quote:Originally posted by vcalvin: A large and vocal pro/am contingent within the ranks of USABDA is going to have more clout than an external group.
Is there a way to access USABDA membership lists? I am truly curious about the percentage of pro-am competitors who are also registered USABDA members. I think we can get some representative samples by checking those lists against competitor names from some large comps in major centers (e.g. NYC, SF, LA, DC, Boston, and Florida). BTW, I agree with Vanessa's position.
I could be wrong and I am going to check, but I don't think very many of the Pro/Am competitors at our studio belong to USABDA.
Vanessa, it is a good thing you said you were being sarcastic because, honestly, I was starting to like your idea about a new catagory: Pro/Student. It seems that the Pros have NDCA, and the Ams who compete Am/Am have USABDA, and the Ams who compete Pro/Am are the only group without an organization focusing on their needs. That's why I think that if NDCA makes us join their organization, we will at least be organized and know who we are.
But regardless of how we become organized, at some point, each one of us has to become more proactive and try to figure out win-win solutions to the things about Pro/Am events that bother us and then contact NDCA with our ideas and see what they come up with. It really isn't fair to say that NDCA doesn't care when we don't know how many AMs have even bothered to try to work with NDCA to effect change.
Vanessa, it is a good thing you said you were being sarcastic because, honestly, I was starting to like your idea about a new catagory: Pro/Student. It seems that the Pros have NDCA, and the Ams who compete Am/Am have USABDA, and the Ams who compete Pro/Am are the only group without an organization focusing on their needs.
I totally understand your frustration, Nancy. However, I really do think that a new category is an awful idea. To put pro/am students officially in a separate category would only serve to further isolate them from other amateur dancers and would strengthen the perception already held by some snots that pro/ams aren't real amateurs. And you can probably tell what a load of crap I think that perception is! The term "amateur dancer" does not apply to only to those in am/am partnerships. For that matter, one need not compete to be a legitimate amateur dancer. My feeling is that since USABDA has room for both social and competitive amateur dancers (of all shapes and sizes and of varying levels of seriousness and proficiency), then they must indeed have room for pro/am competitors as well.
So, I do think that USABDA is the appropriate "home" for the amateur half of pro/am -- philosophically, at least. The question of how responsive and/or effective either USABDA or the NDCA would be is an open-ended one. Neither organization is perfect (search this board and you'll find USABDA-gripe topics; read Dan Messenger's newsletter to hear about the pros' complaints about the NDCA). In either organization, it will take a healthy investment of work and patience to make change come about.
quote:Originally posted by NANCY: ...I don't think very many of the Pro/Am competitors at our studio belong to USABDA.
Many pro-ams carry USABDA membership, because it gives them access to a lot of USABDA activities, and/or because they want to keep the chance open of competing am/am if the right partner shows up. This is mostly true in places where there are active USABDA chapters. This is my personal impression and I think experiences vary from one part of the country to another. On the other hand, many pro-ams may not bother with USABDA membership because they have not been exposed to the benefits of USABDA membership, and this becomes a matter of education and raising awareness. In other words, I don't believe that present numbers, wherever they may fall, need to be the only determining factor in deciding whether pro-ams belong in USABDA or otherwise. I believe they do, and that they (pro-ams) should be the ones to say so. We are not minors in need of a guardian who will "adopt" us and take care of our problems, as the tone of the NDCA proposal suggests. I am not certain where I stand about requiring pro-ams to be USABDA members in order to compete, though I generally think it's a good idea. At least, in USABDA we can vote, which is a privilege NDCA would not grant. I can see a committe within USABDA dedicated to pro-am matters. It can conduct surveys, issue recommendations, and press for changes. It can also, ideally, adjudicate disputes and disqualify the am part of the pro-ams (though I should make it clear I am not seeking to create a tribunal here. These matters would not arise often, it is hoped). I think such a committee would carry much more clout for pro-ams than having them register with NDCA, unless NDCA is willing to grant specific policy-making rights to whatever group pro-ams end up becoming.
It seems that there is a significant lack of response from NDCA or USABDA in this area, and I have, therefore, decided to thrust myself into the forum. You will see that I am using my full name (I find the use of pseudonyms irritating and non-confidence-inspiring.)
I began competing in international style in 1958, and danced in England for 20 years. After coming to America in 1979, I reached the number two ranking in Standard. In 1985 I wrote the Bylaws for the new USABDA, and - with my artist wife - designed the logo still in use. In 1988 I became President of USABDA, and continued until ill health in 1993 caused me to hand over to Archie Hazelwood. Since then I have served USABDA in several capacities, including being one of its representatives to the NDCA, the International DanceSport Federation and the USOC. In addition, I have been a member of the IDSF Presidium since 1989, its Vice President since 1995, and acted as its President in 1997/98.
I now spend most of my time promoting DanceSport to television companies, and organizing competitions for television.
So much for my credentials.
I will be very happy to respond to posts on this page, and to enter into private exchanges of emails with any of you.
It seems to me that many of you are desperate to get information about how the dance industry and the amateur sport operate in the U.S. I will try to answer any questions in a non-partisan manner.
The important thing to remember always is that, however dedicated to the art and sport of dance they may be, USABDA and NDCA approach issues from different directions. Sometimes they meet in the middle, and achieve progress. At other times misunderstandings and mistrusts arise, and there is the devil to pay. Today, the situation could hardly be worse.
USABDA membership is open to anyone, but do not expect a separate membership class for "student" competitors in pro/am competitions. It isn't going to happen. It may be that NDCA will give "students" a voice - but don't hold your breath. As a group, you represent enormous income to the profession - to teachers and organizers alike. Don't expect democracy.
So fire away with questions. And let me make a request. An earlier post mentioned pro/am students teaching in studios. Names and places please. I know that both organizations would be pleased to receive this information.
I would also note the clash of dates with next year's USABDA Championships. USABDA tries to maintain the same weekend in August each year. It is the other competition that has changed dates, I believe due to hotel availability.
Y'all have a great holiday season as the politically correct say.
quote:Originally posted by <FeatherFinish>: If I were you folks, I would also contact Richard booth, who is the current head of the Professional Dancers Assoc., which has a seat on the NDCA board. I believe the PDF's members have an interest in pro=am issues because of the many pros who do pro-am, and I believe that many of them are unhappy with the current situation--the lack of rules and the way some teachers seem to be taking advantage of the situation.
Mr. Pover's message sent me back to reread all the posts in this thread and trace the evolution of this discussion, and I found this message, among several others which refer to the PDF. I am still at the stage of trying to understand the ins and outs of the industry, which is necessary if we are going to rock it, so to speak. What complaints/issues exist, or existed, between the PDF membership and the NDCA? I am asking specifically about issues that might relate to pro-am affairs, not just how the pro-comps are organized (e.g. the time between rounds, etc.). Anyone with some knowledge of the history of this stuff?
Peter, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and to make sure that your thoughts got posted. Would you mind talking more about the ways that you think that the Pro/Am events could be improved for the Amateurs?
It still seems to me that if we are going to organize, we need to have a platform with which to attrach members, and we have to be united as to what changes we hope to see implemented, and those changes have to be such that the organizers and teachers still benefit but so do the students.
I would like to post this question to everyone who is posting (or reading these posts silently: Am I correct in assuming that the two major issues that we want to address are: the level at which people decided to compete, and the costs of competitions?
I am not sure what I would recommend for the costs but for the levels, I would recommend something like limiting entries to two levels of closed and one level of open. For example, at the last comp I did, one girl entered closed beg., int., and full bronze, open int. and full bronze (there was no beg.) and scholarship. Imagine how much of a chance someone who was truly at beginner bronze level had against this girl? I don't think she should have been allowed to do beginner at all and if she was doing scholarship, I don't think she have been allowed to enter int. open. If the organizers want to encourage more entries, perhaps they could come up with more types of heats within each level rather than letting people enter as many levels as they want. Right now, it seems like the reality is that there are only three levels, Bronze, Silver and Gold, with the illusion that there are divisions within those levels.
