I think it's both. Even the professionals would not last long in their chosen career unless they could "perform".
There is more to dancing than just learning the steps and required body and arm movements.
For instance, look at stand-up comedy. You could learn the entire routine of your favourite comedian, word perfect in every respect..you would still need to acquire the art of delivery for that routine to be entertaining. That may not be the best comparison, others can probably think of something better.
It's a good thread, I was thinking of starting one similar myself. I think it gets to the core of most arguments about the judging of SCD..technical merit versus entertainment value. Furthermore, it doesn't make either side "wrong"..you need both. A dance executed perfectly but lacking any artistic impression would not be entertaining (except maybe for purists )..likewise a poorly executed dance performed with a great attitude is unlikely to please the judges.

I think it is very straight forward.

You cannot have both.

If it is not Strictly, then by definition, it is entertainment.

And to prove the the BBC have it wrong, the ratings have gone down, year by year.

20 Million watched the final in 2005 but only 12 million in 2008 (BBC figures).

It has to be one or the other.

Well, a small proportion of forum members ......

For me, it's an entertainment show- if it was serious, why have a public vote? It frustrates me when people whinge when the public vote for who they like rather than the best dancers- they're the kind of people who ruined the show last year.

Sadly I agree with you.

I always used to support the Strictly idea, but have been convinced by other OPs that it is an entertainment show.

I can see your point and I understand that it doesn't seem fair that good dancers leave at the expense of someone who is hopeless but popular with the public.
However, Strictly has been like this from the beginning when Chris Parker was kept in the show despite being dreadful. It's all about who's the most entertaining.

I used to get upset when good dancers were voted off at the expense of bad ones, but as I now see the show as entertainment, I do not care if the best (but most boring) dancer is voted off.

Ricky Whittle has about the same amount of personality as Darstadly Bustles, so I would not loose any sleep if he was voted off.

Nor would I give a hoot if gurning Chris Hollins was voted off

Which thankfully, puts you among the minority.

I know if the show ends up with another bad dancer winning I will probably give up on the programme altogether

But just think of the millions that have already given up because it is run the way you prescribe. (BBC viewing figures).

And for the record, you say another bad dancer winning, who were these other bad dancers.

I have always thought that despite the voting through of some entertaining dancers, the best has always won.

No, that was the combined figure for both SCD and X-Factor.
Both live finals were shown in two parts. The first part of Strictly Come Dancing, from 6.30pm, had an average audience of 10.4 million and a 41.5 per cent audience share. The X Factor, aired from 6.40pm, attracted an average of 9.2 million viewers, a 36.3 per cent audience share.
I guess to draw that kind of audience share, SCD must be primarily entertainment..with a competitive element. I don't see it has changed much, it just depends on how lucky they are with choosing the celebrities. Who would have guessed that Jill Halfpenny, Alesha Dixon or Mark Ramprakash would turn out to be so popular..and fine dancers. This year we may have been unlucky to lose Martina Hingis in the first week, she may have turned into another star of the show.

Tom Chambers and Darren Gough spring to mind and as
for viewing figures maybe the people that have given up on the show are people like me who are fed up with seeing the likes of Craig and John Sergeant getting voted through over better dancers

Thats what strictly is about, the public vote, the public decide the bottom two, not everyone views anything the same as you or I.

It is no different to the XFactor, if people do not get the popular votes, for whatever reason, they leave the show. Nothing will change that and more people would turn off if they were forced to watch purely the dancers that a professional panel chose.

I think that Chris is better than Rickie, namely because of his legs and feet. If the panel were honest, they are voting purely on the above the waist area of Rickie as there is no way he would ever get any professional dancing votes with them.

Chris is better than Ricky at dancing now I know you're having a laugh

Ok. What about the format those Andrew Lloyd Webber shows follow? Bit like X Factor. Judges crit but don't score. Public vote. Judges get to choose one to save between the bottom two of the public vote?

Off the cuff post, so not actually thought it through: what would be the downside of that? Less public engagement with the judges - ie fewer 40s/10s to jump and and down about?

I would be curious to hear James Jordan's opinion on this. After getting voted out last year didn't he have a hissy fit because JS was getting voted through? Now I know Chris is a much better dancer than JS but he clearly doesn't have the ability If Ricky (as the judges and most of the pros and Karen Hardy have said). However, Chris is dancing with Ola - James wife. Of course he will be supporting Team Cola as any good hubby would but does that not go against his previous beef last year that it is a dancing competition, not a personality contest? I would be really interested in hearing what ge would honestly think of this.