....more or less worthy of criticism and penalisation than adding an extra lift to the American Smooth?

Strictlers I want your views. I don't have an anti-Kristina or anti-Brendan agenda. I would simply like to know how you think presenting a dance with relatively little relevant content compares with a more authentic presentation with one 'illegal' move.

Reminded me a bit of Julian Clary - he was accused of the same thing!

At least he was marching on time! More than could be said of Mark Foster.

Yes John is weak. But so are others.

And like I said on another thread, weighing things up, I would rather an entertaining weak dancer stayed over a boring weak dancer.

In effect, John could happily stay 3 more weeks to no detriment.

And as I want to see rachel and austin in the final, hell let John stay and entertain me til then!

I think you gauge your reaction as a judge according to the competance of the dancer. Brendan had a fit and talented young professional performer in Kelly, who had every chance of performing the dance properly to a very high standard. He should have been penalised for an illegal move. Kristina, on the other hand, has a very mature, overweight and cerebral man who has not spent his lifetime honing his body to perfection! She should not be penalised for trying to give him something he can enjoy 'dancing' and retain his dignity.
To me this is a no-brainer but the more difficult question is how you mark a dance which is more technically difficult but has mistakes as against a more perfectly performed but straight forward routine. I often disagree with the judges who seem to me to penalise those dancers who try challenge their partners with more tricky stuff.

It's a bit like asking which is worse - driving a rusted up old banger of a car at the speed limit or jumping a red light in a Porsche.

Brendon's lift broke the rules, but there are no rules against trying very hard and doing your best - even if some people thing you're rubbish.

His marching was the hightlight of the show!

This is very promising. You're admitting there's a double standard.

I suspect your justification of it will be accepted by some and not others....but I'm not really bothered about that.

Dancing is essentially about enjoyment and one of the best things about Strictly is that it has got more people on the dance floor. IMO John is good for a couple more rounds but no more. As far as the judges are concerned, they sometimes seem to take difficulty into account and sometimes they don't. Likewise with mistakes which are sometimes penalised more than others. As this is not purely a dance competition I find myself drawn to competitors like Heather and Jodie who have a modest amount of talent and gritty determination. Performance, partnership and the technicalities are three aspects the judges look for but I'm sometimes left wondering who is looking for what.

Just to throw a spanner in it

Watch johns paso again is that not a lift at the end her feet are never on the floor

Anton sure seemed to think so.

If so, an interesting contrast to the reaction to previous 'illegal' moves. It couldn't be a case of double standards surely?!

I think you have to look at the pro's reasons for doing the illegal lift, Brendan did it to be controversial, Kristina comes from DWTS where there is far less adherence to the rules of ballroom and far more interest in flashier choreography.

Brendan didn't need to put that lift in, their routine was really good and could have got 10s (discounting Bruno's rush of blood), Kristina knew that her and John were never going to get close to even 9s never mind 10s and wanted to entertain the audience, that's the difference, I think.

The judges should have marked it for what it was, but they didn't. I very much doubt whether John would have lost sleep over a 10/40 score (which was what he deserved). It's patronising to mark him up because of his age.

Of course there's a double standard. Surely nobody seriously thinks that Len really believes that Andrew and Tom's Viennese Waltzes were of the same standard on Saturday night do they?

As far as I recall, Brendan wasn't penalised for his illegal lift - didn't he receive a perfect score from Bruno

It's an early evening entertainment show, not an exercise in humiliation. I take very little notice of the scores from middle to bottom providing everyone more or less ends up in the right place on the leaderboard.

Why give him a 10 and make him last, when you can give him a 16 or 17 and he's still last?

Do you really think that "celebrities" would still come forward knowing there is a chance that they could score an 6 or 10 out of 40 if you're going to be that pedantic about the scores? They're not professionals, they're just celebs trying their best!

He was penalised by the other 3 who went mental at Bruno for giving a 10 when they said it wasn't deserved. The others said they would have given a 10 apart from the illegal lift.

Why is it OK to humiliate certain celebs and not others then? It may be an entertainment show, but it would be nice if it had some credibility too. John knew that he wouldn't be good. If he's as good-humoured as people on here make out, then I think he'd relish getting some of the lowest scores ever.

Where have I said it's ok to humiliate anyone?

John takes it with better humour than most and knows that he is never going to score great marks and why would he relish low marks? He takes it in the spirit it is meant, Kate Garraway also took her bad marks in good spirit. That's why the public are endeared towards them, they carry on smiling, carry on working and do the best of "their ability".

John was last in week 5 and his marks would be humiliating to some but he chooses not to receive them with a diva strop, but with gentle good grace, good for him, I say!
Last edited by Alli-F : 30-10-2008 at 18:07

So it seems that when I was being told last year that 'rules' were 'rules' and Brendan & Kelly had broken them - albeit nobody ever produced these 'rules' - it now appears that these 'rules' are as bendy as Ola and Lilia put together.

Nice one.

Mark attempted Paso and John didn't. How do you know Mark can't march on time? It's silly to compare two completely different things. Just like a cooking competition someone try to cook while another only try to put the kettle on.

I agree...and it's the judges who should be acknowledging this more...rather than just handing out unwarranted 6s and praising Kristina's choreography.

I like J & K as much as anyone but they shouldn't be allowed to take the 'paso'.

Dancing is about more than steps.

It's also about delivering a performance that captures the attention and imagination of the viewers.

What John lacked in complex footwork, he made up for in yet another memorable performance. I thought the 6s were justified

Len has said on the backstage video of the judges, that the thing with Johns paso is that anyone could March in time to music, while someone danced around, with all the passion and aggresion for the tango.

Was the thread about Mark

Sorry, I'm being slow here - is the point that John included a 'lift' or that John's paso didn't have enough paso in it? John got very low marks on the night, by the standard of the other marks - presumably that was because of the lack of paso content. If John had marched and got 10 from Bruno and nobody made a fuss then I'd see this as double standards. Or am I misunderstanding?

The judges' trouble is that if John had got 1s and 2s, everyone on here would be saying that he was only still in because the judges created a backlash - I remember posters blaming the judges' marks for Kate last year. I think they are being very careful not to create more votes for John by their marks. As it stands, nobody can blame them for John still being in.

I agree that there should be more clarity about those 'sweeping along the floor' moves that might be intentional lifts and might not. But, unless I'm remembering wrong, none of Kelly and Brendan's lifts were 'unintentional' like that. They were blatent - and to me it was never a 4 tens dance so I never believed it was penalised. If they'd had 5s, I'd agree.