Professional Speaking Vs. the Toastmasters Model

Yesterday I attended a Toastmaster speech competition. It was part of their International Speech competition - the only series of contests that leads to Toastmasters' World Championship of Public Speaking. (The other categories are humorous speeches, extemporaneous speaking, and speech evaluation, but they are limited to championships of much smaller areas). The speeches were all heartfelt and earnest, varying in quality. The first was about living a life of values versus one of acquisition. There was an evangelical feel to it, evoking a preacherlike tone. The speech reflected the solid and sincere spiritual values of the contestant.

The second speech was titled "Double Dutch Queen," a charming tale of competing for a neighborhood jump rope title. It was an exquisite example of storytelling, though the point was not exactly clear to me.

The third speech was about language and speaking ("the toolbox we have called the English language," said the contestant). The speaker was charming in her smile and rapport with the audience, but she was clearly inexperienced as a writer. The content consisted a lot of cliches I have heard over the last 30 years about double meanings of words. Example: citing how Arnold Palmer had good luck in his competitions because, before each event, his wife would "kiss his balls." The audience was clearly uncomfortable with this phrase.

The last speaker gave a speech titled "On an Ordinary Day." She spoke about accepting new challenges. As part of her speech, she took balls out of a box and attempted to juggle them. When she dropped them, it became a metaphor for trying and failing. But she encouraged the audience to keep a-going, as Henry Gibson sang in "Nashville." She subsequently juggled them successfully. (My synopsis doesn't do this charming speech and speaker justice, but you get the picture.)

First place went to the juggler, with the "Double Dutch Queen" coming in second. However, it caused me to ruminate on Toastmasters versus the world of professional speaking. Would any organization pay to see these speeches? I believe the most marketable was the first speech on values, because its theme was universal, while the others were personal. It led me to further consider: What is the ultimate value of Toastmasters? If this is the level of speaking that we can expect from "championship" events, what does Toastmaster deliver?

An important disclaimer: I am not trashing the organization, as I am an active member. In fact, I have won many local championships myself. (District 38, the segment from which I won four championships, comprises 3,000 members from the New Jersey coast to Western Pennsylvania.) However, as I launched my pro speaking career, I turn to the National Speakers Association for development. I am outpacing Toastmasters.

What do you all think? How relevant is Toastmasters to speakers? Are the exercises worthwhile? Are the members doomed to live in amateur land? Or is Toastmasters the perfect organization for those who want to keep up their speaking skills? I'm interested in your thoughts.