One correction, though: the Rising Star Standard competition held at the Emerald Ball this year was not for the US Rising Star title. Only the Rhythm, Smooth, and Latin Rising Star National titles were awarded at Emerald: the US Rising Star Standard title was awarded earlier in the Spring in Provo. I believe that Gary & Rita Ghekman (spelling?) were the winners.
Still, that doesn't take anything away from Cathy's lovely dancing and continued development! She and Giacomo looked great at Emerald!
The artical inaccurratly portrays USABDA as not supporting the amateur who dances Pro/Am. Before all the NDCA crap started, USABDA accepted the role and did not involve themselves with anything to do with professionals in competition, that was the Domain of the NDCA. That was a line that USABDA said it would not cross. Now with the separation, USABDA wants to support the pro/ammer. Also, the artical totally disregards the fact that the number one activity of all USABDA chapters is to hold open social dances and it requests that the local chapters do whatever they can in these social gatherings to get the crowd intermingling, with "lady's choice", "mixers" and to be as creative as they can in this endevor. I see many amateur dancers that dance both USABDA and NDCA, it is usually their professional instructor that demands they stop competing USABDA, not the other way around. (Especially from the Nashville area.) I don't know why the author needs to bash everyone to make Pro/Am look good. I agree that if is wasn't for the Pro/am dancing, Dancesport in the US would be very exclusive and the NDCA and USABDA probably wouldn't need to exist. Sure there are great amateur dancers in Pro/Am and there are those old ladies giving their money to hack instructors, each an extreme. Most Amateurs, social, am competitors and Pro/am competitors alike are still mainstream individuals who are passionate about what they spend their free time doing. I know bowlers that bowl every night of the week, Golfers on the course every chance they get and barflies that love the hard stuff. I can see why the Pro/Am competitor loves the artical, especially after the beatings they take on this very website, and I personally am glad the pro/ammers take an active role with such a lack of partners, but I think the author of this artical is an idiot.
The article had a great premise, but failed on execution.
Okay, Pro/Am'ers deserve better. But what do we deserve? How can Pro/Am'ers get more "repect"? Or what should organizations do to show their "respect"?
About the only thing, I can see (from the article) is that to be "respected" we should pay NDCA a membership fee, and that was just implied. (Not like we don't pay enough already.) And "true amateurs" pay the fee, and I really don't see them getting much more respect.
But didn't that article seem very similiar to some of the discussions we have had here. And I'm too lazy to go searching right now.
ProfKingsfield, do you have an association with Dancing USA?
If so, it would be appreciated if there were more recognition on the magazine and website regarding DanceScape and our members here as its source for ideas and research (or you know the policy). It's a fine publication, nonetheless, and we'll let the link remain at this time, as it is an important topic for discussion and is relevant to DanceScape Pro-Amer's here.
Laura once asked, "Is it all about peanuts in the US?"
She was commenting about the arguments that raged on DanceScape, about the NDCA rules demanding that amateurs register.
I hope I am not misquoting you, Laura, and I'm not trying to usurp your arguments. I just thought your question at the time was very insightful, because it pointed out that the amount of money involved in the NDCA registration fee, individually for each dancer and collectively for the whole amateur community, was "peanuts".
I hope we don't go back to arguing over peanuts.
I mention this in reference to the comments of TheDitz. As I see them, those comments help only in reducing a serious subject into "peanuts". No, the issue is not whether the NDCA is entitled to 20 dollars or so from pro-ams, nor did I personally infer that that was the whole gist of the said article. And, just for the sake of argument, if that were the insiduous motive behind the article, I for one would gladly pay such "peanuts" if there is something in return. God knows pro-ams spend a whole lot more, in the normal course of their dancing, than any membership fee. So the question, for me, is whether there are issues that can be achieved/improved through group affiliation, under the banner of the NDCA or any other name, and if so, are they worth the money.
Obviously, my own personal answer would be yes, to both questions. And obviously, whoever wrote that article is familiar with a lot of what goes on here on DanceScape. Hurray.
IF anyone is interested in picking up this subject, I say about time. I'll contribute my two cents worth, just to get the ball rolling, if you will.
Among the topics that were discussed here (one close to my heart) is "sandbagging", or: How to maintain fairness in dance competitions by having dancers of a certain level compete against each other.
If regulating dance levels across all ndca pro-am comps is too complicated, for starters, I would suggest a series of events, along the lines of the Superbowl dances, which follow stringent rules and are thus identified in the program. So, anyone can continue to dance just about anything they want, as they do now. But there will be one event at each level, for example, open only to those who have never competed at a higher level, and where strict invigilating of dance steps takes place. I'm making this up, and I'm sure the suggestion can be refined. I just do not want to see someone, whom I know has been dancing at the Gold level four years ago, and who never stopped dancing in between, suddenly transformed into a Bronze dancer. I do not want to see someone who took 2nd place in Gold championship last year, compete in Silver championship this year at the same event. I do not want to see someone compete in silver dances, and in Open championship, in the same event in the same style, where he/she performs an Open routine for the open championship and places well. Perhaps the rules can be amended to say that Open championships are open to those dancing at Silver and above (as they say now) PROVIDED that the dancer performs the same-level routine in the championship and the single dances. i.e., if you're good enough to master an open routine, don't go and compete against true silver level dancers in the single dances.
And I do not ever, ever, want to hear an extremely influential dance professional tell me with a straight face that his interpretation of the rules is that dancing within two levels means it's legitimate to dance pre-silver and gold open, at once. (Incidentally, some respectable comps do specify in their rules that two levels means consecutive levels such as silver I and II, or pre-Gold and Beginner Gold, etc; perhaps the rules can be changed across the board to state this clearly. I am sick of watching one dancer compete, in the range of four months, all over the place from silver one to gold two - winning at each level, with the level determined only by the teacher's estimation of how tough the competition is likely to be at each comp so he can place his students to win consistenly.)
You get my drift. There can be many, many improvements to the existing system. Considering how important pro-am dancers are to this system, I think we deserve to have our voices heard. Whether it is done by the ndca or anyone else, I really don't care. And if it costs 25 bucks to see some changes for the better, I, for one, would gladly pay such "peanuts".
Look, I'm not trying to start that whole NDCA fee argument again.
What I was trying to point out, rather poorly, is that I didn't feel that the article did what it set out to do, which happen to be a noble attempt. Or maybe, I was expecting too much. Maybe, IMHO it was just poorly structured. But it started out with a strong title, but personally left me flat at the end.
"The unsung hero in the world of dance is the Pro/Am dancer. Let me explain."
That is a very strong sentence, and the article goes on to talk about noone "treats Pro/Am dancers as legitimate DanceSport athletes". (Shoot, Dancesport isn't recognized itself as a "Sport") But Pro/Am'ers have skill (the am to pro example), spend the money necessary to keep the dance industry alive (3rd from last paragraph), and, oh, yeah, we aren't a bunch of rich, dirty old men and ladies. (Though, apparently, some of us have enough to sponser "true" amateur couples.)
All points that have been brought up here time and time again. Hence, my feeling of deja vu.
"For too long, Pro/Am dancers have found themselves segregated from the ranks of professional and amateur dancers. The sting of segregation and third-class citizenship has yet to deter them from achieving their dreams. " And for this we are hero's? Unsung, even? How are we tred upon? A few slights, that most low-level pro-am'sers don't notice, only mid-range dancers care about, and once you get to a high-enough level don't care about, since you know you that it is just jealousy speaking. It's like saying that we somehow compare to telling a young person from a welfare family in the poorest city that, yes, you can manage to become a Harvard Lawyer, if you follow your dreams and not let people hold you back.
Could I have written better? No. Would've I written such an article? No. Do I think this article was "peanuts"? Yep, and I ain't talking Charlie Brown. (Apologies to Laura, Charles Schultz, and the author of the article.) Do I feel free to discuss it? Yes. It is a free discussion board, until someone goes obscene, violent or invokes Hitler.
But as for the article, I was looking for deeper insight or suggestions. And what caught my eye was "...Pro/Am dancers are not required to register with the organization like “true” amateur and professional couples." So if I pay NDCA, I'm a true Dancesport person? That's like the ads that are playing out here in California about a real estate agent versus a realtor, and how realtors are better. The difference - a realtor pays a membership fee to a certain organization. *whoop* *whoop* (Funny, how Crystal jumped on that from my small post also.)
As for discussing sandbagging and rule interpretation. I wish you better luck at it, then I ever had bringing up the topic. Though it is a little off-topic, is it not for this thread?
Thank you and good night. -TheDitz
P.S. Thanks Crystal, I didn't know tirades felt so good.
Quote: Now with the separation, USABDA wants to support the pro/ammer.
Do they really? I get the impression that the National leaders do not want to rock any boats while other issues of much greater importance are solved. I'm not saying this sentiment is inappropriate, either, obviously it's much better to focus on one problem at a time. I've also heard it expressed that some people involved with USABDA don't think that Pro/Am is really DanceSport and would even like to see it eliminated from the US. Even if it's not official policy, that point of view could certainly influence any decisions they are asked to make on the subject.
I'm not holding my breath or even hoping for any changes in the status quo. I could be wrong, but my knowledge at this point tells me not to wait or hope, but rather to let sleeping dogs lie.
