Pro/am Requirement to Dance Heats to do Championships

One thing that seems common at the West Coast Cdn pro/am comps is people paying for the required single dances, but then not showing up to dance them (especially if the singles are in the morning and the scholarships in the afternoon). That saves on the cost of tickets, and paying your pros for the single dances (if you don't dance them, then you don't pay for them).

On the one hand, I like having the singles to warm-up, but if there is multiple hours between the singles and scholarships, I will just have to warm up again later, so it defeats that purpose. Also, the single dance heats are often smaller age groups or more levels resulting in all sorts of 'extra' heats with only one couple in them, instead of competing against each other. That seems to increase the time for the competition, when having a reduced amount of uncontested single dances could cut time to the competition in general--and perhaps the organizer's fee.

Requiring 2 rounds per scholarship is crazy. I have seen some comps though that require only 1 set of singles to be able to dance multiple scholarships, and I remember seeing one comp recently where dancing multi-dance championships count as dances towards scholarship eligibility.

For the prize money, it not often that the prize is more than what one has to pay for the scholarship entry, ticket, singles and pro fees.
 
The only time I've ever even heard of this was with a former practice partner that was at a corporate/franchise studio. We expressed interest of possibly doing amateur entries in a championship event, and they required us to have 10 single dance events to do it. They wouldn't even consider us doing a scholarship event because I wasn't a student there.

There was nothing in writing regarding this rule, but we were told the same thing through 3 different people.

I've never been told there's a minimum at other competitions, but I usually do 10-20 single dance events before a championship/scholarship anyway.
 
Spookisgirl said:
One thing that seems common at the West Coast Cdn pro/am comps is people paying for the required single dances, but then not showing up to dance them (especially if the singles are in the morning and the scholarships in the afternoon). That saves on the cost of tickets, and paying your pros for the single dances (if you don't dance them, then you don't pay for them).
Click to expand...

I'd be shot... pro would consider that horribly unprofessional. You register, you dance - unless you're too sick or injured to physically get on the floor.

Also, me choosing to do a set or two of singles to 'warm-up' is very different that me being required to do them. (And I often wouldn't, especially when there can be 6+ hours in between.)

Going to a requirement of 2 sets of singles for scholarship has already made me drop the 3-dance multi(s) from my program. And my second style... and reduce the number of comps I do per year by one. Comps also get more points in my "should I do this one" list if they only require one set of singles... Dancesport series (usually the comps requiring 2) be d*amned... 'cause I don't dance enough to care about that ranking list.
 
Last edited:
I have also had to cut back on other things to be able to afford requirements to do the dances I want to do. I have also noticed looking at results that Dancesport Series events have had much less participation in events I have looked at, compared with non-DSS championships. I know for myself, doing DSS scholarships would be a waste of time and money as I can't afford to compete enough to make any dent in the ranking list. I have heard similar things from others competing in pro/am (besides FF).

In the end, it seems requiring these singles is almost hurting participation in events.

If you have register for events, but not dancing saves you time and money and is the only way to afford to do the events you want, I can see how pros would support that. It is my understanding from students who have done this that the pro also does not want to spend less than an hour in the ballroom in the morning to do the single heats uncontested, only to not dance again until the evening.

It is certainly creating an interesting system. It does seem, at least here, that you are required to pay for the single dances, but there is no requirement to actually dance them.
 
I never said anyone owes me a spot in any scholarship because I entered more single entries. Also I did not say I spent more money so I deserve less competition.
I don't see anything wrong with requiring x number of entries if you want to enter a scholarship. The organizers get to set the rules- if we don't like them, we don't have to participate.
I do have an issue with just sweeping in to do a scholarship and not contributing in any way to the comp. if everyone came in and just did their scholarships, I doubt the comp could make enough money to stay in business.
Also, I believe I have reached that place in my dance journey where I welcome and enjoy competition- so as far as competition, the more the better, whether in single dances or multis. I want to be judged only on the basis of how I dance, not how much money I spend.
 
fascination said:
people are not responding to YOU....they are responding you your perspective....that is all
Click to expand...
Actually, post #30 quoted with a translation....... and I did not see the translation expressing the same thoughts as the original post at all..... :)

back on topic..... it is 99% likely a financial factor to requiring solo dances for entries into championship and scholarship contests(IMHO). The whole pro-am thing is what's keeping the majority of ballroom contests afloat (again IMHO). Then after this there are many discussion paths or branches....
:)
 
and I don't think we should turn the thread into being about that....I think sometimes when posters say something like " in other words, I paid more so....yada yada", they are saying "this is how I read your perspective" and because I know this poster is sensitive to that, as per her initial request for not hating on her for it, I wanted to reassure....if there did become some sort of personal negativity, we would deal with it...that is all...let's just please move on....she has clarified her own personal motives and intentions on her position, which isn't unreasonable....and I think she knew when she said it, hence the caveat, that some folks wouldn't appreciate it. :)
 
on the topic again, I agree that it is financial and not that the judges need to see more of you...here's the thing, the market will tell the tale....there are really only two routes, in my opinion, to covering costs for an organizer.....they can raise various costs to ensure it and accept that, as they do that they will begin to lose folks and have to continue to raise costs, in a vicious cycle....or they can make it as easy and accessible and awesome for the dollar as possible, making it increasingly more popular....one requires considerably more effort than the other....shrug...
 
fascination said:
on the topic again, I agree that it is financial and not that the judges need to see more of you...here's the thing, the market will tell the tale....there are really only two routes, in my opinion, to covering costs for an organizer.....they can raise various costs to ensure it and accept that, as they do that they will begin to lose folks and have to continue to raise costs, in a vicious cycle....or they can make it as easy and accessible and awesome for the dollar as possible, making it increasingly more popular....one requires considerably more effort than the other....shrug...
Click to expand...
Well put
 
I don't think the goal of NDCA comps is competition. It is to provide an experience for those who can afford it and for organizers to make money by providing that product. Given the cost just to be able to enter (i.e. lessons, attire, travel, pro cost, etc.), any participant has to have the funds to be involved in the first place and the comps just want a piece of that.

Even though there are people on a budget, the focus is not on them. I don't think there is enough of these people to justify going after purely that market and make a profit. Therefore, if they loose that one person who just wanted to mainly dance the scholarship but get additional single dances from two others, then it's a win for organizers. The loss of competition does not matter since that is not their goal . . . just look at top student.

It is better for organizers to have one person enter 100 heats then 5 people enter 5 heats each, but those 5 people are needed because the person entering 100 heats wants to dance against someone at least some of the time. The same outcome could be obtained with 3 people dancing 10 heats each. A win-win for the organizers, but a loss for the 2 people who dropped out.
 
it is all a matter or degree....some comps may decide to create some sort of aura of exclusivity and charge more....and that may appeal to some....others may put greater effort into keeping their comp accessible to a larger field of spenders and be able to boast of deep fields...everyone has their bottom line, in terms of funds....and there are only so many with unlimited funds and even fewer with unlimited funds for an unlimited period of time....every organizer will make their cocktail, with different ingredients based upon what they think is best....and the market/attendees will respond in a way that either rewards that choice or forces them to re-think it.....or to sell...shrug
 
sbrnsmith said:
Is it fair to me if someone who's not spending the same, or putting in the time, effort, supporting the comp with more entries etc jumps in to do the scholarship?
Click to expand...

I don't think it has anything to do with fairness; it has to do with the rules of the competition. I don't think there is ANY competition that allows students to do the multi-dance without doing one set of single dances, but if there were, it would not matter to me. It would not effect what I do, or why I do it.
 
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