Kara won the Sport Relief dance competition in 2008 partnering Mark Ramprakash. There seem to be a few others with some, dancing experience. Is that taken into consideration on the show or does it not matter at all ?
Does it help to raise the standard of dancing on the show ie it's a good thing ?

By being deprived a week of training at the start of the series, Kara's appearance on Sports Relief was somewhat negated.

I guess the extent to which previous training matters is up to invididual viewers/voters. For me, It is a bit more fun and a lot more satisfying watching someone transform into a dancer as the series evolves rather than arriving with a lot of the skills already learnt.

Give me a contestant like Gavin over Pamela or Matt any day.

That was why I liked Chris last year and Gethin in 2007. They had a "journey" to go on! Sorry about the "j" word.

I actually think probably not...

With Strictly its never purely on dance ability alone. Add likeability, the 'journey' factor, natural aptitude and rhythum to the mix and dance training/experience can mean nout.

Take Michelle Williams - loads of dance 'experience/training' - but just a natural lack of ooomph/musicality/rhythum.

Mark ramprakash, zero training but just a pure natural talent.

It might give them a head start in terms of timing/technique but inevitably you have either got it... got it a bit, or haven't!

Very few of the celebs have no dancing experience at all and we don't get to see any of them until they have had a month or so training with their professional dancers...thankfully.

I watched the video of Kara dancing with Ramps and it is very nice to have a comparison from then till now. She has really come a long way.

On paper, Pamela appears to have had the most dance experience, but then she has lived longer than a lot of them. I thought Len pointing out that Matt "must have dancing experience" followed by Craig's "or maybe he is just a natural" comment pretty disingenuous. Don't they know viewers have the memory of elephants and anyway we can research on t'internet?

Does it matter? Only on a very personal level. You may be someone who prefers to vote for someone with no previous dance experience whatsoever, I certainly don't care.

You're right - some people either have natural rhythm or they don't.

Specific Latin or Ballroom training though, is a different issue.

I absolutely agree, its about the sum of all the parts coming together and making a dance that makes you go all goooogly...

Everything has to be right, the dance, the music, the costumes, the personalities, the partnerships, the j word, the scores, the choreography.. you cant predict how great a dance will be just because of all the technical elements.

There have been many celebs on SCD throu the years who had dance training and who were very competent but left me cold, and others who had only ever danced at weddings, but in a moment, literally took my breath away.

Any contestent has the ability to deliver a magical performance, dance training or not, assuming all those elements come together.. the sheer joy of SCD is not really anticitapating when it will happen and boof, you are blown away by something you didnt expect. ...

I think it does ease the first weeks for men with some dance experience not least as top half presentation is so much easier for the female than for the male

None of it makes any difference as the audience vote for their favourite , regardless of how they dance .

I think it matters to some & not to others.

For me as long as the contestant doesnt have extensive Ballroom/latin experience I dont have a problem. As others have pointed out some people have more natural aptitude than others - some people will just never be good dancers no matter how much training they have.

I think I would like to see a level playing field, where all, or none of the celebs had any dance experience. Having said that, those that do have dance experience don't necessarily go on to win. I do like to see the improvement over the weeks, like Gavin and Felicity for instance, there is an improvement that really shows, whereas Pamela and Matt started off on a high note and have to maintain it.

I don't think it matters. If they're okayed to be in the show then they should all be judged on what they produce on the dancefloor every Saturday night.

I agree.

Previous dance experience in ballet or tap for instance definitely helps. But its so rare that someone with no experience whatsoever becomes a good dancer that I don't really mind. On the occasion that they do, I love seeing that improvement.

That is unrealistic as no dance experience whatsoever would rule out most singers & actors and you would be left with some TV presenters and sportspeople (who have their own advantages such as a high level of fitness & athleticism). Also you need to have some good dancers in the competition. Whatever improvement Gavin & Felicity have made they are still average dancers. For every Gavin & felicity you also need a Matt & Kara IMO.

That's where all the controversy comes from pitting people trained to act /dance or superfit sporty's against those that can hardly move without a zimmer frame. It's ageism in action aided and abeted by the purported PC BBC. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth when a heap of the British Public decide to back a decrepit against one of the "better people". Show is a joke has a real competition

Nobody has mentioned the fact that - 'Ann Widdecomb has the advantage of being of an age when ballroom dancing would have been the norm in her youth'............I am quoting Craig Revel-Horward who said this in defence of the producers, claiming that they had no way of knowing that she would be any less able than the other celebs.

She's younger than me!!! We were in to Rock&Roll

Its not always that straightforward though. Pamela is one of the best dancers this year & Cherie Lunghi was a fantastic Ballroom dancer. Compare & contrast to Joe Calzaghe or Christopher Parker.

I agree. It matters to me particularly when the celebs are disingenuous about their previous training/experience. Anyone who knew Cherie Lunghi knew she had extensive ballet training and considered being a professional. Although it didn't make her any good at Latin it was a clear advantage in ballroom. For me Ali Bastian, Emma Bunton and Alesha Dixon all fell into the category of having had a lot of previous related experience which made me prefer to watch those who were genuinely learning from scratch. Others claim extensive ballet/salsa/modern training is no advantage - each to their own.

It does matter in the sense that will help the celeb to be better at the beginning. But as mentioned maybe will be difficult for them to connect with the viewer in terms of journey.
To me it does not really matter as long as they don't have double standards, ie criticizing Matt but forgetting pamelas past work with Bruno.

I wished sometimes they used the olympic system of using a me sure for difficulty as well as performance. Sometimes you can see that some choreographies are so much more difficult than others yet they get the same score because the performance is the same level.

It gives Kara an unfair advantage as it did for the guy on dancing on ice who went on to win.

I think it has to be, you know how to place your hands, you can have gained good posture from the experience, and musicality etc.

But yes each to their own, and I'm sure it can be not so helpful in certain individual dances.

She had one weeks training for that and was told to sit out a weeks training at the start of this (which Matt wasnt asked to do incidentally even though he had a similar amount of training for a Blue Peter Challenge). Hardly much of an advantage.

This is what I have been saying all along. Matt actually has had more experience with his dancing in a show back in the day.

Matt obviously believes it matters to a whole chunk of voters. He looked quite cross when Claudia revisited his BP dancing days on ITT and it took him a while to rearrange his face when the camera was back on him