Please forgive me if this has already been done!

Was watching this series and am really hating the Dance Off- the results can often seem predictable.

How about making the 2 lowest couples redance their lowest scoring dance of the series...to actually allow to show improvement on their weaknesses??

Mad suggestion? Probably ( I'm off work recovering from flu, so sense may have gone out the window!).

Just thought it might be a way to mix things up a bit...add more drama...The X factor make the bottom couple do a new song...a swansong as it were...

What does everyone think?

I don't think it would be fair to expect people under stress to remember any other dance other than the one they've just learned. That's hard enough. What if they had the same mark for several dances? They're not pros, it would be asking way too much, imo.

I dont think it would be fair either

I think the bottom 2 should be voted for by the public - not the judges - open the lines again for another 15 mins and save your fav out of the bottom two

If that cant be done then the couple with the lowest vote from the public leaves

Nuke it from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Additionally, apart from it being unfair to the dancers, the band/singers would not necessarily be prepared, neither would the production gallery (camera angles & positions etc). It would be a nightmare.

Scrap it althogether - I much prefer the old system.

The two celebs should stand back-to-back, then each to walk forward 10 paces. They should then both turn, and lob handbags at each other. This should continue indefinitely until a handbag scores a direct hit and knocks a celeb to the floor. The celeb standing wins.

Handbags for sure.
Or the couple who can make the most grammatical errors in one minute?
Or think up as many animal-dancing-similes in a minute?

What about a fancy-dress-off? They have a big pile of costumes on the floor, have a minute to put on as many as they can and then see how many times they can samba up and down the steps?

There is a fair system that happens every week which the makers of SCD choose to ignore.

The judges have their say on the marking, the public have their say by voting and the couple with the lowest combined score should be eliminated. This is the fairest, democratic way and should not be compromised with any dance off.

It would probably see a lot of good dancers eliminated in favour of lesser dancers but that is what the majority of people voting want in any one week, and their wishes should not be altered with a dance off.

I also think scrap it altogether. I think if they must have a DO though, the couples should do their stronger dance and not their weaker dance, because it shows them off more which is sort of what the DO is all about.

I think it would be a good idea if the judges each save one of the couples in the bottom 2 based on who they think deserves to go through....no need to dance again or anything.

Wasn't the dance-off introduced to reduce the likelihood of that situation happening (after a number of very good dancers had been jettisoned in favour of very bad ones (and yes, I mean very bad, not just OK with promise, but very bad).

Yes and the voting has become even more destructive since with bigger percentages voting ant-judge or for something thats got nothing to do with what actually seen on the show or relevant to it - like going to Blackpool. They are hardly likely to remove the only thing that prevents Jade, Ali and Ricky W departing quickly leaving Phil and Chris to compete in the final for most likeable male. The defence of the show is that its about dancing. Showing people learning a skill is defensible as is the argument that the BBc developed the concept and its unique to them. A final with no one who can dance very well whilst the 4 best dancers are sitting their watching and that works on popularity alone is by definition indefensible.

As the voting figures are not officially released, that is purely speculative.


And as the voting public were not asked why they voted for any couple, that is personal opinion which is unsubstantiated.

In the year of Emma, to save your candidate you needed only to vote him or her above bottom place. When dance-off came in the following year, as soon as supporters saw judges sharpening their knives waiting for the bottom TWO, they went overboard voting to protect their candidate not from bottom place but from bottom two. If supporters had no appetite for eviction, they liked even less the prospect of sentencing by judges known to be licking their chops.

This turned a quality control process into a battle of voters against judges with a vengeance. According to the Sunday Mirror scoop later confirmed obliquely by John Sergeant himself, in the phone vote John was catapulted not only out of bottom place but miles above second-placed popular Tom. If supporters disliked eviction, they detested eviction via dance-off and ritual humiliation.

The judges want authoritarian control, and the voters rebel. In the resultant frantic voting the mid-table candidates get overlooked, innocents fallen into the dance-off.

Good intention, bad result.

I like what is happening on DWTS this series.

Around the half way point in the series there are two weeks with a double elimination and in those weeks, the couple with the lowest score after the public vote goes home.

The next two lowest scoring couples are in a dance off and the judges choose which couple to save.

The twist is that when the double elimination weeks start, every couple left in the competition has to prepare a 30 second dance off dance of their choice, so they get those 30 seconds to do their best to impress the judges enough to save them. The dance off dances are not show dances and normal rules apply (i.e. no lifts).

It is a great way of starting with a lot of couples and still keeping the series to a reasonable length of time.

I'd love to see this done on SCD as it really adds to the excitement of the show, as does revealing in stages every week, who is safe and who is in the bottom three and in still in jeopardy.

Correction: There were three double elimination weeks -

Week 4, Week 6 and week 7 and it was only for the 2nd and 3rd double of elimination weeks that the couples did the 'dance off' dance.

(The first double of elimination week was supposed to be Week 5, but it was done in Week 4 instead as a celeb withdrew because of injury.)

The show started with 16 couples and after the 2nd and 3rd double elimination weeks the number of couples went from 9 to 5.

Those 5 couples do two dances from then on - very exciting and a much better way of managing a large number of couples.

Good idea but how about they use custard pies of those custard gun things that they had on Bugsy Malone instead of handbags.

Excellent. They should throw custard pies to rhythm after a latin round, but blancmange after ballroom -- softer and more elegant.

I HATE the whole thing. Just let the public decide.

After the Zoe debacle, my husband suggested that the viewers should only be able to vote for the bottom five couples each week, so that the best ones stayed in ! Then the two with the lowest votes go head to head to stay in. Despite pointing out that this could never be done / not a fair system / loss of revenue for BBC etc. he still thought it was for the best !

Altogther now "We could have been anything that we wanted to be...."

I don't see why a dance off is any fairer than the original judges marks. The thing I really dislike about this system is that we are forced to endure the worst two dances every week, wheras I would far rather be celebrating the two best dances.

Which is what they do on DWTS - the couple dance something that they were good at and this makes it much more exciting.

Actually I don't mind the dance off - but I like this a whole lot more.

I thought the DWTS dance off idea was interesting. I like the concept that the couples who have to dance again at least have the knowledge that they've played to their strengths. the dance off as it stands on Strictly is a little too arbitrary. Even a great couple can get a dance that doesn't suit them and if the judges stick to their word (i.e. vote just on that one performance) they could be out.

This becomes more pronounced as we get to the two week stage. Luck of the draw plays a significant part and it does nothing to reward consistency. As it stands at the moment, at the two dance stage, a couple who do one fantastic dance and one mediocre dance have a significant advantage over a couple who does two good/very good dances. Is this fair?