Yeah, I think most of them have competed apart from Janette (though I'm happy to be proved wrong if that is the case).

Alijaz said he's Slovenian champ, Iveta reeled off her won titles in the Launch show VT and I'm aware Kevin is of a traditional background (like his sister who is apparently really good). I have no idea about Robin or Karen's root beginings, but the Jordans have competed in British comps (I thought) and Brendan competed as well too.

I think that most (if not all) of the Pros that come onto Strictly will still have a traditional root in traditonal Latin/Ballroom dancing but just venture into other areas after the bulk of their competing days is over, and I suppose why not it if prolongs their career and extends the opporunities. It seems that they are incorporating 'commercial dancing' into the Pro numbers this year (perhaps already in previous series too) which would imply that it is the style of dancing that is becoming less traditional rather than the calibre of the Pros themsleves.

Kevin is no mean dancer either --

Clifton started dancing ballroom and Latin as a child in his home town of Waltham, taught by his parents, former World Champions Keith and Judy Clifton. He competed nationally and internationally as a child initially partnering his sister Joanne.

He was a Youth World Number 1 and four time British Latin Champion and won International Open titles in Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Japan, France, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Belgium. He also performed with Burn The Floor in Japan, Australia, South Africa and the USA as well as making guest appearances on Dancing with the Stars in USA and So You Think You Can Dance in Holland

Wow I did watch Series 1 and didn't know that about the cue cards, really interesting.

Kevin's record there is impressive!

As a journalist I'm aware of how to get the facts, thank you.

I just wanted to see public opinion.

A good thread - but can I be really picky without causing offence and say if you are writing an article you want to be taken seriously then its "pros" (plural of pro) not "pro's".

As to your point - although most of the new pros have taken part in shows like Burn the Floor and So You Think You Can Dance, most had a pretty solid ballroom & Latin backing prior to that. Kevin, Iveta, Aljaz, for example were all high ranking 10-dance competitors. Janetta, etc were championship level Latin dancers. I think the fact that they have also done SYTYCD and/or BTF gives them experience of adding the showbiz element.

[quote=VikkiKaplinsky2;69506221]Thanks all so far - v. interesting.

They've got to earn a living after all.

Sorry but I don't give much attention to grammar when I'm writing a quick message on a public forum. I'm a published dance writer in a number of dance magazines and on many dance websites so would argue I am already taken seriously. When you've got a lead article for Dancing Times, let me know.

Jeez Louise!

Us plebeians are taking the time to help you gauge public opinion, no need to be snappy about a misplaced apostrophe!

I would imagine that 3 months of being at the beck and call of the BBC and a pet celebrity would be hard to squeeze into competitive dancer's schedule.

Also, I would imagine that learning the dances rapidly under media scrutiny, as in SYTYCD is a more relevant entry on a CV than achieving world titles after many hours of rehearsal with familiar partner (not to be disrespectful because obviously the latter is more worthy in the non-SCD world).

Sorry if I went OTT. I just didn't expect to have to come on here and defend myself over a bloomin' apostrophe when I am just trying to gather a few opinions (which I have found very interesting and helpful). And I most certainly wouldn't call anyone a pleb. I am a fan of SCD like the rest of you.

**SIDEBAR TO THREAD**

Well, as someone who writes for a living themselves, I'm afraid I have a problem with you coming out and ramming your journalistic credentials down a relatively innocent bystander's throat, then expecting mistakes in your writing to be ignored because you've not checked it before you put it out for public view. If you're a professional writer you have more of a responsibility to get grammar right in what you write, not more of an excuse to get it wrong.

*SIDEBAR CONCLUDED**

As for that opinion you wanted...One thing I'm interested in is how much time the producers spend checking the teaching credentials of the pros they sign.

As a non-dancer I don't know whether all pro dancers teach, or just some of them, or how often those who teach actually DO teach. I assume, as with all things, it varies. But surely when you get a mixed bag like SCD, where huge variations in ability and training time abound, extensive teaching experience combined with a real knack for it are quite important to the overall package a pro brings.

So does anybody know if/how they check the teaching pros have done?

Just trying to be helpful - given I work in media myself. You sounded like a student.

I have no idea but I can safely say that I haven't seen any of them at the IDTA Teaching Congress in the last 2 years!

To be classed as a professional they should have at least an Associate level qualification with either IDTA or ISTD, the two main dance exam boards. I know some of the past pros like Andrew Cuerden, Hanna Haarala, Matt & Nicole are qualified to at least Licentiate level which is a higher level than this. I should imagine Kevin definitely has his Associate (his dad is an IDTA examiner) and it should be a fairly simple case of asking for their membership number for each pro as that is only given when you've passed the exam (I've done pre-associate so am not a full member).

Iveta I believe has an equivalent qualification that is USA based.

that information is wrong there are many many dance boards and many many pros are not IDTA or ISTD !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Alll professional competitors have to be qualified to associate level to compete so all are trained to teach but not all good dancers teach some world class dancers are not good teachers. There was a teacher from Sheffield who was little had a hump on her back but almost anyone who was anyone went to her to be trained.

If some dancers have gone from pro comps to the stage then they may not have track record of teaching but does not mean they don't know how to

Keith is also an examiner with othet boards

I cannot see what relevance ISTD ballroom teaching qualifications have any more in SCD (obviously other than for those now doing ballroom as a hobby or with an eye to competing in the ballroom world over here of course) given SCD has now added the charleston, salsa, AS and AT to the dance list.

None of the original old pros - Anton, James et al - can really handle any of them other than the charleston (because it's slapstick and you can fake it).

Iveta can handle all of them because at least because she has trained with and taught for Arthur Murray Studios (founded in the USA), and now owns her own AM studio.

At least our AM training covered West Coast and East Coast Swing (the basis of Ballroom's version of the Jive), Charleston, Mambo, Salsa, Hustle, American Smooth etc, etc.as well as all the other ballroom dances, making her - and any AM trained teacher/dancer far more versatile.

Artem and Ajlaz have proved that their background has made them far more useful on SCD than the older British pros who have only ever done ballroom.

If a pro has teaching qualifications whether ISTD or ANY of the many dance associations then at least they have been taught the timings, technicalities etc of the dance how to teach the dances. So think it is relevant. A lot of the older SCD pros came to the the show with a background of teaching and it shows - probably many of the pros on the show now do teach or have experience of teachinng but if not, most of them will have some sort of teacher training.

What I think is wrong is having pros who are not competent in both styles of the dance

only ever one pro on SCD who has only done ballroom and that is Anton

This is all really interesting, thanks guys

Given what a big part of the show comes down to teaching, you would think that pros would be subject to a kind of 'lesson observation' in the same way that academic teachers are before they're hired. It's perfectly true that not every qualified teacher is always going to be a brilliant teacher, but you'd think on SCD they could afford to be a little selective and only pick those people who really CAN teach, regardless of the type of qualification they hold.

Interesting to note that Iveta has such a strong teaching background, I've always picked her out as an excellent teacher

This is a very interesting thread, Vikki, so thanks for that and good luck with your piece, which I hope is commissioned because I, for one, would like to read it!

I am no dancer so, like the majority of the Strictly audience, I watch the show for its entertainment value. Before anybody shoots me down, I hasten to add that I find good dancing entertaining, even if I don't know my fleckerl from my heel lead (but I am picking up the jargon, at least).

I don't, therefore, give a flying one whether the pro dancer has a string of qualifications or whether he/she is a hottie who came 10th in the Icelandic version of So You Think You Can Dance (I'm making that up but I would so watch it). What I want is a lovely-looking dance (don't care if it sticks to some arbitrary set of rules or not, so there); a celeb who is learning a new skill and absolutely loving it; a bit of drama; a few laughs; some cracking music; and, above all, an escape from the humdrum. Over the years, I feel I have got to know the pro dancers better than their celeb partners and am more invested in their lives and careers. Indeed, far from Burn The Floor influencing Strictly, as far as I'm concerned it is being a fan of Strictly that took me to see Robin, Kristina and Karen in Burn The Floor in London in the summer. It's a bonus that I also saw Aljaz, Janette and Kevinfromweallknowwherebynow.

I suspect that those bemoaning the lack of pro dancers steeped in ballroom and Latin are a great deal more qualified than I to judge whether or not the current batch can dance, but they all dance well enough to do the job they're paid to do. The bottom line is that Strictly delivers what I want to watch, and so I watch it.

I think most of us feel like that peeve. Still, always nice to get a fresh perspective on the arguments surrounding the professional side which us non-dance gurus don't know much about

Very good comment LL and totally agree. Being a good dancer does not make you a good teacher, no matter how many qualifications you have.

The other ace teacher on SCD has been Natalie Lowe. Really miss her this year

OK but there was nothing in your op to suggest you were already a published dance writer. I have already written for Dance News (and deplore the poor grammar in 90% of their articles) and Dancing Times.

I remember seeing a DS link to one of Vikki's articles in Dance News. (The article was good, but it also sticks in the mind since the Dance News short biography showed that she went to the same university as me )

I have one English teacher who competes but is also ISTD qualified to a high level and another Russian teacher qualified with IDTA to a high level. Dance teaching qualifications are obviously going to be a good indicator of someone's knowledge and capability (it seems perverse to suggest otherwise) but not their performance skills. I have another teacher (Italian) who competes at a high level in amateur comps and is not yet qualified. He is an absolutely brilliant teacher, and so I guess that shows that qualifications are not a must, just an indicator.

Would any of them want to appear on Strictly? Well I guess two of them, at least, would be considered very desirable material in terms of age and image. However I don't think they would be interested as they are too busy doing other things. At least one of these cannot bear to watch Strictly. Also, appearing on the show opens one's private life to intrusion and so it's not all positive.

Harsh response, harsh indeed! I would have thought it was a prerequisite for anyone who calls themselves a journalist to be able to use grammar even when writing a quick message on a forum. If we are being really picky wouldn't it be easier to type "pros" rather than 'pro's"? Fewer characters?

is it too late to lay claim to a Pulitzer prize (internet division)?