I'm surprised Craig Revel Horwood endures the disrespect (and flack) he receives from the "so-called" other judges. At least he provides a sense of realism with his appraisals.

The three amigo's along side him have made the scoring system farcical. The annoying Darcey, proclaiming everything's fantastic. The only one she ever pulls up is Pixie, who is arguably as good as any celeb in the history of SCD. Then silly old Len, who keeps waving his paddle at Craig in protest.

People will retort with, OH IT'S ONLY AN ENTERTAINMENT SHOW. Why not do without the judges then? They're not judging with any sense of realism in relation to the standard of the dances.

I just don't get the gushing praise for this current format. I know, it's like me going to a Tory Conference Party and wondering why everyone's cheering, Bullingdon Dave. It's perhaps not the place to gain any objectivity.

However, i'm uneasy at how people can get so excited about such a contrived and juvenile production. This sugar-coated saccharine tv merely panders to the lowest common denominator?

I used to actually enjoy this show. Alas, It's lost any light and shade that provided the necessary balance.

Anyway, it won't stop the peeps on here from adoring it. Gud on ya! However, does leave me scratching the ole cerebral as to why?

At least Craig always offers constructive criticism.

Darcy simply gushes; all platitudes and no point.

Len rarely says anything now other than to try and prove he's a real.geezer, or his silly 'seveennn' and it's 'a ten from Len'. That later, incidentally, sounds almost like a subliminal plug for Farmfoods to me, based on their current ad campaign.

Bruno acts the frenetic fool a bit too much but there always valid and constructive comments somewhere in his performance.

Great Post Grumpy Alan.

Oh dear, you can't mess with a formula that is so successful.

The viewing figures say it all and that is all the BBC are concerned about.

Its the shit lines they give Tess to downgrade him which annoys me. Miss autopilot just hasn't got the brains to come up with stuff on her own..

Craig's cititcism is often anything BUT constructive - mainly because he hasn't got as cookie what he's talking about half the time.

He picks people up for stupid things like a sticking up thumb or a sickled foot whilst missing the gap large enough to drive a bus through. And you can see from the reactions of some of the celebs that he really upsets them!

As a manager, I was always taught to give people criticism only after giving them a positive - if the criticism is given first, the brain immediately goes into a "whatcanIDo to sort thatout, howdidIforgettodothat, Ireallystuffedthatup" type of fretting, and they don't really listen to what comes next, or take on board anything constructive said after that.

Listen to Craig (and in fact most of them) and he usually gives a list list of negatives, before coming out with a "best dance yet", the wrong way round. Even if he only says the dress was nice before going into his nit picks (which actually say more about his lack of ballroom knowledge) it would be better.

Len for all his faults at least delivers his criticism in a far more kindly way

It's a panto. But even as a villain of the piece Craig manages most of the time to get across an opinion that celebs are most interested in. The rest stays in their panto roles.

Fair point. However, CaroUK, wouldn't you agree the marks don't reflect the performances?

I think with X-FACTOR (Not that i'm a fan) they do critique in a more balanced way. Every dance can't be fantastic. Last night, for example, most of the dances were 7's or 8s at best. Yet 9's & 10's were lifted time and time again?

LOOK... THEY'RE STANDING UP shouts android Tess for the 1000th time this series.

It's all a bit messy and getting worse. As Ivan indicated, it's pretty much a Panto-like production.

I think having craige is brilliant because you can see how much a 7,8,9,10 means to them if they get it off craige rather then one of the other judges. They all know he is much harsher marker so weather thats because he lack knowledge i don't know. but i don't really care in all honesty. I mean it balances out.

Bruno, Len or Darcey will never go below a 5. Where as craige will so the scores don't end up the same.

People respect crags scores much more as a 10 from him means so so so so much more then a 10 from any of the other judges purely because he is a harsher marker. and i like that

Yes, he has his own mostly aesthetic criteria and to get a 9 from him is an achievement. But I find his 10s a bit random. They are certainly 9s, but I don't know usually what tipped his opinion over towards 10.

Nice political shoehorning.

How would this strictly format work at the TUC?

Brothers v Sisters in the dread DO

Brothers out

I hear ya sistah!

Craig adds gravitas and balance to an often fluffy and featherweight judging panel.

The first thing I noticed in Simon's AT was his flat hands with the thumbs sticking up! So it isn't just Craig!

Well said. Bruno seems a bit more OTT this year but usually talks sense as does CRH when he gets a chance

Craig helps to make the show! He is always very funny on ITT too so I love him. I just wish Len would stop leaping up and glaring at Craig when he says anything Lord Len doesn't agree with !!

I like Craig now.

There's got to be lots of retired pro ballroom and latin dancers out there. Surely some of them would be suited for a judging role on SCD? A few of those that have been pros on SCD would do for a start. I have to say though that despite his flaws, CRH is the only judge I haven't become entirely fed up with.

The rapport between the presenter and judging panel is toe-curling.

The whole show needs a re-think. They can't hide the fact that the format is getting a bit worn and using fancy lights and camera work doesn't make up for that.

I loved a great show.

The judges have evolved into caricatures of their former selves. Bruno and Len particularly.

I under the rationale behind that technique, and I know that this represents a modern approach to management. I have even used it myself.

The older way of doing things (back in the days when, at work, if you did something wrong you got a bo***cking, took it and simply got on with the job) is to be more critical and focus on the negatives; the idea being that if the individual can eliminate the negatives all they are left with are the positives....and they will then be obviously apparent and speak for themselves. That won't work in this day and age, however, as most people are not used to this old style of criticism and almost certainly cannot handle it. But I admire Craig for employing his technique.

Widening the discussion a little, I used to be an examiner at GCSE, A Level and in higher education but became disillusioned with the dumbing down of standards. Positive marking has a lot to do with this. Previously, if a candidate made such a fundamental and glaring error which meant that their answer as a whole was incorrect, they would fail. Nowadays, they get credit for aspects of the answer which they got right (even if the overall solution is incorrect) and can pass; they can even achieve a reasonable grade. It doesn't reflect the real world, of course, as in work or a profession if you have got the final answer wrong then.......I need not elaborate; but this explains the high pass rates which we see today (that and easier or more open and general questions).

Craig represents the old style of marking and if a performance is poor he will mark it with a low score. The other judges won't; they mark positively and rarely give less than five marks. Five is, of course, 50% of what is available. The problem with this, from my perspective, is that it creates an insufficient gap between the poor, average, good and very good performances. When you have a mark scheme available, it is important to use the full range of this. That means if a performance is dire, mark it low; if it is very good mark it high; and it should not need to be perfect to achieve the maximum mark. Craig seems to adopt this approach, though I acknowledge that he perhaps requires too much before he awards 10. I prefer his marking style over the other judges, but that is just me.

If Craig had such a problem with it, then surely the scripting of the tour, for which he is creative director, would be very different? It's not.

Me too! I loved the dance but the hands were awful.

It bothers me more than some other errors and bad hand shape looks so ugly.

I'm with Craig 100% on this one.

Interesting comments...
I know nothing about dancing whatsoever but I do like a fair system.
Craig imo is often correct but agree his delivery of critique can be a bit mean.
Darcy was a dancer so I suppose qualifies her but for me she lacks any personality....didn't like her programme that recreated famous dance scenes.
Len is a mean bully, lacks respect for Craig who is a top notch director and choreographer.
Bruno is pointless, he is like an oversexed box of demented frogs.
I used to like Arlene, but she went. She was a good foil for the other 3.

Oh and eta..... For me Simon's AT was meh, I like him but it was clumpy and his hands were ugly
Last edited by crannyfaddock : 16-11-2014 at 12:21