Interesting, and misguided subject line "Are Americans ruining Smooth". You all seem to forget why 99% of American adults, who want to learn to dance, take lessons. It is to have a social activity/ hobby and spend time with their significant other, have some fun, and learn to dance socially. Are they ever going to meet your high standard of judgement? No. Taking lessons and practicing 3-4 hours a week will not get these students (including myself and my wife) to the critical acclaim some of you seem to want us to be. If I wanted to be a professional dancer, I would take a much different path to meet that end and do what any pro would- find instruction that teaches the styles that would please a majority of judges, whether it be International or American.
American adults who want to dance do so for fun, and to have a social hobby that non-dancers do not enjoy- whether it be a night out on the town, A wedding reception or just having a fun activity on a Tuesday night instead of another evening in front of the TV.

Reading all the comments, and being neutral. I don't do American Smooth. I would say that Are Americans ruining Smooth is the winner, judging from the comments made in this column

First.... the comments are over TEN years old .. I wonder if any past posters, have re-evaluated the purpose of Amer. smooths existence ?..
It is, as someone stated, a "social " animal only in the lower divisions,( altho it did creep into the Comp. arena ) and, this is where the problems lie.

Sadly, the technique for dance at these levels, is often commonly overlooked, for expediency .

When one does apply standarised technique to a genre, it needs to fit the purpose . The majority of social students, are more interested in variety than accuracy. And, this has been perpetuated by the " chains" in many cases ( NOT all ).

Many small studios, are woefully lacking in training.
So.. the style does meet a need, and to para-phrase Alex Moore
" I realised after teaching for one year that, not everyone wanted to be a world champion ". read into that what you will.

I am not sanctioning poor technique, at any level or genre, just pointing out the facts of dance " life " .

I do not know if you are still reading posts here, but.... A major correction to one of your insertions, that being.. there is no way Amer. studios ( chains particularly ) can turn out top level Intern. style dancers.. well.. heres a few for your consideration..

Joe/ Nancy Jenkins.. 3rd in the world 1972/3 Blackpool finalist .. Standard

Larry/ Betty Silvers.. eighth in the world.. Intern. Latin 19 70s

Bobby Medieros.. coached numerous latin european couples in the 70/80s ( a former F.Astaire teacher ).. I could go on.

but, I do think you may need to re-think your post.

P.S. I was one of the 1st coaches for Larry and Joe,among many others, both from F.A. in D.C,( 1964 ) and yes, they did go to the UK for training. doesnt everyone ???

This is an old post and the original author may have converted. I have always appreciated Terence2's outlook. I was wondering what your take is on how much responsibility the universities must share with the social arena as you cited in your 1/29/14 post.

I know that, the USA Univs. contribute a great deal to the Amat. and some times, Prof ranks ( Ronnie Montez for one e.g. and there are others ).

Pretty much most of them ,bring in outside coaches..... I for e.g. , had that pleasure ( with the U.Ga).

BYUs dance program ,is 2nd to none, and their formation team ,as i re-call, won "Blackpool" on several occasions . And I do know that, there were those that came into the dance teaching profession, well trained and coached .