no, it would be a very boring show if everyone started at the same level

I don't mind the ringers, I don't have a problem with them and I do think strictly would lack something if all actors/actresses/singers were excluded

Personally I hate Big Brother and would be loathe to see anyone of that calibre in Strictly

These ringers threads are really starting to become annoying

The producers must have a very good idea of someone's dance ability before they sign them up though, so there's no way they would ever put that many potentially good people on in one series.

Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_qLOsAHZ4E

James didn't say anything. It may have been Denise's idea to leave them out.

Mods - Can we have a nodding gif smiley?

hear, hear

can you imagine how hideously awful a Strictly series FULL of Anne Widdecombes, Scott Mills, Quentin Wilsons, Joe Calzaghes (you get the picture)

Right, it's more the ludicrous idea that it's either Jay or Widdy and there's nowt inbetween that I was responding to. The show has put on exciting contestants (Series 3 for example) with barely a ringer in sight.

You need the ringers - or you'd have a show full of average at best dancing, and that's entertaining for no-one.

You need the duffers and the WOW dances for a successful series.

Exactly. How difficult is it for people to grasp the concept that, if effort is put into contestant selection, it is entirely possible to get able 'celebrities' who aren't trained dancers? No one wants to watch an entire cast of duffers who have no dance talent but many people enjoy watching untrained dance beginners who have ability learn and improve. I firmly believe the most beloved winners - Ramps and Dixon spring to mind (though she had a little prior experience) - are those who fall into this category and it is lazy casting not to trawl for these candidates.
That said, I do think there is a better balance in this series than many. There are several 'ringers' and some rawer talent (if Anita really hasn't had prior training which I am a little skeptical about)

Some people should be careful what they wish for. Do we really want a bunch of Carol Kirkwoods stumbling about week after week? A load of Jeremy Vines dad dancing? Weeks of 'comedy' routines from the Ainsley Harriots?

No thanks ......ringers please. Without those ringers I would never have got to see the greatest dance ever performed on Strictly!!

And millions of viewers feel the same.

I think Strictly is running out of potential contestants. Many wouldn't want to spend months and months of hard training. As I've said on another thread - almost every actress/actor has had some kind of movement/dance training at stage school so they are all 'ringers'. Athletes in training aren't going to go on Strictly for fear of injury - look at Jade Johnson (?). Neither will current politicians.

OK, there have been ringers but how many have actually won ? By my rough reckoning four winners have had a substantial amount of previous dance training - Jill Halfpenny, Kara Tointon, Tom Chambers and Caroline Flack. Natalie Gumede and Denise van Outen did well but didn't win.

We like to see good dancing from ringers but we'd rather see a beginner or intermediate actually win, as they do.

All this moaning about training - actually training doesn't count for that much if you don't have a natural talent and a feel for dance.

Every year, viewers feel differently about different competitors, but to be honest, for me, training isn't something that annoys me too much, unless the celeb comes across as humourless, neurotic, desperate, false or just there to raise their profile.

Chelsee was a case in point of someone who had probably had some stage school experience, but with a reputation that didn't lend to support. The outcome was very different - she was funny, needed her confidence built and worked hard.

Gavin Henson was a different case - no dancing experience but he went far because he was funny, committed and wanted to succeed. The outcome was that he went really far.

Viewers will vote for a contestant who has a rounded package and every year it is different. It would be impossible to find 15 contestants who had exactly the same starting point in all areas, so all have advantages and disadvantages.

Most actors/actresses will have had some dance training, although some of those attending school school will probably have taken dance as an 'extra' subject, rather than as a main subject.
But taking dance classes doesn't necessarily mean you will be a good dancer, particularly if 'contemporary dance' (as practiced by most stage schools) is not your forte. For instance, you may have never learned to dance a Waltz or a Jive come to that, and may be rather good at it when you try after years of thinking you 'didn't get it'.

Age matters too.
A thirty-plus aged celeb who took dance classes as a child may remember all they learned, but others will remember very little.
I remember Sophie Ellis Bextor was 'outed' as having been sent to Saturday morning dance classes at around the age of 5, but it was obvious that she didn't remember the steps she learned (if any) and had to more or less start from scratch.

It's all relative really.

My only complaint about so-called 'ringers' is that I often find watching them boring. Natalie G's routines in particular I found incredibly dull (and I had really wanted to like them).

Someone said about even 'ringers' being able to improve and that this wasn't always achieved (as in the case of Natalie) and I think that's a good point.
'Journey contestants' are part and parcel of the show, but the start and finish points of the journey can vary from no experience to plenty of experience but still wanting to improve.
Get some sort of 'journey' into the weeks and the celeb will get more followers, however experienced they were to begin with.

Of course, that doesn't take account of those who find 'ringers' to be only the people they dislike and ignore the 'ringer aspect' in those they wish to follow, as seems to be happening with Jay this year.

Oh yes, and I couldn't be bothered to log in and vote for anyone yet, but if I had, it would have been Jay. Despite the fact that in forum terms he is a 'ringer', his Jive was good to watch and not too formulaic.

Keep the ringers. 🔔🔔🔔

Get rid of the viewers who 'change their minds' about ringers from one year to the next. 👎

Zoe took no end of grief for supposedly taking dance lessons after signing up but before the training proper started. I'd say she was probably the first to have the formal accusation of 'ringer'

I agree.

I'm quite happy to have ringers in the line up, as long as we know about their experience.

I will then take that into account when I vote. I believe that someone who does an amazing dance with little to no prior training deserves my vote more than someone who does an equally amazing dance but has a lot of previous experience.

I only get annoyed about the 'ringer' topic when people try to pretend that someone hasn't had experience when they have.