| Subject: Re: OPENS ENTRIES RULES |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:00:03 05/22/03 Thu
In reply to:
Tim
's message, "OPENS ENTRIES RULES" on 13:32:19 05/22/03 Thu
OK, so here are my thoughts. I am totally against this rule, or any variation of it. I am a firm believer in the virtue of the current self-policing system, am satisfied with the results that it has had, and am totally against extending standing committee powers (which constiutitonally are already far too great, in my opinion. Look at the section under standing committee (1.8 I believe) if you want more information).
Firstly, I question the need for rules. The current system works well, and the number of people choosing to dance out of standard is, as Ali points out, minimal. In fact, I would argue that at this year's IVDC, not a single couple danced out of standard. Neither of the two Intermediate winners would have made a round in advanced. How can anyone, therefore, claim they were dancing out of standard? Casting my mind back, I can't really think of any particular contentious cases except possibly Stuart and Helen in Intermediate a year ago. Nonetheless, one dubious case in 4 years is not that bad.
Secondly, I question the widom of dictating these things according to previous year's results. The standard on the university circuit can vary wildly from year to year, and one year Intermediate may be very uncompetitive and then very competitive the next year. Suppose as an example that in one year there is a shortage of top modern couples. This means that there is a very open competition in A opens during the year. At the same time, the dances at IVDC are WQTV, meaning lots of people can easily enter. Large numbers could be expected to dance up to advanced. If Intermediate was WQT, one could expect the Intermediate competition to therefore be very uncompetitive, and the winners of Intermediate therefore not very good. If the following year there was a return to form, to have that couple forced to dance up would be very unfair.
Thirdly, I question the fairness given the high turnover of partners on the circuit. A system exists on the open circuit whereby people must move up after winning a certain number of the level below (4 I think). But then couples tend to stay together and be of a similar standard. Not so on the university circuit. Consider this possibility - a beginner joins a team. Looking as though they have considerable promise, she (let's make her a girl) is put with an advanced dancer, someone like Scott, for example. By the time IVDC comes around, it is clear that she isn't in fact any good and they dance Intermediate. Nonetheless, Scott carries her through the competition, spinning all the way, and they win Intermediate. The following year at team trials, Scott is given an experienced dancer whilst his partner is given a beginner to dance with. She and her partner are approximately Novice standard. Yet they would be forced to dance Advanced or not at all under Cambridge's proposal. This example is not meant to have any relation to real life, but to a lesser extent it does happen fairly frequently.
Fourthly, Cambridge I believe want to use team results to determine entry to the opens. That is also a mistake, since at some universities, notably Oxford, there is a heavy emphasis put on the team results and dances. Therefore a dancer may often do well in one dance whilst being rubbish at all the others (I was arguably a paradigm case of this whilst at university). Forcing these dancers to dance advanced Foxtrot and Tango, after only a couple of lessons, because they have done really well in Waltz, seems very unfair.
Fifthly, Cambridge are proposing, I believe, that results from other competitions should count as determinants. This is also dangerous, as the standards of opens at some of these events, especially smaller ones, can vary enormously. Would the Southern Friendly count? How about the Manchester competition? What if one year Oxford decided not to go to Warwick? That would mean a lot of people doing very well and thus forced up a level at IVDC.
Finally, it should be noted that the dances danced at IVDC in the different levels changes every year. Not everyone will have all five dances, and the dances are not evenly distributed throughout the other competitions. This would force inexperienced couples to spend a lot of time getting together extra dances. A lot of people, especially beginners, will spend a lot of time on their team dances, and then get one or two open routines. However, they may well be forced to get all five, which in some cases (eg if Paso is the advanced dance) will prove prohibitive, and in many other cases will cause people to be dancing drastically out of standard.
The aim of IVDA is to support Dancesport at university (OK, technically dancing - read 1.1.1 of the constitution). To achieve that aim it is clearly desirable that there should be as few people as possible dancing out of standard, especially dancing down, as this spoils the competition for other people in that competition. Yet I believe that this proposal would cause significantly more problems than it solves, and turn what actually isn't a problem at all into a big problem.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 