What makes someone a pro?

[tasche]

An anology I can think of is the guy taking photos at sears or glamour shots a professional photographer? Not really at least not according real pros. Sure they get paid....

Then again, I know of some photographers who are 'professionals' in that they make good livings at it, but are not at all 'professional' in terms of how they actually act at, say, the weddings they do - the kind that, for example, show up to a formal wedding in a t-shirt and corduroys. I have no problem calling someone who takes my passport photographs a "professional photographer" if they are, in fact, professional about it, including doing a good job with the photography.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make I think you've hit it on the head. A pro is someone that provides a quality product in a respectable manner.

In general the "happy snaps" places tend to have employees that are laize fair and dont put out the best product ( lots of filters and cheap tricks to hide less that great shots) on the other hand a passport photo place if they can do a good photo the first time and treats the customer with repect then they should be called a pro. ( I have the best passport photo in the world that was taken at a small chemist)

So its all about being able to both walk the walk and talk the talk.

I think most people know a true pro when they run into them (hopefully!)

 

[Porfirio Landeros]

Actually, the way the NDCA handles things, those competitors can't compete against you, so there's no unfairness.

What I perceive as unfair is treating one style differently than the other. When Standard/Latin amateurs can accept cash from dance activities, and put it back into their dancing, they are able to improve their field at a faster rate than the Smooth/Rhythm dancers that are left to fend for themselves because of out-of-date amateur definitions - the ability to afford more lessons means better dancing, right?

As impractical as this sounds, heaven would be free lesson for amateurs. The government could issue grants for the practice facilities, and patrons of the arts could underwrite competitions, while corporate sponsors could pay for our coaching. YEAH RIGHT :roll:

I think the closest we can get to heaven on Earth is allowing amateurs to get as close to "free" as possible by letting them earn some dance income to pay for more dancing. In the end, the ballrooms, competition organizers, and coaches still get paid (I'd be taking 10 lessons a week )! That's why I don't understand what they're afraid of.

So you're right, the floor is level when it comes comparing competitors within American style, but, why should a gap in resources be advocated by leaving these dedicated amateurs in the shadow of International style?

 

[DanceAm]

Before I start this next post, I dance American Style, I love American Style and I will probably always consider myself an American Style dancer.

Last year's Amateur American Rhythm Champions were/are Jeff and Alison Small. After winning, Jeff admitting saying something like, "How does it feel to be the Champions of Social Dance". They have retired from American Style and are now competing International Latin, in the Senior 1, (over 35) division. Since they finished in the top 2, they are world representitives. They are now dancing in a "REAL" division. They have also danced in Prague representing our country. As a side note, Jonathan Medlin and Loren Rand, the American Smooth Champions, are also working their way up through the Standard Ranks.

When I read that Jeff said that, it sort of hurt. But when I thought about it, he was right. I don't think in Pro Levels this is true, but in the Amateur level, it appears to be that way, especially for American Rhythm.

This being said, it seems the American competitors are what I would consider more along the line of being true amateurs. International style seems to have more of a Professional flavor to it and the talent is much higher and more plentiful than in American Style.

With the definitions of Amateur and Professional and vagueness of what they are in real life, I wish that USABDA had followed through with getting rid of the distinction. It is so common hear "He is just an Amateur, let a pro do it." In everyday life, pro indicates competence and amateur indicates it is a beginner, or weekend practicianer, or simply not competent. The old definition simply doesn't apply and simply restricting it to monitary distictions is antiquated.

A better explenation of a Professional is someone who studies and practices to perfect is craft and in all manner and deed project a positive image to superiors, peers and subordinates, reflecting the highest standards of performance, ethics and respect for others.

Being a pro used to mean displaying professionalism and this brings to mind Barry Sanders of the Detroit Lions. He always displayed professionalism and never once did he celebrate in the end zone. He was not caught up in any controversy (that I know of) and he didn't stay in the game long enough to get his name in the record books, though everyone thinks he would have made it. He was about the game and about the team, and that is why he is a professional in my book.

An amateur, I cannot come up with a good definition that still works today, I will let someone else take a stab at it. Maybe it is like the definition of the professional, but doesn't make "much" money at it. But when you compare Amateur Figure Skaters like Michelle Kwan to other professionals, she makes a lot of money.

 

[KevinL]

Or my pet peeve is when they say to him " Oh your camera takes such good pictures" and he replies "No its the photographer that takes good pictures", "Yeah but your camera is so good.."

That's like complementing your host on a wonderful meal, "That was great! You must have wonderful pots and pans!"

 

[KevinL]

When I read the title of this topic, the question I heard as implied was,"does being paid to dance or teach dance make someone a dance pro?"

I'm not sure if that's what you intended to ask, Kevin, but my answer is no. For me to consider him/her a pro, a dancer or dance teacher has to bring a heck of a lot more to the table than just a pay stub.

Hmm, that's part of what I was asking, but I was also asking, "what kind of behaviour do you expect from someone who is a pro?"

 

[Adwiz]

USABDA has failed miserably at getting more corporate sponsorship for Dancesport athletes and the NDCA is trying to protect the livelyhood of its registrants and member organizations like Arthur Murry.

The NDCA, charges me for a membership, but still cannot make Amateur couple competition more popular at its comps.

Can either of these organizations truely help Amateur Dancesport?

Excellent points, and I agree that they have failed miserably in what their mandate should be. However, I don't believe the answer is yet another organization, as there are already too many and this only confuses amateur dancers and frustrates their interest in competing. It is entirely possible that the current level of complexity is a primary reason that comps are so poorly attended.

In Canada it is very simple. Each province has its own governing body for DanceSport, under the IDSF umbrella. Every amateur has to join to compete. One body, one membership. This body is run by amateurs and works hard to lift the image of dancing. Because of the simplicity, amateurs get involved and corporate sponsors understand it all, getting involved themselves in financing trophies and events. Even the smallest comps here have large perpetual trophies for every level including Newcomer. This larger corporate involvement also provides travel funds for top-level competitors, allowing them to pay for their comp costs to international events. Any above-syllabus athlete (pre-champ or champ level) who achieves high enough placing at closed regional events represents that region for their age group and can then access the travel funds to visit larger events.

This is getting a little off-topic, but it is frustrating that USABDA and NDCA appear to be so ineffective. Why aren't dancers in the US more vocal in their disappointment? Perhaps a little more expressed anger from their membership would get them doing what they are supposed to be doing?

In Canada professionals are licensed by the Canadian Dance Teachers Association and must pass certification exams which can be quite complex. Again, a very simple system that seems to work very well for the most part. But I do believe there are people violating this who teach non-studio situations like night-school dance courses without licensing.

 

[Laura]

Maybe it is like the definition of the professional, but doesn't make "much" money at it. But when you compare Amateur Figure Skaters like Michelle Kwan to other professionals, she makes a lot of money.

Figure Skating, like the other Olympic sports, no longer uses the terms "professional" and "amateur." They got rid of this years ago, I think even before the time of Tonya & Nancy. In Figure Skating you're allowed to make as much money as you want, from shows, endorsements, and teaching. However, you can only skate in ISU (International Skating Union) approved competitions and shows. Skating in a non-sanctioned event will cost you your Olympic eligibility. In fact, rather than using the terms "professional" and "amateur," they use the terms "inelgible" and "eligible."

 

[pygmalion]

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

 

[Chris Stratton]

I'd have to disagree that restricting people to sanctioned competitions while allowing them to teach is any improvement.

Actually, we already do have such a restriction, in theory. Adwiz might want to review the recent history of amateur dancing in Canada, where some of the amateur organizations called a global prohibition against any member of an IDSF member organization attending previously recognized competitions sanctioned by the CDTA, over an argument virtually identical the to the USABDA-NDCA one about who was going to register amateurs. The resolution? Requiring people to pay registration fees to both the regional amateur organization and the CTDA, in order to dance at a single comp.

I strongly believe that it is imperative that no single organization have monopoly control over amateur dancing. Organizations are welcome to establish their own rules regarding teaching, but they should not use threats against those who would also dance elsewhere in violation of no rule other than the illegitimate measures intended to to create such monopoly control.

 

[KevinL]

This is getting a little off-topic, but it is frustrating that USABDA and NDCA appear to be so ineffective. Why aren't dancers in the US more vocal in their disappointment? Perhaps a little more expressed anger from their membership would get them doing what they are supposed to be doing?

I'm not vocal about this topic because I don't care about competitions. I'm a social dancer and social teacher. I did one competition while still a student, but I didn't care if it was sanctioned by any organization. Why would I? All I cared about was that I was able to "compete" in front of people. In a couple of heats I was the only person in my category, though, so the competition wasn't very challenging.

My perception of USABDA is that the organization is designed to support social dancing, and recreational dancing in general, which I think they do well. However, I can't see that the local USABDA chapter does much to support DanceSport, but that might be in part because there are so few competitiors in the state.

In Canada professionals are licensed by the Canadian Dance Teachers Association and must pass certification exams which can be quite complex. Again, a very simple system that seems to work very well for the most part. But I do believe there are people violating this who teach non-studio situations like night-school dance courses without licensing.

I think it would be great if the US had a licensing requirement for dance teachers because that could greatly increase the quality of the dance teachers available.

However, it could also greatly decrease the number of teachers available and thereby decrease the number of people dancing. To my knowledge there are only three certified dance teachers in the state of Vermont. There are several other teachers, though, and some of them are quite good. If they had to go through the effort to get certified and licensed, would they bother, or would they just quit teaching? Maybe, maybe not. Would the swing and salsa teachers, where the dances are very organic and club-oriented, need to be licensed as well? Who would be in charge of those certifications?

Hmm. This deserves it's own thread...

 

[pygmalion]

Yup, Kevin. That sounds like a great topic.

Although I stand to be corrected, here, it appears to me that most USABDA chapters excel at either Dancesport OR social dancing, but few do both well. The chapters just have limited resources, and it's difficult to diversify without adequate support (mostly volunteer hours, I'm guessing. The chapters appear to be fairly well-funded, and they get incentives from National for things like % renewals and new memberships. They're not rolling in dough, so to speak, but there is money. There just doesn't appear to be enough support to do both social and dancesport in most chapters.

 

[Laura]

The support has to come from a combination of the membership and of a responsive board. Our chapter tried to do both for years -- we'd have monthly "meet up" social dances at the various studios and clubs in the area, with a "meet up" for dinner beforehand. Not many people ever came, although the Board members all went regularly to act as hosts. There just wasn't the interest in the local membership, so we dropped it and no one even seemed to notice.

Conversely, I was talking to someone in another chapter that is very social focussed. Some people wanted some opportunities for competitors, but their Board didn't seem responsive to their ideas.

In my opinion, the Boards are there to serve the needs of their members. If the members start asking for something, it's important for the Board to give it a try to see how it pans out. You can't please all of the people all the time, but dismissing new ideas and requests too often does nothing to promote growth and good fellowship.

Getting back to the topic at hand..."professional" has two main branches of meaning, one to do with receiving money, and the other to do with skill and demeanor:

pro·fes·sion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.

1.
1. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
2. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.


n.

1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

To me, for the purposes of competitive dance, a professional is #2 "One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation." The top so-called amateur dancers in the US, the ones who are allowed to teach and get endorsements, are really professionals. Dancing is their lives, it's an implied occupation. There's two ways to deal with this: either get really strict and kick ALL these people up to the pro ranks (which even the NDCA won't do), or just get rid of the distinction and let anyone make money and let anyone dance (which is the path of least resistance).

 

[DanceAm]

Olympic eligible and ineligible, sounds like two new words to describe what once was.

So the word amateur is atiquated? Does it even have any meaning anymore? Since it has has such a negitive connotation, we probably need to drop it altogether. Amateurs can get paid, they can win money, they can be sponsored and Victor Fung and Anna have proven they are as good or better than most of the Pros when they went "Pro". I think it is time to come up with better and honest designations Eligible and Ineligible.

A quick note about skating again, I think they had to change the designation not because of the money but because the professionals were has-beens and never were able to skate again at the level of there Olympic days or no where near the level of the current eligibles. It was had to call them professionals when the amateurs were better. That is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[Laura]

It really had to do with all the money making opportunities that skaters had after the whole Tonya/Nancy thing. For a while, every time you turned around there was another show, tour, or made-for-TV competition. The ISU was worried about their top competitors doing a bunch of cheesy competitions for the bucks and thus sullying the sport, turning it more into a Las Vegas style show than an atheletic endeavor. Does anyone remember shows like "Too Hot 2 Skate" and "Ice Wars"? Those were the kinds of things that the ISU didn't want their skaters being lured into by big bucks. By the same token, the skaters wanted to be able to earn money. So, the ISU started sanctioning certain events and not others, based on their prestige. They didn't want people like Michelle Kwan and the various Russian Alexi's (Urmanov, Yagudan) running off to cheesy ice shows for money and then getting injured or too tired and not being able to perform well at the major International competitions. There was a big stink one year about Nicole Bobek, who at the time was a world bronze medalist, missing US Nationals the next year because she was injured and didn't take time off to heal, instead skating during the regular competitive season in a touring version of "Nutcracker on Ice." She asked for a medical bye to worlds, and I don't recall if she got it or not, but I think that partially led to the crackdown on who could skate where and still maintain their Olympic eligibility.

 

[Porfirio Landeros]

Aspiring champions (either amateur or pro) are expected to exhibit professionalism, thereby invalidating the amateur title.

So, as an aspiring champion, I'm expected to wear the pro persona but not receive all the benefit$.

You're right, Laura, eliminating the distinction holds the least path of resistance, at least for me.

So, a professional seems to be defined as someone exhibiting professionalism: proficiency in their field, good sportsmanship, charisma and leadership qualities... getting paid seems to come in last