Does anyone else miss the old format or is it just me?

By old format I mean when each week the contestants split 2 dances between them (one half usually had a Latin whilst the other had the ballroom) Week One used to always be Cha-Cha and the Waltz split between the 12 or so contestants.

I just feel that made you able to compare their 'talent' better and sort the good from the bad. Also racked up the nerves between the contestants that way, if one person did an AMAZING Cha-Cha then everyone else doing that dance had something to compete for a better score against.

Maybe it's just me though...

The old format was far too rational. It had to be done away with for the sake of cheap showbiz tricks and props. It was quite cruel to make people jive in week one.

I must be missing something here, isn't this what they do now ? Tango/Waltz or CCC/Jive this week ?

The opening shows were exactly the same as last year - cha-cha, jive, waltz and tango over two nights.

With four different dances as opposed to just two as there used go be in 2012 and before, there's a bit less of a chance of comparing one against another rather than scoring/judging each person's performance on its merits.

Totally agree, and even worse to expect a celeb to be able to perform an adequate Argentine Tango in the early weeks.

Not only is it unfair, it robs us the viewers of seeing well-executed dances.

I think we all agree that its just you.

They could easily directly compare couples in some of the more stationary Latin dances, by having 2 or 3 couples on the floor at the same time. This would make it more like a competition and easier for the judges and audience to compare couples dancing the same dance, next to each other. Of course, they would have to do without the props.

So how would you compare couples when it comes to scoring? "Her toes were pointed, but his arms were all over the place." How would you compare those? Would you score arms all over the place higher or lower than pointed toes? That's the problem with comparisons unless you have a check list of everything that's being judged, which means they'd spending more time filling in a check list than watching the performance and they also wouldn't be concentrating 100% on each dancer, but glancing at them all and missing some good and bad points for each.

I thought that was the format back in the days when the numbers of celebs was much fewer in number...these days there are so many of them I think the producers believe that seven waltz's followed by eight cha cha's will be too "boring" especially for the generations have the concentration of goldfish

I, too, miss the old way of doing it. It was far fairer to the celebs and much easier to sense who was progressing well. It also helped to give each week a definite flavour - 'Ooh, it's waltz and cha cha week' or 'Ooh it's quickstep and paso week'. These days they do four different types of dances in the first week and after that it's a general melange. It can be very unfair if one celeb gets a dance of doom and it can be very unfair if someone in danger of leaving gets one of the less flashy dances while someone else gets a crowd-pleaser.

Maybe I'm tired but I really don't understand this post at all. What do you think happens in a competition ? Several couples on the floor, they all dance different routines to the same piece of music. A qualified adjudicators can see at a glance - who of the (say) 3 couples should receive their 7,8 or 9 ..
Large competitions have as many as 28 couples on the floor reducing down to 6 for a final.

I preferred the camera angles in the old format but I like the new format as well as the old one!

But they are usually all skilled dancers. In SCD you have some who can dance to some degree and about half who are complete duffers. They're the ones you have to watch totally. And the judges also giving advice, which you can't do if you miss something. They have to decide which bits the celebs can improve on most easily in order to progress, so total concentration is needed.

I used to be an NVQ assessor (not for dancing) and had to assess direct evidence - what I saw EACH candidates do. I've have been sacked from that immediately if I'd have had a group and just got an overall impression, which is all you can do with a group. It would be unfair to have the judges do that to the celebs when you have the public also voting, but for "their favourite", especially when their fee depends on how long they stay in the show.

Understand your viewpoint, but I can assure you that trained adjudicators can very quickly assess even beginners in an instant, and we would only be talking about 2 or 3 couples here dancing for a minute, or thereabouts. I am a trained dancer and can easily spot errors whilst watching AND making notes at the same time - even the Pro's mistakes in Ballroom, so I do know it is possible. There are comps all around the country each week for every single grade of dancer so judges are used to assessing all standards.

But are you assessing "duffers" of varying ages who depend on you partly for the amount of fee they get? Totally different situation to assessing trained dancers.

I have done competitive ballroom dancing as an amateur, but I maintain that is judged by comparison, which shouldn't be happening here when it is not a level playing field at the beginning. They are learning and need encouragement (any teacher knows that) - comparing at this stage would be soul-destroying.

I was not only an NVQ assessor, but also a GCSE and 'A' level examiner and teacher and horse show judge. I will continue to maintain that you can only get an impression and not a detailed assessment of more than one person/couple/horse/rider/whatever at a time whatever they are doing. And the celebs need a detailed assessment if they are to improve and carry on enjoying what they are doing.

Oh, and when I did competitive ballroom dancing, the judges were positioned at different points around the edge of the room and compared their observances at the end of the dance to come to a joint decision. On one occasion I heard one judge say, about a couple in a dance I wasn't in, "Oh, I missed that."

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the judges say or how they mark, it all comes down to the audience who vote. They decide who stays in or not, they decide who wins. It really is not serious, just entertainment. It has never been a level playing field, so in my book makes no difference if they dance alone or in a group.
In my view it is the men that will always a disadvantage anyway. The judges also never give a detailed assessment, the celebs don;t need it, don't you think that their Pro knows more? Because they do.

I preferred the two dance a week format, and quite liked it when all the celebrities would dance the same style in a particular week, as it is easier to compare a Samba with a Samba than an Argentine Tango and a Charleston for example.

In all the years I have danced, I have never seen judges comparing "observances" to come to a joint decision. They always mark independently.

I would say the disadvantages linked to the male celebrities leading is balanced out by the female celebrities having to the same steps backwards and in heels. Both are led by their professionals, the skill is ensuring it does not look like it. Brendan is often less than subtle with his steering.

It is very difficult for the male celebrity to look like they are leading, when they are not. It is also hard for them to achieve any sort of good Ballroom hold and /and maintain it. It is not that difficult dancing in heels, unless you are not used to them of course. In competitive dancing, a good man with a weaker female will nearly always beat a weaker male with a great lady. The dynamics are all wrong in the latter.

But the BBC aren't making a dance competition. They are making a Saturday night feel good entertainment programme with all the quirks and comprises that means.

Tony Jacklin and Aliona did a Charleston in the first shows last year.
He was first out - so it was either week 1 or week 2. !!!

I realise that, truly I do, but if you scroll back, I was answering another post suggesting that it was unfair to place couples on the floor at the same time on SCD, as they are all at different standards. I said basically unfair or not, this is SCD and they are never on a level playing field. It is entertainment pure and simple. If it was a competition, the viewers would not have a say in who goes through each week, it would be the judges.
I offered a suggested that in the more stationary dances, they could place 2 or 3 couples on the floor for a direct comparison. All dancing different routines, for the same dance, same music. I have seen this done before on DWTS and thought it worked quite well.

It's been done several times in Striclty as well - VW and rock and roll - but, like DWTS, as an 'extra' dance in the later stages when the couples have already done their main individual dance.