Craig marking Daniel (had the routine down and clearly had the best waltz footwork of the weekend) the same as Jamelia (lasted about 15 seconds before losing concentration completely and just arseing about) and Kirsty (clatter clatter shove shove) was more bizarre than anything either Len or Bruno scored all weekend that I can remember. Looking at the scores I'd say Bruno most closely matched my opinions, which is usual (although that may just be because he was the only one who didn't give his top marks to Peter...)
Craig is the only judge who scores accurately.
2 of 3
I find I usually agree with Bruno's comments the most, though not necessarily his marking. Craig's use of lower paddles is good, but I usually find that in each series there's at least one contestant (Daniel this weekend) who he will never mark well enough, and there's also one who he always overmarks. I usually ignore Len and Darcey.
Originally Posted by Compton_scatter:
“It bemuses me that professional judges watching the same dance can have wide-ranging scores. How can Craig think a dance is worth a 2 and Len a 6, what is their marking criteria?”
“It bemuses me that professional judges watching the same dance can have wide-ranging scores. How can Craig think a dance is worth a 2 and Len a 6, what is their marking criteria?”
As well as differences in approach, I think you also have to bear in mind that the judges send their scores in half way through the dance in order to get processed and give Claudia time to get her responses and stats ready, so they take into account the dances they see in rehearsal, hence the odd discrepancy and those "Did we just see the same dance!?" moments.
I think it was Robin Windsor who explained it in his Q&A session last year.
Originally Posted by dippydancing:
“As well as differences in approach, I think you also have to bear in mind that the judges send their scores in half way through the dance in order to get processed and give Claudia time to get her responses and stats ready, so they take into account the dances they see in rehearsal, hence the odd discrepancy and those "Did we just see the same dance!?" moments.
I think it was Robin Windsor who explained it in his Q&A session last year.”
“As well as differences in approach, I think you also have to bear in mind that the judges send their scores in half way through the dance in order to get processed and give Claudia time to get her responses and stats ready, so they take into account the dances they see in rehearsal, hence the odd discrepancy and those "Did we just see the same dance!?" moments.
I think it was Robin Windsor who explained it in his Q&A session last year.”
The one which was on YouTube and then taken down?
What I have heard they have their scores ready at the end of the dance when people are still clapping. There's somebody walking behind the judges table to collect the results.And when people are finished clapping then they talk. And talk. And then they talk some more. Somebody has to give the points to the announcer and press a couple of buttons, that's it. If they did it sooner, they would get what, additional 45 seconds? Are they needed?
Originally Posted by Lou_Black:
“The one which was on YouTube and then taken down?”
“The one which was on YouTube and then taken down?”
Yep. I managed to see it before it was taken off.
Originally Posted by dippydancing:
“Yep. I managed to see it before it was taken off.”
“Yep. I managed to see it before it was taken off.”
Me too! I'm glad someone else did. Did you see James' tweets for the short period it was up? They were fairly explosive and were also deleted soon after. I don't think Robin is on his Christmas card list now.
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“What I have heard they have their scores ready at the end of the dance when people are still clapping. There's somebody walking behind the judges table to collect the results.And when people are finished clapping then they talk. And talk. And then they talk some more. Somebody has to give the points to the announcer and press a couple of buttons, that's it. If they did it sooner, they would get what, additional 45 seconds? Are they needed?”
“What I have heard they have their scores ready at the end of the dance when people are still clapping. There's somebody walking behind the judges table to collect the results.And when people are finished clapping then they talk. And talk. And then they talk some more. Somebody has to give the points to the announcer and press a couple of buttons, that's it. If they did it sooner, they would get what, additional 45 seconds? Are they needed?”
No idea- just quoting what I saw Robin Windsor say. He mentioned that it can mean the judges' scores then can't reflect if a mistake is made towards the end, which happened when someone (can't remember who) got 10s despite a big wobble at the end.
Originally Posted by Lou_Black:
“Me too! I'm glad someone else did. Did you see James' tweets for the short period it was up? They were fairly explosive and were also deleted soon after. I don't think Robin is on his Christmas card list now.”
“Me too! I'm glad someone else did. Did you see James' tweets for the short period it was up? They were fairly explosive and were also deleted soon after. I don't think Robin is on his Christmas card list now.”
Ha!
Nope.
Originally Posted by dippydancing:
“No idea- just quoting what I saw Robin Windsor say. He mentioned that it can mean the judges' scores then can't reflect if a mistake is made towards the end, which happened when someone (can't remember who) got 10s despite a big wobble at the end.”
“No idea- just quoting what I saw Robin Windsor say. He mentioned that it can mean the judges' scores then can't reflect if a mistake is made towards the end, which happened when someone (can't remember who) got 10s despite a big wobble at the end.”
If that's so, then it must surely also be the case that if someone were to pull off an almost flawless performance on the show, the judges would presumably have to find some fault with it in order to justify not giving them a higher mark.
Originally Posted by Moany Liza:
“If that's so, then it must surely also be the case that if someone were to pull off an almost flawless performance on the show, the judges would presumably have to find some fault with it in order to justify not giving them a higher mark.”
“If that's so, then it must surely also be the case that if someone were to pull off an almost flawless performance on the show, the judges would presumably have to find some fault with it in order to justify not giving them a higher mark.”
Or what about someone having a "flawless" performance in rehearsal warranting a 10, but then falling over in the show - they could hardly give that a 10! Surely their marks are sent through electronically in this day and age?
I am more interested in placings than scores per se. So if there is broad agreement on that then I don't mind if the individual scores are a bit adrift.
I like Craig but he could be a little kinder to some of the celebs especially as it was the first dance and everyone was very nervous . In fact I've never noticed such nervousness from most of the celebs on SCD .
Originally Posted by IvanIV:
“What I have heard they have their scores ready at the end of the dance when people are still clapping. There's somebody walking behind the judges table to collect the results.And when people are finished clapping then they talk. And talk. And then they talk some more. Somebody has to give the points to the announcer and press a couple of buttons, that's it. If they did it sooner, they would get what, additional 45 seconds? Are they needed?”
“What I have heard they have their scores ready at the end of the dance when people are still clapping. There's somebody walking behind the judges table to collect the results.And when people are finished clapping then they talk. And talk. And then they talk some more. Somebody has to give the points to the announcer and press a couple of buttons, that's it. If they did it sooner, they would get what, additional 45 seconds? Are they needed?”
I'm sorry in this day of IT for everything, the judges need use paper, and someone to collect it, of all the daft reasons for not giving relevant scores that has to be the daftest.
I doubt if the most technologically challenged would not be able to press a button or screen with 7 on it.
If the Beeb are so cash strapped that they can't have at the very least 4 PAYGO phones to text the numbers to the relevant person, we need put up the licence fee quick
First, its nice knowing that each judge on the show brings in a unique background, varied experiences and industry influences to the judging panel. Having a working knowledge on many generes is key, as the whole panel would be expected to have a knowledgeable opinion and to speak intelligibly about everything from hip hop to the waltz.
Given this buffet of differences, it would come as no surprise that each would have a stylistic choice of judging when it comes to evaluating a contestant.
Craig seems to be the judge that consistently focuses on the tree. Was there a small section where the choreography let the celeb down? Were the extensions in the arms and legs not freer and extended enough? Did the celeb stumble on the lifts? If so, the whole dance is to be discredited. Disheartening, but true, especially outside of Strictly.
Len on the other hand focuses on the forest. Despite the dance foibles, does this celeb have the raw materials? Having seen both latin and ballroom, is this contestant in it for the long haul? They developed the swing/sway proficiently at this expected time frame? Nice progress.
Definitely not black and white in categorizing their judging styles (as there are moments when they do overlap) and there is certainly nothing wrong with each of their approach. But when comparing these two judges even further, two intangible qualities (imo) come to mind that separates Len from Craig as respective judges.
Willingness to Admit Mistakes
What's interesting to watch, is when Len goes on a long tirade (complete either with a red face, posture up, finger pointing, etc) denigrating either the celeb/pro, only to come back the next week (or two) to make a 180 reversal in his critique (if it's warranted based on celeb/pro correction) and a full transparent admission (sometimes with adlibs) of his past indiscretion or newly revised feedback. Admittedly, all the judges have moments when they point out moments of past inconsistencies of their own doing (and credit should be given individually), but the intensity with which it's carried out by Len both home and abroad is interesting. Many may be quick to point out Len's willingness to admit his mistakes as a sign of weakness or ineptness on his part as a judge; on the contrary, it speaks largely about his open-mindedness and flexibility, and reinforces and dignifies his qualification as a judge even more. Very few people have the mettle to admit mistakes, especially in the face of a roaring public and a divided panel.
Ability to Read Dancers Effectively
Len has the uncanny ability to identify high potential dancers, a feel that can only be honed and refined through years of experience, reflection, application and thoughtful thinking. The beginning of Series 11 of Strictly had Natalie Gumede hailed by Craig as the “front runner” of the competition. It seemed true, as Natalie demonstrated promising technique (for the first week) and seemed as an obvious candidate who would outperform her peers. However, Len was quick to point out that this wasn't the case, as there was another contestant whose skills have yet to be refined, who also had a larger catalytic learning capability and who could take it to the next level. He identified Abbey Clancey's week 1 waltz as “the dance of the night.” Not so much that Len identified a potential winner, but rather through the mental constructs with which he arrived to this decision, it enabled him to read someone effectively and accurately – a trait that few possess.
While Craig is accomplished and occupies a niche on the panel, I would have to respectfully disagree and point out that Len has the breath and depth of knowledge and experience, to provide an accurate assessment of a couple's true worth, abilities and potential, when it comes to judging contestants on this dance competition show.
Given this buffet of differences, it would come as no surprise that each would have a stylistic choice of judging when it comes to evaluating a contestant.
Craig seems to be the judge that consistently focuses on the tree. Was there a small section where the choreography let the celeb down? Were the extensions in the arms and legs not freer and extended enough? Did the celeb stumble on the lifts? If so, the whole dance is to be discredited. Disheartening, but true, especially outside of Strictly.
Len on the other hand focuses on the forest. Despite the dance foibles, does this celeb have the raw materials? Having seen both latin and ballroom, is this contestant in it for the long haul? They developed the swing/sway proficiently at this expected time frame? Nice progress.
Definitely not black and white in categorizing their judging styles (as there are moments when they do overlap) and there is certainly nothing wrong with each of their approach. But when comparing these two judges even further, two intangible qualities (imo) come to mind that separates Len from Craig as respective judges.
Willingness to Admit Mistakes
What's interesting to watch, is when Len goes on a long tirade (complete either with a red face, posture up, finger pointing, etc) denigrating either the celeb/pro, only to come back the next week (or two) to make a 180 reversal in his critique (if it's warranted based on celeb/pro correction) and a full transparent admission (sometimes with adlibs) of his past indiscretion or newly revised feedback. Admittedly, all the judges have moments when they point out moments of past inconsistencies of their own doing (and credit should be given individually), but the intensity with which it's carried out by Len both home and abroad is interesting. Many may be quick to point out Len's willingness to admit his mistakes as a sign of weakness or ineptness on his part as a judge; on the contrary, it speaks largely about his open-mindedness and flexibility, and reinforces and dignifies his qualification as a judge even more. Very few people have the mettle to admit mistakes, especially in the face of a roaring public and a divided panel.
Ability to Read Dancers Effectively
Len has the uncanny ability to identify high potential dancers, a feel that can only be honed and refined through years of experience, reflection, application and thoughtful thinking. The beginning of Series 11 of Strictly had Natalie Gumede hailed by Craig as the “front runner” of the competition. It seemed true, as Natalie demonstrated promising technique (for the first week) and seemed as an obvious candidate who would outperform her peers. However, Len was quick to point out that this wasn't the case, as there was another contestant whose skills have yet to be refined, who also had a larger catalytic learning capability and who could take it to the next level. He identified Abbey Clancey's week 1 waltz as “the dance of the night.” Not so much that Len identified a potential winner, but rather through the mental constructs with which he arrived to this decision, it enabled him to read someone effectively and accurately – a trait that few possess.
While Craig is accomplished and occupies a niche on the panel, I would have to respectfully disagree and point out that Len has the breath and depth of knowledge and experience, to provide an accurate assessment of a couple's true worth, abilities and potential, when it comes to judging contestants on this dance competition show.
Originally Posted by Chiltons Cane:
“Craig has always been the only consistant and fair judge.”
“Craig has always been the only consistant and fair judge.”
I agree, and he's very observant, as is Bruno. He can be mean and waspish, but also offers very constructive criticism on the whole.
I agree with the op . Craig is the most realistic and honest of them .
He has no problem pointing out errors in anything , be it the celeb , or the pro or the choreography . Thus I take his comments (or lack of) as more factually realistic than vague opinions from pseudo armchair experts like myself .
I like what I like , but rely on Craig to keep me straight regarding details because he is the expert .Top man .
He has no problem pointing out errors in anything , be it the celeb , or the pro or the choreography . Thus I take his comments (or lack of) as more factually realistic than vague opinions from pseudo armchair experts like myself .
I like what I like , but rely on Craig to keep me straight regarding details because he is the expert .Top man .
Originally Posted by enthus-pro:
“First, its nice knowing that each judge on the show brings in a unique background, varied experiences and industry influences to the judging panel. Having a working knowledge on many generes is key, as the whole panel would be expected to have a knowledgeable opinion and to speak intelligibly about everything from hip hop to the waltz.
Given this buffet of differences, it would come as no surprise that each would have a stylistic choice of judging when it comes to evaluating a contestant.
Craig seems to be the judge that consistently focuses on the tree. Was there a small section where the choreography let the celeb down? Were the extensions in the arms and legs not freer and extended enough? Did the celeb stumble on the lifts? If so, the whole dance is to be discredited. Disheartening, but true, especially outside of Strictly.
Len on the other hand focuses on the forest. Despite the dance foibles, does this celeb have the raw materials? Having seen both latin and ballroom, is this contestant in it for the long haul? They developed the swing/sway proficiently at this expected time frame? Nice progress.
Definitely not black and white in categorizing their judging styles (as there are moments when they do overlap) and there is certainly nothing wrong with each of their approach. But when comparing these two judges even further, two intangible qualities (imo) come to mind that separates Len from Craig as respective judges.
Willingness to Admit Mistakes
What's interesting to watch, is when Len goes on a long tirade (complete either with a red face, posture up, finger pointing, etc) denigrating either the celeb/pro, only to come back the next week (or two) to make a 180 reversal in his critique (if it's warranted based on celeb/pro correction) and a full transparent admission (sometimes with adlibs) of his past indiscretion or newly revised feedback. Admittedly, all the judges have moments when they point out moments of past inconsistencies of their own doing (and credit should be given individually), but the intensity with which it's carried out by Len both home and abroad is interesting. Many may be quick to point out Len's willingness to admit his mistakes as a sign of weakness or ineptness on his part as a judge; on the contrary, it speaks largely about his open-mindedness and flexibility, and reinforces and dignifies his qualification as a judge even more. Very few people have the mettle to admit mistakes, especially in the face of a roaring public and a divided panel.
Ability to Read Dancers Effectively
Len has the uncanny ability to identify high potential dancers, a feel that can only be honed and refined through years of experience, reflection, application and thoughtful thinking. The beginning of Series 11 of Strictly had Natalie Gumede hailed by Craig as the “front runner” of the competition. It seemed true, as Natalie demonstrated promising technique (for the first week) and seemed as an obvious candidate who would outperform her peers. However, Len was quick to point out that this wasn't the case, as there was another contestant whose skills have yet to be refined, who also had a larger catalytic learning capability and who could take it to the next level. He identified Abbey Clancey's week 1 waltz as “the dance of the night.” Not so much that Len identified a potential winner, but rather through the mental constructs with which he arrived to this decision, it enabled him to read someone effectively and accurately – a trait that few possess.
While Craig is accomplished and occupies a niche on the panel, I would have to respectfully disagree and point out that Len has the breath and depth of knowledge and experience, to provide an accurate assessment of a couple's true worth, abilities and potential, when it comes to judging contestants on this dance competition show.”
“First, its nice knowing that each judge on the show brings in a unique background, varied experiences and industry influences to the judging panel. Having a working knowledge on many generes is key, as the whole panel would be expected to have a knowledgeable opinion and to speak intelligibly about everything from hip hop to the waltz.
Given this buffet of differences, it would come as no surprise that each would have a stylistic choice of judging when it comes to evaluating a contestant.
Craig seems to be the judge that consistently focuses on the tree. Was there a small section where the choreography let the celeb down? Were the extensions in the arms and legs not freer and extended enough? Did the celeb stumble on the lifts? If so, the whole dance is to be discredited. Disheartening, but true, especially outside of Strictly.
Len on the other hand focuses on the forest. Despite the dance foibles, does this celeb have the raw materials? Having seen both latin and ballroom, is this contestant in it for the long haul? They developed the swing/sway proficiently at this expected time frame? Nice progress.
Definitely not black and white in categorizing their judging styles (as there are moments when they do overlap) and there is certainly nothing wrong with each of their approach. But when comparing these two judges even further, two intangible qualities (imo) come to mind that separates Len from Craig as respective judges.
Willingness to Admit Mistakes
What's interesting to watch, is when Len goes on a long tirade (complete either with a red face, posture up, finger pointing, etc) denigrating either the celeb/pro, only to come back the next week (or two) to make a 180 reversal in his critique (if it's warranted based on celeb/pro correction) and a full transparent admission (sometimes with adlibs) of his past indiscretion or newly revised feedback. Admittedly, all the judges have moments when they point out moments of past inconsistencies of their own doing (and credit should be given individually), but the intensity with which it's carried out by Len both home and abroad is interesting. Many may be quick to point out Len's willingness to admit his mistakes as a sign of weakness or ineptness on his part as a judge; on the contrary, it speaks largely about his open-mindedness and flexibility, and reinforces and dignifies his qualification as a judge even more. Very few people have the mettle to admit mistakes, especially in the face of a roaring public and a divided panel.
Ability to Read Dancers Effectively
Len has the uncanny ability to identify high potential dancers, a feel that can only be honed and refined through years of experience, reflection, application and thoughtful thinking. The beginning of Series 11 of Strictly had Natalie Gumede hailed by Craig as the “front runner” of the competition. It seemed true, as Natalie demonstrated promising technique (for the first week) and seemed as an obvious candidate who would outperform her peers. However, Len was quick to point out that this wasn't the case, as there was another contestant whose skills have yet to be refined, who also had a larger catalytic learning capability and who could take it to the next level. He identified Abbey Clancey's week 1 waltz as “the dance of the night.” Not so much that Len identified a potential winner, but rather through the mental constructs with which he arrived to this decision, it enabled him to read someone effectively and accurately – a trait that few possess.
While Craig is accomplished and occupies a niche on the panel, I would have to respectfully disagree and point out that Len has the breath and depth of knowledge and experience, to provide an accurate assessment of a couple's true worth, abilities and potential, when it comes to judging contestants on this dance competition show.”
Please, no hip-hop on SCD ever.
Originally Posted by kaycee:
“Craig's job as a judge is to mark on performance, which is what he does.
Len's job is to mark on technique - an entirely different kettle of fish.
Bruno & Darcey? They both seem to mark on what they like the look of, regardless of either of the above criteria!!!”
“Craig's job as a judge is to mark on performance, which is what he does.
Len's job is to mark on technique - an entirely different kettle of fish.
Bruno & Darcey? They both seem to mark on what they like the look of, regardless of either of the above criteria!!!”
No, they both have the same job - to mark the dance based on the overall performance taking into account both technique and performance elements.
Originally Posted by Moany Liza:
“If that's so, then it must surely also be the case that if someone were to pull off an almost flawless performance on the show, the judges would presumably have to find some fault with it in order to justify not giving them a higher mark.”
“If that's so, then it must surely also be the case that if someone were to pull off an almost flawless performance on the show, the judges would presumably have to find some fault with it in order to justify not giving them a higher mark.”
See: Caroline & Pasha's Samba.
Originally Posted by kaycee:
“Or what about someone having a "flawless" performance in rehearsal warranting a 10, but then falling over in the show - they could hardly give that a 10! Surely their marks are sent through electronically in this day and age?”
“Or what about someone having a "flawless" performance in rehearsal warranting a 10, but then falling over in the show - they could hardly give that a 10! Surely their marks are sent through electronically in this day and age?”
See: Patrick & Anya's American Smooth.
Originally Posted by perdiedumpling:
“Please, no hip-hop on SCD ever.”
“Please, no hip-hop on SCD ever.”
Totally agree! Also, keep contemporary and jazz away too please! Otherwise the celebs that went to stage school will be more qualified than the pros
Originally Posted by perdiedumpling:
“Please, no hip-hop on SCD ever.”
“Please, no hip-hop on SCD ever.”
But we had hip hop this week....Peter and Janette called it a cha cha cha.
Originally Posted by natalian:
“But we had hip hop this week....Peter and Janette called it a cha cha cha.”
“But we had hip hop this week....Peter and Janette called it a cha cha cha.”
It was a perfectly fine cha cha cha. None of the judges , including Craig who nit picks to the max , commented on it being anything other than a cha cha cha , and they are the experts .
2 of 3
