I agree Monkseal - but it was that blatant bit of score manipulating in the semi - which seemed set up to achieve a Rachel/ Lisa final when Tom far and away deserved it more than Lisa did, and had they gone ahead with a "dance off" between Tom and one of the girls, it was obvious that it would have been "Goodbye Tom!"...

I personally don't think they do the unpopular dancers any favours by saving them in the dance off... it doesn't take much intellience to see that the public don't like them if they are dumped in the DO several times and only survive due to the judges intervention.....

I actually felt sorry for Lisa in that final..... it was so obvious from her numerous dance offs that that the public really didn't like her and were going to dump her out first no matter what score the judges gave her - the perfect 80/80 they (undeservedly considering her cha cha) they gave her only ensured an even faster dumping...

I do think it's kind of funny that if they just marked Lisa one point lower on either of her dances in that semi, they would probably have
[LIST=1][*]Got a Rachel win, which, whilst they would have preferred a Lisa win, they would still have valued higher than a Tom one[*]Not had to remove the dance-off in the semis last year, as public awareness of the score gerrymandering only really arose as a result of the S6 semi, meaning there would have been a Ricky Whittle win[/LIST]
But they obviously couldn't bear to do it, so this is what they've got.

That's my major problem with the dance-off : the perception that the judges are obstinately keeping people who didn't have a chance, when 9 times out of 10 those people would have survived anyway. People like Denise Lewis, Zoe Ball, Emma Bunton, and Lesley Garrett survived multiple bottom 2s to reach the final and clearly were getting no public vote, but because there was no judge input, it felt more organic, and they got less unpleasant teachers pet backlash (well apart from Emma, but then if your judges are going around ITT bragging about how they're deliberately marking you higher than you deserve, what can you do?)

British judges and coaches are certainly well respected worldwide, but I couldn't agree more with your simile of 'silent film actors....' Credit where credit is due, they can all (well, nearly all) give great lectures on the technique etc of dance, but that isn't what is required for scd.

As for Come Dancing - I remember the judges on that ... Len Goodman was one, although looking somewhat different then. Another was an Old Time teacher/coach who was very well respected for her knowledge, but oh my, as soon as she spoke she made people cringe!! Also of course on Come Dancing they didn't have to critique the dancers, only say words to the effect that "we thought both couples were very good, but B was slightly better than A" (that seemed to be their usual spiel, even if A was absolutely dreadful!!!!)

Thanks Kaycee. An expert witness ought to add value and enjoyment. My memories of Come Dancing judges are so hazy, more hazy than their tuxedos .

In SCD8 a new factor comes in - celebs (and presumably also pro dancers) get paid round by round -- more ££££ with each passing round like in Wimbledon tennis? Eviction would hurt both pride and pocket, one decision by one judge can cost ten thousand pounds?

As far as I can gather, there is a basic payment of £10k for everyone, then its 50k for those who make it through to the end, with the winner getting abt 100k

If they are out in the first couple of rounds they will probably be liberated to take on any other work. Whereas if they last up to the semi-finals, their "panto options" are severely reduced.

And, of course, if they are still in after the initial weeks, they are required for group dances, etc.

JJ

But hasn't the dance world changed since the days of Come Dancing?. Ok maybe in the UK it is changing too slowly, but it is still different. You can see this simply by comparing a performance from today's comps to one on Come Dancing. To suggest that representatives from the ballroom dance world would behave in the same way and have the same interpersonal skills as the ones on Come Dancing is equivalent to suggesting that any long running programme (or indeed any new generation in any entertainment or business field) is the same as it was years ago.

To use an analogy, maybe the Uk dance world is a bit like Coronation St. It has been a bit slower than its contemporaries in adapting to the modern world, but nevertheless it is not the same as say 20 years ago.

I simply cannot believe that there is noone suitable from the dance world to act as a judge on SCD. Sorry but I get rather irritated by the continual references to Come Dancing and the suggestion that any representation from the dance world would take us back 20 years or so (or even 12 years looking at when the series ended), especially since most people (including those who dance seriously or teach) recognise that the nature of the SCD programme is entirely different to CD, with a lighter element to it.

Others with decades of experience are politely invited to comment, but as far as I understand Blackpool Festival has not changed. It was and is the centre of the dance world. World-class judges mark world-class dancers on the floor in front of an army of ex world champions sitting in the audience. It was and is no-comment marking, respected worldwide both for artistry and impartiality.

As Kaycee mentioned, each time the Beeb televised a top-class dancing compo they turned all arrangements upside down to suit their cameras and schedules, cutting and remixing footage not forgetting blatant misrepresentation. The 6,000 people in Blackpool are dance lovers having a whale of a time in an annual gathering of the like-minded far from desperate to go on tele.

Hazel Newberry was once world number one, Karen made world number two, Matthew and Nicole world number four, Kristina in her one foray made world number eleven. World champion Joanna and Michael danced twice on Strictly, Bryan and Carmen once, neither couple particularly well received by the Strictly audience.

Come Dancing involved judging international contestants in serious compos, and seemed most concerned not to discourage young contestants who put so much into dancing. The obsession about remaining inoffensive, non-controversial and encouraging eventually degenerated into blandness which put viewers to sleep. Sadly soft-spoken Darcey also seemed preoccupied not to discourage. It seems Come Dancing judges from the silent film world did not see the need for colourful oneliners in their few seconds in front of the camera.

Past failures aside, I agree there are plenty of photogenic dancers today who could hold a TV audience enthralled with their expertise, artistry and wit. I was there, I heard it myself in Blackpool -- an audience of 300 paying £90 each was enthralled. It helped that lecturers who talked big then got on the floor and put on an enchanting demo. Whether former and current world champions who can tick all BBC boxes would wish to sit next to current judges and listen to Brucie's ritual self-abasement is doubtful. Even more doubtful if the BBC would invite them. Champions are about excellence, the Beeb wants the latest Generation Game to counter X Factor.

Well summarised!

JJ

I appreciate what you're saying about Blackpool Soulmate. I'm not disputing the fact that the competition format may have stayed the same. But the question is really whether the people attending are in a similar time warp. I may have misunderstood what you and Kaycee were saying. I was really contesting the suggestion that those who attend Blackpool or any other dance competition would not understand what strictly is about and therefore couldn't act as judges and adapt their behaviour and comments accordingly. There may be some old school still around but I think that is too much of a generalisation. People on this forum take strictly far more seriously than my dance teacher for example.

But anyway, from your last paragraph, I don't think that was what you were saying.

I guess the other thing I would say is that, although I understand the frustrations with how ballroom dancing is being supported (or not supported) in the UK, sometimes it comes across as having a bit of a go at our UK based dancers, who are trying their best, despite the financial difficulties etc. that they face in supporting and pursuing a dance career.

I do agree with your last paragraph.

I do not believe it is a chasm of history separating two dance shows, rather a chasm of preference.

The physical demands of dance ensure that contestants today are as young as yesterday. Blackpool audiences do not look backwards to some upper middle class elegance. Just that DVD vendors are anxious for an elegant look on the front row. With fabulous dancers on the floor it is very little to ask of the front row. Without a DJ I was thrown out of the front row, a fair cop governor . In the audience as much as among the contestants the English are swamped by continentals, who would have no idea of England old school.

Blackpool is about passion and participation, excellence and fairness, hence no competitions for 64yos versus 20yos. It is a love of dance, not a £50K celeb part-time job or a curiosity saunter. Jessie and Gary were blatantly unsuited to ballroom dance (by no stretch of the imagination a shortcoming) but both were recruited by the Beeb, no doubt knowing it would end in tears, AND ratings-boosting belly laughs at the their expense. XFactor and Britain's Got Talent are more open about relying on laughter at failure.

Two worlds then, separated not by past history but present preference. There has always been slapstick, pantomime, and versions of the Generation Game, probably always will be. There has been Brucie since the world began and the Beeb are hanging onto to him.

More than one latin dance champion is capable of lightning humour and warm comment. Not sure there is one with an appetite for self-abasement.

I don't remember that lot being in multiple bottom 2s.... yes they were there at least once in the latter stages, and obviously survivinguntil the finals...

What I think happens with the unpopular favourites is that they get either the fewest or second fewest votes from the public - but when that is combined with the judges score (at or very close to the top of the table), under the old rules that would probably have been enough to keep them above the "floating" other bottom 2 couple... with the lowest aggregate being eliminated.... The only time they the top of the leaderboard is at risk is when the public vote is the revese of the leaderboard - or with the judges fave and least fave getting the reverse result from the public resulting in the both getting the same aggregate and the judges pet would have gone in the old days with the public score counting for more. With the knee jerk reactions of the voters
and the general dislike of the dance off, they really are getting many more shock results where two good couples end up there because the duffers have pulled in the votes and have avoided it

Mind you - the judges HAVE made some weird decisions in the dance offs..... HOW they could eliminate Gabby over the not very good Penny, or Zoe over CRAIG still mystifies me (although with the Gabby/ Penny one the fact that Rod Stewart was scheduled to be on the show the next week might have had something to do with it....)

Lesley was in four bottom twos (out of six!), which is a tie for a Strictly record with John Barnes and Heather Small, despite never being lower than 3rd with the judges. Emma was in three (same as Lisa), and Denise and Zoe both in two (same as Rachel and Ricky), both in shorter series. Genuinely, I don't think the dance-off makes an awful lot of difference as to who's in the bottom two, and it only makes a difference as to who goes towards the very end. The ranking system makes it very unlikely that anybody liked by the judges will end up in the bottom two before at least halfway. The aberrations usually involve James Jordan, who seems to be either an unpopular pro, or someone who gets the exact same type of celeb who fails to catch on each time, depending on your perspective.

Re: dance off decisions, Zoe was saved over Ali rather than Craig, (although you could still argue over that decision all day), and I think Penny was the right choice to save over Gabby. I preferred her samba, and a lot of the negative opinion of her as a dancer I think was a result of a horrific draw where she got samba, salsa and jive (ie, all the dances she was completely unsuited to) in the first few weeks.