Determining the Better Social Dancer

[snapdancer]

My criterion is very simple -- would I want to dance with them again (and vice-versa). Does anything else really matter for a social dancer?

Apparently so, for "B". Who as far as I can tell does not compete.

 

[Partner Dancer]

in the end, most of this will be hard to diagnose by anyone who is not at a very high level of dance because none of us is very good about being objective about ourselves...which is why there is no place for ego in dance

This is an interesting issue, as, somewhat obviously, a lot or most of social dancing has to do with communication, pretty much like any conversation between two people, verbally or via writing.

Communication has almost an infinite number of facets and angles, and I wonder if any analyst/counselor could really ever improve (or evaluate) the conversation between two people (especially between strangers or mere acquaintances), beyond giving some generic hints on how to acccommodate each other's idiosyncrasies. Conversational skills are developed over a lifetime and are so integral to the abilities/background/etc. of the participant that fast fixes can't possibly work.

A dance expert would have to be able to figure out what existing common ground could possibly allow two social dancers to move together better, without requiring either to take gobs, or any, lessons. A practically impossible task, especially since only a very small part of social dancing is visually related and visually diagnosable. A social worker or shrink might do a better job.

 

[fascination]

points well made...which, if you add my observation that none of us can be objective about ourselves, pretty much leads to the conclusion that none of us can ever really possess the entire objective truth of the matter....and we will all select that which we most value as the yardstick for which we measure the circumstance...pretty much all any of us can do, IMV

 

[snapdancer]

I agree with Fascination that none of us can objectively measure our own abilities.

But disagree with Partner Dancer's notion that a dance expert need be drawn into this. The contest as I've proposed it would involve the ability of the social dancer being tested to quickly determine how to move with the person without gobs of lessons or even practicing with this person.

When it comes to social dancing, my impression is that dance teachers often are not good at it. Perhaps because they don't practice it, the independent teachers at a studio I patronize do not show up at socials. For which I don't judge them, if my full-time job were teaching I'd probably want to do something else on Saturday evening. One dance instructor pontificated on his Facebook status that it was impossible to truly enjoy social dancing unless listening to live music, but then his non-dance hobby is playing music. Or the instructor at another studio which requires their staff to attend their socials who had trouble following my lead, which admittedly is not perfect but nevertheless good enough for most social dancers, followed by a sales pitch quickly followed by her departure when I declined.

So I don't think experts are needed to be the judges in this contest, doubt that such expert judges exist, and don't think they are needed. The contest as I proposed it would include a range of skills in the partner-judges. So someone with good dance ability could score highly with them yet poorly with a less experienced partner. A good dance instructor can help with basic dance ability and should be sought out for that, but social dance skills not-so-much.

 

[atk]

This all sounds like creating a popularity contest. People will vote for the dancer(s) with whom they prefer to dance, for whatever reason they prefer to dance with them (height, cologne, breath, level of sweat, comfort dancing, conversational skill, who's cute, who is known better outside the dance, etc.). Is this what you intend to create?

 

[snapdancer]

In answer to your question, I'll simply quote from my original post. I think the answer should be clear.

If there is to be a formal award for social dance skills, I suggest the contest be conducted like this. This approach could be applied to any dance, not just swing. The judging panel would consist of several social dancers, who haven’t danced with any of the contestants for at least a year. The judging panel would include a range of dance skills, from a newbie only dancing for a few months up to dancers with many years of experience. Because the contestants would be judged by their partners instead of a judge at the edge of the dance floor, the bib with the number would be on the contestant’s chest instead of the back. The judges would take turns dancing with the contestants, and at the end would rank the contestants for social dance ability based on criteria that would be more than just technique and content, looking at other attributes of the total social dance experience. A lead would have to quickly evaluate the skill level of his (or her) follow and determine how best to get the best performance from the couple and give the best experience to his(her) follower.

 

[atk]

In answer to your question, I'll simply quote from my original post. I think the answer should be clear.

Sorry, that doesn't really answer the question. I aksed if you are trying ti design a popukarity contest, which neither the original read of your post nor the reread of your quote addresses.

 

[snapdancer]

How could a contest dancing with people with whom you haven't danced with in over a year be a popularity contest?

 

[atk]

How could a contest dancing with people with whom you haven't danced with in over a year be a popularity contest?

Do you think that dancing is the only interaction dancers have? And that dancers forget each other (both dance and nondance facets) entirely within a year? And that the idea of 'best social dancer' will be absent the dancers' non-dancing social skills? And that the judges, who aren't professional judges of any form and so have little incentivr to judge based on any arbitrary rules you might make up, would follow your ruoes about how to judge?

 

[snapdancer]

You asked if I was trying to design a popularity contest. In my original post, which I repeated here for your convenience, I provided a clear indication that I was trying to make it NOT a popularity contest.

So now you're quibbling about whether a year is enough. And if you decide it isn't, then I MUST be WITH CLEAR INTENT trying to design a popularity contest.

Ideally, the judges would be total strangers to the contestants. Arranging that in practical life would be difficult. A year of separation is more likely to eliminate the inclusion of other, off-the-floor behavior than the minimal separation in the existing competitive world that a judge may not coach/teach a student only during the event itself.

 

[Bailamosdance]

I agree with Fascination that none of us can objectively measure our own abilities.

When it comes to social dancing, my impression is that dance teachers often are not good at it.
Perhaps because they don't practice it, the independent teachers at a studio I patronize do not show up at socials.
For which I don't judge them, if my full-time job were teaching I'd probably want to do something else on Saturday evening.

1. what do you base this assumption on?

2. The independent teachers at your studio probably do not show up to dance at your social because they are not being paid. The cliche is real: the worse dancer always has more fun.

 

[snapdancer]

1. what do you base this assumption on?

To what exactly are you referring?

2. The independent teachers at your studio probably do not show up to dance at your social because they are not being paid.

I believe this statement is not much different than the one I made: "if my full-time job were teaching I'd probably want to do something else on Saturday evening."

The cliche is real: the worse dancer always has more fun.

What do you base this assumption on?

 

[atk]

You asked if I was trying to design a popularity contest. In my original post, which I repeated here for your convenience, I provided a clear indication that I was trying to make it NOT a popularity contest.

So now you're quibbling about whether a year is enough. And if you decide it isn't, then I MUST be WITH CLEAR INTENT trying to design a popularity contest.

Ideally, the judges would be total strangers to the contestants. Arranging that in practical life would be difficult. A year of separation is more likely to eliminate the inclusion of other, off-the-floor behavior than the minimal separation in the existing competitive world that a judge may not coach/teach a student only during the event itself.

Snaodancer, please stop trying to twist my words and create straw men. Frankly, it's rude.

I asked if you were trying to create a popularity contest, to which you neither answered yes or no. You instead repeated yourself and asked how waiting a year could possibly not be enough time to result in a popularity contest. I responded by asking if you truly believed several other aspects of human interaction would be absent from the judges social dancing contest, which has the implicit answer that 'time may not be the only factor that needs to be considered', I said nothing about whether 1 year is too much, to little, or just the right amount of time.

So, you could answer the original question I asked with a yes or no, then I could ask you about the other facets of human interaction that your posts don't appear to have covered. You could stand on your implied answer that you don't want to create a popularity contest, and respond about the other facets of human interaction that have been so conveniently ignored (or, perhaps you meant to dismiss them). Or whatever. But don't twist words and don't create straw men. It's unbecoming.

Now, you did say that you thought the 1 year lack if dancing would be a way to minimize impact of historical interaction. What about interanon-dance interaction? Many dancers interact outside of actual dancing with each other. For example, there students at my studio that I interact with on a weekly basis for more than a year, but with whom I have never danced. There are people that I've met for first time, whose personalities raise them higher on my list than people I've known for years. These are non-dance aspects of interaction that will influence scores. If you allow this, then you end up creating popularity contest.

 

[atk]

To what exactly are you referring?

F, apologies if I am stepping on your toes with this.


Snapdancer, for someone who demands that everyone else be fully aware of every post you have made and the context of such posts, it is hypocritical of you not to go back and reread the thread when responding to someone else's posts to you. In fact, if you were to do so, I believe the aspect to which fascination is referring would be quite obvious. At the very least, I find it very clear as I read it.

On the other hand, this also appears to be a consistent tactic that you take in the threads where I've seen you. Instead of responding to a point, you have tendancy to indicate you don't know what tbe point is or to (possibly willfully) misinterpret. As with twisting words and building straw men, this is unbecoming behavior. The people on DF who talk to you are very generous, friendly folk (at least online) who are trying to provide constructivd responses to what you say. Behaving like this will often create frustration, which will breed antagonism. You can already see the tone of frustration with your antics if you read this whole thread. You aren't making friends.

You might, instead, try and be more considerate in the way you 'talk' to others.

 

[twnkltoz]

The only way for the judging to be fair and not a popularity contest, in a structure you describe, would be to bring them in from out of town so the likelihood of them knowing the contestants would be minimized. Although I still wonder what the point would be. Just have a jack and jill if you really want to have a lead-follow contest.