling star"... for those who've placed out of prechamp and wish they hadn't ?

(just kidding)

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:15 AM

Maybe they should have "falling star"... for those who've placed out of prechamp and wish they hadn't ?

(just kidding)

Chris, dont' you dare to delete this one:-))))

Ithink

06-22-2007, 10:18 AM

Nope. The reason pre-professional couples wouldn't do it is because it wouldn't qualify them for the worlds (or won't even have a chance to) and thus will have that stigma attached to it. For those of us who know we will not be qualifying for the worlds in our lifetimes, such stigma is irrelevant. There is NOTHING senior about a 25-34 category, just like there is really nothing senior about the Senior I category either. When it was called Adult B, it was a much more appropriate term.

I also disagree about how dance affects your body at 21 v. 29. Believe me, I know what a huge difference 8 years makes...

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:19 AM

given that there is a need for "something" to fill the space between Adult Pre-Champ and Adult Champ, before people reach Senior

Another option would be to introduce some kind of non-professional category.

Not a proficiency level, but more of a lifestyle self-categorization for those who do not want to engage in quasi-professional activity. It would need a name that was respectable, but not co-optable as a desireable stage for junior/future pros to pass through the way "amater" has become.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:19 AM

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:20 AM

For those of us who know we will not be qualifying for the worlds in our lifetimes

Not planning on trying for the senior I title or runner up when the time comes?

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:21 AM

And for the record, even though there are clearly certain drawbacks to placing out of prechamp, we all still strive for it, and I for one would never wish I hadn't placed out (if and when I actually do). :)

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:22 AM

Isn't adding another level essentially what they tried to do with World Class? Only they tried to move the "pre-professional" couples into a higher level, leaving the Open Championship level to be more of a "rising star" type event. But this didn't work out, for whatever reason.

I'm thinking of something more of an "on the side" option rather than an "insertion" into the proficiency ladder. The idea would be to make it a respectable 2nd even for the non-professional dancers, while keeping the quasi/pre-professionals ones disinterested enough in trying to sneak into it that enforcement doesn't become the problem it was under the old amateur rules.

Ithink

06-22-2007, 10:23 AM

The time isn't coming for awhile, whether fortunately or unfortunately:) I do plan to try but who knows what can happen in such awhile...

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:25 AM

Isn't adding another level essentially what they tried to do with World Class? Only they tried to move the "pre-professional" couples into a higher level, leaving the Open Championship level to be more of a "rising star" type event. But this didn't work out, for whatever reason.

that's true
don't know why it didnt' work out...
i think they were trying to create a level for those that teach, and when they allowed everyone to teach they didn't need the category anymore.

Egoist

06-22-2007, 10:27 AM

It's much easier to enforce age levels than proficiency levels.

liz

06-22-2007, 10:28 AM

Kitty

06-22-2007, 10:30 AM

I'm thinking of something more of an "on the side" option rather than an "insertion" into the proficiency ladder. The idea would be to make it a respectable 2nd even for the non-professional dancers, while keeping the quasi/pre-professionals ones disinterested enough in trying to sneak into it that enforcement doesn't become the problem it was under the old amateur rules.

i think rising star would do the trick.
Point is we dot' want to keep all the "preprofessional" dancers out, we only want to keep those out that are out of reach of the rising star couples..

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 10:34 AM

Wouldn't the non-professional amateurs who place out of pre-champ today also place out of rising star even more rapidly?

Egoist

06-22-2007, 10:35 AM

i think rising star would do the trick.
Point is we dot' want to keep all the "preprofessional" dancers out, we only want to keep those out that are out of reach of the rising star couples..

I believe that in today's championship field ALL "preprofesionals" make at least semi-finals of nationals. Can you name any that don't?

According to your suggestion, that would make ALL "preprofesionals" inelligible for Rising Star.

Egoist

06-22-2007, 10:53 AM

There is no option to register for Adult 2 in the Summer Sizzler, at least online. When is Wendy intending on opening this category?

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 10:56 AM

There is no option to register for Adult 2 in the Summer Sizzler, at least online. When is Wendy intending on opening this category?

We already registered for it. ;) It's there. You may have to change your status to Adult 2 or Senior 1 as appropriate to be able to register for it.

kimV6

06-22-2007, 11:35 AM

an additional Prof level between Pre-Champ and Champ seems appropriate. In fact I'd suggest that the long term solution would be to introduce a level BELOW pre-championship that takes the place of today's prechampionship, while reserving "Pre-Championship" for this needed penultimate level.

wouldn't that be novice though?

personally i'd be glad for this change. god knows after i graduate, i'd rather not spend my salary to get spanked by pre-professional amateurs instead of paying back my college loans. i often wonder what post-graduate ballroom life is going to be for me anyway; at least this means there's some light at the end of the tunnel.

and sometimes i feel like my 20-year-old body is gonna shut down soon. only time will tell what my 30-year-old body is gonna be like.

tanya_the_dancer

06-22-2007, 12:26 PM

I don't know the answer to this issue, but personally I know there is a BIG dfference from 18 to 35... Some good and some bad..I started ballroom at 29 and to know that there are so many younger girls in my division is very challenging... I hope that someone will find the right solution. Not just for myself, but for others who start later and want to have a fighting chance.

I agree, I haven't started competing until I was 30 (I am 34 now) and I feel that no matter how good I'll get, someone who is 10 years younger and with the same amount of experience will have an advantage.

chica latina

06-22-2007, 12:53 PM

star_gazer

06-22-2007, 01:00 PM

Skiwggy,
If you are trying to target pre-champ past winners that can only dance Champ but dont make semi or finals... I think the rising star event would be better. I dont think these couples would be happy to register themselves as Adult 2 and I dont think many of them believe that they dont place because tehy are 25-35 years old. IMOAnd there are couples between 19-25 that aren't going to make the semi-final (therefore not pre-professional?) that would love to dance in more than one event at Nationals.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 01:07 PM

and sometimes i feel like my 20-year-old body is gonna shut down soon. only time will tell what my 30-year-old body is gonna be like.

But do you think the "preprofessional" ones have it any different? Their body is under as much or even more stress... everyone has to deal with it.

Kitty

06-22-2007, 01:13 PM

I believe that in today's championship field ALL "preprofesionals" make at least semi-finals of nationals. Can you name any that don't?

According to your suggestion, that would make ALL "preprofesionals" inelligible for Rising Star.

there are some that are not there yet...

And there are couples between 19-25 that aren't going to make the semi-final (therefore not pre-professional?) that would love to dance in more than one event at Nationals.

exactly.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 01:17 PM

Skiwggy,
If you are trying to target pre-champ past winners that can only dance Champ but dont make semi or finals... I think the rising star event would be better. I dont think these couples would be happy to register themselves as Adult 2 and I dont think many of them believe that they dont place because tehy are 25-35 years old. IMO

But how long are your past-pre-champ winners going to remain rising star elgible? Probably a year or two at most.

star_gazer

06-22-2007, 01:25 PM

But how long are your past-pre-champ winners going to remain rising star elgible? Probably a year or two at most.I don't think you should tie it to pre-champ status. Some of the couples doing Open never did pre-champ.

Actually I just reread the eligibility rules...my kids pointed out of prechamp in NDCA comps. By USA Dance rules they only have 1 point from making the final at MAC. So does that mean they can do Prechamp at Nationals ???

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 01:42 PM

Yes, it would seem they can. But if they did so habitually they'd probably place out of it in a year or less.

I wasn't trying to tie the rising star idea to pre-champ elgibility, what I was trying to do was point out that it could independently re-create the problem of pre-champ, in that people would place out of that too.

It seems to me what's needed is a potentially permanent-elgibiity division based more on situation than strictly on results. The age categories sort of do that, but are an imperfect fit. I'd proposed some sort of non-professional self-declaration division as another method, obviously also imperfect.

The specific-competition part of rising star might save it though. Unless you're disqualified based on champ placement at nationals (for many; unless there's a freak storm that keeps most away), you could dance rising start at given competition until you'd won it. That would cause many to place out of rising start at competitions near home within a few years, but they could I guess still travel to other competitions and compete rising star + champ there.

ACtenDance

06-22-2007, 01:46 PM

I don't think you should tie it to pre-champ status. Some of the couples doing Open never did pre-champ.

Actually I just reread the eligibility rules...my kids pointed out of prechamp in NDCA comps. By USA Dance rules they only have 1 point from making the final at MAC. So does that mean they can do Prechamp at Nationals ???

I vote for no!! j/k. I don't need that kind of competition, haha! But I think that points earned at NDCA comps are counted toward USA Dance proficiency levels... unless that has changed over the past several years.

skwiggy

06-22-2007, 01:47 PM

But I think that points earned at NDCA comps are counted toward USA Dance proficiency levels... unless that has changed over the past several years.

This is my understanding as well.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 01:48 PM

Hmm, but maybe they have 1 point (3 as NDCA limit + 1 at MAC) = 4 of elgibility left?

However, they could have also earned pre-champ points by being champ finalists in a sufficiently large competition.

ACtenDance

06-22-2007, 02:09 PM

How does creating a new age category fit in with "increasing the quality and quantity of ballroom dancing"? (usa dance mission) Discuss.

I think it is unreasonable to hold Adult 2 below Championship level, so my comments are based on the assumption that it exists solely in Championship.

Quality (pro). More couples will get a taste of being close to the top and will encourage them to work harder to get to the top. More people will be reaching for the top of their new division which may increase the overall level of dancing. This has the potential to increase the USA's potential for success at Senior level World events as these Adult 2 dancers reach 35+.

Quality (con). This affects a relatively small portion of the competitive dance community. Should we be adding more categories just so more people can feel like winners?

Quantity (pro). Couples might discouraged less reducing the drop out rate.

Quantity (con). This affects a relatively small portion of the competitive dance community.

Personally, I'm leaning toward not supporting the additional age category. Seems like too much trouble with little benefit. I'd hate for adult categories to start feeling like the youth and senior categories where you'll see the same couples dancing the same routines over and over and over again. If couples are really that desperate to be in a final, they can start dancing a new style where they'd have access to syllabus, novice, and prechamp levels. Or they can give up their day job and live the lifestyle of an Adult finalist.

Egoist

06-22-2007, 02:28 PM

Quantity (con). This affects a relatively small portion of the competitive dance community.

This is exactly why the new category is necessary. There is a hole in the 25-35 age range because people are not willing to keep competing against the pre-profesionals. If you create this category, those of us who are there don't get discouraged and keep dancing.

star_gazer

06-22-2007, 02:32 PM

I vote for no!! j/k. I don't need that kind of competition, haha! But I think that points earned at NDCA comps are counted toward USA Dance proficiency levels... unless that has changed over the past several years.You are correct. I just checked.

My frustration is rooted in the financial reality of attending nationals this year. Its alot of money to spend to dance one event. We've toyed with just skipping it but nationals is fun and its weird to work all year and skip nationals. But its crazy...driving 3000 miles and spending hundreds for one event. Especially when its just one of many that "we just have to do."

I'm also ticked that you have to buy a competitor pass for the entire three days and the hotel is sold out. Oh well..

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 02:35 PM

If couples are really that desperate to be in a final

I think one of the key benefits may be to increase attendance at small competitions where all you'll get to dance is a final, or at most from a semi.

Having another event to enter could make entering more worthwhile.

I pretty much won't go to Boston any more for a college comp with a single open level - it's just not worth the trip (especially if it's on that floor). Two levels and it becomes worth considering.

Tigerlilly

06-22-2007, 02:48 PM

This is exactly why the new category is necessary. There is a hole in the 25-35 age range because people are not willing to keep competing against the pre-profesionals. If you create this category, those of us who are there don't get discouraged and keep dancing.

I agree with this, and I believe this was one of the points that Wendi was making in her letter.

I also agree that it may be best to introduce the new age category at just the championship level.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 02:57 PM

Or maybe it's best to introduce it experimentally at not-too-crowded competitions and simply see what happens...

Tigerlilly

06-22-2007, 03:01 PM

My frustration is rooted in the financial reality of attending nationals this year. Its alot of money to spend to dance one event. We've toyed with just skipping it but nationals is fun and its weird to work all year and skip nationals. But its crazy...driving 3000 miles and spending hundreds for one event. Especially when its just one of many that "we just have to do."

I totally hear you on this. We took a look at our budget and decided that we couldn't justify the cost. Flying to Louisville exploded the cost for us and then the entries fees were high, considering we only dance 1 event. Consequently, we're planning to skip it this year...

chica latina

06-22-2007, 03:03 PM

I agree there is a big gap between Pre-Champ and Champ level and finding something in between or after Champ (like Pre-Prof) could be beneficial... but dont think should be age related.

Also not all the Champ finalist may have the goal of turning Pro (for ex. Eugene & Maria have been there for quite a while and it may not be their goal to go pro), so it would have to be called something else.

I danced a lot of times just once and with no one in the floor... NOt fun... It was like paying to do a show... but if you are really committed to dancing and improving you will do it anyways (maybe not as often).

Egoist

06-22-2007, 03:06 PM

And there are couples between 19-25 that aren't going to make the semi-final (therefore not pre-professional?) that would love to dance in more than one event at Nationals.

What's their excuse for not making the semi-final? :)

I will bet that there are very few couples between 19-25 that have placed out of pre-champ and are not making the semi-final of champ.

Chris Stratton

06-22-2007, 03:24 PM

I will bet that there are very few couples between 19-25 that have placed out of pre-champ and are not making the semi-final of champ.

I would not be suprised if half of those who stopped in the quarterfinal have at least one partner placed out of prechamp and at least one partner between ages 19-25.

Take a look at the names:
http://www.dancesportinfo.net/Event/12818/Results.aspx

Kitty

06-22-2007, 03:49 PM

What's their excuse for not making the semi-final? :)

I will bet that there are very few couples between 19-25 that have placed out of pre-champ and are not making the semi-final of champ.

so you are saying there could be no more than 12 professional-bound couples in the nation at any given time?

I am with chica latina that an extra category, an extra opportunity, would be nice, but it shouldn't be age-related.

reb

06-22-2007, 07:18 PM

Interesting suggestions and good comments. Addressing aging from another side of the discussion . . .

My USA Dance card says that I am officially 'Senior 2', although I have no intention of dancing anything other than Open (unless someday I partner with a Senior 2 lady and need to stay in that age group for her:), if something breaks:( on me or I otherwise slow down). Others in my age group choose to only dance in their age group, and yet others will dance in their age group and also in Open. We're varied, and change, in our interests desires, and abilities. It's a good thing we have options.

Nearing 50, I have the 'opportunity' to overcome certain physical things I had no clue about in my teens (back when I knew it all), my 20s, 30s, and early 40s (when I started) and someday something's going to pop (and not just buttons!) and I'll be slowed down and perhaps shouldn't dance Open then - but would still love to dance.

In contrast to dancing, I could not even go near the 'Open' court in some other sports (in terms of speed and power) these days, but dancing allows me to compete in Open . . . and if nothing breaks, I should be able to dance, and continue to improve, for quite a long time since it's not a high-impact sport (in comparison) or one where too many things can easily get broken - and dancing fits nicely with age-defying exercise such as stretching, pilates, balance, tone, posture, aerobics, etc.

Just sharing - there's others out in similar and various situations . . . :D

Off to the chiropractor now, . . .

nevsky

06-22-2007, 11:08 PM

I would support this category if it had an appropriate name. For example, "Old slobs who can't dance but need their ego stroked", or something like that.

Otherwise, count me out.

Laura

06-22-2007, 11:47 PM

I find this whole discussion amusing, because I keep thinking that if this in the context of Pro/Am some people would be all snooty about how it's a scam to "give everyone an award" and/or "get money out of the competitors." :)

I don't really know what is the right thing to do with this. On the one hand, I watched the Under-21 at Blackpool and also the Rising Star at Blackpool, and there was so much overlap (in my mind and perception) between the two that next year I'm only going to watch one of these events and not both. I wonder if that will happen in the US, too, if all the Youth couples were allowed to dance in Rising Star.

On the other hand, there's the whole (as Chris put it) "lifestyle" issue of amateur working adults having to compete against pre-professionals who are their age or younger.

I just don't know. But hey, at least Wendi is trying something, so everyone can see in practice how it works out. Looking forward to hearing some reports!

Chris Stratton

06-23-2007, 12:17 AM

I don't really see it as being so much about having a better chance of winning, but instead about having a second event to enter in order to make attending a competition more worthwhile. Of course at the moment I still do have two events to enter ;-)

Egoist

06-23-2007, 08:48 AM

so you are saying there could be no more than 12 professional-bound couples in the nation at any given time?

There is a difference between "pre-professionals" and "professional bound".

I define "pre-professionals" as those who ALREADY are professional but keep competing as amateurs (for whatever reason).

Chris Stratton

06-23-2007, 08:49 AM

A category which is not restricted even to the quarterfinal; especially now that it's permissable in at least the USA Dance system.

Egoist

06-23-2007, 08:51 AM

I would not be suprised if half of those who stopped in the quarterfinal have at least one partner placed out of prechamp and at least one partner between ages 19-25.

You mean couples that have one partner weighing them down? :)

Egoist

06-23-2007, 08:54 AM

Did people put this much resistance when Adult B (now Senior I) was instated?

"Why can't they compete?"
"What's the big deal?"
"Sore losers!"

Laura

06-23-2007, 08:56 AM

Did people put this much resistance when Adult B (now Senior I) was instated?

"Why can't they compete?"
"What's the big deal?"
"Sore losers!"
They sure complained when it was renamed Senior I.

Senior (a.k.a. "Over-35") has been around for a long time, probably longer than most of us have been dancing. Maybe tangotime remembers.

Chris Stratton

06-23-2007, 09:02 AM

Did people put this much resistance when Adult B (now Senior I) was instated?

"Why can't they compete?"
"What's the big deal?"
"Sore losers!"

Hmm, I see three distinct issues

- additional age category as additional opportunities to dance after making a trip. Only criticism there is that those from 18-34 or whatever are left out, while younger and older dancers get it.

- additional age category for those who wouldn't be competitive in non-championship division of adult. Well, okay, that's a personal choice but one I'm unlikely to personally make.

- 2nd opportunity for those who have placed out of prechamp but aren't likely to overtake the numerous couples waiting in line for the champ final, semi, and even quarter.

For the last, I might point out that Nevsky like almost everyone active in this thread hasn't placed out of prechamp either, and thus if critical of that approach is being critical of the competitive determination of a class of people who've proved more succesful than he.

Joe

06-23-2007, 09:35 AM

Did Kitty every spill her age, or did I miss it?

skwiggy

06-25-2007, 08:10 AM

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 08:16 AM

I had kitty brief me on this discussion, didn't have time to read all of this.. totally agre that there could be a rising star category that could have some limitations based on results etc... if the main reason to add a category is to allow people to dance one more time.. but adding an age category doesn't make sense to me.. I turned 25 this year and really dont' feel like dancing seniors...

Egoist

06-25-2007, 09:11 AM

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 09:12 AM

So of all the people who have expressed opposition to the proposed category, how many of you are actually eligible to compete in it? Just curious, because it seems like all of the naysayers don't even fall into the eligible category. Am I mistaken?
I'm eligible, and the more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea -- an extra event for the targeted group of people sounds plausible, but adding a age level seems like the wrong way to do it. I'm glad Ms Davies is trying the experiment, though.

Since what is needed is an extra "event" between Adult Pre-Champ and Adult Champ, adding either a proficiency level or an age level is the wrong way about it, given the "matrix" effect of the two. In some sense I think it should just be "special cased" -- possible as some people were interrupting Ms Davies's email -- "Adult 2 only in Champ" -- very similar to Tuft's experiments years ago with "Collegiate Championship" -- ie Championship level but only for couples where both members were college students as a placeholder between Pre-Champ and Champ.

Calling it an age-level leads to the pro-am world of one level for everyone. Introducing a fourth open level (Novice, Pre-Champ, ??, Championship) similar doesn't really make sense for the Youth/Junior/Preteens nor for the Senior I/II/etc.

But on reflection I think any attempt to create this "holding" level is going to suffer from the same problem as currently. It might buy 1-2 years before the problem repeats as people work through the level, but eventually you'll still need another place for the "non-pre-professionals" to feel competitive in the international styles

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 09:21 AM

Why not? What are you losing? Prestige?

Dancing Adult II doesn't prevent you from dancing Adult I!Same goes for seniors, no thanks.. you can do seniors as well as adult.. plus don't see we could gain much by winning the event.. what's the point... rising star could be interesting but not senior category... I would add rising star and exclude say last years finalists...

(well unless someone like russ and katusha are age eligible, hate to say it we would probably be uncontested)

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:23 AM

I can only think of one person in the discussion who I'm sure isn't over 25...

To respond to Eric, I really prefer the idea of an extra "on the side" event rather than an insertion into the proficiency ladder. If it's an insertion, the pre-professinoal couples will have to add it to their trophy collection, and the stronger non-professionals will eventually place out of it. Wheras if it's on the side, hopefull the pre-professionals will ignore it. Given some of the disdain of the "What, me dance a senior category? Somebody please shoot me first!" that we've seen, that might actually be the case.

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 09:30 AM

So you're suggesting an implmentation more like Master of Syllabus, but for open (and with a less exalted name) :)

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:33 AM

Master of S

Egoist

06-25-2007, 09:44 AM

Same goes for seniors, no thanks.. you can do seniors as well as adult.. plus don't see we could gain much by winning the event.. what's the point... rising star could be interesting but not senior category... I would add rising star and exclude say last years finalists...

(well unless someone like russ and katusha are age eligible, hate to say it we would probably be uncontested)

You are not elligible for Senior I so the argument of why you wouldn't do Senior I is irrelevant.

You could do us all a favor and dance Adult II blindfolded with one arm behind your back. That should even it out and provide you with a little challenge.

But Kat makes more of an argument on why it makes sense to create the category. Why is it that the competition in "Adult II" is so weak right now?

Kitty

06-25-2007, 09:55 AM

Lets figure out: do people want an extra chance to dance at a competition, or do people want to win something..

introduce rising star - and a lot of peopel have another chance to dance.. if we only place out one couple per year (last years winners cannot dance it again) and exclude the national semifinalists, it is going to work pretty well with the purpose in mind (occasional "preprofessional" couples might compete if they are not that good yet and dont' have the results, but that wouldn't matter with the original purpose of an extra event in mind).

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:55 AM

But Kat makes more of an argument on why it makes sense to create the category. Why is it that the competition in "Adult II" is so weak right now?

I'm not sure that I'd say it would be. If every elgible & active prechamp and champ couple entered, I don't think it would be numerically weak.

As for quality, there is of course an issue, and perhaps one that the creation of the category might be meant to address: there's a limited correlation between improvement in fundamental skills and improvement in results, especially for those stuck behind couples they are never likely to beat.

But it may not be the role of competition to show and reward the path to improvement. I'm sorry to say it, but many of the coaches could be doing a much better job than they are at promoting basic skills, efficient movements, etc especially with students mature enough in mind and body that a "dancing smarter" approach may yield more improvement than a "dancing harder" one.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:56 AM

Lets figure out: do people want an extra chance to dance at a competition, or do people want to win something..

I want floor time under competition condititions. If it comes by being selected out from others to return for another round that's cool, but just getting it at all is more important to building skills.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:01 AM

You could do us all a favor and dance Adult II blindfolded with one arm behind your back. That should even it out and provide you with a little challenge.

But Kat makes more of an argument on why it makes sense to create the category. Why is it that the competition in "Adult II" is so weak right now?
My argument was for Adult II not senior... easy win.

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 10:02 AM

fwiw...Rising Star has my vote

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:04 AM

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 10:09 AM

Anyone going to nationals...rooms are very scarce. Three other big events are going on in Louisville that weekend.

Ithink

06-25-2007, 10:15 AM

My argument was for Adult II not senior... easy win.

Haven't you been beaten by Xingmin and Katerina before? They are a) eligible, b) registered for Adult II at Summer Sizzler. Not sure it's as easy as you say. But regardless, noone is forcing you to enter Adult II if you think it's useless, too easy, whatever.

Incidentally, I am not sure Rising Star is necessarily a bad idea except it doesn't address the issue Wendi says she wants to address, meaning allowing people who are not quasi-professionals or pre-professionals to compete against each other. You don't see Joe Shmoe tennis-player/IT Technician going to the US Open to compete against Roger Federer who practices 8-10 hours a day, has sponsors who pay for his travel and clothing and lives tennis as his life. Joe Shmoe enters club events, etc. This allows the Joe Shmoe's of the world to compete against similarly situated individuals, improve and be able to track their progress in realistic competition... And Roger Federer doesn't sit there and complain that he can't play against Joe Shmoe because, frankly, Roger could care less what Joe Shmoe does with his free time - he does after all have to practice 8-10 hours a day to maintain his world domination:)

06-25-2007, 10:18 AM

I know my opinion is not a popular one, but as a young(er) dancer, age categories mean nothing to me, so USA Dance can do whatever they want. Creating a second category for me does not make things seem any more accomodating for me. All this means to me is yes, I do have the option of competiting in another category, but why bother? It's just one more category for me to dance in where all the older dancers will still come piling in. Big difference.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:19 AM

Haven't you been beaten by Xingmin and Katerina before? They are a) eligible, b) registered for Adult II at Summer Sizzler. Not sure it's as easy as you say. But regardless, noone is forcing you to enter Adult II if you think it's useless, too easy, whatever.yes, on numerous ocasions. not consistently, true.. of course people are not forcing us.. but the age thing really doesnt' solve your issues.. russ and katusha are around the qualifying age.. egor in egor and katya definitely was... andy klinchyk is... and there are bunch of others. so age category really doesn't solve the issue.. I wonder how people would feel if ximin and katerina would enter this category.. since so many people were upset when they were allowed to compete amateur.. voting for RS.. big time..

not sure they are eligible as they dance seniors.. which would mean they are over 34

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 10:19 AM

Essentially the point, Ithink. But over 25 is an imperfect means of identity.

Egoist

06-25-2007, 10:27 AM

not sure they are eligible as they dance seniors.. which would mean they are over 34

Seniors I-III would be elligible to dance Adult II, same as they are to dance Adult I. Not so easy now, eh?

I think I would be ok with the "Rising Star" event but only as long as they change the name of it to "Couples Who Can't Cut It in Championship" or "Not Good Enough for Champ". Because that is what it is! Let's see how many snooty "pre-profesionals" now participate!

Ithink

06-25-2007, 10:27 AM

Kitty

06-25-2007, 10:28 AM

Essentially the point, Ithink. But over 25 is an imperfect means of identity.

exactly

plenty of very good competitors over 25 out there (Ximing and Katarina, Kat and Alex, and more)

Kitty

06-25-2007, 10:31 AM

Making Adult II adhere to the spoken and unspoken rules of Rising Star (no past winner can dance it nor can any semi and finalists at previous year's Nationals) would solve the issue... That would make everyone Kat just named ineligible to dance Adult II champ. It would also make Kat herself, who thinks she will easily win said category if she enters, ineligible after she manages to win it... However, if the abovementioned rules of Rising Star apply, having placed in the finals of NDCA Nationals this year, Kat would actually be ineligible to dance Adult II Champ in the first place.

if you want to apply the rules of Rising Star, why do you want to run an AdultII event? just run a Rising Star.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:31 AM

Seniors I-III would be elligible to dance Adult II, same as they are to dance Adult I. Not so easy now, eh?

I think I would be ok with the "Rising Star" event but only as long as they change the name of it to "Couples Who Can't Cut It in Championship" or "Not Good Enough for Champ". Because that is what it is! Let's see how many snooty "pre-profesionals" now participate!
I see so category of 25+ not 25-34 as someone mentioned..

I would recommend rs minus the final in the us.. minus last year winners... minus anyone who would never even consider the category.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:34 AM

However, if the abovementioned rules of Rising Star apply, having placed in the finals of NDCA Nationals this year, Kat would actually be ineligible to dance Adult II Champ in the first place.
NDCA is a different body, don't think it should be considered for usabda event ;-)

Ithink

06-25-2007, 10:42 AM

Not true. Points earned from USA and NDCA count for both bodies' comps so placement from both (if placement decides eligibility, as it would in this case) should count. Otherwise the whole points system would be called into question...

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 10:58 AM

ok than, you win :)

Egoist

06-25-2007, 11:14 AM

Making Adult II adhere to the spoken and unspoken rules of Rising Star (no past winner can dance it nor can any semi and finalists at previous year's Nationals) would solve the issue... That would make everyone Kat just named ineligible to dance Adult II champ. It would also make Kat herself, who thinks she will easily win said category if she enters, ineligible after she manages to win it... However, if the abovementioned rules of Rising Star apply, having placed in the finals of NDCA Nationals this year, Kat would actually be ineligible to dance Adult II Champ in the first place.

This makes no sense at all. It complicates things for the sake of complicating them. If Kat wins once and doesn't want to compete anymore, then she doesn't have to. But why should we mere mortals not be allowed more chances to beat such a prodigy?
I think you should be allowed to win Adult II as many times as you are able to, even if you are until you are 50.

Ithink

06-25-2007, 11:21 AM

Because we still have numerous chances to beat the said prodigy in Adult I...?

Kitty

06-25-2007, 11:36 AM

ha! so you want an age category because of the hopes that prodigies and preprofessionals won't fall into that category,

but when a legitimate over 25 competitor with good results wants to compete, a rule should be made up to prevent her from entering.

Great.

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 11:44 AM

exactly. defining it as an age category does nothing to help with the perceived/actual problem....

defining some special case event that's outside the age/level matrix -- some combination of Master of Syllabus and Rising Star style rules and policies gets closest to the intent

Ithink

06-25-2007, 11:51 AM

Who is this "Ha!" addressed to? If it's me (although I cannot imagine why), my post was by no means a proposal on my own behalf but an answer to Kat's opinion that there is still an issue of over-25 competitors being able to enter Adult II for whom the category isn't really made. I proposed a solution. Do I want that solution? I never said I did.

If you are alleging that the rule "made up" was the one with regard to placement at NDCA Nationals prevent one from entering Rising Star then I beg to differ. I didn't make it up. I simply construed current point rules of interchangeability between NDCA and USA Dance points to include placement-based ineligibility as well.

I personally wouldn't mind either an Adult II category or a Rising Star category. My only issue is not having a category for people who have careers and who cannot devote 5 hours a day to practice and schedule their lives around competitions 100% of the time, i.e. the very people whose hobby-level interest in Dancesport Wendi claims she wants to address by creating the Adult II category. Are there people such as I described who are under 25 - I am sure there are (very recent college grads who started dancing in college, for example, about to enter, or having just entered, the work force)? But those numbers are not as big as those of us who are in that situation and are over-25. Rules are usually made for majorities. Besides the 3 year gap between college graduation and turning 25 is not as big as the 10-year gap between turning 25 and being eligible to compete in Senior I, the only category predominantly populated by hobbyists.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 11:54 AM

So I have an idea..
make it 25+,
eliminate any couple with a good result..

or better yet, there is one thing that can be done to eliminate most people you call quasi pros...

- make college degree for both partners a requirement
:doh::doh:
That should eliminate more quasi professional couples from entering.. more than age category

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 11:54 AM

Because we still have numerous chances to beat the said prodigy in Adult I...?
I just made my statement before as I believe age category shouldn't be applied.. not a good idea..

Kitty

06-25-2007, 11:55 AM

if you create a category called "Hobby Championship", not even one of the prodigy/preprofessional couples will enter. that also could be the way to go.

Kitty

06-25-2007, 11:56 AM

- make college degree for both partners a requirement

Haha! Kat, that's the best idea ever!

does a degree in Ballroom Dance count?

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 11:58 AM

Haha! Kat, that's the best idea ever!

does a degree in Ballroom Dance count?
you decide, I only make suggestions :)

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 11:58 AM

If you are alleging that the rule "made up" was the one with regard to placement at NDCA Nationals prevent one from entering Rising Star then I beg to differ. I didn't make it up. I simply construed current point rules of interchangeability between NDCA and USA Dance points to include placement-based ineligibility as well.

Given that winning NDCA Nationals doesn't by itself place you out of that level for USA Dance comps the way winning USA Dance Nationals would, I'm not sure that your interpretation of how it would work is in fact how it would turn out. From the USA Dance perspective, there's some reason to conclude that NDCA nationals is simply an ordinary recognized competition, no more.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 12:01 PM

if you create a category called "Hobby Championship", not even one of the prodigy/preprofessional couples will enter. that also could be the way to go.

Yeah, that's basically what I've been saying. Maybe a slightly better name, but can't think of one so far...

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 12:01 PM

I would make the Rising Star categorization dependent on the competition at which it is held and use a percentage. For example, those in the top 25% of the previous year's championship would be ineligible.

Kitty

06-25-2007, 12:08 PM

Yeah, that's basically what I've been saying. Maybe a slightly better name, but can't think of one so far...

make a name that mentions college degrees and require both partners to have a 4 year college degree... solves the problem 100%...

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 12:10 PM

tangotime

06-25-2007, 12:15 PM

College degree a must ---do you realise how many ex brit. Champions and coaches. would be ineligible ? !!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Ithink

06-25-2007, 12:19 PM

Ineligible for what? Adult II Amateur US dance competition? Why would they want to be eligible for that, lol;)

Egoist

06-25-2007, 12:21 PM

My only issue is not having a category for people who have careers and who cannot devote 5 hours a day to practice and schedule their lives around competitions 100% of the time, i.e. the very people whose hobby-level interest in Dancesport Wendi claims she wants to address by creating the Adult II category. Are there people such as I described who are under 25 - I am sure there are (very recent college grads who started dancing in college, for example, about to enter, or having just entered, the work force)? But those numbers are not as big as those of us who are in that situation and are over-25. Rules are usually made for majorities. Besides the 3 year gap between college graduation and turning 25 is not as big as the 10-year gap between turning 25 and being eligible to compete in Senior I, the only category predominantly populated by hobbyists.

If this is the purpose of the new category then I am all AGAINST it.

What you describe discriminates against those people willing and able to practice 5 hours a day. I don't feel cheated when a couple that practices more than I do beats me. I can live with that. If I wanted to beat them I can always practice more. Age, on the other hand...

What's next? Should we also make an event for people who make less than $50,000 a year or people who can only take one private per week?

Kitty

06-25-2007, 12:21 PM

no. college degree should not be part of the qualification... that smacks of intellectual elitism. Plus I can easily imagine there could be some serious hobbyists (not pre-professionals) without a college degree... in fact they'd likely be at an even greater disadvantage than the post-collegiates given the average income without a degree....

if they are dancing in the championship division, and they have the average income without a degree at some point they probably start teaching, cause they would make better money teaching. we are definitely trying to keep them out. :-)

agree about intellectual elitism though. This wasn't a serious suggestion:-)

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 12:25 PM

agree about intellectual elitism though. This wasn't a serious suggestion:-)
me too, just thought that's the best filter to get rid of couples people want to be protected from..

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 12:32 PM

What's next? Should we also make an event for people who make less than $50,000 a year or people who can only take one private per week?That was exactly my next suggestion.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 12:45 PM

And then one for people whose parents didn't get them started...

And then one for people who are parents...

samina

06-25-2007, 12:47 PM

My USA Dance card says that I am officially 'Senior 2', although I have no intention of dancing anything other than Open.

cannot tell you how inspiring i found your post. :D

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 12:52 PM

and for people who get nosebleeds easily

Ithink

06-25-2007, 12:52 PM

What you describe discriminates against those people willing and able to practice 5 hours a day. I don't feel cheated when a couple that practices more than I do beats me. I can live with that. If I wanted to beat them I can always practice more. Age, on the other hand...

Age is just as an imperfect category as an ability to practice 5 hours a day. There are exceptional 35 year-olds who are in better shape than 24 year-olds. There are always exceptions to the rule. In fact, I will go as far as saying I, myself, am in better shape now than I was when I was 21 years old. And there is not a significant difference between a 25 year-old body and a 23 year old body yet the 23 year-old will undoubtedly feel severaly discriminated against for at least a year according to your argument... My understanding of the rule was NOT suggested as a remedy to age-related feeling of being cheated... Not what Wendi wrote at least...

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 12:54 PM

make a name that mentions college degrees and require both partners to have a 4 year college degree... solves the problem 100%...
So what is the problem??? Doesn't everyone want more opportunity to dance or is it more opportunity to win? A balance of both I think.

samina

06-25-2007, 12:57 PM

no. college degree should not be part of the qualification... that smacks of intellectual elitism. Plus I can easily imagine there could be some serious hobbyists (not pre-professionals) without a college degree... in fact they'd likely be at an even greater disadvantage than the post-collegiates given the average income without a degree....

exactly. the idea horrifies me... i mean, it doesn't even have anything to do with the activity... why would a college degree be required??? :shock:

samina

06-25-2007, 12:59 PM

me too, just thought that's the best filter to get rid of couples people want to be protected from..
gotcha. :)

Musique

06-25-2007, 12:59 PM

OK, you are all funny and creative about the extra categories. But is it Wendi Davis's intention to separate the pre-professionals from the hobbists? I thought it is a good idea. But now I see not everyone is with me. If we can't even agree on the purpose of this extra either age or proficiency category, it does not seem like our discussion is going to be productive.

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 01:00 PM

exactly. the idea horrifies me... i mean, it doesn't even have anything to do with the activity... why would a college degree be required??? :shock:Because they want to have an event for smart rational people who didn't go off the deep-end until after they got their degree.

Egoist

06-25-2007, 01:01 PM

In fact, I will go as far as saying I, myself, am in better shape now than I was when I was 21 years old.

You in your shape at 21 years old would likely do better (with your partner at 21 in the shape he is now) than you do now.

And, yes, age is not perfect but it is less imperfect than money or education or parents or height or weight or color of your skin or size of your...feet.

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 01:01 PM

exactly. the idea horrifies me... i mean, it doesn't even have anything to do with the activity... why would a college degree be required??? :shock:
that just eliminates basicaly the couples people don't want to compete agianst.. "quasi pros"...

samina

06-25-2007, 01:03 PM

that just eliminates basicaly the couples people don't want to compete agianst.. "quasi pros"...

they tend not to have 4-yr degrees? being out of that loop, am not aware of that nuance.

Musique

06-25-2007, 01:03 PM

You both look 18 to me. And I love you both.:p
You in your shape at 21 years old would likely do better (with your partner at 21 in the shape he is now) than you do now.

And, yes, age is not perfect but it is less imperfect than money or education or parents or height or weight or color of your skin or size of your...feet.

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 01:04 PM

And then one for people whose parents didn't get them started...

mea maxima culpa

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 01:05 PM

they tend not to have 4-yr degrees? being out of that loop, am not aware of that nuance.
most , not all but most don't continue education much after high school...

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 01:28 PM

mea maxima culpa

Oh, I'm not saying it's bad. On the contrary it's good, but because it's good its another of the things that can make a big difference.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 01:31 PM

no. college degree should not be part of the qualification... that smacks of intellectual elitism.
I respectfully disagree. I think it doesn't even come close to elitism - I can think of many college graduates I wouldn't trust to wash my car, let alone do my taxes. So I suggest restricting to Ivy League, with Cambridge and Oxford graduates considered on a case by case basis. Of course this still doesn't guarantee anything, but there's hope those Harvard diplomas have some substance to them other than the name.

Back on topic. I see two basic requirement to entering the new category, age notwithstanding:

1) no major talent and no desire or no time to work to overcome said lack of major talent
2) inability to admit that being a big fish in a small pond doesn't make your dancing better

RIdancer82

06-25-2007, 01:33 PM

that just eliminates basicaly the couples people don't want to compete agianst.. "quasi pros"...

It also eliminates people who are still working towards getting their degree while working and dancing.....the ones who are working their butts off so they can (barely) afford both school and dance..... it certainly eliminates more than just "quasi pros"

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 01:36 PM

Well I kind of suggestd it as a joke, it would get rid of couples people want protection from.. well some others too. but there are always tradeoffs.. i jsut dont' think age category is apropriate.. RS seems like the way to go..

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 01:52 PM

Back on topic. I see two basic requirement to entering the new category, age notwithstanding:

1) no major talent and no desire or no time to work to overcome said lack of major talent

All you are doing is showing that you don't understand the actual circumstances of those targeted by the category. Which is suprising, as they really aren't very different than your own circumstances.

Granted, sometimes couples are "stuck" due to their strategy, but usually when that happens it's because neither they nor their coaches understand how to solve the problems holding them back. I've seen a heck of a lot of lessons that completely missed what was actually needed; I suspect it's often easier to see from 50 feet away than when you are in the middle of it.

Sure, not everyone puts in the time they should. But of those who do, the fraction of the time that they know what they actually need to do to improve, and the fraction of that time when they are actually right about it, is very small. And that's the big, ellusive problem once the obvious things like showing up and getting along with your partner are taken care of.

2) inability to admit that being a big fish in a small pond doesn't make your dancing better

No, but practicing, including under competition conditions, does. There's a big difference between the learning experience of dancing in an elbows-to-eyeballs first round, vs. dancing in the later rounds when things open out a bit and couples come closer to showcasing their abilities. Not winning is no biggie; never really getting to dance is.

kimV6

06-25-2007, 01:59 PM

perhaps a length-of-time restriction then? the argument as i see it is that people who start dancing in college as a hobby are not going to be on the same page as a pre-professional who started when they were four. could we say then that this is an event limited to people in their first say ten years of dancing (or something along those lines)?

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 02:02 PM

Actually the length of time issue seems to be kind of backwards from what was intended. Consider that someone who started dancing at age 22 would disqualify at age 32...

nevsky

06-25-2007, 02:37 PM

Not winning is no biggie; never really getting to dance is.
If you can't make the first cut, get better. If you can't get better, figure out why. If you can't, find people who can help you. If you get frustrated in the process, I understand - this is very frustrating. No kidding, very very frustrating. So if you realize you can't take the frustration any more and quit, or only compete once a year, or only dance socially, I understand too. But what makes people feel the world owes them an opportunity to dance more than one round? I don't recall any clauses about this in my Contract with the Ruler of Ballroom Competitions - did I miss something?

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 02:41 PM

or help grow a larger pool of placed-out-of-prechamp people, who you can beat in champ giving you an extra round :)

Kitty

06-25-2007, 02:43 PM

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 02:46 PM

If you can't make the first cut, get better. If you can't get better, figure out why. If you can't, find people who can help you. If you get frustrated in the process, I understand - this is very frustrating. No kidding, very very frustrating. So if you realize you can't take the frustration any more and quit, or only compete once a year, or only dance socially, I understand too. But what makes people feel the world owes them an opportunity to dance more than one round? I don't recall any clauses about this in my Contract with the Ruler of Ballroom Competitions - did I miss something?

For the simple reason that you probably won't learn much if you only get to dance one (typically overcrowded and disorganized) round, we actually have a system of progressive levels, which means that in most cases you can dance more than one round by choosing an appropriate level.

Where that breaks down is when people place out of prechamp, but either aren't going to make any progress in the current champ field, or aren't going to years after they placed out of an easier form of prechamp, or aren't going to with a current partner who doesn't have the experience of the parnter they placed out with.

That's why I don't see this as someone getting crowned champion of a particular generation, I see it as providing one of the key ingredients to getting better.

star_gazer

06-25-2007, 02:46 PM

no, all they are sayingis that paying high entry fees, traveling from far away and only dancing once is not worth it and also doens't give them a chance to get some comp experience, which will help with their progress. That is understandable.
That is exactly the reason why there is a rising star category in Blackpool, isn't it?Exactly!

Katarzyna

06-25-2007, 02:48 PM

nevsky

06-25-2007, 02:51 PM

That is exactly the reason why there is a rising star category in Blackpool, isn't it?
Rising star is different from a category called "let's exclude everybody under 25 because they're better than us".

Kitty

06-25-2007, 02:52 PM

but nevsky has a good point. There are plenty of open level competitors in other countries (for example, Russia) and I have never seen them complaining they want to win something.. about half of them only dances one round at a lot of competitions (unless there is a rising star category). Some of them are teaching, some of them have careers, but they are all competing in the same boat, with best dancers making the cut.

also , no one here is asking the question, when those "preprofessional", or even professional couples hit a wall, how do they feel about it?
how do they feel about getting the same blackpool result year after year? or with younger couples appearing from nowhere and getting ahead? don't you think it is just as frustrating? It happens all the time!

Kitty

06-25-2007, 02:54 PM

Rising star is different from a category called "let's exclude everybody under 25 because they're better than us".

nevsky, if you want to join our "add rising star instead of an age group" camp, welcome:-)

nevsky

06-25-2007, 03:04 PM

also , no one here is asking the question, when those "preprofessional", or even professional couples hit a wall, how do they feel about it?
how do they feel about getting the same blackpool result year after year? or with younger couples appearing from nowhere and getting ahead? don't you think it is just as frustrating? It happens all the time!
Ah, but we are different! We didn't start until we were 18, and sometimes even 22. Plus, we can't afford to practice every day.

As for rising star, I have a feeling it's not going to help much. Dancesportinfo has Yankee results; I just looked up rising star events - there were 5 couples in latin, 6 in standard.

reb

06-25-2007, 03:05 PM

Rising Star sounds good and seems to be carrying the day.

Not sure about the 25+ or 25-34 age group.

Who does those DF polls anyway?:D

skwiggy

06-25-2007, 03:11 PM

Who does those DF polls anyway?:D

Ask and ye shall receive. :)

Kitty

06-25-2007, 03:12 PM

Plus, we can't afford to practice every day.

why not? "they" could say the same thing. Judges don't care if you also have good grades in school, or any time to spend wiht your boyfriend..

Awesome, thank you skwiggy!

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 03:14 PM

As for rising star, I have a feeling it's not going to help much. Dancesportinfo has Yankee results; I just looked up rising star events - there were 5 couples in latin, 6 in standard.

When champ is on Friday and rising star on Sunday, you hardly get the two times dancing for one investment benefit - even if you're local, you are basically paying two seperate sets of fees.

Rising star in that case looks more like a second event for the prechamp crowd (and then skip the champ entirely)... wouldnt be suprised if entries effectively duplicated the prechamp, which tends to be small at that competition anyway.

If you want to see the popularity of rising star, you might try holding at an event that is popular to begin with. Otherwise, you are looking at the ability of adding rising star to grow an event, which may be real, but probably happens slowly over several years as the word gets out.

Egoist

06-25-2007, 03:14 PM

Rising star is different from a category called "let's exclude everybody under 25 because they're better than us".

Yes! You are correct. The assumption is that a hard-working 25-34 yo cannot compete with a hard-working 18-24 yo. That is not in question!

What you are missing is that the purpose of Adult II is to encourage more couples in the 25-34 age range to stay competing so that when you get to Senior I, you don't see such drop in quality where only 1 or 2 couples stand out, e.g. Mark and Didi and Xinming and Katerina (the latter being an exeption since Katerina did not deal with being an unhappy 25-34 yo amateur).

Rising Star would NOT accomplish such a feat. It probably won't even encourage more couples to compete at all!

If you look at the Profesional model, RS works because it encourages couples to turn pro and stay competing. Such issue does not exist with "amateurs".

One more thing. Blackpool does not have Pre-Champ.

reb

06-25-2007, 03:19 PM

Ask and ye shall receive. :)
You're good!

Egoist

06-25-2007, 03:24 PM

BTW, EVERY competitive category in dancing was created TO EXCLUDE someone who was better.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 03:31 PM

Yes! You are correct. The assumption is that a hard-working 25-34 yo cannot compete with a hard-working 18-24 yo. That is not in question!
I'm sorry, I must've misunderstood. I thought the assumption was that a talentless 30-yo cannot compete with a talented 18-yo.

So, if you can't blame it on the judges, blame it on the age. Apparently, certain things are harder to admit than others - no surprise there, I guess...

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 03:41 PM

I'm sorry, I must've misunderstood. I thought the assumption was that a talentless 30-yo cannot compete with a talented 18-yo.

No, the assumption is that a comparatively inexperienced 30-yo will not compete effectively against an experienced 18-yo.

Technically it's only a fairly narrow group of people - those who have placed out of pre-champ without gaining champ-level experience, or subsequently formed partnerships lacking that experience - who get stuck.

But maybe we should turn it around: how about we eliminate the youth and junior divisions entirely. Since the older teens do fine competing against adults, presumably the younger ones can gain the necessary experience to get to that point while competing against adults? (Actually, I wouldn't recommend this; it's likely to encourage adults to make the fatal mistake of trying to dance like teenagers do, when if they hope to accomplish anything they are going to have to be more focused and efficient from the start)

Egoist

06-25-2007, 03:42 PM

I'm sorry, I must've misunderstood. I thought the assumption was that a talentless 30-yo cannot compete with a talented 18-yo.

That doesn't argue for or against Adult II. Perhaps you are trying to call those who argue for Adult II talentless and those who are against talented, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, if you can't blame it on the judges, blame it on the age. Apparently, certain things are harder to admit than others - no surprise there, I guess...

I am waiting for you to state that age does not matter.

reb

06-25-2007, 03:54 PM

No, the assumption is that a comparatively inexperienced 30-yo will not compete effectively against an experienced 18-yo.

Technically it's only a fairly narrow group of people - those who have placed out of pre-champ without gaining champ-level experience, or subsequently formed partnerships lacking that experience - who get stuck.

But maybe we should turn it around: how about we eliminate the youth and junior divisions entirely. Since the older teens do fine competing against adults, presumably the younger ones can gain the necessary experience to get to that point while competing against adults? (Actually, I wouldn't recommend this; it's likely to encourage adults to make the fatal mistake of trying to dance like teenagers do, when if they hope to accomplish anything they are going to have to be more focused and efficient from the start)
Chris - well said.

There's some significant logical fallacies stated elsewhere on this page which should have made those intellectual writers cringe.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 04:09 PM

Another idea would be switching the champ event to repercharge format, in which half the recalls are selected from a round, then those not selected dance again for the other half of the recall slots. Coupled with assigning heats based on past results (so you don't get the whole final in one heat), that could also up the participation and experience benefits.

But it would mean monkeying with the details of an officially recognized category, and thus would probably require some kind of formal waiver before the experiment could be tried.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 04:09 PM

That doesn't argue for or against Adult II. Perhaps you are trying to call those who argue for Adult II talentless and those who are against talented, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
People with a lot of natural talent find it easier and less frustrating to improve their dancing.
People with less natural talent find it harder and more frustrating.
I'm not sure what quality makes people externalize their frustrations or seek help from USABDA to deal with them, but I might call it immaturity.

I am waiting for you to state that age does not matter.
Of course age matters a lot; e.g. you cannot legally drink in most (or all?) states until you're 21 - which, I think, is dumb, but that's beside the point. Or were you talking about something else?

Tigerlilly

06-25-2007, 04:10 PM

I wonder if these two remedies (adult 2 and rising star) would be applied to all four styles (like at Wendi's comp) or just to standard and latin, which generally have more competitors.

I imagine that the effects of these two solutions would be quite different for smooth and rhythm from standard and latin...

For smooth, a new rising star category would probably just dilute the already thin competitor ranks. (Some comps currently acknowledge this by combining novice, pre-champ, and champ into a single category labeled "open." Often this combined category is still only a final.)

Introduction of an adult 2 category would have a different effect... My guess is that you'd see duplication of many (not all, of course) of the adult 1 champ smooth competitors in the adult 2 champ category, since quite a few are 25+. Not a bad thing, I think. Adult 2 would give them another opportunity to dance, a welcome opportunity when mostly they only get to dance finals...:wink:

reb

06-25-2007, 04:19 PM

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 04:20 PM

People with a lot of natural talent find it easier and less frustrating to improve their dancing.
People with less natural talent find it harder and more frustrating.

I really have never seen an example of that difference.

What I have seen is a difference between people who are in a good circumstance to rapidly advance, and people who aren't.

Some of the circumstances are under direct control: level of interest and determination. Others can be changed, but usually aren't - few not following the professional track have the courage/insanity to alter career plans, move, etc to support their dancing.

As a result, most of those you see doing well were those who happened to be a in a good situation when they started.

I'd also point out how, amongst those who've made some of the most rapid rise, their progress has had some stalls, often directly caused by changes in their circumstances.

Egoist

06-25-2007, 05:13 PM

Of course age matters a lot; e.g. you cannot legally drink in most (or all?) states until you're 21 - which, I think, is dumb, but that's beside the point. Or were you talking about something else?

Now you are just trolling.

To get back to the topic, none of the people that are arguing for or against Adult II are actually the ones that are targetted by the addition. The target are the couples that are not competing because they feel, for whatever reason, it is a waste of time to compete against the younger couples. At Senior I, I still compete and will keep competing in Adult I (even if my partner was also Senior I). So for me, both RS and Adult II would be an improvement. But given the choice, I would prefer the latter.

NielsenE

06-25-2007, 05:34 PM

I don't think nevsky is trolling, I think he's getting to the heart of the matter. (Amazing we almost never agree and I'm now defending him....)

At first I was in favor of adult II. I'm no longer. I'm even more against the notion of a Rising Star in amateur.

I understand, and appreciate, the identified issue. But I don't think any of the proposed solutions would help matters and would only establish a precident that leads to increasing levels whenever there is a perceived "unfair plateau" in the available competitive events.

Currently I think Chris's suggestion of using the repercharge format is closest to desireable and has its own precedent/history behind it.

Part of the discussion is degrading because there is the feel that people are trying to craft rules that would eliminate everyone above themselves, while allowing themselves to stay in the event.

Everyone tends to want a large/competitive event, but an event they can win. My suspicion is that most of the pre-champ and above dancers would much rather the large/competitive event over a final only they can win. Thus I think we should err on the side of caution when adding additional events that have the potential to segment the field.

I haven't really thought of any solutions, but most real (rather than bandaid) solutions I think would require serious re-write of USA Dance rules. Perhaps changing the way prof. points are earned -- perhaps change it so that open points(Novice,Pre-Champ,Champ) are earned by the couple not by the person. Perhaps coupled with the repercharge format and you address the two main issues -- people get to dance at least twice, even if they are champ only and newly re-arranged couples can start at a lower level if they feel its appropriate.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 05:48 PM

Part of the discussion is degrading because there is the feel that people are trying to craft rules that would eliminate everyone above themselves, while allowing themselves to stay in the event.

I don't actually see that as being the case.

And Nevsky is arguing for policies that specifically exclude himself.

My suspicion is that most of the pre-champ and above dancers would much rather the large/competitive event over a final only they can win. Thus I think we should err on the side of caution when adding additional events that have the potential to segment the field.

I don't think the extra event would segment the field very much, at least not if it's implemented as an extra event. Segmenting the field is rather what you have now between Adult and Senior, where only the top two couples in the latter really look comparable to the adult field. The Adult II idea sounds more like an attempt to fill out the field, and over time to fill in that gap. On the other hand, Senior I may pick up a lot of life over the next few years even if things stay as they are.

06-25-2007, 07:05 PM

I am probably completely missing the point here.

To my untrained eye, making more categories seems to further disenfranchise the youngest competitors, as this is yet one more category they cannot participate in, but the older dancers are of course free to do so. What is the point of having an age requirement if older dancers are permitted to ignore it? I can understand a dancer being between silver and bronze in skill, but age is absolute. It seems a popular topic to wax poetic about, this, "Oh, if only we had more younger dancers" but when they walk out on the floor and get waxed by older dancers, that isn't exactly encouraging. Then they sit back and watch these same people dance all day long.

I'm at a complete loss for understanding the importance of categories if people dance out of them. :confused:

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 07:35 PM

What is the point of having an age requirement if older dancers are permitted to ignore it?

You think it would make more sense if we had mandatory retirement at age 35? Because that's what the alternative would essentially be for strong competitors. And how would it work with partnerships?

Instead, we let people cross boundaries towards the adult division, from both the younger and older divisions.

It seems a popular topic to wax poetic about, this, "Oh, if only we had more younger dancers" but when they walk out on the floor and get waxed by older dancers, that isn't exactly encouraging.

You might want to take some more time to familiarize yourself with the subject. There is no shortage of younger dancers at all in the amateur competition world! And it's pretty much unheard of for youth to put them at a disadvantage... most of the under 35 events are being won by people at most in their early 20's, some of them still elgible for the oldest youth category.

In theory, I keep thinking that we should be seeing a Senior I division showcasing dancers who may be a little stiffer and slower, but make up for it with an overwhelming expertise, grace, and dignity resulting from a more mature understanding of the subject. If that were actually the case, then your fear of younger dancers being shut out would be a concern. But it's not what's happening.

DanceScientist

06-25-2007, 08:02 PM

Excuse me for entering the discussion late and only having time to read 4 of the 18 pages of this very interesting discussion. :) From a non-competitor's prospective, I see the problem as just having too many good dancers competing in the highest amateur category of Championship Adult -- not surprising since there's no where else to go after Championship without turning Pro. I'm OK with creating more more divisions if it helps motivate people who might otherwise stop competing. So, I'd be in favor of creating one or more divisions between the current Pre-Champ and Championship levels, but simply call it Pre-Champ I, Pre-Champ II, etc. We can put as many levels of Pre-Champ as necessary to keep everybody motivated to compete who wishes to. :)

06-25-2007, 08:24 PM

Um, ouch?

I did say I am not familiar with the subject and am trying to understand. :(

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 08:41 PM

Ignoring long term issues, just in the near term experimental context:

Adult II:

- Imperfect line drawing - leaves some 23, 24 year olds, etc out
- Simple extension of existing age category rules
- Minimal reduction in entries to other events, since it permits a double entry not previously permitted for most (though top senior I couples may choose to dance Adult I and II but not senior)
- Elgibilty easily verified by USA Dance (but not by public)
- Probably runnable as an unofficial experiment w/o interfering with sanctioned divisions
- non-champ division may be counterproductive

Rising Star:

- Needs to be precisly defined
- Elgiblity harder to track, but based on more public information
- As a proficiency level, likely limits what other events can be entered, meaning loss of entries from pre-champ and/or champ as couples pick 2 of 3 choices.
- Greater potential for interference with sanctioned divisions; may need official permission to experiment
- should probably be single age bracket

nevsky

06-25-2007, 08:54 PM

I don't think nevsky is trolling, I think he's getting to the heart of the matter. (Amazing we almost never agree and I'm now defending him....)

Eric, this is worth recording in history books, don't you think?.. ;-)

nevsky

06-25-2007, 09:14 PM

Now you are just trolling.

To get back to the topic...
If you asked whether I think the rate at which you improve depends on when you started dancing, I would've said:

People with more natural talent advance faster - at any age.

People with less natural talent advance slower - at any age.

Probably, if Bryan Watson started dancing at 20 and not at 5, he wouldn't be an amateur world champion at 22. But he'd be in the world final by 30 anyway. This is a hypothetical example... almost, since his partner did start at 18 - and was a pro world champion at 30.

Probably, if prechamp dancer Joe Schmoe started dancing at 5 and not at 20, he wouldn't be a world finalist at 30 - or ever.

Definitely, if Bryan Watson didn't start until 60, he would never have been a world champion.

But you didn't ask, did you?

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:21 PM

Probably, if prechamp dancer Joe Schmoe started dancing at 5 and not at 20, he wouldn't be a world finalist at 30 - or ever.

That would probably depend on what he did between ages 5 and 30... where he lived, who he studied with, what else he wasted time on, etc.

Talnet is really such a minor factor; opportunity (including the willingness to construct it) and attention are so much more important.

The "talent" that matters is ultimately not about dancing, but about managing to spend more of your time in the "learning zone" for 5-10 solid years... for most dancers, the percentage of their practice and lesson time actually time spent there is unfortunately quite low.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 09:25 PM

I really have never seen an example of that difference.

]What I have seen is a difference between people who are in a good circumstance to rapidly advance, and people who aren't.
50% of what you call "circumstance" I would call talent. On the other 50% I think we agree.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 09:46 PM

Talent for staying focused maybe; but not talent for dancing. That has to be learned.

reb

06-25-2007, 09:54 PM

That would probably depend on what he did between ages 5 and 30... where he lived, who he studied with, what else he wasted time on, etc.

Talnet is really such a minor factor; opportunity (including the willingness to construct it) and attention are so much more important.

The "talent" that matters is ultimately not about dancing, but about managing to spend more of your time in the "learning zone" for 5-10 solid years... for most dancers, the percentage of their practice and lesson time actually time spent there is unfortunately quite low.

Bingo, Chris, you got another good point here.

Those fortunate to have learned at an early age with parents who pushed them in chess, mathematics, dance, tennis, basketball, etc., can demonstrate 'talent' beyond the grasp of everyone else.

The mature person is one who realizes they were given a gift and makes the most of it - and doesn't begrudge another for their efforts to learn in the same field.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 10:13 PM

Those fortunate to have learned at an early age with parents who pushed them in chess, mathematics, dance, tennis, basketball, etc., can demonstrate 'talent' beyond the grasp of everyone else.
They don't demonstrate talent, they demonstrate skill. Talent is the ease with which the skill is learned. Innumerable parents push their children to excel in chess, mathematics, dance, etc.; only a few succeed.

Now, whether talent is due to nature or nurture is a very big subject in itself. If anybody has scientific data (studies on separated twins, and the like) showing if dancing ability is linked to the DNA, to pre-natal development, to the first 5 (or 10, or 20) months of your life, it'd be interesting to see it. But I don't think there's any point at arguing that by the age of (say) 10 your brain has already developed a general way to relate to your body (fundamental level of awareness, movement patterns, tension patterns, psycho-somatic patterns, traumas of various sort, etc.), which makes it either easy or hard for you to learn good dancing habits. The word "talent" the way I use it is simply a shorthand for "the general way your brain relates to your body".

reb

06-25-2007, 10:23 PM

I agree with your choice of word skill vs. talent.

I just read an article about some research going on in Australia looking into the type of talent (if that's the right word) demonstrated by Wayne Gretsky in hockey (and others in their sports) for his ability to anticipate - from a coaches perspective, assuming there might be a way to teach this capability.

Chris Stratton

06-25-2007, 10:57 PM

But I don't think there's any point at arguing that by the age of (say) 10 your brain has already developed a general way to relate to your body (fundamental level of awareness, movement patterns, tension patterns, psycho-somatic patterns, traumas of various sort, etc.), which makes it either easy or hard for you to learn good dancing habits.

I strongly dispute that.

Actually learning to control your body in detail may not be a common skill, but it is a skill that can be developed even in adulthood.

Remember that half of control is the feedback. A "klutz" who is a keen visually obsever, who spends a lot of time experimenting in front of a mirror will learn quite a bit about controlling their body.

Precise control of the body is also a skill that can transfer across widely different disciplines - because it's not about what you do, its about the realization that you can learn to do it.

nevsky

06-25-2007, 11:30 PM

I strongly dispute that.

Actually learning to control your body in detail may not be a common skill, but it is a skill that can be developed even in adulthood.

Remember that half of control is the feedback. A "klutz" who is a keen visually obsever, who spends a lot of time experimenting in front of a mirror will learn quite a bit about controlling their body.

Precise control of the body is also a skill that can transfer across widely different disciplines - because it's not about what you do, its about the realization that you can learn to do it.
How is any of this disputing anything I said? It sounds exactly the same to me.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 12:00 AM

You mentioned these abilities being largely frozen in childhood, I pointed out how they can be gained (or transfered from other areas) in adulthood.

meow

06-26-2007, 12:48 AM

I think that everyone can be taught to do something but some have the ability to learn quicker than others. Is that talent? In dance, I think so. But to be a champion is more than just talent. You need to work hard, be determined, have great coaches and advisors, be able to finance your dancing, and a little bit of luck.

samina

06-26-2007, 12:52 AM

Instead, we let people cross boundaries towards the adult division, from both the younger and older divisions.

someone in the younger division is allowed to cross into the adult division??? how is that so??? seems like that violates every rule i've read... that doesn't seem fair to me...

samina

06-26-2007, 12:55 AM

They don't demonstrate talent, they demonstrate skill. Talent is the ease with which the skill is learned.

well-said

samina

06-26-2007, 12:56 AM

But to be a champion is more than just talent. You need to work hard, be determined, have great coaches and advisors, be able to finance your dancing, and a little bit of luck.

so true. requires thinking like a champion, as well... no small task.

nevsky

06-26-2007, 01:04 AM

You mentioned these abilities being largely frozen in childhood, I pointed out how they can be gained (or transfered from other areas) in adulthood.
Well, you can learn to learn faster - but while you're doing this (and it does take years) people who learn fast naturally ("are more talented") will be actually learning to dance (sing, play tennis, play chess).

Anyway, the way I look at it, we're mainly in agreement here. And to get back on topic, I think either Rising Star or a re-dance (a la IDSF Grand Slams) will help those who don't want to travel to a comp to dance only once.

Joe

06-26-2007, 06:37 AM

Egoist

06-26-2007, 07:47 AM

Anyway, the way I look at it, we're mainly in agreement here. And to get back on topic, I think either Rising Star or a re-dance (a la IDSF Grand Slams) will help those who don't want to travel to a comp to dance only once.

I think the original issue is being confused here. It is not about giving couples an opportunity to dance more. I think the issue is more that some couples feel discouraged to continue competing after they have placed out of pre-champ because they feel there is no future for them. Do they have reason to feel this way? The proposed solution, Adult II, addresses these couples and is based on the assumption that one major causing agent is age. The alternative, RS, does not address these couples. It does, however, address the couples that have placed out of pre-champ that would love to dance more.

Egoist

06-26-2007, 07:54 AM

Well, you can learn to learn faster - but while you're doing this (and it does take years) people who learn fast naturally ("are more talented") will be actually learning to dance (sing, play tennis, play chess).

Talent is a big contributor to success but I will argue that age is also as big.

Anyway, the way I look at it, we're mainly in agreement here. And to get back on topic, I think either Rising Star or a re-dance (a la IDSF Grand Slams) will help those who don't want to travel to a comp to dance only once.

The purpose of RS or the repachage is to give couples who end up being eliminated after the first round an opportunity to dance more than once. In these competitions there is no alternative. In our competitions, there are alternatives, e.g. Pre-Champ and Novice.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 08:53 AM

The purpose of RS or the repachage is to give couples who end up being eliminated after the first round an opportunity to dance more than once. In these competitions there is no alternative. In our competitions, there are alternatives, e.g. Pre-Champ and Novice.

Yes, but those alternatives are not available to everyone.

Another thing is that if one event is on Friday and the other on Sunday, that's (in terms of fees and travel) like two different competitions each offering only a single event.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 09:14 AM

someone in the younger division is allowed to cross into the adult division??? how is that so??? seems like that violates every rule i've read... that doesn't seem fair to me...

That's the usual way competition works in just about everything. The default division is open to everyone - for example, in the olympics some events might be won by 14 year olds, others by athletes in their mid thirties. When age divisions are added, they are to protect the older and the younger participants, not to prevent them from trying their hand against the best.

samina

06-26-2007, 09:16 AM

but i thought it was that protection itself which enables the olders to cross into the younger division, but not vice versa...

NielsenE

06-26-2007, 09:19 AM

I think the piece your missing is the implicit assumption that Adult is the best. Thus "seniors" can dance down into adult, and "Youth" can dance up into adult. (Last I checked, Seniors could dance down any number of age categories towards/into Adult so long as the number of categories entered obeyed the competitions rules, So a Senior II(or III) may dance Adult. While pre-Adult are only allowed to dance up one step. So Youth can enter Adult, but not Junior A nor B, etc)

I've always viewd "Adult" as the black-hole of dancing, attracting everything else to it

samina

06-26-2007, 09:38 AM

and "Youth" can dance up into adult.

i think i'm getting the assumption left out... "youth who are age-qualified to also dance in adult" is what you mean, correct?

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 09:45 AM

Anyone in the age category immediately below adult (which I think is 16 and up), and perhaps younger dancers with a waiver, may enter adult.

NielsenE

06-26-2007, 09:53 AM

i think i'm getting the assumption left out... "youth who are age-qualified to also dance in adult" is what you mean, correct?

In USA Dance terms:
"Youth" (capital 'Y') is an age level, its the 16-18 year olds. Junior B is 14-15, Junior A 12-13, Pre-Teen B 10-11, and Pre-Teen A 8-9. When people talking about "youth" (lower case 'y') it tends to refer to all of the 5 pre-adult age levels.

"Youth" may dance into adult. I've heard of Junior B doing so as well with waivers. So "Youth" by definition are the "age -qualified youth" who may dance up.

(Remember also, not that its exactly relevant for this discussion, that under USA Dance, at least, your age for a competition is determined by what age you'll turn that calendar year. So if its a January competition, but you'll turn say 16 in Dec, then you are a "Youth" for the year,

samina

06-26-2007, 10:21 AM

Anyone in the age category immediately below adult (which I think is 16 and up), and perhaps younger dancers with a waiver, may enter adult.

i had no idea this was allowed... i though the age limitations were just that... limitations.

samina

06-26-2007, 10:22 AM

huh. wow. okay, i now understand all the more the appeal of having a new age category, now...

nevsky

06-26-2007, 11:00 AM

...the issue is more that some couples feel discouraged to continue competing after they have placed out of pre-champ because they feel there is no future for them.....
There will always be couples who feel discouraged to continue competing - either because they reach their limit and can't progress any more, or because their progress rate slows down, or maybe for some other reason. Always, no matter what age and what level. If we start adding new events every time somebody's development plateaus, we will very quickly arrive at the pro-am model of "gold, gold star, closed gold, open gold, gold plus, gold plus plus, very gold, the golden gold, can't be golder gold, now repeat in Adult-A2-A3-A4-A5, ditto for every other letter of the alphabet".

Egoist

06-26-2007, 11:16 AM

There will always be couples who feel discouraged to continue competing - either because they reach their limit and can't progress any more, or because their progress rate slows down, or maybe for some other reason. Always, no matter what age and what level. If we start adding new events every time somebody's development plateaus, we will very quickly arrive at the pro-am model of "gold, gold star, closed gold, open gold, gold plus, gold plus plus, very gold, the golden gold, can't be golder gold, now repeat in Adult-A2-A3-A4-A5, ditto for every other letter of the alphabet".

It may be a slipper slope, though I believe not very slippery. The bleeding, however, seems to be large in this age range so it is logical to start there.

Kitty

06-26-2007, 11:21 AM

Nevsky, this is exactly how I feel about it.

I will repeat that the adult competitors are generally more vocal about their problems, but I would like to point out that the youth and just out of youth couples we see on top are just the most successful ones. There are plenty of stuck and not very good youth couples that have been dancing for a loooong time (as long as the more vocal adult competitors, or longer) and are nowhere near the top of the US field. They just take their time and progress slowly for a while..
They just take it as a fact of life and keep trying, or they also get discouraged and quit, but if they keep at it, chances are they will eventually improve.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 11:32 AM

Kitty

06-26-2007, 11:38 AM

Technically, as you can drop a level when moving up an age bracket, "stuck" championship youth couples are elgible to compete in adult pre-champ (as well as youth and adult champ) until they have placed out of it with results from adult events.

Is that really true?
And by the way stuck is not defined in terms of results, but in terms of staying at the same level for a long time.

NielsenE

06-26-2007, 11:44 AM

If you're talking about staying at the same "proficiency level" for a long time, but results are changing, then they are either making progress (or declining) albeit slowly. In which case they still have a goal to work towards.

If you're talking about staying at the same "abstract dance ability level", then no amount of fiddling with the competition levels will help -- they need to change their training/practice/mindset.

If they are truly "stuck" in the same proficiency level, without change in results, but with a noticeable change in "abstract dance ability" then the entire field is progressing -- they "just" need to find a way to progress faster.

None of these can completely be helped by new levels. While there is the argument that extra competition rounds/experience can help progress, I suspect it helps near everyone at that level the same. Everyone who is competing at the Champ level, I suspect, is always using every competition as a tool to improve for the next.... (Now extra competitive experience definitely helps beginning syllabus/novice dancers who haven't learned to effectively use each competition experience to its utmost, but that's not the crowd we're talking about here....)

LindyKeya

06-26-2007, 12:22 PM

This whole discussion of Adult II vs. Rising Star is mostly derived from the fact that there are pre- and quasi- and de facto professionals competing as amateurs. I'm not saying that the issue has an easy solution, but if that fact didn't exist, this discussion would be, for the most part, moot.

I agree 100%. It's not about not winning, it's about losing repeatedly to people who should be in a different category.

(If the difference between Am/Pro for non Pro-Am divisions goes away, might this situation sort itself out?)

Ithink

06-26-2007, 12:59 PM

Is that really true?
And by the way stuck is not defined in terms of results, but in terms of staying at the same level for a long time.

The couple that won (or was 2nd in?) pre-champ latin the last year Nationals were held in St. Paul was a youth couple. That same year, there was a youth couple dancing Novice Adult Standard (I believe the girl's name was Barbara Dul?) and who then proceeded to compete in Youth Champ Standard. They were in the upper eschelons of that Novice final, 1st or 2nd...

So yeah, it's really true... At the time, I thought the fact that they danced Adult Novice and then also danced Champ in their own age category was quite something...

Kitty

06-26-2007, 01:18 PM

NielsenE

06-26-2007, 01:28 PM

Section 4.5.5.2 covers this.

Pre-adults who move up in age categories, may dance down one proficiency level. Adults as the move into Senior, (or Senior into higher Seniors) may not dance down.

The difference makes sense if you follow the assumption that Adult is the most competitive -- so pre-adults get a break as the advance, but seniors do not (since the competition is getting "weaker")

Tigerlilly

06-26-2007, 01:31 PM

The couple that won (or was 2nd in?) pre-champ latin the last year Nationals were held in St. Paul was a youth couple. That same year, there was a youth couple dancing Novice Adult Standard (I believe the girl's name was Barbara Dul?) and who then proceeded to compete in Youth Champ Standard. They were in the upper eschelons of that Novice final, 1st or 2nd...

So yeah, it's really true... At the time, I thought the fact that they danced Adult Novice and then also danced Champ in their own age category was quite something...

To add another example... I remember dancing adult pre-champ latin at MAC a number of years ago. That year, a handful of the Youth champ finalists decided to dance adult pre-champ latin, possibly as a warm-up for adult champ and/or for the scholarship money. Needless to say, they trounced the competition. I think maybe 1 non-Youth champ couple was in the final. Anyway, the contrast between the high school-aged Youth champ dancers and the collegiate/20-something pre-champ dancers was pretty stark - looked like 2 different comps taking place on the same floor. And yeah, seemed like something wasn't quite right about it...

Tigerlilly

06-26-2007, 01:41 PM

Section 4.5.5.2 covers this.

Pre-adults who move up in age categories, may dance down one proficiency level. Adults as the move into Senior, (or Senior into higher Seniors) may not dance down.

This is one reason I'm not that enthused about the rising star idea. I assume Youth champ couples will be able to enter the rising star category... The peer groups (especially when you take the extremes - 16 vs 34 yrs old) seem too different...

Ithink

06-26-2007, 03:43 PM

In the case I brought up, the couple was dancing down two levels, from Champ Youth to Novice Adult. I was kinda disgusted by it actually, at the time, and now I know why - they *should* have been disqualified...

In any case, the idea that youth champ dancers can dance down to adult pre-champ *according to the rules* is actually pretty infuriating and another reason why there should be an Adult II Champ category. Or else disallow the practice that lets 17 year-old champ dancers dance in the only truly amateur adult open category, pre-champ.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 03:53 PM

In the case I brought up, the couple was dancing down two levels, from Champ Youth to Novice Adult. I was kinda disgusted by it actually, at the time, and now I know why - they *should* have been disqualified...

Do you have some solid evidence that they weren't a youth pre-champ couple, dancing down one level into adult novice as permitted, and up one level into youth champ?

In any case, the idea that youth champ dancers can dance down to adult pre-champ *according to the rules* is actually pretty infuriating and another reason why there should be an Adult II Champ category. Or else disallow the practice that lets 17 year-old champ dancers dance in the only truly amateur adult open category, pre-champ.

Does it happen much though? I could see it happening at Nationals, but then, it makes sense for a national championship event to be won by the best competitors actually elgible for it.

Ithink

06-26-2007, 04:47 PM

Perhaps, and it's true that they *could* have been a youth pre-champ couple I suppose... Still, dancing three different levels in one category is not allowed. What makes people think they can do that across categories? Oh, I know - the rules... My point is the rules are wonky when they assume that a youth pre-champ couple is comparable in level to a novice adult couple so that they can dance down into that level while simultaneously dancing up to both Youth Champ and maybe even adult Champ (not sure if that's allowed though). Why would the rules assume that? To give kids the chance to dance as much as possible, as star gazer so astutely points out? To encourage them to keep going, keep competing, have their parents and friends be proud of them? So why can't we have an Adult II category so that people can be proud of a 28 year-old...? So that said 28 year-old can dance as much as possible? So s/he can be encouraged and get experience? As it is, pre-champ adults cannot go and dance champ youth and actually compete against more comparable couples if they want to, rather than enter the big bad Adult Champ, but the said youth champ kids can come and dance adult pre-champ if they want to dance more and have people be proud of them. The only thing I ask is why is that?

And as caveat, I am not advocating on my own behalf here for I am very much challenged by Adult pre-champ right now and do not need to have another category added for me but there are people who do want it and maybe even need it...

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 05:03 PM

My point is the rules are wonky when they assume that a youth pre-champ couple is comparable in level to a novice adult couple

I don't read them that way.

I read them as conservatively declining to assume that youth competition will always be as strong as adult and that it will always be appropriate for youth dancers to transition at the same level.

Most youth dancers probably aren't interested in dancing a lower adult level. Those that are interested in it probably wouldn't stay that way for enough wins to place out of it, except maybe by trying to win it at nationals.

star_gazer

06-26-2007, 05:03 PM

I hope that the Adult2 event works out.

I am only suggesting that it can be appropriate for youth couples to do adult events.

Chris Stratton

06-26-2007, 05:08 PM

I am only suggesting that it can be appropriate for youth couples to do adult events.

It's certainly appropriate for them to do the primary catch-all division.

Joe

06-27-2007, 06:48 AM

Still, dancing three different levels in one category is not allowed.
Technically, a couple can dance 3 levels--Novice, plus 2 levels, as long as one of those 2 levels is a syllabus level. So it could be B+S+N, S+G+N, G+N+P. All perfectly legal and that's without even factoring in the BS "drop down one level when dancing up an age category" rule.

Joe

06-27-2007, 06:50 AM

What I'd like to know is this: if they let youth couples dance down a level when dancing up an age category, why don't they let senior+ couples dance down a level when dancing down an age category?

Joe

06-27-2007, 06:54 AM

Talent is a big contributor to success but I will argue that age is also as big.
I agree. Using once again, tennis as an example: Bjorn Borg was probably about as dominant in his day (11 Grand Slam singles titles) as Roger Federer (10 titles) is today. Who believes that in a match played today, that Borg would have more than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Federer?

NielsenE

06-27-2007, 08:16 AM

What I'd like to know is this: if they let youth couples dance down a level when dancing up an age category, why don't they let senior+ couples dance down a level when dancing down an age category?

They do, provided that the senior+ doesn't already have points in adult (or senior-).

Points are earned only in the level/style/age sub-classification. With the caveat that your Senior prof level can't be lower than your adult (or senior-) prof. level. So people who _start_ dancing as say a senior II are likely to have a higher senior level than adult and could dance down when dancing adult. People who "age" into senior are likely to either already have points in adult thus making this less likely or feel that the decreased competition in senior is enough of a "correction".

wyllo

06-27-2007, 08:24 AM

Chris Stratton

06-27-2007, 08:52 AM

Don't they? I swear I've seen senior couples do this before -- dance Senior I Champ and Adult Pre-Champ.

They are probably elgible for Senior Pre-champ - even if they've been winning it, you need a semifinal to get any points (except maybe at nationals?)

Until we start seeing a final's worth of former adult champ finalists continuing into the senior division, I don't think there's too much risk of anyone getting trapped by not permitting a less outstanding dancer to drop in a proficiency level as they cross that division. And a mechanism does exist to pettition for a reduction in proficiency level - though I expect that would come into play if you had someone who'd racked up a lot of points as a young adult, then been off the floor for 10 years.

Joe

06-28-2007, 06:32 AM

They do, provided that the senior+ doesn't already have points in adult (or senior-).

Points are earned only in the level/style/age sub-classification. With the caveat that your Senior prof level can't be lower than your adult (or senior-) prof. level. So people who _start_ dancing as say a senior II are likely to have a higher senior level than adult and could dance down when dancing adult. People who "age" into senior are likely to either already have points in adult thus making this less likely or feel that the decreased competition in senior is enough of a "correction".
How do you figure? The rules (4.5.5.3) say that the level at which seniors compete is no lower than the highest of their Adult, Sr I, Sr II or Sr III level. It says nothing about dropping down.

NielsenE

06-28-2007, 08:42 AM

yes. I was talking about if they are dancing "young" into Adult, their adult level might be lower than the Senior X level.

The rules say you don't get to dance a a lower proficiency level as you age out. However, your Adult level might be lower than your Senior level and that's fine.

I wasn't saying that as you age into Senior X you "lose" a level in Senior X-1.

Rules 4.5.5.3 is saying that their prof level in Senior II is the highest of their Adult/Senior I/Senior II level.

So an individual could be Novice in Adult, Pre-Champ in Senior I, and Champ in Senior II.

Egoist

06-28-2007, 09:50 AM

NielsenE

06-28-2007, 09:56 AM

The rules, at least as I read them, say yes.

FatBaldGuy60

06-28-2007, 02:07 PM

I have read the entire thread over the past week or two. I am new at dancing and have no real plans to compete but...

VERY CONFUSING!

I think that says it.

FBG

Laura

06-28-2007, 02:51 PM

The rules, at least as I read them, say yes.
You are correct.

NJDSC

06-29-2007, 09:04 AM

HI

It's Wendi here.... I just wanted to say that I think it is great that this has brought about so much discussion. I haven't read it all but it certainly seems to be a topic that needs to be dealt with in some way. Remember USA Dance is your organization and any changes should be to benefit yourselves.

I just wanted to add one thing that I couldn't get into depth in my letter. One of the main reasons I became interested in promoting this category is that while watching college comps I was reminded of the success of this system and realized that most of its success was because it was based on participation. Every kid out there dancing showed up in every style sometimes with more than one partner doing basically the same routines for both american and international and danced all day long. As judges we often became bored watching the same people over and over again; but in the end they had a great time.... and they continue to come back again and again.

The complaint I have gotten from most people who want to stop is not about not winning but about not being able to get on the floor enough times at a competition to make it feel like they get value for all the time and money spent. Most don't have any illusions about their abilities; they just want to dance.

Remember to let USA Dance representatives know what you think.... they are how something will change.

.....and have you all registered for the "Summer Sizzler" yet?!?!?!?

nevsky

06-29-2007, 09:12 AM

I agree. Using once again, tennis as an example: Bjorn Borg was probably about as dominant in his day (11 Grand Slam singles titles) as Roger Federer (10 titles) is today. Who believes that in a match played today, that Borg would have more than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Federer?
Tennis is a very poor example, being much more about athleticism than artistry, and your hypothetical Borg vs. Federer match is a really very poor example, Borg having retired 30 years ago. If you're looking for another field, take ballet: do you think a 18-year old corps member will "beat" a 35 year old principal? Or music: how about Van Clibern vs. Horowitz back in the fifties? What about Leo DiCaprio vs. Dustin Hoffman? And finally, would Bryan Watson, who is almost 40, lose a single mark to any of your 16-year old prodigies?

Ithink

06-29-2007, 09:30 AM

Yeah, because yours are really good examples! Your ballet example especially: there is a reason the 18 year-old corps member is not a principal - they are not good enough so why compare them with someone who is and presumably has been for years? That's just inane.

Your music and acting examples are equally strange: those don't in and of themselves require any skills that would be in any way hindered by age so why give them? I think the tennis comparison is way more appropriate in this case... And some will argue tennis requires some artistry too. Experience in tennis matters but experience is very much tempered by age which is what is being argued here with regard to dancing. And here we aren't even talking levels of experience because an 18 year-old who's been dancing since 5 OFTEN has more experience than a 28 year-old who's been dancing since 20...

Chris Stratton

06-29-2007, 09:42 AM

If you're looking for another field, take ballet: do you think a 18-year old corps member will "beat" a 35 year old principal? Or music: how about Van Clibern vs. Horowitz back in the fifties? What about Leo DiCaprio vs. Dustin Hoffman? And finally, would Bryan Watson, who is almost 40, lose a single mark to any of your 16-year old prodigies?

But what you've just demonstrated is that a 16 year old champ amateur competitor does not with 19 additional years of experience turn into a 35 year old amateur, they turn into a 35 year old pro.

If and when we start getting amateurs in their 30's who've been dancing at national finalist level since their early 20's (and developing to match the improvement of that level) that will be interesting. But it hasn't really happened yet.

skwiggy

06-29-2007, 09:50 AM

visir

06-29-2007, 10:29 AM

If you're looking for another field, take ballet: do you think a 18-year old corps member will "beat" a 35 year old principal?

Bad example...a ballet dancer's life span is short, average retirement age is around 35.

star_gazer

06-29-2007, 11:09 AM

I know a few really good ballroom dancers in their late twenties. One commented that she had more aches and pains ...especially in her head and neck ...when she was in her teens... perhaps once she finished maturing dance was somewhat less stressful on her body. ?

Twenty-something seems like when ones dancing should peak. (That is not to say that there are not distinct disadvantages when one starts dancing later in life.)

Dancebug

06-29-2007, 11:31 AM

I know a few really good ballroom dancers in their late twenties. One commented that she had more aches and pains ...especially in her head and neck ...when she was in her teens... perhaps once she finished maturing dance was somewhat less stressful on her body. ?

Could it be that she learned better posture as she matured? You know, there are some top dancers with poor posture.

nevsky

06-29-2007, 11:51 AM

But what you've just demonstrated is that a 16 year old champ amateur competitor does not with 19 additional years of experience turn into a 35 year old amateur, they turn into a 35 year old pro
What I've just demonstrated is that if you want to claim that age is inversely correlated with how good a dancer you can be you have to first explain how come Bryan is beating everybody else. Maybe, just maybe, there's something other than age at play?

nevsky

06-29-2007, 12:00 PM

Yeah, because yours are really good examples!
Mine are amazing examples because they demonstrate wide variety of possibilities for how skill can correlate with age (in particular, that older dancers/actors/whatevers can be better at what they do than younger ones). You seem to imply that younger dancers have an inherent advantage: they are better just because they are younger. This is clearly not true, because Bryan (or Luca, or ...) will beat any of your 18-year-olds. So what's your claim than?

Chris Stratton

06-29-2007, 12:05 PM

What I've just demonstrated is that if you want to claim that age is inversely correlated with how good a dancer you can be you have to first explain how come Bryan is beating everybody else. Maybe, just maybe, there's something other than age at play?

You haven't been keeping track of the debate... I've been arguing that experience is more important than age.

I think a non-professional-track category would be a more appropriate additional category to aid those who started dancing in their college years or later in developing towards their personal maximum.

But it would be harder to fit with the existing rules and politics. Over 25 is not really the right category, but its a trivial extension of existing rules and in practical terms its an approximate fit since there are probably very few professional-track "amateurs" over 25 who would be willing to enter anything other than Adult A champ. The people who get left out would be the non-professional-track amateurs under 25 who've already placed out of pre-champ - probably a fairly small category.

Ithink

06-29-2007, 12:10 PM

OMG, I don't even know how one can claim anything to someone so smart!

Have you ever considered that the reason Bryan might be winning is because a) it's political (one can easily argue that Slavik is a better dancer than Bryan is and has been for awhile) or b) in the alternative, that Bryan simply has the most experience by the virtue of how long he's been dancing and paying his dues (more than 30 years!) and thus none of the younger dancers can beat him because he's been dancing longer than any of them and has far superior technique from 3 decades of practice... Just a few humble suggestions that your examples aren't as "amazing" as you'd have us believe...

But, if we do go with your "brilliant" example: would Donnie Burns beat Bryan Watson if he were to compete against him right now? I mean clearly, having won many more titles than Bryan, Donnie Burns will beat him much more easily at this point in time, right?

FatBaldGuy60

06-29-2007, 12:20 PM

I am so right about this!

No, I am right!

WHAT? How dare you? You know I am right. You are so wrong for that!

I am rubber you are glue, wrong bounces off me and sticks to you!

Aren't internet arguments fun?

FBG

Egoist

06-29-2007, 12:27 PM

Tennis is a very poor example, being much more about athleticism than artistry, and your hypothetical Borg vs. Federer match is a really very poor example, Borg having retired 30 years ago. If you're looking for another field, take ballet: do you think a 18-year old corps member will "beat" a 35 year old principal? Or music: how about Van Clibern vs. Horowitz back in the fifties? What about Leo DiCaprio vs. Dustin Hoffman? And finally, would Bryan Watson, who is almost 40, lose a single mark to any of your 16-year old prodigies?

I don't think we want to get in a debate on whether DanceSport is more artistic than athletic or more athletic than artistic. However, there is no denying that there is a significant amount of both. I will also agree with Chris that experience is significant as well.

If we had a choice to level the playing field on any of those elements, which one would be easier to implement?

If you want a better example than tennis, take figure skating.