Britroc 2004 rules - spot the difference

[ChrisA]

Intermediate Freestyle (2003): (from the web site)

"This section is for couples who have not been placed in an Intermediate or better category at the Blackpool or Bristol competitions and not placed in Intermediate or Advanced or Open at the Hammersmith Palais competitions."

Intermediate Freestyle (2004): (from the leaflet - it's not on the web site yet AFAICS)

"This section is for couples (or either one of the couple) who have not won an Intermediate or better category at any modern jive competition."


No teachers or pros, as before. But you can still enter as many categories as you like.

Chris

[Divissima]

Had to edit (ie. completely re-write this post) after someone kindly pointed out I wasn't reading it correctly. I welcome the change which means a couple must move up if one of them has won, but I think it is a step backwards to apply the rule to winners only (ie not dancers who have placed second or third).

Although I understand the logic of saying someone who, say, came third one year might want to try again in the same category in the hope of winning the following year (ie stay down until good enough to win), I just don't think it provides enough movement of competitors upwards through the categories.

Of course, many people who place (and many who have never placed) in a lower category decide to move up to a superior category without (so far) having been required to do so by the competition rules. But this does not deal with people who have placed and decide not to move up - I think this is a problem (my personal view, of course).

I know this argument has been done to death on another thread - many of us must simply agree to disagree. Will wait to see if it kicks off again here.

[Gadget]

Originally posted by Divissima
Had to edit (ie. completely re-write this post) after someone kindly pointed out I wasn't reading it correctly. I welcome the change which means a couple must move up if one of them has won,

I think I must be miss-reading it as well: It reads to me that one of the entrants could have won the intermediated before and enter it again but with a different partner.

but I think it is a step backwards to apply the rule to winners only (ie not dancers who have placed second or third).

I'm with you on this as well, although I can see why.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Divissima
I think it is a step backwards to apply the rule to winners only (ie not dancers who have placed second or third).

[David Franklin]

Originally posted by Gadget
I think I must be miss-reading it as well: It reads to me that one of the entrants could have won the intermediated before and enter it again but with a different partner.

That would seem the most literal interpretation, yes, though I bet it's the opposite of what they intended! Even with the most restrictive interpretation, are any of the 'controversial' couples affected? I don't think any of them have won at intermediate before. [Apologies in advance to anyone I've just slighted!]

Given the whole mess with trying to define who's intermediate, maybe it would be better to just have a "Novice" category for those who've been competing < 1 year, and get rid of intermediate altogether

Dave

[Divissima]

Originally posted by Gadget:
It reads to me that one of the entrants could have won the intermediated before and enter it again but with a different partner

Hmmmm, on re-re-reading I think you might be right.

Oh well, I got all excited for a moment there

[Jayne]

Originally posted by David Franklin
Novice" category for those who've been competing < 1 year,

There are still people out there who could get round this (there are some fab dancers who just don't compete) but this is very sensible, IMHO!

Competition dancing is so different to social dancing and I think that this would take that into account.

mmm... let me ponder...

J

[Divissima]

Dave, I think you are right - even on a strict interpretation, these rules would not have affected the outcome at Blackpool (in terms of eligibility for 'controversial' intermediate entrants). I guess that's why my opinion is that they do not go far enough.

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by David Franklin
Given the whole mess with trying to define who's intermediate

The mess is in defining who's advanced, IMHO.

In relation to which, I say this:

If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has "mallard" stamped on the side and is eventually served up crispy in a Chinese restaurant, then it's a duck, goddammit.

But all this business about definitions is missing the point, I reckon.

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's about honour. I couldn't bear to win something if the very people whose respect I seek by competing have already made it clear that they think even competing is dishonourable.

I just can't understand why it is, if competing is about being judged in relation to your peers, that the opinions of one's peers about who should be in which category count for nothing.

Chris

[Boomer]

Originally posted by ChrisA


Intermediate Freestyle (2004): (from the leaflet - it's not on the web site yet AFAICS)

"This section is for couples (or either one of the couple) who have not won an Intermediate or better category at any modern jive competition."

Chris

Seems quite clear to me:
Boomer and Bertha win the Int 2010 at Bognor, therefore in 2011 we cannot enter Int because we have won at Int level. So, Boomer dances with Agnes, who has never won or placed at Int. even though I'm the current Int champ, coz Agnes has 'won' nowt I can still compete...n who knows, maybe even reach the semiin Advanced again, jut as I did in an other comp.

[Boomer]

Not my post, the one above

[Sheepman]

It does seem a bit woolly doesn't it? Looks like Britroc didn't pay for any lawyers when drafting this! To me, it definitely reads that you are still eligible unless you have both previously won, I wonder if that is what was intended. I think the change is probably not a good one, especially in a competition like this where you have 3 categories (Intermediate, Advanced and Open), there is enough scope for dancers who've previously done well to move up, and not feel overwhelmed. On the other hand, there have been plenty of comments about some winners being "in a different class to the rest." Which could make the move a daunting prospect for "the rest."

Originally posted by David Franklin
maybe it would be better to just have a "Novice" category for those who've been competing < 1 year,

Call it "Novice" or whetever you like, but if the stipulation is that you've been competing for less than a year, then that will still include an awful lot of great dancers, who may not have bothered with competitions before, and you have similar problems with defining it. Is it a couple that have to have competed for more than a year before moving up, or just one of the partners? As far as I can see, unless you have a complex rating system (which I'm sure none of us want, either in principle, or to pay for it) there will always be anomalies. At least the Britroc system (from both years) is easy to apply.

Greg

[Andy McGregor]

Originally posted by ChrisA
Intermediate Freestyle (2003): (from the web site)

"This section is for couples who have not been placed in an Intermediate or better category at the Blackpool or Bristol competitions and not placed in Intermediate or Advanced or Open at the Hammersmith Palais competitions."

Intermediate Freestyle (2004): (from the leaflet - it's not on the web site yet AFAICS)

"This section is for couples (or either one of the couple) who have not won an Intermediate or better category at any modern jive competition."


No teachers or pros, as before. But you can still enter as many categories as you like.

Chris

I wrote the rules for 2003. I made a mistake when I wrote 'couple' and I should have written 'individual' - sorry.

The intermediate category was the hardest to define. I wanted to have a category that people would be able to enter without being up against the well-known dancers. I wanted to encourage new people to join in with the competition circuit. It was for people who would like to compete but haven't got much experience of competitions. I had tried to get Graham to replace 'intermediate' with 'Novice' which I was going to define as dancers who'd not beed dancing for more than 2 years - as people can see, that didn't happen

As I've said on another thread, the problem with intermediate is that different people have different definitions of what it means. Many people have invented their own definition of 'intermediate' and decided to publically vilify people for failing to meet their unwritten definition. And this has created conflict, most of which exists in certain people's imaginations.

What we need is a clear definition of what an intermediate is. I thought that the Blackpool definition was quite clear. And according to the rules of C2D my partner and I are intermediate - I even checked with Tony who confirmed my eligibility. However, we received huge amounts of stick from a handful of people on here for entering. Even when we came 4th nobody has said that the 3 couples who beat us and shouldn't have entered. Why is that? I think the couples who beat us were worthy of their placing, met the entry criteria and won it fairly by being the best 3 couples on the day. But if Hollie and I had won, even though we likewise qualified to enter, there are certain Forum members that would have been booing and hissing at the result. Is this fair?

We have certain members of the forum who have demonised the intermediate category by making up their own definition of what an intermediate is. Please let those demons go and stop this mithering. The organisers have written down what their difinition of an intermediate dancer is, we don't need some self-appointed possee re-defining intermediate and saying which individuals can and can't enter any particular section. That way lies witch hunting - maybe we should use a drowning stool to see if someone is really an intermediate