I don't know, Joe. I kind of wonder if it even matters in the end. I mean, it's kind of an insult to people like Cathy Blondell, but overall if the competitions keep happening and new dancers keep getting involved, then that's that.
Quote: I mean, it's kind of an insult to people like Cathy Blondell...
Let's not go too far with this Blondell example.
She was, and is, Agrello's girlfriend. When they were doing well in pro-am I talked to some pro-am ladies from their studio who said they practiced practically every day together, often for two or three hours. Taking nothing away from her own dancing, how many pro-am ladies get that kind of opportunity to develop their skills? Far from being an example of what one can do through pro-am, Blondell is an exception whose circumstances have little to do with the lives of the typical pro-am dancer.
A major failing of that article is that the author either didn't know these details, or conveniently ignored them because they constitute such a special case that they can hardly be deemed an appropriate example for such a story.
Quote: I mean, it's kind of an insult to people like Cathy Blondell...
Let's not go too far with this Blondell example.
She was, and is, Agrello's girlfriend. When they were doing well in pro-am I talked to some pro-am ladies from their studio who said they practiced practically every day together, often for two or three hours. Taking nothing away from her own dancing, how many pro-am ladies get that kind of opportunity to develop their skills? Far from being an example of what one can do through pro-am, Blondell is an exception whose circumstances have little to do with the lives of the typical pro-am dancer.
A major failing of that article is that the author either didn't know these details, or conveniently ignored them because they constitute such a special case that they can hardly be deemed an appropriate example for such a story.
This example is so correct. There are MANY pro/am couples where the AM does not pay for the hours of lessons and practice like the other amateurs do. Case in point: Eddie Ares and Nancy. In fact, they even run a competition together which is difficult to understand -- how is an amateur allowed to run a competition and not be considered a professional?
Quote: In fact, they even run a competition together which is difficult to understand -- how is an amateur allowed to run a competition and not be considered a professional?
Who do you think runs USABDA and collegiate comps? Yes, some hire professional staff - but some hire and pay staff who are also amatuer elgible dancers, and the organizers themselves are all amateurs. There's even a case locally here of an amateur who was for a time co-owner of a studio - allowed, because he was not making money by directly using his own dance skills.
Quote: I don't know, Joe. I kind of wonder if it even matters in the end.
I have the same take on this Laura. What matters is our joy of dance and that's the bottom line for me. I don't need validation or support from any organization. It seems like all they do is create more problems. But then again I was never much of a fan of organized stuff.
As to SO dancing with pros, if they get more practice time then yes, that's a definite advantage over the rest of us suckers, but let's not forget not all do. (Er, Chris, will you marry me? )
Quote: Far from being an example of what one can do through pro-am, Blondell is an exception whose circumstances have little to do with the lives of the typical pro-am dancer.
Heh. You could remove the words "pro-am" from that sentence and it would be just as true. All really good dancers are exceptions, pro-am or not.
Quote: Blondell is an exception whose circumstances have little to do with the lives of the typical pro-am dancer.
The anti-Pro/Am argument often goes that Pro/Am women are talentless hacks who don't really care about the hard work it takes or else they'd have an amateur partner, and that these women are merely playing "fantasy baseball." So now we have an example of someone who worked as hard as any amateur does and made the jump into the pro ranks and is doing admirably well her first year. No, Cathy is not typical, but she does disprove the old argument that the women doing Pro/Am don't have any talent and aren't worth dancing with. Her case is rare, but I also don't believe she is the only (ex) Pro/Am dancer out there with that kind of talent and ability and drive. The anti-argument also goes that you don't "really" learn anything by dancing Pro/Am and that the teacher does all the work. Well, by that logic Giacomo must be god's own teacher then to risk his career on a Pro/Am dancer, even with her being his girlfriend.
To me she shows that a Pro/Am dancer who is fortunate enough to find a partner who is a good match and who works as hard as any of the other pros or really serious amateurs can be just as sucessful as a dancer who comes up the "acceptable" way, which seems to be to start young in the amateur and/or collegiate system and work their way up. (Well, provided that the right level of natural talent and proper body type etc. etc. are present, also.)
To tell you the truth, the lives of the top amateurs also have very little to do with the typical adult amateur out there. How many of us were trained from age 4 in state-sponsored programs or by our parents? How many of us have a top-notch partner brought over from Europe or move cross-country? How many of us get our costumes or shoes for free from the manufactuers? How many of us get to teach to earn money to support our dancing? And what about amateur dancers who are married to Pros but dance with other amateurs...are we going to start saying snarky things about their unfair advantages too?
)
