By the way, is there any truth in that information that Frankie's mum or father (or both) are ballroom/latin dance teachers?

Ultimately it's an entertainment show about celebrities learning to dance. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Rufus Hound by saying those who can already dance are a bit boring because they don't bring a sense of anticipation about their performance, we know it's going to be good, and because we can't see them develop. The likes of Pixie, Frankie and Caroline, who all have extensive dance-training, shouldn't be too disheartened because sometimes the ringers win (Alesha, Jill, Harry etc).

Pixie & Trent are the Barbie and Ken of SCD - they just don't feel real to me.

Ref previous training - I do like to see contestants develop as the series go on and Pixie has come in at such a high level I feel this will not help her as the show goes on.

The concept of SCD is that we see celebs doing something that they are not famous for, dancing. Some will have a skills advantage because they are naturally good dancers, have had some previous related training, or they are practised performers and can sell the dances well. Finding people with no advantage whatsoever would be hard, and would lead to more poor dances and a limited type of celebrity.

I don't begrudge Pixie her place because she is famous, young and female, and there has to be someone of that description in the mix (Frankie and Caroline also fit that category, but there are as many male equivalents so it's ok). Young female celebs are probably the most likely to have had dance training because they are mostly pop stars and actresses from stage schools. Therefore, it just comes with the territory.

There are discussions every year about celebs which have differing levels of experience. I think the premise of the show should be concentrating on a celeb who is learning to dance. Pixie is not learning to dance. She attended a performing arts school - it's not just a case of having a few tap lessons on a Saturday morning. Frankie is not learning to dance either - her routine last week didn't look much different from jumping about in a sparkly outfit in her day job. She's been on tour with the Saturdays at the same time, so she's been able to achieve high scores on minimal training. I just fail to see the point of entering the competition if you're already at that level.

I think the problem, if problem there be, is that they are so much alike they could be brother and sister. Consequently there seems to be little chemistry between them.

Sunetra's mum is an Indian dancer and Sunetra trained in that till age 12. I think it shows in her musicality and her beautiful lines, especially her arms, but it's very different from Latin & ballroom.

I don't know how hard the OP looked, but this is at least the third thread on this subject. For some reason, some people seem to have it in for Pixie. Why? What did she do wrong? We have even had people criticising her and Trent because they look like brother and sister, even though they are not really related at all.

Dance is an art form, which demands a degree of athleticism if it is to be done to a high standard. In common with any other art form, it also demands talent if it is to be done well. Talent is a curious thing, and something that I suspect a number of people on these forums simply do not understand. Put simply, it is an aptitude - an ability to do something better than most other people, coupled with the drive to achieve it. It is not purely founded on how hard a person tries. It cannot be taught. It is something that some people are born with and others are not. Training helps to develop it, but cannot replace it. That is why we cannot all be film stars or composers, or inventors or - dare I say it - dancers.

Pixie is talented. She isn't the only one. The same can be said of Frankie, Caroline and Jake. It is this, not whether or not they have had some dancing lessons in the past, that makes them stand out from the rest. They are also athletic in build, and physically fit, which gives them an obvious advantage over, say, Alison. There again, Mark and Judy are also fit, and Mark even has some talent - just not as much as Pixie. Is there something unfair about that?

One final thought. I wonder how many of Pixie's detractors are really put off her because she chooses to be known by her childhood nickname. For the benefit of those people, she is actually Victoria.

I agree with all the above. However, it doesn't have anything to do with what I perceive to be the main grievance which is that she and three other females have had dance training and/or experience and are therefore at a distinct advantage over those who have not. There is always pointed out at this stage how virtually all the contestants have something over another, but surely dancing experience is prime and automatically sets anyone ahead in a dance competition. I'd contend that it is this unfairness which grates with people.

Yea...except Strictly is as much as popularity contest as anything and it could be argued that certain of the male contestants have distinct advantages in gaining support fom a certain segment of the voters

Not sure how that fits in with 3 male contestants out already, Simon in the dance off twice and Mark once?

I think Pixie is a more divisive dancer than most if the evidence from the polls on here are to be taken seriously - check out how high she is polling in the worst dance last week category lol. She was easily the most competent performer last week.

I enjoy her (and Trent's) performances but fully understand why others don't. For me there's a Disney sweet and sour strangeness emanating from their incestuous brother and sister, too good to be true, dipped in sugar-coated-candy displaying endless smiles to camera vibe. Simultaneously I feel repelled and drawn in.

If true, I think that says much more about them than Pixie/Victoria imvho

I am sure many of them have not bothered reading the various articles / interviews and think it is a stage name that she adopted rather than just her family name.

I think you make a good point Korky. After all you would not expect to see Victoria Pendleton riding her bike in a race with complete beginners and it would be thought grossly unfair if that were the case.

Victoria Pendleton is an Olympic gold medallist at cycling. Are you suggesting that Pixie Lott is at an equivalent level in dancing?

I would prefer BBC3 to show a version of the show with good dancing and BBC1 to do the "entertaining" version. That gives an even playing field.

I've observed certain posters and the celeb they've supported over the last three series and a pattern is obvious and if you can't guess,Gregg and Tim don't have the attributes.
Thom was just another casualty of the mid-table curse.

Though Simon and Mark do have the attributes. Simon's a particularly good looking guy, IMO, especially now he's cut that thing off the top of his head. Their buffness hasn't saved them from the DO and it didn't save Thom from being eliminated. It's only Scott (unbuff) and Steve (über buff but battered rather than handsome) and Jake (decidedly rough) who have escaped so far

It's an unusual year...

Of course I'm not, that would be stupid (to quote Claudia). I am simply using a sporting corollary to illustrate what is basically an unfair starting point for the participants.

It is what it is however, and we know that will always be the case.If you compare the dancing ability of Pixie with Gregg for example, it is obviously not a proper competition. It is an entertainment.

How on earth would you ever get an even playing field?

Unless everyone was the same age, weight, sex and came from the same background.

Even if you take out backgrounds eg stage schools etc. You'd still have popstars who are known for performing up against say a news reader who has no background performing at all.

You will never have an even playing field

An advantage is not necessarily a decisive advantage

the most unequal thing to me is the ladies vs men celebs - it is def more difficult for the male celebs than the female ones especially in the dances which require a strong male lead - it can go on and on there has to be a range of different abilities to keep it interesting - Pixie and the others who have some dance/performance skills are by no means a finished article and they have their own journeys to make as well as those who start with no dance or performance skills it is the formula that has so far made scd work

I have learned to watch SCD for what it is now saturday entertainment based around dancing -

Well, that's a relief. Why make the comparison then? When she was at her peak, Victoria Pendleton was the best in the world at what she did. There is no way that Pixie Lott will ever be the best dancer in the world.

My original point was that Pixie (along with Frankie, Caroline and Jake) is talented, and it is this, more than previous dance experience, that makes them stand out from the others. Talent is inborn. It cannot be taught. Put another way, Scott could have the finest dance training on the planet, but it still won't turn him into a good dancer because he simply does not have the capability to begin with. Training develops what is already there. It cannot create it if it is absent.

I agree with you in that the show's prime focus is its entertainment value. That is true of any TV talent competition. Just how embarrassing would the first few weeks be if all the celebs were rank beginners tripping over their own feet? For the record, there is always a hard core of fairly capable dancers among the celebs. They help to set the standard. They rarely win, though. It is usually a journey contestant who emerges with the glitterball.

I think you've got to take a step back and see what the BBC are trying to achieve here.
Firstly, they want an entertaining show which will beat X-Factor in the ratings.

They have to find fifteen or whatever, so called "celebrities" most of whom have pretty much naff-all else to do, between September and Christmas. Even this they appear to find difficult.
They'll also include someone in a running TV show, usually a BBC one and get an "accommodation" for practice time.
Choosing a whole crew of "dance numpties" to get an even playing field, isn't going to make for an entertaining show. They want a disparity in the abilities, to promote a bit of controversy amongst the viewers over it being "unfair" that'll make the tabloids, That's great for publicity. There's always a "comedy character" included that people will like and support through a lot of the rounds.

But they need to ensure a watchable final.
Being the "best of a bad bunch," isn't going to cut it, in the ratings.
I'm always surprised when people "discover" that some competitors have dance experience. It would have come as no surprise to the BBC as each potential competitor will have been thoroughly researched and they always deliberately include several competitors with dance experience.
We have to think "show" rather than "dance competition."