competition

Are you setting good goals for yourself?

I like New Year’s resolutions. I know some people say, “Why bother?” but I think there’s value in taking stock of where you’ve been and looking forward to where you want to be in another year from now. Resolutions can help create a vision and set a direction for getting there. They give a focus, push us to grow, and help us achieve our dreams.

For all these reasons, I’ve been working with my students to help them set goals for the year. But I think there are good goals and not-so-good ones. The difference is not in the substance of the goal, but rather in how the goal is defined.

Sure, goals are by definition a little broad, but I’m a believer in SMART goals – specific, measurable, aspirational, realistic, and time-bound. Yes, “aspirational” is different from “achievable” or “attainable” and that’s on purpose. I think good goals aren’t things that we are already equipped to achieve, but things that push us to grow, learn new competencies, and reach new limits. (Besides, doesn’t “realistic” imply that they are achievable?)

In that vein, I ask my students two questions:

  1. What is something that you’ve been struggling with this year that you’d like to overcome?
  2. What is something new that you’d like to learn?

I also ask them to think about two kinds of goals: finite achievements and systems or habits. Finite achievements are end results, clear measures of success, or defined indicators of competency. Systems or habits are the repeated actions or practices that we engage in on a regular basis. For instance, a finite achievement is being able to do two spins and remain balanced, whereas a system would be to spend 15 minutes each day practicing turns. Usually the systems are what help us succeed at the finite achievements, and they are just as important (if not more important) as finite achievements. (And how often and how well you practice is everything when learning to dance!)

When defining your goals, be careful about misguided ambitions. For instance, I’ve had several students tell me that one of their goals is to make a certain level of competition (e.g. “I want to be Intermediate by the end of the year”). What does this really mean? It means you got enough points to compete in a higher level. So what does it take to get there? It means attending more events, competing more often, spending more money on travel. But does it say anything about your dancing? If you say, “Well, I need to be better to be Intermediate,” then I would push you to define what it means to be “better.” If you start telling me that you want to be smoother or more musical, then I would say you’re on the right track to setting a good goal for yourself. Competition in and of itself does not say anything specific about our dancing; at best, it is merely an indicator of overall progress towards some other goal. Your goal should be more specific than a level of competition if you actually want to achieve something this year.

I encourage students to come up with 2-3 goals for the year. Some come up with 4 or 5 – a mixture of finite achievements and system goals – but I discourage setting more than that. It’s not about failure: I think it’s good to have an aspirational goal that will be so difficult to achieve (but still realistic) that you run the risk of not achieving it. These goals push us the most, and usually if we do not succeed, we still gain a lot in its pursuit. No, the reason I discourage too many goals is that it splits your focus. Goals are good because they can keep you focused, but if you have too many goals, it disperses your efforts so that you don’t make much progress on any one thing.

So pull out a piece of paper (or better yet, your dance notebook!) and jot down your goals for this year. Review them with your instructor, and think about how you can achieve your goals this year. And then, get practicing!

And happy New Year! May 2016 bring new levels of success and achievement in your dancing!

Perspectives on degendering competitions: Editorial

Over the past year there has been a strong effort to make West Coast Swing competitions gender neutral, meaning men can compete as followers and women can compete as leaders. This degendering of competitions has raised a lot of questions, caused many concerns, and stimulated plenty of debate about the purpose of competitions, the logistics of how we implement competitions, and even the definition of roles in the dance. To shed some more light on this subject, I asked a few different leaders of the degendering movement to share their perspectives and insights here on this blog. Be sure to read earlier posts by Kelly Casanova, Kim Sifter, Jonathyn Jackson, Faith Pangilinan, and Andy Bouman.


I started writing this post explaining why I competed as a follower in the Novice division at Boogie by the Bay last year when I have points as a leader in the All Star division. But that’s not what’s important to discuss. The reasons I competed as a follower were that I didn’t know how competent I was as a follower and I believe in following the system and earning your way up. The more important thing to discuss is why being proficient in one role does not automatically translate into equal proficiency in the other role.

I’ll say it again: Being good at one role does not automatically make you good at the other. The denial of this truth is what drives the current World Swing Dance Council rules (no longer guidelines) and serves as the basis for the contempt people have for what they perceive as “sandbaggers” – more advanced dancers dropping into the Novice division to compete in the other role.

(By the way, in my own experience, people who oppose more advanced dancers switching roles and competing in Novice aren’t other advanced dancers, or even Intermediate competitors. Neither are they the leaders I’ve drawn in contests, who are actually very kind and gracious. No, the only ones I’ve heard complain about me competing as a follower in Novice are other Novice followers, who didn’t feel it was fair to compete against me, and a few Novice leaders who are generally opposed to the idea. I’m not saying they can’t complain, but just pointing out that, at least in my experience, the complaints have come from a minor few.)

Jonathyn already did the math from Boogie by the Bay last year: of the 13 advanced dancers who competed in the Novice division in the opposite role, only five made finals, and only two placed. The judges clearly did not favor the advanced competitors because of their status in the traditional role, nor were they biased against them, as some of them did indeed make finals. Surely, if being an advanced dancer in one role equated to equal proficiency in the other, then all of those advanced dancers would have made finals over their Novice-level competitors. And yet they didn’t. There was disparity among those who switched roles, and not all of them were proficient in their nontraditional role. This contest was not a fluke but rather part of a pattern – a pattern that reflects reality.

Yes, advanced dancers generally have better body movement, better overall technique, better musicality, and a better understanding of the dance. So why then are so many advanced competitors not easily beating out lower-level competition when they switch roles?

Because being good at one role does not automatically make you good at the other.

But why? Why would a dancer who excels in one role not instantly excel in the other?

The answer is mindset.

Mindset does weird things to our bodies. I see it all the time: people walk into class with good posture, moving from their centers, balanced and relaxed, only to begin dancing and turn into a combination of Quasimodo and a newborn foal. The only difference? Their mindset. The mental focus on dancing makes them use their bodies differently. It’s not that they can’t move properly, but rather that their minds are directing them to move differently.

Similarly, a great dancer with a high quality of movement may lose that high quality when transitioning to another role. Think how many followers go to lead with a wide stance, hunched posture, even an arm lead. What about guys who learn to follow and hunch forward, tighten their arms, and don’t anchor properly? These are people who supposedly have better body movement, better partnership skills, and better musicality, yet they look just as inexperienced when they switch to another role. Why? Because leading and following are not the same. One is about moving yourself to communicate something and the other is about moving yourself in response to something. The fundamentals of body movement are the same for each role, but the mindset that’s required is different, and this in turn affects how we move in the dance.

The strong desire to communicate and the strong desire to be responsive make us do things that we know aren’t right. Followers learning to lead think it’s all about executing patterns and moving the follower, even if they don’t enjoy following pattern-driven leaders who force them around the dance floor. And leaders learning to follow will try to anticipate in an effort to be responsive, even if they don’t enjoy followers who anticipate and ignore their leads. We don’t want to dance with these kinds of partners, but when you step into their shoes, it’s a different matter entirely.

Anyone who has learned the other role knows that it’s a different experience. And because it’s a different experience, with a different mindset and a different application of skills, it requires effort to get good at it. When I started following, I just did it for fun, but then I started following so I could be a better teacher, and I quickly became aware of my flaws. It took a lot of focused practice to maintain my posture, to find my anchor, to correct my frame, and to make sure I was following properly. I’m still working on following more advanced and complicated leads, spins and turns, and developing my dance. These aren’t things that happened over night but rather over the last couple of years. And I’m sure it will take a few more years to get where I want to be with my following.

Few if any people can switch roles and instantly be successful at it. As with learning your primary role, you need instruction and regular, focused practice to reach a level of proficiency. Just doing it more does not make you good at it. It does not make you a better partner, it does not make you easier to dance with, and it does not make you more enjoyable to dance with. People who wish to learn the other role (and I encourage it, since it teaches you a lot about your primary role and the dance overall) should seek instruction on how to do the other role and then practice to improve.

If people are upset that I danced down to compete as a follower, because they think I’m better than Novice as a follower, that’s their right (and also flattering). I know it can be frustrating to compete against people who you feel are ready to advance to the next division. But to assume that any advanced dancer switching roles is automatically a threat to a Novice dancer is incorrect and not based on the facts. The bottom line is that leading and following are not the same. They require a different way of thinking which in turn directly impacts how we move our bodies. As a result, proficiency in one way of thinking and doing does not automatically translate to the other.

I sincerely hope the WSDC reconsiders its position on nontraditional roles, but in the meantime, we as a community should consider the evidence and accept the reality that advanced proficiency in one role does not mean advanced proficiency in the other. Then and only then can we start having honest conversations about how best to establish guidelines that are fair to all competitors, whether they compete in the traditional or nontraditional role.

Perspectives on degendering competitions: Andy Bouman

Over the past year there has been a strong effort to make West Coast Swing competitions gender neutral, meaning men can compete as followers and women can compete as leaders. This degendering of competitions has raised a lot of questions, caused many concerns, and stimulated plenty of debate about the purpose of competitions, the logistics of how we implement competitions, and even the definition of roles in the dance. To shed some more light on this subject, I’ve asked a few different leaders of the degendering movement to share their perspectives and insights here on this blog. Each week I will post a different guest blog, and at the end of the series I will share my own thoughts on the issue. (Be sure to read earlier posts by Kelly Casanova, Kim Sifter, Jonathyn Jackson, and Faith Pangilinan.)

This week we feature an interview with the Co-Event Director of Boogie by the Bay, Andy Bouman. Andy grew up in Chicago but has lived in the San Francisco Bay area most of his adult life. He started ballroom dancing as a student at UC Berkeley in the late 1980’s, but after discovering West Coast Swing in 1990, he’s never looked back. Andy is a former president of The Next Generation Swing Dance Club in San Francisco and also was the Competition Director, MC, and Chief Judge at Next Gen dances for 11 years. Since 1999, Andy has been the Co-Event Director and Competition Director of Next Gen’s annual convention, Boogie by the Bay, a NASDE member event, as well as a judge at other swing dance events across the United States. But Andy’s first love is social dancing. He enjoys all forms of swing dancing, including Lindy Hop, and loves dancing to live music. He is honored to have received the first Social Dancer Award at Swingalicious, an annual dance event in San Francisco.


Why did Boogie by the Bay decide to offer degendered competitions? What led to the decision?

Actually, in the San Francisco Bay Area, we’ve had a history of degendered competitions for quite a while.

Back in 1997, when I first started running competitions for The Next Generation Swing Dance Club, the Next Gen board of directors adopted a policy that our local competitions would be open to anyone who wanted to sign up as a leader or follower. To signal this, we called our monthly competitions “Luck of the Draw” instead of “Jack & Jill.” Degendered competitions at our local dances have been the club’s official policy ever since.

Kelly Casanova also offered degendered competitions at her Swing Break weekend event in San Jose back in 1999 and 2000. I was a judge at that event and witnessed first-hand the Champions J&J finals where John Lindo drew Ramiro Gonzalez. (If you haven’t seen that dance, watch it now on YouTube.) However, Kelly was a bit ahead of her time, and received some harsh criticism (and threats of boycotts or worse) from some people who didn’t like the idea of degendered J&J competitions.

At Boogie by the Bay, we have offered degendered Strictly Swing competitions for many years. However, until last year, we kept the traditional gender restrictions for our Jack & Jill competitions at Boogie. Some Boogie committee members in the past were afraid that Boogie might get the same kind of backlash that Swing Break received if we opened up our J&J competitions. We also were told that the World Swing Dance Council (WSDC) would not award points for any of our finalists if we did not follow the WSDC gender restrictions.

Last year, we thought the time had finally come where we could degender our Jack & Jill competitions at Boogie by the Bay. The “Degendering West Coast Swing” group on Facebook had reopened the discussion, and many WCS dancers in the Bay Area were strongly supportive. We also checked again with WSDC, and were told that while people who danced a non-traditional role would not get WSDC points, there wouldn’t be any other penalty if we changed our rules.

In June of 2014, the Boogie committee and the Next Gen board both unanimously approved the change, and we announced it on the Boogie and Next Gen websites and on Facebook.

Around the same time, the petition in favor of degendering WCS competitions was posted on Facebook and gathered about 2,000 “signatures” in a matter of days, so we knew that there was quite a bit of support in the WCS community.

What were the challenges in offering degendered competitions at the event?

The biggest challenge was to figure out how to update our competition rules. We wanted to make our competitions as inclusive as possible, while recognizing that there are well-established levels of Jack & Jill competition in the WCS world.

Based on discussion on the “Degendering WCS” Facebook group, as well as extensive conversations with WCS competitors, we made the fundamental decision that leading and following would be recognized as two distinct sets of skills for our Jack & Jill competitions. So being an All-Star follower didn’t automatically make someone an All-Star leader, or vice versa.

We also decided that if people were at different competitive levels as a leader and follower, we would allow them the opportunity to enter our J&J competitions in both roles at those two different levels.

Since the WSDC didn’t track points for people who competed in non-traditional roles, we had to exercise some flexibility to determine the appropriate level of competition for those people at Boogie by the Bay. So we encouraged people to petition, and we considered “ghost points” from other events that have offered degendered competitions (such as Liberty Swing or Swingtacular).

We also decided to change our Strictly Swing rules, which previously had allowed partners to switch roles during their dance. Since we were allowing people to compete at different levels as a leader or follower, and potentially enter a second Strictly Swing division based on those two different levels, we didn’t think it would be fair to allow partners to sign up for a lower division and then switch during their dance to roles that would have put them in a higher division.

What sort of criticisms or backlash did you receive and how did you respond?

First of all, our overall attendance was up 5 percent from the previous year, and our J&J registrations were up more than 30 percent. So I don’t think we suffered a backlash from making the change. On the contrary, some people told us they chose to attend Boogie over other events to show their support.

We did receive some criticism from a few people who thought it was unfair that some competitors at Boogie who were Advanced or All-Stars in traditional roles made the finals in lower levels in non-traditional roles. However, there were others competing at lower levels in non-traditional roles who did not make the finals. For us, that proved that competitive success in one role doesn’t automatically transfer to the other role. [Editor’s note: See Jonathyn Jackson’s post for more details.]

What were the benefits for your event of offering gender-neutral competitions?

The most immediate benefit was the tremendous energy and excitement at our event. Not only was everyone very supportive of people competing in non-traditional roles, but the social dancing was more degendered than I’ve seen at almost any other large WCS event. Everyone felt welcome, and everyone was having fun. That’s what a weekend event should be all about.

Is there anything you would do differently next time?

We may tweak our rules a bit for this year, but overall we thought it went very well.

What are your thoughts on the current policies of NASDE and WSDC with respect to gender?

As many people already know, WSDC recently announced that it has changed its policies and will begin tracking J&J points for people placing in non-traditional roles beginning February 1st. I am disappointed that they will only record those points at the highest overall level achieved, instead of tracking leader and follower points separately. I’d like to see WSDC adopt more flexibility, so that events like Boogie by the Bay could allow people to compete in both roles in separate divisions and have those final placements count and be recorded by WSDC. But I think the change is a first step in the right direction, and I recognize that not all WSDC member events are on the same page, so the WSDC board is walking a difficult line.

NASDE is a bit different because the 12 member events have agreed to follow the same rules for Classic and Showcase in order to standardize the competitive circuit for routines. Boogie by the Bay is not allowed to unilaterally change its rules for those divisions and remain a NASDE member. It would require a vote of 8 member events out of 12 to remove the gender restrictions on Classic and Showcase couples, and I don’t see that happening right now. However, NASDE has agreed that individual events can follow their own rules for Strictly Swing competitions, which is why we have had degendered Strictly Swing at Boogie for many years.

What would you say to other event directors about offering degendered competitions?

I think this change is coming. It’s just a question of when. The West Coast Swing landscape has changed rapidly in the past few years. More and more, I’m seeing newer dancers learn both roles and dance both roles on the social dance floor. More and more dancers know people who excel in non-traditional roles, and they believe it is unjust that their friends can’t compete in their preferred role at some weekend events. So event directors will need to decide if they want to be out front on this trend or play catch-up.

Perspectives on degendering competitions: Faith Pangilinan

Over the past year there has been a strong effort to make West Coast Swing competitions gender neutral, meaning men can compete as followers and women can compete as leaders. This degendering of competitions has raised a lot of questions, caused many concerns, and stimulated plenty of debate about the purpose of competitions, the logistics of how we implement competitions, and even the definition of roles in the dance. To shed some more light on this subject, I’ve asked a few different leaders of the degendering movement to share their perspectives and insights here on this blog. Each week this month I will post a different guest blog, and at the end of the series I will share my own thoughts on the issue. (Be sure to read earlier posts by Kelly Casanova, Kim Sifter, and Jonathyn Jackson.)

This week’s guest is Faith Pangilinan. Faith is a Washington, DC-based dancer who has been hooked on West Coast Swing since taking her first group class in 2006. The instructor evaluated the gender balance (4 women for every 1 man) and declared that everyone would learn to lead and follow. Like growing up bilingual, this was initially difficult but had great payoffs. She primarily considers herself a social dancer, but competes in as a follower in Advanced and as a leader in Intermediate. She is excited to have started her sixth year with DC RolePlay, a WCS team that specializes in role-switching choreography.


I’ll be up front: I’m an advocate for degendered West Coast Swing competitions. There’s been great debate and discussion on social media, a strongly supported petition, and now we have the World Swing Dance Council’s recent decision to track Jack & Jill points for both roles. The guidelines aren’t perfect, but this is a significant step toward full acceptance of gender neutral competitions. I fully trust that degendered Jack & Jill contests will eventually be endorsed in an appropriate and fair way.

I recognize that most people will want to dance in their traditional roles, and that’s an important right, too. But I don’t want to be part of a community that becomes an exclusive, heteronormative club that invests solely in a dynamic of male-female chemistry. As a former tomboy and engineering major, I can’t support messages like “girls don’t do this” and “boys only do that.” Some girls love math, and boys do cry. Some ladies lead, and some fellas follow. I think the flexibility of WCS is one of the most exciting things about it, and gender neutrality enhances the ability to express the full range of human connection.

So what can we do to achieve not just permission but also acceptance? Ultimately, I care more about acceptance. Dancing is powerful. We invest our creativity, our trust, and our very selves. Our identities are on that dance floor, whether we’re dancing for fun or prizes. I want everyone to have the freedom to truly be themselves and pursue this dance in the ways that intrigue them. Are you masculine? Feminine? Straight? Gay? Tall? Short? Other? Doesn’t matter to me. I believe you should be free to pursue the role(s) in partner dancing that you wish.

In achieving acceptance, I believe one of the most powerful things we can do is simply be seen. Those who are uncomfortable with the idea of degendered dancing may find the reality isn’t as threatening as they imagined. I’m a member of DC RolePlay, a WCS team consisting of dancers who both lead and follow. We have put five role-switching routines on the floor, and it’s been rewarding to hear responses change each year. “Wow, I couldn’t take it all in” or “Is it really lead-follow or are you just doing the choreography?” has given way to “I love your creativity” and “I want to learn to lead and follow, too!”

I am so grateful to have learned West Coast Swing in the DC area. I had the opportunity to learn both roles from day one, and had a tremendous role model in Melissa Greene, a talented and avid social dancer in both roles. It has been incredibly gratifying to feel community reaction change over time. If I take a class as a leader, I’m no longer expected to switch to following if there’s a gender imbalance. I can’t remember the last time someone cut in to “rescue” me and a female partner from “having” to dance together. Instead, I feel accepted and appreciated for pursuing both roles – by dancers who choose to do the same, and by dancers who don’t. I love that dancing together matters more than what role we are dancing in our DC community.

How can we foster an inclusive environment in our community? First, be visible. Get out there – socially and competitively – and dance in your non-traditional role. Although the WSDC will only track points for one role per event, I plan to lead whenever possible because for me being seen is more important than being competitive. I hope that by seeing degendered dancing, more people will accept and even celebrate it. Second, be encouraging. This dance can be intimidating for beginners, especially in one’s non-traditional role. Your presence on the floor contributes to the kind of critical mass that will make more people comfortable with trying it.

It is my hope that by being ambassadors of gender neutral dancing, we will create a community that accepts and respects each person’s exploration of our dance in the role(s) they wish.

Perspectives on degendering competitions: Jonathyn Jackson

Over the past year there has been a strong effort to make West Coast Swing competitions gender neutral, meaning men can compete as followers and women can compete as leaders. This degendering of competitions has raised a lot of questions, caused many concerns, and stimulated plenty of debate about the purpose of competitions, the logistics of how we implement competitions, and even the definition of roles in the dance. To shed some more light on this subject, I’ve asked a few different leaders of the degendering movement to share their perspectives and insights here on this blog. Each week this month I will post a different guest blog, and at the end of the series I will share my own thoughts on the issue. (Be sure to read Kelly Casanova’s post and last week’s post by Kim Sifter.)

This week’s guest is Jonathyn Jackson (also known by the name of Phoenix Grey on social media). Jonathyn is a Portland-based dancer whose interest in gender-inclusive dancing began at the same time that he began dancing in 2010. When he took his first dance class, he immediately discovered that he preferred to follow, and was lucky to be in a group of peers that supported his preference. From the start, he learned both roles: following because he preferred it, and leading due to general social pressure to conform. Having grown a quick proficiency in both roles, it wasn’t long until opportunities arose that encouraged him to begin teaching by the end of 2011. Since then, Jonathyn’s been an active competitor on the West Coast Swing circuit, competing both as a leader and as a follower (wherever allowed). He recently reached All-Star as a leader and competes in Intermediate as a follower. He’s been an advocate for gender inclusivity on the competition circuit ever since he started competing, and in the past year he created the Facebook group Degendering West Coast Swing where dancers from around the world have gathered to share opinions, support awareness projects, educate each other on gender and roles as it relates to dance, and foster a community of forward-thinking dancers.


In the past few weeks, the World Swing Dance Council (WSDC) has distributed written versions of their new policy regarding validation of the points earned by competitors who dance nontraditional roles (e.g. male followers, female leaders). The new policy still has significant space to improve in my eyes, but it’s a rather positive shift from the explicit exclusion of male followers/female leaders that previous revisions of the guidelines exhibited. In the past, those who wanted to compete in a nontraditional role for their presented gender, if they were at one of the rare few events with an inclusive policy, would compete knowing that the WSDC would not even validate their efforts. Today, the WSDC will validate those efforts, but only under specific conditions:

  • Dancers will only be awarded points for one skill division of Jack & Jill (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, etc.) per event weekend. This makes it somewhat unclear what will happen in the case of events that allow a second entry, provided you are dancing the other role qualifying in a different division (e.g. leader in Advanced, follower in Intermediate). Most likely only the highest division will be counted, as per the following.
  • Dancers will only be awarded points for accomplishments in their highest achieved division, regardless of role performed (i.e. a dancer who has achieved Advanced status in leading will not receive points for following in any division lower than Advanced).

Essentially, the WSDC does not see a difference between leading and following as skill sets, at least reflected on paper. As a result, anyone who starts in the system today, or has not yet progressed beyond Novice, is golden; they can dance a nontraditional role without penalty. The real issue, and source of the current hot-button topic, is the transition phase: now that the rules are no longer discriminating on gender lines, how do we deal with everyone who has an established record in WCS and wants to dance the other role competitively? Do they flip sides and compete in the same division, or do they start back in Novice? This is where the opinions diverge, and interestingly enough, I tend to see the split of opinion happen along the line of upper division competitors vs. lower division competitors.

The common perspective of the upper division competitors is that everyone should start fresh (in Novice) and move up on their own merit. If it truly is the case that someone with a previous record is overqualified for Novice, the system (if it were applied properly) would push them up to their proper level in no time, just as it does for any other dancer of notable talent who happens to be just starting out in Novice. That way, the dancer’s position in an upper division is earned and irrefutable through their skill in that role, not just given to them because they have a previous record in the other role. Leading and following in West Coast Swing are completely different skill sets and reflexes. An untested follower should not have a free pass nor be forced to dance in an upper division just because of his or her accomplishments in a completely different role. Most any upper level competitor pursuing the other role would actually want to start in Novice, not to “sandbag” Novice, but because they have the humility to make sure they are capable of performing the role before advancing.

Overqualified dancers placed in a low division is an issue that will fix itself naturally through the existing system (e.g. placing out or using petitions if one has the confidence to start higher). Making under-qualified dancers compete in a higher division creates a much more permanent problem. Those in question are faced with the choice to go in unprepared and incapable, thus holding back their division, or be robbed of competing in that role because their success in the previous role prevents them from competing in a more appropriate division.

The lower division competitors’ perspective is that the upper level dancers transitioning to the other role are a threat. It is perceived that everyone transitioning from an upper division, despite crossing skill sets, is innately better than any given Novice dancer. It is expected that the transition period will take a long time due to the mass of dancers who were once explicitly disallowed to compete in the other role but now have an opportunity to start fresh. Now that the floodgates have been opened, the “true Novices” will not make any placements until all the “good dancers” filter through.

This may be where I begin to catch some flak: When have “overqualified dancers” ever not been prevalent in Novice? Extraordinary dancers filter through Novice all the time. We have Ballet, Contemporary, and Hip Hop extraordinaires who start in Novice. Salsa, Ballroom, and Zouk champions start in Novice. Why? Because having an expansive vocabulary in English does not make you eloquent nor fluent in Spanish without practice. Intimate knowledge of the general grammar and linguistics that are common to most languages may give you a leg up to a degree, but by no means would you be assumed to be capable of debate in a new language straight out the gate. Similarly, just because the crossover Solo, Ballroom, etc. dancer may have great movement skills in their home turf, it doesn’t mean they have the muscle memory and reactions to effectively dance West Coast Swing competitively, and therefore they are presumed Novice until proven otherwise. Sometimes the previous experience with body awareness does aid in the learning of West Coast Swing, so they pick it up quickly and move up after proving their competency in our dance. Regardless, they still had that Novice experience and worked up the ladder.

Other “overqualified” groups include international dancers (those from non-US countries), who have dancers with adequate skill but significantly less opportunity to be rewarded for it (due to a lack of frequent nearby events, like is often available in the US), and accomplished social-only dancers, who suddenly feel the urge to compete. Both of these groups also are allowed in Novice, and also have the potential to raise the Novice bar. Where is the equivalent outrage?

My point here is twofold:

  • Non-Novice dancers follow the rules and start in Novice all the time, then they move out if they’ve got the stuff.
  • Just because someone has a previous background in a different dance (or another role) doesn’t mean they have the skill set and reactions required to successfully compete, unless they’ve put in the floor time in the appropriate dance style or role (or just happen to be some sort of talented freak of nature, but that could be anyone from any background). Sure, they may have timing, or quality of movement, but that’s not the entire package. If you haven’t put in the practice time to properly perform your role as a lead or a follow, all the syncopations and stylings in the world wont help you. This dance is a partnership, not a solo act.

Dancers transitioning to the other role from an upper level are similar to all these groups in a way. They may have quality of movement from their previous skills (like solo or crossover champs) or lacked opportunity to present their skills (like international or social dancers) but it doesn’t guarantee that they are proficient for the upper divisions in the appropriate skills. Some are and some aren’t; it can’t be assumed. The main difference here is visibility: Ballroom and Zouk champs, international dancers – they blend in, you hardly even know they’re there unless they end up on the podium. But a man among a long line of women kinda sticks out. Familiar faces from the upper divisions stick out. And so it becomes easy to point the finger.

To use some stats to bring perspective on the “bulk” during the transition phase, here are some numbers I crunched from Boogie by the Bay this past year, as it was a major flagship in gender-inclusive J&J competitions:

  • 30 nontraditional dancers competed in Novice.
  • Of those 30, 13 of them ranked Advanced or higher in their previously established role.
  • Of those 13, only 5 made it to finals. That means 8 Advanced or All-Star or Champion dancers – nearly two-thirds of them – were knocked out in Novice prelims and semis.
  • Of those 5, only 2 achieved top 5 placements. Traditional Novice dancers beat out all the rest.

So basically, out of the 13 who may be perceived as “overqualified” for Novice, only 2 proved to be a threat to placements that “belong” to “true Novice competitors.” One of those two technically got enough points to place out, right then and there, never to be in Novice again, no matter how you look at the rules. There are only so many Samanthas and Shanes and [insert well-known female leaders/male followers] in the backlog right now, and if you haven’t noticed, many of them have moved up already.

My suggestion in this transition is to re-aim the perspective: it’s not “Advanced dancers in Novice”. An Advanced-level leader is no longer Advanced as soon as they relinquish the mantle of leading. They are now most likely an “unranked follower” or a “Novice follower”, perhaps even an “Intermediate-but-doesn’t-have-enough-points-yet follower”, like so many in Novice.

Just because you see a familiar All-Star in your division’s lineup doesn’t mean they automatically have what it takes to beat you. Why admit defeat so early? Take it as a challenge. Up your game, and maybe you’ll be the one to end up on top.