| Subject: Re: In support of rules |
Author:
Robin
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:58:56 05/22/03 Thu
In reply to:
A
's message, "In support of rules" on 17:01:09 05/22/03 Thu
No couple in the IVDA ballroom intermediate (which is the one I watched) looked like they were significantly better than the others. This is backed up by the marks, which can be found at: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0524/results/Intermediate_Finals.pdf
The winning couple had plenty of 2nds, 3rd, 4ths, won 2 of the 3 dances, coming 3rd in the other, so the standard of the int. final was very even, with all couples getting a range or marks. Either all of them should have done advanced (and plenty more who were of a comparable level) or none of them can be forced to.
The only competition where there are strict rules is the Beginners, it's a special prize for the best dancer with <1 year of training. The intermediate is just an arbitrary cut-off, and winning intermediate doesn't mean much other than "you're the best, except for all the people who are better".
>I think having th rules that make people enter the
>right level is rather good idea. People who would
>dance their own level or even dance up will not be
>against this proposal as it doesn't make a change for
You have to make a choice as to what "the right level" is for everyone. Do you think that there should be equal numbers in Novice, Int and Advanced? Then yes, lots of people danced in the wrong level. The people who win Intermediate are better than most others in intermediate (by definition).
They are also significantly worse than those who entered Advanced. So you can't accuse anyone of entering the wrong level. Rather you are saying that the cut-off should be lower. Or maybe we need a 4th leve? Novice, Int, pre-champ and champ? I prefer competitions with lots of entries myself...
I don't think the rules suggested have much merit, as they tell you nothing about the standard of people. What about someone who made the final at the competition in Oxford, where only 10 Unis were there, the 1st division was a straight semi? Or Manchester? Should all finalists there dance advanced? At Warwick, Imperial didn't come, so a bunch of people made team-finals that never would otherwise, similarly Cardiff was not at Sheffield. Getting someone stuck in Advanced forever because of one freak result is quite cruel...
I think, if anything, we simply have to make the advanced more attractive, though i thought it all worked quite well this year. Any ideas?
Robin
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 