Time for one of the judges to stand up & be counted
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d1f31f598f6500273a485313b78cb3f4.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 24 Forum Member
✭
After the ridiculous situation with two reasonable dancers being put into the DO, whilst the likes of Dave and Mark remaln in the competition, is it not now time for one of the judges to actually stand up and say that this is plain wrong and walk away ?
This competition is descending into a complete joke and the only way it can resurrect itself is if one of the judges votes with his, or her feet
This competition is descending into a complete joke and the only way it can resurrect itself is if one of the judges votes with his, or her feet
0
Comments
... albeit, not for these, er, reasons.
(although in a way that probably wouldn't solve the problem at all... heh)
What makes you think its wrong ? The public vote for who they like watching , its really that simple .
The program is an entertainment show that is why the public are asked to vote for their favourite couple.
If Strictly was a dance competition then there would be no public vote and the judges scores would be final.
It's structured for this to happen every year. Those who appear aren't picked at random.
Happens every year, better ones get voted off before comedy acts and DS goes into meltdown.
Fear not, Dave will get voted to soon and none of the people who are voted off before him would have won.
Dave will surive until the decison to save him or a really good dancer comes along. Right now we still have some dancers that, even though better than him, aren't necesarily deemed as really good, so some public might think they can still be sacrificed in the name of entertainment before him until the public realise they may not want to see him in the quarters or semis after all, let alone in the final doing a showdance. I wouldn't be suprised if he outlasted Fiona, Patrick and Ben, maybe even Sophie if she doesn't wake up and smell the Latin.
Rachel was never going to make a dancer.
Mark isn't nearly as good a dancer as Natalie or Abbey but is still better than Rachel.
EDIT: Besides, so-called comedy contestants get through every year until the latter stages of the competition but they don't win. (Ann Widdecombe and Russell Grant, among others.)
I agree
What a hoot! I notice this is your first post. Now confess, you are just trying to stir things up, aren't you?
Definitely.
Impossible to do with the current voting system. No voter is going to vote for 9 people who they think they want to see more of - when there's one they think should go.Under this system, you can go with a vast majority of people wanting you to stay - if they don't vote or vote for one of their other favourites.
Many of the people voting for Dave are almost certainly not voting for who they want to see more of. On past evidence they are voting for whoever is last in the scoreboard order. The Dave's are often most at risk the weeks they don't come last - because that vote historically melts away elsewhere. The judges know that the hopeless candidates who become immoveable are vulnerable when they are praised - rather than when its pointed out how bad they are. Similarily, the voting shows quite clearly that many people vote for people they want to see stay only when those people look clearly in danger on the scoreboard. The rebound vote is an established phenomena. The middle ground has long been dangerous territory. Rachel hit the bottom two overall in a week when she should have been safe on her marks, escaped it when she was in the bottom two markwise, and went when she did even better with the judges marks. Deborah wasn't in the bottom two in her weakest week, and went after her strongest dance - as did Rachel.
Who goes has nothing much to do with performance, improvement, or the number of people wanting to see you next week.
Exactly my first thought too!
I see the problem as, that the judges are now of the opinion that they are there more for their personal and entertainment appeal, than any useful function they perform.
Each one tries to out-do the others to be the centre of attention. Being, or saying something controversial is a good way to achieve this.
They know the BBC don't care how consistent is their marking, or whether they have favourites.
They aren't going to get marked on their performance like a football referee.
The BBC would argue that the ratings say the show ain't broke, so they aren't going to fix it.
Indeed. Mark scored better than Rachel a number of times.
This was probably Rachel's best week and maybe Mark's worst. Last week Mark was better than Rachel...this week Rachel was better than Mark.
If Mark and Rachel had been the bottom two last week... nobody woud have batted an eye at Mark being saved over Rachel.
It is also worth bearing in mind that most of these people take part to raise or rejuvenate their profile (just less obviously than in the jungle). Whom do we remember from previous series - more "comedy acts" than good dancers. Ironically, it was probably part of Kaplinsky getting full of herself and chucked out of the BBC!
I notice also that this argument starts when young women get voted off - maybe the studes, who pull their chains in the afternoons, are down the pub on a Saturday and don't vote for them? :rolleyes:
Dave, yeah, OK. If he is not gone next, then we could have a situation. Even he might not be comfortable with being kept in during the nitty gritty as the joke candidate.