Proficiency points system - point IN, or point OUT?

[Borbala_Bunnett]

Hello All,

Among other things, the Dancesport Council is reviewing the current proficiency points system - the points given, accumulation, tracking, portability etc. etc. One of the questions that we are very interested to hear opinions on is whether you think it is more appropriate to point OUT of a level, or point INTO a level?

Example to showcase the difference:
a. Current system is a 'point out' system: a couple can accumulate 3-5 proficiency points at a level (e.g. Silver) before they are no longer allowed to compete at that level and must dance one level higher (i.e. Gold)
b. An example of the 'point in' system would be if a couple would not be eligible to dance in gold unless they acquired e.g. 5 gold qualifying points (however that is defined)

What are your thoughts?

Also, any other feedback on the current proficiency points enchilada is welcome.

Thank you -

Borbala
Dancesport Delegate
AAN Co-Chair

[Adwiz]

Only a "points out" system makes any sense if you want to sustain a vibrant DanceSport community. People don't want to be trapped in a level like rats in a maze just because they haven't accumulated enough points. When they feel ready to move up, they need to be free to do so.

Sure, there are some who abuse the system but it's pretty rare to see people competing completely out of their element. Most of the time they look like they belong there, even if they've rushed it a little.

The "points in" system might work in some cultures where people are used to restrictions on all aspects of life. But it seems to run counter to the very foundation of American culture, which has always celebrated the freedom to become what we feel we are capable of. We need to allow people to explore their potential without putting barriers in the way.

[elisedance]

I'm for point-out too - this is from my experience in pro/am. There is no point out or in there and you have competitors that just stay in a level permanently. While I have no problem with them doing whatever they like they deprive the up-and-coming competitors a fair chance to win their level.

It may be a bit irritating to have unqualified couples at the high levels but this has, at least, its own discouragement since they will consistently rank very low.

Thus, I think it more important to keep the field open at the lower levels and encourage new couples than to keep the field open at the higher ones.

One idea would be to actually have both! Thus for syllabus (Bronze-gold-star) have point out. Then for championship have point-in. So how does that work? Well you would have to have an intermediary level (pre-champ works) where there is neither point-in or point-out. Basically this would be a holding tank where couples would have to face the reality of their dancing skills and future.

My preference is a point out system through syllabus and then just hands off - the judging will be its own regulator.

[Joe]

How do you work it under the current rules that allow entry of 2 levels?

I don't care whether or not it's point-in or point-out. If it's tracked effectively, it doesn't matter. As far as people moving up "when they're ready," if you're not gaining any points in your current level, you're not ready for the next one.

[Ithink]

Point out works.

I actually really like the Swing Dance Counsel Point System, as I have been exposed to it lately and I think it works very well. Because points are awarded for Jack&Jill and noone who's attained a certain level in J&J and actually belongs there wants to get a random partner in a contest who is completely out of his/her element, the syustem is designed to move people up in a level when they are ready. Does it always work - no, because people may be accumulating points at smaller events and when they get to a big event they may feel a bit overwhelmed at a level they are dancing, but generally it seems to work (and there is a way to petition to dance down a level at the huge West Coast events if all your points come from smaller regional events)...

Instead of typing out all the rules and screwing something up, I'll just post a link to the PDF doc that describes the rules: http://www.swingdancecouncil.com/library/WSDC%20Points%20Registry%20Document.pdf

The system is so flexible that it would be quite simple to change it around so it works for ballroom (increase the points, change around the tiers, etc.). I really like it... I especially like that you can get points by making the final from a big field, and not just points for winning at your level, which I think is the most ridiculous part of the current proficiency system...

Oh, and the best part: there is a searchable database, by competitor's name, where anyone who wants can look up their points because they are carefully tracked. While if you do searches for a name you can see that there are a few people who move up a level without accumulating enough points, there is generally no movement in the opposite direction (as in people staying in a level forever...).

So that's my two cents:)

[samina]

The "points in" system might work in some cultures where people are used to restrictions on all aspects of life. But it seems to run counter to the very foundation of American culture, which has always celebrated the freedom to become what we feel we are capable of. We need to allow people to explore their potential without putting barriers in the way.

could not express this any better. perfect.

[Joe]

Oh, and the best part: there is a searchable database, by competitor's name, where anyone who wants can look up their points because they are carefully tracked. While if you do searches for a name you can see that there are a few people who move up a level without accumulating enough points, there is generally no movement in the opposite direction (as in people staying in a level forever...).
Are swing comps as frequent as ballroom ones?

[Ithink]

Yes, if you want to, you can go to an event almost every (or every!) weekend:) It would leave you broke because of the travel you'd have to do but you could do it;)

[Katarzyna]

I think point in system could work but would require a bigger field first. Its working very well in most other countries and as some mentioned in other threads gives couples a sense of accomplishments to "achieve" the next level.. but given that the field in the US is so small, it would be hard to make it work well here.

[wyllo]

For a point in system to work, we'd need both a bigger field and a more liberal point system. Right now only the couple that takes first place receives points and there has to be a semifinal danced. If you're second out of 50 couples that's very nice, but you don't accumulate any points. I'd say at that point all of the couples in the final are displaying a degree of proficiency and should earn points at that level.

The second problem is that in some areas semifinals at the higher syllabus and open levels are quite rare. So, couples in say gold would either get stuck there or be required to travel to the East or West coast to receive enough points to move up.

[Chris Stratton]

Katarzyna & Wyllo - what we have right now is the point out system. I believe your comments apply to the feasability of switching to a point-in system.

[wyllo]

Katarzyna & Wyllo - what we have right now is the point out system. I believe your comments apply to the feasability of switching to a point-in system.

I've edited my post, thanks Chris! :)

[Katarzyna]

I've edited my post, thanks Chris! :)
me too, thank you!

[Ithink]

Right now only the couple that takes first place receives points and there has to be a semifinal danced. If you're second out of 50 couples that's very nice, but you don't accumulate any points. I'd say at that point all of the couples in the final are displaying a degree of proficiency and should earn points at that level. .

Yes, the fact that all the finalists are not accumulating points and only the winners are is ludicrous. If there is a quarter or even a semi, people who are in the final should be getting points. That's why I think the swing system works so well. You need 20 points to be able to get out of novice (an option not a requirement unless you've won once AND have 20 points). Depending on the number of total competitors in the event, points are scaled. So the winner gets 10 points, second place gets 8, third gets 6, fourth gets 4, fifth gets 2, sixth gets 1). If there is a quarterfinal, it can be 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2...

[Katarzyna]

Also in other countries you get some points for attending, some for placement.. and to place out of a level into the next you need a combination of points as well as placements in top 3 in the final.. from what my friends from poland explained...

[DrDoug]

The "points in" system might work in some cultures where people are used to restrictions on all aspects of life. But it seems to run counter to the very foundation of American culture

I think competitive country-and-western dancing uses something like a point-in system. Am I wrong, or are they un-American?

[Chris Stratton]

Yes, the fact that all the finalists are not accumulating points and only the winners are is ludicrous.

In general, I'd agree - and likewise the switch from 3 points to 5 was very counterproductive.

Except that the general opinion seems to be different from the pre-champ to champ division, where there seems to be concern about being consigned to champ-only too soon.

Maybe we should do something a bit more like the college comps for changes between the syllabus levels, with some points awarded for finals placement in-level. But then leave the pre-champ to champ switch the way it is.

Some will argue it's too complicated... but really, individuals would only be dealing with one version of the rules at a time (unless they are dancing syllabus in one style and open in another)

[star_gazer]

Don't think we have enough competitors to make the point-in system work. Also, how would it handle youth competitors moving into adult categories?

[fenixx]

I still feel a rating system would be much better than either a point in or out. With ratings, you can adjust everyone who competes in the event based on whatever formula USA Dance uses. This would allow event organizers to "max rate" (point out) or "min rate" (point in) events. An example would be:

Bronze: (Max rating 1000)

Silver: (Max rating 2000)

Championship (Min rating 5000)

I know rating have been tossed around on this board before and I know many people dislike the idea of being put against other people or given a ranking, but every sport, even ours, does this at some level. So, instead of ranking people I think a rating system would give a much more accurate picture of point accumilation. A rating system would capture gain and loss of proficiency and the amount of gain or loss would be relative to the field not an absolute number. I think these two aspects of a rating system make it superior to a point system and gives organizers a lot more flexibility in organizing events that are fair and competitive.

[Chris Stratton]

A rating system requires a switch from competitor-tracked to organization-tracked.

Until the last few years, that would have had a lot of overhead, but is now possible.

However, in the US, we also have two organizations, each handing out their own registration numbers (which are probably necessary for automatic disambiguation)

Who is going to be able to get results from both, by registration number, and combine them?

Even if only one of USA Dance or NDCA uses the results of the ranking, both sets of competitions will need to feed into its calculation, otherwise the data size will be too small to be very accurate.

[Kitty]

Point in system would be very very nice and would solve a lot of problems. We've discussed it on forum before. However there are some obstacles and I don't see a way they could be worked out at the moment.

1) the field is too small for the point IN system to work. A large field is required for several reasons, one of them is switching partners. another is switching to a different style.

2) there are currently too many organizations organizing competitions. Point IN system would require a way to track results from all USA dance, collegiate, and NDCA competitions.

[Angel HI]

I have serious question with the way most BR comps are run; the systems that they use; and, the entries they allow. As an adjudicator, I agree, and was happy to read your comments.

What really defines a good comp is a topic for another thread.

[NielsenE]

I'm in agreement with many of the other posters here that "Point Out" makes more sense for the beginner/syllabus levels, while "Point In" has some very good aspects for open.

"Point Out", in my opinion, serves to more effectively protect a given field against "exploitation". While "Point In" serves as a gate-keeper on quality in the event.

If USA Dance revised the current system to
a) use a modified Point Out for Pre-Bronze/Newcomer -> Gold (modified as discussed in this thread to award points to more than just the winner, possibly scaling based on size of event, etc)
b) use a modified Point In for Novice -> Championships (again not only winner earning points)

Then I feel we have the start of a system that helps both beginners and experienced competitors. Note that this would change "Novice" to the official level of entry of competitors... you'd have to point into Pre-Championship. This might also serve to "fix" the problem discussed recently aobut needing something between Pre-Championship and Championship.... bu moving most of the Pre-Championship field down to Novice until they've proven themselves there...

[Laura]

I am not so picky about which system is used, but rather want the question of tracking any points at all solved. I want there to be a database that I can go to and look people up by name or USA Dance or NDCA number and find out exactly how many points they have and when and where they were earned. Heck, this feature could be integrated into O2CM, making it possible for Registrars to check to see if people are in the appropriate level, or if someone is sandbagging, or if someone has flown cross-country to an area where no one has seen them dance in years and so doesn't know they are no longer eligible to dance the level they have entered with a new partner (i.e., sandbagging).

Once we have that, then we can see which system will work better.

I really like point-out, but that might be because that is what I am familiar with.

I also like point-in, if it pointing system is changed to be something like what I've heard they have in Hungary, where at every comp you get some points based on how many people finished below you in the events you were dancing. To me it seems kind of motivating to earn your way in. Although I would suppose that this rule doesn't force people to start at the bottom...like one could start where they wanted, and go from there? I bring this up because I still have so few points that I could dance in Bronze and not break any current USA Dance rules, but it would be really stupid of USA Dance to put me into Bronze to begin because I have a LOT more experience than that and the real Bronze dancers would accuse me of sandbagging.

[ACtenDance]

heh, ya I could still technically dance bronze latin. So far, I like the system that NielsonE last described.

[Laura]

I've got to say that I'm really pleased to see that Borbala has brought this topic up, and that USA Dance is really going to take a serious stab at getting proficiency level tracking straightened out.

Getting back to the Hungarian system, the guy who was telling me about it said that competitors had a little book they had to bring to all their comps, and the officials would stamp it to indicate how many points they had earned. If you forgot your book, you weren't allowed to dance. Might make a lot of people more responsible about staying up to date with their USA Dance memberships, and with keeping ahold what amounts to their proof of membership...I mean really, if competitors can be expected to remember to bring their dance shoes and costumes to a comp, then they should also be expected to remember to bring their points book. It's not like it would be asking too much of people.

Either that, or just have all Scrutineers of proficiency-point granting comps email their results to some central person/committee who handles the record keeping.

Either way, this is not unsolvable!

[Borbala_Bunnett]

The power of DF... Thanks all for the feedback, and please keep the good thoughts coming!

A couple of folks referred to systems that are used in other countries... if you are familiar with how the system works in a country outside the US, could you please post a quick overview of it? Katarzyna provided an overview of the Polish system, and Laura of what's going on in Hungary - thank you!

[Laura]

Hungarian System

Please note, this is all from memory of an email conversation I had a number of years ago with a Hungarian student who was temporarily living and competing in the US.

It was a point-in system, points were earned based on how many people you placed in front of at a competition. I do not know how the points were calculated, but the upshot of it was that if you were in a larger comp and beat a lot of people, you got more points than if you were in a smaller comp.

Points were recorded/tracked via a book that competitors had to carry with them at all competitions. Without the book, no one competed. The book was checked at the comp (I assume when the dancers came to get their numbers) to make sure that reality (the book) matched up with the events the dancers entered into.

After the dancers competed, the books were stamped as appropriate with points earned at that comp.

Everything was in the books, and handled on paper, so there wasn't a central database that anyone could check.

That's basically all I can remember.

[Kitty]

The power of DF... Thanks all for the feedback, and please keep the good thoughts coming!

A couple of folks referred to systems that are used in other countries... if you are familiar with how the system works in a country outside the US, could you please post a quick overview of it? Katarzyna provided an overview of the Polish system, and Laura of what's going on in Hungary - thank you!

Give me till monday - I'll translate the russian rulebook.. including all the little important details that make the system work.


I actually think it would work best the opposite way from described by Eric. Point IN in the beginner levels and point OUT on top, or no restrictions on top.

When in other countries they use point IN system, they also point you out at the same time. so by attaining and dancing a higher level you are also giving up your right to dance at the lower level.

however, everyone should be allowed to dance in open events because 1) this is why it is open and 2) someone joining the system anywhere other place than at the bottom (say, someone from another country wiht experience, or someone who had never done ballroo but done gymnastics before, and now joined with an experienced partner and wants compete in the higher level) can easier prove themselves and attain the right level without having to dance syllabus.

[skwiggy]

heh, ya I could still technically dance bronze latin.

Even after your results at Nationals this year? Are you sure? :)

[NielsenE]

Give me till monday - I'll translate the russian rulebook.. including all the little important details that make the system work.


I actually think it would work best the opposite way from described by Eric. Point IN in the beginner levels and point OUT on top, or no restrictions on top.

When in other countries they use point IN system, they also point you out at the same time. so by attaining and dancing a higher level you are also giving up your right to dance at the lower level.

however, everyone should be allowed to dance in open events because 1) this is why it is open and 2) someone joining the system anywhere other place than at the bottom (say, someone from another country wiht experience, or someone who had never done ballroo but done gymnastics before, and now joined with an experienced partner and wants compete in the higher level) can easier prove themselves and attain the right level without having to dance syllabus.

I strongly disagree. First on a matter of interpretation -- I wasn't suggesting that people have to go through the syllabus levels to get to open -- anyone could start at Novice (but no one could start at Pre-Champ until they've pointed in).. Keeping the existing dual track nature of USA Dance could mean that Placements in either Novice or Gold earn points towards qualifiying for Pre-Champ.

The larger issue I'd have with flipping my suggestion --
in many ways "Point In" is about deciding when someone is "good enough" to dance at a higher level. While "Point Out" is about deciding when someone is "too good" to dance at their current level. I am always very interested in ensuring that beginners have a "safe" area to begin their competition experiences... this normally lasts well beyond any time restricted period as well. At this point its more important to force the exceptional performers out, rather than allowing the moderate performers up.

The added issue. Every syllabus level is 'unique' because of its syllabus restriction. I wouldn't want to require someone to "earn the right" to dance silver steps....

With the Point Out system for the syllabus levels a person could start at any of Pre-Bronze, Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Novice. With pointed-out results chopping from from the beginning of that list as points are earned, etc. An accomplished Gold dancer could have accumulated enough points to qualify to go to Pre-Championship, or could bump across to Novice.

[Kitty]

The added issue. Every syllabus level is 'unique' because of its syllabus restriction. I wouldn't want to require someone to "earn the right" to dance silver steps....

every beginner can dance any steps they want in the open competition
that is why there should be no restrictions in the open level.

on the other hand if the beginner wants to dance in the protected environment of syllabus competiton, separated by levels, they would have to abide by the restrictive rules of that protected special compeition. However, even if point IN system is used, participants are usually allowed to dance up 1 level (and they are always permitted to enter open level).

[NielsenE]

[quote=Kitty;455882]every beginner can dance any steps they want in the open competition
that is why there should be no restrictions in the open level.

You might need to clarify what you mean by "open level". Since there are multiple "open" levels -- under the current system there are at least three: Novice, Pre-Championship, and Championship.

So are you saying that you think anyone should be allowed to dance Championship? Or that anyone should be allowed to dance at least one of the open levels?

[Chris Stratton]

every beginner can dance any steps they want in the open competition
that is why there should be no restrictions in the open level.

on the other hand if the beginner wants to dance in the protected environment of syllabus competiton, separated by levels, they would have to abide by the restrictive rules of that protected special compeition.

So you'll keep total newbies from cluttering up silver, but they are welcome to enter champ because it is the "open level" ?

[Kitty]

You might need to clarify what you mean by "open level". Since there are multiple "open" levels -- under the current system there are at least three: Novice, Pre-Championship, and Championship.

So are you saying that you think anyone should be allowed to dance Championship? Or that anyone should be allowed to dance at least one of the open levels?

we are not qute just discussing the current system, we are discussing the alternatives.

I meant champ, the highest category. The open category.

[Kitty]

So you'll keep total newbies from cluttering up silver, but they are welcome to enter champ because it is the "open level" ?

total newbies can dance up in bronze.

[Chris Stratton]

Getting back to the Hungarian system, the guy who was telling me about it said that competitors had a little book they had to bring to all their comps, and the officials would stamp it to indicate how many points they had earned. If you forgot your book, you weren't allowed to dance. Might make a lot of people more responsible about staying up to date with their USA Dance memberships, and with keeping ahold what amounts to their proof of membership...

With only a minority of the comps feeding into the system being USA Dance ones, holding USA Dance membership can't be a requirement of having a book.

Any US solution is going to have to work in the case of participation in either system alone, or both systems together.

Alternatively, a solution utilized as an elgibility gate by only one system is still going to need to cooperation to obtain results data from the other.

[Chris Stratton]

total newbies can dance up in bronze.

Yes, you've banned them from silver, but then you said anyone can dance the open level, which you said was champ.

So someone can be too much of a traffic hazard for the silver floor, but is allowed on the champ one...

[star_gazer]

So are you saying that you think anyone should be allowed to dance Championship? WHY not?

[ACtenDance]

Even after your results at Nationals this year? Are you sure? :)

Parallel proficiency tracks my friend :cool: and there wasn't a semi when we won gold in latin last time we were at nationals. I'd have to double check all my results, but I'm pretty confident I could rack up some scholarship money if the opportunity presented itself j/k!

[skwiggy]

Parallel proficiency tracks my friend :cool:

Yes, which means that when you place out of Novice, you place out of all syllabus in parallel. And you won Novice at Nationals which automatically places you out of Novice, so...? ;)

[Chris Stratton]

Yes, which means that when you place out of Novice, you place out of all syllabus in parallel. And you won Novice at Nationals which automatically places you out of Novice, so...? ;)

I cannot find anything to indicate that this is actually the case.

The reverse is apparently true - if you place out of Gold, it looks like you may not be able to enter novice.

"If one or both of the proficiency levels is a Syllabus level, then a couple may also enter the
Novice level."

But placing out of Novice does not seem to place you out of syllabus:

"For clarification, proficiency points earned at the Novice level do not limit participation at any Syllabus proficiency level"

Also note that for purposes of elgibility at NDCA comps, USA Dance nationals is just another ordinary competition - winning it only gets you 1 point for purposes of NDCA elgibility.

-----------

It also makes sense that placing out of Novice shouldn't place you out of Gold. Novice events can theoretically have a wider range of skill level than gold events. So it's possible to get a semifinal and thus points in a novice event containing a lot of "bronze" couples, at what was not necessarily a strong enough competition to a Gold semifinal made up of gold and silver dancers.

[ACtenDance]

Yes, which means that when you place out of Novice, you place out of all syllabus in parallel. And you won Novice at Nationals which automatically places you out of Novice, so...? ;)

... darn, no easy money for me... :cool: Now I have compete with the big dogs:bouncy:

[skwiggy]

... darn, no easy money for me... :cool: Now I have compete with the big dogs:bouncy:

According to Chris, I may be mistaken. You may still, in fact, be eligible for bronze events. And I haven't read the rules closely enough to be certain. So if you can rake in the easy money, more power to you! :bouncy:

[Kitty]

just to explain the concept:


in the case with the "point in" system we have the following assumptions:


There is the OPEN-level competition, which determines the champion of every competition.
The winners of this level at MIT Open will have their name appear on the MIT site in the section "past winners". The winners of any other level at MIT Open will not have this honor.

Everyone should be allowed to contest the championship event. This is how it works right now as well, isn't it.
This is also how EVERY level works right now, except for the ones you pointed out of.


Since we all know that a beginner can hardly contest someone who has been doing it for many years, there is a track provided by the dancing community and the governing organization that allows the less experienced to compete against those at the same level. This track includes several levels and the couples move along the levels by attaining points, if all goes well in the end attaining the highest level. Is this system more restrictive than what we have right now?
YES!
however it does have it's own benefits: 1. couples never questioning who belongs in a level, and couples never being upset because someone danced down. In a highly regulated environment everyone is supposedly dancing what they should be, so no such problems. 2. Also it gives couples greater satisfaction with their placement and a greater sense of achievement. And a sense that they really belong to the level they are dancing.
actually this system is not strictly just awarding the right to dance a level. It is awarding a class to dancesport athletes, that is a recognition of achievement. This class also serves to place couples into the appropriate level of the ladder.

[kimV6]

personally i think that pointing in on any level is silly because i feel like i would resent somebody telling me, well yes you've won silver three times, but you're not ready for gold until you've won it twice more. if anything, i think it would cause a huge glut for most comps, where in my experience, there are already a hundred plus couples at bronze, which would just hold up everybody there as they waited to point into the next level. can you imagine how long it would take for any couple to get through the syllabus at all, especially if we consider the large numbers at bronze?
i think if pointing in is used, it would probably be best used in nielsene's system. still, i think pointing in is just not useful at best, since i just don't think that somebody would dance championship if they weren't really ready for it; there's no glory in dancing one round and getting eliminated, much as there is none in winning a level you know you've already beaten.

[Katarzyna]

well usually you get points from getting into final, into semi etc, just less points than from winning. so it might place people out faster

[Chris Stratton]

couples never questioning who belongs in a level, and couples never being upset because someone danced down. In a highly regulated environment everyone is supposedly dancing what they should be, so no such problems.

Under point-in, what's to keep an experienced dancer from working (one student at a time) pro/am in the syllabus amateur events?

You start over with each partner (or is it from the lower of your level and theirs?) each time you change partners, right?

It may not be a problem in existing point-in countries, but then those countries don't have the tradition of pro/am and ready student pool to put the idea into people's heads.

[iluv2Samba]

personally i think that pointing in on any level is silly because i feel like i would resent somebody telling me, well yes you've won silver three times, but you're not ready for gold until you've won it twice more. if anything, i think it would cause a huge glut for most comps, where in my experience, there are already a hundred plus couples at bronze, which would just hold up everybody there as they waited to point into the next level. can you imagine how long it would take for any couple to get through the syllabus at all, especially if we consider the large numbers at bronze?
i think if pointing in is used, it would probably be best used in nielsene's system. still, i think pointing in is just not useful at best, since i just don't think that somebody would dance championship if they weren't really ready for it; there's no glory in dancing one round and getting eliminated, much as there is none in winning a level you know you've already beaten.

My sentiments exactly. The syllabus fields are huge in the competitions on the coasts while a final has just 6-8 couples. We can expect at most 2 couples to accrue enough points to point into the next level at each competition. Can you imagine how long it will take 100 couples to progress to the next level at this rate? Even worse, a new set of 100 couples will be added to this group at the next competition year. There will be a huge pile up in the beginner syllabus levels.

[Kitty]

1) if anything, i think it would cause a huge glut for most comps, where in my experience, there are already a hundred plus couples at bronze, which would just hold up everybody there as they waited to point into the next level. can you imagine how long it would take for any couple to get through the syllabus at all, especially if we consider the large numbers at bronze?


2) there's no glory in dancing one round and getting eliminated, much as there is none in winning a level you know you've already beaten.

1) it doesn't matter for the system how many couples are in the comp as instead of awarding point only to the finalists, it can award the points to top 50 % of the field (and slightly more points to finalists and winners). So the "problem" of clutter in bronze that you described is merely that of the rules, not that of the principle.

2) no glory in dancing 1 round and being eliminated? do you realize that at every competition almost half the couples don't make the first cut? and the current system helps propagate the view that these couples just "don't belong".
That is exactly the problem the pointing IN system addresses. It lets couples earn a certain class, and suggests the levels they should enter with that class. Possibly can allow them to dance up.

Almost everyone posting so far views it as the same is current system with slight modification to point rules. It is a COMPLETELY different system that would have to replace the existing system if ever implemented.
However it might be that this system cannot be implemented in the US.

[Kitty]

The syllabus fields are huge in the competitions on the coasts while a final has just 6-8 couples. We can expect at most 2 couples to accrue enough points to point into the next level at each competition. Can you imagine how long it will take 100 couples to progress to the next level at this rate? Even worse, a new set of 100 couples will be added to this group at the next competition year. There will be a huge pile up in the beginner syllabus levels.

The criticism provided is invalid due to invalid assumtions. You are assuming that only top 2 couples accrue points, or enough points, and that the points are hard to come by. It doesn't have anythign to do with POINT IN or CLASS idea. The idea is not to make it harder to get into the next level, but to introduce more order into the system.

[Chris Stratton]

Maybe the thing to do is for the proponents of the point-in system to implement it for information purposes only, even though it won't have any regulatory effect.

Then we could sort of see what happens.

Of course it won't be the same as what would happen if it did have regulatory effect, since there won't be the feedback of the ratings controlling what people are entering. (Especially if the formula takes into account the rating of the other dancers in your event)

And of course you won't get electronic data reporting mandated by the sanctioning organizations - though they could mandate that organizers report data for purposes of their present system. Also if there is a change in systems, it might be worthwhile to start the rankings based on a year or two of historic data, rather than by tossing the whole country into bronze!

[Kitty]

Under point-in, what's to keep an experienced dancer from working (one student at a time) pro/am in the syllabus amateur events?

You start over with each partner (or is it from the lower of your level and theirs?) each time you change partners, right?

It may not be a problem in existing point-in countries, but then those countries don't have the tradition of pro/am and ready student pool to put the idea into people's heads.

1) other countries have pro am and similar arrangements now. Plenty of them, although not as much as in the US.
2) such a pro-am arrangement is not exactly possible due to some of the rules. That could be a problem possibly, though probably not a common one,
also a problem for people with multiple partners. I know that in Russia people do sometimes have 2 partners..

[wyllo]

1) it doesn't matter for the system how many couples are in the comp as instead of awarding point only to the finalists, it can award the points to top 50 % of the field (and slightly more points to finalists and winners). So the "problem" of clutter in bronze that you described is merely that of the rules, not that of the principle.


Good point!

[Chris Stratton]

1) other countries have pro am and similar arrangements now. Plenty of them, although not as much as in the US.

Really? What country has both a healthy pro/am student population and a healthy system of point-in syllabus-level events they might be tempted to hire a partner for?

(Incidentally, this does happen in the US already, but in the champ level, where both parties are elgible)

2) such a pro-am arrangement is not exactly possible due to some of the rules.

I'd be interested to see how that works. Seems to me that either

1) Advanced dancers can dance down with inexperienced partners
(risk of pro/am-ing in the syllabus events)

2) Inexperienced dancers can dance up with experienced partners
(partially defeats the purpose of point-in)

3) Some couples just can't dance together
(unacceptable - you can get the situation of a husband and wife who can't compete together until one of them earns more points dancing with someone else)

[iluv2Samba]

1) it doesn't matter for the system how many couples are in the comp as instead of awarding point only to the finalists, it can award the points to top 50 % of the field (and slightly more points to finalists and winners). So the "problem" of clutter in bronze that you described is merely that of the rules, not that of the principle.

I don't see anything that prevents the above point accrual system from being applied to the current point out system. I think the issue that should be debated is not the points accrual per se but how the rules interpret how these points determine what level a competitor can dance in. In theory, both systems can promote competitors at equal rates if competitors move up levels ONLY when the rules promote them. But the point out system can lead to less clutter in the beginner levels because competitors can move up WHEN they choose to and not ONLY when the rules indicate that they have enough points. The point in system as I understand it is designed to prevent this.

[Chris Stratton]

One differene is that under point-in, you won't earn points by beating people who are dancing up to a level where they don't really belong.

But you could also do that by basing points awards on the ratings of the couples placing above and below you. Something like, earn points for each higher ranked couple you place ahead of, lose points for each lower ranked couple who places ahead of you.

But one of the complications of that is that you can no longer retroactively calculate points by looking at the recorded results - you also have to known everyone's ranking at the time of that past competition. Or recalculate it all from scratch by evaluating each comp in order...

[Kitty]

1) Advanced dancers can dance down with inexperienced partners
(risk of pro/am-ing in the syllabus events)


1) yes. However there is a limit on how many partners you can have. that is possibly a problem in the american context. Maybe there is a limit on how many levels down the higher level partner can go.

2) i think that can be petitioned. But generally the couple dances lower than the highest level one of the partners has. i think. maybe not.

3) couples with large level difference can laways dance in the open level, which in the case with a significant enough difference in level between partner would be ok.

why don't we just wait till i translate the russian rulebook this weekend



and regarding your last post, no it is not quite like a ranking system..

[skwiggy]

One differene is that under point-in, you won't earn points by beating people who are dancing up to a level where they don't really belong.


This is an excellent and important point.

Under the point-in system, would couples be able to dance 2 levels like they can in the current point-out system?

[kimV6]

2) no glory in dancing 1 round and being eliminated? do you realize that at every competition almost half the couples don't make the first cut? and the current system helps propagate the view that these couples just "don't belong".

granted, but the underlying assumption would be that they are ready for championship level dancing. my statement was based on the assumption that a couple would dance up just because they can even though they aren't ready for the level. i was saying that the argument that pointing-in makes sure that people are dancing at their level is hollow because even without pointing-in, there's no glory in dancing at a level you're clearly outclassed in if you haven't yet proven yourself in the level below it. if you've already proved you are better than the level below you, but just aren't at the skill of your competitors of your new level, then of course dancing one round and being eliminated is perfectly reasonable and full of wondrous glory.
i agree with your earlier notion that the open championship level should be open to all based on what it represents. my contention is merely that the point-in system is poor at all levels, not just the open categories.
honestly, i don't see how this pointing-in would be an improvement over the current system. granted, self-policing isn't the most efficient system possible (in a perfect robotic super-fair world, there would be a grand database of profiles tracking every single one of us), and granted there are unscrupulous people in the world (which is why we have the whole pointing-out system in the first place), but i mean, if you can't trust your fellow human being to be honest with themselves, then i think it's time to reevaluate. :)

[Kitty]

The idea is in what is sorta called (inaccurately) "point IN" in this thread is a system where someone grants you a level (class), instead of you deciding for yourself, or your coach deciding. That brings in certain uniformity and order which is an improvement.

A lot of the discussion is based on people's different understanding of what is being discussed. It would make more sense to continue this discussion after someone presents a clear proposition, or until someone translates, with all the details, the rules used commonly in Europe (they are very very similar in all Eastern European and many Western European countries)

[NielsenE]

No, you're misinterpreting how "Point In" and "Point Out" were defined in the OP, and how most of the rest of us are using it.

Either Point In or Point Out could be implemented under an honor system or under a centrally administered system. Point In does not equal central system.

Point In = you can't dance level X until your placements in level X-1 are "enough" to qualify you to

Point Out = you can dance level X until your placements in level X (or higher) disqualify you

Its an orthogonal issue to how/who tracks the points.

[Laura]

Its an orthogonal issue to how/who tracks the points.
Exactly.

And I think that it might be better for USA Dance to leave the present point-out system in place, and just handle the point tracking issue first! Then, once the methodology for that is in worked out, and show to be effective, then they can fiddle around all they want with numbers of points, point-in or point-out, how and when points are earned, and so on.

My only issue with the current point-out system is that changing from 3 to 5 points solved a problem that doesn't exist -- a problem that would have been created if the distinction between Amateurs and Pros was completely removed and anyone could dance in anything, but that never happened and so we're left with this 5-point rule as an orphaned artifact of sorts. But hey, I'd rather leave well enough alone and just make sure that people really are tracking their points, or that their points are being tracked, in the first place.

[Chris Stratton]

As a practical matter, only very trivial points-awarding systems can be tracked by the couple / honor-system.

Most working point-in systems are going to require a bit more complexity to the points awards, potentially awarding some number of points to the entire top half of the field, and obviously more to higher places.

If designing it today, it makes sense to do this online, though the paper booklets apparently work.

[Laura]

As a practical matter, only very trivial points-awarding systems can be tracked by the couple / honor-system.
For sure. And because people can earn points under two different organizations (USA Dance and NDCA), and because there is/was supposedly some conversion of collegiate points to USA Dance points, we're way past the point of "very trivial," so tracking needs to be handled by a central organization. We have the technology folks, it just needs to be done. We can't count on people to track their own points, no matter what point system we devise: the honor system simply does not work, even if when points were earned wasn't already confused by the diversion of USA Dance and NDCA rules on the subject. But that can be handled. The problem isn't so much the point system in use, it's the virtual unenforcability of any point system at present in dancesport in the USA because no one official can stand up and say "No, you can't dance this, look, this official database says you have too many points."

[iluv2Samba]

My only issue with the current point-out system is that changing from 3 to 5 points solved a problem that doesn't exist -- a problem that would have been created if the distinction between Amateurs and Pros was completely removed and anyone could dance in anything, but that never happened and so we're left with this 5-point rule as an orphaned artifact of sorts. But hey, I'd rather leave well enough alone and just make sure that people really are tracking their points, or that their points are being tracked, in the first place.

I know this might be OT, but please can you explain how moving from 3 to 5 points would have solved the problem that would have been created if there was no distinction between Ams and Pros?

[RIdancer82]

I apologize if this was already brought up in this thread (I read most of it and then got tired of reading the same thing over and over again and just skimmed the rest)

An issue to be considered w/ a point-in system..... what about those people who have been dancing at a competitive level for many years but have been unable to find a partner. Are you really going to put a dancer w/ 6+ (or more even) years experience back in Newcomer simply because they haven't had the opportunity to point in to Bronze or any other higher levels? If we're going to call any ideas ludicris, I'd say this one would be it......

[Laura]

I know this might be OT, but please can you explain how moving from 3 to 5 points would have solved the problem that would have been created if there was no distinction between Ams and Pros?

No, because it's a long and involved story and I just am so tired of the whole thing that I don't want to get into it. If you dig around in the threads from last year and the year before about World Class, you might be able to find my old posts on the subject.

Getting back to the topic, if I were forced to choose, I'd go with point-out. I don't know if I feel that way because that's the only system I've experienced, or what...but I don't see any problems with it as a general concept. The issues with it lie in how points are earned, but that of course can be changed! Even some of the point-earning scenarios that are applied to point-in systems can be applied to a point-out system. (All of this assuming centralized reporting tracking, of course!)

[Laura]

what about those people who have been dancing at a competitive level for many years but have been unable to find a partner. Are you really going to put a dancer w/ 6+ (or more even) years experience back in Newcomer simply because they haven't had the opportunity to point in to Bronze or any other higher levels?
First of all, to be pedantic, there is no "Newcomer" level in USA Dance. Bronze is the lowest Syllabus level.

But anyway, this sort of issue with a "point-IN" could possibly be solved with the concept of a ranking period or a ranking competition. I think some of the same-sex comps use ranking competitions or ranking rounds, I don't recall for sure, but my point is that the concept of using a ranking thing has been used in other areas.

[Chris Stratton]

because there is/was supposedly some conversion of collegiate points to USA Dance points

No.

The conversion is one way only, from sanctioned competitions points to elgibility at unsanctioned competitions. Results of unsanctioned competitions do not have, and were not supposed to have, any bearing on elgibility at sanctioned ones.

The mechanism of conversion is in dispute though. The USA Dance 1-for-1 doesn't really make any sense since sanctioned competition points are awarded much more slowly than collegaite competition ones, so some competitions such as MIT require that you recount sanctioned competitions as if they had been collegiate competitions (3 points for first, etc) - otherwise placements at the sanctioned competitions are severly discounted (only 1 point for first).

USA Dance comp: see results of USA Dance & NDCA comps

NDCA comp: see results of USA Dance & NDCA comps (compatible counting but different thresholds)

Collegiate comp: see results of USA Dance, NDCA, and collegiate comps - under mechanism chosen by this competition

[madmaximus]

Hello All,

Among other things, the Dancesport Council is reviewing the current proficiency points system - the points given, accumulation, tracking, portability etc. etc. One of the questions that we are very interested to hear opinions on is whether you think it is more appropriate to point OUT of a level, or point INTO a level?

Example to showcase the difference:
a. Current system is a 'point out' system: a couple can accumulate 3-5 proficiency points at a level (e.g. Silver) before they are no longer allowed to compete at that level and must dance one level higher (i.e. Gold)
b. An example of the 'point in' system would be if a couple would not be eligible to dance in gold unless they acquired e.g. 5 gold qualifying points (however that is defined)

What are your thoughts?

Also, any other feedback on the current proficiency points enchilada is welcome.

Thank you -

Borbala
Dancesport Delegate
AAN Co-Chair

Borbala,

The first thing I would bring to the DanceSport Council is a simple question, the answer to which, seems to elude me:

"What is the stated purpose of the proficiency system they want to create? "

Is it to encourage dancing?
Is it to prevent unfair competitive advantage?
Is it to encourage competition?

IMO
Until such profoundly relevant matters are resolved, coming up with a proficiency system (any system) for the US is like asking someone to build a bridge in the middle of the ocean.

It would be a bridge to nowhere.




m

[Adwiz]

Madmaximus is right: the purpose of a regulation change needs to be front and center before even discussing it.

Is the purpose to increase syllabus participation?
The USA has the benefit of the "Novice" level which does not exist in most other countries. At the same time, the US has seen a decline of participation in syllabus events. Perhaps this is the reason a change is being considered. While there is no clear reason for lack of interest in syllabus, I strongly suspect (based on many conversations with competitors over the past three years) that it's the result of the anti-costume rules of USA Dance. Couples who compete are driven largely by a desire to wear the costumes they see and when that opportunity is removed, they don't bother committing the time and money required to be competitive. I don't think a change of points structure alone would solve that problem.

Is the purpose to create more fairness?
It is hard to see how the "Points Out" system is unfair. Many reasons have already been posted about the issues that would be created. A switch to a "Points In" system would level the playing field, but the cost in terms of frustration over couples not being able to dance together would be considerable. Who would administer the process of dealing with these kinds of problems?

Is the purpose to increase competition?
America has a very different culture than Europe. The "Points In" system is widely used in Europe, but there people are exposed to DanceSport as part of their etiquette training in grade school. Those who continue to dance are ready for Championship level long before adulthood. Europeans are amazed at our penchant for first discovering DanceSport in our adult years, often already after reaching Senior 1 age levels. This completely changes the equation!

At most competitions in the USA and Canada, except the very largest ones that attract an International field, there are few enough Championship couples. A switch to the "Points In" system here would further inhibit that field. How long would it take for couples to get there? Two years? Three? Are we willing to see a further decline in Championship numbers while we wait for couples to work their way through Novice and PreChamp, and what if those couples split and find themselves at different levels, with fewer chances to progress?

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out, it goes against the nature of our culture to tell people they "can't" do something because it's against the rules when there are no practical reasons for disallowing it. I know many dancers who left Silver and Gold levels to take on Championship. Through a lot of hard work, many of them have done very well. One lady who comes to mind quickly jumped from Bronze to Championship Standard and became a national champion in Standard within a couple of years. She was fortunate to team up with a highly experienced man who was already at that level. Who is the governing body to tell such a talented lady that she "can't" follow her dream and needs to go through the drudgery of finding less talented partners while she works her way there? This feels wrong to me. How is she supposed to progress? There aren't even enough male partners for this approach to work!

As I said, it seems to work in Europe but the entire cultural experience is different there. Most of the European countries are used to highly regulated structures where people can't work in a field until they've achieved proficiency through apprenticeship and other steps. This is comfortable for them. It doesn't make sense on this side of the pond.

[Laura]

At the same time, the US has seen a decline of participation in syllabus events.
Have they? How do you know this? Is it a regional thing or an all-over downturn? We still get quarter-finals or octo-finals (like, the round before the quarter-final) in Bronze syllabus at our events when the college students come. And when they don't come, we'll get quarters or semis. Since we instituted hosting Adult Syllabus events a number of years ago, our numbers of Adult Syllabus competitors has trended upwards. When I was competing in syllabus, we'd have six or seven couples in Bronze or Silver, and if we got anyone in Gold, it would be just a few couples.

Europeans are amazed at our penchant for first discovering DanceSport in our adult years, often already after reaching Senior 1 age levels. This completely changes the equation!
Agreed! Because of this, USA Dance can't simply discount the wants and needs of adult dancers in favor of youth programs. Dancers in the Senior age groups still carry a lot of political and monetary weight in dancesport in this country.

But to the topic at hand: there are people in the US coming into dancesport who assume we have a point-IN system -- and their teachers and coaches don't know any better to tell them otherwise. I know this because of my frequent work as a competition Registrar, first in USA Dance and now in NDCA competitions. No matter what system we end up with, perhaps it is a good idea to try to get the teachers and coaches out there to educate themselves as to what is going on, so that they can tell their students the right things so that their students will feel empowered to get involved with dance competitions! When I meet a couple who thinks our system is point-IN, they are relieved when I explain to them that it is really point-OUT. No one has ever complained to me in a way that would indicate that they would prefer point-IN. So, based on my experience Adwiz, I'm right with you on your observations about how point-OUT seems to fit better with the general way of thinking/doing things here in the US.

[Adwiz]

Have they? How do you know this? Is it a regional thing or an all-over downturn?

There has been a significant downturn in the Seattle area in terms of syllabus participation over the past few years, but you are correct to question whether this is an overall trend or a regional one. It may very well be regional.

[Chris Stratton]

While there is no clear reason for lack of interest in syllabus, I strongly suspect (based on many conversations with competitors over the past three years) that it's the result of the anti-costume rules of USA Dance.

I don't think the costume rules help, but I think they are more a symptom of the condescending attitude towards the division than the actual cause of disinterest.

The problem is that the syllabus events quickly become seen as a backwater of non-achievement. With most of the champ field hitting adulthood already in champ, the few adult start dancers who end up going somewhere tend to spend less than two years in syllabus divisions.

The net result?

Syllabus is not taken seriously by anyone who has been around long enough to see the overall state of affairs.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned working on basic ideas - but most of those lessons are lost on the people actually in syllabus levels - the majority will never learn them, and the few who have the coaching resources and interest that might enable them to are focused on more glamorous things. When core skills are finally addressed seriously, it's as a remedial fix for frustrated champ dancers.

[Laura]

We've also seen in our area that participation tends to travel in "waves." At one time we had a LOT of Youth Championship competitors. Then they all grew up...and for years there were NONE. Now their younger siblings are in Junior, and a few of them are starting to dance up into Youth.

But we digress.

I think a thing that would help a lot is that whatever system be clearly explained and clearly enforced. It seems to me that that would help with the fairness issues, and that increased fairness might help with the participation issues.

And, to tell you the truth, I think it was kind of bad thing when the DanceSport Athlete dues were increased to $65 per year. That's a big load for someone trying out competition for the first time to carry. I wonder if that had a negative effect?

I find Chris' comments about Syllabus not being taken seriously to be quite interesting. How would point-OUT versus point-IN change this? Would point-IN cause people to be more committed to Syllabus, and thus take it more seriously? But would it frustrate people too? But do we really need the easily frustrated?

So many cans of worms here....

[swan]

Hungarian System.

Pretty sure that works the same in Bulgaria as well. I've seen my partner's little book :) Everything was recorded, date, result & points, etc.

[Adwiz]

I don't think the costume rules help, but I think they are more a symptom of the condescending attitude towards the division than the actual cause of disinterest.

An interesting point. It may be a result of many factors. Or it may be cyclical demographics, as Laura hints at. A detailed survey of feelings among both social dancers and competitors across the country would probably be a useful exercise for USA Dance or NDCA to consider.

[Chris Stratton]

I find Chris' comments about Syllabus not being taken seriously to be quite interesting. How would point-OUT versus point-IN change this? Would point-IN cause people to be more committed to Syllabus, and thus take it more seriously? But would it frustrate people too? But do we really need the easily frustrated?

I think the only way to change it would be to use championship quality judging panels tasked with looking for basic skills for the syllabus events.

There are some real reasons for that, but also a viewpoint one: a couple battling for placement in a level where they know they will make the final has a lot to blame on the judges. It may soon cease to be worthwhile sticking around until they actually win, especially if the winning couples have glaring problems. In contrast, a couple trying to survive a round or two in a more challenging level barely cares who is judging, since they can usually figure out for themselves plenty that needs improvement in comparison to a clearly more accomplished field.

[Angel HI]

Between the latest posts by Adwiz and Chris, I believe we are finally getting to the real point...that there are certain things that must be realized and corrected before deciding which system is going to work best to insure the fulfillment of those issues/corrections.

Re Adwiz's comments on the decline of syllabus dancing, there is much validity in Laura's and Chris' latest postings, but I have also said for years that DanceSport is partially to blame. Pre DS, dancers had to know syllabus, and BR dancing was technically cleaner. In the DS era, BR has been infused with other styles of dance (i.e. jazz, ballet, etc.). Noting that this is not in and of itiself a bad thing, it did, however, blur the lines as to what is acceptable and what was not; what BR was, and what it is developing into. IMHO, thisis the greatest contributing factor to the overall decline in syllabus dancing...regional exceptions noted.

For the record, I prefer Point Out. Though, I am European, I never saw much need for Point In.

[Angel HI]

Incidentally, Chris, your post #79 is brillant.

[Corne]

In South AFrica, the following rules are followed with FEDANSA (federation of dancesport south africa). (We have 2 dance organisations as well. This is just for 1 organization).

1 TWO WAY GRADING
Two way grading will be permitted under the control of the P.A.B. This implies that a person may be promoted to a next status or demoted to a previous status. This procedure is consistent with most Sport principles that are
currently being applied. It allows a competitor to change his level of commitment to his Sport and acts as an incentive. Regrading will be carried out by FEDANSA only.

PROMOTIONAL RULES
3.1 In order for a section to be classified as a STATUS event, the requirements of Promotional Competitions and Championships must have been adhered to. Only Status Events will be considered for determining Promotion.
Points will be awarded to all couples in a final (based on the number of couples they have beaten).

3.2 Any change in partnership prior to promotion having been achieved will result in both partners forfeiting all points received in their current grading.

POINTS REQUIRED FOR PROMOTION
STATUS CATEGORY POINTS REQUIRED
LEVEL 1 TO 2 40 Points
LEVEL 2 TO 3 40 Points
LEVEL 3 TO 4 40 Points
LEVEL 4 TO 5 40 Points
LEVEL 5 TO NOVICE 50 Points
NOVICE TO PRE-CHAMP 60 Points
PRE-CHAMP TO CHAMPIONSHIP 80 Points

[elisedance]

Corne, how are points awarded - only for wins or also for placements? And how many for a competition - and does it depend on the number of couples?

[Chris Stratton]

So here's a question: if you do point-in, should youth couples moving up (or dancing up) to adult transfer at their current level? Or should they have to earn points in that age division first? Most would quickly do so, but would the impact of having them rapidly move up through the adult mid-levels be good or bad for the system/community as a whole?

[wyllo]

So here's a question: if you do point-in, should youth couples moving up (or dancing up) to adult transfer at their current level? Or should they have to earn points in that age division first? Most would quickly do so, but would the impact of having them rapidly move up through the adult mid-levels be good or bad for the system/community as a whole?

Doesn't the current system allow youth to dance one level down in Adult (ie. Youth Champion ship Standard + Adult Pre-Champ Standard)? If that's the case, it's probably a good way to handle the transition. Youth could enter Adult one level below their current Youth standing.

[kimV6]

i think the details of the death of syllabus have been greatly exaggerated :). i've been at competitions where there has to be a triple-octa-final (in excess of 96 couples, this one was in the neighborhood of 150), although it was merely called round 1.
one need only look at the registration for the newcomer and bronze level at either DCDI, or College Nationals in Ohio (both of which incidentally are usabda affiliated) to see that numbers wise, syllabus is doing okay for itself, even if only within the college age bracket (although i'd say college kids are still dancers too, even if we didn't start at age 6). ;)
and i think that if you think of syllabus vs. open as a two-ladder system (which granted it is), then perhaps one could say that syllabus is the ugly stepbrother. but speaking from the perspective of a person who started in college, it always has been explained and viewed (at least in my circles) as one big ladder (which, in terms of learning necessary skills, it ought to be considered that way). and so costumes aren't a negative, but rather something to work towards, for example. so for me, getting to novice always seemed to me as a ridiculously good accomplishment. all things considered, since i feel the majority of ballroom dancers come from people who start post high-school, if not post-college, i would think that the majority of ballroom people would see syllabus as building blocks, like dancesport's version of AAA ball.
at least that's how i always viewed syllabus. and thus why i thought point-in wouldn't work.

[Egoist]

i've been at competitions where there has to be a triple-octa-final (in excess of 96 couples, this one was in the neighborhood of 150), although it was merely called round 1.

I think that would be a "thirty-secondth of finals" if up to 112 couples and a "sixty-fourth of finals" if up to 224 couples. I hate it when people say "Round 1" as if that had any meaning.

[kimV6]

I think that would be a "thirty-secondth of finals" if up to 112 couples and a "sixty-fourth of finals" if up to 224 couples. I hate it when people say "Round 1" as if that had any meaning.

i'm not completely sure how you got those numbers (i'm working based on 6-12-24-48-96, etc.)... but i agree that "round 1" is stupid. i'm also partial to the word octafinal, partly because i like how it sounds, and partly because it makes small achievements sound great. :p

[NielsenE]

i'm not completely sure how you got those numbers (i'm working based on 6-12-24-48-96, etc.)... but i agree that "round 1" is stupid. i'm also partial to the word octafinal, partly because i like how it sounds, and partly because it makes small achievements sound great. :p

I've been told its okta not octa :) okta==1/8, while octo would be x8. octa doesn't exist...

"Round 1" is a hideous abomination . since depending on the competition it since I've seen it used for anything from a semi-final, quarter final, oktafinal, or the two rounds thereafter. (Ie I've seen competitions that will call any first round (ie non cut into round) "Round 1", but they won't call a straight final "Round 1". Most other competitions seem to reserve it for rounds greater than quarter finals. But then Round 1 at one comp might be 5 cuts from a final, while at another competition its 3 cuts, etc)

[and123]

pardon the mini-hijack, but any ETA on when this past Spring's collegiate points will be updated on ballroomregistrar?

[Chris Stratton]

one need only look at the registration for the newcomer and bronze level at either DCDI, or College Nationals in Ohio (both of which incidentally are usabda affiliated) to see that numbers wise, syllabus is doing okay for itself, even if only within the college age bracket

Syllabus does do well within the collegiate age bracket, especially at college comps which do not follow arbitrarily restrictive USA dance rules, but instead operate under rules chosen by competition organizers who are often syllabus dancers themselves.

The issue is more that syllabus participation doesn't endure for more than a few years, especially beyond collegiate age, and participation rates tend to be lower when subjected to the sanctioned comp rulebook than when subject only to local rules.

The end result - syllabus divisions do not function as a path for adult-start dancers to catch up to youth-start dancers. They function as an environment to get your feet wet and get comfortable, but the real catch-up of skills (if it is going to happen) happens only while trying to make progress in the open levels.

Basically:

Syllabus Dancer - best served by college comps with a occasional larger USA Dance comps
Novice/Early prechamp - about an even mix of collegiate & USA dance, plus occasional NDCA comps
later Prechamp/Champ - mostly NDCA comps with a few large USA Dance comps

[NielsenE]

pardon the mini-hijack, but any ETA on when this past Spring's collegiate points will be updated on ballroomregistrar?

I think I'm only missing MIT from the events I have access to. I'll have to double check, but I thought I already loaded the others....

The future of ballroomregistrar is uncertain though... the amount of time and money I've been spending on it, I can no longer justify... especially given the amount of "problems" its been causing and the lack of help I receive...

[kimV6]

I've been told its okta not octa :)
haha, nice to know. perhaps we've americanized the spelling because okta looks too german? :) in any event, the only other place i've even seen use of the word octafinal anyway, is in high school forensics.

The end result - syllabus divisions do not function as a path for adult-start dancers to catch up to youth-start dancers. They function as an environment to get your feet wet and get comfortable, but the real catch-up of skills (if it is going to happen) happens only while trying to make progress in the open levels.
the question is whether there is any way that adult-start dancers could ever catch up anyway. all other things held equal, people who have danced for longer will be better. especially because young people typically have less things both on their minds, and in their minds ;)

I think I'm only missing MIT from the events I have access to.

just a mini-hijack. is there any possibility of seeing the events that were corrupted from MIT? those were four of my events, and i've been dying to see them for a couple months now. :P

[and123]

Harvard, Holy Cross, MIT are missing I think.
Time for a guilt-trip so people quit complaining and start helping, perhaps? Not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. All I can offer you is emotional support :tongue:

[NielsenE]

Holy Cross will not be added since I don't have access to the information needed, or in a useful form.

I can look into Harvard/MIT... The missing events, no... Its at least 3-4 hours of reconstruction (from paper, no digital) work and I just don't have time.

I've tried guilt tripping people, I've had a lot of people say they want to help, but nothing ever materializes.

[Chris Stratton]

the question is whether there is any way that adult-start dancers could ever catch up anyway. all other things held equal, people who have danced for longer will be better. especially because young people typically have less things both on their minds, and in their minds ;)

While it's not common, I can think of a few adult-start dancers who place right in the midst of the youth-start dancers in champ events.

[fenixx]

I last posted at #18 and I see that this thread has picked up speed! After reading all of the previous posts it seems that there is a lot of droning on about what is better: point in or point out. I think the point is rather moot. Many sports use a point in, or some qualifying scheme, for their highest events and some method of rating to determine fair participation in lower events. Whether we use points or ratings doesn't ultimately matter (though I think rating are far superior and if people are so sensitive as to not want to feel compared then they should take up basketweaving - I apologize if that sounds harsh). What does matter is that we need to start tracking everyone. I contacted Eric N. a couple of years ago to discuss this and he wasn't keen on the idea...maybe he has changed his mind. This effort can be through USA Dance or it could be through some third party that wants to take up the challenge. I think the best way is for each organization to manage their registrants information and allow free flow of information. The system would work like this:

USA Dance would hold of the registration information on their computers. The NDCA would also do the same as well as any other competitor registration system (such as one for college competitiors that I would like to start). Then, every competition registration system would have to be approved to use the feed and would publish the results to the registering organization's database. Access to this could be open or only available to the members of the organization.

This is what many sports use, including squash (which is ahead of us to get on the olympic program). I think this is the direction we need to take. If anyone wants to seriously do this, PM me.

[Another Elizabeth]

I can look into Harvard/MIT... The missing events, no... Its at least 3-4 hours of reconstruction (from paper, no digital) work and I just don't have time.
Are you training scrutineers for any new comps any time soon? Might be a good opportunity to get a bunch of willing drones to do the work for you...

[Kitty]

The future of ballroomregistrar is uncertain though... the amount of time and money I've been spending on it, I can no longer justify... especially given the amount of "problems" its been causing and the lack of help I receive...

Very sorry to hear! I hope you'll be able to get some help and the situation will be resolved.
what kinds of help do you need?

[Kitty]

I'd be interested to see how that works. Seems to me that either

1) Advanced dancers can dance down with inexperienced partners
(risk of pro/am-ing in the syllabus events)

2) Inexperienced dancers can dance up with experienced partners
(partially defeats the purpose of point-in)

3) Some couples just can't dance together
(unacceptable - you can get the situation of a husband and wife who can't compete together until one of them earns more points dancing with someone else)


first of all i dont' think 2) would defeat the point of point in. This solution seems appropriate to me.

the actual rules about that in Russia seems to work like this:
a couple with mismatched class generally dances at the class of the leader.
if the leader is more than 1 class lower than the lady (co D class + B class lady) then the leader is allowed to dance 1 class up ( and the couple competes in the C class).

this seems to be a fair system since it determines pretty fairly the starting point, the starting class in which the couple competes. after that with mismatched couples we all know that either the couple will stay together and the level will substantially even out, or will split any way, not able to maintain such a mismatched partnership. If the couple stays together, they will very quickly place into the appropriate class by earning points.

the detailed rules from the official site here: http://ftsr.ru/docs/14_01.doc
in Russian only, sorry.

[Laura]

I think the only way to change it would be to use championship quality judging panels
I'm really unsure of what you mean by this. Are you saying that some comps put unskilled judges on for the lower-level events? I find that odd, but that's because the comps I've either helped organized or have been to use the same (but fewer in number) people for Syllabus as they do for the higher-level events.

tasked with looking for basic skills for the syllabus events.
Well, what else would they be looking for? Are judges really that stupid?

[Ithink]

the detailed rules from the official site here: http://ftsr.ru/docs/14_01.doc
in Russian only, sorry.

VERY interesting! Somewhat similar to the swing system I described before, I think...

[Chris Stratton]

I'm really unsure of what you mean by this. Are you saying that some comps put unskilled judges on for the lower-level events? I find that odd, but that's because the comps I've either helped organized or have been to use the same (but fewer in number) people for Syllabus as they do for the higher-level events.

Around here, daytime panels tend to be substantially less experienced (on average) than evening ones.

Well, what else would they be looking for? Are judges really that stupid?

There's a lot to dancing other than basic dance skills. Ordinarily, it makes sense to judge the whole picture. But if you have a series of levels designed to put an exclusive focus on basic skills, shouldn't that be prioritized in the judging?

If you are going to dance syllabus material in a way that is flashy but technically deficient, why not just dance open material in costume?

Or to put it another way: you can impose obstacles by writing rules, but you can't impose focus. That has to come from the coaches and the dancers themselves, and will only come if it's something they want.

[tanya_the_dancer]

If you are going to dance syllabus material in a way that is flashy but technically deficient, why not just dance open material in costume?

Or to put it another way: you can impose obstacles by writing rules, but you can't impose focus. That has to come from the coaches and the dancers themselves, and will only come if it's something they want.

In a way, that's what some people do. I watched some amateur pre-champ events at HOA last week, and I know some of the local couples who were in those events. Quite a few of these competitors also danced pro-am in bronze and/or silver levels, and they did pretty much same stuff with their spouses in the amateur pre-champ multi-dance events, even though in theory pre-champ was an open event.

[Angel HI]

I've tried guilt tripping people, I've had a lot of people say they want to help, but nothing ever materializes.

Would like to help...what do you need? Kitty (post #99) asked as well.

The system would work like this:

USA Dance would hold of the registration information on their computers. The NDCA would also do the same as well as any other competitor registration system (such as one for college competitiors that I would like to start). Then, every competition registration system would have to be approved to use the feed and would publish the results to the registering organization's database. Access to this could be open or only available to the members of the organization.

I think this is the direction we need to take. If anyone wants to seriously do this, PM me.

PM on the way.

[Joe]

the actual rules about that in Russia seems to work like this:
a couple with mismatched class generally dances at the class of the leader.
if the leader is more than 1 class lower than the lady (co D class + B class lady) then the leader is allowed to dance 1 class up ( and the couple competes in the C class).

this seems to be a fair system
Weren't you the one arguing in another thread that a higher-level lady dancing with a lower-level bloke will be pretty much as good as a higher-level bloke dancing with a lower-level lady?

[reb]

Syllabus does do well within the collegiate age bracket, especially at college comps which do not follow arbitrarily restrictive USA dance rules, but instead operate under rules chosen by competition organizers who are often syllabus dancers themselves.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

The modifier "arbitrarily" applied to the common rulebook seems out of place when "under rules chosen by competition organizers" suggests an opening of the door to 'arbitrariness'

. . . I'm reading this from the point of view of a person who attends multiple comps across multiple organizations.

But this could keep things interesting!;)

[Kitty]

Weren't you the one arguing in another thread that a higher-level lady dancing with a lower-level bloke will be pretty much as good as a higher-level bloke dancing with a lower-level lady?

I knew someone will say that...

1) no I didn't say that the couple with a stronger man doens't have an advantage. I was disagreeing with the statement that the couple can only dance to the best ability of the man. I think a good lady is able to improve the dancing of the couple a lot more than just to the best ability of the man (because she may add things to couple's performance that the man hasn't even thought of yet).

2) i don't think it matters which level a level mismatched couple will dance at first, as they will quickly will earn points and be placed in the appropriate level if the couple really does dance better than the current class of the man, or not. I think this whole question is a mere technicality.

[tanya_the_dancer]

I knew someone will say that...

1) no I didn't say that the couple with a stronger man doens't have an advantage. I was disagreeing with the statement that the couple can only dance to the best ability of the man. I think a good lady is able to improve the dancing of the couple a lot more than just to the best ability of the man (because she may add things to couple's performance that the man hasn't even thought of yet).


I am a part of such mismatched couple, and I have to say contributing more than to the best ability of the man is nearly impossible (at least, has been for me) and creates loads of frustration when you know you can do better with a better partner but cannot in your current circumstances.