You’re quite right about it being easy to ‘diss’ something you’ve not participated in – but you’re making assumptions there!

I think I said in an earlier reply that actually I *could* see the point of competition to develop yourself personally…. and I also admit this is a rant (I need a tongue-in-cheek smiley for my blogs sometimes!).

I guess the problem I have is that the people I’ve met/worked with who went in for competitions tended to go for them for the sake of winning rather than for the sake of making themselves better at public speaking. Perhaps I’ve just been unlucky at the people who’ve come to me for training!

Thanks again…. Simon

Well, I respect your opinion, but I disagree completely. It is easy to “dis” something you have witnessed and never participated in. (Check out poem by T. Roosevelt called “The Critic” 1899).

The purpose of competition is not the win, but the personal growth of the competitor through the contest “process.” Competing in the Toastmasters World Championship made me a better speaker. The higher level forces you to work harder on yourself (like any adversity). I agree with you on the “intent” of the competition alone and winning. Many people are so focused on that they forget the purpose. The audience. That is why great coaching is important.

Why bother… personal growth, that’s why!

Stage time,
Darren LaCroix, 2001 World Champion of Public Speaking

Organizations and individuals tend to get what they recognize, what they measure, and what they celebrate. Toastmasters do that in quite a number of areas. Speech evaluation competitions for one. Competitions push everyone to bring out the best and then puts the bright lights on it for everyone else to see: “this is what a great evaluation should look like”.

For me, other than my initial decision to join toastmasters, nothing has improved my speaking more than participating in contests. There are alot of reasons for this, but the main reason is that it keeps me from becoming complacent with the “pretty good” speeches/presentations and forces me to strive for perfection. Another reason, is knowing that one is being judged and there is a consequence to ones performance brings out a completely different motivation and intensity.

Competing is not for everyone. But the audience benefits, the competitors benefit, and the organization benefits from what we measure, recognize, and celebrate.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/12/27/speaking_of_confidence/

About your first point: I was simply basing that suggestion on looking at the Toastmaster’s site. If I got the wrong impression from that I apologise.

Your second point: hmmm…. 70% American. I think, given the flavour of my post being slightly tonge-in-cheek I’m tempted to stand by my original assertion: how many countries compete in the Baseball World Series?

Last point – well, we’re just going to have to disagree here. I’ve seen plenty of presentations when the technique wasn’t anything better than mediocre but the overall effect was simply stunning. Usually it’s due to having amazing content and annate personal charisma. I did say “sometimes” – don’t infer that I thought it was common! Effectively delivering a message doesn’t REQUIRE knowldge and execute of delivery techniques… as sure as eggs are eggs it helps, of course, but all I’m saying is that sometimes things transcend our mere techniques.

Personally, I’d say that Ms Rundles interview (thank you for the link to your own site) makes this point for me in a way: “also learned about putting filters in place. I actually had someone evaluate me and slam my gestures, my voice, my enunciation, and me referencing my ethnicity. After the tears dried up, I realized that some people just have evil intentions. Your speech can be perfect and some people will find something wrong just to have something to say. I decided to follow my heart and I knew that even if I lost, I was true to what I had to say. Needless to say, my heart won.”

Or see this post: the presentation isn’t perfect – far from it. Bits of it are poorly delivered in fact, but it’s still a great, great presentation.

Cheers….. Simon

“the ‘world championship’ only involves Americans” — Not true. The World Championship of Public Speaking finals featured 7 Americans, one Canadian, one Australian, and one Malaysian speaker. The contest ratios are drawn from membership in the Toastmasters organization, and will be tipping more towards non-Americans as the member demographics shift.

“You can deliver damned good presentations with only mediocre technique, sometimes.” — This is very rare. If what you mean to say is ‘you can deliver good content with mediocre technique’, then I agree. However, effectively delivering a message to an audience in a way that is memorable and long-lasting requires knowledge (and execution) of delivery techniques.

Finally, why compete? Check out my article: Lessons Learned from Toastmasters Speech Contests or an Interview with the 2008 World Champion, LaShunda Rundles.

For what it is worth, I have never been in toastmasters.

Cheers. Nice blog. Keep up the nice work.

Brad

Actually I *can* see the point of what I called “low level” competitions for the very reasons you outline. I think what I’m ranting about (yes, I know it’s a rant, not a reasoned article! ) is the people who see the competitions as an end in themselves, not people – like you – who use them as a *means* rather than the *end*.

Glad to have your comments!

S

I understand your point. However, as someone who has competed and even won the Toastmasters District 38 contest this year, I feel the contests are important, because it forces you to master the basics of public speaking. By the way a part of the basics of public speaking is giving the audience something they need. Contestants who don’t give the audience something they can use in there everyday lives rarely ever win.