| Subject: The beginners debate: new angle |
Author:
Ali
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:51:56 10/23/03 Thu
In reply to:
Di
's message, "Re: The "what category/level debate" on 13:59:36 10/23/03 Thu
The beginners' comp is basically aimed at people who started serious dancing at uni.
The rule, however, states that it is aimed at people who started ballroom in the last year (i.e. at uni).
Rudolph Nureyev and Margot Fonteyne could have come to uni and entered beginners (while they were alive!), despite being world-class at ballet. The spirit of the rule is largely 'people who've not done enough dancing to have encountered "technique" before' - I know of people who have done a little social dancing before uni, but danced in beginners anyway - it made no difference because they were still in exactly the same situation as everyone else. Likewise I know of a professional salsa teacher who nevertheless entered beginners and did not look out of place (style but no technique), because above everything else what stands out in beginners is solid technique, and if you have that before you begin dancesport you have a clear advantage.
Scott could have danced beginners (as could Dame Margot) but they would clearly not be in the same situation as everyone else, because they are already *trained* dancers.
There is a big difference between learning some dancing, and being trained to dance. People who've learnt some dancing (even social ballroom) should still be 'beginners' because their experience gives them no headstart over genuine 'never-danced-at-all-before' beginners (let's call these 'starters').
Trained dancers, however, have a huge advantage over starters - even the most talented of them. Oxford's all-conquering beginner couple in 2002 were, I understand, true starters, and were clearly very talented - yet Scott and the like would still grind them into dust.
I maintain that beginners should be for people who have had no "serious dancing training" since the previous IVDC.
I maintain that some social/sequence dancing gives no advantage over a starter, but 10 years of ballet/tap/jazz/modern can make a huge difference.
Wording this 'rule' into a coherent definition is very tricky, because there are many shades of grey in the more marginal cases. This is, however, what the spirit is/should be - to give people who are new to "serious" dancing the chance to be eased in, without being trampled by people who've been dancing since they were 5 - regardless of what form of dance.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 