I think it is clear that the pressure of doing a job as well as trying to learn new dances got to both Scott and Matt in the end. Scott dealt with it by basically giving up, so that in the end Natalie was doing all the dancing, to distract attention away from Scott. I have never seen a pro as exhausted as she was at the end of the Charleston, she could hardly get up off the floor. Matt dealt with it by becoming super-focussed and that showed when the pressure lifted at the end.

Last year both Chris Hollins and Ricky Whittle were working, and although Ricky was clearly the better dancer, he did keep making mistakes.

Is it a concidence that Pam and Kara are the two most technically correct - they are the two with the most time to practice? It is noticeable that in the week when Artem was ill Kara produced a jive that was moderate at best, with a really muffed ending.

A very considered opinion based on a very acute observational skill.

Except that Gavin has put in more training hours than any of them and came 5th

Yes, but Gavin can't dance ...

Has he really? I thought we hadn't been given the respective training hours this time. Where can I find these?

I thought we weren't being given the training hours this time because it would be embarrassing to the Widdy who basically didn't train more than a couple of hours a week by all accounts (allegedly!) lol.

According to Craig (?), he said Gavin had put in nearly 300 hours. Which makes him nearly a third on the way to becoming a 'trained' dance.

1/30th - 10,000 hours.

Blimey, if you could be a trained dancer with 1,000 hours, I'd have been there years ago.

Technicality comes from polishing an already gifted and accurate dancer. For some, though graced with natural abilites, rhythm and strengths, all the training in the world couldn't help. For instance Ricky Whittle last year had all those qualities but with all the hours god sends he'd never have been able to reach the technical standard of Kara. Same with Ali. Training hours weren't what held her back from producing a tech.ically great and accurate latin routine, she just didn't have those tools.

This is of course just my opinion based on my experience in dancing and watching others learn.

Oops, my maths went missing for a moment. Was concentrating too much on the poll stats.

Actually I think it's the other way around. Technique is what creates a good dancer - it's not the icing on the cake, it's the foundation. And technique takes time and effort to learn.

"Gifted dancers" are simply those people who can acquire this technique more quickly than others, and who can put it to more uses, and can integrate their creativiity with the correct technique.

In the immortal words - "the harder I work, the luckier I get".

As a sportsman (tennis player) you learn that it is the micro muscles that move your limbs into exactly the right position, and they have to be strengthened by repeated drilling. The big movements are easy, it is the detailed finishing that makes all the difference. In tennis it is what gets the racket into the perfect position to hit the ball, in dancing it will be what gets the hands, feet and body all rotated to the right orientation.

That is why it isn't easy for sportsmen, who are fit and flexible, just to get dancing right. They have developed different micromuscles (and muscle memory).

Technique is the foundation on which any physical discipline is built. (Endurance, strength etc. also play their part, depending on the discipline.)

Some people appear to have it (be it technique, endurance etc.) naturally, whilst others can gain it but only after long practice. Far more don't and will never get any good. I think Snooker is the ultimate example of this, although dancing a Samba probably runs it close. (I've done a lot of the former but mercifully none of the latter.)

Nature is sometimes cruel. If you've not got the right genes, then you're stuffed, although you can still enjoy performing at your own level and challenging yourself to improve. I think this applies to any physical discipline. I'm a very poor cyclist, despite a training volume that wouldn't embarrass a serious amateur racer, but every so often, I achieve something that approaches mediocrity, and it's great when it happens.

Interesting this, with regard to Gavin doing rugby training on the same day as the dancing.

Mentally, I think the rugby did him good but physically it's possible it held him back, in both disciplines.

Indeed


Agree - in fact I wrote an article about that a couple of weeks ago.

I mainly used racing car drivers (and, umm, Spiderman ) for examples, but I did refer to the tennis thing also.

There's a good article here: "Reading the game" - that does into this area in some more detail.


Well.... maybe.

Athletes often have the type of physical makeup that enables them to physically acquire "muscle memory" skills quicker and better than others. In fact, that's pretty much what makes them sportsmen in the first place.

In addition, athletes are both psychologically used to competing, and are physically used to training hard.

But that doesn't help them at all in things like performance, presentation, or the "popularity" thing

Agreed.

Which is why it annoys me when some people dismiss technique as being "the technical stuff".

I wonder if we need to try marks for "Technical merit" and "Artistic impression" like in the old days of figure skating. Even Torvill and Dean never managed a full row of 6s for technical merit, so if adopted for SCD, the judges could dole out 6s for artistic impression (to satisfy the viewers) and then differentiate using the technique mark, as there's little historical precedence for anyone ever being marked as perfect for technique, so a 5.9 for technique for a "perfect" dance wouldn't go down so badly as a 9 for Kara does these days.

I've also rowed competitively very badly. At my level, you could get by with being fit and strong (which I wasn't), but at the highest level, everyone is fit and strong, and it's the ability to maintain technique when tired at the end of a race that makes the difference.

Even if the judges' scores did count on Saturday, I don't think the couples are really so closely matched that a single minor technical glitch would cost one pair the Glitterball. A longer Swingathon would be good, as better technique would enable the couple so blessed to keep going when everyone else had keeled over!

Agree with that. One person may be able to develope up to their face and do 10 spins in a row and stop on cue, but it dosen't mean that they will get four tens for their dance.

You also need 'passion'.

Anne didn't have another job.

You can't just blame time, people knew all too well how much effort Strictly would require. If they want the benefits of extra income, then it's their own fault for taking on two jobs.

It's an interesting idea, yes; might be worth a try.

From what I've seen of Strictly, very few contestants are aware when they start out how much effort it requires. By this stage of the game they must all be pretty exhausted I would think, physically and emotionally. Scott was a victim of this, and Matt certainly didn't know about The One Show when he signed up.

Well, blimey, it's been on prime-time telly for 8 years now.

To do that, you need judges with a very good understanding of technique in all dances performed. We've got only Len who sort of qualifies, but he is bonkers. So unless they change the judge panel, I can't see it happening.

I think it's more a case of not knowing what impact up to 25 hours of proper dance training a week has on the body and mind rather than not knowing that 25 hours training a week is involved.

Mr Henson was on 5 Live today and said that for him, the physical side of things wasn't an issue (and he did certainly look much more chipper than Matt and Scott last weekend) but the mental side was incredibly draining. I'd guess the actor types would find the mental side less draining.

The VTs and interviews gloss over the implications of the physical demands, whereas, for example, coverage of the London marathon or the Tour De France glories in the "art of suffering" that must be experienced to truly appreciate the event as a participant. There's certainly reference to it being "tuff" (as Tess might say) but no real exploration of what physical exhaustion, aching joints and soft tissue injuries are really like when you need to "train through". (And no wonder - people generally watch it to be entertained rather than horrified!)

Watched an interview with the blokes off Masterchef, one of them said that he would love to do Strictly and had been approached but had to turn it down when they told him the hours they were required to train.

I think it is explained and put into the contract which they all sign, probably with the exception of Ann who said that she had refused to do any group dances. This is another reason for me to hate the producers on this years show, letting AW dictate the show. I have always enjoyed the group dances and love seeing the interaction between the couples. It does make me wonder if there would have been a Swingathon if Ann had made it to the Semi's.