One of the reasons I keep returning to figure skating as a comparison instead of other sports is exactly that. There is a subjective quality in judging skating that simply isn't present in any other sport I can think of. Its the "artistic" portion of the score, which brings it closer to the world of dance. If i had any knowledge of competitive ballroom, I might use that as an example since it is a more similar art form to Tango.
The observation was made about "credentials". So I sought an example where the credentials are established beyond doubt by an "industry standard" despite the obvious relevance of subjective artistic merit. The problem with judging Tango credentials is that no such "industry standard" exists as does in competitive sports.
However, even without direct competition, the judging based on comparison to the "opposition" takes place in a subtle way even in Tango. A friend of mine once observed (about the local tango scene) "The only thing nessesary to be the 'best' dancer is to be better than all the other bad dancers". In other words, you don't have to be "good" to be the "best" in any given comparison.
The reason Yao ever even went to a world level competition is that there was no one else from China better than he was despite his being pretty bad. In a remote area that gets little in the way of traveling world class teachers, someone who is not very good may be the 'best' teacher. The lack of actual competitive scoring doesn't change that.
Perhaps other examples of great teachers who weren't famous as practitioners can be found in the world of Ballet, where "greatness" is not determined by competitive scoring, but is universally accepted nonetheless.
Balanchine will go down in history as a great teacher, choreographer and "impresario" without ever attaining extraordinary fame as a dancer. To some extent, he was in the right place at the right time in his leap to the West.
But another way in which he made this transition possible was that he trained his dancers in HIS preferred style and then showcased the ones who best demonstrated what HE felt was the perfect ballet form. By having his own company, he was able to change the look of Ballet into his own vision and over time, create some of the "best" dancers in the world.
These same dancers might have been rejected by the traditional ballet world 100 years prior, or even in the companies that trained Balanchine. Had they danced as he taught them in Russia, of the early 20th century, they might never have become soloists or principles. But now they go down in history as some of the great Ballerinas.
So when we judge Tango dancers, teachers and styles, we are also affected by this type of transition. When a teacher/ impresario emigrates to a land without much Tango and forms a school or company based on his/her own vision, "Tango form" changes, and over time the definition of who is great changes as well.
Is Balanchine NOT ballet, because his form is not that of Diaghilev? At one time the answer might have been "No, he is not". But today, we can't imagine any answer other than "Huh? He's like the epitome of Ballet, dude!"
I believe this transition and loss of the old style is at the heart of what Jan is mourning. The ballet world loses if Balanchine's way become the ONLY respected form, and the Tango world loses if the traditional social form of the old milongueros is replaced and lost.
It is impossible for any art form to remain unchanged. Innovation and transition WILL occur. We may disagree as to whether the newer forms should be called "tango" (and history, not us, will ultimately decide as it always has)
However I think we would all agree that the total loss of the traditional forms would be a tragedy.
