This discussion is a tangent, so I've collapsed it.
Because of this, I tend to ignore doubling as an indicator of anything. When I am handicapping a field, I look at past results for individual couples over many events and try to identify trends, and use that instead.
The only reason I mentioned doublers at all here is that their significant presence means that if I was accurate in handicapping the lower event, I should also have done a pretty good job handicapping the higher.
And I was pretty good in handicapping Novice Smooth; I predicted placement between 3rd and 5th. In Pre-Champ Smooth, I predicted 7th to 11th. But a roughly equal performance was in the center of my Novice prediction and the very bottom of my Pre-Champ prediction, even though most of the "tossup" matches were the same people. Hence my search for other factors and interpretations. In Standard and Latin, I felt there were clear reasons why we did not fall into similar places in my prediction window between the two levels, so no additional consideration was necessary.
(sidenote: my method of handicapping is very basic. I identify couples that I think I have no business defeating, couples that I think I should defeat 9 times in 10, and all else I list as "tossup." That is how I calculate my placement ranges.)
Plus, in Smooth, we would have been "colder" for the lower event, which was our first contest Sunday morning vs Saturday in the early evening. Especially since we had a few General Dance breaks on Saturday to test the floor and crowd.
Honestly, another simple explanation is that we really *were* the same in both events, but our colleagues brought more passion to the higher event and outdid us. Because not caring much about results has both an upside and a downside: on the positive, nerves never cause you to crash & burn; but on the negative, you don't experience the adrenaline rush that can push you to transcend your usual limits. And I've know lots of athletes who bring more passion to the harder contests, and rise above themselves as a result. Dancers are likely no different.
In the end, my conclusion about "noisy results in the middle" is based on this phenomenon. The whole field moves about, and not just us.
That's a big IF, and it seldom holds strongly true in my experience. Some couples "double down" and use the lower event as warmup. Some "double up" and toss a Hail Mary at a contest they don't really belong in (e.g., me). And some refuse to double for any number of reasons, such as conserving energy or general principle (as 10-dance partner used to do). Moreover, folks use different criteria to decide what their "natural level" is, and what therefore constitutes dancing up or down.
Because of this, I tend to ignore doubling as an indicator of anything. When I am handicapping a field, I look at past results for individual couples over many events and try to identify trends, and use that instead.
The only reason I mentioned doublers at all here is that their significant presence means that if I was accurate in handicapping the lower event, I should also have done a pretty good job handicapping the higher.
And I was pretty good in handicapping Novice Smooth; I predicted placement between 3rd and 5th. In Pre-Champ Smooth, I predicted 7th to 11th. But a roughly equal performance was in the center of my Novice prediction and the very bottom of my Pre-Champ prediction, even though most of the "tossup" matches were the same people. Hence my search for other factors and interpretations. In Standard and Latin, I felt there were clear reasons why we did not fall into similar places in my prediction window between the two levels, so no additional consideration was necessary.
(sidenote: my method of handicapping is very basic. I identify couples that I think I have no business defeating, couples that I think I should defeat 9 times in 10, and all else I list as "tossup." That is how I calculate my placement ranges.)
Doubtful on warmup. Designing and executing effective warmups is a particular strength of mine throughout my athletic career, and I try to make sure my partners get equal value from theirs.
Plus, in Smooth, we would have been "colder" for the lower event, which was our first contest Sunday morning vs Saturday in the early evening. Especially since we had a few General Dance breaks on Saturday to test the floor and crowd.
All valid. The only reason I might question "visibility" as a factor is that the distribution of recalls in semifinal among the doublers does not line up. I would assume that the things that made us easily visible on the lower floor would make us proportionally visible on the higher. Instead, we "disappeared" relative to our peers. My instinct would be to put that down to variables between performances, rather than static things like choreo or costume.
Honestly, another simple explanation is that we really *were* the same in both events, but our colleagues brought more passion to the higher event and outdid us. Because not caring much about results has both an upside and a downside: on the positive, nerves never cause you to crash & burn; but on the negative, you don't experience the adrenaline rush that can push you to transcend your usual limits. And I've know lots of athletes who bring more passion to the harder contests, and rise above themselves as a result. Dancers are likely no different.
In the end, my conclusion about "noisy results in the middle" is based on this phenomenon. The whole field moves about, and not just us.
Last edited:
