I'm new to Strictly so thought I'd share my take on my 1st ever series. I like the show a lot & its basically everything X Factor isn't. It's warm, genuine and full of class. Several dances I've enjoyed; Ore' werewolf skip, Louise pulling funny faces as harley quinn & of course Ed who's a revelation. I don't really enjoy the slow dances as much as it feels like theyre just movin side to side. Also, some contestants like the gymnast I find forgettable & Danny shouldn't be there as he's pre-trained. Anyway i'll wrap up with a few questions :

- Is the score system based on actual professional dancing? (because 8' & above shouldn't be dished out if thats the case).
- On the leaderboard what do points mean next to the score?
- What's the motive for contestants if they don't get a career from it?
- How isn't Zoe Ball a mainline presenter? She's fantastic!

The score system is a debate that has run for a decade. We all know the answer but none of us have the same one.
The judges scroes are translated into a score denoting order. So the judges top choice gets the most points and their least favourite gets the fewist.
Money - unlike the X factor they get a fee.
Do you think so?

I'm sure other people will have far better understanding than me, but here's my take:

1) I don't think you'll ever be able to hold the contestants to a professional standard. Even the more experienced celebrities won't have infallible technique in under a week of training. I'm not sure what precise basis the judges mark on, but it's usually a combination of technique, performance and perceived improvement.
2) The points are allocated depending on the position on the leaderboard (from judges' scores), with the top couple being given the highest amount of points. These points are combined with viewer votes, again in the same manner, with the couple receiving most votes given the highest numbers of points. (The two couples with the lowest combined points from both leaderboard position and viewer votes end up in the bottom two)
3) You get a fee for appearing, and many celebs receive at least a small boost from the exposure.
4) Many would like to see Zoe replace Tess on the main show.

It can quite often lead to career opportunities...many celebs have said its opened far more doors for them. Aside from the money they get for appearing and the publicity - the experience itself?

Learning to dance, challenging themselves, (getting fit!) and just being a part of the whole Strictly experience?

They'd only have to speak to the celebs who've been on it (apart from one or two) to hear that its one of the best experiences they've had. I know we hear it often, but I don't think they're making it up when they say it.

Love Zoe too, but wouldn't like to see her moved to the Main Show - not much to do there apart from give a few corny one-liners to introduce the next section. I prefer her on ITT, where she has more to say, its not all done from autocue, and she gets to chat and have a laugh with the others.

If you check more closely you'll know Danny isn't the only 'trained' dancer to take part, and they don't always win either.
He's not even the only one this year!
Celebs with previous are included so there's a mix of standards from week 1. It would be pretty boring to the public who watch with dance knowledge themselves if everyone was a rank beginner.
I, for one, enjoy those with previous far more than the comedy contestants.
Each to their own

It's ridiculous to see some of the scores they get. To give someone a 10 is to say its perfect which it clearly isn't as they're not masters of the art like a professional. I'm therefore confused to what constitutes as good or bad. In regards to 2, I'm completely confused on that front! . And to the post above, I'm surprised Zoe hasn't fronted more primetime shows. I'm not familiar with her work but she seems as good as anyone.

The scores are only scores in Strictly Land. A strictly 10 just means 'as good as you could reasonably expect a celeb to do with a few days of training'. They bear no relevance to professional dance competition.

I wouldn't go searching for the bible of judgely criteria, if I were you . They're not consistent from one year to the next. Heck, they're not even consistent within the same episode.



There isn't a job vacancy on the main show, but, if there were, I think Zoë'd be first in line. Sadly, I'm fed up with her on ITT. "Gabble, gabble. Gush, gush. We all love you! "

(To be fair to Zoë, that probably comes from on high. 'Keep it frothy and galloping along. Don't give any pause for reflection. Everything must be positive'. Meh).

To be fair the 10s should be seen in context of 6 meaning 'well done for not quite dropping her' and 7 is 'I don't know what that dance was meant to be but well done for trying'. As long as the judges are reasonably unbiased (ha ha ha) and the scoreboard order is fair it's just part of the 'panto' of the show. Bear with it, by the end a 38 score means they loathed it.

It's difficult because if they are too harsh on a few, people vote for the person they think has been done by, and if they could be harsh on everyone that would be fine but I don't think they can - they have their favourites like the rest of us. (Personally I think the judges put Laura and Ore in the b2 by acting like their mistakes didn't matter.)

Either you are against Danny and Louise for training, or you don't care about either's training. I don't care, personally, but I don't think you can take against one for it and not the other. You can like Louise and not Danny, obviously, but I don't think you can use training to justify it.

Whilst I absolutely loathe the fact they give out 9's and 10's willy-nilly, Len has said in the past that sometimes 10's are given because there's no where else to go - it doesn't mean the dance is perfect.

So, for example, if he had awarded Claudia and Daisy a 9 earlier in the night, and Danny comes along does a better, but not perfect, dance, then there's no where left to go but a 10.

I try to see it from that point of view now, but honestly, it still doesn't help

I know it's an entertainment show and 9's and 10's get everyone hyped up, but I just wish they'd mark them all a little more harshly/strictly, as I come away feeling most of the dances have been overmarked/hyped up.

For the scoring in general, there's no point trying to compare a celeb dance to a professional one. They're not scoring on that basis, they score based on the celebs only. So, if Ed's up first and they all give him a 6, everyone that follows will be compared and marked accordingly. Or at least, I like to think so.

The marking has always been a nonsense. This year for one competitor, Craig gave them a four and someone else gave them an eight. It's a joke.

For the scoring:
- The judges votes are added together for each contestant. These are then ranked and the top of the leader board gets the most points, next best gets 1 point less, and so on. Tied couples get the same score.
- The public votes are counted and also ranked the same way as the judges votes.
- The public score and the judges score are then added to get the combined score, with the public vote breaking ties. The lowest two couples on the combined scores go into the dance off.

So lets take an example with four couples: Anna 40 pts, Brenda 34 pts, Claudia 34 pts, Daisy 22pts, the order of the public vote being Claudia, Daisy, Brenda, Anna.

The judges votes are ranked and scored Anna 4, Brenda 3, Claudia 3, Daisy 2.
The public votes are ranked and scored Anna 1, Brenda 2, Claudia 4, Daisy 3.
The combined scores are Anna 5, Brenda 5, Claudia 7, Daisy 5. The tiebreaker is the public vote so Brenda and Anna go into the dance off.

Suppose it doesn't really matter what each judge gives - it's an entertainment show when all's said and done (though I get aggravated as much as anyone by random scores).

The main thing is that the Leader Board is in the right order.
It doesn't matter if a couple is top with a huge mark compared to the rest, or just above the rest - their 'points' are the same as they are the leaders.

Sometimes wonder if the strange marks - say a 4 from Craig and an 8 from Darcey - are to ensure the Leader Board order is fair, even if the individual judges' marks aren't.

ETA davegold's post above has just shown why the Leader Board order matters.


It looks as if the judges give some credit to the absolutely untrained in the early weeks, though not in the dance-offs.

Where the trained do benefit, especially in the last few weeks when there aren't many couples, is in the dance-off. Someone can be v popular and be 2nd in the public vote, but still end up in the dance-off and be out if up against a trained dancer.


Have watched Strictly from the beginning and it seems to me the public vote goes to those who make the biggest 'journey' (sorry ).

So people like Chris Hollins or Matt Dawson who weren't the best can do well as they improve so much. Others like Natalie G or Denise VO are v good to start with, but don't really get even better - and so don't win.

I remember way back when, the scoring being described as 5 makes available for technique and 5 for artistic merit ... but I also remember Len saysing something along the lines of he gives one point for turning up, one point for moving a bit, one point for getting right and left correct - so his baseline score is always going to be 3 (or 4).

Exactly, it defeats the purpose of excitement from achieving high marks in my eyes. Thats the 1st thing I noticed as a newcomer, how frequent they're dished out.

The scoring seems really imbalanced. I actually celebrate a low score more because its refreshing to see. Each dance I didn't enjoy seems to score well which is maybe a reflection of my technical understanding. Case in point Claudia, not 1 of her routines has engaged me, in fact I don't even know why non-entities like her are even on the show. Conversely I liked Tameka's sailor & Ore's candy but didn't fare too well.

Do agree that they've thrown 9s and 10s about this year - it does take away from the 'excitement' as you neatly put it.

In previous years they were much more stingy in the early weeks.

Think otherwise it's a matter of taste - to quote some judges


I've liked nearly all of Claudia and AJ's dances and I really like ballroom dances like the slow Waltz, especially graceful ones by Aljaz

I liked Tameka and Gorka's sailor dance too and I usually like Ore and Joanne's dances, but I wasn't so keen on their candy dance.


PS I really like Zoe too, but enjoy Claudia's wit - and understand that Tess is very good at keeping a live and unpredictable show on time and on track - she apparently used to keep Brucie on track too.

Claudia is not a non-entity, she is a famous gymnast and a good one. She is also turning into a great little dancer despite the awful songs and dresses they keep giving her. At least they don't have to hide her feet under long dresses as they do with some of the other females.

The OP says Danny shouldn't be there as he is pre-trained. Well so is Louise!

We have the same dreary protests every year, and it has become so boring.

I love Danny and want him to win, and I loved Jay last year. The comedy acts like Ed Balls are fine, but one in each series is enough. I wouldn't be watching if all of the contestants were like that.

I don't give a toss about a "journey", I just want to watch great dancing, as I know many in here do.

That's harsh, BB! She's not a non-entity. She's a world class gymnast and represented Team GB in the Olympics, just like Greg did. If you don't watch Sport, or the Olympics, then you might not know who she is, but that's not a reflection on her popularity or status.

This is probably the first year I recognise all the contestants, there's usually one I don't recognise, but I wouldn't have referred to them as non-entities, just because I didn't know who they were. A simple Google search often gives me all the info I need.

She did take Claudia's place for a few shows a couple of years ago, and was great.

An improvement over Claudia, IMO, but I don't think anyone would have wanted this particular circumstance to have resulted in a permanent change.

It's about perception. I suggest that you aren't much interested in sport.
I've no problem with that.

Claudia Fragapane even at just nineteen, is a well known gymnast, she has appeared in British, European, Olympic, World and Commonwealth Games gymnastic competitions, televised worldwide and will have been seen by tens of millions.

Conversely, I'd never heard of Tameka before Strictly, because I don't watch any soaps and certainly not one particular one.

Now tell me who really is a non-entity?

The celebs would never reach professional standard on Strictly, as they are not really being taught to dance, so much as learning to perform a single routine based on that dance. I agree '10' sometimes seems over generous, but it isn't based on whether a dance is 'perfection' (i.e. on a professional level) but based more on a dance being as good as could possibly be expected by a celeb in the time given.