Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“I just read a theory proposed by Monkseal that the judges artificially hold back Matt's ten until later for some kind of impact of their eventual winner, apparently Monkseal might have thought that's what happened with Mark Ramps and Tom Chambers in the past. What do you think?
I can't agree with him (is Monkseal a he/she?) somehow. So far, I think Matt's doing very well. Don't care about the silly journey thing. Scott scored quite similar to Matt in the first week and then he got tens, and then a lousy rhumba and then the crazy score for his jive (then again, if Gethin can get ten from Len for his jive, so can Scott I supposed...), which was good but not better than Kara's AT!”
I probably didn't explain myself very well. I don't think the judges are holding back artificially. I think the producers are HIGHLIGHTING it artificially.
Based on the first couple of months, in storyline terms, the top four are Matt, Scott, Kara, and Pamela and they're much of a muchness ability wise. So why give Matt the underdog "when will he get a 10?" storyline and not Pamela? (Certainly I think if she did her rumba now it might scrape a 10 from one or two judges based on what's getting them. It just came too early). Because they know he'll be around at the end, they know he's a likely winner, and they can run an underdog "proved himself to the judges" thing. They've done the same for every man that's won.
It's just like Patsy is the Letitia/Carole/Whoever "middle aged woman with low self esteem who discovers herself and gets her groove back and whatever". The same storyline over and over again. Matt's just a "type", and a type that usually wins.