Originally Posted by ESPIONdansant:
“I wouldn't want to be judged against an unattainable ideal. I'd like to think the judges wouldn't humiliate me because I'd be trying my best. (Promise!)
I think you do have to be flexible in what you expect as a judge. The 'wrong' person never/rarely wins because you have to win people over somehow. The public does what the public wants.
There is chalk and cheese in this competition. You can't pretend otherwise.”
Quite. Strictly brings together a class of 14, with ages spread from 20 to 70, with bodies in all shapes and sizes. Dancing is athletic, and a genuine quickstep would have put Russel Grant and Paul Daniels in hospital. In SCD4 pensioner Jimmy Tarbuck found practice sessions were enough to threaten a heart attack, and wisely withdrew on doctors orders.
In SCD7 two couples made the final. Ricky Whittle could run 100 metres in under 11 seconds, turn a backflip, and lift Natalie above his head. Natalie raved about Ricky's dancing, as did four judges.
Chris Hollins could do none of the above, but instead he had an appealing partnership with Ola. He made progress within his limits culminating in the most festive charleston ever seen on Strictly.
With judges' marks irrelevant in the Final, the voting public overwhelmingly voted for Chris and Ola over Ricky and Natalie. It appears the public voted by a criterion not used by the judges: to reward achievement shown in the Final, relative to potential shown in week one. Controversy continues to this day, but who is to say the electorate in their millions were not ultimate custodians of the spirit of Strictly?