| Subject: Re: OPENS ENTRIES RULES |
Author:
Tim
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:26:02 05/22/03 Thu
In reply to:
Shell
's message, "Re: OPENS ENTRIES RULES" on 16:51:06 05/22/03 Thu
To answer your points:
1) On whether it is a problem. Let's not stick with X&Y here. If there was a couple who you think were out of standard, then please name them. I guess you must be implying that Tim Biggs and Kristen were dancing out of standard this year? I'm not convinced (though they did make mixed team finals, that's true). In fact I think this counts as a good counter-example to your proposal. Although they have made mixed team finals, I think it is fair to say that they are NOT of the same level over all four dances as the others making those finals, and therefore achievement in the team match is not a good indicator of the level people should enter in the opens.
2) People will always complain that 'X&Y who won the competition shouldn't have been in there' because it is an easier explanation for failure than 'I wasn't good enough,' just like 'the judges were biased is'. That doesn't make it true.
3) My comment about lots of people being expected to dance up has been taken out of context. It was part of a hypothetical example to show the flaws in your proposal.
4) Your argument about gaining credibility on the open circuit is an interesting one. It might well be true. But the extent to which people study all five dances equally is unlikely to be affected by this proposal - all this will do is to force more people out of dancing the opens, or into dancing out of standard. What would be required would be a big change in emphasis from the team match to the opens. And I think that would be very undesirable, however much we might want more university dancers to dance on the open circuit. Actually, I think I've found the two biggest catalysts for getting people to dance on the open circuit are:
(A) Ex-students hanging around the team who are having some success on the open circuit (IC has had a high number at least in part because of Kevin's association with the team).
(B) Being very successful on the university circuit, and the need for a new challenge.
(C) The encouragement of the university dance teacher to do so.
(D) Being around over the summer.
(E) Taking outside lessons. I guess this ties into (C).
As for having more credibility with the outside circuit - who gives a monkey's about that? We'll never have that because we don't play the game, and amateurs and seniors alike resent the fact that university students get good a lot quicker than they did (because of more practise, greater intelligence and fast-track teaching (because teachers are motivated by getting you success rather than just filling their wallets, as many are with senior couples etc.)) The only way to establish our credibility is to have dancers who do well on the open circuit. That has already happened, and that is winning us credibility amongst the better dancers.
>
>I have been approached by numerous individuals from
>both Cambridge and other universities, who perceive a
>problem with the current system of "self-policing".
>There do seem to be individuals who are not
>progressing through the novice-intermediate-advanced
>levels and who do not feel it is appropriate to move
>up a level until they have won the previous level,
>despite being a finalist in the previous level and/or
>a mixed team finalist and despite the majority of
>people of a similar level who they dance against in
>the team match, dancing at the higher level.
>
>In order to ensure people progress through the levels
>the proposed change is as follows:
>
>Keep 2.1.5.2
>
>2.1.5.4
>An individual must dance in advanced if they made an
>intermediate final at IVDA or an equivalent
>competition in a previous year or if they have made A
>team, mixed open, mixed team or
>advanced finals in that discipline during the same
>academic year.
>
>2.1.5.5
>A individual must dance intermediate if they made a
>novice final at IVDA or an equivalent competition in a
>previous year.
>
>
>I think maybe Tim thinks self policing works because
>there are universities that feel strongly about
>placing dancers in the level appropriate to them.
>Would there have been complaints if I had danced in
>novice this year (I was a novice finalist 3 years ago
>, but my team partner was a novice)? I felt this
>would have been inappropriate therefore I enetered
>advanced with another partner and encourgaed people in
>a similar situation to do the same.
>
>Complaints were made to me that other individuals are
>not adhering to the same guidelines. Making these
>rules will ensure that genuine intermediates are not
>denied the chance for a fair competition, or that
>people avoid dancing at all. I would like to avoid a
>scenario whereby dancers come off the floor and
>complain why are X&Y in the same level as us, when X&Y
>got much better results last year and throughout the
>year and are not comparable. I would like the remove
>the feelings that have been expressed that X&Y are
>dancing down just to win a trophy. We should encourage
>people to progress through the levels, and I am
>concerned that people are flooding the intermediate
>levels when they could be making rounds in advanced.
>
>There are obviously difficult cases, but I think
>people should eb aware of the opportunities to dance
>with another partner in the opens if it means the
>partnership is of a more appropriate level.
>
>I think it has to be done on whether a dancer in
>making finals in a certain level rather than number of
>years dancing; that would be easier to police and it's
>a fairer indication of a dancer's standard.
>
>
>>Neither of the two Intermediate winners would have
>>made a round in advanced.
>
>They are making mixed team finals though and have
>therefore demonstrated that they are of the standard
>that the rest of the people in advanced are at. I
>think we need to address why people do not want to
>dance at their appropriate level. From people I have
>spoken to it does not seem to be because of costuming
>issues or which dances they have to do.
>
>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.
>
>However there are couples not dancing because they are
>being advised that they would be in an inappropriate
>level if they were to dance. I think we need to
>ensure that the system gets abused no further.
>
> Large numbers
>>could be expected to dance up to advanced.
>
>I don't believe large numbers are currently dancing up
>to advanced and we need to ensure that advanced
>competitors have more than a straight semi to contend
>with.
>
>I think the fault of the UK circuit is that it turns
>you into someone with an ability just to dance one of
>your team dances, learning the other 3 or 4 dances in
>your discipline, does more to increase the credibility
>of the university circuit with open compeitions and
>woul encourage more student dancers to enter the open
>circuit when they leave.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 