What makes someone a pro?

[KevinL]

Several threads have mentioned a "pro" who appeared not to be acting in a professional manner, for example signing a student up for _every_ pro-am event that they could even though it was obvious that the student wasn't ready for several of the events. The poster didn't mention having spoken to the individuals, though, so it could have been the student who wanted to sign up for all the events.

I know of one person who wanted to take their teacher certification exam, but they were so woefully unprepared that they couldn't really answer any of the questions. The examiner (I heard afterward) eventually just started asking for the person to dance the pattern, without bothering to try to answer the technical aspects. The person failed the exam, of course, but felt it was a valuable experience nonetheless.

This isn't well connected to that story, but in your opinion what makes someone a "pro"? There isn't a required certification (like those required for hairdresses) for someone to be a dance teacher, so in reality anyone can call themselves a pro.

In my opinion anyone who accepts money for teaching dance is a pro, even if they don't try to make a living teaching dance. Do you agree? Does accepting money make you a "pro"?

There is another side to the rhombus, of course. What about the competitive amateurs? They aren't pros in the sense of earning money (even if they win scholarships - those don't count), but their level of technical ability would make non-dancers think of them as professionals. Do they count as "pros"? (Not by my definition.)

Yet another side to the rhombus is those individuals who are technically professionals, meaning they actually know what they are doing, and accpet money for their expertise, but who don't act like professionals. Are "pros" who behave non-professionally still pros?

What is your opinion? What makes someone a pro?

Kevin

[Genesius Redux]

When I think about how I use the word professional, there are two usages that come to mind. One is merely descriptive--"such and such is a professional musician," meaning he makes his living performing music, whether he's Trane or Kenny G.

The other usage, though, is more evaluative. As in "so and so is a real professional." And to me that denotes, above all, a seriousness before a subject, a breadth of knowledge about that subject that goes beyond rote and technicality, and an openness to new ideas and approaches to the subject (or the profession).

To me, the second is far more important than the first. If I say about a person, "Oh, yeah, Kevin. Great dancer, really nice guy. Yeah, I'd take lessons from him, he's a real pro." That's about the highest compliment I can give.

The opposite in mind to "professional" as I use it is not "amateur." It's "dilettante."

[pygmalion]

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them. :(

[TemptressToo]

I think it comes when they no longer need instruction and can hold their own. Dancer are always learning and progressing...but there comes a point when a teacher just can't teach you anything more. As a dancer, you will continue to improve with practice, but for the most part, you have mastered the technique needed to succeed. From here, the world is your oyster...you can choreograph, compete, and hang with most situations. The final key ingredient is the talent. Dancing can be learned, but those with talent can excell.

I myself would love to go pro. The question is, do I have the talent and ability it takes to do so? At present, I am lacking one bank robbery from my goal. ;) I think I probably could with the right partner and training. After only four months, I've had people mistake me for an instructor...while others say that I just glow on the floor...drawing attention no matter what I do.

[Genesius Redux]

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them. :(

Yes, there are. And there are dilettantes who have very successful careers as professional actors while other very professional people go along unnoticed in community theatres across the country.

Luckily, though, everyone else can benefit from our brilliant insights. You know, we should do a radio show together. :wink:

[pygmalion]

I guess I should expand on the dilettante remark. No need to be cryptic.

Incidentally, back when I was a struggling high school musician, we defined professional as getting paid to do it. So we were pros. LOL! Admittedly, we played assorted happy hours and weddings and didn't get paid much more than good will for our school, but we considered ourselves pros, because we did get paid.

My personal definition has changed a bit. I guess you could use a paycheck as the criterion, if you wanted. But, to me, the word professional carries a deeper meaning. To me, it's someone who takes their craft seriously, even if they're NOT getting paid for it, or it's not their livelihood.

Let me give you an example.

A dance pro who isn't I've known more than a few ballroom dance "pros" who didn't study anything on their own time, didn't know the ins and outs of ballroom shoes, couldn't name any of the US or international high levels competitors, couldn't make a coherent argument as to why one might choose social versus competitive dance, knew nothing about local competitions or national dance governing organizations, and so on. Yet these people were being paid to teach in a social dance studio. So, by some definitions (not mine) they were pros.


Hmm.

[pygmalion]

And, sadly, there are dilettantes who get paid to teach dance. I know a few of them. :(

Yes, there are. And there are dilettantes who have very successful careers as professional actors while other very professional people go along unnoticed in community theatres across the country.


Can you say J-Lo? :twisted: :lol: Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[tasche]

An anology I can think of is the guy taking photos at sears or glamour shots a professional photographer? Not really at least not according real pros. Sure they get paid....

I consider a professional to be someone who has learnt and honed their craft

[pygmalion]

That's a great illustration, tasche.

The other day, I was at the supermarket and overhead a couple cashiers planning to go apply for cashier positions at Walmart. Why? Because, if you do well as a cashier, you can get promoted to the position of photographer. :shock:

Perfect illustration. 8)

[tasche]

Oy! My husband was/is a professional photographer ( he has a day job though) and it always bites my a that people come to expect a pro job to cost the same as glamour shots or sears.

Or my pet peeve is when they say to him " Oh your camera takes such good pictures" and he replies "No its the photographer that takes good pictures", "Yeah but your camera is so good.."

Some ppl...

[Genesius Redux]

It "bites your a"?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, you're right, people don't think of what a professional charges at all; my most recent headshots were for a sitting fee of $180, which included all the negatives--and that was a steal!

[DanceAm]

In a sport, even dancesport, the most simple distinction is a pro earns money and an amateur doesn't. An amateur athlete used to be disqualified if for example, a towel boy or lifeguard at a swimming pool was considered a professional swimmer.

Life and Dancesport are not so Black and White. And loopholes surround some dancers so they remain amateurs.

An amateur can get scholarships, as long as that money is used for dance. He can teach, so long as he is not getting monitarily compensated and it is part of his studies, like assisting or teaching is required as part of a dance class cirriculum. Or, he can teach for money as long as he is within a top percentage of amateur atheletes and he/she doesn't make more than he/she spends on dance expenses. An amateur is expected to pay his living expenses out of something other than dance. However, personal grants or corporate sponsoships are OK. Also, I heard there are studios that employ top amateurs as teachers, and the studio provides them room and board for free. Technically, this should be added as income and if the total exceeds the dance expenses, it should make the amateur ineligible, but how is that different from Corporate sponsorship? Just because the Corporate entity is a Dance Studio.

This is the reason the NDCA and USABDA have had recent differences. What the NDCA believes to be amateur is not what USABDA believes. USABDA allowed certain amateurs to teach based on the criteria above and the NDCA said that made them pros. But the NDCA is not the sanctioned body to determine amateur status by the ISDF. So USABDA has not done anything to change their position, and the NDCA got so upset, they started their own amateur circuit and have come up with their own amateur rules. We were talking 80,000 bucks made a year by amateurs, which is just a drop in the bucket compared to millions made by professionals every year. But, when you think about it, if making money makes you a pro, then the NDCA is correct.

The reason USABDA did this was to give our top amateurs a chance to make money like many other amateurs around the world. It just didn't seem fair that our amateurs had to find all the money themselves and other international competitors could make money teaching.

Being an Amateur under the NDCA is very similar to USABDA, and top amateurs can make money teaching, so long as they are International Latin or Standard competitors. The NDCA doesn't allow it for American Competitors because they will not compete internationally, so they don't need the advantages the other competitors have in other countries. Which I think is a valid point. So since USABDA and the NDCA are really close in their thinking, why are they still split on the issue? I think the NDCA made the first compromise by letting international competitors teach, why can't USABDA just come back and say, OK, we won't let American style competitors compete?

It is simply a standoff. USABDA has failed miserably at getting more corporate sponsorship for Dancesport athletes and the NDCA is trying to protect the livelyhood of its registrants and member organizations like Arthur Murry.

Can either of these organizations truely help Amateur Dancesport? Who is really losing out? The non-championship level competitors. They can't teach, but still the same they must pay more for Dancesport Athlete membership from USABDA and now the NDCA requires registration and charges a fee as well. The NDCA used to accept the USABDA membership but not any longer. And USABDA has raised its fees.

If you can't tell, I am upset with both for how they are handling this. USABDA makes decisions in favor of top level competitors or Social Dancers, it has yet to make a decision that hasn't cost me more money. The NDCA, charges me for a membership, but still cannot make Amateur couple competition more popular at its comps. The last one I went to, it was a 5 dance Championship exhibition, there were no other couples signed up. And the self governing and self enforcing of rules that USABDA uses for the Dancesport Athletes is just loaded with confusion and abuse.

I think it is time for Amatuer Dancesport to create it's own entity. With a group of people that will govern without worrying about teachers making money or social dancer membership dropping. The NCAA is a prime example of what I am talking about. A group like that could be out there getting corportate sponsorship, getting TV airtime, and organizing and governing the competitors. Most think without the volunteers that USABDA has it would fail. But with people in charge that know how to solve monitary issues, it would get better faster. I think it is time to start thinking outside the NDCA and USABDA.

[tasche]

That is a steal. Negatives included WOW

Though heres another thing to consider. A mark of a good professional is not underpricing your work. You can find wedding photographers that will do you wedding for $300 I find that sad. I guess you get what you pay for but still..

[Genesius Redux]

That is a steal. Negatives included WOW

Though heres another thing to consider. A mark of a good professional is not underpricing your work. You can find wedding photographers that will do you wedding for $300 I find that sad. I guess you get what you pay for but still..

Well, remember also that I'm in Music City, and there's a lot of competition for professional headshots--plus I got this photographer from another professional recommendation, and she comes down for struggling actor types.

But yes, you're right. I don't like underpricing--it makes it look like you don't have any respect for your own work.

[pygmalion]

Yes. That is a steal!

DanceAm, Wow! You have a lot to say about this topic. I'm going to have to go back and read through your post carefully before I reply fully.

What I know already I can agree with is that neither NDCA nor USABDA has a working definition of amateur vs. pro that works without exception. (I guess that's what makes this such an interesting thread LOL!)

Your suggestion that amateur dancesport have its own organization? I don't know. My approach has always been to work within an existing organization first, before starting something new. But you clearly have more expereice than I with both NDCA and USABDA. You may be right. It may be time for something completely different. Let me ponder, then come back and post. 8)

[TemptressToo]

I cheat when it comes to getting good photographers. ;) I get such things for free simply because I am well connected and they respect me. When it comes down to my wedding photos...I'll have an internationally published pro by my side. I can also tell in a heartbeat the difference between an amateur, pro or semi-pro. When you have worked with the best and seen what they produce...it is hard to settle for any less.

I'm spoiled. :D

[pygmalion]

When I read the title of this topic, the question I heard as implied was,"does being paid to dance or teach dance make someone a dance pro?"

I'm not sure if that's what you intended to ask, Kevin, but my answer is no. For me to consider him/her a pro, a dancer or dance teacher has to bring a heck of a lot more to the table than just a pay stub.

[Porfirio Landeros]

The NDCA doesn't allow it for American Competitors because they will not compete internationally, so they don't need the advantages the other competitors have in other countries. Which I think is a valid point. So since USABDA and the NDCA are really close in their thinking, why are they still split on the issue? I think the NDCA made the first compromise by letting international competitors teach, why can't USABDA just come back and say, OK, we won't let American style competitors compete?

I think you summarized everything accurately, and you make really good points. I have a different take, though, when it comes to who should and should not get "advantages."

Just because American style athletes only compete domestically doesn't seem like a good enough reason to NOT allow 'them' to teach (or accept monies) for dancesport. I have to pay for the same coaches that International Style dancers use, and dancers having the ability to afford more lessons can only better American style as a sport overall. International style has seen vast improvements abroad because Amateurs have had to worry less about affording lessons and more about the quality of their dancing. This is how I feel about American style - I should be able, after a long day of working in front of a computer, to dance till I fall into bed, without stopping because I'm watching my budget. If I'm able to get performance "gigs" and teach at places the NDCA wouldn't touch w/ a 10-foot pole to help me pay for more lessons, constumes and practice time (not my rent or car payments), why not?

Currently, I am a USABDA Elite dancer, yet the NDCA would consider me pro if I got a paying teaching job. I don't want to be a dance teacher (right now); I want to continue to improve my dancing by any fair means necessary. Only giving advantages to International style dancers makes this unfair (to me). So, I believe it should be all or nothing, and I believe that in giving non-for-profit teaching rights to amateurs, the quality of the sport will accelerate (and coach pocket books will fill faster *hint to the NDCA*).

[pygmalion]

I guess the hairy question also implied here is," if you're in dance up to your eyeballs, teaching dance, and being paid to teach, how are you NOT a pro?"

Truth be told, I guess comp organizers and dance officials care about the answer to that one, but I, as a student, don't much care. If the person teaching me knows significantly more than I do, takes dance at least as seriously as I do, and knows how to teach, I don't much care whether the person is designated as an amateur or a pro.

I think USABDA and NDCA care, for obvious reasons. But I, an average dance student, don't care at all.

[Porfirio Landeros]

I guess the hairy question also implied here is," if you're in dance up to your eyeballs, teaching dance, and being paid to teach, how are you NOT a pro?"

Dancing doesn't pay my bills. When people I've never met before ask me what I do for living, I don't say Ballroom Dance Competitor. So, I have a hard time believing I'm "pro", even though there are definitions out there that call me that.

As brought up earlier, sometimes people call high-level dancers "pro" because the average person doesn't acquire that level of skill. If they want to change the definition to that, then fine, I'll be pro.

For now, it seems like the definition revolves around time and money, but there are so many ways to shield this. As I've said on other threads, I'm not opposed to eliminating pro/am distinctions, and you measure your proficiency in competitive dance by how you travel up the ranks in a more stratafied competitive system.

I guess for now, we can conclude that we're all Professional Dance-Forums Contributers (even though we're not paid ;)).

[pygmalion]

Oh, Porfirio, I missed your post. I guess you and I must have been posting at the same time.

Yes, I think it's wrong that excellent dancers like you are prohibited from teaching for money because of some arbitrary designation. It just doesn't make sense to me, particularly when, as DanceAm points out, there are some people out there working around the loopholes to their advantage.

As I said, from the student perspective, getting a good teacher is the aim. How the teacher is categorized makes no difference to the people on the street, at least the ones I know.

[pygmalion]

So here's a question. what would happen if I found a high-ranked amateur here in Florida and approached him with a barter deal. If he taught me, I'd do computer system set-up and data analysis for him? That would make him an amateur, right?

If so, there's something wrong with this system.

[pygmalion]

Um. And just a completely innocent question. Is this an issue in the UK or other parts of the world? I truly don't know the answer. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I want to know.

[Genesius Redux]

Yes, the current pro/am designations are only meaningful in the context of competitive organizations. I think Kevin's original question, as I read it anyway, was about what from the standpoint of someone who would want to work with a dancer would constitute professionalism.

So that's why I gave my ideas about what a professional is. Like TT, I'll only work with pros--in anything that I do. Whether it's for money or not.

[pygmalion]

Yes, I think it's wrong that excellent dancers like you are prohibited from teaching for money because of some arbitrary designation. It just doesn't make sense to me, particularly when, as DanceAm points out, there are some people out there working around the loopholes to their advantage.



Oh, btw, if I come to Cali, what would you like in trade for you and your partner to teach me a thing or two (or fifteen?) New shoes? A dance store gift certificate? Paid entry fees for a comp? New jewelery or a shirt for an upcoming comp? No sarcasm intended, here. One, my dance trip to Cali will happen, and when it does, I'm going to email you. I have a lot I can learn from you. And two, I'm illustrating the fact that it's easy to work around virtually any rule on the books, if you're devious enough (and I am. LOL)

[tasche]

But isn't barter considered to be "income" my the irs? If so would that be considered income by the NDCA. Though the loophole is that you would be given a "scholorship" by pygmalion then teach as a "favor"

I wonder if a better solution is to allow ams to teach up to a certain level and then after that you ahve to be a certified pro. When I was teaching flute in highschool and college ( yes I'm a jack of all trades. Tell me I need to earn money and I'll figure out 100 ways) I was certified to teach up to the grade 5 level only. Perhaps this is a great way to build dancesport. I know at my middle school dancesport was taught by one fo the teachers (different country) and a coach was brought in once a week in the winter semester.

pygmalion if your planning to come to LA look me up.

[Porfirio Landeros]

New shoes? A dance store gift certificate? Paid entry fees for a comp? New jewelery or a shirt for an upcoming comp? No sarcasm intended, here.

I feel like a kid in a candy store!!! :shock:

You can just email me when it's getting close. In all honesty, I'd feel like doing you better justice by "hooking you up" with the talent around town. There are too many former world/national champions around here for you to wanna mess around with me ;)

If you cover the floor fee, you and I can dance around a bit, but some day, I may call on you for a favor :twisted: Also, save your money for admission to some dancing... I'm sure SDSalsaGuy will wanna see you in da' club ;)

[pygmalion]

Porfirio,

You are a gem. Yes. There is other talent in town. I can do google searches, so I already knew that. But, truth be told, there's a lot of relatively untapped talent, like you. I'm going to look you up when I'm headed your way, and recommend the same thing to a bunch of friends. *hugs*
[/b]

[Warren J. Dew]

Like Genesius, I would use two definitions.

When apposed to "amateur," a "professional" is anyone who takes money for teaching or dancing, where an amateur does not.

When apposed to "unprofessional", a "professional" is anyone who acts professionally - competently, honestly, and in a businesslike manner.

An anology I can think of is the guy taking photos at sears or glamour shots a professional photographer? Not really at least not according real pros. Sure they get paid....

Then again, I know of some photographers who are 'professionals' in that they make good livings at it, but are not at all 'professional' in terms of how they actually act at, say, the weddings they do - the kind that, for example, show up to a formal wedding in a t-shirt and corduroys. I have no problem calling someone who takes my passport photographs a "professional photographer" if they are, in fact, professional about it, including doing a good job with the photography.

[Warren J. Dew]

Currently, I am a USABDA Elite dancer, yet the NDCA would consider me pro if I got a paying teaching job. I don't want to be a dance teacher (right now); I want to continue to improve my dancing by any fair means necessary. Only giving advantages to International style dancers makes this unfair (to me).
Actually, the way the NDCA handles things, those competitors can't compete against you, so there's no unfairness.

That's because the NDCA's "teaching for money but not professional" category is not their "amateur" category, but a separate category that they call "world competitor". People in that category are not allowed to compete in NDCA "Amateur" events; they are only allowed to compete in the "World Competitor" category. (Amateurs are allowed to compete in both.)

Since there aren't any "world competitor" American style events, you won't be competing against any of those couples, so you needn't worry, at least at NDCA events.

Yes, I think it's wrong that excellent dancers like you are prohibited from teaching for money because of some arbitrary designation.

I'd note that no one is prohibited from teaching for money - anyone can teach for money, and turn pro, and compete against other pros. The only thing that is sometimes prohibited is teaching for money and still competing, unfairly, against amateurs who are not teaching for money.

[tasche]

An anology I can think of is the guy taking photos at sears or glamour shots a professional photographer? Not really at least not according real pros. Sure they get paid....Then again, I know of some photographers who are 'professionals' in that they make good livings at it, but are not at all 'professional' in terms of how they actually act at, say, the weddings they do - the kind that, for example, show up to a formal wedding in a t-shirt and corduroys. I have no problem calling someone who takes my passport photographs a "professional photographer" if they are, in fact, professional about it, including doing a good job with the photography.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make I think you've hit it on the head. A pro is someone that provides a quality product in a respectable manner.

In general the "happy snaps" places tend to have employees that are laize fair and dont put out the best product ( lots of filters and cheap tricks to hide less that great shots) on the other hand a passport photo place if they can do a good photo the first time and treats the customer with repect then they should be called a pro. ( I have the best passport photo in the world that was taken at a small chemist)

So its all about being able to both walk the walk and talk the talk.

I think most people know a true pro when they run into them (hopefully!)

[Porfirio Landeros]

Actually, the way the NDCA handles things, those competitors can't compete against you, so there's no unfairness.

What I perceive as unfair is treating one style differently than the other. When Standard/Latin amateurs can accept cash from dance activities, and put it back into their dancing, they are able to improve their field at a faster rate than the Smooth/Rhythm dancers that are left to fend for themselves because of out-of-date amateur definitions - the ability to afford more lessons means better dancing, right?

As impractical as this sounds, heaven would be free lesson for amateurs. The government could issue grants for the practice facilities, and patrons of the arts could underwrite competitions, while corporate sponsors could pay for our coaching. YEAH RIGHT :roll:

I think the closest we can get to heaven on Earth is allowing amateurs to get as close to "free" as possible by letting them earn some dance income to pay for more dancing. In the end, the ballrooms, competition organizers, and coaches still get paid (I'd be taking 10 lessons a week ;))! That's why I don't understand what they're afraid of.

So you're right, the floor is level when it comes comparing competitors within American style, but, why should a gap in resources be advocated by leaving these dedicated amateurs in the shadow of International style?

[DanceAm]

Before I start this next post, I dance American Style, I love American Style and I will probably always consider myself an American Style dancer.

Last year's Amateur American Rhythm Champions were/are Jeff and Alison Small. After winning, Jeff admitting saying something like, "How does it feel to be the Champions of Social Dance". They have retired from American Style and are now competing International Latin, in the Senior 1, (over 35) division. Since they finished in the top 2, they are world representitives. They are now dancing in a "REAL" division. They have also danced in Prague representing our country. As a side note, Jonathan Medlin and Loren Rand, the American Smooth Champions, are also working their way up through the Standard Ranks.

When I read that Jeff said that, it sort of hurt. But when I thought about it, he was right. I don't think in Pro Levels this is true, but in the Amateur level, it appears to be that way, especially for American Rhythm.

This being said, it seems the American competitors are what I would consider more along the line of being true amateurs. International style seems to have more of a Professional flavor to it and the talent is much higher and more plentiful than in American Style.

With the definitions of Amateur and Professional and vagueness of what they are in real life, I wish that USABDA had followed through with getting rid of the distinction. It is so common hear "He is just an Amateur, let a pro do it." In everyday life, pro indicates competence and amateur indicates it is a beginner, or weekend practicianer, or simply not competent. The old definition simply doesn't apply and simply restricting it to monitary distictions is antiquated.

A better explenation of a Professional is someone who studies and practices to perfect is craft and in all manner and deed project a positive image to superiors, peers and subordinates, reflecting the highest standards of performance, ethics and respect for others.

Being a pro used to mean displaying professionalism and this brings to mind Barry Sanders of the Detroit Lions. He always displayed professionalism and never once did he celebrate in the end zone. He was not caught up in any controversy (that I know of) and he didn't stay in the game long enough to get his name in the record books, though everyone thinks he would have made it. He was about the game and about the team, and that is why he is a professional in my book.

An amateur, I cannot come up with a good definition that still works today, I will let someone else take a stab at it. Maybe it is like the definition of the professional, but doesn't make "much" money at it. But when you compare Amateur Figure Skaters like Michelle Kwan to other professionals, she makes a lot of money.

[KevinL]

Or my pet peeve is when they say to him " Oh your camera takes such good pictures" and he replies "No its the photographer that takes good pictures", "Yeah but your camera is so good.."


That's like complementing your host on a wonderful meal, "That was great! You must have wonderful pots and pans!"

[KevinL]

When I read the title of this topic, the question I heard as implied was,"does being paid to dance or teach dance make someone a dance pro?"

I'm not sure if that's what you intended to ask, Kevin, but my answer is no. For me to consider him/her a pro, a dancer or dance teacher has to bring a heck of a lot more to the table than just a pay stub.

Hmm, that's part of what I was asking, but I was also asking, "what kind of behaviour do you expect from someone who is a pro?"

[Adwiz]

USABDA has failed miserably at getting more corporate sponsorship for Dancesport athletes and the NDCA is trying to protect the livelyhood of its registrants and member organizations like Arthur Murry.

The NDCA, charges me for a membership, but still cannot make Amateur couple competition more popular at its comps.

Can either of these organizations truely help Amateur Dancesport?

Excellent points, and I agree that they have failed miserably in what their mandate should be. However, I don't believe the answer is yet another organization, as there are already too many and this only confuses amateur dancers and frustrates their interest in competing. It is entirely possible that the current level of complexity is a primary reason that comps are so poorly attended.

In Canada it is very simple. Each province has its own governing body for DanceSport, under the IDSF umbrella. Every amateur has to join to compete. One body, one membership. This body is run by amateurs and works hard to lift the image of dancing. Because of the simplicity, amateurs get involved and corporate sponsors understand it all, getting involved themselves in financing trophies and events. Even the smallest comps here have large perpetual trophies for every level including Newcomer. This larger corporate involvement also provides travel funds for top-level competitors, allowing them to pay for their comp costs to international events. Any above-syllabus athlete (pre-champ or champ level) who achieves high enough placing at closed regional events represents that region for their age group and can then access the travel funds to visit larger events.

This is getting a little off-topic, but it is frustrating that USABDA and NDCA appear to be so ineffective. Why aren't dancers in the US more vocal in their disappointment? Perhaps a little more expressed anger from their membership would get them doing what they are supposed to be doing?

In Canada professionals are licensed by the Canadian Dance Teachers Association and must pass certification exams which can be quite complex. Again, a very simple system that seems to work very well for the most part. But I do believe there are people violating this who teach non-studio situations like night-school dance courses without licensing.

[Laura]

Maybe it is like the definition of the professional, but doesn't make "much" money at it. But when you compare Amateur Figure Skaters like Michelle Kwan to other professionals, she makes a lot of money.

Figure Skating, like the other Olympic sports, no longer uses the terms "professional" and "amateur." They got rid of this years ago, I think even before the time of Tonya & Nancy. In Figure Skating you're allowed to make as much money as you want, from shows, endorsements, and teaching. However, you can only skate in ISU (International Skating Union) approved competitions and shows. Skating in a non-sanctioned event will cost you your Olympic eligibility. In fact, rather than using the terms "professional" and "amateur," they use the terms "inelgible" and "eligible."

[pygmalion]

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

[Chris Stratton]

I'd have to disagree that restricting people to sanctioned competitions while allowing them to teach is any improvement.

Actually, we already do have such a restriction, in theory. Adwiz might want to review the recent history of amateur dancing in Canada, where some of the amateur organizations called a global prohibition against any member of an IDSF member organization attending previously recognized competitions sanctioned by the CDTA, over an argument virtually identical the to the USABDA-NDCA one about who was going to register amateurs. The resolution? Requiring people to pay registration fees to both the regional amateur organization and the CTDA, in order to dance at a single comp.

I strongly believe that it is imperative that no single organization have monopoly control over amateur dancing. Organizations are welcome to establish their own rules regarding teaching, but they should not use threats against those who would also dance elsewhere in violation of no rule other than the illegitimate measures intended to to create such monopoly control.

[KevinL]

This is getting a little off-topic, but it is frustrating that USABDA and NDCA appear to be so ineffective. Why aren't dancers in the US more vocal in their disappointment? Perhaps a little more expressed anger from their membership would get them doing what they are supposed to be doing?

I'm not vocal about this topic because I don't care about competitions. I'm a social dancer and social teacher. I did one competition while still a student, but I didn't care if it was sanctioned by any organization. Why would I? All I cared about was that I was able to "compete" in front of people. In a couple of heats I was the only person in my category, though, so the competition wasn't very challenging.

My perception of USABDA is that the organization is designed to support social dancing, and recreational dancing in general, which I think they do well. However, I can't see that the local USABDA chapter does much to support DanceSport, but that might be in part because there are so few competitiors in the state.

In Canada professionals are licensed by the Canadian Dance Teachers Association and must pass certification exams which can be quite complex. Again, a very simple system that seems to work very well for the most part. But I do believe there are people violating this who teach non-studio situations like night-school dance courses without licensing.

I think it would be great if the US had a licensing requirement for dance teachers because that could greatly increase the quality of the dance teachers available.

However, it could also greatly decrease the number of teachers available and thereby decrease the number of people dancing. To my knowledge there are only three certified dance teachers in the state of Vermont. There are several other teachers, though, and some of them are quite good. If they had to go through the effort to get certified and licensed, would they bother, or would they just quit teaching? Maybe, maybe not. Would the swing and salsa teachers, where the dances are very organic and club-oriented, need to be licensed as well? Who would be in charge of those certifications?

Hmm. This deserves it's own thread...

[pygmalion]

Yup, Kevin. That sounds like a great topic. :D

Although I stand to be corrected, here, it appears to me that most USABDA chapters excel at either Dancesport OR social dancing, but few do both well. The chapters just have limited resources, and it's difficult to diversify without adequate support (mostly volunteer hours, I'm guessing. The chapters appear to be fairly well-funded, and they get incentives from National for things like % renewals and new memberships. They're not rolling in dough, so to speak, but there is money. There just doesn't appear to be enough support to do both social and dancesport in most chapters.

[Laura]

The support has to come from a combination of the membership and of a responsive board. Our chapter tried to do both for years -- we'd have monthly "meet up" social dances at the various studios and clubs in the area, with a "meet up" for dinner beforehand. Not many people ever came, although the Board members all went regularly to act as hosts. There just wasn't the interest in the local membership, so we dropped it and no one even seemed to notice.

Conversely, I was talking to someone in another chapter that is very social focussed. Some people wanted some opportunities for competitors, but their Board didn't seem responsive to their ideas.

In my opinion, the Boards are there to serve the needs of their members. If the members start asking for something, it's important for the Board to give it a try to see how it pans out. You can't please all of the people all the time, but dismissing new ideas and requests too often does nothing to promote growth and good fellowship.

Getting back to the topic at hand..."professional" has two main branches of meaning, one to do with receiving money, and the other to do with skill and demeanor:

pro·fes·sion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.

1.
1. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
2. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.


n.

1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

To me, for the purposes of competitive dance, a professional is #2 "One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation." The top so-called amateur dancers in the US, the ones who are allowed to teach and get endorsements, are really professionals. Dancing is their lives, it's an implied occupation. There's two ways to deal with this: either get really strict and kick ALL these people up to the pro ranks (which even the NDCA won't do), or just get rid of the distinction and let anyone make money and let anyone dance (which is the path of least resistance).

[DanceAm]

Olympic eligible and ineligible, sounds like two new words to describe what once was.

So the word amateur is atiquated? Does it even have any meaning anymore? Since it has has such a negitive connotation, we probably need to drop it altogether. Amateurs can get paid, they can win money, they can be sponsored and Victor Fung and Anna have proven they are as good or better than most of the Pros when they went "Pro". I think it is time to come up with better and honest designations Eligible and Ineligible.

A quick note about skating again, I think they had to change the designation not because of the money but because the professionals were has-beens and never were able to skate again at the level of there Olympic days or no where near the level of the current eligibles. It was had to call them professionals when the amateurs were better. That is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Laura]

It really had to do with all the money making opportunities that skaters had after the whole Tonya/Nancy thing. For a while, every time you turned around there was another show, tour, or made-for-TV competition. The ISU was worried about their top competitors doing a bunch of cheesy competitions for the bucks and thus sullying the sport, turning it more into a Las Vegas style show than an atheletic endeavor. Does anyone remember shows like "Too Hot 2 Skate" and "Ice Wars"? Those were the kinds of things that the ISU didn't want their skaters being lured into by big bucks. By the same token, the skaters wanted to be able to earn money. So, the ISU started sanctioning certain events and not others, based on their prestige. They didn't want people like Michelle Kwan and the various Russian Alexi's (Urmanov, Yagudan) running off to cheesy ice shows for money and then getting injured or too tired and not being able to perform well at the major International competitions. There was a big stink one year about Nicole Bobek, who at the time was a world bronze medalist, missing US Nationals the next year because she was injured and didn't take time off to heal, instead skating during the regular competitive season in a touring version of "Nutcracker on Ice." She asked for a medical bye to worlds, and I don't recall if she got it or not, but I think that partially led to the crackdown on who could skate where and still maintain their Olympic eligibility.

[Porfirio Landeros]

Aspiring champions (either amateur or pro) are expected to exhibit professionalism, thereby invalidating the amateur title.

So, as an aspiring champion, I'm expected to wear the pro persona but not receive all the benefit$.

You're right, Laura, eliminating the distinction holds the least path of resistance, at least for me.

So, a professional seems to be defined as someone exhibiting professionalism: proficiency in their field, good sportsmanship, charisma and leadership qualities... getting paid seems to come in last ;)

[LauraB]

I have a slight problem with amateurs being allowed to teach, even if they're restricted to just earning enough money for lessons, costumes, and competitions. At the first studio I worked at, none of us teachers (who also competed professionally) made enough money to live on, or rather, just barely. To be able to pay for coaching, costumes, and competitions, we got second jobs (which ran us ragged since we were all full-time at the studio), made our own costumes, traveled together in a car for 9+ hours because we couldn't afford to fly, and all squeezed into one hotel room. We also had to go without competing for a couple months when finances were especially low, which didn't help our competitive careers. Yet these amateurs get sponsors for their costumes, scholarships for lessons, and basically do the same thing us pros do, but aren't called professional. I'm in a better situation now, but not by much. I can't afford a dress to wear in pro-am competitions with my students, what am I going to do when I start competing pro again?

I don't know if I had any point when I started this post, but I've lost it now. I'm just frustrated by having no money. I was in a car accident two weeks ago, and lost a lot of teaching time on bed rest. I still need to have a light teaching schedule, because my back is causing me so much pain. Here's another point--amateurs get health insurance from their full-time job, but us pros have to pay for it out of pocket. Okay, I'm done. :roll:

[Genesius Redux]

LauraB-

Dedication to the arts is not an easy road, particularly in a country where the arts go largely unsubsidized. I understand your frustration, and I hope that things get better quickly.

Cheers,

Genesius

[KevinL]

I'm just frustrated by having no money. I was in a car accident two weeks ago, and lost a lot of teaching time on bed rest. I still need to have a light teaching schedule, because my back is causing me so much pain. Here's another point--amateurs get health insurance from their full-time job, but us pros have to pay for it out of pocket. Okay, I'm done. :roll:

Heal well, and be sure to be ready before you start teaching full time, you'll be better off in the long run if you are fully healed.

Unfortunately we have chosen a career that depends on our bodies being strong and fit in order to make a living. If you ever become not-strong and/or not-fit you will not be able to make a living as a teacher. That is one of the disadvantages of this career path. Fear of not having money/ insurance is one of the reasons I'm not doing this full-time yet...

Kevin

[Porfirio Landeros]

Sorry, LauraB.

I hope your recovery goes well. The money situation of a lot of pro's starting out seems to support the idea that there need to be structured training and accredation programs, so that pro's that put the time and money into increasing their knowledge have [tangible] justification for charging more as premiere instructors, as opposed to hobby-teachers. You know, I've heard whispers of dance teacher unions... why not? Actors and other performing artists have formed them. I think your arguments, though, would be better focused at those in charge of the money teachers get paid rather than the amateurs that pay out.

There are many monitary approaches to how to achieve your competitive goals. I chose to get a non-dance career (graduated college, etc.), and live lean so I could pay for lessons. My partner and I were subsequently able to use our non-dance talents to exchange for better offers from studios and instructors. In the end, I have have health benefits and take weekly dance lessons. On the downside, I don't live in the ballroom, which I would love to do ;)

The other side of the coin is to throw yourself completely into dancing, and teach and learn at the same time. I admire your courage, and this approach seems to be the path of the majority of professional champions. I think you have to step back and look at your situation, and decide if it will get you to your goals in the long run. In order to do that, you have to have clearly defined goals.

My goals are to have my bills paid, contingency plans for injuries, and get as good as I can at dancing in the end.

Make the best of this life, and whatever path you take, be sure that you are being treated fairly as well as getting the most out of your situation. If the situation is cheating you or just not ideal for your health/goals, it may be time to change.

[Chris Stratton]

I was actually under the impression that traditionally, most high level competing pros received much of their training and initally made a name for themselves as amateurs, in the youth ranks if not as adults (while using using either non-dance or parental funding sources) Under that model, those who turned pro - probably for monetary reasons - before gaining some degree of distinction as amateurs ended up in the majority of cases having to give up the chance to have real competitive careers, though there have of course been notable exceptions.

That system had it's own benefits and injustices - while it purported to be about choice, not everyone could make the choice freely. Now things are moving in a vareity of directions at once, and it's not really clear yet what is the best answer in terms of fairness to participants, development of quality competitors, general promotion of dancing, or some balance of these concerns.

[Porfirio Landeros]

I was actually under the impression that traditionally, most high level competing pros received much of their training and initally made a name for themselves as amateurs, in the youth ranks if not as adults (while using using either non-dance or parental funding sources)

You're right, Chris... if only we could choose our parents ;-)

[Warren J. Dew]

I was actually under the impression that traditionally, most high level competing pros received much of their training and initally made a name for themselves as amateurs, in the youth ranks if not as adults (while using using either non-dance or parental funding sources) Under that model, those who turned pro - probably for monetary reasons - before gaining some degree of distinction as amateurs ended up in the majority of cases having to give up the chance to have real competitive careers, though there have of course been notable exceptions.
It's easy to get that impression, and I have to admit I labored under it for a long time.

The fact is, though, that the vast majority of amateurs who do not turn pro also end up without 'real competitive careers', and the ones who manage to make it to the top of the amateur ranks before turning pro are again, notable exceptions.

Out of the ten most recent British open amateur champions who have since retired from competition, only two subsequently won the British open professional championships. The other eight all ended up retiring from their professional careers without getting to the top.

Meanwhile, the ten most recent British open professional champions are evenly split between those that first won the British open amateur championships and those that did not. (Even I was surprised when I tallied it up just now.)

[SDsalsaguy]

True Warren, but aside from winning it also seems that success as an amateur is the rule (not to say that there aren't exceptions!) for advancing to the final of the Pro ranks at the British, no?

[Chris Stratton]

The fact is, though, that the vast majority of amateurs who do not turn pro also end up without 'real competitive careers', and the ones who manage to make it to the top of the amateur ranks before turning pro are again, notable exceptions.

While I recognize the facts involved, I think a meaningfull interpretation restores some of the original argument.

Yes, most amateurs have dead end competitive careers. But I think your average college team beginner has a lot more opportunity to pursue a personally meaningfull competitive career than your average studio teacher trainee, at least in part due to the freedom to concentrate on dancing at your own pace, without spending the majority of your week with beginner/social students. If I were to turn pro today, I probably would not have the opportunity to compete at nearly the same level of performance as I do while an amateur - I wouldn't get students of sufficient skill to be able to get much personally out of the pro-am work, and even if I could find a good pro partner probably would find endless dissapointment in rising star. And that is as someone who would walk in the door with strong basic dance skills and a few years of what almost approached biweekly competition experience.

And I think that there is plenty of opportunity for people with substantial, but not world-class preparation, to turn pro and have an enjoyable and perhaps succesfull mix of pro and pro-am competition. I'm not really concerned which Blackpool pro finalists won the amateur - but I'd be far more interesed to hear if there are any in the pro final who did not first gain some degree of experience and recognition as amateurs. The exception I might expect to see would be the occasional mid-career replacement partner for someone who came up through the amatuer ranks.

Obviously, my knowlege of the overall dance scene is limited, but it's my impression that all of Boston's leading teaching and pro-am pros had amateur backgrounds. It's true that every once in a while people like Steven & Larinda who started as studio trainees manage to work hard enough, attract enough attention, and break out as real competitors or sought-after teachers. But I get the sense that most who take that path end up buried under a mountain of hard work with little opportunity to reap the rewards.

[DanceAm]

Weren't Ben and Shalene teachers out of a studio environment? John King and Ana Chacon, new National Rising star Champions, weren't they out of a Studio Envronment? And of course you mentioned Steve and Larinda.

I don't think an amateur career, especially youth is any free pass or even an advantage to a successful pro competion career. And College students still have courses to concentrate on, some with part time jobs, courses and then dance too. At the right studio, it is not common to teach more than 25 hours a week, and the opportunity to practice and get coachings is very good. And working with new students could be an opportunity for the teacher to work on his/her basic technique. If you are teaching basic footwork, why not practice it while your teaching. Maybe a dance background is helpful, but I still think it is up to the person. If you want a good chance at a pro career, ask Mark Ballas if his parents might be an advantage to his budding career. Maybe the right parents are the key.

Of course my examples are all primarily American Style, International might be different. But my impression is that more amateurs fall to the wayside that might have had a chance at being a successful pro competitor. Too much is left to chance, for one, finding the right partner.

Look at the list of Victor Fung's ex-partners and even John King's, have any of them really having successful pro careers at the moment? Not that they aren't good dancers, but finding a compatible partner is more like a lottery. And as far as a global scale, Ballroom dance is taught on a much larger scale to young people in other countries than it is here, so yes many of the pros outside the US were probably amateur competitors, but there is probably an ocean of once hopefuls now with families and regular jobs.

Sure there are advantages and disadvantages in every situation, and I am sure the rates of attrition are high for all environments of ballroom dance. If we are looking at the ideal situation, it doesn't garrantee success. Common traits of the most successful have little to do with environment, but more to do with the person. Successful people are not successful because of money or education or finding the right niche. Studies have shown that successful people would probably be successful in whatever they did because of their personal drive, dedication, and willingness to sacrifice all else in pursuit of a goal. Then there is just plain luck mixed in. That is why Bill Gates and that Oracle CEO (I forget his name) became billionaires and never finished college.

[cl5814]

Larry Ellison is the CEO of Oracle.

Very interesting thread. Thanks to all for expressing your opinions.

[Laura]

Weren't Ben and Shalene teachers out of a studio environment? John King and Ana Chacon, new National Rising star Champions, weren't they out of a Studio Envronment? And of course you mentioned Steve and Larinda.

And David & Valentina (Rising Star Smooth). And Jon Roberts (just won US Rising Star Latin at Emerald, dances Latin with former high-level amateur Anya Trebunskaya).

Look at the list of Victor Fung's ex-partners and even John King's, have any of them really having successful pro careers at the moment?

Aira Bubelneyte (I know this is spelled wrong) went back to Lithuania and became their National Pro Standard Champion. Then she and her new partner Tomas moved here and did very well at Emerald Ball. Once they meet residency requirements, they will do very well in the US National Pro Championships. And Ieva Pauksena is doing great with Giampiero.

but finding a compatible partner is more like a lottery.

VERY true, no matter what level you're one!!

[spatten]

Yes, most amateurs have dead end competitive careers. But I think your average college team beginner has a lot more opportunity to pursue a personally meaningfull competitive career than your average studio teacher trainee, at least in part due to the freedom to concentrate on dancing at your own pace, without spending the majority of your week with beginner/social students.

In the end, as much as I try to fight the truth of it, I think neither of these situations lend themselves to having a truly meaningful comeptitive career. I realize there are exceptions - but the best beginners are those who started at age 6, had access to talented coaches, and the determination to make it through the teen years.

These are the real pro's in my mind. Though I will spend the next couple of decades of my life trying to disprove it. :)

[DanceAm]

These are the real pro's in my mind. Though I will spend the next couple of decades of my life trying to disprove it.

I like that attitude.

[Chris Stratton]

When I wrote that post, I put the modifier "personally" on meaningfull competitive career. Not everyone is going to make Blackpool finals in either the pro or amateur division. So I was concentrating more on who might or might not find their external situation supportive of an effort to reach their own internal potential.

It remains my impression that there is little opportunity for pros who are not or not yet among the best of the best to compete. If someone starts as a beginner, it would be quite a while before they were really ready for rising star - superficial preparation might be accomplished quickly, but the sort of real preparation necessary to do well would take time. And experience they would be unlikely to get from competing with the low-level pro-am students a trainee teacher would probably be assigned. So I think that someone who turns pro without the preparation to attract attention in rising star risks being stuck in a non-competitive corner of the industry - unless they can finance some improvement on their own, luck out with strong students, attract attention of someone who believes in their potential, etc.

In contrast, developing amateurs have competition opportunities at all levels, ranging from a few weeks of experience up to decades. As they near the top of each stage in that progression, they have the opportunity to be momentarily king of th hill - to achieve both personal satisfaction and external recognition.

[spatten]

Chris,

I did see the "personally" modifier you used and I see what you mean. I just felt that in order to discuss what a competitive career was we needed to use a baseline. A "personally" meaningful competitive career could be almost anything. God knows, 1 competition would mean a lot to me right now.

I do have to say that the whole concept of competitng "Rising Star" would scare the crap out of my right now. I think the level of competition that is typically seen at Rising Star would be a big incentive for me to really work at my dancing. You really have to know your stuff to dance against Rising Star and not look foolish - at least at the comps I have seen.
What I am trying to say is that the challenge of Rising Star seems like a better format to me, precisley because you can't stay forever in the ranks of Novice or Pre-Champ. You are forced to succed or look foolish.

I do agree that competing Pro-Am isn't likely to help your career other than to fund further coachings.

In the end, I tend to agree with DanceAm that successful dancers will succeed regardless of which route they take be it Am or Pro because of their nature.

[Warren J. Dew]

What I perceive as unfair is treating one style differently than the other.

I know what you mean. American style amateurs can compete on a level playing field while spending all their dance time dancing and learning, while the International style "amateurs" are forced to waste time teaching so they can afford extra lessons, just to keep up. It's really unfair.

Oh wait ... that's not what you meant, is it?

But it's true. We have a USABDA couple in Boston who does a lot of teaching for money (or at least the guy does), just to keep up with their competition - the overseas over-35 field. He's told me he would really prefer to spend the time practicing rather than teaching - but feels he has to do it, just to keep up with the european "Joneses". I guess one of the sacrifices you have to make for International style competition is that you don't get to enjoy the activity as much as you'd like, but it's still kind of sad.

So you're right, the floor is level when it comes comparing competitors within American style, but, why should a gap in resources be advocated by leaving these dedicated amateurs in the shadow of International style?

I think the only reason American style competitors are "in the shadow" of International style is because they are unwilling to step out of it.

I agree this is a problem - I've been guilty of it myself. A while back (okay, a decade), my then partner and I were the top amateur American style couple in the area. We had a good American style coach who was enthusiastic about us. Judging by feedback from the audience and invitations to do shows and competitions, we got as much respect from others as the top amateur International style couple in the area did.

But, I personally still had a prejudice that International style was "where the real competition was". Eventually, I quit doing American style in favor of International, failing to realize the obvious - that I could continue to work on improving my dancing no matter what style I was working on.

The truth is that, to the extent American style is "in the shadow of" International style, it isn't something that's imposed from without. It's caused by our own unwillingness, as American style dancers, to focus on our own style and avoid getting distracted by other dance styles.

[Porfirio Landeros]

... while the International style "amateurs" are forced to waste time teaching so they can afford extra lessons, just to keep up.

Oh man, I would soooo not want to be teaching 5 days a week while trying to work on my own dancing (after a full day of office work). What I wouldn't mind doing, is accepting offers to do shows, or teach at a one-time party, and use these lump sums to subisidize my dancing. Technically, I am barred (by the NDCA) from these activities. USABDA would allow me to do this through the elite-dancers program.

Top Standard/Latin Am's are allowed to do shows for money (except at NDCA pro events), and the reasoning is that they compete on the world circuit; American style amateurs cannot accept any money (according to NDCA), so that's what my previous posts were calling unfair.

The technical debate about how smooth is perceived by the International style-based leadership rages on elsewhere ;-)

[Warren J. Dew]

What I wouldn't mind doing, is accepting offers to do shows, or teach at a one-time party, and use these lump sums to subisidize my dancing
I guess I don't mind volunteering for those things without pay, in order to help support the ballroom community. Besides, shows are so much fun to do, why hold out for money?

[Laura]

Besides, shows are so much fun to do, why hold out for money?

Totally! I would so much love to do a show that I feel sad whenever I hear that someone else won't do it unless they're paid $500. Granted, the people wanting the money are Championship-level athletes and I'm just Novice/Pre-Champ, but when you're asked to perform for a Senior Citizens' social club's dinner-dance maybe the proficiency levels aren't such a big deal....

[Elizabeth]

...I feel sad whenever I hear that someone else won't do it unless they're paid $500. Granted, the people wanting the money are Championship-level athletes and I'm just Novice/Pre-Champ, but when you're asked to perform for a Senior Citizens' social club's dinner-dance maybe the proficiency levels aren't such a big deal....

Yes that is sad. Another aspect of what is sad about it is that such people don't seem to realize that if the person asking for a show had wanted a pro couple they probably would have asked a pro couple who were willing to admit publically to being pros.

I'm sorry, but in my book saying, "I won't do it unless you pay me $n" makes a person a pro, even if there are plenty of couples out there who do just that and call themselves amateurs.

[Porfirio Landeros]

I agree... if you have a "price-list", you're a pro.

The cases I'm talking about, which I have had personal experience with, are when we are approached to do spots for TV or Film, or a stage production, where all parties involved are paid (actors, staff, dancers) and an agent has seen us perform or dance publicly (probably just for fun or free), and offers us a paying "gig". Why should I be afraid to accept such a gig, when I could use that money to buy a new pair of dance shoes, or plane tickets to St. Paul for nationals?

Anyone promoting themselves as pros (by soliciting business, quoting prices, etc.) should be categorized as a professional. If someone approaches me for lessons because they think I look professional, I still gladly refer them to my favorite ballroom, Champion Ballroom, telling them, "This is the place I learn to dance."

I consistently do my share of free stuff, for college groups, cotillion kids, fairs, etc... after all, getting dressed up and performing is FUN! :) But, if there's an opportunity for my dancing to pay for itself, is that wrong to want to take it?

[Warren J. Dew]

Totally! I would so much love to do a show that I feel sad whenever I hear that someone else won't do it unless they're paid $500. Granted, the people wanting the money are Championship-level athletes and I'm just Novice/Pre-Champ, but when you're asked to perform for a Senior Citizens' social club's dinner-dance maybe the proficiency levels aren't such a big deal....

Gee ... $500 ought to get them a U.S. Pro finalist!

And you're right, what's good for competition is not always what's good for a show. For a show, connection to the audience can be extremely important - if the dancers are really enjoying their dancing, the audience is likely to get swept into the enjoyment as well. Also, selection of interesting music plays a big part, as does matching one's dance to variations in the music over the course of a song. Technical excellence doesn't matter as much as long as the dancers are more accurate than most of the audience - which wouldn't be a problem for most experienced competitors with a social audience.