Options
Time for some New Judges
Joseph_Wheatley
Posts: 393 Forum Member
✭
I think after this series the BBC should seriously consider changing the judging panel. I've always been a fan of Len and Craig and Darcey but this with the exception of Bruno, they have all been terrible. When the series started and James Jordan was constantly wittering on twitter I thought he should just shut up. However the last few weeks I've been reading his scores for the dances and comments and he is spot on, the judges have been crap.
Obviously this has been brought on by the disgusting decision of the Head Judge of a dancing competition to send home the best dancer. However it is not just that (for which personally I would have sacked Len and Darcey on the spot). All the judges are completely inconsistent and incoherent with their marking and comments. Judy Murray was given 5 and 6s and then Caroline and Simon would get a 7 which is basically stating that Judy's dance was only 1 or 2 points less than Judy. Equally Craig gave Judy a 4 for her VW and Jake a 5 for his AT and there is NO way that there was only 1 point difference. Darc, Len and Bruno seem to be scared to use any panel under 5, which seems ridiculous. Basically we have two ends of the spectrum Craig (overly harsh), Len, Bruno and Darcey (Overly generous). There is also been clear favourites. Finally some Dance Off's they save people who are good generally other times it's down to the one dance, so which is it? They are inconsistent, incoherent and have all been pretty crap this series. Would like to see the likes of Karen Hardy and Ian Waite replace some of them!
Obviously this has been brought on by the disgusting decision of the Head Judge of a dancing competition to send home the best dancer. However it is not just that (for which personally I would have sacked Len and Darcey on the spot). All the judges are completely inconsistent and incoherent with their marking and comments. Judy Murray was given 5 and 6s and then Caroline and Simon would get a 7 which is basically stating that Judy's dance was only 1 or 2 points less than Judy. Equally Craig gave Judy a 4 for her VW and Jake a 5 for his AT and there is NO way that there was only 1 point difference. Darc, Len and Bruno seem to be scared to use any panel under 5, which seems ridiculous. Basically we have two ends of the spectrum Craig (overly harsh), Len, Bruno and Darcey (Overly generous). There is also been clear favourites. Finally some Dance Off's they save people who are good generally other times it's down to the one dance, so which is it? They are inconsistent, incoherent and have all been pretty crap this series. Would like to see the likes of Karen Hardy and Ian Waite replace some of them!
0
Comments
Could and should the judges be more consistent? Yes. Even if they were more consistent the fickle public would still claim it is unfair when their favorite leaves the competition. They can't satisfy everyone's biased perspectives. The public can solve their own problems by voting for the best celeb instead of leaving it down to the judges.
Did it fall apart when Arlene Phillips left or Brucie?
No-one is bigger than the show, golden rule of television
Sorry but I don't agree, Pixie wasn't necessarily my favorite but she was leaps and bounds above Simon and as I said this thread wasn't based on that one decision it was on the whole series, so don't patronize me and state "fickle public" as if your above that! - You yourself are a member of the fickle public.
Arlene left after 4 years Craig, Len and Bruno have been on the show for a decade. They are the heart and soul of Strictly and if they left and new guys replaced them the public just wouldn't be as in to them and the show would lose ratings.
Simon has come on well, but Pixie is the better Dancer. The Dance Off should have had different couples for sure.
Firstly Arlene left after 6 years (series) not 4, know your strictly! Secondly I don't disagree that they aren't great but I'll say again - no-one is bigger than the show! X Factor carried on without Simon Cowell and Cheryl and Sharon Osbourne etc Strictly has survived without Bruce, so the evidence suggests that it would be different put people adapt. No-one is irreplaceable.
From a ballroom and latin point of view, no she wasn't. As someone who had dance training, she did a good job and her showmanship and Trents choreo covered her flaws in previous weeks
.In the DO, Simon did a better job with his AS than Pixie did with her CCC.
It was obvious to me that Darcy has always liked Pixie, she liked her balletic style, but as a professional judge, she had to go with what she saw. There was no reason for Len to find a reason to put Pixie down, sadly she made it easy with her lack of technique. As a dancer, I am always watching how the legs and feet work (or don;t) and right from the start, for this comp, this was always Pixies problem. She isn;t alone there, but she was in the DO and was exposed against someone that did their dance better.
Seemed to me the public became too complacent and casual this week, they thought Simon and pixie would be safe and gave mark and Frankie sympathy votes. I think some regular x factor viewers have mucked about with our show one too many times this year with the voting patterns, I can tell distinctively. Think for this week in the run up to the SF I think they'll be a barrage of complaints and people will probably refuse to watch the SF or people just won't care who is in the SF. It all bodes down to pixie not doing the tour. So yes the judges have taken direction from above.
Used to love watching len, but recently he's come across as an absolute twit who is on borrowed time and Darcy isn't entertaining enough to be on the show. The only person I'd keep in utter honesty is CRH who although acid tongued you can respect him an awful lot, Bruno I'm not too sure over.
Yes, the show certainly has lost some of its quality. Unfortunately, I think it'll be one of those series in which an obviously less-than-deserving celeb will end up winning (like series 3, series 6 and 7).
Since the judges always base their decisions not only on the quality of the dance-off, but also past performance and promise, I think Len was just dreaming up any excuse to put down Trent. But he wouldn't have been in that position had it not been for Darcy, who has consistently favoured, in this and previous series, the younger male celebs.
I agree - they could also bring in Matthew Cutler or Darren Bennett or Lylia. I think they should have 5 judges and avoid Len having the deciding vote. I believe this would make it fairer so that a really good dancer won't be lost.
Very good point and I think it strengthens the argument for 5 judges. I have been gradually getting more and more fed up with the gimmicks and themes etc. I've decided to switch off for the rest of this series.
You have your view. Personally I'd have sacked Bruno for voting for the "dancer" and not for the dance-off dance. And only let Craig off because although his scoring is still erratic sometimes it's still way better than any of the others.
Except that probably a good 90% of the time Craig scores one point less than the other three. What do you suggest, half point paddles?
And anti-favourites. Brendan/Sophie were always persistently underscored. Judy's scores didn't reflect the degree of improvement. I also wonder sometimes - as with Sophie - whether it's the celeb or the pro the judges are low-scoring!
What I would like is for an electric shock to be delivered to Len's chair any time he says "You came out and you gave it some".... ;-)
Craig's a matter of acquired taste. We like that he's tough to please, but his pedantry does grow a touch tiring.
Agree. I find her quite insincere..., it's a blinkin dance after all.;-)
Trent should have kept his mouth shut.
^^^This is accurate and it really bugs me that the BBC do it!