The subject of the varying abilities of contestants is often discussed with some saying "I would never want to watch 15 John Sargents plodding across the dancefloor" to "I lost all interest in last year's series because a ringer had it all wrapped up in Week 3!"

So which do you prefer watching - 'ugly ducklings' (absolute beginners) who eventually become swans or 'ringers' who come in and see how much their can build on the ability they already possess?

By way of examples, I have taken two of the most popular past winners, Mark Ramprakash and Jay McGuiness, and placed them as "representatives" of the 'Ugly Ducklings' and the 'Ringers' respectively. Please choose which individual "type" you prefer watching. I'm not saying any particular series should contain 15 of the same, I'm just asking who's "journey" (sorry) do you generally prefer to follow?

I far prefer a "journey" contestant to follow during the actual series, but I will probably rewatch ringer dances on YouTube much more after it's all wrapped up.

I was a huge fan of Anita last year, and was amazed by her natural rhythm, timing and ease of movement. The feeling in the forum just got a bit toxic towards her during the latter stages of the competition, sadly, but she really captured what Strictly is about IMO.

An interesting question and one which would be better discussed without an arbitary poll.

I personally like a mix of all abilities.
People like Michael Vaughn don't come on Strictly thinking they are going to win it.
They do it to either raise their public profile, or maybe *gasp* to learn to dance!

I think the OP's definition of Ramps as an ugly duckling is way off. He is gorgeous!

Dani / Natalie / Pixie / Georgia ... Yup, definitely prefer the ringers.

LOL!!!

And a great dancer to boot!


Actually, I was only referring to series' winners because (and I know that being chosen as the winner is always subjective) that is the only way really to judge whether an ugly duckiling has turned into a swan. For example, Jake Wood could be described as an ugly duckling but the fact that he failed to win may not translate in some people's minds as him having reached his full potential (at least in Strictly terms).

good question!

who I have supported since series 1 (yep, I have watched since the beginning!!)

series 1 - Chris Parker
series 2 - Jill Halfpenny and Aled Jones
series 3 - Darren Gough and Zoe Ball
series 4 - Matt Dawson and Emma Bunton
series 5 - Letitia Dean
series 6 - didnt vote
series 7 - didnt vote
series 8 - Matt Baker
series 9 - Harry Judd
series 10 - didnt vote
series 11 - Abbey Clancy
series 12 - didnt vote
series 13 - Jay McGuiness

by "supported" I mean I voted for them

I guess by my answers a mixture of both!

hm I wouldn't call Jay a Ringer id say he was more MOR in dance ability the show is called strictly come DANCING& I want to see good DANCING not joke contestants that don't have the ability or talent as for who I have supported through the years it is as follows I voted for
Series 7 Ali& Brian still should have won IMO
Series8 Patsy& Robin
Series9 Nancy& Anton
Series10 Jerry& Anton
Series11 Fiona& Anton
Series12 Judy& Anton& Simon& Kristina
Series13 Katie& Anton
Series14 it will be Lesley& Anton Will& Karen (I may put money on them since their 3/1 at Ladbrookes) Annastaisia& Brendan, possibly may throw 1 in for Judge Rinder& Oksana since I think he will supprise us all and be half decent

I want to see a mix. It would be very boring if everyone was absolutely brilliant to start with and, equally, it would be very boring if no-one had a "journey". I've enjoyed watching the no hopers just as much as I've enjoyed seeing my favourites develop their skills.

I guess I prefer journey contestants, or the ugly ducklings if we want to call them that!

I find it far more relatable if we see someone start from scratch and then become good. I find it tiresome and annoying if someone is already good beforehand and then is just refined for the likes of ballroom and latin. They've had to do and have that advantage of sorts.

I've never really overly minded the ringers in years gone by but last year was the absolute worst. I never took to Jay and when he danced that dance (that I didn't think was that amazing) the series might as well have ended there. That was frustrating and ruined a lot of my enjoyment for the series.

I had been backing Katie and Anton last year and still enjoyed their journey but knowing she (or anyone else) wouldn't win from then on was just bad.

Overall, those with very little or no prior experience is best for the show in my opinion. It's far more entertaining to me.

I really liked Jay (sorry!) I thought he was going to be rubbish from the start if I am honest but I just absolutely loved watching him dance. He was so quiet and "un-pushy" that, for me, it was a joy to see him express himself so brilliantly on the dancefloor. As a total non-expert, I thought he didn't have the right body to be so good - as a big bloke he was so light on his feet and just brilliant.

I'm not expecting to convert you by the way What I don't understand (and I've read it many times) is the "oh it was a forgone conclusion that he would win after that jive so it was boring" argument. I don't really understand that as a grounds for complaint. Isn't it just the same as saying "Kara won because she was better than everyone else, it's totally unfair"?!

I don't have any hard rule about it. I love the journey contestants, whether they get to the final or not (Mark Benton, Michael Vaughan). Of the talented, I much prefer the natural, joyful seeming dancers (Patrick Robinson, Chelsee Healey) over the more technically perfect ones. The teaching relationship between the couples is a big factor too.

It would be fair to say that the blonde, tall, elegant or perfect aren't my favourite contestants. Pixie didn't engage me on any level, nor Jay, though he was good value on ITT

Dunno!

I've never backed the winner.

(And I know nothing about latin or ballroom)

I agree. Quite a few people on here still think Natalie Gumede should've won her series, even though she started a lot better than everyone else and finished the same way. Yet when the 'ringer' does win, people complain that it was too obvious. I think, as someone else said, you'd only really have a problem with it if you didn't like the person anyway.

'ugly duckling' or ringers? Hard question to answer. If series one had been made up of all with Christopher Parker's lack of ability, I doubt there would have been a series 2. Not only would the viewers have been bored stiff, but the professional dancers would have been as well, and probably have turned their back on the show - as some of them actually did.

On the other hand, if they had all been of Natalie Gumede's ability, I feel a lot of viewers would have been equally bored. So there really needs to be a mix of the 2. I know plenty of people who say they barely watch the first few weeks because they are often so 'painful' and boring.

I agree. In fairness, it's probably why I felt so cross about Abbey winning. I found her personality so grating with all the "me nerves, me nerves" and that blasted pouting. I found it difficult to see beyond that and actually have a fair view on her dancing.

ALTHOUGH, Len saying to her "I couldn't tell you apart from professional dancers" after the Saturday Night Fever number was blinking ridiculous. Even I could have blended in with the little they had to do. The teapot had to work harder than they did.

Last year, it was a 13-week contest and the result was sealed in week 3. Therefore we had 10 weeks of rather meaningless competition between the rest of the contestants as they were always playing for best of the rest to Jay.

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the series for what we had there - I enjoyed Katie, Helen and Anita most definitely, but they simply would never catch up and beat Jay. The fact that when he did less than amazing dances was greeted by his fanbase booing louder than I've ever heard before didn't help my view of the series too. It felt like he could do no wrong and any criticism of him was just plain wrong.

That is the opposite of enjoyment to me. Let's say, if Jay had done that dance in about week 9 or 10 then I wouldn't have minded as much because it had built up to that, but for it to be week 3, it rather nullified things.

I watched the year Kara won but I don't recall it being hers from such an early stage. I remember my mum and her friends praising Kara but were voting for Pamela as she represented them best.

I remember Harry's year too but I don't remember there being such a dance that was the 'one' if you like. He was just the best that year over a sustained period of time. For me, Jay peaked in week 3 and never improved on it. His fanbase nullified the contest as a result.

I wouldn't disagree with you at all. But we have to remember that dancing is only part of the equation. Apart from the jive, Jay wasn't the best dancer at all, but there have been plenty of other series when the best dancers haven't won. But he won because people took to him - the shy (in the beginning) young lad, who suddenly blossomed - and they voted with their hearts.

They actually say, in the show, "vote to keep your favourite in"... and Jay became the favourite of so many viewers, so they voted for him.

Good point . I don't really mind if they're ringers or beginners, I just wish the judges would be honest about all their ability levels and problems, rather than making out they're better than they are just to give the impression that every series is better than the last.

Now if the OP had put Chris Hollins or Darren Gough in as the Ugly Duckling, the poll might have made sense. Harry Judd was guaranteed the win the year he entered, thankfully he danced well enough, as did Louis Smith.

The annoying thing, is when the judges actively support someone who is clearly not popular with the public.

Definitely. The judges are far from impartial. I re-watched the final a while ago (sorry if that is a bit sad) and the blatant pushing of Kellie and Kevin was really annoying - and I am not in the ant-Clifton camp. I still feel a bit aggrieved with them for being so underwhelmed by Aliona's choreography in the showdance, I LOVED it and thought the idea of showcasing * DM alert * all the dancing Jay had learned was absolutely inspired.

I know they say vote for your favourites (I always do) but I think without that dance, Jay would have gone in about the middle of the series. His progress was minimal if anything from that dance on and (even as a shy person myself) his shyness got on my nerves - he was in a boyband for heavens sake. I felt that was just over-egged as a trait.

I didn't like how much experience he had before either and he did seem to evade much criticism from the judges even when there were some. None of his dances were ever pefect if you ask me. It just felt like everything from week 3 onwards felt geared towards him at the cost of the series as a whole.

And, I've no issue with not the best dancer winner. I accept it's an entertainment programme, it's not a dancing contest. I enjoyed the fact Darren Gough win and Chris Hollins. I just feel last series was ruined by how clear its winner was going to be so early on...

Chris and Darren are stuck in my mind as winners - but, far from great dancers. Just the perceived best of their year.

Mark R was not a dancer before and suffered with crippling nerves to boot. But to see him come out and perform that Argentine Tango and that Salsa was a joy to behold. In my eyes, he did not only win but actually EARNED it - hence choosing him as the "ugly duckling".

Why can't I like both?

Because I am asking which do you prefer

If you like them 50/50 then that's fine but you will need to abstain from voting.

Disagree ... but in any case, it's hardly Jay's fault if the dance that suited him best came in week 3!! It's not my favourite dance of his in fact ... and is probably not the favourite dance of a lot of his fans. But it was a dance that wowed everyone (almost) .. fans and non fans alike. Just look at its YouTube views. We don't get a dance of that quality very often.

It wasn't just his dancing though. If it was purely down to that then Natalie, Denise, Ricky etc all would have won and people like Gaby Roslin would have gone further than they did. Anyone can come out and do a stand out dance ... week one if they like. It won't guarantee them the win and Jay's jive didn't guarantee him the win. It was more to do with Jay himself, the way he was, the chemistry with Aliona etc and some beautiful dances and routines. Yes there were some mistakes ... but so what ... he's human.

Before it started, almost everyone had Peter Andre down as the winner or a finalist at least. Didn't happen ... his dancing was part of it but the main reason was his personality. He was the polar opposite to Jay and he just didn't endear himself to the public.