post competition disorder

[Reach]

At a few USA Dance events where I’ve competed, if a dancer or couple was uncontested the system automatically defaulted to providing a Proficiency Score. I liked that.

I would love that. Would find it more useful, particularly if it included comments.

 

[lucia_l]

At a few USA Dance events where I’ve competed, if a dancer or couple was uncontested the system automatically defaulted to providing a Proficiency Score. I liked that.

I like the idea too. The only problem is that in NDCA, the proficiency scores will almost always be above 90. And one judges 93 is another judges 97. You don't know which is which.

 

[Cal]

I like the idea too. The only problem is that in NDCA, the proficiency scores will almost always be above 90. And one judges 93 is another judges 97. You don't know which is which.

Oh - I had to pester and cajole and beg to get the Key that was used for converting raw scores to the proficiency score. In USA Dance, the raw score range is 1 - 9, and the weighted score then scales from 80-100.

If NDCA judges use a vanity scale (e..g raw scores from 1-9, and weighted scores from 90-100), well, OK.
They just need to TELL me what the ranges are. I can do the rest of the math.

 

[lucia_l]

If NDCA judges use a vanity scale (e..g raw scores from 1-9, and weighted scores from 90-100), well, OK.
They just need to TELL me what the ranges are. I can do the rest of the math.

I'm not sure it's that simple. I think the judge puts down the number between 90-100 they want to put down. I don't think you can just scale arithmetically because judges don't decide 0-10 and then add 90.

You can see on showcases scores the judges write copious notes and the scores are in their hand writing.

After a showcase I had a coaching with Boriana Beltcheva who had been one of the judges, I told her the scoring cracked me up because it was obvious that unless you fell on your face, you would get between 90-100. She said yeah... The first time she judged she gave someone a score in the 70s. She was used to scoring in Europe and that was "good". As in "met standards".... so old school "C". The scrutineer returned her sheet and told her to correct it. She learned that unless it was really bad... you give it 90+.

She didn't really mind that... but the standard is definitely 90-100. But it wasn't "Score 0-10 in your head, then add 90. And she agreed it was almost as much about the judge as the performance. Some judges are 95-100. Others are 90-100. But no.. no 80s. 89 would be 'you really did badly."

I think a Sam Sodano 98 could easily mean 91 from another judge. He's sort of toooooo nice. Now, if he has to decide one person is better than the other, he can do that. But in proficiency? I bet he always puts down scores between 97 and 100. (He once told me he would never, ever, ever gives someone a 2nd out of 1. Never. They could fall on their face and he wouldn't do it. Donna Edelstein thought you had to give people who were off time 2nd out of one-- otherwise there was no feedback. So you can see, judges are people with their own opinions. I think Donna is more right-- if that's the system, you have to do it. But Sam is just a softy. Which is nice.. but then, a 98 from him doesn't mean the same thing as a 98 from Donna -- which is ok.)

 

[Cal]

I very much suspect that Scoresheets/Comment Sheets for Solo Showcase/Showdance performances are different from the Proficiency Scoresheets used for Single-Dance/Multi-Dance events.

I doubt that judges are going use a Score-Comment Sheet for a Single-Dance event in which the competitors are on the floor for 60 seconds and the judge sees the competitor for only 5-10 seconds.

I grant you, I have not seen the template/form for Proficiency Scores that NDCA judges use for dancers who chose that Proficiency option in Single-Dance events. But, if the NDCA uses a format other than raw/weighted scoring for Proficiency dances, and uses a 90-100 range, then just TELL us that. Be honest about it if the range is truly 90-100 (or 95-100, or 97-100).

My question would be: why offer Proficiency Scoring if judges are going to give only vanity scores?

In USA Dance, the raw/weighted scoring is supposedly designed to give dancers feedback as to whether they are dancing below the expected level, at the expected level, or above the expected level (in which case, the competitor should think about moving up a syllabus category).

Instead of having to guess if my events are going to be contested or not and guess whether I should “opt in” to Proficiency Scoring when I fill out my entry form, I’d rather have Proficiency Scoring as the default for uncontested events. If a competitor doesn’t like that, they could “opt out” on their entry form.

I guess I don’t see why it should be complicated?

 

[lucia_l]

Instead of having to guess if my events are going to be contested or not and guess whether I should “opt in” to Proficiency Scoring when I fill out my entry form, I’d rather have Proficiency Scoring as the default for uncontested events. If a competitor doesn’t like that, they could “opt out” on their entry form.

I guess I don’t see why it should be complicated?

I'd love it to be the default. And I'd love what the scores mean to be more transparent. But they are never going to formally admit the extent to which some scores contain an element of "vanity scores".

Similarly, the various "Cups" and "Series" don't announce the extent to which they are dominated by "participation" rather than "performance". That's generally fine. I doubt many people are duped by what's going on in these "Series"-- but who knows? Still, I have a friend who went after one of the Cups-- and she knows it's a memento for their fun year. So she's not duped-- she had fun and did things intentionally. Since the purpose of the cup is to drum up business, that's a win-win.

 

[fiesta0618]

My question would be: why offer Proficiency Scoring if judges are going to give only vanity scores?

TL; DR: money.

In my view, the big-two organizations go to great lengths to fragment fields, so that they can list more events for people to enter and pay for. In addition, they take significant pains to make participants feel proud and special about what they do, so that they stick with the sport and attend the next event. Part of that is achieved through pageantry and glamor; the rest is achieved by widely distributing lavish praise in the form of awards for uncontested events. A highly inflated, vanity proficiency score is right in line with that.

**********

The above is not to say that I think dancers are foolish for "falling for the con" and feeling good about their uncontested first place. I did think that once upon a time, but I no longer do--not since I competed with a 74-year-old first-time-dancer student. She knew we were uncontested, knew that we were always going to therefore "win," but even so...when they called her name, shook her hand, and presented her a ribbon, she could not help tearing up. It was a validation that she belonged here, a place she had only ever watched from outside as something other people did; that her efforts deserved respect just as much as the elites competing for a real, meaningful title.

So on one hand, yeah, the inflated score is eye-rolling BS. On the other, it can be seen as a way of acknowledging & showing respect for every dancer's effort. Some people need that reassurance to be spelled out a little more blatantly than others do.

 

[Cal]

Eh – probably just me. Even as a little kid, I was skeptical of unearned awards/praise. I simply don’t see it as a sign of respect. (That’s likely just me.)

Up in post #1444, it was mentioned that Boriana Beltcheva, if she were judging in Europe, would give a dancer a score in the 70s as a good score (presumably if that was what she thought was warranted as the earned score). So….apparently, in Europe at least, non-vanity scores do not drive away dancers from their federations/organizations – otherwise why do so many dancers stick with it to get to the open/championships levels? When I go on youtube and watch comps in Europe, they often seem to have so many competitors in the Championship events that they need many, many rounds until they get to the final. (Maybe getting non-vanity scores gives them a realistic incentive to improve?)

Shrug. YMMV.
(I think I’d better shut up now.)

 

[fiesta0618]

Eh – probably just me. Even as a little kid, I was skeptical of unearned awards/praise. I simply don’t see it as a sign of respect. (That’s likely just me.)

Absolutely NOT just you. Inflated scores and uncontested awards are a recurring topic of discussion precisely because there are lots of skeptics out there!

If you want a specific example, know that my wife is with you. Whenever she receives any form of praise or recognition, her first instinct is always suspicion. "Why are they buttering me up? What do they want from me?" So go her thoughts, every time!

******

For myself, I'm okay with the "meaningless" first-place awards, but not inflated proficiency scores. It is a general pet peeve of mine when a scoring system explicitly does not use its full numerical range, for lots of reasons. Not least of them being, the two-digit number implies a claim of precision that the de-facto one-digit implementation does not actually provide!

I also think it is better, in the long term, to be honest with people about their current status and rate of growth. Put too much faith in an inflated score, and you can become complacent. Complacent people stop working as hard, and can be really annoying and insufferable to talk to.

Give me my score of 50, if that's what I deserve. Sure, I won't be proud of it. Might even feel a little embarrassed, if I thought I should do better. But that's my problem to sort out. And if nobody honestly told me that I'm really a 50, I might never actually work up to being a 70!

 

[Warren J. Dew]

On the other, it can be seen as a way of acknowledging & showing respect for every dancer's effort.

As one frequent judge pointed out to me in a lesson, an uncontested first is the best that anyone did in that category on that day. Other people who were eligible declined to enter, probably because they were not ready and might well have placed below the uncontested competitor if they had entered.

 

[Pryn]

I had the chance to talk with Magic Pro at this weekend's ball (which was wonderful, but that will be for another post). I was venting about work, mentioned my latest certification exam score and he told me he had missed that spark (as I'm not dancing a lot right now) and that I'm still just as competitive as ever.

Now, I don't think of myself as being very competitive. (Don't laugh. I really don't think of my myself as being all that competitive.)

But, while I love the story about Fiesta's student getting emotional over her uncontested win (some people fight a lot of personal battles just to get on that competition floor and being on the dance floor can be a reward in itself), I compete with the hope to be contested. If I'm not contested, I'd love a proficiency score to be the default too.

I understand the major effort that would be for the judges to do when the heats are so short, but feedback would be more valuable to me than a participation trophy/medal. I want to grow as a dancer and feedback is one of the best ways.

 

[raindance]

If you (or anyone) ends up uncontested, you can still get feedback! Do a video review of some of your heats with your pro and/or with a visiting coach that you trust. They will know what you've been working on, and can give you feedback about how your dances went compared to how things go in lessons, and what to work on next.

Of course, one other trick to avoid being uncontested is to make friends with others in your age group and level, and arrange amongst yourselves to enter the same comps (and same age levels, divisions, etc.).

 

[Cal]

Aha.

I just found this, having poked around the NDCA website:

III.D.7. (January 2026) This was added as a new rule.
Proficiency Scoring for Single Dances and Solo/Formation Performances must be within the following ranges:
90 - 93: Room for Improvement
94 - 96: Well Done
97 - 99: Excellent

 

[IndyLady]

First of all, +1 vote here for the idea of pivoting to a proficiency score if the (single) heat is uncontested. One perspective I did hear about proficiency scores and their meaning, or lack thereof, is that if you get a proficiency score across dances, you might notice which one(s) the judges perceive as weaker and that could be a clue of what to work on (e.g. cha cha scores noticeably lower than rumba).

I knew I'd think of other post-comp thoughts later, and here's one: OK the foxtrottification of mainstream songs (that are not foxtrots) has really gone off the rails. I heard Twisted Sister "We're Not Gonna Take It", Guns N' Roses "Paradise City", and Metallica "Enter Sandman" foxtrots, as well as Ozzy Osbourne "Crazy Train" and Michael Jackson "Billie Jean" as V Waltz. There was a stretch of rhythm dances (all 5) that were mashed up Prince songs, and I recall another Michael Jackson sequence as well. @j_alexandra I think you told me once the name of the DJ that creates a lot of these, can you remind me (either here or private message)? TY!

 

[fiesta0618]

OK the foxtrottification of mainstream songs (that are not foxtrots) has really gone off the rails.

My humble contribution, whatever this topic comes up is Smells Like Teen Spirit...played as an International Rumba.

I even got to (had to?) dance to that one.