But most that do actually want a career in one of the performing arts - and if they are lucky they will to make it to the giddy heights of enough-of-a-celeb-for-a-slot-on-Strictly - like a good half of the celeb rosta on any given year.

The BBC's self imposed exclusion criteria only goes as far as a celeb not having competed in ballroom or Latin (and at some point I'm going to have a chat with them about lifting it to,allow Mark Cavendish to take part).

Ever since Austinwuzrobbed, I've given up assuming that a cracking week 3 jive equals automatic champion status.*

Helen actually showed that ballet training was, for her, more of a hindrance than a help in the Latin dances.

Again, the criteria for Masterchef is that you can't have earnt your living from cooking - so a pro baker would probably be excluded on those grounds.

* in fact, how many of the good early dance peeps have gone on to win? Sophie? Jake? Austin? Surely the fact that Jay actually bucked the trend shows that his win was down to more than week 3?

Fair enough, Aggs. You raise some good points.

Well said. It's interesting how some contestants are pilloried for having a good dance early on yet others who have wowed in the early weeks are forgiven. (Could add Louisa Lytton's week 2 jive - with a 10 - to the list).

It just shows some people's obvious prejudices and their desire to drag out their dislike of particular contestants over and over again. Why look back? Shouldn't we be looking forward to this year?

And some have a desire to keep adding fuel to the flame! Personally, I just looked back because it was relevant to the thread. I have no desire to discuss any feelings on previous contestants in any impertinent ones.

Couldn't be more excited for the upcoming series!

Jay was always going to win. Heck, I have never seen a winner make so many mistakes and still be forgiven.

The only reason why there were female winners in the last 5 years was that there was no real male competition in those years (year of the woman and the year you had two bald men and Mark Wright).

This year feels different. You have a top three of Danny, Ore and Will (for the males) and yet it doesn't feel right. But historically Ore and Will have a tough time winning, but I also can't see Danny winning (he will lack the granny vote, unlike Harry, Louis and Jay).

So a woman could surprise us all in a male year.

I don't think it has anything to do with the 'ringer' status or the 'ugly duckling'

People like who they like and it's as impossible to quantify why as it is for the people who don't like them to understand.

I'm using men for my examples for no particular reason except more of my favourites have won and they're more comparable imo

I loved Mark Ramprakash but was indifferent to Harry Judd (both journey contestants)
I loved Darren Gough but couldn't stand Chris Hollins (both questionable champions)
I loved Jay McGuiness but didn't like Louis Smith or Tom Chambers (all accused of being ringers to one extent or another)

Some years i am annoyed by the ringers and other years i get annoyed that the journey contestant gets lauded when they're not technically as good.

The good thing about being on here for years is knowing how fickle i and everyone else is. I don't let the same old arguments get to me because i know i'll probably be on the other side next year and friendly with the FMs who annoy me this year.

Gotta love the DS forums

I agree with you fully. I never felt that Jay had an unfair advantage as he had never been trained in Ballroom or Latin. As far as the Ballroom dances went, aside from Tango, I actually thought his Ballroom was poor - clear to see that he had no previous training/experience. To be able to dance a good standard of Ballroom and Latin, you must apply correct technique ( plus hold/posture in Ballroom) - these skills are not transferable from other genres of dance, they must be taught and learned. Jay had not previously learned these skills so was a complete beginner as far as this was concerned, in my book. By learning ballet, contemporary etc, yes it would have been advantageous in other ways, but not an unfair advantage.

I like a mixture of both, works well I think.

IMO Harry Judd was guaranteed the win, just fortunate he could dance.

I'm with bobbla in that I think that most people are fickle with their approach to so-called ringers - and that's because most people vote for the overall package, not for dancing ability or personality alone.

As far as Jay is concerned, I get irritated by the both the argument that he was highly trained and in some way pretended he wasn't and the assumption from some that he was putting on the nerves.

Jay's biography said it all about his childhood/teenage dance training. What seems to have been less clear is that he left MADD, went into the Wanted and pretty much actively suppressed his dancing ability thereafter. I think his perceived "advantage" has been over-egged by some.

On the second point (his nerves, etc), anyone who has watched his appearances on other live TV shows both during and since Strictly will know that the nerves are completely genuine. Jay just isn't your typical celebrity.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to think that the quality of a Strictly line-up often rests on what happened the previous year and I think that Jay's success (in terms of his popularity, not his win) probably helped to encourage some of this year's male contestants to take part. Whether anyone will capture people's imagination in quite the same way remains to be seen.

Don't care the producers are right to bring in people who have some dance experience as long as it is not Ballroom and Latin. Most show business people actors and singers do have some minimal experience.

Its great to see someone like Mark Ramprakash come through with hard work to win. But also to see someone on Strictly dance to the standard of Natalie Gumede is also thrilling. At the end of the day the public pick who they like best and while personally think some of the choices of winners were not my choices, its the public who picks the winner.

Agree with the last paragraph the male line up is much stronger then last year. I could see three men in the final this year. The last few years of Strictly have been female dominated, if you look at the finalists. The last year where there was more males then females in the final was 2011 Harry/Jason vs Chelsee.

Whether you take it seriously or not is clearly up to you, however when I started contemporary dance I had to forget an awful lot of ballet techniques to be able to correctly get the right body looseness needed for that discipline.

Yes they're both dance but they are utterly different in style. Yes once you learn how to spin properly without getting dizzy or falling over you can apply that in any other dance form but accurate hold, the right posture, even the steps themselves etc, are radically different.

I went from the formality and rigidity of ballet where every step is predetermined and follows a format which has been in place for hundreds of years, through tap where again there are set steps and movements you have to learn but where there is more flexibility in the feet and arms, to contemporary dance where - literally - anything goes and there are few set steps for people to learn..

There are very few crossover artists who move and excel from one dance discipline to another and that's because of how difficult it is. Even lovely Darcy, when she did her TV show performing "show style" routines mimicking the Hollywood greats, has said it wasn't easy.

So yes, having any previous dance experience can be a help in terms of being able to memorise a 90 second routine but it can also be detrimental as the rigidity of ballet can be a hindrance in the more fluid Latin styles.

And all the stage show graduate don't always nail the techniques, Helen never got the fluidity needed in Latin, others have not been able to get the stiffness and strong core needed in Ballroom, others have never been able to correctly point their toes or extend their arms.
A basic training in dance, as happens at a stage school where they cover all three disciplines of acting, dance and music, doesn't automatically make someone a good Ballroom and Latin dancer..

Yes, I would certainly agree with you that focusing on one style (eg ballet for Helen) would potentially be a large hindrance in styles like Latin. It seems apparent to me, however, that training in a multitude of dance disciplines provides an excellent base upon which to learn other styles, ballroom and Latin included.

Helen mentioned ballet being useful in ballroom, particularly in hold. To my untrained eye, it seems that tap would have some transferable skills for dances like jive and Charleston. Then you have things like contemporary, that appear to lend themselves to dances with sweeping, graceful movements like the rumba.

Anyway - I think we can safely assume that we probably won't change each other's minds, but I appreciate the points you made.

Helen trained in far far more styles than just ballet. I always felt that the ballet line was actually pushed as hard as it was to disguise the fact her training was far more in musical theatre performncee, and it was used to excuse a lot of the faults that she had that weren't necessarily anything to do with prior training (and to be fair, it gave her a storyline with Darcey). In the end it backfired, as being told constantly that her ballet training meant she was stiff and awkward in Latin made people see her as clunkier than she was. Besides, plenty of other celebs had a ballet background (Cherie for example) who were as fluid as anything.

To my mind the "no ballroom or latin training" line is a bit out of date given how many people have made their biggest impact (in some cases arguably series winning) with Charleston or Salsa, and how many of the dances in the show's presentation of "ballroom" (along with rumba) now have heavy Contemporary influences. And besides both Jill Halfpenny and Scott Maslen (at least) trained in ballroom/latin to a degree, so there doesn't seem to be an official line even on that.

I don't think it's so much trained as competed - although Ma Maslen's proudly supplied photos probably even question that.

I certainly prefer to watch the beginners improve but doesn't mean I want all the celebs to be complete beginners. That was my only problem with Jay last year. I didn't object to his previous dance training and he danced beautifully from the beginning. But he didn't seem (to my untrained eye anyway) to improve in any way as he had such a lovely technique to begin with, so I supported others who were obviously improving.

My favourite series is still series 3, where all three finalists were complete novices. Didn't agree with the winner, but couldn't deny he was much better at it at the end than at the beginning

Agree with you on every point Mims

I do prefer watching a range, however come the tail end of the series, I much prefer watching those who can really dance rather than those who are

.... Good for their age

..... Good for never having danced before SCD ( though 13 weeks or so of daily dance lessons can do wonders, certainly it should abolish major irritating flaws such as not,pointing feet)

...... Good for their size


I often never really mind who wins but I do object when weaker dancers are kept in over stronger overall dances who have a dance that just doesn't suit them, that week, or are given an impossible theme.

I have often though that having the judges have the casting vote leads to more of those injustices because surely the voting public has some brand loyalty as such to their favourite.

No idea though but it would be interesting to know if there is someone about with spread sheets etc.