The contest "Toastmasters" 2017.

In today’s post I would like to evaluate three best performances on the 2017 World Championship of Public Speaking. Honestly, I am thrilled to find out who was the ideal public speakers at Toastmasters 2017 from my point of view! As usual, I want to start with assessing speeches of all the contestants.

·        Manoj Vasudevan

№		Max points	Given points
I	Speech Content	45	44
	Organization (comment on effectiveness of introduction; clarity of body, including both major divisions and support points; and efficacy of conclusion)	20	20
	Support (comment on speaker's use of facts, stories, illustrations, examples and/or logic to expand, explain, defend, inform the audience)	15	15
	Cohesion (comment on the speaker's ability to unify the speech and keep clear focus through use of transitions, summaries, and other unifying elements)	10	9
II	Speech Delivery	40	37
	Vocal presentation	20	17
	1) volume
	2) tempo
	3) pitch
	4) emphasis
	5) clear articulation
	Physical presentation	20	20
	1) eye contact
	2) gesturing
	3) posture
	4) facial expression
	5) movement
	6) dress
III	General Effectiveness	15	15
	Amount of time used (8 mins)
	Adherence to time requirements (comment on whether or not the speaker made good use of time, including whether the speech was too short or too long)	5	5
	Creativity (comment on art/uniqueness/individualized nature of the speech)	10	10
	Total points:	100	96

I liked Manoj’s performance very much, because he told the story of his life using humor as well as wisdom. The message he wanted to deliver to the audience’s mind was very important. I also think that we all should learn to “pull less, bend more” in every relationship we are in. In my opinion, he was confident while giving his speech and I loved the way he made people laugh and repeat his words after him at the end of his presentation. It shows his ability to control the audience, which is a sign of a real professional.

·        Simon Bucknall

№		Max points	Given points
I	Speech Content	45	42
	Organization (comment on effectiveness of introduction; clarity of body, including both major divisions and support points; and efficacy of conclusion)	20	20
	Support (comment on speaker's use of facts, stories, illustrations, examples and/or logic to expand, explain, defend, inform the audience)	15	14
	Cohesion (comment on the speaker's ability to unify the speech and keep clear focus through use of transitions, summaries, and other unifying elements)	10	8
II	Speech Delivery	40	40
	Vocal presentation	20	20
	1) volume
	2) tempo
	3) pitch
	4) emphasis
	5) clear articulation
	Physical presentation	20	20
	1) eye contact
	2) gesturing
	3) posture
	4) facial expression
	5) movement
	6) dress
III	General Effectiveness	15	15
	Amount of time used (8 mins)
	Adherence to time requirements (comment on whether or not the speaker made good use of time, including whether the speech was too short or too long)	5	5
	Creativity (comment on art/uniqueness/individualized nature of the speech)	10	10
	Total points:	100	97

Simon’s speech was really great. I suppose he has a big experience in performing in front of a public because his skills prove that. He managed to tell a vital moment from his life as if it was a part from an interesting book about children. At first, I could not understand the main idea of his performance, I did not get what he was driving at. Then it became clear that Simon wanted to teach everyone to understand each other. Besides, it should be mentioned that Simon has wonderful acting skills.

·        Kevin Stamper

№		Max points	Given points
I	Speech Content	45	42
	Organization (comment on effectiveness of introduction; clarity of body, including both major divisions and support points; and efficacy of conclusion)	20	19
	Support (comment on speaker's use of facts, stories, illustrations, examples and/or logic to expand, explain, defend, inform the audience)	15	15
	Cohesion (comment on the speaker's ability to unify the speech and keep clear focus through use of transitions, summaries, and other unifying elements)	10	8
II	Speech Delivery	40	40
	Vocal presentation	20	20
	1) volume
	2) tempo
	3) pitch
	4) emphasis
	5) clear articulation
	Physical presentation	20	20
	1) eye contact
	2) gesturing
	3) posture
	4) facial expression
	5) movement
	6) dress
III	General Effectiveness	15	15
	Amount of time used (8 mins)
	Adherence to time requirements (comment on whether or not the speaker made good use of time, including whether the speech was too short or too long)	5	5
	Creativity (comment on art/uniqueness/individualized nature of the speech)	10	10
	Total points:	100	97

It was a good performance indeed that impressed me very much. Everything was just perfect except I could not realize at first the cohesion between two stories he told. Obviously, Kevin won hearts of all the people from the audience because he was very charismatic and persuasive.

Now it’s high time to give the speakers the first, the second, the third places. I must admit that it was super hard to do it because they all deserve to be the winners of this contest. However, I have to make a choice anyway, so I relied mainly on my personal feelings and thoughts about performances. I would like to rank the speakers of Toastmasters in this order:

1.     Manoj Vasudevan

2.     Kevin Stamper

3.     Simon Bucknall

Manoj Vasudevan was the real winner of the 2017 World Championship of Public Speaking. I guess it was due to the message he wanted to share with others and also because he was very funny. I totally loved the way he talked, joked and connected with the audience. Kevin took the second place in my own chart of leaders. I could not resist Kevin’s sense of humor, smile and great public speaking skills. I think it was quite unfair that he was not the 1^st place winner. As for Simon Bucknall, I cannot say that I gave him the third place because I liked him less than other contestants. It means only that the topic he spoke upon was not that close to me.

Let me explain why I evaluated Manoj’s speech as the best after all. Now I want to start analyzing the speech content.

The organisation of speech. Undoubtedly, the introduction was effective because Manoj firstly drew attention of all people by standing still and looking at the audience silently. Then he started telling a story of his life, making jokes about and more importantly, he asked a rhetorical question that was also sort of an attention-getter. All the information he told was clear, the whole speech was well-structured. Personally, I also think that it is vital to respect others and be ready to make concessions in difficult situations or disputes. When everyone treats each other courteously, listens carefully to what another partner says, it is possible to avoid conflicts. I think Manoj taught us a very useful lesson that is we all need to suppress our egos and find a way to get on well with our loved ones, relatives, friends or just acquaintances. Moreover, I liked the conclusion too because Manoj managed to make the audience repeat the main message of his speech.

Support. The speaker used a bright example from his life with marriage. Stories about conversations with his mother, experience of having hard times and making a compromise with his beloved woman illustrated the idea he wanted to share with very well. I suppose the example Manoj described was relatable to everyone because we all had such difficulties in relationship with people.

Cohesion. I liked that he repeated the main idea of the performance several times for people to understand the essence of his words. He thought carefully how to link every part of his speech. Besides, he kept clear focus through all unifying elements.  There were not moments when I reckoned that something was left unsaid or the topics were changed too quickly.

Vocal presentation. Honestly, it was quite strange to compare native English speakers with a person with a strong accent. However, it did not bother, I could understand everything Manoj said. He was good at articulation all the sounds, he put the emphasis where it was necessary. However, sometimes it seemed to me that the pitch he used sounded a little bit weird, as well as intonation. But I certainly get that it is due to the fact that English is not his mother tongue and it is ok. As for the tempo, it was alright, it was not too slow, not too fast.

Physical presentation. Everything was fine including dress and body language (posture, gesturing, movement etc). Manoj made a constant eye contact with the public, used many gestures and movements that helped him to look more persuasive. I especially liked that he walked while he was giving his speech instead of standing still in one place all the time. By watching the way the speaker changed his facial expressions one can say that he truly believed in what he was talking about.

Adherence to time requirements. The performance was about 8 minutes and I think it is just the optimal time for giving speeches of that kind. Manoj has got good time management skills, therefore he told everything that was important, he neither prolonged his speech nor made it too short.

Creativity. To my mind, this speaker was unique not only because he was a foreigner, but also because he combined laughter with real problems that we all normally face in life. Not every person can make fun of stories from his own experience, expose personal stuff and look vulnerable in front of a lot of people. I suppose only the strongest are able to do that. I want to believe that Manoj got through the majority of those who watched his performance.

To make a conclusion, I would like to say that it was interesting to watch all of the performances of three contestants. They were all so inspiring in terms of standards of public speaking, all of them can be considered as ideal orators.

Who did you like most of all and why? Share your opinions about the contest in the comments down below, please!