Every pastime has its ‘Manchester United’s. Its ‘Liverpools - and of course, its ‘Accrington Stanleys’. The dominant forces are exposed through more media and greater wealth and this in turn allows them to become stronger and stronger. Their dominance doesn’t discourage others participating - but it could. If, say, there was only one prize at the end of a working season.
Those in the lower echelons of a footballing world would soon become disillusioned if every team competed for a single accolade. If this single accolade also pitched the professional sides against young, local boys teams - it would be deemed totally unfair. Those at grass-roots level need their own level of competition against peers who have similar levels of ability and experience. It allows and encourages them to develop and in the process it may produced ‘players’ who go on to achieve their goal of playing with the ‘big boys’.
This analogy is used to try and highlight what I think is an unfair system in the current world of Poetry Slams. Now, some may think that the Slam is dead. I’m inclined to disagree - but in its currently it has become a little staid.

Slams are often perceived as something that young performance poets often aspire towards. After performing at various ‘open mic’ events, individuals are usually encouraged while receiving positive feedback about their work and their performance and before the mist of compliments has disappeared, they find themselves entering their first Slam. Few are successful at this first attempt. Usually taking encouragement from finishing in the ‘top-half’ - which is often considered a success.

However, over time, this enthusiasm often wanes. A combination of inexplicable (subjective) scoring and the realisation that the gulf between the ‘Manchester United’s’ and the ’Accrinton Stanley’s’ is just too great.

Not any more.

Wigan’s ‘The Tudor House’ is considering playing host to an ‘Intermediary Slam’. A slam that will allow inexperienced poets/performers to compete against each other AND in a different format than what the current Slam rules are based upon.
The concept is in its early stages and part of the reason I’m writing this is to get a general feel for what other people may think. This is not about turning the Slam world into a two-tier system. The good ‘uns against the ‘bad ‘uns’. It’s about providing a suitable stepping stone for potential ‘would be’ Slam winners. An environment in which to experience ‘competition’ in an arena in which to familiarise poets with the whole Slam experience. Surely not a bad thing?

However, the event would be a pilot-event for a different scoring system. A system that is not new, but one that some may be unfamiliar with. It’s not a unique system. Apparently, the general idea has featured in places such as Newcastle before now - but when I heard about it, I thought it sounded ‘refreshing’ and if nothing else, it should maintain a poet’s personal interest in an event that some of those poets, who under the original scoring system, become disheartened at having to perform first, or early on at least; where generally, and I stress the word ‘generally’, poets who perform in the first 3 fail to be scored consistently with the later performers.

Here’s roughly how it works using 12 poets as the starting figure. More poets obviously requires more time…

ROUND 1 - 12 Poets. Each poet competes against just one other poet. With a 2 mins allowance of time. The Judges (5 at best - 3 if you’re struggling) choose either poet A or poet B. Their decision cards are handed to the compére (or other scorer) and read to the performers and audience alike at this point.
After the first round you finish with SIX ‘winners’ and SIX ‘runners-up’.

ROUND 2 - The SIX ‘runners-up’ now compete against one poet in their group. With a similar or marginally more amount of time, say 2 mins 15 secs? This leaves 3 ‘winners’ and 3 poets who are eliminated at this point.

ROUND 3 - The SIX ’winners’ of round 1 repeat ROUND 2’s format.
3 poets are eliminated at this point

ROUND 4 - The SIX ‘winners of the previous rounds compete against one other previous ‘winner’.
3 are eliminated at this point.


ROUND 5 (THE FINAL) The 3 remaining poets compete against each other as poets A -B -C or 1 -2 -3, it doesn’t really matter. Judges can and should take account of the surviving poets previous performances?
After which, you have a winner!

It may seem a little unfair that a poet can lose a first round and go on to win , but no more ’unfair’ than being the selected first poet in a normal scoring slam. And it also compensates for those who feel that they drew against a ‘strong’ poet in the first round. There is an element of luck, yes - but that’s always been the case. It maintains a poet’s personal interest until at least the third round. It may not be a perfect system and I’m sure there are ways it can improved or altered to suit what all potential competitors consider is appropriate but a few of us consider it to be worth piloting at Wigan. So with your help, we will.

I must stress that this is in the ‘embryonic’ stages of planning and anyone who has any comments, suggestions or criticisms please add them to this thread.

And, most importantly, would anybody consider appearing in such an event? (Previous Slam winners not permitted!)

Thanks.

Darren I think its brilliant and cant wait to see this happen.
I hope there will be a replica slam for winners using this system.
I for one would love to participate.
I have never liked the scoring system they use at moment.

One reason this would work is that it gives you a chance to recover, to regroup and go for it again, it helps with nerves too, nothing worse than being knocked out in first round knowing that you could do better if given a second chance.

Please dont make this slam exclusive to non-winners. It should really be a start from scratch system.

OR have a slam winners version too.

I have been excluded from a few slams recently and Im not happy about it as I enjoy them.

I've got the bug for slams now. I'd be up for it! Wait a minute... am I inexperienced enough for it? I've only done two slams. I like the system as described though.

I think it is a wonderful idea - younger less experienced poets need encouragement to develop their confidence - nothing worse than putting them up there with the big boys for destroying that. Am still not sure that I like the idea of having my poetry judged and scored but would love to watch...

not including previous slam winners seems a strange idea given that its a different judging system
the implication is that the previous winners will also win with the new system, which in turn implies it was never the judging system that allowed / disallowed people to win but the poet themselves.

so Im a bit confused here, are we talking poetry leagues now?
if so fine, but if you are going to do this Wigan Slam (and I think its great) you def need to have 1st and second division versions, let the poets decide which league they wish to compete in.

what do people think?
Im quite excited about Darren (and presume JTs) new concept.
if all else fails ill ask Lolly to compère

.Yes, I would agree with Pete - you need to motivate the bottom and the top end.

personally, I don't see an altered slam doing anything differently. I've been to three slams thus far, two quite a while ago (over 7 years ago) and the Wirral Grabnd Slam. Personally I think the problem with slams and indeed a lot of open mic nights is that you don't attract anyone but 'poets' to them. For poetry to advance we have to aim our work at those not normally exposed to it. For the purposes of this thread let's call them the General Public. You see of the three slams I've been to and the various conversations with people the 'General Public' don't show up. This opens up ALL poetry events to being a group of poets patting themselves on their collective backs and deciding what they think is good poetry. Of course this alse means that what is considered good poetry is decided by those biased by their own work.

Now don't get me wrong I am not trying to have a dig at anyone in particular here. I am just expressing why I think events can get a little.....stuck.

In the limited cases where I've seen poets reading to a 'General Public' you get a far different reaction to that of a standard open mic night. These audiences can surprise you an awful lot especially when you get a great reaction for something that you and the Poetry writing audiences thought was utter steaming poo.

In this case I feel that your systems seems a little too complex and I'm not sure that it'd really do anything new. After all isn't this just a glorified and more complex round robin? If you are going to have multiple rounds why not consider a round robin? It'd certainly be easier, the top 4 go through to a Slam off.

Just a thought!

i experienced this in boston about 4 years ago,,it seemed wierd having done a lot of traditional slams here....it felt a bit like a boxing match but was also exciting and fun...its quite hard though if one poet is for instance funny and the other very serious ..its a bit like deciding if key lime pie is better than steak and ale pie...!
in this case though it worked well ...i think its possible to meet the same poet you were up against in an early round in the final though/
id love to see how your night ends up and will try to come to it
good luck
j
ps i came 2nd which is why im an advocate of it too !!!

I personally don't enter slams simply because I write to share and connect with people, not to win.

However, I can understand the viewpoint presented here and agree.

I primarily write to share and connect with people.
I love winning things too because it gives me an enormous sense of achieving and well being.

I love the fact that no one owns the medium of poetry and that we can use it any way we wish. To use it in competitive, fiery, funny and fighting slams is democracy and freedom working at its best. It is entertainment. It is group participation (especially in team slams)

Anyone can slam, not everyone wants to and thats great too but they are fun to watch also. I think the comedy slams are the best.

Laughing and fooling around with words keeps you young.
I'm a fan of sophisticated and respectful fooling around.

Every poet should be made to take part in a slam as part of their indoctrination on WOL !

ok ready slammers
slam

forgot to say I also Hate slams. Reminds me of how close love and hate live to each other.

'How close love and hate live to each other'

Great theme for a poem... though maybe it's been done before.

Reminds me of a fantastic line in one of Bruce Springsteen's songs about the tattoos on a man's left and right hands. "One the one hand was the word LOVE, and on the other FEAR".

Sorry, I keep wandering off the point in these discussions.

But, Blimey O'Riley, I've written the Love and Hate poem and posted it in the blog section

mmmmm maybe I'll enter a slam one fine day - 'hate' to be left out and 'love' to win - you'll have to create a 3rd division first though.

Peter perhaps there is another way of re structuring..

.i.e. catagorise...

! Comedic Slams

2 Deep and meaningful and oh my god not another one Slams'

3 Seasonal Slams.

4 Pre determined Theme Slams

5. Fancy dress Slams.

You so are right Peter, Slams should be for all and most importantly fun to be in and fun to watch. ..and for that matter fun to judge.... recent panels have be very Cowellesque..and that to me is missing the point...

'Every poet should be made to take part in a slam as part of their indoctrination on WOL !'

Oh là là...
What a way to make a person feel anxious...
mais bien sûr j'aime l'idée ; )

I like this idea
I'll join the third division with you Isobel. We'll go on first, and whichever of us wins, we'll share the prize money, get dead pissed and heckle the others via drunken insults. Good eh?

Love it, love it, love it Baz. Perhaps we could be a double act and read a poem together - or I could wear the hats for you - we could bring the house down! We could call it the ranting raving looney slam... Ooooo I'm getting really excited now. Will have to think of some clever ploys to throw off the opposition - coughing fits, loud sneezes - I could keep turning the hand drier on the ladies (it's rather loud) - one of us could do a slow strip in the back garden....This could be such fun.

I like the idea of doin a poem together. Hopefully speak to you Thursday. I doin the bed scene for Pete.
At a slam I don't think Pete will be taken aback by random insults. I think we should throw heavy objects at him. Maybe other poets!?
I reckon having Mr Togher and Mr Thomas land on his head will distract (or at least nonpluss) him momentarily.
Then we may win.
Re the slow strip. Out the question. I have a small willy.

Oh dear, Baz - was hoping you'd volunteer for the strip - between your small willy and my small baps, I fear we may be done for - wouldn't pull much of a crowd, would we- just the hardened smokers with a stomach for anything. We'll have to go to plan B, whatever that is - missile throwing - yes the idea grows on me, could have some fun man handling the missiles...

Hi Izo
How can you exspect to harden the smokers with small babs?

Gus - you are so rude but I do love you. Had never thought of that particular play on words - but you are quite right unfortunately.

I think the general idea of this event is very good.
I'm really not sure if the scoring system would actually work or be a little confusing but if it is organized well and everyone involved knows precisely what they're doing, it makes for an interesting, audience engaging experience.
Sometimes once a poet has performed their own piece they lose interest in the rest of the proceedings and go off chatting or stay whispering among their friends about their performance. This way they might, having another opportunity to raise their performance level given a second chance to perform, stick around to see what they're up against in the next round.

Personally, i'm not interested in performing but will gladly assist the event in any way i can. ie judging, time keeping, playing devils advocate :-)

It would be great to see Baz and Isobel joining in, together or separately. They are equally worthy of performance.

Now please can this thread include some positive feedback to find out who actually wants to attend and perform at an event such as this one to give it the support it deserves then the plans can be put into motion knowing it will generate sufficient interest for it to, at the very least be a great night out, whatever the outcome.
Come on all you competition entering poets!
Do you or do you not want to support this event?

Janet Ramsden.

question.
If you get through, do you have to do a different pome, or can you do the same pome all the way through?

Baz

Always, in my experience, a different poem. with the same time contraints...

In the event of a third poem... then you are exspected to do it nude or underwater... other vthan that it's the same.

Hey all,
this system certainly was tried in Newcastle. The leader of the poetry Vandals, a man called Jeff Price ran it. That one was called the bare knuckle slam and was a smash success. I think I made it through to the third round. I spoke to Jeff that night about using the rules in the North West and he agreed to let me 'borrow' the idea. So, I have been talking with Paul about putting a 'new rule' slam on in conjunction with WOL and we may have some interest from DGPS. That is roughly what I told Darren when I spoke to him about this idea at the New Brighton slam. It worked before and I hope it will work again, the main point is, it is much fairer. I have done 207 slams now and am tired of the old system

thank you

Scott Devon.

Please note that both the next Hebden and Wigan slams will be run on the old rules - we'll try the alternative rules in Wigan in September maybe.