Anyone know status of B'room dancing as an Olympic sport?


Well-Known Member
I agreee with you, tasche. They should re-run the whole all-around competition.

Hamm is not at fault, here. He did nothing wrong. The coaches (arguably) did. So why should he be penalized? I am a US citizen, true, and I won't get into my politics. Just take my world for it that nationalism doesn't enter into my opinion.

This whole thing is ugly.

Just a question. Could such a controversy arise if ballroom was in the Olympics? It, too, is a subjectively judged sport. So, conceivably, such a dilemma could arise, right? :roll: :? So what would happen, and how would that help or hurt dancesport?
Oh my.

First off, there was a mechanism in place for the South Korean gymnast and his coaches to protest the scores during the competition itself. They did not avail themselves of this mechanism.

Second off, it's not Paul Hamm's fault the judges screwed up, so why make him pay for it?

Third off, what about the closer investigations of the tape that showed that the South Korean gymnast did an extra "hold" move, which isn't allowed, and should have triggered an 0.2 deduction that was never actually made?

I mean really, if they're going to go back and demand the results overturned, then I actually think that EVERY SINGLE GYMNAST in the final for that apparatus should have their tape re-examined so that any and all other judging mistakes could be found. Then everyone can be re-ranked for that apparatus, and then the all-around gold, silver, and bronze can be re-awarded to whoever really won them -- not merely just give the South Korean guy the Gold medal. Oh but wait, maybe ALL routines on ALL apparatus for ALL gymnasts in the final should be reviewed, to be ultra-fair.

This is getting silly. Has it been explained anywhere why the South Korean team didn't immediately protest the erroneous start value? There are rules that cover it, so that the problem can be solved right away before situations like this explode all over the place.

Of course, the simplest situation is kicking all judged sports out of the Olympics. Maybe it's time. Or maybe I'm just cranky because I've decided that synchronized swimming is incredibly boring.


Well-Known Member
I'm glad I'm not the only one. Synchronized swimming IS boring.

But it's beautiful, when done well.

I guess what makes me mad about the whole thing is that I perceive it's more about politics than about athletic achievement. Isn't athleticism what it's all about? Or at least, what it SHOULD be about? Grrr. Maybe I'm more sad than mad. Not sure yet. :?
robin said:
[If you have a very simple routine, you can't expect to win against someone who does something really difficult, unless they really mess up!
I completly disagree. I have known of people who have won open scholarships by literally only doing basics the entire time becaues they danced it clean. Look at Dima and Olga Sukachov, they are known for doing very basic movements, but they are technically sound when they do them. Now if it comes down to 2 couples and 1 is very basic and 1 is very difficult, and both of them are dancing very clean routines then the couple dancing more difficult routines will probably win.

OK Sorry i just realized you were talking about gymnastics so I agree with you on that. ....sorry again....i wasnt paying attention. :oops:
That's because every move in ballroom hasn't been assigned a difficulty score that is then used to calculate a start value for your routine. Someone I'm acquainted with who coaches gymnastics explained to me that gymnastics made a concerted effort years ago to be more sports/athletic-oriented by doing that, and so the focus shifted more toward rewarding degree of difficulty. They wanted to reward people who pushed the envelope so that the sport would grow technically.


Staff member
Laura said:
Someone I'm acquainted with who coaches gymnastics explained to me that gymnastics made a concerted effort years ago to be more sports/athletic-oriented by doing that, and so the focus shifted more toward rewarding degree of difficulty. They wanted to reward people who pushed the envelope so that the sport would grow technically.
...but is slopiness really technical growth? Because that's one of the outcomes of this system. :?
Maybe the deductions for not sticking the landing should be more. I think even if you fall its only 0.2 or 0.3 which if the rest of your routine went well could still mean a winning score.

Ballroom is judged on the comparitive quality of the dancing
One thing that's a little freaky about ballroom getting into the Oympics is that the Olympics require that each competitor in a judged sport get equal time in front of the judges. In other words, dancing a group final like we're used to doesn't cut it under Olympic rules. That's why there have been experiments with having the couples dance a couple of dances as short solos as well as in the regular group.


Staff member
Thanks dancing_moogle, that's something, at least. :D

Ideally I'd like to know what all of Bob's exact comments were... not sure if I'll get anyewhere with that though. :?
> Really? This tactic seems to work moderately well for me in ballroom...

But you're not competing at world championship level... if you competed in a Blackpool final, everyone else would be dancing the more complex work just as cleanly as you or I could do the basics.

You won't win Blackpool doing basic Quckstep, nor will you win the olympic ice-skating if you only do doubles where everyone else is doing triple or even quadruple jumps. You might win the ice-skating doing something slightly less extravagant if you do it much more cleanly, but if the work is of roughly equal quality, the more adventurous skater will win.

I'm not saying that good form in gymnastics shouldn't be rewarded, but it seems very silly that a more complicated routine is not rewarded *at all* at the level of world champions

Beyond 10.0 you can't get better in terms of difficulty! So even if someone did a quadruple summersault with 3 twists over the bar caught with one hand and then did it again, it wouldn't help him one iota compared to any of the athletes at the olympics who had a start value of 10.0. In contrast, at the lower levels doing a 8.5 rather than an 8.0 difficuly will give you a huge advantage.

Defining some routine as "that's perfect in terms of difficulty" just seems like a way of halting any new developments.

Anyway, dancing is very different in nature to gymnastics or ice-skating. The aim is not to impress judges by doing something they know to be difficult, but to use any techniques (easy or difficult) to create the best overall "picture". No-one would perform a dance step just because it was difficult to perform, the way that skaters and gymnasts seem to do.

So in some dances a lot of impressive steps happen to be very difficult to do (e.g. some of the fast QS or Jive work), while in others the most impressive steps are very "simple" at least in terms of doing the steps (e.g. the reverse wave in foxtrot) and the skill is in perfecting it to the tiniest detail.
During the gymnastics commentary they were always talking about the athletes doing x move for "bonus points" what des this mean exactly. is it bc if they skip or botch a move the start value can still be 10.0. I found out recently that the start value is decided during the performance not before.
Another thought this time regarding ballroom not gymnastics. why doesn the ISDF focus on a more acheiveable goal such as say getting dancesport into the commonwealth games as a stepping stone to the olympis. yes I know not all couple would be able to participate but there are always loopholes but it might be more acheivable in the short run and help to work out the kinks
Chris Stratton said:
robin said:
You won't win Blackpool doing basic Quckstep
Perhaps not quickstep, but I was under the impression it had been done in rumba and foxtrot - though I can't cite the specific examples.
I believe it was Sammy Stopford and Barbara McColl who won the rhumba at Blackpool with a syllabus routine.
Let me say, I am in favor of Paul Hamm keeping his Gold. Mistakes happen and that is part of judged sport. Going back to the tape is OK for American Football, because they incorporated that into the game. But it wasn't always the case and many NFL fans still talk about the call that costs us the game.

So looking at the instant replay should not be a reason for Paul to keep his medal, otherwise all routines must be scrutinized.

Another point, "Paul didn't do anything wrong."? Let's not forget the totally botched landing in the vault. He fell on his butt, way outside the lines and right in front of the judges. Even Paul knew this took him out of contention for the Gold. The commentators saw this as a catrastrophe for him, and he dropped to 12th. Paul was lucky that his sport allowed him to comeback after such a fall, many in track and field has less severe mistakes that put them out of medal contention, botched relay handoffs, falling into the hurdles, having another person's mistake knock you out of contention in the finals, many more tragic mistakes that didn't allow for a second chance. Greg Louganis (SP?) hit his head on the diving board in a previous Olympics and still got the Gold, he is one of the lucky ones. Paul knows that he made a mistake and that should have taken him out. But to win the Gold after that, it must have looked like one of those "Great Olympic Moments" but now is one of those "Great big Olympic Mistakes".

This is the drama of the Olympics, every 4 years the best go at it, and bad luck, momentary lapses in focus, going for it, sorry only one gets the Gold medal. Luck is part of it and so are mistakes.

Does anyone remember when the electronic timing was first instituted in the Olympics? Does anyone remember when there were ties in swimming and track and field because they only went to the tenth of a second? Imagine wondering the rest of your life if you actually won or got second but the technology didn't keep up with the need for better timing. And let's not forget photo finishes.

As mentioned, there was a way for the Silver Medalist to verify this, but they didn't do it in time. I am not familiar with the rules, but this is something that doesn't come up but you can bet from now on, it will. Now it is important because it cost so much controversy.

There is no proof of any intentional wrongdoing, just a type of oversight. But in my mind, Paul is the better of the two. In many ways, this is his Gold medal and maybe it was meant to be. The Silver medalist knows he should have won that Gold, but he also knows that Paul opened the door for him and he should have won by a bigger margin. He had the chance to overwhelmingly beat Paul and if he was a true champion, he should have. Paul gave two steller routines after falling when he could have just given up. Paul also played by the same rules, and the chance for him to have his starting point value to be wrong was the same as the other guys.

The Summer Olympics are over and the book is closed. The next summer Olympics we will relive this again and we will have new stories and topics to discuss. And Paul, should he keep his medal, knows it wasn't his best, but he was going for the Gold on every routine and that is why he fell on the vault landing. Just another reason for Paul to keep the medal, he took big chances and never let up, that is what champions are made of. The Silver medalist had his chance, and he didn't capitalize on it. As far as I am concerned, he got conservitive after Paul's mistake and that is really why he lost.


Well-Known Member
The botched vault landing is irrelevant--he was scored accordingly. If he was able to make up points on other events, and the competition failed to do as well, that's not his fault. It's exactly as if you, Dance Am, were competing and totally FUBARed your Rumba by tripping and falling on a seam in the floor, taking your partner down with you. Your Rumba scores might be only something like 65665, but your four other dances might be scored 11211 or something like that. That might be enough to mark you in first place. Would you then decline your first place award, saying you don't deserve it?

I don't understand why people aren't making more of the fact that the Korean gymnast wasn't given the mandatory 2/10 point deduction for having four holds instead of three. All these "fair play" proponents are saying he should be given 1/10 back, but if you're going to go look at the videotape to determine the correct "start value" you have to look at the entire content.
I am not saying Paul did anything unfair, but he did fall and it looked like he blew his chances. Falling like he did, I wouldn't say he did everything right, so I said he did something "wrong". To come back looked like a "Great Olympic Moment", but because of the judging mistake, it is now a scandal.

To his credit, I mentioned he didn't give up on the last two events. And that is why I think he deserves the medal. A true champion overcomes.

Dance Ads