Proficiency points system - point IN, or point OUT?

Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by Borbala_Bunnett, Aug 14, 2007.

  1. skwiggy

    skwiggy Well-Known Member

    Yes, which means that when you place out of Novice, you place out of all syllabus in parallel. And you won Novice at Nationals which automatically places you out of Novice, so...? ;)
     
  2. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    I cannot find anything to indicate that this is actually the case.

    The reverse is apparently true - if you place out of Gold, it looks like you may not be able to enter novice.

    "If one or both of the proficiency levels is a Syllabus level, then a couple may also enter the
    Novice level."

    But placing out of Novice does not seem to place you out of syllabus:

    "For clarification, proficiency points earned at the Novice level do not limit participation at any Syllabus proficiency level"

    Also note that for purposes of elgibility at NDCA comps, USA Dance nationals is just another ordinary competition - winning it only gets you 1 point for purposes of NDCA elgibility.

    -----------

    It also makes sense that placing out of Novice shouldn't place you out of Gold. Novice events can theoretically have a wider range of skill level than gold events. So it's possible to get a semifinal and thus points in a novice event containing a lot of "bronze" couples, at what was not necessarily a strong enough competition to a Gold semifinal made up of gold and silver dancers.
     
  3. ACtenDance

    ACtenDance Active Member

    ... darn, no easy money for me... :cool: Now I have compete with the big dogs:bouncy:
     
  4. skwiggy

    skwiggy Well-Known Member

    According to Chris, I may be mistaken. You may still, in fact, be eligible for bronze events. And I haven't read the rules closely enough to be certain. So if you can rake in the easy money, more power to you! :bouncy:
     
  5. Kitty

    Kitty New Member

    just to explain the concept:


    in the case with the "point in" system we have the following assumptions:


    There is the OPEN-level competition, which determines the champion of every competition.
    The winners of this level at MIT Open will have their name appear on the MIT site in the section "past winners". The winners of any other level at MIT Open will not have this honor.

    Everyone should be allowed to contest the championship event. This is how it works right now as well, isn't it.
    This is also how EVERY level works right now, except for the ones you pointed out of.


    Since we all know that a beginner can hardly contest someone who has been doing it for many years, there is a track provided by the dancing community and the governing organization that allows the less experienced to compete against those at the same level. This track includes several levels and the couples move along the levels by attaining points, if all goes well in the end attaining the highest level. Is this system more restrictive than what we have right now?
    YES!
    however it does have it's own benefits: 1. couples never questioning who belongs in a level, and couples never being upset because someone danced down. In a highly regulated environment everyone is supposedly dancing what they should be, so no such problems. 2. Also it gives couples greater satisfaction with their placement and a greater sense of achievement. And a sense that they really belong to the level they are dancing.
    actually this system is not strictly just awarding the right to dance a level. It is awarding a class to dancesport athletes, that is a recognition of achievement. This class also serves to place couples into the appropriate level of the ladder.
     
  6. kimV6

    kimV6 New Member

    personally i think that pointing in on any level is silly because i feel like i would resent somebody telling me, well yes you've won silver three times, but you're not ready for gold until you've won it twice more. if anything, i think it would cause a huge glut for most comps, where in my experience, there are already a hundred plus couples at bronze, which would just hold up everybody there as they waited to point into the next level. can you imagine how long it would take for any couple to get through the syllabus at all, especially if we consider the large numbers at bronze?
    i think if pointing in is used, it would probably be best used in nielsene's system. still, i think pointing in is just not useful at best, since i just don't think that somebody would dance championship if they weren't really ready for it; there's no glory in dancing one round and getting eliminated, much as there is none in winning a level you know you've already beaten.
     
  7. Katarzyna

    Katarzyna Well-Known Member

    well usually you get points from getting into final, into semi etc, just less points than from winning. so it might place people out faster
     
  8. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    Under point-in, what's to keep an experienced dancer from working (one student at a time) pro/am in the syllabus amateur events?

    You start over with each partner (or is it from the lower of your level and theirs?) each time you change partners, right?

    It may not be a problem in existing point-in countries, but then those countries don't have the tradition of pro/am and ready student pool to put the idea into people's heads.
     
  9. iluv2Samba

    iluv2Samba New Member

    My sentiments exactly. The syllabus fields are huge in the competitions on the coasts while a final has just 6-8 couples. We can expect at most 2 couples to accrue enough points to point into the next level at each competition. Can you imagine how long it will take 100 couples to progress to the next level at this rate? Even worse, a new set of 100 couples will be added to this group at the next competition year. There will be a huge pile up in the beginner syllabus levels.
     
  10. Kitty

    Kitty New Member

    1) it doesn't matter for the system how many couples are in the comp as instead of awarding point only to the finalists, it can award the points to top 50 % of the field (and slightly more points to finalists and winners). So the "problem" of clutter in bronze that you described is merely that of the rules, not that of the principle.

    2) no glory in dancing 1 round and being eliminated? do you realize that at every competition almost half the couples don't make the first cut? and the current system helps propagate the view that these couples just "don't belong".
    That is exactly the problem the pointing IN system addresses. It lets couples earn a certain class, and suggests the levels they should enter with that class. Possibly can allow them to dance up.

    Almost everyone posting so far views it as the same is current system with slight modification to point rules. It is a COMPLETELY different system that would have to replace the existing system if ever implemented.
    However it might be that this system cannot be implemented in the US.
     
  11. Kitty

    Kitty New Member

    The criticism provided is invalid due to invalid assumtions. You are assuming that only top 2 couples accrue points, or enough points, and that the points are hard to come by. It doesn't have anythign to do with POINT IN or CLASS idea. The idea is not to make it harder to get into the next level, but to introduce more order into the system.
     
  12. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    Maybe the thing to do is for the proponents of the point-in system to implement it for information purposes only, even though it won't have any regulatory effect.

    Then we could sort of see what happens.

    Of course it won't be the same as what would happen if it did have regulatory effect, since there won't be the feedback of the ratings controlling what people are entering. (Especially if the formula takes into account the rating of the other dancers in your event)

    And of course you won't get electronic data reporting mandated by the sanctioning organizations - though they could mandate that organizers report data for purposes of their present system. Also if there is a change in systems, it might be worthwhile to start the rankings based on a year or two of historic data, rather than by tossing the whole country into bronze!
     
  13. Kitty

    Kitty New Member

    1) other countries have pro am and similar arrangements now. Plenty of them, although not as much as in the US.
    2) such a pro-am arrangement is not exactly possible due to some of the rules. That could be a problem possibly, though probably not a common one,
    also a problem for people with multiple partners. I know that in Russia people do sometimes have 2 partners..
     
  14. wyllo

    wyllo New Member

    Good point!
     
  15. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    Really? What country has both a healthy pro/am student population and a healthy system of point-in syllabus-level events they might be tempted to hire a partner for?

    (Incidentally, this does happen in the US already, but in the champ level, where both parties are elgible)

    I'd be interested to see how that works. Seems to me that either

    1) Advanced dancers can dance down with inexperienced partners
    (risk of pro/am-ing in the syllabus events)

    2) Inexperienced dancers can dance up with experienced partners
    (partially defeats the purpose of point-in)

    3) Some couples just can't dance together
    (unacceptable - you can get the situation of a husband and wife who can't compete together until one of them earns more points dancing with someone else)
     
  16. iluv2Samba

    iluv2Samba New Member

    I don't see anything that prevents the above point accrual system from being applied to the current point out system. I think the issue that should be debated is not the points accrual per se but how the rules interpret how these points determine what level a competitor can dance in. In theory, both systems can promote competitors at equal rates if competitors move up levels ONLY when the rules promote them. But the point out system can lead to less clutter in the beginner levels because competitors can move up WHEN they choose to and not ONLY when the rules indicate that they have enough points. The point in system as I understand it is designed to prevent this.
     
  17. Chris Stratton

    Chris Stratton New Member

    One differene is that under point-in, you won't earn points by beating people who are dancing up to a level where they don't really belong.

    But you could also do that by basing points awards on the ratings of the couples placing above and below you. Something like, earn points for each higher ranked couple you place ahead of, lose points for each lower ranked couple who places ahead of you.

    But one of the complications of that is that you can no longer retroactively calculate points by looking at the recorded results - you also have to known everyone's ranking at the time of that past competition. Or recalculate it all from scratch by evaluating each comp in order...
     
  18. Kitty

    Kitty New Member


    1) yes. However there is a limit on how many partners you can have. that is possibly a problem in the american context. Maybe there is a limit on how many levels down the higher level partner can go.

    2) i think that can be petitioned. But generally the couple dances lower than the highest level one of the partners has. i think. maybe not.

    3) couples with large level difference can laways dance in the open level, which in the case with a significant enough difference in level between partner would be ok.

    why don't we just wait till i translate the russian rulebook this weekend



    and regarding your last post, no it is not quite like a ranking system..
     
  19. skwiggy

    skwiggy Well-Known Member

    This is an excellent and important point.

    Under the point-in system, would couples be able to dance 2 levels like they can in the current point-out system?
     
  20. kimV6

    kimV6 New Member

    granted, but the underlying assumption would be that they are ready for championship level dancing. my statement was based on the assumption that a couple would dance up just because they can even though they aren't ready for the level. i was saying that the argument that pointing-in makes sure that people are dancing at their level is hollow because even without pointing-in, there's no glory in dancing at a level you're clearly outclassed in if you haven't yet proven yourself in the level below it. if you've already proved you are better than the level below you, but just aren't at the skill of your competitors of your new level, then of course dancing one round and being eliminated is perfectly reasonable and full of wondrous glory.
    i agree with your earlier notion that the open championship level should be open to all based on what it represents. my contention is merely that the point-in system is poor at all levels, not just the open categories.
    honestly, i don't see how this pointing-in would be an improvement over the current system. granted, self-policing isn't the most efficient system possible (in a perfect robotic super-fair world, there would be a grand database of profiles tracking every single one of us), and granted there are unscrupulous people in the world (which is why we have the whole pointing-out system in the first place), but i mean, if you can't trust your fellow human being to be honest with themselves, then i think it's time to reevaluate. :)
     

Share This Page