You want them to walk and chew gum all at the same time?

Another post of sense! Multi tasking at the Beeb .... never!

Actually, no they couldn't. Plenty were auditioned but they were not considered suitable - too staid and boring basically. Bruno was definitely a last minute panic inclusion when all else failed. Len had to give him - and Arlene - lessons in what they should be looking for.

Social dance lovers where circumstances permit, often carry on dancing for decades, perhaps once a week at the local palais. Other dance students are keen to explore the colour, texture and finesse of dance. Strictly is a quick fix for an audience largely of non-dancers. The experience needs to be self-sufficient as most viewers do not go on to dance in person.

Given time constraints on Saturday, judges literally have time only for crisp one-liners. It would compare with a newspaper editor's skill in choosing a killer headline. No impact, no newspaper sale. Sadly Darcey Bussell never understood this, and her polite comments were upstaged by dramatic thrusts from either side of her.

In all international dance competitions judges with brilliant dance CVs inspiring trust and respect allocate marks, but do not pass comments at all. There elimination rouses just as much horror and despair, but there are no endless arguments over judges' comments. The audience make up their own minds what they like or not.

Kaycee could confirm, but UK compo dance judges and teachers are highly respected worldwide. But they are more like silent film actors, and some would not adapt to the speaking roles demanded by Strictly, right or wrong. Come Dancing settled for something halfway between the two roles -- without much success? Those who remember, what do you think?

The pefect judging panel for DS forum members: Mighty Monk Seal, Sid, JFW and Hammy (who is probably a lot like Brono in the flesh, er, fur)

Great idea, although I don't know how Hammy would feel about being compared with Bruno.

Being seated between two DS hunks suits me just fine

How about Ignazio sitting next to you Sid?

On my lap would be better

Sid wouldn't be watching the dancing though

caroUK your post was excellent!

What with your active member!!!! And on a family show!!! Think of the complaints dear. They'd have to put bromide in your tea!!!

PS It would bring a whole new meaning to lap-dancing!!!

Whatever made you think Sid watches SCD for the dancing?!!

Come Dancing had three judges, typically one Latin specialist, one Ballroom/Old Time specialist and the 'celebrity' judge (different each week) who knew nothing and thought everyone was fabulous.

IIRC the scoring wasn't much cop and there were no constructive comments given to the dancers, just a trite offering along the lines of both couples doing well but one just pipping the other.

As far as SCD goes I would like to see Sammy Stopford on the panel instead of Bruno. He certainly matches Bruno for personality and unlike Bruno (who has given wildly high marks for dances barely resembling their true nature) knows a thing or two

That does not necessarily preclude you.

Hmmmm audience member judge - so I could completely ignore (be oblivious of) the mistakes made and judge for the "wow" or "aw" factor

Not to forget, best Bum and dress

Absolutely - I think that to some degree you have accept though that the public will love some duffer back in at the expence of someone good and just live with it. Sadly one of the things is that Alesha having defended the Sarge found that once she was behind the judging panel then seeing that happened got to her just the same as anyone else. Being a judge you have to tread a fine line between being interesting and informative - if you don't tell the public something they don't know it's pointless and if you make it too technical then no one can relate. You also have to be amusing about the duffers without being nasty - many would argue the judges frequently are too rude to the less talented.

I thought that was a prerequisite!

Yes but before the dance off there was always one shock result and one duffer around longer than they should be.... but since the DO it happens frequently and often more than once per series (ie last year).

Dance knowledge, but not all judges need to be experts in every field. Charisma and ability to come up with slick soundbites, given the lack of time to make comments. Willingness to be controversial, if appropriate, without being too offensive.

However, I think there is room for "normal" behaviour. I am disappointed that some people found Darcey Bussell boring, I want to hear a trained dancer give an educated verdict, not all the judges have to be like Bruno all the time, although I like him and I think the programe needs him. Despite his over the top antics, behind all that he does know about dance.

So keep Len Craig and Bruno, drop Alesha and bring in Karen Hardy and Camilla Dallerup.

That sums things up for me, especially the bit about wanting to hear about something I don't know/can't see for myself. I think there is too much time spent on telling us the obvious (yes I can see that someone has a silly or irritating expression on their face thankyou) or reiterating the same points week after week. A short 'Your hands still look like spatulas" is good enough for me, rather than a 5 minute rant about hands and arms week after week. There should be other points to comment on.

As for criticism, it is the way things are said as much as what is said that matters. Mocking or laughing at people is not acceptable. Laughing with them is ok. So animal analogies are ok (I was once told my arms look seal like but didn't take offence) provided they are not delivered in a sarcastic way (Craig!) or with a smirk (Bruno!).

That might just be a product of their being more celebs (and to honest, more crap celebs and about the same amount of good ones) though. And there were a fair few stinkers in early series lasting about a month a la Jo/Joe (Diarmuid Gavin, Fiona Phillips, Dennis Taylor, Georgina Bouzova, Martin Offiah).

I don't think the dance-off makes a huge difference until the last two or three weeks to be honest. More or less the same sort of people wind up there and end up going. Zoe going's no more shocking than Claire Sweeney way back in Series 1.

OK, so the BBC needs judges for a light entertainment slot on a Saturday night. Well, we all know that if you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire...this lot:
• A grey haired old gent to lead the group. Has a twinkle in his eye, but when needed has an inner core of steel (although at times can get a bit grumpy).
• A hard-man enforcer who wears sparkley clothes and has a rather afflicted way of speaking. Doesn’t go on as many aeroplanes as the others.
• A wild and unpredictable character who spends most of his time uttering strange and incomprehensible irrelevances and pulling funny faces.
• A bit of eye candy who doesn’t do much, but is there to charm and flatter anyone that the team comes across, and that the others can’t bully.
So, same as last year, I reckon…

The trouble with the Dance off is that the viewers (who actually bother to vote!) tend to have a knee jerk reaction to the judges from what we see in the results.....

1. They will vote in droves for the duffer who gets insulted or ridiculed by Craig and Bruno (and yes - it is mainly those 2 who do the damage...) just to show that they don't approve of the nastiness. The only time this doesn't happen is when said duffer is perceived as not a nice character eg Dom and Craig

2. They won't vote for the judges favourite if they are perceived to have had boo-boos or irritating habits ignored. If they do the same things as lesser dancers who get pulled up for them - the favourite should be too. You would think the judges would have spotted this trend by now..... but they still ignore or gloss over the "pet's" mistakes... The only judges favourite who seemed to get away with it was Alesha who had the advantage of being the best dancer in her year, with an endearing personality - and her partnership with Matthew was fantastic on and off the floor.

3. If they don't like the marks given to someone to boost them artificially up the leaderboard they won't vote for them in the rush to support the underdogs who were insulted - this is why we get the so-called "shock" results.

4. They have worked out that the only way to ensure the survival of a favourite the judges dislike is to keep them out of the dance off - so vote for them like mad (moving votes away from those the judges want to keep). The voters clearly liked Chris & Ola last year, and Tom & Camilla the year before, and kept them away from the judges until the finals. No doubt the same thing will happen again this year......

Basically - we would usually see the right people in the dance off (if we MUST have the dance off at all) if the judges marked fairly and objectively, kept comments constructive, and didn't show favouritism.

That said - every series has had the shock elimination, and the duffer who well oustayed their time, but on the whole the right people have got to the final 3 if not the final 2. I actually felt sorry in the end for the likes of Emma Bunton, Lisa Snowdon, and Ricky Whittle as the favouritism and bias shown them by the panel ensured that they would never win.

Apart from the duffer and the favourite, the judges also have their over-rated favourites.

Just on a minor point, I don't think Tom was done too harshly by the judges. He was the only contestant who made it through the whole series without falling out of the top 4 with them, and he only fell out of the top 3 once. I don't think the public had to push hard at all to keep Tom out of the dance-off for most of the series, only towards the end when the Lisa madness got out of control.