Some Less Desirable Features

These, then, are the worthwhile aspects of competitions. There must be many readers, however, who have been concerned to note less desirable features. This article seeks to discuss the causes and effects of these, and to make a few suggestions for improvement.

Among the most consistent features of many competitions today are poor organisation, unsatisfactory judging and sometimes a very poor attitude amongst some of the competitors. These first two are particularly important because they can cause frustration and ill-will amongst even the most well-meaning.

Let us discuss organisation first. A clear and detailed set of rules is essential, otherwise competitors begin without knowing clearly what is expected of them. Groups that are situated away from the competition centre begin with a disadvantage, since they are seldom able to confer with the organisers until it is too late. These rules must define such points as what each team is expected to perform in the way of items before it can qualify for an aggregate prize (in any), whether original compositions are required, the system of marking, whether any conventions of dress such as moko are mandatory, and whether there is a requirement for any particular type and direction of entrance.

Vague Criteria for Judging Items

Bad organisation is often the cause of unsatisfactory judging. The writer judged at a competition recently where he and his fellow judges were expected to judge all items—from whaikorero through poi, choir, action song and haka taparahi—against the same set of headings. These headings were ‘appearance’, ‘suitability of item’, ‘performance’, ‘leadership’, ‘communication’ (whatever that might be) and ‘overall impression’. Not only were these headings vague, but how could the same marking criteria be used for oratory as for poi? Each aspect of Maori culture has its own set of criteria. It is up to the judges and organisers to thrash these out beforehand and then to let the competitors know what they want. This is particularly necessary for the less-experienced groups.

Variation in Judging Standards

Organisers of big competitions should consider the use of a judging panel. No judge can mark carefully, or criticise accurately, a series of different items following one after the other. It is best to have one judge who looks at the action song performed by each group, another who does haka, a third who does poi, and so on. This makes for more careful and less hurried judging, and helps dispel allegations of favouritism since no one judge marks all the items performed by each group.

This brings us to the actual quality of the judging, and this is probably the most contentious point of all. At the moment there is considerable variation in standards and much displaying of personal preference. In one competition (where there were two judges for each

item—a bad arrangement), one group was given 70 points for an action song by one judge, and 30 points by the other. This is ridiculous. One of those judges simply could not have known his business. In another competition a group was marked down heavily because a single action in their version of ‘Ruaumoko’ was contrary to what the judge thought it should be. Yet the group has learned the haka from an acknowledged expert.

Not an Exercise in Intuition

Judging is not an exercise in intuition. Judges must be objective. Anyone who argues that there is no place for specifics in competition judging has just not thought out what the whole business is about. On the concert stage the idea is to entertain the audience. Spontaneity, mistakes, the happy idiot in the back row who does not know the actions but who is good at face-pulling—all these often help to make a show more enjoyable. A good laugh and comic relief are not the least bit out of place. But competitions are to test the knowledge and competence of a group. Therefore technique becomes important, and points

must be ruthlessly deducted for bad actions, poor footwork, mistakes, etc. The best group may not be that which brings a lump to the throat and raises a laugh. The judge must be fair to those who have practised long and hard, and not let careless groups cash in merely because they make more noise and get the audience laughing with them and cheering for them.

The necessity for marking against specifics goes further. If teams are to get the full benefit from a competition, it is not sufficient merely to be told that they were not placed first. They have a right to be told where they went wrong and where their technique requires improvement. Then they can go away and work on their faults and perhaps comes back next time and win the competition.

I should like to give a suggested mark sheet for haka taparahi, just to illustrate how many things there are which go to make up a good performance and which must be scrutinised if the judging is to be objective and truly to avaluate the group.

Stance: Are feet well apart? Is stance one of relaxed readiness? Check for sagging waists and hunching shoulders. (10 points)

Expression: Deduct for performers grinning. Expression must be fierce and vigilant. Check use of pukana, pikari, whatero, whakapi. (10 points)

Eyes and Head: Eyes must watch enemy (audience) but may follow hands for significant actions. Deduct for performers who look around or at the ground. (10 points)

Actions: Crisp? Strong? Decisive? Check hands do not flap, have controlled vibration. (10 points)

Co-ordination: Everyone working as a team? Watch back rows! (10 points)

Start and Stop: Must be crisp and together. All performers must ‘hit’ words together when they start. Note position of hands on hips. (10 points)

Rhythm: Is it appropriate to the haka? Make sure tempo of words and actions fit. (10 points)

Words: Every member of group must say them (watch lips). Check for clarity. Do they have sufficient volume, considering the number in the group? (10 points)

Leadership: Has leader good control and presence? Are his words clear and correct? Deduct

points if he crosses in front of group. (10 points)

Grouping: Arrangements on stage. Have they given themselves plenty of room? (10 points)

In the above, teams are judged against ten important points and these are defined. Similarly, other sets of important points should be used in considering action song, poi, dress, etc. It is no use using vague terms like ‘communication’ which mean all things to all men. If judges mark against specific headings they are in a much better position to show a group where it is going wrong, and their judging is less likely to be influenced towards giving the highest points to the group with the nicest tune or the most colourful dress, or the one that they heard last.

Attitude of Competitors

The final point concerns the attitude of competitors towards competitions. Too often the results are treated as tests of personal prestige by those who lead and teach, and this causes some distressing examples of bad sportsmanship by those who lose. Some competitions, which provide valuable monetary prizes, engender a do-or-die, far from friendly attitude on the part of some competitors. One wonders if there is not good reason to cut out these monetary prizes and instead to divide up the money amongst all the teams in proportion to the distance they have had to travel. This would remove any element of greed and would provide an incentive for teams to travel to competitions even though their chances of winning might be slim.

I have tried to be provocative and I hope that other judges and prospective competitors might write to ‘Te Ao Hou’ with their thoughts on this most important aspect of modern Maori culture. If we are to use competitions as a method of raising our level of performance, we should perhaps try and establish some sort of standard competition procedure. Many interested people feel that it would fulfil a long-felt want if Adult Education or some similar body could sponsor a weekend seminar to discuss and give guidance on judging standards, and to air views on such controversial matters as stage approach, costuming, individual or group chants after whaikorero. Judges, teachers, leaders and competitors would benefit greatly from such a meeting of minds.

Alan Armstrong is Te Ao Hou's record critic, and the author of ‘Maori Games and Hakas’ and (with Reupena Ngata) ‘Maori Action Songs’. He is club captain of the Ngati Poneke Young Maori Club.

At Hawera and Patea there have recently been established Maori Educational Advancement Committees similar in organisation and aims to the group which for some years has most successfully operated in Wanganui.

The artist Buck L. Nin, who is of half Maori and half Chinese descent, recently held a very interesting exhibition of his work in Wellington.

Aged 24, Mr Nin comes from Kaikohe. He was educated at Northland College and at the Schools of Art in Auckland and Christchurch. He is at present working as an artist in Christchurch, and next January will go to Brigham Young University in Utah, U.S.A., to complete a B.A. degree.

His paintings, abstracts and near-abstracts that show a lively colour-sense and a vigorous grasp of form, are most promising.