Expectations for syllabus and open dancers

[cantskiforlife]

What knowledge and skills do you expect a bronze, silver, gold, or open dancers to possess?

There have been many arguments about the difference between amateur, pro-am, and collegiate competitors and it would be nice to sum it up here.


I don't believe there should be a difference in expectations. I believe Bronze=Bronze, Silver=Silver, Gold=Gold, and Open=Open. I do not see the purpose to having an amateur bronze, a collegiate bronze, and a pro-am bronze.

So what knowledge (from technique to steps) do you expect a student to know at the
1) bronze level
2) silver level
3) gold level
4) open level

I would love to have pro's comment on what they believe the industry's expectaitons are/ ought to be.

[Chris Stratton]

There is really nothing inherint in the levels themselves, only in comparison to the other people. (Perhaps it's better calling them beginner, intermediate, and advanced as the MIT comp does)

I expect people to move on when they've had their fun in a level, and let others coming up have an opportunity there. The proficiency points systems are an attempt to mandate that - at times too lax and at times heavy handed an insensitive, but an attempt at least.

There's little fundamentally unapproachable in most open material; and conversely there is little in bronze that anyone with less than a decade of effectively professional experience is actually going to get right.

As they say intermediates want to do advanced material, and advanced dancers spend most of their energy on the most basic fundamentals... but they aren't competing bronze when they do so.

I don't think basic material is really understood or appreciated until several years of doing more advanced things badly, which pretty much precludes anyone with ambition from dancing well in bronze, because by the time they are good at that they will really not fit there. And that's not unique to the collegiate scene in any way - when you look beyond the impressive overall performance in the other divisions, you'll find that many basic techniques such as footwork are lagging substantially behind the dancer's more obvious strengths.

[syncopationator]

I expect people to move on when they've had their fun in a level, and let others coming up have an opportunity there. The proficiency points systems are an attempt to mandate that - at times too lax and at times heavy handed an insensitive, but an attempt at least.

I disagree here. One should stay at a level until they excell at that level. I'd hate to have some point system tell me I can't dance at that level anymore. Once I've excelled at that level, say if I win some major comps at a certain level, then I will start competing at the next level.

There's little fundamentally unapproachable in most open material; and conversely there is little in bronze that anyone with less than a decade of effectively professional experience is actually going to get right.

Open material is just steps and figures that are not in the syllabus. Anyone can do it, but unless you excell in the fundamentals, you can't make it look good.

As they say intermediates want to do advanced material, and advanced dancers spend most of their energy on the most basic fundamentals... but they aren't competing bronze when they do so.

When I started dancing I thought the syllabus stuff was boring and all I wanted to do was dance open material. I'm glad I had good teachers that knocked some sense into me because I trully feel that my dancing would not be as good as it is today if I had not focused on the basics for so long.

Last amateur comp I went to I saw many couples doing gold or novice open events that looked like they wouldn't even make it through a round in bronze. It was quite entertaining and comical to watch this. I'm sure this would have been me if I had not listened to my teachers.


I don't think basic material is really understood or appreciated until several years of doing more advanced things badly, which pretty much precludes anyone with ambition from dancing well in bronze, because by the time they are good at that they will really not fit there. And that's not unique to the collegiate scene in any way - when you look beyond the impressive overall performance in the other divisions, you'll find that many basic techniques such as footwork are lagging substantially behind the dancer's more obvious strengths.

And this is why when most collegiate dancers go compete outside of the college comps they are completely overmatched. if only they had focused more time and energy in bronze and silver...

[Chris Stratton]

And this is why when most collegiate dancers go compete outside of the college comps they are completely overmatched. if only they had focused more time and energy in bronze and silver...

Huh?

Where?

Where are these non-collegiate amateur syllabus events in which the collegiate dancers are overmatched?

They just don't exist - because the amateur syllabus community is 90% the same community as the college comp syllabus community.

A collegiate dancer will usually place more poorly in an amateur event of the same level, but they are still loosing to other members of the college comp community, just those who would be dancing the next level up at a college comp. If you look at the results of large amateur comps like NE regionals or nationals, right up through prechamp the finals are chock full of those who came from the collegiate comp circuit.

It's only when you get to champ and add in those who came up through the youth track that those from the collegiate background get overmatched. But it's not because of differing amounts of time in syllabus, it's because the kids have been training and competing in for their own champ events for several years already, under the guidance of teachers who have experience sending people to the top of them and concentrate on what does matter to winning, instead of what should matter to winning, and are able and willing to put in the time to accomplish what those teachers can do with them.

[DL]

I'm not as far along in dancing as CantSki, but here are my $0.02.

It seems as though the distinction between before- or after-syllabus is an interesting one. I've met several pros who tend to drop folks into those categories, but none who really seem intent on the nitty-gritty differences between one syllabus level and another, in terms of, "ranking," dancers.

I think the reason is that, "completing," syllabus (whatever that means) in some sense signifies readiness to start learning dancing.

So, I view syllabus as a learning tool. Why are the steps divided into the levels they are? What is there to learn at each stage? There's that tipple chasse in bronze QS. It's perhaps the first figure that demands a left shape. The turning lock to the right in gold W demands the same, but also demands more technique.

Of course one is never, "done," working on shape. But those two data points show that this topic exists, the reasons for its importance, and how improvement in that area will help one's dancing.

Likewise, in most cases, there's an interesting divider between bronze and silver, that passing feet is not allowed in bronze. Learning footwork, foot closure, posture, balance, rise, fall, sway, swing, lead/follow, etc., are all still possible in bronze (or indeed, newcomer). Again, there's a progression that shows what good fundamentals will yield down the road. And, bronze presents those fundamentals in a form more accessible to beginners -- particularly leaders, in terms of floorcraft.

So if syllabus is a learning tool, it's also a teaching tool, and it's also a way to make fundamentals accessible to beginners. What's the purpose of syllabus-level competition? It seems that for many it's a mechanism for motivation and goal-setting. Is there a better way to structure the competitions than alignment with syllabus levels? There seems to be a lot of debate over the meaning of syllabus competition levels on DF from time to time but:


probably, it just doesn't seem important to folks who left it behind decades ago; and
probably, folks recognize the faults in the current system but find it hard to propose a better one (and probably smart people put in lots of thought avoiding worse solutions to give us what we have now).

A good teacher who spoke candidly to me, once told me that people often ask her how long it takes to become, "a good dancer" -- whatever that means -- and that's it's often tough to give people a straight answer. She figured 10 years or so. I will guess that most folks who put in that kind of time probably, "graduate," from syllabus with a few years to spare. Of course that's not to say that they've mastered syllabus or stop working on it!

Lots of people (even me) want to look at syllabus as a measurement of achievement and proficiency, even when the delta between gold dancers and folks in bronze may only be a couple of years or so, with part time instruction and training.

After 4 years of a bachelor's degree and one for a master's, formally training for a technical profession, I thought of myself as a good software engineer when I arrived at my first job. Experienced folks humored me then just as I now humor the interns and fresh grads I encounter today. That was formal training for my professional career, not a hobby.

Umm, what *exactly* was the question again?

[BasicsFirst]

I'll apologize in advance for skipping over the essays that precede this, but here are my thought(s).

It varies by region, or perhaps even by studio. To make my point here's my story. Years ago we went and competed in a very distant region (not anymore due to the enormous increase in the cost of airfares). While there, my "very" general perception was that THEY taught their dancers posture, before they taught them even how to move... Such that, "their" Bronze level (Standard) dancers (at least the finalists) were executing nice tops and frames that for most part that I don't see in my neck of the woods until Gold.

Good for them! Right then and there I thought, I wish they did that here.

[Laura]

She figured 10 years or so.
I'll buy that :) I've been at it for a bit over 10 years now and I finally feel reasonable skilled, competent, and confident.

[White Chacha]

My coach says it takes 10 years to make a leader. So there's a consensus developing.
I'm not there yet.

[etp777]

Heh, does that mean I don't have to take the lblame for bad leads for another 8 years? :)

[Laura]

Obviously there are exceptions: for instance, kids. They way they learn, by imitating and just doing stuff, moves them along more quickly. And of course there are talented and dedicated adult individuals out there who move along much faster. I'm just talking about average cases here.

[DL]

anymore due to the enormous increase in the cost of airfares). While there, my "very" general perception was that THEY taught their dancers posture, before they taught them even how to move... Such that, "their" Bronze level (Standard) dancers (at least the finalists) were executing nice tops and frames that for most part that I don't see in my neck of the woods until Gold.


Aha.

I have danced with ladies from different places who are clearly learning certain things in certain orders, and it's intriguing to see the differences.

One of my teachers has pointed out that he always teachers beginners to move big, first. He specifically mentioned that many (most?) teachers tend to teach polish in top lines first, but he goes the other way because he sees that as a final step. When newcomers polish their dancing with little movement, everything breaks again and needs to be fixed when they start moving bigger. He prefers to get people moving, then put the polish on top of the big movement.

I don't know enough to assert as much myself, and I might not have remembered his description precisely. I imagine that different teachers have different (and valid!) reasons for taking different approaches. But, the message I took home was that, after syllabus, one probably expects all of the elements to be there at least in a basic sense.

It seems to me that a lot of fundamentals don't depend directly on each other, and conceivably could be taught in parallel, if anybody could absorb it all at the same time without being overwhelmed.

In my very limited exposure to syllabus competitions, I've seen some people trained to move bigger but with sloppier top lines, and other people who barely move but seem very clean, however little they travel. In syllabus, we're all missing some pretty basic things by somebody's measure, I expect.

Perhaps one can say, for example, that overall a couple (never mind an individual) at a competition is a bit more than a third of the way along and therefore ought to be dancing silver. How clearly can one make those distinctions? I think many pros shrug and do their best, but also conclude, "It's all just syllabus anyway."

Like CantSkiForLife said at the beginning of the thread, I'm also now quite curious to hear from pros on the subject.

PS

I saw a couple of little kids perform a latin routine at an event tonight. I recognized some syllabus figures, some of which still seem challenging to me. I work mostly on standard, but still... I'm learning the same things as 8-year-olds, anyway. I'd better find a way to keep a healthy perspective about that!

[syncopationator]

Huh?

Where?

Where are these non-collegiate amateur syllabus events in which the collegiate dancers are overmatched?


we're talking about non-syllabus, correct?

[Chris Stratton]

In my very limited exposure to syllabus competitions, I've seen some people trained to move bigger but with sloppier top lines, and other people who barely move but seem very clean, however little they travel.

Using the standing foot more usually solves both problems. And this might be a good example of what often goes wrong with syllabus participation - after a few years, it can tend to turn into seeming tradeoffs of this vs. that, when both sides are really quite tangential to the real difference between syllabus dancers and those winning in the next divisions.

The previous comment about software engineering may be applicable too - there's the academic approach, and then there's what dominates the real work world. It's kind of too bad that there's no academic pursuit-of-perfection type of outlet in dancing that would deserve a degree of respected from the "industry" side, but that there does seem to be a real parallel in the way that academic preparation can only take you so far in preparation for open competition - then you have to encounter the real world challenges and grow to meet them.

[Chris Stratton]

we're talking about non-syllabus, correct?

No, not really.

Anyway, in champ just about everybody looses to the former youth competitors. The few who have gained traction against them seem to be those who spent only a year or two competing in adult syllabus... probably because by leaving that behind, they faced up to the reality of the task sooner.

There's just something very backwater-ish about adult syllabus gold, even in comparison to the collegiate version, that is fairly career-killing if taken in dosage larger than the occasional add-on to the collegiate version. It's going to sound silly, but if it were danced in costume in the evening session and generally hung with the trappings of the real deal, it might be a lot more useful as a fundamentals finishing school.

So that's my off-the-cuff recommendation: replace adult gold with master of syllabus, open to all, costumed, in the evening.

[DL]

Using the standing foot more usually solves both problems. And this might be a good example of what often goes wrong with syllabus participation - after a few years, it can tend to turn into seeming tradeoffs of this vs. that, when both sides are really quite tangential to the real difference between syllabus dancers and those winning in the next divisions.

I'm not suggesting that there are trade-offs. I'm just saying that newcomers can't learn everything at once, and different things are taught in different orders for different reasons by different teachers. Getting good nagging about proper walking technique and use of the standing foot won't always imply equal focus on keeping those shoulders down, under-turning the top, keeping the head in the right position, connecting head movement to shape changes, leading with a flexible right elbow, etc. Teaching all of that seems like an embarrassingly parallel problem, but surely any newcomer would be overwhelmed by the amount of information that could be taught for a, "simple," prep step + natural turn in lesson 1.


The previous comment about software engineering may be applicable too - there's the academic approach, and then there's what dominates the real work world. It's kind of too bad that there's no academic pursuit-of-perfection type of outlet in dancing that would deserve a degree of respected from the "industry" side, but that there does seem to be a real parallel in the way that academic preparation can only take you so far in preparation for open competition - then you have to encounter the real world challenges and grow to meet them.

IMO the, "rift," between the academic and business worlds in software is more in people's heads than a legitimate divergence of realities. Bridging the gap is the often the Right Thing, but it requires work. Many old-timers think the work is wasted because they can blather about ivory-tower academics not knowing anything useful (wrong), and many grads off the turnip truck think the work is wasted because they have ideals combined with total ignorance of business realities (also wrong).

My point really was that, at the beginning of my career, my actual state was, "ready to start learning about software."

I was tempted to make a martial arts analogy and note a few discussions I've been involved in over the question, "what does a black belt really mean?" I think it often actually means, "ready to start learning <your martial art>."

<tongue in cheek, mostly>
As for challenges one, "must," grow to meet -- <shrug> I'll probably never quit wearing glasses, anyway. Maybe it's too bad I'm not going bald instead of dealing with bad eyesight. Oh well, at least new young things at socials are starting to show interest in dancing with me socially, and there's another use for syllabus techniques and practical measure of my progress learning them; maybe one will turn out to be a future DW one of these days...
</tongue in cheek, mostly>

[reb]

From OP:

What knowledge and skills do you expect a bronze, silver, gold, or open dancers to possess?

There have been many arguments about the difference between amateur, pro-am, and collegiate competitors and it would be nice to sum it up here.

I don't believe there should be a difference in expectations. I believe Bronze=Bronze, Silver=Silver, Gold=Gold, and Open=Open. I do not see the purpose to having an amateur bronze, a collegiate bronze, and a pro-am bronze.

From Sync, replying to Chris's comment about proficiency points:

I disagree here. One should stay at a level until they excell at that level. I'd hate to have some point system tell me I can't dance at that level anymore. Once I've excelled at that level, say if I win some major comps at a certain level, then I will start competing at the next level.


So this is one example of the differences between Pro/Am and Amateur.

Pro/Am is as sync describes it - no pushing out of the nest.

Amateur - collect enough proficiency points and you are moved up - sometimes the only way to delay the inevitable rise to Champ is to space out how many big comps you compete in . . . .

[Joe]

What knowledge and skills do you expect a bronze, silver, gold, or open dancers to possess?
One thing that I would like to see is a foot closure at the end of a half Natural Turn in Waltz. So many times you see even some professionals passing their feet.

I disagree here. One should stay at a level until they excell at that level. I'd hate to have some point system tell me I can't dance at that level anymore. Once I've excelled at that level, say if I win some major comps at a certain level, then I will start competing at the next level.
Accumulating points is the only objective way to determine whether or not you are excelling at that level...

[Bailamosdance]

Accumulating points is the only objective way to determine whether or not you are excelling at that level...

Excelling - no. Winning, perhaps - if you are going against the better dancers.

[Chris Stratton]

Amateur - collect enough proficiency points and you are moved up - sometimes the only way to delay the inevitable rise to Champ is to space out how many big comps you compete in . . . .

Actually that's only realistically true about the collegiate system. In adult amateur, there just aren't enough comps with syllabus fields large enough to grant points for placing out to have been a serious concern under the old system, and I don't think there hasn't been enough experience with the new for anyone to have placed out of anything yet (except I guess at nationals).

Placing out of a level in collegiate competition does not necessarily mean that you are ready to handle the next theoretical level of dancing, what it basically means is that you should stop dancing against that group of people and start dancing against the next more experienced group.

After I wrote last night I was thinking more about why there's such a problem with adult gold, and finally remembered what the issue is: syllabus is fine as long as you are eligible for collegiate gold - there are big competitions to attend and progress to be made. But once a couple has placed out of collegiate gold, they really should move into open, and not concentrate on hanging around trying to place out of adult gold. The reason for that is that there are only 2-3 comps per year with adult gold fields that give any degree of real intensity of being a competitor to the experience. If you are only really sweating it out in multiple rounds against a tough field like that 2-3 times a year, and everything else you enter is basically costumed practice, your momentum is dead.

Those with a can-do attitude move along, those with a can't do attitude stay behind - and end up showing that attitude in their dancing.

[cantskiforlife]

From OP:
So this is one example of the differences between Pro/Am and Amateur.

Pro/Am is as sync describes it - no pushing out of the nest.

Amateur - collect enough proficiency points and you are moved up - sometimes the only way to delay the inevitable rise to Champ is to space out how many big comps you compete in . . . .

Does this make sense though? Why should someone have to skip competitions to delay this rise? Why should someone be forced to compete at a level they are not competent in. For instance,

The major difference I see between pro-am, amateur, and collegiate competition is that collegiate dancers have a 1 year bronze time limit. As a result, you see hundreds of bronze dancers being forced into silver before they are ready. Many of them have to learn entirely new routines and focus on new technique while they are still unclear as to what they were trying to accomplish in bronze. The result is sloppy silver dancing and frustrated students who either quit immediately or allow their frustration to slowly whittle away at their passion for dance. Those that make it through to gold end up having little competition. Some stop competing completely, others stick it out but feel they are not improving since they are still lacking fundamental skills, and others decide to attempt pre-champ with embarrassing results. The end result, is that all levels are saturated with dancers whose technique is not on par with the level they dance.

With amateurs, you choose when to move up to the next level, or do so based on points. The result tends to be a smaller and more qualified group at each level. (Disregard smooth and rhythm for this comparison as there are almost too few competitors to call it a competitive field).

In Pro-am, the instructor places you according to your ability (in most cases). As a result, there is much stronger competition at the lower levels.

[cantskiforlife]

So far we have talked about the actual differences between am, pro-am, collegiate and why these differences exist.

If we start with bronze, what do you expect a bronze collegiate dancer to know before he/she moves to silver? What about pro-am?

[and123]

Know, or execute? There are those that know they should be employing a certain technique but aren't able to do so yet, and those that have an uncanny ability to mimic others and "fake" it for a while without understanding (or sometimes caring about) the true mechanics behind what they are doing. Close inspection will reveal the truth, but on a crowded comp floor, it can easily sneak through and get marked by the judges.

[cantskiforlife]

Know, or execute? There are those that know they should be employing a certain technique but aren't able to do so yet, and those that have an uncanny ability to mimic others and "fake" it for a while without understanding (or sometimes caring about) the true mechanics behind what they are doing. Close inspection will reveal the truth, but on a crowded comp floor, it can easily sneak through and get marked by the judges.

Both. Faking may take you to the final, but that is when it will show up.

On another similar note - when judging, what are the pro's looking for and comparing between the couples?

[samina]

i can't speak for collegiate or am, but i can say that being competitive in silver (standard) in the pro-am world requires the acquisition of pretty solid technical foundation. it requires a lot of advancement to launch out of silver to be competitive in open, so IME it tends to be the level where the greatest numbers of competitors congregate. so... i find silver to require the dancer to stabilize concepts learned at the bronze level. if one is too loose or sloppy, one can't be competitive at silver.

and to jump from silver to open (gold being intermediary stop...or not), requires "more"... more movement, more consistency, more shape, more dynamics, more "breathing" in the connection.

just my view. can't speak to latin.

[and123]

I've heard several judges say sometimes it's so bad that they'll just mark any couple who happens to be dancing on time. Yet I see some couples who keep making cuts when they are clearly OFF time. So....? :confused:

[samina]

mebbe being in harmony and having some other good qualities overrides, in their minds? dunno...

[Chris Stratton]

you see hundreds of bronze dancers being forced into silver before they are ready. Many of them have to learn entirely new routines

Then address that problem at it's source - the fallacy of the idea that you need silver material to compete in silver.

With the possible exception of american foxtrot, it's not true.

The result is sloppy silver dancing and frustrated students who either quit immediately or allow their frustration to slowly whittle away at their passion for dance.

And the alternative is having the new dancers compete against those with twice their experience. The purpose of moving people out of the new dancer's division is to make room there for the new dancers.

Those that make it through to gold end up having little competition. Some stop competing completely, others stick it out but feel they are not improving since they are still lacking fundamental skills, and others decide to attempt pre-champ with embarrassing results.

Uh, people who find that gold at the larger collegiate comps is "no competition" are not going to be embarassing themselves in pre-champ.

People who've never fundamentally focused on solidifying their dancing of course will, but that kind of thing is a personal decision that's pretty independent of what level you compete in. Someone who really does not understand ballroom movement is not going to look any better in gold than they do in prechamp, because the problem is not the material but that they basically have not learned to dance yet.

The end result, is that all levels are saturated with dancers whose technique is not on par with the level they dance.

Relative to what? There are not standards to compare to except for the other people.

With amateurs, you choose when to move up to the next level, or do so based on points. The result tends to be a smaller and more qualified group at each level.

Huh?

Where?

Where are these comps where "more qualified" adult amateurs are beating the college comp people? The reality is that when under qualified college comp people loose out at meaningfully contested adult comps, they are mostly loosing out to other college comp people.

[Chris Stratton]

If we start with bronze, what do you expect a bronze collegiate dancer to know before he/she moves to silver?

How to cooperate with a partner in accomplishing a dance.

[samina]

Then address that problem at it's source - the fallacy of the idea that you need silver material to compete in silver.


i agree. we competed with mostly bronze routines when we jumped to silver, with a few patterns thrown in which he had introduced the week before. it was more about feeling i was ready from a technique perspective to climb to silver. the figures were besides the point.

same thing when we started dipping our toes into open (dancesport) events...we used our silver choreo. honestly, it's not the choreo that's the big deal. it's the technique & dancing, for sure.

[cantskiforlife]

Here is my initial take on the distinctions. As this list could probably be expanded indefiniely, I have limited myself to 5 points. I am by no means an expert on the syllabus so feel free to disagree/ contribute pointers surrounding technique, etc...


PRE-BRONZE
1) Are you dancing with the music?
2) Are you taking the correct heel/toe combinations on each step?
3) Is your frame decent?
4) Are you enjoying yourself? Do you look lost?
5) Is one partner shoving the other partner or dragging the other partner around?

BRONZE
6) Do they have the correct rise and fall?
7) Are they dancing or walking?
8) Do their foot patterns match what the body is leading?
9) Do they understand the importance of the head?
10) Are they using their standing leg?

[hustleNflow]

The major difference I see between pro-am, amateur, and collegiate competition is that collegiate dancers have a 1 year bronze time limit. As a result, you see hundreds of bronze dancers being forced into silver before they are ready. Many of them have to learn entirely new routines and focus on new technique while they are still unclear as to what they were trying to accomplish in bronze. The result is sloppy silver dancing and frustrated students who either quit immediately or allow their frustration to slowly whittle away at their passion for dance. Those that make it through to gold end up having little competition. Some stop competing completely, others stick it out but feel they are not improving since they are still lacking fundamental skills, and others decide to attempt pre-champ with embarrassing results. The end result, is that all levels are saturated with dancers whose technique is not on par with the level they dance.


One year time limit in bronze? Really? Is this new? I was never aware of one when I danced in collegiate...then again, I haven't competed at collegiate in almost 2 years. We always just followed the proficiency point system - as team captain, I was responsible for entering everyone's points into a spreadsheet post-comp (yes, very, very tedious) and letting certain couples know when they had "pointed out" of a certain level. Seemed to work well enough for us...we only had two occasions where we thought a couple really needed to remain in a certain level, and many couples had already begun the process of "moving up" before they had pointed out (i.e. beginning silver syllabus lessons before being booted out of bronze).

As for what we "expected" from our bronze level collegiate dancers, it was strict, but reasonable - clean basics (not perfect, but not sloppy, and not "confused"), good posture, decent frame, heel leads (in smooth/standard), toe leads (in rhythm/latin), the beginnings of cuban motion, and at least an attempt at decent rise and fall. Bronze dancers weren't allowed to try out for formation team without the coach's approval, and weren't allowed to do solo performances at call-outs and other functions.

Beyond bronze, it got a little hazy as to what was expected from each level...for the most part, our silver-level dancers' routines were mostly (well danced) bronze material, with maybe one or two silver steps or a few bars of side-by-side. A lot of our couples skipped gold altogether, as many of the silver dancers began dancing novice at the same time, and by time they were out of silver, they had already learned many of the gold steps from their open routines, and would have rather just danced open. Those dancing novice usually also did a syllabus level (usually silver), but those in pre-champ and champ usually just did open...guess it was "assumed" that if you were dancing prechamp and champ, you were pretty well familiar with syllabus already and there was no need to dance it. Plus, dancing both syllabus and open would get to be pretty tiring, and I guess they wanted to conserve their energy for the open round :confused:

[wyllo]

I think the 1 year limit for bronze is an East Coast thing. At least here in the Midwest collegiate couples are allowed to dance in a level until they point out. The only exception is newcomer and the rules vary by competition.

[hustleNflow]

I think the 1 year limit for bronze is an East Coast thing. At least here in the Midwest collegiate couples are allowed to dance in a level until they point out. The only exception is newcomer and the rules vary by competition.

Yah, I knew that you could only dance newcomer for like, six months...I started in October of '03, so I was eligible to dance newcomer at OSB, but then at Michigan in April of '04 I had to dance bronze cause my six months was up. But yah, here in the midwest, I've never heard of a bronze restriction :confused:

[skwiggy]

If memory serves, from what I was told the whole time limit in a level thing is a carry over from when YCN was trying to increase participation in the early 90's. It was explained to me that this was meant to be a short term solution to minimize the barrier to entry into competitive ballroom for college students who often only compete with their team for up to 4 years. This kept people from staying in bronze for the entire 4 years, thereby making bronze intimidating and frustrating to newer dancers.

At the time, there were time limits put on every syllabus level, and after 3 years the competitors had to dance open.

While this system certainly has its flaws, it served its purpose at the time and helped create the thriving collegiate competition circuit we see today.

[Chris Stratton]

And you can continue to compete in USA Dance bronze (if elgible, which is likely) even after being time-limited into silver at college comps with such a rule (it's a comp-by-comp thing).

I don't think I've ever seen a time limit for silver or above, though I suppose there might once have been one.

[skwiggy]

I don't think I've ever seen a time limit for silver or above, though I suppose there might once have been one.

IIRC it was up to 1 semester or 1 comp for newcomer, up to one year for bronze, up to 2 years for silver, up to 3 years for gold, and beyond it was required to dance open.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

I think there's only one collegiate comp over here with a bronze time limit: "Beginner events are open to couples where both partners started DanceSport training this year (after January 1, 2008 )."

There's another that requires moving up after placing in the top 3. No mention of number of rounds.

I think the rest pretty much go by YCN points.

Aside - I think there was a similar discussion here:
What does it take? (http://danceforums.com/showthread.php?t=11806)

[Warren J. Dew]

If memory serves, from what I was told the whole time limit in a level thing is a carry over from when YCN was trying to increase participation in the early 90's.

It was first adopted in the Boston area by the Brown competition at the behest of their then coach, Christina Cryan. This was in the early to mid 1990s; it was after the Boston collegiate scene had already become big. I don't believe YCN had any part in the decision.

As you say, it was adopted to avoid making the "beginner" level frustrating and intimidating for new dancers. I know that the MIT team recognized it as a good idea and adopted it for our next competition; some of the other competitions in the area adopted it as well.

There was a two year limitation for the intermediate or silver level at some competitions for a while as well; however, this never became as standard as the one year limitation. I know of no competition ever pushing people into open in the fourth year.

I don't think the time limit was ever meant as a temporary measure, at least not at Boston area competitions. Each year, especially in the college scene, there is a new group of incoming dancers; giving each year's newbies a level playing field is an ongoing concern, not a temporary one.

[reb]

In adult amateur, there just aren't enough comps with syllabus fields large enough to grant points for placing out to have been a serious concern under the old system, and I don't think there hasn't been enough experience with the new for anyone to have placed out of anything yet (except I guess at nationals).


Maybe we went to different comps - our experience is opposite - we placed out of categories quickly, and the comps were available to do it.

Does this make sense though? Why should someone have to skip competitions to delay this rise? Why should someone be forced to compete at a level they are not competent in

Excellent question, and there was some great discussion here on DF as USA Dance was improving their rules not too long ago. There have been threads about this - avab had been helpful in the discussions I think.

I'm personally glad (and agree with you about the challenge) that USA Dance increased the number because it was too easy to go up, especially the step from pre-champ to champ and that needed to be slowed down - in my experience.

[Chris Stratton]

Maybe we went to different comps - our experience is opposite - we placed out of categories quickly, and the comps were available to do it.

Seems to me it takes quite a lot of travel to find 5 sanctioned comps with semifinals at each level in syllabus, and win them all. The only real shortcut was to win a level at nationals.

especially the step from pre-champ to champ and that needed to be slowed down - in my experience.

I don't believe any tweaking of the pre-champ/champ divide will improve the situation - as long as the youth programs feed directly into champ and the main focus is on the youth track, there is going to be a very big step between what is required to place in competitions that include the youth program alumni (champ) vs those that don't (prechamp).

Probably what will improve the situation for non-youth-alumni is one or both of:

1) Going up against the youth alumni, discovering what it will take, and reorganizing a life around doing that

2) Substantial numbers of collegiate alumni aging into senior I over the next 10 years making that a highly competitive alternative

[cantskiforlife]

The time restriction standard in the new egland area for the past four years has been:

First semester -->. Pre-bronze
Second and third semester --> bronze
Fourth semester and up --> silver or above

Last year some teams clarified this to mean semesters in which you were actually dancing versus semesters from when you started dancing. This was done to accompdate all those students who traveled abroad for a semester or two. I have never heard of a restriction on silver.

I actually have a point calculator in excel that I wrote 2 years ago. I will see if I can dig it up when I get home.

[cantskiforlife]

I do think the time restriction a ok for ore-bronze but otherwise I think it is a bad thing to have and enforce.

I am a fan of the ycn point system and think this should be the standard to go by. Besides if you feel ready to move up.


One problem I have not yet mentioned with the college scene is the emphasis on learning steps and routines at the expense of technique. I have not seen alteams besides browln that actually drill their students at the begining of each lesson. Some even go against a coaches recommendation to work on technique and are simply hired to provide routines and if time permits, technique.

[Chris Stratton]

One problem I have not yet mentioned with the college scene is the emphasis on learning steps and routines at the expense of technique. I have not seen alteams besides browln that actually drill their students at the begining of each lesson. Some even go against a coaches recommendation to work on technique and are simply hired to provide routines and if time permits, technique.

This can be an issue, but it's key to remember that the fault lies with the coaches, and not with the competitions.

If you look at for example the MIT open, material from the full syllabus is actually legal even in the effectively-bronze "beginner" level. However, that doesn't mean that dancing gold material is the way to win it. Instead, it means that dancing whatever you can do well is the way to win it.

I think a lot of coaches coming from the studio and pro/am model really don't know how to work the collegiate scene, with its unabashed emphasis on practicality. i can recall cases in which after a weak of coaching by team members, the new recruits were exposed to a professional - who then proceeded to demonstrate more sloppily than those beginners themselves would be performing a month later as they cut through umpteen rounds to the final of the Harvard beginner's comp. (Granted nobody does bronze american foxtrot well unless they take time to really concentrate on it, but then, that's exactly what collegiate beginners from the teams that understand the situation do during their first semester)

[Warren J. Dew]

I have not seen alteams besides browln that actually drill their students at the begining of each lesson.

How many teams besides Brown have you been on?

[skwiggy]

It was first adopted in the Boston area by the Brown competition at the behest of their then coach, Christina Cryan. This was in the early to mid 1990s; it was after the Boston collegiate scene had already become big. I don't believe YCN had any part in the decision.

These rules were in effect in the mid Atlantic area, and I was told by some of the people who helped the college scene grow in this area that it was an effort by YCN.

As you say, it was adopted to avoid making the "beginner" level frustrating and intimidating for new dancers. I know that the MIT team recognized it as a good idea and adopted it for our next competition; some of the other competitions in the area adopted it as well..

We may be talking about a different set of rules in a different region, since I have no idea about the evolution of these rules in Boston.

There was a two year limitation for the intermediate or silver level at some competitions for a while as well; however, this never became as standard as the one year limitation. I know of no competition ever pushing people into open in the fourth year.

Again, must be a different set of rules, because I remember this rule first hand.

I don't think the time limit was ever meant as a temporary measure, at least not at Boston area competitions. Each year, especially in the college scene, there is a new group of incoming dancers; giving each year's newbies a level playing field is an ongoing concern, not a temporary one.

This would make sense for the time limit on Bronze. But obviously the time limit on all syllabus levels that I recall would make sense as a temporary measure to help generate activity across all levels and prevent too much bottleneck.

I remember the time limit on gold first hand. I didn't make this up, it really did exist. It's only the origins of and reasoning behind it that I am trying to report what I recall being told.

[cantskiforlife]

How many teams besides Brown have you been on?

I have attended practices for Brown, WPI, MIT, Harvard, URI, BU. I have competed for WPI, MIT, Harvard, BU. I am familiar with the coaches for Tufts, Holy Cross, RIC. You could say I am kinda a ballroom slut :raisebro:

[cantskiforlife]

And the alternative is having the new dancers compete against those with twice their experience. The purpose of moving people out of the new dancer's division is to make room there for the new dancers.
Perhaps,as I have mentioned, it is just semantics and I would prefer to have an additional one or two categories called bronze I, bronze II, full bronze --> Similar to what they do in Pro-AM (for different reasons).

[Chris Stratton]

I have attended practices for Brown, WPI, MIT

What you would have experienced at MIT would depend on lot on whose class you showed up for - there are many different coaches each with their own philosophy of what to do in a class, and to an extent the team is a result of the best of all of the ideas. You might not for example have anything drill-like in standard after the first year, but having it then still sets the idea that there are specific physical skills that enable the more obvious things. Curious if you ever attended a latin class with MIT?

[Chris Stratton]

Perhaps,as I have mentioned, it is just semantics and I would prefer to have an additional one or two categories called bronze I, bronze II, full bronze --> Similar to what they do in Pro-AM (for different reasons).

I think that's exactly the wrong direction to go in, and exactly what is wrong with the typical studio approach - why studios graduate so few dancers capable of putting on their shoes and actually competing, and college teams produce so many (as evidenced again by amateur finals through pre-champ being chock full of college community alumni, and the rare adult-starters seen in champ finals again being more likely collegiate alumni than not)

Basically, by having lot of shades of bronze and keeping everyone in the first division or two, then a big gap until the tiny open & professional cores, it's a big loud statement that you can't really do this, only special people can.

In contrast, by having a gently tapering pyramid that goes all the way to the top of the non-professional dance world, the collegiate tradition is a big loud yes, you can do this if you want to put in the work - and there's ample demonstration of people who actually are doing it - the path exists in practice, not just in hardly ever exercised theory.

[cantskiforlife]

This can be an issue, but it's key to remember that the fault lies with the coaches, and not with the competitions.

Perhaps we can compromise on this. I don't blame a coach when the team provides the class/course details and provide no time for technique. I do blame a coach that agrees with this or does not suggest altering the syllabus to focus on technique as applied to fewer patterns.

If you look at for example the MIT open, material from the full syllabus is actually legal even in the effectively-bronze "beginner" level. However, that doesn't mean that dancing gold material is the way to win it. Instead, it means that dancing whatever you can do well is the way to win it.

The MIT competition is kind of like dancing Open Bronze and Open Silver in Pro-am. In one sense it is a nice way to show off your application of skills to different patterns and get excited for next year. I think more often (for whatever reason) it is simply a showcase of poorly thrown together routines because people think they need more moves to win.

[cantskiforlife]

What you would have experienced at MIT would depend on lot on whose class you showed up for - there are many different coaches each with their own philosophy of what to do in a class, and to an extent the team is a result of the best of all of the ideas. You might not for example have anything drill-like in standard after the first year, but having it then still sets the idea that there are specific physical skills that enable the more obvious things. Curious if you ever attended a latin class with MIT?

No - mostly have seen standard. I think their biggest problem is lack of space. The building 34 hallway isn't really that conducive to practice.

[Chris Stratton]

The MIT competition is kind of like dancing Open Bronze and Open Silver in Pro-am. In one sense it is a nice way to show off your application of skills to different patterns and get excited for next year. I think more often (for whatever reason) it is simply a showcase of poorly thrown together routines because people think they need more moves to win.

Perhaps on some couples, but on the couples that win their events, its more a demonstration of the value of doing what you can do well.

I think the whole thing is actually a bit of a learning opportunity: "Here is a license to shoot yourself in the foot. Let's see if you are wise enough not to do it."

There have been a number of complaints that the collegiate division progression forces couples to learn, teams to contract, or coaches to teach advanced material too early. I think this is a great lesson in learning to ignore such false pressure and just focus on what you are good at.

The only "teaching to the comp" that should go on for MIT is optionally spending some time on the dances that are not usually offered at bronze, but again that's fully optional as they are seperate events from the core dances.

[cantskiforlife]

I think the whole thing is actually a bit of a learning opportunity: "Here is a license to shoot yourself in the foot. Let's see if you are wise enough not to do it."

I LOVE IT!!!!

There have been a number of complaints that the collegiate division progression forces couples to learn, teams to contract, or coaches to teach advanced material too early. I think this is a great lesson in learning to ignore such false pressure and just focus on what you are good at.

As an instructor, or team captain, I don't think it is ones opportunity to test people on identifying false pretenses. I think it is ones opportunity to provide a cohesive learning experience. If a calculus professor decided to teach both calculus and linear algebra in the same class to see if you could weed out the linear algebra, and focus on the calculus, would he be doing his job?

The only "teaching to the comp" that should go on for MIT is optionally spending some time on the dances that are not usually offered at bronze, but again that's fully optional as they are seperate events from the core dances.

Well said.

[cantskiforlife]

I am still waiting to hear from people about their expectations (personal or professional) are for each syllabus level? Anyone?

[Chris Stratton]

As an instructor, or team captain, I don't think it is ones opportunity to test people on identifying false pretenses.

I did not mean to suggest that the team apparatus try to trick their members by taking part in the administration of the test.

Instead, what I meant was that the whole-syllabus opportunity was a chance for the entire system of a team - dancers, team officers, and coaches - to discover the importance of working on the dancing itself, and learning not to get caught up in the choreography. It demonstrates the opposite of the "placed out of bronze so have to get a silver routine" fallacy - not just to the students, but to their immediate mentors as well.

Large beginner events in particular seem to be every bit as much a test of a team's ability to identify and present key information in a group class, as they are of the individual dancers on that team, though that is of course a factor too. This shows up in the way that some teams have lots of strong couples (though sometimes no stars), while others are generally weak but have a single case or two where the factors all seemed to luckily line up right.

[Josh]

I am still waiting to hear from people about their expectations (personal or professional) are for each syllabus level? Anyone?

Here's what comes to mind. No doubt this list will differ from the priorities others may have, and these are just coming off the top of my head at 3AM!

Ballroom

Bronze:

Basic footwork is correct and clean
Dance frame is sufficient to lead/follow and present well
Posture is tall and well presented
Swing is present and accompanied by correct sway
Basic understanding of turning and fundamental differences in left vs. right
Reasonable floorcraft and logical alignment and movement of figures
Good showing of different types of rise and fall within the dance
Good characterization of the dance
Silver:

Greater understanding of promenade and transitions into and out of
Higher quality of movement from step to step, greater use of standing leg
More clear separation of space between partners
More characterization of each dance (i.e., tango looks more like tango, etc.)
Wing position and transitions
Each partner begins to dance himself/herself to a greater degree, creating a more dynamic partnership
Creating shape with the bodies for effect and look
Greater use of the feet and floor to create shape and lead
Everything in Bronze but to a greater degree of accuracy!
Gold:

Creating good picture lines with subtlety and finesse
Quality pivots, including slip pivots
Great understanding of continuously rotating figures
Larger and more "danceable" shapes are created
Impeccable posture and clean footwork, super strong feet
More power, greater use of the standing leg
Everything in bronze/silver, only better and more!

[Chris Stratton]

This is exactly the kind of impractical expectation that is why studios graduate so few dancers who will ever get to the level of practical experience where they might start learning these concepts for real. It happens only sporadically in spite of such a plan, not systematically because of it, because it's fundamentally not a workable progression. The majority of the people who get to the level where they start to get these things right got there by rapidly progressing their dancing over all, and then addressing these issues at the point where they started to become limiting.

Take sway for example. A bronze dancer is not going to move enough for movement coupled sway to really come into the picture, because they don't yet have the foot strength or standing leg usage habits to do so. The amount of coupled sway that would be appropriate for that level of movement is too subtle for that level of understanding. So what really happens is that bronze is danced without sway, and then sway starts to come in as movement increases, and finally around gold they start to balance each other.

What it's ultimately necessary to do is to choose a few key concepts - for example, foot usage and posture, and push them in the background while teaching practical material to exercise them. The key difference is that progress in those long range issues is not an administratively gating factor to progress overall - it can help of course, but it should not be holding people back from their progress through the system, in large part because the difference is between getting it really right and everything else, not between doing nothing and doing something that looks approximate but is functionally fake - which is what often ends up communicated when there's an insistence on exhibiting some skill before it can be coupled to its proper causes.

[cantskiforlife]

Chris,

I would like to see what you can come up with. It almost seems like you fundamentally disagree that there should be any expectations for bronze, silver, and gold dancers?

I agree that some of those concepts seem a bit much to me (on first glance). That is why I created this thread - to see what people think.

[etp777]

Cantski, are these expectations of every bronze dancer, or is it, by the time you finish bronze, you should have mastered these aspects? (second is way I read it).

[Josh]

This is exactly the kind of impractical expectation that is why studios graduate so few dancers who will ever get to the level of practical experience where they might start learning these concepts for real.



Read the list again with this emphasis. I use words like "correct," "sufficient," "reasonable," and "good":

"that basic footwork is correct" (NOT perfect)
"dance frame is sufficient" (NOT perfect)
"posture is tall" (NOT impeccable)
"swing is present with correct sway" (NOT developed)
"reasonable floorcraft and logical alignments" (NOT perfect)
"good showing of rise and fall" (NOT perfect)
"good characterization" (NOT complete)
All of these things are BASICS. What would you have the dancer not know and demonstrate (besides sway I guess)? They won't be there all the time, but moving to the next level without any one of these elements being shown at least somewhat consistently will leave the dancer without a solid foundation for more difficult figures. Oh and by the way, a major function of sway is simply stylistic, so large amounts of swing need not be present in order to show a good dance, particularly in foxtrot--no doubt you've seen this?

I advocate performing the basics well (not perfectly, but in a correct fashion) before "graduating." Any system that forces dancers to move on without ensuring proper dancing at a particular level (for example, moving to the next level every year) is IMO working against the very purpose of having the syllabus in place to begin with.

There are no doubt fundamental differences in the collegiate system (forgive my limited understanding of it) versus the studio system. In the studio system, the students often have full time jobs, are not conveniently located to the studio, and may often have to put family/work/etc priorities ahead of dancing, or may simply not be as driven to progress as quickly (i.e., they do it just for fun). By the way though, I'd say most students I teach who are talented and driven are into silver a year after they begin pretty easily, and they do well at it.

[etp777]

Oops, that question was for Josh, not cantski. Sorry. :) And you answered it in that post, thanks.

[Chris Stratton]

Chris,

I would like to see what you can come up with. It almost seems like you fundamentally disagree that there should be any expectations for bronze, silver, and gold dancers?

I can't find the post from several days ago where I answered this, specifically for bronze, along the lines of "to be able to cooperate with a partner in accomplishing a dance". I remember writing it, but maybe it didn't actually go through.

But no, I don't really believe that there should be any abstract standards in a competition focused program, real world comparison to others seems to do a much better job.

Every attempt that I've seen to mandate abstract standards tends gets caught up in fakery - things that kind of look right, but really aren't sound, to the point of being bad habits that will have to be eliminated before they can be corrected. That happens in large part because the students don't have the prerequisites yet to accomplish the real deal, but often also because the teachers who usually work with syllabus-level dancers have some degree of remaining confusion (or at least lack of clarity) in their understanding, which then gets amplified in their students. Meantime, this false focus is impeding progress in the world of competition against peers.

It seems that those who make lasting progress are those who work on technical issues to support their dancing, but do not let concern for abstract standards pace their progression of experience.

[cantskiforlife]

Cantski, are these expectations of every bronze dancer, or is it, by the time you finish bronze, you should have mastered these aspects? (second is way I read it).

Its the latter. If you were judging bronze, what would you look for? When teaching someone how to dance, when do you introduce a concept and how much of it should be mastered before moving on to the next level?

NOTE: Chris - I do recall that posts. Could you elaborate more though? I am not sure what you mean by cooperate or accomplishing.

[Me]

Nothing particular to contribute. Just wanted to say I am enjoying reading this thread.

[Josh]

I can't find the post from several days ago where I answered this, specifically for bronze, along the lines of "to be able to cooperate with a partner in accomplishing a dance". I remember writing it, but maybe it didn't actually go through.

You wrote it, and I remember reading it. But the problem is, "what does that mean?" Sure, I understand what you mean and actually agree with it, but what technically does that entail? That could mean lots of different things to different people.

So put it like this--if I'm interviewing to hire a graduating student for a technical position, I have to have some kind of technical requirements for what the student knows and can do, right? Essentially, what's my checklist for what I would expect an XYZ graduate to be able to practially demonstrate? This, I believe, is the essence of cantski's search for opinions.


It seems that those who make lasting progress are those who work on technical issues to support their dancing, but do not let concern for abstract standards pace their progression of experience.

Exactly my view Chris--I now realize, you may have misinterpreted my intent, or I may have made myself unclear. Perhaps you thought my list was something like:
"Okay student, we'll now do the natural turn. Foot positions, check. Rise and fall, check. Footwork, check. CBM, check. ..."
Maybe, I dunno. But having that list of expectations in no way means learning those things for those things' sake. It just means that that's what the dancer will be showing. Maybe I'm way off on my last paragraph here, just thought I'd give it a try.

[and123]

I have discussed this with several coaches, and they agree the system in place has issues and pushes too many couples into the next level before they're able to handle it. While they'd love to change it and believe it would ultimately be better for everyone involved, realistically, doing that would create a huge uproar and major upheaval. I think it's going a dedicated group of people with the stones to move forward and pursue this massive undertaking.

[Chris Stratton]

You wrote it, and I remember reading it. But the problem is, "what does that mean?" Sure, I understand what you mean and actually agree with it, but what technically does that entail? That could mean lots of different things to different people.

It means that you can put on music, direct a partner towards them, and they will go out and dance together, without looking pained or anxious about it.

Judging of beginner competitions is basically about the distinction between those who can and can't do this, with degree of extraneous "noise" determining the placements in the final.

So put it like this--if I'm interviewing to hire a graduating student for a technical position, I have to have some kind of technical requirements for what the student knows and can do, right? Essentially, what's my checklist for what I would expect an XYZ graduate to be able to practially demonstrate? This, I believe, is the essence of cantski's search for opinions.

They need to be able to accomplish a task: to acquire knowledge and implement its application.

This is the opposite of hiring a programmer because they know, I don't know, "ruby on rails" - what you really need is someone who can install a development environment, research language syntax and methods online, and then use that acquired knowledge to solve a problem.

It just means that that's what the dancer will be showing.

My expectation is more about what they will be doing than what they will be showing. When what they are doing is entering large bronze events and consistently making the finals, its starting to be time for a new peer group to dance against.

[Chris Stratton]

I have discussed this with several coaches, and they agree the system in place has issues and pushes too many couples into the next level before they're able to handle it.

This still seems grounded on the fallacy that what level you dance determines what you can work on in lessons.

If a couple has placed out of a level, chances are they don't belong with the group of people they placed out of against. That may not mean they are doing well against the next group, but it does mean they're no longer fair against the old group.

What they choose to work on is much more a matter of personal interest, coach priorities, and yes, coach knowledge. If top US champ couple's lessons with visiting blackpool judges can safely turn into an explanation of footwork, then surely newly minted collegiate prechamp couples have license to work on that issue too?

The problem is not that they are competing prechamp, the problem is that they aren't addressing their issues.

[and123]

This still seems grounded on the fallacy that what level you dance determines what you can work on in lessons.

I don't disagree with this at all. Can't tell you how many times I've heard a couple say "We can't dance X-level.... we don't know any X-level steps". So? IT DOESN'T MATTER. Dance what you can, dance what you know, and continue to work on what you don't. I've had a number of couples come over and ask "Hey, can you show me some Silver American Smooth? We're dancing it this weekend." :shock: Truly I don't know where the belief came from that OMG, I have to use these steps at this level. Yeah, getting out on the floor with a bunch of Champ dancers and stumbling through Bronze is a Really Bad Idea. Is it that dancers see flashy steps danced badly making callbacks and finals? Sometimes. Do couples dancing simpler steps, but dancing them well, get overlooked? Sometimes. I really don't know who's to blame for the majority of the problems we see in the collegiate syllabus levels. Part of it is misunderstanding of what is expected (hence the title of this thread), part of it is naive newbies getting bad advice and not knowing any better, and it continues to funnel down to the next batch of newbies. You know, this is the way I was taught and what I was told, and so on and so on. How do you break the cycle?

[Chris Stratton]

I'm not sure I think that there is a cycle that needs to be broken, since this system is so far ahead of any other large scale option available to adults.

I see the problems as being much more individual than systemic - there's still a shortage of places where those getting towards the end of the fantastic momentum of the collegiate syllabus arena can go to get support for continuing that kind of progress.

My gripe is that instead of trying to fill in the gaps where things starts to slow down, people seem instead intent on breaking the system at the level where its running strong and building the kind of wide base of participation needed to seed a healthy advanced population.

(To take for a minute the unique case of american smooth, there I can see some legitimacy in feeling hesitant to take bronze movement onto a continuity floor, though it has been done to success. More practically there's still comparable foot closure technique to be competed in standard for those who feel unready tackle continuity)

[BlueBambue]

I think that although abstract standards shouldn't be the criteria for judging in and of themselves, they could be helpful in determining approximate levels.

For example, I haven't competed yet, and for various reasons have only been able to attend one (non-collegiate) competition. When I (hopefully) start competing this coming spring, it is possible that I will start with silver. Without any abstract standards, how would I be able to guess which level most suits my abilities. I don't have the time to start in bronze and see where I place over various competitions.

Granted my instructor will be able to tell me where to go, but it is nice to be able to judge for yourself/have some outside opinion on the matter.

[kathyt cupcake]

I second that this thread has been really interesting. I'm part of a collegiate team that sees regular turnover each year-- ppl generally don't stay in this city after graduating, unlike say, NYC, so we don't have a lot of long term continuity in terms of team members. After a year or 6mos in newcomer, we put people in "bronze" and then the year afterward most move to "silver," but in reality the coaches are basically saying some very similar things across the bronze/silver/gold group lessons. The ppl who are motivated, practice and have partners will often take the group lessons at multiple levels so they improve more. We might cover more figures in the upper level classes, but our coaches recognize that there's a huge bell curve that overlaps across the "levels," and they'll cover the same material if they feel they need to.

I should point out that we also don't make ppl compete, and what level they compete at is also their choice (although we try not to let ppl sandbag), so we definitely have a population of social dancers in our team lessons. One last thing is that we experience a lot of attrition over the levels (<10 ppl in the gold/open classes, ~50 in bronze?) -- the guys drop out b/c of the usual (interested in other things), the girls drop out as there are no partners or might still be taking classes but not competing.

[Chris Stratton]

Just to toss in another dimension to this, I think it could be argued that collegiate programs collectively training several hundred people a year to the point where they have the confidence to go out and dance a "bronze" competitive event may do more for the overall state of ballroom in the US than the possibility of graduating a half dozen adult prechamp couples after some more rigorous many year hypothetical path with a presumably higher attrition rate than the present "social promotion" collegiate system.

We already know that the champ winners are not coming from adult or collegiate beginners anyway; but a more widespread basic grounding in ballroom sounds like a good thing (future ballroom parents?)

[DL]

Suppose many knowledgeable observers attend a syllabus competition.

Suppose they achieve consensus that -- step patterns aside -- gold finalists have visibly better fundamentals than silver finalists, who in turn have visibly better fundamentals than bronze finalists.

Is there something else that the syllabus gradations should achieve?

Suppose our observers *can't* achieve such consensus. Can we prescribe a solution that would have made the consensus possible -- without being among the observers?

In my mind, supposing that the original question for this thread has a straightforward answer seems equivalent to answering, "yes," to both of the questions I pose above.

[Chris Stratton]

Suppose they achieve consensus that -- step patterns aside -- gold finalists have visibly better fundamentals than silver finalists, who in turn have visibly better fundamentals than bronze finalists.

I recall a case where the winners of bronze defeated the winnners of gold when they met each other in silver... But this was an adult competition, where due to lack of qualifying events the proficiency system is so out of touch with reality that everyone is eligible to enter just about any level where they feel they belong, and opinions about that obviously differ.

In that case what the divisions accomplished was to divide the dancers into manageable sized groups.

Is there something else that the syllabus gradations should achieve?

Not including the most beginner divisions, sometimes the difference is more about overall confidence, energy, presentation than about specific skills. These things tend to win competitions more than "fundamentals" do, in part because they are more obvious. Something like correct footwork theoretically matters to overall performance, but may not practically matter if there's something else preventing its benefits from showing - then it's only noticed by judges who look for it, and not necessarily seen by those who look at the overall dancing.

[Josh]

cantski, I tried to keep this thread on topic yesterday but it appears to have gone the "Merits of Collegiate competition" way... sorry!

[cantskiforlife]

cantski, I tried to keep this thread on topic yesterday but it appears to have gone the "Merits of Collegiate competition" way... sorry!

Lol. I would agree that collegiate competition is one of the best things to happen for ballroom dancing. That is where I started (and still dance) and it introduced me to the other worlds such as am-am and pro-am.

In terms of expectations, I think I must clarify that there is a difference between judging an individual competition (and who shows up) and how you define what the overall expectations are for an X level dancer.

If two brozne couples are the only couples to compete in a gold event. It is still a gold event and they will still need to be placed. This does not mean that they have the characteristics of a gold dancer. It only means that they chose to compete at that level.

So to clarify my question. If you were at a social dance and someone asked you to point out a bronze dancer, a gold dancer, and a silver dancer. What criteria would you use to determine these people. Do you base it solely on the moves they are doing? Their connection? How often they run into other couples? How often they have to stop and restart to stay on beat? What criteria would you use to say "Little Johnny displays the characteristics of a bronze level dancer?"

[etp777]

How often they have to stop and restart to stay on beat?

Sounds like you've seen me try to dance 3 count hustle. :(

[cantskiforlife]

Sounds like you've seen me try to dance 3 count hustle. :(

Lol. After watching my last few videos. I could say that about almost all my dancers. :(

[samina]

What criteria would you use to say "Little Johnny displays the characteristics of a bronze level dancer?"

Keeping it very simple, this is my general take on how the levels evolve, based on watching them at comps:

Bronze: Signs of understanding basic fundamentals.

Silver: Bigger movement, technical consolidation, and stability.

Gold: Greater movement, better shape & expression, and increased harmony between the couple.

Open: Greater precision, noticeably increased integration of everything above, with more dynamics.

[Laura]

Okay, I'll bite, based on my own experience:

Bronze: Knows difference between left and right, can find the beat of the music, can follow instructions enough to actually learn how to dance.

Silver: Has developed personal strength and balance, which enables movement and the beginnings of shaping.

Gold: Technical consolidation.

Open: Signs of understanding of basic fundamentals, now the real journey begins.

[DL]

I recall a case where the winners of bronze defeated the winnners of gold when they met each other in silver... But this was an adult competition, where due to lack of qualifying events the proficiency system is so out of touch with reality that everyone is eligible to enter just about any level where they feel they belong, and opinions about that obviously differ.

In that case what the divisions accomplished was to divide the dancers into manageable sized groups.


Aha -- so this falls in the second clause of my post: "Suppose there's no such consensus; can we prescribe a solution without having been among the observers?"

It seems to me that trying to formally specify the skill levels is like trying to solve that problem. It seems tough, too, because we don't know (without looking) whether the bronze dancers you mentioned were really good, the gold dancers were relatively unskilled, the judges got enough coffee, how long either couple had been dancing, what step figures they tried to use, etc. Yet, we could write down answers to all that and more, and in principle could have handed the result to the couples in advance such that they would have agreed with the document, followed its instructions, and thus sorted themselves out into the, "right," levels, prior to competing.

(Or am I making this too complicated?)

[samina]

Open: Signs of understanding of basic fundamentals, now the real journey begins.

heh...you're Open is Bronze on my list. *grin* but i understand what you're saying and agree.

it's all one big loop of learning the basics...as you've alluded to. :)

[samina]

Bronze: ... can find the beat of the music, can follow instructions enough to actually learn how to dance.



for myself, i feel like i'm still on the leading edge of this. there's dancing and there's *dancing*, y'know?

fwiw, i rarely see much real dancing before the open level in pro-am. am talking standard, tho. it's a different vibe in latin -- there's some good dancing all over the levels...and definitely in part because so many people come down into bronze and dance their gold & open routines there.:rolleyes:

[DL]

So to clarify my question. If you were at a social dance and someone asked you to point out a bronze dancer, a gold dancer, and a silver dancer. What criteria would you use to determine these people. Do you base it solely on the moves they are doing? Their connection? How often they run into other couples? How often they have to stop and restart to stay on beat? What criteria would you use to say "Little Johnny displays the characteristics of a bronze level dancer?"

This seems like an interesting approach to the question.

So as leaders, don't we solve this problem when (for example) we decide what steps to lead when partnered with an unfamiliar follower?

I feel certain that followers solve it similarly, with judgments over what was led and how...

(Yes, in both cases there are other aspects of social dances.)

Of course I'm cheating by suggesting an answer based on dancing experience rather than observation.

[and123]

You mean like "OMG, this person is hanging all over me and can't seem to move herself. Better stick to bare basics so I don't get hurt." Severe inefficiency in dance movement is generally visible to the eye. If a couple is struggling badly, you can see it.

[waltzguy]

You mean like "OMG, this person is hanging all over me and can't seem to move herself. Better stick to bare basics so I don't get hurt." Severe inefficiency in dance movement is generally visible to the eye. If a couple is struggling badly, you can see it.

Haha, exactly what I thought, in a recent social dance when my dance partner was "stolen" from me. :mad:

[waltzguy]

Okay, I'll bite, based on my own experience:

Bronze: Knows difference between left and right, can find the beat of the music, can follow instructions enough to actually learn how to dance.

Silver: Has developed personal strength and balance, which enables movement and the beginnings of shaping.

Gold: Technical consolidation.

Open: Signs of understanding of basic fundamentals, now the real journey begins.

I kinda like this explanation. It would be interesting what you think of my dance. Is it bronze, or silver, or gold.

[Laura]

It would be interesting what you think of my dance. Is it bronze, or silver, or gold.
This question makes me a little uncomfortable because not only am I not a judge or a teacher, I don't know who you are :) If we've danced together and you really want an opinion, you can PM me and we can talk, but this is just a friend-to-friend opinion and not any kind of qualified evaluation.

[DL]

You mean like "OMG, this person is hanging all over me and can't seem to move herself. Better stick to bare basics so I don't get hurt." Severe inefficiency in dance movement is generally visible to the eye. If a couple is struggling badly, you can see it.

Well, I'm not so worried about getting hurt, so far.

Frame, posture, and step size convey a lot, just in the first few measures. Why would I lead a newbie with giant continuity steps? It would make us both unhappy; and I've seen far too many lamentations on that subject here to suppose it would be a good idea in any case.

I have guessed that followers make similar assessments in the first few measures of a song, and adjust their frame, amount of contact, step size, figure repertoire (e.g.: "odd lead, but I bet it's not a left whisk!"), etc. according to what the leader feels like -- no?

[DL]

Frame, posture, and step size convey a lot, just in the first few measures.


...and, to be more explicitly on topic (for standard):

If the posture or frame aren't there, I will lead newcomer/bronze steps.

If the posture and frame are there, I'll try a couple of bronze steps and pay attention to balance and step size. If she moves herself, far, in time with me, with balance, I'll try a few silver steps (otherwise back to bronze).

If she's clearly seen the silver steps, on with that (otherwise back to bronze). Then I pay attention to promenade, shape, body contact. If those take effort, I stick to silver.

Beyond that, we're a bit above my social comfort level, but if pressed I'll say I pay attention to her ability to help with floorcraft, and following precision (both, "How accurately can I place her?" and, "Can I play with the timing and expect her to follow me a bit off-beat?").

If all of that goes swimmingly and she seems up for it, I'll be willing in principle to try gold steps -- but I still think those are tough to lead and for now I tend not to try this except with partners I know. Sometimes, too, in that case, I end up leading something like bronze american foxtrot, which can be even better...

With all of that said, I also "promote" certain figures in the syllabus hierarchy -- for example, I won't include a double reverse spin among bronze figures I'll try with a beginner.

[cantskiforlife]

Hmm, I am surprised more people did not respond with their thoughts...

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Some of us are still adjusting our thoughts. ;)

[etp777]

I thought about this thread at the party this weekend watching a new couple dance. They had been taking lessons for several years, and danced with the woman,a nd she certainly knew what she was doing. But watching them do a waltz brought this subject up. They were doing continuity work, and definitely had floorcraft I'd expect of experienced dancers. So First thought says silver (or higher) to me. Also know they were doing steps (outside of plain continuity aspect) that are not on our bronze syllabus. But Very minimal rise and fall, loose frame, etc. So was a little stumped there. Admittedly, could just be that it was a social setting, and could completely understand that as reason to not put in full effort. But maybe that's way they always dance. So, bronze or silver? I don't know. Depends on your criteria, as we've said.

[cantskiforlife]

I think some skills are to be worked on at all levels and are usually cleaned up with time/ experience. For instance Floorcraft. Bad frame and poor rise/fall would identify a bronze dancer. Continuity - I believe it was chris who mentioned that - steps don't actually identify a dancers skill level. Rather, technique and quality of the footwork identifies someone's level.

[reb]

Bad frame and poor rise/fall would identify a bronze dancer.

A Bronze dancer does not need to have a bad frame.

Bad frame and poor rise/fall are not limited to Bronze - or Silver - or students . . .

;)

[Joe]

Bad frame and poor rise/fall would identify a poor dancer.
How about this? :)

[cantskiforlife]

I think what makes this question tough is that each teacher/ student has their own set of skills they choose to work on at one given point.

While one dancer could focus on floorcraft and movement until they are gold quality and at the same time neglect frame and posture, others could focus on frame and posture and neglect floorcraft and movement.

When I think about this problem - what to expect at different levels - I look at individual skills - like frame, toe-heel leads, connection, movement, etc... - as a general concept and then break each one down to what I would expect to see at each level. My example above shows this breakdown.

If one wanted to develop a purely mathematical system for determining skill level, one could easily identify say 15-20 key skills required to ballroom dance well and give each a ranking of importance for each skill level. If you turned this into a weighted-objectives-table, people could be rated on how well they meet each skill and an overall score could be determined. Each skill level would relate to a score range from the chart.

As my explanation may be unclear/confusing, I will try to provide an example in excel over the next few days.

[Chris Stratton]

If one wanted to develop a purely mathematical system for determining skill level, one could easily identify say 15-20 key skills required to ballroom dance well and give each a ranking of importance for each skill level. If you turned this into a weighted-objectives-table, people could be rated on how well they meet each skill and an overall score could be determined. Each skill level would relate to a score range from the chart.

This may work for describing the syllabus track as presented to adults.

But the thing is, it's not descriptive of the progress of the young dancers who become our future champions and professionals. Their progress through the formative years is not measured so much in mastery of details, as it is in energy, capability, and impression. To the extent that they can overcome something like bad footwork, it's not a negative in their performance - until they go up against someone who brings all of the energy and capability that they do, and more, because they are supported by better feet.

Theory aside, the practical reality is that you measure level by the progress of the capability in dancing itself. The technical details come into attention not when they are wrong, but when problems there are functionally impeding the dancing.

That's not to deny in any way that the technical basics receive a lot of work - but dancing is not a sum of the technique; dancing is dancing - technique is a tool to enable it.

[DL]

If you turned this into a weighted-objectives-table, people could be rated on how well they meet each skill and an overall score could be determined.

Well, I'll be curious to see your example, but I think it will work if and only if judges, teachers, and students *all* were to achieve universal consensus on the weights, and the way the skills were defined (and if there is at least one way to define them all orthogonally).

But, I bet everyone can agree that there's a threshold on the table you mention, where if at least score X is achieved in every category, everybody agrees it's significant. I bet that also correlates roughly to a widely -- if loosely -- agreed-upon transition point from syllabus to open.

[cantskiforlife]

Hmm, I just heard that a lot of franchise and mom/pop studios do this in some manner or other. Does anyone have comments on these current systems?

[etp777]

Think you'd be talking about how we test out of syllabus levels at FADS. Have a list of expectations (haven't seen a score sheet in more than a year, so don't remember details, though I'll be testing again sometime this month. not sure when. :D).

But say for begginer to intermediate bronze. Was expected to know steps 1 and 2 in each of my dances danced with my pro. Was expected to be able to do at least one of them by myself. Was expected to be able to dance along to music, have some basic, frame, form, etc (started out tester just put on some music for each dance and had us dance to it, nothing in particular). Now at least some of these things of course have to be objective. But in end, comes up with numeric score. Also three levels of the test, if memory serves. NeilsenE broke it down in another thread. Normal test, honors, and double honors. Or something like that. First two are for students, top is what they expect of teachers (adds in everything, plus lead and follow parts).

Sorry I'm fuzzy on details, but yeah, in end they have numerical judgement of your dancing based on several points, and rate it against what a syllabus dancer of that level shoudl know. Allows for variations in focus (ie, I haven't spent as much time on styling as I have on technique. Not as flashy on floor, but, hopefully, cleaner dancing), while still leaving an overall framework to judge everyoen against. Certainly not perfect, but it's one solution.

[dragon3085]

I have an issue with this. That being, define excell? almost any physical technical skill can be improved on no matter how long you have practiced it, so at point do you decide you have "excelled"? By what criteria do we judge "excelled"? Its a subjective term and people with use it differently. I prefer either the point system or the system where after you take first you get booted up to the next level.
This way people can't stay in say bronze competition for 10 years, if they are doing that they need to be pushed on to the next level. Some people just want to win so they stay at a certain level and become essentially a ringer. This is both selfish on their part and unfair to the true beginners or intermediates or other that actually belong at that level.

Just my 2 cents,
Patrick


I disagree here. One should stay at a level until they excell at that level. I'd hate to have some point system tell me I can't dance at that level anymore. Once I've excelled at that level, say if I win some major comps at a certain level, then I will start competing at the next level.



Open material is just steps and figures that are not in the syllabus. Anyone can do it, but unless you excell in the fundamentals, you can't make it look good.



When I started dancing I thought the syllabus stuff was boring and all I wanted to do was dance open material. I'm glad I had good teachers that knocked some sense into me because I trully feel that my dancing would not be as good as it is today if I had not focused on the basics for so long.

Last amateur comp I went to I saw many couples doing gold or novice open events that looked like they wouldn't even make it through a round in bronze. It was quite entertaining and comical to watch this. I'm sure this would have been me if I had not listened to my teachers.



And this is why when most collegiate dancers go compete outside of the college comps they are completely overmatched. if only they had focused more time and energy in bronze and silver...

[cantdance]

Assuming the levels are based on a dancer's ability, and not the step patters, what would you consider to be the technical characteristics of a bronze level dancer vs. a silver level dancer? Or asked a different way, when judging, what things are you looking to see at each level?

Just wondering...

[pinkstuff]

Dont know if this is of much help - do you mean competing or exams?? Where I am,definitely mostly technique but also new steps allowed at different levels.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Merged threads :)

[Smooth Dancer]

The problem with B-S-G-like levels seems to be when they become barriers. For example, a bronze student ready for some "silver" technique who holds themselves back (or is held back) because they are "not out of bronze yet." Or, conversely, a "silver" student who ignores the basic (i.e., bronze) steps because they are "beyond that." Granted, the levels are indespensible for competition, and useful in a context for training, but I don't think they should build walls.

[MissKitty]

Dancer from New Zealand here, the way your grading works seems so confusing to me! Ours is completely different!

Firstly there are different age groups, all amateur:

Juvenile (under 12)
Junior (13 - 16)
Youth (16-19)
Adult (16 up)
Senior (35 up)

Dancers aged 16-19 can dance both youth and adult, and dancers aged 35 and up can dance both adult and senior.

In each age group there are 5 levels (grades) 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

Level 1 is new/beginner couples, and Level 5 is the highest level excluding professional.

Every couple is allowed to compete in their current grade, the next grade up, and any open events. To move up to the next grade you must win your own grade 6 times OR win the grade ABOVE you (subject to their being at least 6 couples on the floor)

E.g. we are a level one couple and have won our grade 3 times. To move up to level two we either have to win level one 3 more times, or win a level 2 event. Open events do not affect levels.

Hopefully this makes sense!

Im guessing Level 1 is similar to your Bronze. You would expect to see couples dancing in time with the music, a tidy frame, a good grasp of action (e.g. bounce in Samba) and developing technique.