2016 USA Dance Nationals

I would have liked to see more rhythm experts on the judging panel. Only one adjudicator's bio specifically mentioned rhythm.

Of the 22 adjudicators total, only 2 other bios didn't mention style, just degrees/certifications. So much about rhythm has been clarified in the past few years (grounding, lifting action, bent knee) that it'd be nice to have judges recognize the differences. And yes, I understand everyone's credentials and licensing and expertise, but a former competitive rhythm dancer is going to have a better understanding of the style than an adjudicator from Chile or Finland or Italy... No?
 
dlliba10 said:
On a personal note, our results in Champ Rhythm could have been better, but we ended up leapfrogging some of the couples that placed above us in Champ to win the Prechamp division, which was extremely unexpected and made me cry some happy tears.
Click to expand...

Judging as a whole was very inconsistent between different levels, from what I was able to view. You can chalk some of it up to differences in the panel and the differences in the dancers from day-to-day, but it was still noticeable.
 
I didn't see judges' marks that were inconsistent between levels, I saw judges' marks that were inconsistent in each round.

For example:

1 1 2 3 1 2 1 6
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 6
2 2 2 3 1 1 1 6
......................etc.

:jawdrop::mad:
 
Congrats to everyone that participated. I had quite a few friends that did well this year, and had a good experience at the USA Dance Nationals! :)
 
s2k said:
I didn't see judges' marks that were inconsistent between levels, I saw judges' marks that were inconsistent in each round.

For example:

1 1 2 3 1 2 1 6
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 6
2 2 2 3 1 1 1 6
......................etc.

:jawdrop::mad:
Click to expand...

That should be expected with a big panel and no well-known default ranking*, no? Because all the couples are on the floor at once for ~90 seconds of music, judging needs to be done at a glance, so any individual judge's eyeballs are only on a couple for some small amount of time, probably <20 seconds. And none of the amateur couples competing are so consistent (rep-to-rep or within their choreography) that every single second of their choreo is as strong as every other every time they dance it, so some judges might have seen the challenging section that didn't quite read right for the dance because they're still getting it in their bodies or it needs some additional clarifying details (marking the couple 6) while another judge might have seen the section they've kept the same for ever, detailed to the hilt, and drilled so many times that they do it with excellent quality nearly every time (marking the couple 1).

*Obviously, when we're talking about really well-known competitors like Michael and Joanna or Arunas and Katusha, there's a pretty clear default 1st place couple for the judges. And even if there might still be inconsistencies in their program, they're 1) smaller and 2) trying to dislodge a default option with new information which is harder than new information going up against a more or less blank slate.
 
Squall said:
I also recognized middy there; or rather, I recognized her partner from various videos on YouTube and then recognized her.
Click to expand...

Hi, Squall! You should have come over and introduced yourself :) Always fun to meet DFers in person.
 
Dancing Irishman said:
That should be expected with a big panel and no well-known default ranking*, no? Because all the couples are on the floor at once for ~90 seconds of music, judging needs to be done at a glance, so any individual judge's eyeballs are only on a couple for some small amount of time, probably <20 seconds. And none of the amateur couples competing are so consistent (rep-to-rep or within their choreography) that every single second of their choreo is as strong as every other every time they dance it, so some judges might have seen the challenging section that didn't quite read right for the dance because they're still getting it in their bodies or it needs some additional clarifying details (marking the couple 6) while another judge might have seen the section they've kept the same for ever, detailed to the hilt, and drilled so many times that they do it with excellent quality nearly every time (marking the couple 1).

*Obviously, when we're talking about really well-known competitors like Michael and Joanna or Arunas and Katusha, there's a pretty clear default 1st place couple for the judges. And even if there might still be inconsistencies in their program, they're 1) smaller and 2) trying to dislodge a default option with new information which is harder than new information going up against a more or less blank slate.
Click to expand...

What's fun is getting marks that are half 1's and half 6/7's. I don't even know what to make of that, other than we are doing some things right and some things wrong. My unscientific impression is that marks for American style are more variable because there might be less agreement about what is good (what to focus on in smooth, Latin vs. rhythm technique, etc.).
 
Totally understand that.

After going to nationals for 2 years now I've noticed that 1-2 judges consistently mark us 6/7 in all dances even though we are getting 1-3 from others. Luckily the top half out number the both half but it'd be nice to know why. Maybe I should ask them what things they look for next time :D
 
s2k said:
marks that were inconsistent in each round.

1 1 2 3 1 2 1 6
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 6
2 2 2 3 1 1 1 6
Click to expand...

Not very evenly distributed, to say the least.
Such consistency in the inconsistency disqualifies the theory of different judges watching the couple at different times of the song and therefore at moments of different quality in their dance.

So? Are the judges actually judging?

Reminds me of a skating judge telling a couple "you'll be ranked fourth". Even before the comp had begun.
 
newbie said:
Not very evenly distributed, to say the least.
Such consistency in the inconsistency disqualifies the theory of different judges watching the couple at different times of the song and therefore at moments of different quality in their dance.

So? Are the judges actually judging?

Reminds me of a skating judge telling a couple "you'll be ranked fourth". Even before the comp had begun.
Click to expand...

Agreed with "consistency in inconsistency" - it doesn't make sense that one couple happened to suck only when this one judge was watching. I think scores like this mean:
  • That judge hasn't ever seen this couple before, and has seen the other couples at other comps, and has seen other couples improve over time
  • That judge has JUST ONE THING they're looking for (topline, posture, feet, whatever) and this one couple doesn't have THAT ONE THING
  • That judge is from the same area as some of the other couples
  • That judge has coached some of the other other couples
Etc., etc.

I know from experience at other comps that one judge in particular doesn't think we've got what he's looking for. He's nowhere near us geographically so taking a coaching from him isn't feasible, but my partner and I have discussed in the past contacting him and going "What? What?! WHAAAT do you want from us!!!" I'm pretty sure the etiquette prohibits me from actually emailing him... but gosh, the next time this guy judges us and we haven't become mind readers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Dance Ads

Advertise on Dance Forums Reach dancers, teachers, studios, event organizers, and dance-friendly brands. View ad options
Back
Top