Something that I'll never figure out is the determined focus on past dance experience, especially on here. I realise that some consider it 'boring' when people like Pixie and Frankie turn up being automatically very good and therefore tend to root for the underdogs like Steve (not that I'm singling him out, but I've heard his name mentioned several times by people supporting him for being a beginner - as far as we know!), but the regular barrage of negativity directed at such contestants gets on my wick (hi, Len). There's a big thread about Mark and whatever past experience he's had, for example. Lots of it is constructive, of course, but it's sometimes made out that he's lied about having dance experience, etc etc. Which isn't the case, considering there are plenty of articles out there about him attending Sylvia Young (which as far as I can see only making acting rather than dancing - not that those many years of acting training have come into much use - but it's not like this forum to draw conclusions...). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's pretty much just been the judges/presenters who have called Mark a novice and whatnot. My only issue with people like this comes when they go actively out of their way to deny claims, an example being Denise Van Outen and her now infamous 'I only sat on a chair' speech, but even that didn't affect how well I thought she should do in the competition. And when compared to the similar negativity that's been directed to people with training that were open about it, like Natalie Gumede, I'm confused. There aren't any prizes for 'most improved' even if it's a more than valid reason for someone to win, so I don't particularly understand why whether someone's danced before is used as a parameter as to how worthy they are to win, or be favoured, or whatever. The constant focus on past experience and some of the discussions that stemmed from those comments (aimed at a number of contestants) made the latter half of the last series quite bitter. Can we not just enjoy the show now without thinking too much about what's gone on before it?

(I'm good at long, winding moaning posts, me)

no, not moaning constructive imo - as I said on another thread they all go on a 'journey' just some start at different places - and all of them have improved from week 1 - really it isn't just about the dancing it is about popularity - as SCD has proven with past winners when the best has not won but someone who is good AND also popular with the viewer - could not call at the moment who would even make semi final let alone final - and i quite like it like that

It is all good fun. We have to have a villain in every pantomime - which is what SCD is. It isn;t a level playing field skill or talent based competition. Even after several months the winner if male will be incapable of leading a dance.

I think that there will always be a significant number of voters who, on a subconscious level, want to reward effort rather than talent. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that talent will always be rewarded in other arenas. That's not to say that talent is a dirty word, or that talented people don't work hard as well, but persevering at something you're not already good at is a vital life-skill that we teach our children. I think on some deep level that is what is behind people voting for dancers they believe struggle a bit more.

Now which ones actually struggle and which ones start off with an advantage is up for question and mostly a matter of perception rather than something that is readily quantifiable, but judging a dance, or what someone brings to learning it, is subjective, messy and will never lead to a unanimous opinion.

Forums are a fun place to see what others think, and voting is a fascinating thing to take part in but there will never, ever be a consensus (look at elections) and to try and find it is a waste of time.

Personally- I've always wanted the best dancer to win, regardless of background, but the show wouldn't be as fascinating if everyone thought like me.

Many people's problem with past experience is not so much that it exists but the fact that celebs are disingenuous about it -

Denise Van Outen's claim that she "just sat on a chair" with reference to her experience as Roxy in Chicago is, perhaps, the most infamous one but if Mark doesn't at least give a nod to the fact that he has studied at a stage school when being showered with plaudits for being a non-dancer, this won't do him any good either.

It's less that experience exists and more that celebs still seem to want to tout themselves as complete or virtual novices in the world of dance despite evidence to the contrary.

Mind you, simple past experience can also be a problem. Natalie was never going to win even though she was very honest last year. Either people felt she started from too great an advantage or they trumpeted the "She was good from the start, she's still good but I don't feel her performances/don't see any real improvement" argument.

It is all, of course, purely subjective. A celeb with experience who captivates the public (Alesha, Kara) still has every chance whilst one who is excellent but doesn't really connect (Denise, Kelly Brook - whom I don't think would have come within a rat's f@rt of winning even if she hadn't, sadly, had to withdraw) is going to struggle.

In short, you can ride out a lot of prior experience if you click with the public (for whatever reason). It also helps if your past experience is blurred by the experience of others or not totally clear in itself for whatever reason.

I think some voters may identify more readily with those perceived as 'beginners' because that's what most of us would be.It would be interesting to see the voting patterns of a group of experienced dancers compared to non-dancing viewers.

And if you do click with the public some will vote for you and convince themselves you are the best dancer.

What's more revealing I think about the allegations about Mark's past experience is the timing. People didn't seem too fussed when he was perceived as a mid-ranker and B2 fodder...but being the top male two weeks in a row has certainly got his rivals supporters' attention now.

There is a legitimate debate about where you draw the line on past experience. However it's also true that people attack contestants on this because it's a tried and trusted form of attack even when it relies on unsubstantiated gossip and rumours and guesswork.

The thread about Mark isn't about his past experience per se, it's about whether he/the show are being (dis)honest about how accurately (or otherwise) they are portraying that experience.

Frankly I am not really interested in watching school sports or the school play or concert.

I'd rather see fully trained and prepared athletes or singers or dancers - who have come to me readied in their own time and with their own money.

So for me in an SCD context exclude all the dross beforehand.

I think you need to know a person's previous experience in order to tell if their very good dancing after one week of training is the result of years of previous practice, or natural ability.

I think it's fine to reward the best dancers, if that's what you like. But on a show like strictly, the less experienced dancers are at an instant disadvantage.

Personally, I think that if you only want to see the best dancers, you need to lobby the BBC to put on a show with just the professionals who have been training for years (the relevant sort of training) and have known talent.

A show like strictly is supposed to be for celebs to learn dancing. It makes it a bit more interesting when there are some celebs who have a good grounding in dance, and some who are genuine novices. What is uncomfortable is when the genuine novices are criticised for not being as good as people who claim to be new to dancing, but actually went to stage school.

It's just the nature of the beast, isn't it?

Strictly is a prime time light entertainment show. It has to appeal to a wide range of viewers. In terms of dancing, this means they need some already-excellent dancers to please the people who enjoy watching excellence, they need some raw talent to please the people who enjoy watching a successful learning curve, and they need some big personalities regardless of dance ability to please the people who want to spend their Saturday evenings in laughter.

And that's what we get.

I enjoy the learning curve. I generally find myself supporting the people who have untrained raw talent at the outset and finish the show doing some passable to good dancing - but they must also demonstrate some joy of their own in the process.

To see that, I understand that the show also needs some already-trained "ringahs" and some funny "duffers" otherwise the viewership wouldn't be large enough for the show to carry on.

On top of that, the show needs to generate some tension. And TV viewers seem so devoid of common sense that they set to adding the tension all by themselves as they argue that their preference is the only good and true preference and everyone else's is a blasphemous heresy that will, one day, consign them to Strictly hell.

In. a. nutshell.

I don't care about the "past experience" argument anymore - it's been horribly overused over the last two years (especially when it results in personal insults).

If I like the celeb, I will support them during the series. I wasn't too keen on Natalie last year, but warmed to her throughout the series and after Sophie went in the final, I was rooting for her and even voted for her. Past experience or not.

Steve has a degree in English and Theatre studies! So he isn't a novice in the true sense.

the thing that amuses me over Mark is that he seems to have a set script for reality shows Im the ordinary bloke enjoying a new experience etc he said very near the same for Im a celeb but he seems to have forgot his im a celeb stuff included fact he went to Sylvia Young for 10 years

Not going to argue with you.

I fall into the second category and I never vote. I also tend to watch a recorded version so I can skip the really tiresome bits.

I love to see someone discover a talent they never knew they had and watch their progress. Equally I enjoy watching someone who has had some training (ballet, jazz, contemporary usually) discover ballroom for the first time and get a kick out of it.

And yes, we watch in a different way because we know what to look for. We can see why something isn't working or where the teaching is a bit dodgy. We know 'good' when we see it.

As someone who has been dancing a while, but only as a hobby, I can identify with both this point of view and sofakat's. Basically I just like to see how people learn, irrespective of their starting level. The only thing that annoys me are those celebs who completely opt out and go comedy route or those who think that they've 'got it" (whether rhythm or poise) and don't pay sufficient attention to learning the technique of the dances they are attempting.

I also want them to genuinely love it, although genuine can be quite hard to spot.

It depends on what you call 'past experience' and what you don't, but really this has only been focused on as of Louis' series.

I'd be interested to see what posters would have made of the series 9 finalists, all of whom you could say had 'past experience':

Harry - won the CiN special
Chelsee - had freestyle/disco dance lessons when she was younger (and if this counts, then you would say I had past experience if I was a contestant)
Jason - years in musicals and the West End, also apparently had lessons prior to the show

If you go even further back, you have people like Jill Halfpenny (who had Jive as one of her skills on her CV), and Matt Baker (entered an amateurs competition with the Jive with one of his Blue Peter co-presenters).... where do you draw the line?

Strictly's remit is that celebrities 'learn to dance Ballroom and Latin'. In that sense, you can't say that anyone has 'past experience' otherwise they'd be deemed too good for the show - that's why Cheryl Fernandez-Versini and Ray Quinn couldn't be contestants, as they did Ballroom and Latin lessons and entered competitions when they were younger.

Although saying that, some of us seem to recall Pixie saying on an ITT Friday panel a few years ago that she couldn't compete as she had Ballroom lessons as a child; so it may be the case that you can have previous training in Ballroom and Latin, but as long as you haven't competed then that's fine.

I actually remember ringerdom and past experience being an issue as far back as series 4 with Emma Bunton - pop princess and stage school alumni up against a couple of sportsmen on a journey.

Zoe Ball took an awful lot of flack for supposedly taking pre-show training as well.

did you compete in freestyle/disco - i may have judged you Ray danced at qute a high level too making finals at the international etc and he also competed and was british champion in freestyle/disco - personally I think it is ok as long as the experience is not ballroom and latin to be honest

I'm more concerned about the rise and rise of the "professional reality show contestant", which combined with x amount of previous dance experience, does IMO distort the competition far more than theatre school history and the like,

I'm sure it's the competing at ballroom and Latin that is the issue. I'm convinced I've seen it soemwhere but have never been able to find it again. It's the reason I'm sure that <to my sadness> Mark Cavendish will never get to stand infront of the judges

Yes there are a group of 'celebs' that seem to do the rounds of these type of shows probably for some all the work they can get - Mark for me is one who is used to reality shows and what the public want and his ordinary bloke thing is the one he pushes the most when on Im a celeb he pushed that all the time and he is starting to repeat the same spiel on scd now