In your opinion maybe, i actually think they are there for the entertainment value, look how they have all developed little personalities, Grumpy Len, Acid queen arlene, Camp Craig and Bruno the buffoon, it's a pantomime.
If you want pure ballroom or latin dance competition then you are watching the wrong show, it's light entertainment

^^^ Yelsel it's a little bit confusing if you add your own remarks to a quote box. I was looking at that comment ("Who really gives a d*** if legs are staight or knees not softened enough") for a while thinking, that doesn't sound like something Kaycee would say!

In answer to your point, I care about it. I haven't ever danced ballroom or latin so I am reliant on what the show to tell me what is authentic and what isn't. I like the fact that I learn a bit about it, although I am not deluded enough to think I know much at all beyond being able to recognise which dance is which (on BBC grounds though apparently I know nearly enough to be a judge ! It goes against the grain to think that the people judging the competition are actually misinforming me.

Also why make it a ballroom and latin competition if you aren't going to make sure that the dances comply with the basic characteristics of each ballroom and latin dance? You might as well make it a freestyle competition.

I'm by no means an advocate of the judges always know what they're talking about school but I think that saying that anyone who's watched a couple of series could be a judge if they had enough chutzpah is over-stating the case. The judges are choreographers mostly and come at it from that angle rather than the strict technicalities of ballroom/latin but they do know more than the proverbial man or woman in the street. Arlene for all her faults was able to give Christine constructive advice about going to ballet classes to improve her arms - I don't see Alesha much as I love her doing the same. The problem is the judges are treading a line between entertainment and technicality and as such will say things to be amusing rather than to be helpful and although sometimes like with not noticing Lisa's faults I do wonder where they're coming from and Len marking according to mood and admitting giving tens for routines he spotted faults in drive me nuts. However if a judge was being replaced someone with more rather than less technical knowledge was needed - it couldn't be that hard to find someone who possessed it who was entertaining - Karen for one has a strong personality (it doesn't matter if a lot of people don't like her as surely the whole point is that not everyone is supposed to like the judges - I think Len has gone wrong by failing to realize that you can't be everyone whose watching's friend) as well as judging experience.

The Sarge wasn't that bad to begin with - people forget that - Len again annoyed me bitching about Andrew being in the dance-off instead of JS when actually he was probably actually worse than JS. I think that in a sense the judges having a go at him actually galvanised the public into voting him back in just to annoy them and we're British and don't like being told what to do - that said the pushing of Lisa by the judges annoyed me just as much as the whole JS debacle if not more.

Quote by Yesel
Who really gives a d*** if legs are staight or knees not softened enough, there are probably very very few viewers who actually know anything about ballroom watching the show, the rest of us watch for the entertainment value and one thing Alesha was on the show was entertaining

I can't dance, but I have been watching SCD since it started.

I can now spot some of the bad things that the judges point out and I like learning new things about the dances that I can watch out for next time, so I also care if the dancing is done properly or not - and I'll bet there are others like me.

It may be entertainment, but it is an entertainment show about people learning to dance i.e. they are not just doing their own thing, but learning how to correctly do the steps of each dance (I am not starting up again the old discussion of dancing v entertainment btw).

And saying ''the rest of us' is a bit like saying 'the GPB' and always gets people's backs up because it implies you are speaking for most people and you are really only stating your own opinion.

As katie_p said it is not a freestyle competition.

I'm not arguing as to the judges knowledge (at least not in this post), I'm just saying they don't need it to be a Strictly judge. It's a bit Milgrammy - stick a stranger in a policeman's outfit and stand him on the street corner, and people will act as though he's a policeman. Stick a stranger behind the desk, give her a St Tropez and say she's got 16 years experience judging 10-dance and people will act as though she's a judge.

The technicalities remarked on by the judges aren't particularly deep and are the same things from week to week, the scores they give aren't particularly scrutnised by any proper measure, (any two judges in a proper dance competition who marked as obviously and ludicrously differently as Craig and Len would be subject to official inquiries from dance 1), and it's fairly obvious the pros only listen to or respect the marks from certain judges and keep their mouths relatively shut about the others because they know which side their bread is buttered.

I want them to have technical knowledge and a decent understanding of ballroom and latin dance because I appreciate the insight and would like the trophy to have a small bit of actual merit (just like I'd want the public to vote for reasons other than just picking they girl who they think would make the nicest daughter-in-law or the boy who they fantasise has the biggest wing-wang). But realistically for this show, they don't have to.

All they really need to do as necessities is broadly mark the good dancers high and the bad dancers low, be convincing enough to preserve the integrity of the show, and be entertaining. And I think any charismatic person who watched the last two series could do that. I mean does anybody really think they couldn't do what Bruno did last year? Really? Waggling your arse and bellowing "DIVA TIME!"? And nobody really cared apart from people on the Internet, and really only then when it started hurting their favourites and helping their least favourites.

Monkseal, not only are you a blog legend you are also my hero - well said.

This is where we differ. I think Bruno gets away with that because he has the credibility of experience behind him. It works when he does it, it wouldn't work if I did it.

Also, since we already have people on the panel who do that, do we really need another one or should we have someone with a different, and more technical, viewpoint?

My biggest concern is that Alesha will follow the relentless drive towards mediocrity in this country by awarding points for effort.

You're still a blog legend though.

I don't even think we disagree. Bruno does get away with his vapidity because of his dance experience, but it doesn't make any of what he says any less vapid. Craig gets away with constantly getting his heel and toe leads mixed up because he's seen as an experienced choreographer but it doesn't make him any more right.

If you forget what these people know and focus on what we actually see them do there's no reason Alesha couldn't do the same after reading a couple of wikipedia pages. The problem is that we know she has no dance credentials. So either she fails and the programme looks silly for hiring somebody with no dance credentials who fails, or she succeeds and it's clear that the judging isn't really a very involved process and that the show is a bit trite and silly.

It's a bit like seeing behind the curtain in Oz. The judges have an imperious and (somewhat) impressive facade, but it takes very little skill or knowledge (regardless of the skill and knowledge they undoubtedly do have) to do what they do.

(Just realised I sound really down on the show. I like trite and silly! Dickens was trite! Monty Python was silly!)

well said, couldn't agree more

I have only the dance knowledge gained from watching SCD and a few beginners' lessons, so can't really comment on a lot of the arguments for/against. That said, whilst I do totally appreciate that Alesha doesn't have the technical knowledge of the other judges/Arlene, I don't feel how she herself danced is necessarily a reflection of her own knowledge - eg: I've seen a lot about bent knees and feet turned the wrong way. Knowing the correct thing to do, and being able to always execute it aren't the same thing, and I think her knowledge could well exceed her execution in some areas. (She knew enough to follow Matthew's lead when things went wrong, which suggests more than just learning a routine and not the details of the steps - maybe??) Not in any way saying she has great technical knowledge, just that she may surprise us a little.

Sorry monkseal, I'm afraid we do disagree. Bruno's contributions are less vapid and Craig's are less mixed up because of their pedigree. They may present their opinions in comical, even caricatured, ways, but their experience backs up what they say. Basically, because Bruno has the background, I take it as read that he has used that background to determine that a particular performance has reached a minimum acceptable level (for him) and that, therefore, he feels able to comment on other aspects. In other words, he knows what the rules are so he knows when it's ok to break them. If too many of them get broken both he and Craig have proved willing to judge on that basis.

Alesha's problem (and she can't be blamed for her inexperience) is that she doesn't have the knowledge to assess technically and that fact, in itself, undermines her ability to judge on presentation, performance or anything other than 'I thought it was great/you tried very hard' and that's what the public's for.

Obviously I have favourites but I still rely on the judges' know-how to point me in the right direction. I've lost count of the number of times I've enjoyed a routine only for all four judges to criticise it and I realise that it looked good to a (rather dumb) viewer because they'd glossed over the basics and papered over the cracks with pizazz.

Couldn't have put it better!

I'm also thinking we could be pleasantly surprised.

While Len has a wealth of technical expertise with which to judge, he didn't seem to be using it much last series. Alesha may not seem that out of place, and her personality may win the audience over again and smooth over some of those anti-judge sentiments from last year.

Here's hoping!

Tbh, even having Jesus on the panel wouldn't improve my 'anti-judge sentiments' towards Bruno and Len

I must admit, I much prefer Craig and Arlene to Bruno and Len but I appreciate that Len's the only Ballroom/Latin expert on the panel, which kind of protects him. If one judge had to be changed, personally I'd have replaced Bruno and had a panel of two women and two men: Len, Craig, Arlene and Alesha. Several of the pro dancers have spoken of their respect for Arlene and I think the BBC made the wrong choice about who to replace.

Agree with you 100% JfW - and particularly the highlighted bits. This is exactly what I feel.

PS I took the emboldening off the "rather dumb" because you are anything but !

But that's rather the point - you're taking it as read based on Bruno's experience that his comments are backed up with something substantial. There's nothing in the actual comments to prove one way or the other. He doesn't mention anything technical beyond the most basic of basics, and his scores aren't beholden to a varifiable system It'd be very easy for a lay person to skate on the content part of being a Strictly judge in a way that would be impossible in even a remotely proper dance competition judging environment. Mostly because the scoring and comments system favours ease of understanding and entertainment over anything technical, and has done since day 1.

Where we agree (I think) is that the judges need some sort of perceived authority as seen by the public in order for the show to work properly, because otherwise people won't take it seriously. Alesha doesn't have that perceived authority, because she has no experience. So either she fails because of that, or she succeeds, and the authority of the rest of the judging panel is eroded because the job of being a Strictly judge is made clearly quite easy. Either way the show is in debit.

Why ? Coca-Cola thought they could do anything and people would still buy it. The BBC think no matter what changes they make to Strictly and still get the same audience, as soon as you do that it's a death nail for a product.

I'm not saying everyone over 50 should stop watching. I said my mother is, and the majority of the high profile woman who have spoken out have been women over 50. I find it puzzling that the team behind Strictly would do this as this should be one of their target audiences.

Is that plain enough English for you?

Talking of mothers, my own Mum and her little circle of doddery dancers (her words, not mine) have said that they won't be watching, and they're not really the types to throw their toys out of the pram and spend hours arguing about it then forget it all the next day

This situation has also the distinction of being only the second incident in my lifetime that i've heard her use the F word The first was 30 years ago when my baitbox full of maggots escaped into her fridge

Maybe the BBC have calculated that for every viewer they MAY lose as a result of change, they may well gain more by adding a different perspective to the judging panel, This show is not exclusively for the over 50's it is for all age groups and they should be represented on the show.

And with regard to your comment on a majority of high profile women speaking out, could this not be a simple case of axes to grind, because most of them are no longer on prime time tv's and have found an avenue in which to vent their frustrations.

You're wrong, but in a nice way


Yep, we agree on that one - we should be running this show. Well, you should be running this show, I could be your knuckle-dragging sidekick ushering in the talent and ferrying the caffeine while you sit behind your glass-topped monument to power and shout things like "Get me New York!" and "That James Jordan's a complete arse, replace him with a gibbon!"

Sometimes I get lost in my own little world.

As long as I can have one of those electric pencil sharpeners, we're good.

See you spoilt it at the end. Dickens was not trite!

I'd say Dickens was more flowery than trite, with an infuriating tendency of overdoing the sentiment and occasionally spending painful amounts of time on trivial details...Still a good read though

Er, this is the book review section isn't it?

Can I just say I would be so glued to the show if it was run by you and Monkseal