It was that time of year when basketball takes a backseat, and for one day, the cheerleaders, cheerdancers, and the pep squads take the spotlight. This past Sunday, we saw National University win its first UAAP Cheerdance Competition championship by edging powerhouse University of the Philippines and ever improving De La Salle. So, what did we learn from this year’s edition of the contest?
The theme has got nothing to do with it
What makes the UAAP CDC stand out from other cheerleading competitions is the added flair of themes, gimmicks, and props that you do not see in a more traditional setup. That said, if we are going to base who won and how the rest of the teams performed, the judges did not put much premium on the theme. Rather, it seemed that having a theme, or trying to figure out what it is, distracted me from enjoying their routine.
For example, Far Eastern University, known for its over-the-top gimmicks and props, went with what appeared to be a different approach with a near all-white attire and a more compact blocking. Looking at the 2013 UAAP Wikipedia entry, I did not even realize that their theme was ‘metallic’. I could have edited that with ‘minimalistic’ and I do not think anyone would notice the change.
Then, you have NU. They claimed it was Arabian, yet, their soundtrack is Bollywood-inspired, which is anachronistic and did not help me appreciate what they were doing. Then there were the lamps, which I figured were there just to drive the theme home.
Nevertheless, lifting up the lamps as if they were some revered idol at the end of their routine made me scratch my head, as my girlfriend and I surmised if it was necessary to do that. To those who are taking notes, they did the same thing with their giant goblet props in their Nutcracker-inspired performance from last year.
Finally, there was Ateneo de Manila’s routine. For the entire five minutes or so of their routine, I was searching for what was sporty in their performance. They did this homage to their athletes when they wore their numbers and that was it.
To sum it up, having a theme (or not having one) is a not a deal maker or breaker. Or maybe it was not given much weight or consideration because the judges came from the National Cheerleading Championship, which then leads me to my next point.
Different set of judges mean different criteria
And that was more evident this year. I guess the reason why some schools played down their gimmicks (FEU and Ateneo in particular) is because they were trying to perform for the judges, which I do not find wrong. The judges give you your score, not the audience. They believed that probably less is more considering that the NCC is leaning more towards proper execution and less on the aesthetics.
In theory, they were right. What did not go their way though is that Far Eastern’s performance was not as clean or fluid as it was when they were using extravagant props, and ADMU’s routine was as safe as it can get, going old school with that varsity feel. Maybe, just maybe, if Ateneo did the same act, dropped the homage part, and performed it in an actual NCC-sanctioned event, they might have scored higher.
With execution being the key, the focus was there with the theme actually taking a backseat. People following the CDC, wherever they may be, were actually having a ‘fall count’, which just means execution and executing properly took precedence. As I mentioned above, instead of accentuating their performance, some of their themes averted me from what I was supposed to be putting my attention to in the first place.
Props, gimmicks, costumes, and audience impact are not part of the criteria anymore. Why put focus on them?
One criticism the CDC was getting, especially from the purists, is that there were instances in past competitions where the props and gimmicks were going over the top it resembled a variety show more than a cheering competition. I believe the one which should be blamed here is the previous sponsor, which required teams to integrate the product in their performance.
Now that has been long erased from the tallying of scores, somehow, the gimmicks remained. You had the Ikot jeep literally going around the perimeter of the performance area, you had that AL SALLE prop malfunction a few years back, and now that I looked back, I believe University of the East utilized umbrellas as props in two of their past performances. And do not get me started on the really unusual ones (the Atenean Voltes V, Adamson University recreating the Makati skyline, that one routine which had an animal with the glowing red eyes, to name a few).
Another thing that has been long gone in the criteria is audience impact. Back then, it was given as much weight as the product placement. I guess it was put there then to encourage people to attend and cheer for their respective squads. But ever since the CDC has become a must-see event in itself, it has become unnecessary to include it there. So, whether your university can muster only 300 people or you have an army over 9,000, that should not be considered in the final tally.
Finally, the costumes. Again, I believe this was the previous sponsor’s fault, or maybe, it is just the competing teams taking everything a step further, but I am pretty sure you will not see performers sport the same hair or wear outlandish costumes in your typical cheering competition. Some explain though that a well-designed costume serves its purpose, whether it is for aesthetics or to emphasize symmetry in movement. But when you have the Animo Squad wear a velvet green fatigue under that camouflage, isn’t that taking the details too far, especially when costumes are not factored in the final tally? They were able to bag the Stunner award, so it must be worth it then… or is it?
---
To summarize, removing the glitz is just as fine as long you do your stunts well and your transitions are crisp because what matters in the end is execution. Besides, if we are going to look at the big picture, all of those eye candies are not major, major factors to win competitions outside of the UAAP.
The theme has got nothing to do with it
What makes the UAAP CDC stand out from other cheerleading competitions is the added flair of themes, gimmicks, and props that you do not see in a more traditional setup. That said, if we are going to base who won and how the rest of the teams performed, the judges did not put much premium on the theme. Rather, it seemed that having a theme, or trying to figure out what it is, distracted me from enjoying their routine.
For example, Far Eastern University, known for its over-the-top gimmicks and props, went with what appeared to be a different approach with a near all-white attire and a more compact blocking. Looking at the 2013 UAAP Wikipedia entry, I did not even realize that their theme was ‘metallic’. I could have edited that with ‘minimalistic’ and I do not think anyone would notice the change.
Then, you have NU. They claimed it was Arabian, yet, their soundtrack is Bollywood-inspired, which is anachronistic and did not help me appreciate what they were doing. Then there were the lamps, which I figured were there just to drive the theme home.
Nevertheless, lifting up the lamps as if they were some revered idol at the end of their routine made me scratch my head, as my girlfriend and I surmised if it was necessary to do that. To those who are taking notes, they did the same thing with their giant goblet props in their Nutcracker-inspired performance from last year.
Finally, there was Ateneo de Manila’s routine. For the entire five minutes or so of their routine, I was searching for what was sporty in their performance. They did this homage to their athletes when they wore their numbers and that was it.
To sum it up, having a theme (or not having one) is a not a deal maker or breaker. Or maybe it was not given much weight or consideration because the judges came from the National Cheerleading Championship, which then leads me to my next point.
Different set of judges mean different criteria
And that was more evident this year. I guess the reason why some schools played down their gimmicks (FEU and Ateneo in particular) is because they were trying to perform for the judges, which I do not find wrong. The judges give you your score, not the audience. They believed that probably less is more considering that the NCC is leaning more towards proper execution and less on the aesthetics.
In theory, they were right. What did not go their way though is that Far Eastern’s performance was not as clean or fluid as it was when they were using extravagant props, and ADMU’s routine was as safe as it can get, going old school with that varsity feel. Maybe, just maybe, if Ateneo did the same act, dropped the homage part, and performed it in an actual NCC-sanctioned event, they might have scored higher.
With execution being the key, the focus was there with the theme actually taking a backseat. People following the CDC, wherever they may be, were actually having a ‘fall count’, which just means execution and executing properly took precedence. As I mentioned above, instead of accentuating their performance, some of their themes averted me from what I was supposed to be putting my attention to in the first place.
Props, gimmicks, costumes, and audience impact are not part of the criteria anymore. Why put focus on them?
One criticism the CDC was getting, especially from the purists, is that there were instances in past competitions where the props and gimmicks were going over the top it resembled a variety show more than a cheering competition. I believe the one which should be blamed here is the previous sponsor, which required teams to integrate the product in their performance.
Now that has been long erased from the tallying of scores, somehow, the gimmicks remained. You had the Ikot jeep literally going around the perimeter of the performance area, you had that AL SALLE prop malfunction a few years back, and now that I looked back, I believe University of the East utilized umbrellas as props in two of their past performances. And do not get me started on the really unusual ones (the Atenean Voltes V, Adamson University recreating the Makati skyline, that one routine which had an animal with the glowing red eyes, to name a few).
Another thing that has been long gone in the criteria is audience impact. Back then, it was given as much weight as the product placement. I guess it was put there then to encourage people to attend and cheer for their respective squads. But ever since the CDC has become a must-see event in itself, it has become unnecessary to include it there. So, whether your university can muster only 300 people or you have an army over 9,000, that should not be considered in the final tally.
Finally, the costumes. Again, I believe this was the previous sponsor’s fault, or maybe, it is just the competing teams taking everything a step further, but I am pretty sure you will not see performers sport the same hair or wear outlandish costumes in your typical cheering competition. Some explain though that a well-designed costume serves its purpose, whether it is for aesthetics or to emphasize symmetry in movement. But when you have the Animo Squad wear a velvet green fatigue under that camouflage, isn’t that taking the details too far, especially when costumes are not factored in the final tally? They were able to bag the Stunner award, so it must be worth it then… or is it?
---
To summarize, removing the glitz is just as fine as long you do your stunts well and your transitions are crisp because what matters in the end is execution. Besides, if we are going to look at the big picture, all of those eye candies are not major, major factors to win competitions outside of the UAAP.
No comments:
Post a Comment