The Winning Edge
- Thread starter pygmalion
- Start date
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Good dancing, and judges that have the same opinion of what constitutes good dancing as you do.pygmalion said:
Making enemies of the judges, so they won't vote for you even if they like your dancing.
Adwiz
New Member
One of my coaches told me a story recently that illustrated this whole issue. He was a youth championship finalist and competed for several years against another couple that turned into a bit of a friendly feud because they were friends off the competition floor.
What he said was that he and his partner were not technically as good as the other couple, and he knew that. He figured the only way he could beat them was through superior showmanship. So they worked really hard on showmanship while the other couple worked really hard on the details of their technique. In the end, at competition after competition, year after year, he would win and his friend would come in second. In fact, he eventually retired without ever having been beaten by his technically superior friend.
Of course judges care about technique. But they often look for a quality that transcends the technique. There's something about showmanship that just works, especially if you have two couples who are very closely matched in other areas.
However, we have to be careful not to assume that showmanship always works. Paulo and Sylvia of Italy are an outstanding Standard couple, one of the world's best, and I don't think anyone can touch their exceptional level of showmanship. But in their case it actually hurts their competition result because judges see them as forcing the performance at the cost of technique and consequently mark them down to make their own point that we shouldn't let DanceSport get sloppy because we're pushing the show above everything else. So there is a balance needed. But showmanship plays a huge role, probably on a percentage basis more than the other aspects -- especially at the syllabus levels where costumes don't apply.
What he said was that he and his partner were not technically as good as the other couple, and he knew that. He figured the only way he could beat them was through superior showmanship. So they worked really hard on showmanship while the other couple worked really hard on the details of their technique. In the end, at competition after competition, year after year, he would win and his friend would come in second. In fact, he eventually retired without ever having been beaten by his technically superior friend.
Of course judges care about technique. But they often look for a quality that transcends the technique. There's something about showmanship that just works, especially if you have two couples who are very closely matched in other areas.
However, we have to be careful not to assume that showmanship always works. Paulo and Sylvia of Italy are an outstanding Standard couple, one of the world's best, and I don't think anyone can touch their exceptional level of showmanship. But in their case it actually hurts their competition result because judges see them as forcing the performance at the cost of technique and consequently mark them down to make their own point that we shouldn't let DanceSport get sloppy because we're pushing the show above everything else. So there is a balance needed. But showmanship plays a huge role, probably on a percentage basis more than the other aspects -- especially at the syllabus levels where costumes don't apply.
Chris Stratton
New Member
A complete performance can often win even if it is built on an unsound foundation. However, there are two things it cannot do:
First, it cannot win the highest level competitions, because when you look at the best in the world everyone has an amazingly prepared performance - but some are using technique that is more enabling than others.
Second, it cannot teach efficiently. Building skills in students requires having workable information to impart to them. Obviously the students will have to practice - but students given more workable ideas to practice will make more progress than those given ideas that come with limiting errors or omissions. Yet suboptimal information can, with enough work, still lead to students with complete enough performances to win.
First, it cannot win the highest level competitions, because when you look at the best in the world everyone has an amazingly prepared performance - but some are using technique that is more enabling than others.
Second, it cannot teach efficiently. Building skills in students requires having workable information to impart to them. Obviously the students will have to practice - but students given more workable ideas to practice will make more progress than those given ideas that come with limiting errors or omissions. Yet suboptimal information can, with enough work, still lead to students with complete enough performances to win.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
The judges aren't marking them down to "make a point". The judges are marking other couples higher because those other couples dance better.Adwiz said:
Chris Stratton
New Member
I've been thinking about this more, and would propose the following explanation for what seems to happen today:
Only a minority of judges are willing to reward isolated achievement in subtle technical details for the simple fact of it being correct. As long as the advantage it confers is still only a potential one, it takes sharp and knowledgeable eyes to even detect, and a fierce determination to encourage long term growth to value ahead of present achievement. The more common case is that technique wins you the competition only if you use it to do something the other couples cannot, or do it in a way they cannot. But compromise fixes can do the same thing in the short term - if they enable you to do something the others cannot, that achievement is as likely to be rewarded by many judges.
Only a minority of judges are willing to reward isolated achievement in subtle technical details for the simple fact of it being correct. As long as the advantage it confers is still only a potential one, it takes sharp and knowledgeable eyes to even detect, and a fierce determination to encourage long term growth to value ahead of present achievement. The more common case is that technique wins you the competition only if you use it to do something the other couples cannot, or do it in a way they cannot. But compromise fixes can do the same thing in the short term - if they enable you to do something the others cannot, that achievement is as likely to be rewarded by many judges.
skwiggy
Well-Known Member
Chris Stratton said:
Why would judges judge based on anything other than present achievement? They are supposed to judge you on what you do on that day, at that moment.
They are judging on good dancing, not on what looks like a good foundation for good dancing in the future.
Chris Stratton
New Member
skwiggy said:
This could make for an interesting discussion.
I would say the practical problem with judging purely on present accomplishment is that couples will tend to shoot up rapidly through the levels until they reach a point where their subtle problems present a practical obstacle. When that happens, they may be well and truly stuck - have to work on fixing some very basic things, but feel pressure to dance with all the flourish of the level they have risen to. Quite of a few of those couples don't survive - especially not as couples.
I think there has to be a balance of juding on accomplishment & soundness of direction... but what balance? Or what is actually a sound direction?
skwiggy
Well-Known Member
It's up to the coaches and the couples themselves to worry about building a foundation for the future. On the day that they stand on a judging panel (as all of these people are coaches on other days), it's up to the judges to judge the quality of dancing on that day. It's not a judge's responsibility to feed the growth of the couples. It is their responsiblity to judge.
Chris Stratton
New Member
So are you saying judges should ignore bad habits that aren't yet interefering with the dancing, but clearly will in the future?
Edit: I'm guessing you would not argue that, because such things would spoil the look of the dancing. But then look must be based not just on immediate practical necessity, but also on general princples - which derive from future needs. Perhaps it depends on the judge's degree of knowledge of the detailed requirements for higher level dancing - I would think it would be hard to ignore as a judge things that you were constantly cautioning your students to avoid doing!
Edit: I'm guessing you would not argue that, because such things would spoil the look of the dancing. But then look must be based not just on immediate practical necessity, but also on general princples - which derive from future needs. Perhaps it depends on the judge's degree of knowledge of the detailed requirements for higher level dancing - I would think it would be hard to ignore as a judge things that you were constantly cautioning your students to avoid doing!
madmaximus
Forum Master
skwiggy said:
This I agree with.
A judge's role in a competition is to objectively sort the best of the field--and to evaluate what the dancers show them at that point in time. Where technical proficiency is lower, then the couple that performs with fewer mistakes should win.
The merits of technical potential notwithstanding, a superior couple (in technique, showmanship, whatever) should rightly place behind a couple who--for reasons of astrology, alignment of planets, or sheer nervous competence--performs better on competition day.
The stewardship of the level of dancing is best left to the coaches (or to judges in a coaching capacity).
maximus
Another Elizabeth
Active Member
While I certainly agree that dancing should be judged on the basis of what is actually shown on the competition floor, I don't think that's what Chris is disputing. Rather, this goes to the issue of what is "better" dancing. Given two couples, each having certain technical flaws, he submits that the "better" couple is the one whose flaws would not impede their achieving the highest levels of technique in the future. I think this could also be characterized as doing what the best couples do, but not as much, rather than doing something qualitatively different from what the best couples do.