Within the dynamic realm of breakdancing, where physical prowess, artistic expression, and cultural significance converge, dancers’ stunning and gravity defying battles frequently garner attention for all the wrong reasons. However, the integrity of competitions is threatened behind the scenes by conflicting interests, arbitrary judging procedures, and administrative flaws. It is the duty of the OBS and as supporters of justice to bring attention to the problems afflicting the sport worldwide.

Cracking the Judging Mysterium:

The judges are the backbone of any breakdancing competition; their job is to interpret the dance moves from each rounds’ nuances and assign a winner based on the exchange. However, bias and manipulation are made possible by the subjectivity that is a part of this process. Despite its prominence, the World Dance Sport Federation (WDSF), Red Bull, and the Breaking for Gold organization have not established infallible judging standards, which leaves a clear opportunity for interpretation and partiality. Take the Trivium Score System that is owned and commissioned by Steve “Silverback” Graham and created by Niels “Storm” Robitzky and Kevin “Dj Renegade” Gopie.

At first glance, the Trivium Score System appears to offer a structured framework for evaluating dancers across three key categories: Body, Mind, Soul. However, upon closer inspection and scrutinization, it becomes evident that this system is merely a sliding scale within each category, lacking specificity and nuance. Every dance move, no matter how distinct or complex, is forced into arbitrary categories, leading to oversimplification and misrepresentation of the battle exchange between competitors. Every breakdance move has a culturally accepted name given to it: Windmill, Air Flare, Headspin, 6-step, Air Bridge, Indian Step, etc. The OBS Group has created a Syllabus in addressing what the core moves for Breakdancing are. Some of these dance moves are harder and riskier to perform than other moves. Keep that in mind as you read on.

Without a clear understanding of the dance moves executed, the Trivium becomes susceptible to bias and favoritism with overly simplified and diluted categories that have nothing to do with who the better dancer is at any given round or exchange:

Body: In a face-to-face battle between competitors, evaluating on a category like ‘Body, Physical Quality,’ composed of ‘Technique’ and ‘Variety,’ is like judging a boxing match based solely on the color of the fighters’ shorts. It completely misses the essence of the battle unfolding before you – the skill, strategy, and intensity exchanged between opponents. It’s akin to watching a thrilling duel through a fogged-up lens, missing the clarity and intensity of the confrontation. Such narrow judging criteria not only fails to capture the essence of the battle and the moves itself, but also diminish the experience for both participants and spectators, rendering the judging process woefully inadequate and the outcome arbitrary at best.

Mind: Reducing a dancer’s ability to a mere calculation of ‘Creativity’ and ‘Personality’ within the category of ‘Mind, Artistic Quality’ is like trying to capture the essence of a novel by counting the number of adjectives and evaluating the author’s handwriting. In a face-to-face battle between competitors, Mind overlooks the true essence of victory in the exchanges. It’s akin to determining the winner of a heated debate based solely on the eloquence of their vocabulary, disregarding the substance and depth of their arguments. Focusing merely on creativity and personality fails to capture the intricacies of the battle – the strategic maneuvers and the calculated risks. Such narrow judging criteria not only undermines the complexity of the competition but also overlooks the skill, adaptability, and sheer determination demonstrated by the competitors.

Soul: Reducing a dancer’s ability to a mere calculation of ‘Performativity’ and ‘Musicality’ within the category of ‘Soul, Interpretive Quality’ is like trying to capture the essence of a sunrise with a black-and-white photograph. It’s akin to trying to capture wind in a bottle. Remember, each dance move has a culturally accepted name and some moves are harder and more dangerous to perform than others. Clearly a continuous headspin is harder to perform than a backspin. You eliminate the very nature of the exchange between two competitors by relegating the battle to more about your personal feelings and emotions in said moment and not what is actually being executed by each competitor.

The Trivium Score System’s inability to offer insightful information about the actual dance maneuvers executed in each round in a battle is among its most obvious shortcomings. Judges are forced to simply slide a scale based on nebulous criteria, depriving the audience of knowledge about the finer points of the battle rather than providing a thorough analysis of each move in the exchange between competitors. This lack of openness fosters a culture of subjectivity and ambiguity in addition to decreasing the educational value of competitions.

Essentially, any move you do against your opponent whether extremely easy to perform or difficult and threatening to one’s well being can be misconstrued to fit all three categories or none at all. Judges, constrained by the limitations of the three category scoring criteria, may rely on personal preferences or preconceived notions when sliding the scale, rather than objectively assessing the actual moves performed in each rounds’ exchange. This inherent subjectivity undermines the credibility of competitions and perpetuates inequalities within the dance community.

Looking at the results from a battle using the trivium can be even more confusing. You are not able to differentiate the actual moves performed by the competitors looking at the results alone, and even with the video playing side by side to the scores as the battle takes place, you are left with categories that are so open-ended that once again any move performed can fall within them.

Other methods employed by the WDSF, such as the One Fold Judging System, go so far as to oversimplify the scoring process by creating a sliding scale utilizing no categories at all, which exacerbates the judging problems caused by WDSF competitions. Its methodology depends entirely on the judge’s judgment, which is based mostly on the judges’ lack of first-hand experience performing the dance moves they are judging. Moreover, no explicit standards are established for the dancers to adhere to, and the final results do not accurately reflect the dance maneuvers. It’s the same as simply pointing left or right with your hand to which side you think won. The One Fold is worse than the Trivium as a no effort required approach to judging and should not be used.

It is essential that dance contests done by the World DanceSport Federation take a more open and fair judging method in light of these fundamental and clearly explained flaws. WDSF Competitions ought to adopt new approaches that put an emphasis on diversity, specificity, and clarity rather than scoring systems that obfuscate the battle. Through granting judges the authority to offer comprehensive comments and cultivating an environment of responsibility, we can preserve the authenticity of dance contests and guarantee that each performer gets an unbiased and equitable assessment. The Trivium Score System and the One Fold are unable to accurately depict the caliber of dance battles due to its vague classification and lack of precision.

Other Breakdance Battle Based Score Systems, like Karl “Dyzee” Alba’s OUR system, use equally nebulous categories to the Trivium system, but they are not used by the WDSF and have the same inefficiencies and basic flaws explained in this article. Both strategies exhibit the same fundamental flaws and drawbacks. It is further ineffective to solve the issues by renaming existing categories, creating or adding additional ones. The very essence of categorizing an exchange between competitors as they go back and forth against each other instead of gauging who is performing better dance moves is the problem.

The International Breakdance Score System, developed and owned by the OBS Group, is the first copyrighted round-by-round score system for Breakdance battles since October of 2000 superseding the others options by over a decade, and is currently the only workable alternative that directly addresses the above issues. The basic issue in category-based judging alone is eliminated by this scoring diagram and method, which gives the judges the ability to specifically note the moves executed in each round and exchange before deciding on a winner. This addresses for the public what the competitors’ real performance was and emphasizes the importance of accountability when making judgments. Judges are forced to have practical understanding of the techniques and first-hand experience performing the actual moves, which improves their ability to assess the degree of difficulty shown in each round.

The Achilles Heel of Administrative Oversight:

Behind the glamor of breakdancing events lies a web of administrative inefficiencies that breed opportunities for cheating and favoritism. From registration discrepancies to inadequate supervision of the competitor choosing process, the loopholes are plentiful. The lack of standardized protocols across competitions exacerbates the problem, allowing unscrupulous individuals to exploit weaknesses for personal gain. Take an event series known as Freestyle Session.

The Sponsorship Dilemma:

Sponsorship plays a pivotal role in the world of breakdancing, providing much-needed support to aspiring dancers. However, the symbiotic relationship between sponsors and competitors can sometimes blur the lines of fairness. Opportunities for exposure and financial backing often favor those with existing connections, creating a hierarchical structure that sidelines talented dancers without the right affiliations.

Navigating Conflict of Interest:

One of the most pervasive issues facing breakdancing competitions is the prevalence of conflicts of interest. Whether it’s judges with personal ties to competitors or sponsors exerting undue influence, the integrity of the sport is compromised when decisions are swayed by factors beyond performance. The insidious nature of these conflicts undermines the credibility of results and erodes trust within the community.

Proposed Solutions:

To address the systemic challenges facing breakdancing competitions, a multifaceted approach is required. Firstly, there must be greater transparency in judging criteria, with clear benchmarks established to minimize subjective interpretation.

Additionally, stricter enforcement of administrative protocols, such as registration verification and practice monitoring, can mitigate opportunities for cheating. Finally, measures to diversify sponsorship opportunities and promote inclusivity will help level the playing field and foster a more equitable competitive landscape.

Conclusion:

As breakdancing continues to captivate audiences worldwide, it’s essential to confront the issues that threaten its integrity. By exposing the flaws in judging systems, addressing administrative shortcomings, and challenging the status quo of sponsorship dynamics, we can pave the way for a fairer and more inclusive future for the sport. Together, let us strive to uphold the principles of excellence and integrity defined by the OBS Group.