Chris is the only non-actor left in the competition. If it's true that he is topping the public vote (which I think it is), then there is no reason no reason why he shouldn't win this (unless he has a really bad Saturday).

I really don't think Chris cares whether he wins or not. He and Ola just seem to being having a great time dancing.

Where do people get the idea than dancing is separate from performance, so that marks can be awarded on dancing alone?

I suspect it's partly SCD's fault for making a big deal of ham-acted "performances" that are layered on top of the dance rather than being a natural, integral part of it.


I think that is correct re Len's extra vote, and a good thing too.


Didn't Darcey aspire to judge like Len? Or something like that? In which case, not a fan of Ali. It's also possible that Darcey's ballet background will make her more critical of dancing that's more in her home territory.

Chris certainly isn't my favourite, though I enjoyed his Charleston, Ali is. The judges favourite.
That doesn't stop me believing that it's very bad for the show for year after year the judges voting out or driving out the person topping the public vote.

Donny had problems but he got over them in the final. He was also up against someone good who was far too experienced and made the mistake of trying to show off too many skills to get the public vote (and upset Len along the way with it) Kelly had an immense story but wasn't quite a good as Donny. I agree its largely fanbase too (older female fanbase as kelly seems to have had the young vote?) It was also the case that the better dancing competition and the best of the competition without so much experience went out before the final so the US show has a problem there too.

The UK show takes all problems a stage further though - the US show seems to avoid the racial, sexual, regional and class biases in the UK voting . When it does go for someone weaker at dancing to do well they do actually reach a high standard, they don't get to the end for being the one with fewest marks and their story is really big and really happened.

But we can't know that for sure, can we?

I could say that I disagree, and that in my opinion without the Dance Off, Jodie, or even Christine, would have made the final 3. We have no way of knowing. I also think that if Jade hadn't been forced to withdraw () that she would have a good chance of being in the final 3 also - again we'll never know.


The quickest glance at the elimination stats, shows that by and large the dance off hasn't changed much at all. It's pushed the area of vunerability up a couple of leaderboard places as people try bottom boarders out of the bottom 2 rather that just be dead last - so worst places now are 4th and 5th from the bottom but that's about it. Checking out the times the person in the last place on the leader board has been eliminated shows it works out about 5 times a series - both pre and post dance off.

The series that had the most accord between the voters and the judges was actually series 2. Every week bar 3 the bottom placed dancer left.

The first 2 series finals also had the 2 dancers who were probably topping the 'most votes' poll prior to the final in Chris Parker and Julian Clary - but when it got down to the nitty gritty of chosing the winner the positions were switched ... which does show that just because people wanted to see them progress through the series it didn't mean they actually wanted them to win it.

The thing is now that the Star have exposed the way the judges can manipulate the scores it might ake it more difficult for the judges to do it - becaause everyone is aware that if they did it would be a fix on their part- and they and the Beeb would be letting themselves in for an almighty backlash.

And hasn't Claudia queried the way the judges score with Bruno and Craig - if she has spotted it doesn't it put the judges in a very difficult and uncomfortable position.

I love the fact that the link under the story says More 'news' here... (inverted commas theirs, not mine!) which sums up the Daily Star to a t! It's amusing that anything the Star writes is being treated as fact! I wouldn't trust the date printed on each page!

Nothing on this earth would make me watch XF.

Good lord, some Saturdays I might have to read a book!

Another loophole for the judges to exploit!!!!!!

The show needs a serious revamp.

Huh! I think you aren't being serious. Donny had 40 years experience as a singer dancer whilst Mia hadn't even been alive that long. It was obvious he had more dance, TV and showbusiness experience than anyone else on the show.

The fact that his supporters claimed the others had the advantage because they were better than him is precisely what is happening here.


Um DONNY, white, middle of the road, appealed to the old foggies. Helped by the fact that the best dancers were a playboy model and a black woman so unacceptable. He also was consistently towards the bottom in the scoring - because he couldn't dance as well as many others. There isn't that great a difference between here and there obviously as seen by the leap of approval for Anton after he racially abused his partner and the approval of her lumping it and putting on a big cheesy smile about it.

This flaw in the scoring system has been known by seasoned followers of Strictly for a long time now. It makes a mockery of the new points system that states:

'The slight revision ensures that, following the round of judges' scores, in any scenario where the audience votes, any one couple can be saved from the dance off, and no one couple is safe.
The revision ensures that the viewers always have the power to decide the final outcome.'

Viewers have limited power, at best, as the flaw in the points system shows.

For Chris supporters, the answer is this: for every 2 votes, say, you pledge to Chris, you should give one vote to the person who finishes 3rd on the leaderboard (assuming Chris is 4th on leaderboard).
As long as the 3rd placed contestant on the leaderboard isn't bottom of the public vote then Chris cannot be in the dance off (assuming he tops the public vote).
So if Laila is 3rd on leaderboard, vote for Laila at least once if you're going to vote for Chris twice.
Voting for Chris twice in isolation makes him more vulnerable than voting for the 3rd place contestant once as well.

I doubt the playboy bunny thing had anything to do with it - the winner of the first DwtS was an ex-bunny for a start off.

I get the impression the biggest cross against Mya was her previous dance experience.

[quote=thenetworkbabe;37079862]The public don't pay to keep their favourites in . They pay to increase the chances of them staying in. Its always dependant on other people's votes and performances. As Chris would have no chance with no votes and can go through in some circumstances however dire his dances are, his voters can still help him in the next two votes. If people vote for the weakest performer though they can't really be that surprised if they don't make it.[/QUOTE]

But I would argue that this is the problem with your argument, what constitutes the weakest performer? A performance isn't just about technical ability, in my opinion, it's also about the personality that the dancers show. Although Ali may be the best dancer, I think there is an argument that Chris has been the best performer. And that's why people have voted for him, because they believe he isn't the weakest performer.

Agreed - it is not enough to be a good technician - you need to be an entertainer with it- i.e sell the performance

I totally agree, however performance isn't the same as personality.
How we perceive personality relates to things we hear and see of the celebs and pros when they are NOT on the dance floor as well as on it. Performance is only about what happens on the dancefloor.
Chris and Ola have very successfully presented their personalities this year - much better than any of the other couples - and that impacts how people view them when they are dancing.
I wonder how people would perceive each of the couples if they only saw them perform each saturday and there was no ITT and no "training" footage on the live show.

The fundamental difference between SCD and other Reality shows is that it is primarily a skill based test converted into an audience participation show. (DOI could be regarded in the same light).

Essentially the problems arise by making the judging/voting rules just too damn complex for everyone to comprehend but just complex enough to allow the judges to see fair play done.

In any skill based contest in which the judges have already voted using their vast expertise, just why are the public being asked to get involved? It makes isense to me that allowing the public to overturn the judges recommendations is asking for trouble. It also makes sense to me that the public should be allowed the opportunity to "save" their preferred dancer from elimination.

What makes infinite sense to me is that every week the public should have the FINAL say as to who leaves the show BUT only from the celebs that the judges have decreed as the worst dancers that particular week (eg the bottom 3 scorers).

In this way the best dancers are saved by the judges and the most popular "others" are saved by the public.

Time for a voting rehash...I totally agree.

I disagree actually, Alesha was in the DO with Letitia, who must have been bottom or second bottom of the public vote for both Matt and Gethin to progress, scoring a maximum of 3pts - Alesha already had 4 points. Also, I don't think you'd have seen the massive sympathy vote for Matt without a dance off.

As for the final three, there would be a female probably, if they didn't keep stuffing up and binging it down to a two couple final! I honestly don't think it comes down to houswives voting for the top totty.

I think people enjoy their partnership and their dancing, which is neither bad or incredibly good. As long as people see effort being put into the dancing and a couple just manage to click with the audience...it's enough to see them through every week.

That's exactly what I think. Chris has made up by his personality, and he has also brought out the best in Ola's personality - last year I could not imagine Ola giving Andrew Castle a nickname.

Chris may not be the best technically but he has won me over with his personality, and I don't think he imagined still being on SCD by week 12.

The way I see it is the dance off that causes the majority of the problems and leads to the accusations of the judges fixing it.

I don't believe they do deliberately fix it I just think that they will always keep the better dancer which goes against those who have more popularity in their favour when it gets to the later stages. Would be better to cut the dance off at the quarter final stage.

I do think it's quite useful in the early stages as it protects those who may not be popular but show potential to shine (such as Jade this year), but at this stage of the competition it just annoys the viewers.

Will Darcey favour Ali? Well, she might, but surely because Ali is the only one left who uses her arms properly (when not in hold, that is).

But if you're looking for a Darcey Bussell conspiracy theory, remember that she's half-Australian and, as part of preparing to judge SCD, took ballroom and latin lessons from Natalie Lowe's dance coach.

I noticed that too. Now, if we can combine SCD with celebrity wife swap and get Natalie Lowe to dance with Ali on Saturday, conspiracy theories could go through the roof!

Some one at the Beeb should watch the X factor - no dance off once you are down to the final 5 as by now we should be trusted to make our own decision. Whoever gets fewest public votes goes - end of!

As I understand it he withdrew because the public kept voting him through every week and he was embarrassed that he might win at the expense of a good dancer.