Determining the Better Social Dancer

[Steve Pastor]

getting drunk-trashing hotels crap that happens (rarely, though significantly) nowadays

There were no "national" competitions back then, which was the fifties. "The Southland" was a neat geographic area for competitions in those days before travel by air took off. That area would be Southern California.
Then too, Arthur Murray studio clientele consisted primarily of (upper) middle class, and people who were even better off.
Dance was seen by educators as a means to teach people how to behave socially, have manners, etc.
Now a days???

 

[MintyMe]

So how do we determine who is a better dancer in a social dance context?

For me, it's the people who are having the most fun, or making it the most fun for me.

I've had partners who've obviously had much more advanced training than me push and pull me through endless complicated patterns to the point where dancing with them was a strain. I felt awkward and clumsy.

And I've had "average" partners who led the simple basics so beautifully, we both really enjoyed dancing to the music. Those are the partners I have fun with, and I consider them the best social dancers.

 

[snapdancer]

I think we agree that we each decide who is our best partner. My points would be that we can't each decide for ourselves whether we're a better social dancer, it's up to those with whom we dance. My concept for a contest is to see whether there's some kind of consensus.

 

[cornutt]

I have to admit I'm kind of intrigued by the idea of social dancers somehow being scored by a panel of partners who each dance with them. Unfortunately, it's probably one of those things like the idea of a ballroom jack-n-jill competition: it sounds like a neat idea until you start thinking through how to actually do it.

 

[Loki]

Scores would have to be weighted. A bronzie isn't necessarily qualified to judge silver dancers. Or *are* they?
;-)

 

[snapdancer]

Sure a bronzie could be qualified to judge a silver dancer. This is about social dance skills, during social dancing you don't allow your skills to overwhelm a less experienced partner.

If you go back and read my original post in this thread, I proposed a range of dance ability among the judges. As a test on how well a social dancer adapts to his/her partner. And sure the scores would be weighted. The score of a judge with minimal dance experience would be weighted identically to that of a judge with more dance experience. It's not just about dance ability, it's also about social ability.

 

[Bailamosdance]

success as a social dancer has probably 20% to do with dance skills.

 

[Steve Pastor]

So You Think You Can Social Dance

picks this venue's Favorite Dancer!!!

#SYTYCSD

 

[snapdancer]

I would personally weight dance skills somewhat higher than 20%. But not more than 50%, because other factors (for example attitude in "B"'s case) can cancel out raw dance ability.

 

[Generalist]

I think you've had your ego kicked...and that bites
I also think that, just as competitive dancers ought not cast sweeping generalizations about social dancers, so too, social dancers ought not make similar proclamations about the nature of competitive or performance dance

Generally speaking competitive dancers aren't very good social dancers. Therefore having a competition would bias the results in favor of the same dancers that are not good at social dancing. Quite a dilemma!

 

[Bailamosdance]

Generally speaking competitive dancers aren't very good social dancers.

How did you determine that?

 

[fascination]

I disagree with you...shrug...and I am not going to spend extra time expanding upon that ....I sinply disagree with you...that being said: I wasn't the one advocating a competition.....at all...if you want to be argumentative by deliberately making a sweeping generalization, you are going to have to find someone else with whom to do it

 

[fascination]

How did you determine that?

oops...looks like you already have

 

[RiseNFall]

Generally speaking competitive dancers aren't very good social dancers.

Well, I just can't help myself.... When I started dancing, I was somewhat confused by being able to have nice dances with some but not all of the experienced competitive dancers. My instructor explained that the goal of some of the leads was to look good dancing with his competitive partner and that was all; the goal of some of the other leads was to also be able to dance with a wide variety of followers. That experience has held true: some of the best social leaders I have had the pleasure to dance with are also competitive dancers. Some are not. In other words, the sets "good competitive dancers" and "good social dancers" are overlapping, not disjoint, and one is not a subset of the other. If a top level competitive leader wants to also be a good social leader, he has skills honed by a gazillion hours of dancing/instruction/coaching/teaching that the vast majority of dancers simply don't have. If I have the ability to allow him to use those skills, it is magical. This is not to say that I don't very much enjoy dancing with a good non-competitive social dancer--I do--but please don't dismiss the large number of competitive dancers who are also very good social dancers.

 

[snapdancer]

Generally speaking competitive dancers aren't very good social dancers.

Generalist is being true to his handle. It's ironic that he quotes another's post against making sweeping generalisms and then does exactly that.

Also appears that he did not read my original post. Wondering why it is that he thinks that a competition as I propose would bias the results against social dancers.

The better competition dancers I know who also social dance are quite good at both. Because whichever kind of dancing they're doing, they focus on that. The competition dancers who are not good social dancers have poor partnering skills, reflected in their competitive dancing as well.