Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“It got 37, there's not much further you can inflate without popping.”
I'm speaking of inflated marks in relation to hers. She got normal marks (for her), but
others got inflated marks after her performance which, imo, didn't match their talent or match the overall outlook of who is good, not good and actually improving. As the show has gone on and particularly with yest's marks inflation of others, it looks like others are performing up and drastically improving and that Frankie (and even others on the level around her) with the lesser shift in marking is not changing, plateuing as is being said or even going down. The OP is basically saying she's started well but now basically going down, but overall she is still consistent in her performances (as one of the better dancers) and just because she can't benifit from the drastic mark change from week to week like others can, it doesn't mean she has suddenly gone down or even become stagnant. Others can go one week from 4 or 5 to 7s, 8s and 9s other weeks even when they're still more realistically imo just still 5s and 6s week to week and actually the ones plateuing more at times or just not improving despite their generous markups. Because there is the bigger change from a 5 to say an 8, it looks like some are improving at an enormous rate when it's more just they're getting generous gifts of scores and other better dancers being restricted on their upward marking because judges are "being picky becasue they're good". They should be picky with rubbish dancers too, and then the gap of good and bad wouldn't look so morphed.
No one has to agree with me, most people don't and I'm happy for people not to agree. My own opinion is that Frankie hasn't gone down in performance just because the marking of others over weeks looks like the gap is closing when imo it's not (or be it not to the extent, as obvs some are improving but it's the extent of change that doesn't match, imo).