I'm not brilliant at maths so may have misunderstood this, but looking back at the swingathon result couldn't it have had a big bearing on the result?

Pamela came above Scott in the swingathon (which I must say i didnt understand from what i could see Scott and Natalie were much stronger than Pamela and James). Then Matt and Scott tied on the leaderboard both getting the same number of marks over the two semi final nights (was it 70 marks each?). If scott had got an extra mark in the swingathon he'd have got one point more than Matt.

It could have made all the difference couldn't it?? In terms of Matt getting through.

Now I actually think in terms of performance over the series that the final 3 is the right result but i was just wondering how much of an impact the swingathon might have had on the overall result in the semis

It's impossible to know. If Matt were top of the public vote, or even second in some combinations, he would still have got through over Scott, I think.

It made no difference at all to Matt. He definitely got more votes than both Scott and Gavin, so whether either of them were one point ahead, one point behind, or equal to him is irrelevant.

Matt would have been 4th on the leaderboard with only 2 points from the judges instead of 3, so yes - it's fair to say the result could well have been different in some way. But I'm not great at maths, so who knows.

The idea of Scott being above Matt is actually ridiculous, come to think of it. Lame AT and lame Charleston.

The swingathon it could be said, was introduced to give the judges the opportunity to make adjustments in the scores to put people closer to the order in which they believed they should be.
If Ann were still in, they'd have made her last.

Yes, Scott being one point ahead of Matt would have prevented the tie (unless there was some kind of conspiracy to ensure a tie), so that Matt would have received only 2 points from the judges to combine with the points from phone votes, while Scott would still have received 3.

But also, Gavin would have received only 1 point rather than 2.

So it certainly could make a difference, but whether it actually did depends on how the votes went.

He'd only need to beat Scott in the vote, and then he'd be safe unless he and Scott were the bottom two.

Why? Because Scott would have only 1 more point than Matt from the judges' marks: 3 points vs 2. And if Matt was ahead of Scott in the vote, he'd have at least one more point than Scott from the public vote. So he'd at least tie Scott when the points from the judges and the points from the voters were added together. And in a tie, the person with the most public votes wins.


Yes, just so.


They can easily make a bigger difference when marking dances in the usual way, so I think that is especially unconvincing as a conspiracy theory.

Both Matt and Pamela polled above Scott so no, it made no difference in practical terms - they'd have still gone through ahead of him either way.

Kara was far ahead enough of Scott and Gavin that she beat them when they had 3 and 2 points, so she would have beat them if they'd had 3 and 1. Ditto Pamela. Additionally, Gavin is behind Matt by one point in both scenarios, so that remains the same.

The only difference is between Scott and Matt. As Matt has beaten Scott from a level start with the judges, he MUST have more viewer votes. If he has more viewer votes, he still beats Scott if he's one point ahead of him, as the worst he can do is tie with him on overall scores, in which case he stays and Scott goes.

There are only a couple of hypothetical scenarios where the swingathon makes a difference - Pamela winning and Kara coming last, or Pamels winning and Kara coming 4th.

Unless you want to argue as to how it might have influenced viewers to vote, the swingathon made exactly no difference to anything.