Hear, hear, well said, and I couldn't have put it better myself. I'm getting tired of seeing the line 'Chris Hollins year' trotted out like its the worst of insults- it makes me
I was a big fan of Chris- we were in my house- and we were delighted when he won. Yes he did engage more with the public, his personality shone through, and the majority of the public decided they liked him best! What's wrong with that?!

He wasn't actually that bad a dancer either - he's one of only about 10 or so males (might be 12 or 13 now after this series) who scored at least 30 for their Rumba. Take into account that this was one of his early dances (his second dance I believe) and that makes it quite an achievement.

As for that particular series, Ali & Brian had the romance angle but were a bit boring so to speak (Rachel Stevens mark 2), plus it's arguable that she should have been eliminated on the dance-off when she was injured. Unfortunately, Ricky & Natalie were somewhat unlikeable despite being technically good (Ricky had the criminal story pop up towards the end of his run, Nat was very competitive and asked on ITT if anyone had ever got a 10 for their first dance etc). After that you have Chris & Ola, who despite not technically being the best, had a great partnership, some good dances, and wowed us with that Charleston.

C'mon, it's not as if a duffer won really is it?

I liked them both and was really sad to see Ashley go. But he was weaker in the dance-off - he bailed on the last lift and looked pretty tired overall. Susanna should have gone tbh, she is by far the weakest left.

I don't understand why Patrick isn't more popular - yes, he has been overmarked on occasion but so has everyone else (Susanna and Abbey in particular). He's made great improvement since week 1 and dances incredibly well for someone twice the age of other competitors.

I have to agree the judges have been wholly inconsistent this series. I actually found last night's show infuriating to watch at times.

Well Chris certainly had more than the likes of Dave, but he wasn't technically the best dancer- when Craig was explaining why he gave Denise' Charleston a 9 when it was better than Chris which he gave a 10 he said the standard wasn't as good that year, it showed. As I say, I'm glad Chris won over Ricky that season, but we can't parade him around as a good dancer and a sign that Strictly is always won by the deserving. Yes, my wish that Strictly remain a dancing competition at heart might be slightly wishful thinking, but, and maybe this is just speculation, Chris would have been crushed if he'd been in the same series as Jill, Alesha or Kara (the 3 "Best" winners to date, statistically)

This is what I don't understand, it's never been a dancing competition at heart to enable it to remain as one.

For the first 5 series it most definitely was! Yes, there was always the entertainment factor, but in series 1, 2, 4 and 5 the best dancer won, and series 3 was the dread "J" word for Darren. It started going downhill with John Sargent in series 6- it was the first time the press paid attention to someone noticeably surviving at the extent of better dancers. From then on in, it was entertainment over substance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Py8fFLniQ

He made the same comment to Alesha at the end of this dance

And, as I said before, if it was a dance competition then Chris Parker wouldn't have been anywhere near the final in Series One.

But if it wasn't a dancing show, he would have annihilated Natasha in the final!

No, the fact that it was an entertainment show based around teaching a celebrity a new skill - ie to ballroom/latin dance - meant Natasha was more likely to win as she was a) likeable and b) had learnt said skill.
The person that year with the most "technical" ability was Claire Sweeney and she never picked up the public vote.

Was Patrick doing heel leads when he danced first time round?

Of so, why the heck didn't Len mention it then?!?!?!

So you've just contradicted your argument that it's irrelevant if you're technically good! Therefore, surely, the winner will be whoever's the most likeable out of the ones who've mastered the skill best, i.e. Sophie, Abbey or Natalie!

I disagree slightly. While Natasha, Jill, Mark, Alesha, Kara, and Harry were either the best in their year or pretty much on par with the people who came second and third, Tom and Louis were definitely inferior to someone else in their year.

If Sophie or Abbey win, they'll be joining Tom and Louis - they are both clearly a lot worse than Natalie. To be honest, I think Susanna and Patrick are closer to Sophie/Abbey technically than Sophie/Abbey are to Natalie.

I don' t mind Len criticising, right or wrong, but it just looks daft to me to be so ratty sounding about it. Same as the manner in which he spoke to Natalie.

Tom, perhaps, but he certainly wasn't the same as Darren or Chris, i.e. so far behind the other finalists. He topped the leaderboard earlier on. Admittedly, Rachel was definitely more technically sound, but Tom wasn't making mistakes (or certainly not as major ones as Susanna and Patrick are this series), it was just rough around the edges whilst Rachel was the finished product.

Louis, technically, was up there with DVO, who was the best dancer of that series. The thing he lacked was the performance (until his Charleston naturally) his Samba was technically so slick (I remember Len, amongst the other judges, praising the content) it was more his face and the way he performed the routine, his Paso went a similar way. When it came to footwork and frame etc, he was fine!

No, I said learnt said skill, nothing about whether they were doing it well technically also. In Natasha's case she caught the public attention and she managed to dance well enough to get the judges' as well. That's pretty much what's happened with every winner.

... you do realise that learning a skill and doing said skill technically correct are pretty much synonymous! Dave Myers clearly didn't learn the skill because he just plodded around the floor with no technique whatsoever! There's no distinction between the two points you're trying to differentiate between!

No they're not so we're going to be agreeing to disagree here.

Anyone can learn a dance routine, irrespective of their ability or technical level. Doing it well is a completely different thing.

How can you learn a skill and not be able to do it properly? If I go into my kitchen and completely burn lunch on an almost daily basis, people aren't going to say "well he knows how to cook, but he hasn't mastered the technique" they're going to say "he doesn't know what he's doing, he can't can't cook!"

Likewise, I go onto the floor to do a Tango, and I flop about all over the place, it's not a case of "you can dance, but your technique is completely absent" they're going to say "your technique was none existent, you can't dance!"

You can disagree if you like but your argument makes absolutely no sense at all!

Re: your edit. That's not learning THE SKILL!!!! That's learning movements. The skill is a botafogo in a Samba, or a chasses in a Quickstep, and doing it in time. Stepping to the right and then to the left with music playing is not a skill!

I said Len needed to go three years ago. Either that or give up dancing DWTS and given the pay cheque from the States, that isn't likely

You can go into a kitchen and make a soufflé which tastes fabulous but which collapses in the middle. You've cooked the recipe but not captured the technique (to use your somewhat flawed analogy).

Learning a skill - ie a ballroom or latin dance routine - is not the same as performing said routine with technical excellence. It's pretty simple and makes complete sense.


Like I said, we shall agree to disagree.

But the word... skill! It's very definition is "the ability to do something well;" THAT is pretty simple and makes complete sense, something you're completely reluctant to accept!

Being able to do something, ie having a skill, does not automatically mean you can do it technically well. I can speak French but there's no way on earth I would say I was technically proficient at it and yet it would be something which could go on my CV as "a skill".
I could probably dance a routine given to me by one of the pros but, as it's more than 20 years since I last did any serious dancing, it wouldn't be technically proficient but I have the "skill" to enable me to perform it.

The dictionary also defines it as:


The two things are not synonymous. And this will be my final "agree to disagree" post.

Fine, fly in the face of logic and have done with it. Hopefully, though, the voting public will see that one of the 3 remaining dancers with more SKILL are the ones they should be voting for.