Brilliant post - 100% in agreement!

Really? I get the distinct impression that that's precisely what some on here are saying.

Hmm. John Sergeant didn't have to do much dancing to get lots of votes. Coleen Nolan on the similar DOI could barely skate.

For all we know, if a contestant actually tried not dancing, they'd still get votes because they were "entertaining" or whatever.

People can vote however they want. They usually aren't told to consider dancing. They'd just told to vote for their favourites. If anyone does dare to say they should consider dancing, there's an outbreak of posts claiming it's an entertainment show, that no one should dictate how people vote, that they'd take it back to the failed Come Dancing, and so tediously on. Forum-members who care about the dancing are dismissingly labelled "dance purists".


I don't agree. The personality comments don't seem dance related. The seem most related to how exaggerated the celebs' facial expressions are.


How has Ricky edged in front? For all we know, he had only slightly more votes than Ali. There's nothing to suggest Chris's vote has collapsed or that Ricky's has passed his.

What wasn't clear this year was (1) whether there still was a substantial dance-hostile "entertainment" vote and, (2) if there was, which of the poor dancers would get its support. The candidates went out one by one, but possibly Chris was getting most of that vote all along.

I think it's an myth that there are many (if any) "dance purists". What bothers some people is that a contestant who is a much worse dancer might go through (or, by now, win) because voters care more about what they imagine are the contestants personalities or think gap-mouthed gurning equals selling the dance.

Who? I haven't seen anyone saying it should be a pure dance contest (whatever that is).

The closest I've seen is some question whether there should be a public vote, but because the vote seems to care little about dancing, not because the vote doesn't care absolutely only about dancing.

Er, again ... I never said the show did have a starting criteria that excludes people that already can dance. I said some might argue that someone who could already dance does not meet the idea of the show being about celebrities learning to dance out of their comfort zone. Someone arguing it is not the same as it being an exclusion that exists. And I happen to agree the exclusion doesn't need to exist, cos the show isn't set up to see who is the 'best' dancer on technique alone, so it doesn't matter if someone can already dance. The audience can decide for themselves if that's something they want to factor in to who did 'best'. If the show was only decided by the panel of judges, then it would very much matter - and I'd have a different opinion.



Sure, there's a BDMW school. They post all the time stuff along the lines of 'it's a dancing show that should be about the best dancer winning; X has the best technique, is way above anybody else, and I don't care about the rest; X must win. The rest can't touch him.'



Ah, so only people who don't post on forums and watch the show count as a sample of the audience. Opinions offered by any audience members who post on a forum shouldn't be considered as opinions that the audience might take in to account. I stand corrected.

Sorry, I should probably have put "with the bookies" there. Let's just say that Ricky has overturned a big deficit in the last week and has done so so successfully that he is now ahead of Chris in the betting and it is no longer possible to predict who will win with any certainty at all.

As to dance purists - there were an awful lot of people getting their knickers in a twist about Tom winning ahead of Rachel or even Lisa last year. Why? Because they were perceived as technically better. I don't think any but the most biased could claim that there was that big a chasm between Tom and the two girls or that he was not of a good standard himself. Still there were those up in arms over his victory because he wasn't the best dancer!

There are many, many posts saying Chris has no right to be in the final because he is either far worse than Ricky/Ali/Uncle Tom Cobly or even can't dance at all. This forum is filled with thread after thread.

What a great post!! You've just summed up what I've been trying to say (sometimes badly) for the last few weeks so thank you!

As to the "Debate", I think it's as Len said, the British public likes justice and want to see a worthy winner. However in the context of Strictly we all have different views of what justice means because of the different weightings we put on the factors in the post quoted above in order to determine the most "worthy" winner. The thing is, because we like justice, we can all get very passionate when our view of that appears not to be happening, hence all the "arguments". At least arguing here keeps us all off the streets.

Ok, assuming that our ability to predict has something to do with bookies.


It didn't seem that way to me, even though I supported Rachel and couldn't stand Tom. Most people who preferred Rachel or Lisa seemed to think Tom's showdance made his win acceptable even if they didn't personally think he should have won and didn't love that dance.

Also, you seem to be treating "technically better" and "best dancer" as interchangeable. I think it's another myth that when people care about the quality of the dancing, what they care about is technical aspects narrowly construed or as something divorced from performance or entertainment (or even personality).

Was there any Rachel supporter, for example, who thought she was personality-free but like her because of her heel leads or similar? There can't have been many.

In any case, I don't think I have seen even one dance purist in this forum.

I have, however, seen quite a few who attack, label, and misrepresent those who care about the Dancing in Strictly Come Dancing. I think that is a relatively new phenomenon and that it started in John Sergeant's year.

How do you get from that to anyone being a dance purist?

Their criteria being based on "dancing ability" (whatever that is)

What you have someone arguing is that a celeb who can already dance might be "eligible for disqualification" or (now) might not meet the idea of the show.

You don't have them arguing that the "starting criteria" or the "idea of the show" might be celebs learning a new skill out of their comfort zone. Instead, your posts seems to presuppose that as fact.

I am pointing out the show does not have any such criteria or rule, so that its nonsense to talk of disqualification. If you agree with that, then fine.


It's a myth that the judges judge on technique alone, btw.


There is no such school, not even if you can find some posters who write as you describe. People having a view does not make them a school.

In any case, i have read extensively in this forum, and I don't think I've seen anyone who cares only about technique and nothing else.


Those who post on forums count as a tiny and unrepresentative sample. They are not a way to know what the wider public thinks.

I'm nominating this as post of the day!

Can't believe we have a thread where a sensible discussion has gone on (well at least for the first few pages!)

I just wanted to say to tabithakitten that I read her tome and thought it was spot on, except for the fact that I didn't find JS entertaining and that I also very much agree with gig-ge-dy has said.


Is the Pope Catholic?


Spot on!


I'd say there is hope for this board yet with all the great posts on this thread.

But what you wrote was:


What bothers some people is that a celeb who is a much worse dancer might go through (or, now, win). That doesn't mean only dancing ability matters to them.

Sheesh, Veri - are you being deliberately obtuse or what? We did this argument once already. You said basically, 'Show me a piece of paper that says it's in the starting rules that the show's about celebs learning a new skill to dance out of their comfort zone'.

I basically answered back that there's no bit of paper. That the person who actually devised and developed the show said that's what the show was intended to be about. And that, in my eyes, the FACT they continue to produce a line-up of celebs every year that range from people who can already dance v people with two left feet, OAPs vs twentysomethings, tubbies vs fitties, showed that intention very much remained the same. IE, that it's a show about 'learning to dance' rather than who is the somehow objectively judgable best.

The 'some might argue someone who already starts the show as a good dancer doesn't meet the remit for the show' is a rhetorical flourish (that I don't happen to agree with) in response to arguments that the best technical dancer must win.

I'm not about to go in circles on it again after this time. I'm not a big fan of the VW actual, or virtual.


They judge some on performance too, true. But if you remove actual points and go on placings on board, you won't find many times that technique isn't king for them. And it should be. That's what they're there to do. It's the audience job to weigh other factors.



School, camp, like-minded people, technique matters most for me ... yada-yada. We'll agree to differ.



Sure, they are. Did I say a representative sample? They are part of the audience, whether that's a representative sample of the whole audience or not. So they as part of the audience weigh some and more of the factors I floated in their decision on who's best. Semantically happy enough now?

Having a wide range of ability in the celebrities doesn't mean that the intention is that anyone should be able to win regardless of how far they get with the dancing. Some people are filler or short early stories who its obvious will get nowhere. Others have potential which if they exercise it may get them to a similar level to those who started doing well - with a journey story on top. Some will start well but probably have to improve. Actually being able to reach the high standard at the dancing is the proof that some sort of learning experience has happened. The difficult bit is equating starting weak and becoming strong with starting strong and becoming excellent. - the more obvious improvement isn't obviously the more praiseworthy.

They also don't usually (and Ricky looks an exception) have people who look too good at the start because they want to have a competition between equals near the end. Thats an obvious problem as you can't use the celebrities who would dance really well because they have a lot of non-ballroom dance training. I sometimes wonder if they ought to do something for CIN with people who really could excel.

I don't think the judges downplay performance at all. If anything they sometimes use it as something that's difficult to argue with if they don't want to give a higher mark. Bruno's 10s are usually driven by whether he feels the performance. Craig only gives tens for the whole package. Len is a law unto himself. Both Rachel and Ali only got 39s and 40s when they had got the performance right and it was used to talk them down when the judges wanted to.

What the judges don't do (or didn't until they blurred things this series) is claim that enthusiasm or amusing performances or performances that don't hang together with the dance or music represented a good performance. The problem is that doing a waltz with added funny faces and a few hilarious steps might represent the voters idea of just what an entertaining performance should look like.

Be that as it may, but you should not confuse the "larger audience" as being represented by the "pick-up-your-phone-and-vote" brigade because they are certainly not the same.

Eh? Fenia Vardanis seems naive or confused. Isn't the idea of democracy One man, One vote. NOT vote as many times as you like.

Yes, but that wouldn't bring in as much phone money

SCD is both an entertainment and a dancing competition or perhaps an entertainment show based on dancing. You tend not to get far without one or the other. At the end of the day Chris is probably still one of the best this year which admittedly doesn't say much about the standard this year. The person whom states that Chris's critics think he was a person who was bound to appeal to people but no one gave him the time of day at the start are right - I think him and Ricky Groves were the hot favourites to be the first out before the competition started they weren't because Chris turned out to be one of the better dancers on the nights and Ricky gave an entertaining performance on the latin night. Apart from the semi-final week Chris (arguably I think Ali was actually worse her AT was terrible and her AS over-rated) has never been the weakest dancer on the night and by the standards of purely dancing he deserved to make to the semi-final at least.

The way some people are talking it's like he's one of the Jo(e)s.

The best dancer doesn't always win but then again nor does the most endearing personality - people like Kenny Logan only ever get so far.