I don't think it's unfair really. There aren't any restrictions on the skills of celebs who can enter DOI, so she's perfectly entitled to be there.

On the other hand, I'm much more impressed when someone without that training can develop to the level where they're giving great performances, than when someone like Hayley does it, given the massive headstart people like her have.

I agree totally with this. It never was a level playing field but I am much more impressed by seeing someone develop skills, than by seeing someone use skills they already have, however impressively.

It's why I preferred watching Donal to Ray because I enjoyed watching him develop the performance/dance skills. It's why the Chris vs Suzanne year was so interesting, seeing whether he could develop the polish and performance to go with his skating skills or she could develop the skating skills to go with her dance/performance ability.

And why this year I am enjoying watching Kieron so much and Hayley not so much. I already knew she could dance and for me her skating skills lag way behind the dance/performance skills. Kieron seems to be making a good job of developing both.

To get 6.0s again Hayley really needs to develop her skating skills much more beyond the toepick dancing in my opinion but who know what the judges will do.....

If so, then they're saying the wrong thing. As I said, I think it's a mistake to look only at dance training that someone might have had years ago. It's especially questionable if all we know is that they went to a stage school.

But in any case, people have looked at more later in the thread.

People without dancing or acting skills don't tend to suddenly find them though. The result is that some bloke who improves from being weak to being average gets votes for being worse than people who started at a higher level because they have been on a journey to nowhere interesting. It over-estimates the difficulty in moving from weak to average and under-estimates the achievement of others in moving from average to good or good to very good. It also becomes related to the hunk vote as a journey story justification for it - the argument is rarely applied to females . For example last year Zoe and Jessica both started with no acting or dance training and either developed an ability or found they had some - both had tiny votes and neither made the final. Meanwhile, Donal improved to a lower level and made the last two having never got anywhere near to a Gareth, Duncan or Zaarah in ability.

What does Gary do then? I thought he was an actor?

Thats an argument for including only people who are not very good at it or have no experience at all. That would kill all the winners and most people who ever made the QF. You can't draw or define that line. All stage schools will teach dance. Some people will do better at it and some will do more or less. All degree and postgrad courses specialise in somethings more than others. Everyone left is an actor - some are just not as good at it than others. Some people are unfit and inflexible, some look like they could have done gymnastics. Some are too tall or too puny. Some are tone deaf - others are musicians. Its impossible to equate the improvement of someone terrible to someone poor to someone who moves from very good to brilliant or to allow for someone being a 5-11 giant female or a weakling male. All you can do is to try and draw a line on past skating experience which is itself difficult and vote for whoever ends up performing best for you.

Or for the person you want to see again next week, for whatever reason. That's what people actually do. People can vote for any reason they like, and there's not much anyone can do about that. There will always be enough people voting based on skill to ensure that the most accomplished contestant(s) is/are in the final (and, if not, the judges will certainly ensure it), but if one or more contestants get through just because a lot of people like them, them's the breaks. There's no rule against it.

But fair and allowed by the the rules are two different things, and when someone says it's unfair they don't mean the rules forbid it. (It can be an implied criticism of the rules though.)

No one is entitled to be in DOI. But perhaps you mean she's entitled to stay once she's been picked (until exiting in one of the usual ways).

Of course, we can't expect that everyone will start at the exactly the same level, but people can still think the line hasn't been drawn in quite the right place or that the producers haven't picked a good mix of contestants.


I agree up to a point. If someone already has the dance ability but learns to do a lot as a skater, or starts already a strong skater but develops into an interesting dancer / performer, that can be more interesting, as in icedragon's example of Chris vs Suzanne.

It isn't. It's an argument against including people with too much experience or who start with too great an advantage.


I don't think the actual argument wouldn't do that, though of course your no experience or ability version would.


The show could draw the lines at different points than they are now, but imo that's the wrong way to think of it. The show doesn't need a rule to keep someone out; it's not like celebs have some kind of right to be in the show, so that producers need to cite a rule if they decide not to include someone.

Another thread that's turned into giving Hayley a slating:

B
O
R
I
N
G

I think people need to stop the hayley slating. it might rouse those who are indifferent to voting for her

There's people on the show ever year that I like and dislike - that's the nature of the programme. I do find it frustating that people keep going on and on and on - get over it!

If you don't like it, fine. Why waste your time watching it, looking at her twitter then writing on here :yawn:

I never said I didn't like Hayley and you don't have to be quite so rude to get your point over. I looked on Wikipedia to see what Hayley had done and to get my facts right. I was not criticising Hayley - she is very talented. My point was directed at the Producers and the Judges (especially one who shall be nameless) that contestants without a "dancing performance" background should not be judged so harshly as those who do it for a living.

Actors learn stage craft - they are not necessarily dancers or musical theatre artists - quite a different ball game.