Are competitive dancers "better"?

[etchuck]

Okay, it's time for yours truly to go through a psychoanalysis session with you all.

I'm not sure but I've had this weird inferiority complex probably brought about by the competitive dancing world where it appears that because I prefer social dancing (and thus don't have a set dance partner per se), my dancing is not as good (or may never be as good) as competitive dancers. Or so I get the impression whether on the social floor where more "serious" dancers tend to cluster with their own.

So do you agree: are competitive dancers "better" dancers than social dancers?

[dancin_feet]

To me competitive dancing is just a different style to social dancing. Is one better than the other? Absolutely not.

[Genesius Redux]

I think you already know how you would answer your own question. There is no doubt whatever that competition and consistent work with a steady partner allows you to do more than you can do in a social setting. You can move on a relatively uncrowded floor, and work on patterns and variations you've practiced many times with each other.

Competition is about performance and social dancing is about socializing through dance. It's a question of what you want--I like doing both.

Cheers,

Genesius

[d nice]

No... a competition dancer is better generally at performing what the judges want to see... but that does not make for good or even particularly exciting/meaningful dancing necessarily.

I've seen social dancers in just about every dance form that could easily hold there own. Competition gives many people a definitive goal to work towards, and competitive dancing gives them a very specific set of absolutes to use... steps, angles, strict posture, mandated and recognized syllabus... at the same time since they so often work with the same partner their lead/follow degenerates, physical body leads can become suggested leads, and suggested leads can become signals, and signals assumptions... By being restricted to syllubus steps competitive dancers can lose or fail to develop creativity and the ability to emote... in short it transitions from an art (personal expression through a medium) to a sport, a physical ideal and goal which all athletes seek to achieve.

In the swing world there are dancers who only dance socially but practice as hard, and some times even harder than competitive dancers. Not just in developing technique but in breaking down old film clips, seeking oput mentors in the form of dancers from the 30's and studying the history written, oral, and on film exhaustively.

You are as good as your own dedication to your improvement.

[dancingdragon]

You are as good as your own dedication to your improvement.

I like that D Spot!

[D-spot]

Why thanks, if I had said it (probably will sometime). Anyway, thanks d nice.

Having seen one couple perform latin one evening very nicely, they then came back onto the floor to demonstrate freestyle dancing. Rumba, nice and slow allowing lotsof time for information processing. Musta bin cold or something. Lots of missed leads and poor follows (usually quite well recovered from) but several of the better ballroom dancers there (it was a line dancing and ballroom combined night) were not mightily impressed it must be said (or not, but hey, there it is).

Competition is all about looking as if they have lead/follow not necessarily actually being able to do it correctly. Social dancers don't have to look good but they have to be able to do lead/follow.

Took part in public demos recently with a competitive couple. They looked great when performing their routines. Far far better looking than I will ever be. However, as the music lasted longer than their routines they fell back on freestyle and there was big differences in their ability. Even to the stage where they were walking off the floor before the music finished leaving myself and partner to walk on and continue in the time honoured fashion. What a blast we all had never the less.
D-spot.
(socialite, wishes he could also look good and have the best of both worlds)

[Genesius Redux]

Competition is all about looking as if they have lead/follow not necessarily actually being able to do it correctly. Social dancers don't have to look good but they have to be able to do lead/follow.

I dunno--I've got to disagree with this a little. Yes, there are some competitors who follow choreography rather than actually leading and following. But I think most judges can tell when there is a connection and when a couple is merely following rehearsed steps. At the technical level, I don't see a difference between "looking like" you can lead/follow, and actually doing it. If you "look like" you have that slight in-connection before a back-break in rumba, for instance, then you have it. If you do the same step without that in-connection, it will look like you're simply following a set of choreographed steps, because that's what you're doing.

Likewise with the couple who ran out of steps before the music was over. That sounds like inexperience or insufficient training to me, pure and simple. Moreover, a great many successful competitors are also teaching and have plenty of experience freestyling, leading and following a variety of partners. Quite a few of the competitors where I dance, pro and am, go out social dancing--and they're quite good.

In fact, my own experience in social dancing and clubbing is that you really don't get much in the way of instruction in the technique of lead and follow--unless you get private instruction on top of whatever group classes the club offers, or if you have a good dance foundation allowing you to figure out technical aspects of lead/follow that are not necessarily being taught in detail.

And I think, finally, we've all seen far more examples of strictly social dancers who would have a hard time competing than we have strictly competitive dancers who would have trouble on the social floor. Dance films are filled with depictions of competitors who are too stiff, too formal, too patterned, and who are "rescued" by the outcast social dancer who teaches them how to find the joy in dance again. But those are fictions, movie illusions.

Let me be quick to add that I'm not disparaging those who want to dance strictly socially. I just don't think that always dancing on the social floor, crowded and chaotic, allows you to explore dance possibilities as much as working with a regular partner and occasionally competing.

Nor have I heard competitive dancers complain about social dancing in any different way than everyone on these forums complains--people who don't follow, who anticipate, who lead too hard, or not at all, etc. I don't know any competitive dancers, pro or am, who question the ability of the people who dance mostly socially. If there is a sense of inferiority in strictly social dancers, that may come from within--so if anyone feels that social dancing isn't quite enough, I'd encourage them to try competing a little and see how they like it.

I train for competition, but I go out social dancing as well--and I'm not exactly hard up for people who like to dance with me. So I guess my teachers and my coaches must be doing something right!

Cheers,

Genesius

[d nice]

I have met a number of competitive dancers who couldn't lead or follow on the social floor. All the practice with a single person and not enough actual social dancing does not bring much to the table as far as true lead follow... which isn't about executing steps but compensating for dozens of minor changes in your partner and the dance floor around you that are unexpected... all without any noticable adjustment.

I also know plenty of competitive dancers who enjoy the dance as a sport... something to show their supereriority or mastery of the dance over others... and who don't dance the dance out of joy of expression or human interaction.

The difference I think you might be missing GR is that while one can be both a competitive dancer and a social dancer... there are competitive dancers who occassionally social dance and social dancers who occassionaly competes. Then there are those who only social dance or only compete. Those that only compete with choreography, and rarely freestyle or do both but only with there dance partner are very different than the compettors I think you are talking about for the most part.

[Genesius Redux]

The difference I think you might be missing GR is that one can be both a competitive dancer and a social dancer... which is not the same as being a competitive dancer who occassionally social dances or a social dancer ho occassionaly competes. let alone one who only social dances or only competes. Those that only compete with choreography, and rarely freestyle or do both but only with there dance partner are very different than the compettors I think you are talking about for the most part.

Well, yes--that's kind of what I was thinking about. I guess it depends a lot on who you're hanging out with. The dance scene is a rather small here in Nashville, and most of the dancers whom I know do both competition and social dancing. I only know one person who only competes in choreographed solo events, and you're right, she's not the best person to dance with socially (although it's a lot of fun to drink with her!).

Cheers,

Genesius

[delamusica]

These competitive dancers who can't lead and follow aren't dancing with each other at all and just doing things by rote - true. But just because they're competing doesn't make them good dancers, and just because a person prefers to dance socially doesn't make them bad. A good competitive dancer HAS to have a good connection/sense of lead and follow with their partner! Even when you're doing choreography, you still have to be doing it TOGETHER! My partner and I have been competing for over five years, doing open choreography (including some syllabus steps, but definitely not all the time) and at least 85% of what we work on in our lessons is connection. When you're doing complicated choreography and your lead/follow is off you just knock each other over.

[Vince A]

This is a pretty touchy subject, and the argument could go on forever! There are so many variables that could affect either the social or competitive dancer. Abilities -knows how to dance or doesn't know any dances? . . . natural rhythm or two-left feet?. . . know music or doesn't know music? . . . has money or has no money? (and believe me, this does affect a dancer's ability to be good) . . . fast learner or slow learner . . . can stand the pressure of a competition or gets nervous at the though of it . . . and so on.

I think that the competitive dance may get to a certain skill level quicker, but that still doesn't make them a better social dancer. On the other hand, I know some social dancers who have absolutely no idea of what the "technical" aspects of a specific dance is, and . . . they have a hard time leading and they look like hell. I also know competitive dancers who compete in at least 10 dances, and maybe, can only socially lead two of them.

[jon]

The theory behind Jack & Jill competition format is to mix up the competitors so you're really testing their ability to do lead-follow, improvisational dancing.

I'm not sure how well it works in reality, though, because at the advanced levels most of the J&J competitors dance a lot with each other socially anyway. These days some of the WCS pros even seem to be swapping partners for choreographed performances on occasion.

[d nice]

True and true Jon, but to my knowledge Ballroom competitions don't have J&J divisions, and I think that is what a number of people are talking about in regards to the difference between a social dancer and competitve dancer. Swing dances are still primarily considered social, while the efforts of many ballroom organizations is to elevate ballroom dancing to sport status effectively removing it from the social floor in the eyes of many people.

[jon]

True and true Jon, but to my knowledge Ballroom competitions don't have J&J divisions, and I think that is what a number of people are talking about in regards to the difference between a social dancer and competitve dancer.

Understood. I wanted to make the point that not all dance competition has the choreographed nature that people are commenting on.

Swing dances are still primarily considered social, while the efforts of many ballroom organizations is to elevate ballroom dancing to sport status effectively removing it from the social floor in the eyes of many people.

Yes - and I think that will end up being really negative for social ballroom dancing if they succeed. OTOH I doubt they'll ever succeed, short of introducing combat ballroom dancing or another injury/blood-sport variant. But USABDA will follow their imperative come what may.

As far as etchuck's original question, social and competitive dancers are different; trying to say one is "better" than the other just reveals the preferences of the person who's saying it. My preferences are that I like non-competitive social dancing of many sorts, can watch a certain amount of swing and salsa competition with mild interest (but tend to drowse off in my chair after an hour or so), and wouldn't mind if ballroom competitions ceased existence tomorrow. Living Tradition (http://www.ltdance.com/who_we_are.html)'s philosophy resonates strongly with me.

[pygmalion]

Just curious because I'm at a personal crossroads, jon. Why would you be okay if ballroom competitions ceased to exist? (It's okay if you don't answer in the forums. I don't want to put you on the spot. But Jennifer, the person, not pygmalion, the moderator, wants to know. So if you don't want to answer publicly, please PM me. Thanks for your input. You have a very balanced and intelligent view of this stuff, I think. 8) )

[jon]

Just curious because I'm at a personal crossroads, jon. Why would you be okay if ballroom competitions ceased to exist?

I find the competition / sport imperative to be largely, though not entirely at odds with the attributes I value in social dancing, and they compete for the same pool of potential dancers.

The more focus the ballroom world has on competitions, strict syllabus dancing, pro-am lessons, costumes, closed studio environments, and related stuff, the less room there is for interesting music, healthy dance communities (where "community" is something more than "a bunch of people who see each other every week"), accessibility to people who aren't financially well off (I was a poor grad student for a very long time), the folk process ("folk dancing" being a corruption of "folks dancing" :-)), and related stuff.

But that's just IMNSHO. Fortunately people get to make their own choices and find dance venues that satisfy them. Or at least people in large urban areas with lots of dance options get to do that :?.

[pygmalion]

Hmm. I'm pondering. I may not post something that makes my response obvious, at least not anytime soon. But I'm pondering. :? :)


Thanks for being honest. :D

[dragon3085]

I am not quite sure what you mean by better, but I will say yes in some ways Comp dances tend to be better- But they are also worse in other ways. The minute you call something a competition you introduce something called rules, and if you want to win, you have got to know how to play the rules. So in some concepts comp dancers excel, they have to or they won't win. But in order to win, they have to dance that way all the time, whenever they get the chance. Its just like a lot of martial artist don't have success crossing over into boxing because among other things the new rules forbid them from using their legs for kicking. Same way when I dance salsa with some comp dancers, I have essentialy chosen a dance very lax on rules, but because they dance by their rules all the the time, they tend to be stiff and proper for salsa. This is only an example and is not meant to imply that all comp dancers are this way. Already you see some changes, I know that on the Arthur Murray front, there are now profession open divisions for salsa, hustle and WC I think. This means a new set of rules for the competitiors but hopefully it will favor the more relaxed dancers because these dance are laid back ones, I hope this makes sense, the more I read the more it seems I'm starting to ramble,,,
:-)

[jon]

One more visceral reason: high level ballroom competitors are amazingly skilled, far more so than I will ever be. I admire their skills and the effort they put into developing them.

But I never, ever want to look like them when I dance.

[pygmalion]

LOL. Yeah. The facial expressions, hand and arm styling, and a few other things can be a bit over the top, IMHO. I wonder what they do if they ever go social dancing.

It must be quite startling if you ever see them at a USABDA dance. :shock: :shock: Half naked, with facial expressions and makeup that spell out blatant sexuality at 100 yards (but up close, look clownish LOL).

I'm pretty sure that I don't want to emulate them, beyond a certain point. :lol: :lol:

[Kitty]

Competition is all about looking as if they have lead/follow not necessarily actually being able to do it correctly. Social dancers don't have to look good but they have to be able to do lead/follow.


You don't have to look in competition like it is lead and follow, you can look like it is choreographed (esp. open) - that's ok.

Also, Standard and smooth is always lead and follow in competition - because it depends on position in the room and couples around.

But I agree about good looking aspect. Many social dancers don't care about the look while for competitors it is the most important aspect.

[tsb]

Competition is all about looking as if they have lead/follow not necessarily actually being able to do it correctly.

if you look closely you can discern varied levels of connection / lead & follow between competitive couples. not sure if the judges care or not though.

[Kitty]

Just curious because I'm at a personal crossroads, jon. Why would you be okay if ballroom competitions ceased to exist?

The more focus the ballroom world has on competitions, strict syllabus dancing, pro-am lessons, costumes, closed studio environments, and related stuff, the less room there is for interesting music, healthy dance communities (where "community" is something more than "a bunch of people who see each other every week"), accessibility to people who aren't financially well off (I was a poor grad student for a very long time), the folk process ("folk dancing" being a corruption of "folks dancing" :-)), and related stuff.


Commenting on strict syllabus: If not strict syllabus different dances would not be so different anymore. You are learning steps for cha-cha different from mambo or american cha-cha, until your skills are high enough for you to make up stuff that is consistent with the style of dance: so that your cha-cha is different from your mambo. I have seen social dancers who make up steps in all dances, but all of those steps look like salsa. If not strict syllabus, different dances would loose a lot of their character.

[Kitty]

LOL. Yeah. The facial expressions, hand and arm styling, and a few other things can be a bit over the top, IMHO. I wonder what they do if they ever go social dancing.


At social dances most of those top competitors look just like everybody else, and their dancing is relaxed, facial experssions normal and make up not excessive. Also, normal people don't practice competition routines at socials (at least not more than once in the evening) - because it is a social, not a practice!

Make up and ridiculous costumes and choreographed routines are for competitions only. It is like doctors wearing white uniforms at work: do you think they dress up like that at home?

[SDsalsaguy]

You mean that's not how you play doctor? :shock: :oops:

[Genesius Redux]

It must be quite startling if you ever see them at a USABDA dance. :shock: :shock: Half naked, with facial expressions and makeup that spell out blatant sexuality at 100 yards (but up close, look clownish LOL).

:lol: Theatre requires makeup. The lights are intense and you don't want to look like Richard Nixon. But it's illusion. I had a couple of friends who played the roles of Richard and Phillip in The Lion in Winter at a small professional theatre. There was a special performance for some local schools, with Q&A afterwards. And of course the first thing they were asked--"Are you two really like, boyfriends?" :lol: