I don't. I would simply say that it brings a competitive edge to what is otherwise a pretty pointless results show. Not sure anyone can argue with that.


Nothing much can be done about such vandalism. As we saw with John Sergeant, they will always be able to keep such people miles away from the bottom two anyway. As I have said on more than one occasion, he saved the program by withdrawing.

[quote] non dance-off bottom 2s overwhelmingly going to the better dancers, particularly in the later stages of the competition or early in the competition when the difference in quality of dance produced on the night is marked.[quote]

Not sure that is true.


No, the problem was the semi-final. Tom should have gone into the dance-off as the judges' scores mandated. Then unless he danced better than his opponent, he would have gone out. What a tragedy. Then we would have been left with a final between the best two dancers on the night. If that happens, one doesn't mind the public having the final say in the final. .

It definitely adds a competitive edge to the results show, but I'm not sure it needs one. The point of the results show seems to me to be to reveal the results. Sure it features a lot of padding and guest performances and such, but it did with or without the final determiner. I'm not really a big one for "second chances", so I'm not big on the dance-off being any more exciting or competitive overall than a straight cut. I found it a bit deflating that often someone was allowed a get-out for not performing to their best potential on the actual performance show, when I'd prefer it to be the most important part, mechanically speaking.


The same was true of Widdy, until it wasn't, and people either got bored and stopped voting for her, or it became apparent that her vote was only ever enough to knock off the less talented dancers. The same thing very easily could have happened with John, and all we have to say otherwise is a patently false leak (the number of votes cited was ludicrous) from one week of voting.


Only four non dance-off bottom 2s in the second half of any series have gone to the weaker dancer : Felicity vs Patsy (where the margin of superiority Felicity held over Patsy was a mere 2 points, a margin which has often been over-turned in the dance-off), Gavin vs Patsy, and two from Series 1 (Claire vs Lesley and Lesley vs Chris) when the show was finding its feet. The pattern of results suggest that in non dance-off series (except perhaps Series 3), the public generally start to vote for the better dancers more consistantly at the end (see : Emma managing to beat Louisa in the public vote after weeks of dogging it to everyone), whereas everything about non dance-off series suggests that the same is not true of them.


I wasn't a fan of the semi-final snafu, because I don't like when people change the rules of a game mid-way through. I do understand why they made the snap judgment they made given the general atmosphere surrounding Series 6, which was not a pleasant one. Even with that switch-up they ended up with a final where, according to a large-scale newspaper poll, most viewers didn't want any of the finallists to win.

Which they could do in 10 seconds.


But the dance-off gives it a point.


Well, I think it is a great test of the dancers, as well as giving point to the results show and entertainment to the viewers.


No-one can seriously describe Cheryl Lunghi as a less talented dancer. Indeed if one takes the average judges scores as a good indicator of the quality of the dancers, Sergeant should have finished 14th.


Or more likely, since wrecking the program might have seemed such fun, they would have kept on doing it. Obviously Sergeant felt that there was some sort of risk since he did withdraw, and I imagine that someone must have hinted to him that the eventuality I suggest was a strong possibility, or he would have stayed in until he was voted out. Several posters here and at NottheTalk - many of the GUT posters have turned up at http://talk.notthetalk.com/discussion/check/4160 - have claimed inside knowledge of the votes but since the BBC refuses to release them, I disregard that. AllI know is that a dancer unable to average 20 eliminated one who averaged over 30. Not even Widdicombe managed that.


That would have been due to the nonsense that the Judges had somehow rigged their votes to create the situation where Tom could not escape the dance-off. The idea that the Judges were both aware of the consequences of a tie at the top , when the producers clearly weren't, and that they rigged their votes to bring it about was always ludicrous.


Which does not matter in the slightest.

maybe there should have been a public vote between the joint leaders at the start of the final then a second dance off between the Tom and the loosers of the 1st dance off then start the final proper.

But he should never have won Rachael Stevens was robbed

The tennis rally of exchanges are very well put and thought provoking and once again i found myself reading the whole thread when I thought the title wouldnt interest me

I am content there is not a dance off anymore but if there had of been one that Chelsea was involved in with a celeb with lesser abiliity would her nerve have held up? (when you take into account the way she was in the final)

a minor point of no real importance but I will compound the trivia with another question if she did wouldnt the judges have voted for her anyway

Much was made of it was all down to how they performed on the dance off but the times I recall the dancers previous perfomances were bought into the equation by the judges

One thing is very clear to me there are a number of minority (miniority is not an intended or implied critisism or a disparaging remark) interests catered for on a BBC1 prime time TV Saturday evening show that are not wholey satisfied with all its content

But all those interests are content enough to watch the Show in remarkable numbers every week

You could argue the BBC have got something right for them at least

I meant less talented in comparison to the rest of the field of a whole, rather than to John specifically. By the point Cherie was eliminated she was settling very solidly into being 5th best dancer out of 8, and the dance-draw she had coming for the rest of the competition was not complimentary to her talents. If results were determined by merit week by week she would not have lasted much further in the competition than she did - both Christine and Jodie (neither of whom were virtuoso talents) were managing to both take the odd week off her by the end.



John's average score was 20 - the best he knocked out was Cherie, whose average was 32 (a 12 point difference). Ann's average score was 16 - the best she knocked out were Jimi and Patsy whose averages were both 28 (again, a 12 point difference). It's pretty much exactly the same margin of difference. To me the error in the system is that this 12 point quality gap can easily, in terms of the scores that actually make a difference, translate to a similar hurdle in the public vote to only a 1 point quality gap. A proportional system of doling out "judges leaderboard points" would be perhaps fairer, in a system where large differences in quality always mean larger requirement from the public vote than small ones.

With regards to John's reasons for quitting - the ones he gave were far more extensive than just that he might win. He cited threatening and rude phone calls to his family and also the fact that the competitive and aggressive nature of the other competitors meant that the show was an unpleasant thing to participate in backstage. I don't see any reason to believe that it was even strongly likely that his vote figures were revealed to him beyond a conspiracy to encourage him to quit.


The unpleasant atmosphere started well before the Tom semi-final situation. In Series 6 (as well as Series 7), the Cowell-backing tabloid media were exceptionally negative about the show, spun decent ratings as a disaster, and turfed up every potential scandal that they could about everybody involved. This in turn (IMO) led the producers down the road of public appeasal wherever possible, wherein they tried to follow the nose of whatever they thought the public wanted.


From the prospective of the show as a dance competition of course it doesn't - but these are the sorts of things that television producers care about.

I am not sure that is true. As far as I can tell, all the stronger dancers tend to improve their weaker discipline eventually to some degree and I don't see why that would not have been the case with Lunghi. For her to be averaging well into the thirties long before the end of the competition suggests that she was objectively very good. She only had one score in the 20s. And she could reasonably have looked forward to higher marks as the series proceeded. We don't know where she might have finished.


But we are talking about a far better dancer.


That is the problem with the ranking system being used as the basis for the points. Two dancers ranked consecutively in order by the judges but 10 points apart can be overturned by a difference in the public vote of one single vote.


Which makes perfect sense. The show was being turned into a laughing stock. I can only speak for myself but if I had been one of the other celebrities, I would be less inclined to slog my guts out, particularly if like, eg Snowdon, I had a full working day, if it wouldn't matter how well I actually did. Of course we know that less able dancers do prosper at the expense of better ones but that was taking the piss!


Well that latter is clearly true.The defenestration of the judges is part of that. But the truth is that the tabloids are the same all the time. They will feed on any perceived weakness.


They shouldn't. They created a brilliantly conceived program. They should have confidence in it.