To me a definition of a better dancer is one who moves me emotionally.

The only one I'm so-so about is Heather.

Technically she was an awful lot better than him. Performance wise she was only okay - she was never as good as she was in the first week.

However if any of the remaining contestants go before he does I think they can feel hard done by as regards their finishing position in relation to their talent.

I actually don't listen to Arlene, Bruno or Craig talking about technique/ footwork frame etc as in the main they are talking out of their orifices as not one of them has any real experience or knowledge of the technicalities of the dance they have just watched as none of them have any qualifications to do so. They are however eminently qualified to talk about the performance and showmanship side of it as that is without doubt their field of expertise. As Julian Clary so succinctly told Craig after one dance which Craig crucified him for "You wouldn't know a XXX if it bit you on the bum!" and he was 100% right about that!

If I really want to know how good or bad the dance was from a technical point of view, Len is the only one who really knows a fleckerl from a scatter chassee so he is the one I will listen to on that aspect. He is usually the judge who gives the most constructive comments on technique and nearly always looks for the positives in a performance rather than the negatives which Craig relishes in pointing out.

TBH, the 3 stooges expect an awful lot from the celebs in terms of performance considering the short time they have been learning to dance. It is hard enough for them to master the actual steps and timing of their dance without poncing about having to tell a story/ dance with their eyes/ dance to the ends of their fingers drivel they come out with in their comments. And that is why I get cross when they give high marks to a showy performance and rubbish technique dance because they don't know what they are looking at. You may have heard Len last week picking up Erin for the clever choreography hiding a lot of Austin's shortcomings.

Yes I can see that when they CAN sort out the technique AND performance the routines are much better, BUT in a real Darncing (sic) Competition - the technique and footwork comes first before performance

Not to be a wet fish, but it was Craig who said that.

I'd rather listen to Dylan sing Phantom of the Opera than hear Michael murder one of Bob's songs

Maybe each dance should receive two sets of marks - one for technical ability and the other for interpretation?

BUT they are a damn site more qualified than most of the general public to judge the technique. They may not be ballroom dancers but they certainly know the steps and techniques that they should be looking for. I think where they differ is their focus - Len is more likely to pick up on technique above everything else whereas the other three will go for a more overall presentation aspect that includes many elements.

I mean, I don't have any ballroom dancing qualifications and yet I'm quite capable of looking at a dance and going 'where's the heel leads?!'

Both ways and it's murder to the first degree for me.

There are so many factors because being moved enough to vote is an emotional decision, not a rational one.

I think most people are more likely to vote if they see a dance they liked rubbished than they are if they see a dance they like praised to the skies. Running order matters. So it's not just the dance, it's the dance in the context of the whole programme. I think the 'it was good but it wasn't that good' feeling particularly stops you voting.

Personally, I think one key factor is expectation. Dances where people come out and are much, much better than I expected are the ones I remember most. So people who start very well are at a disadvantage for me, because it's really hard for them to surprise. If I like a couple, I'll still like them, even if they are good from the beginning, but it's harder for their dances to be thrilling.

And to be honest, I know I shouldn't feel this, but if I don't like them as people, I don't care how well they dance - there are 2 couples I don't like this year, both very good, and seeing them be good just depresses me. I wish it didn't but it does.

I am pretty sure the judges would have a pretty good idea to allocate 5 marks to technique and 5 to performance and mentally add them up for the actual score.

So I don't see any reasons for marking them separately.

Don't fret, I confess to being guilty of the same!

I wonder if we are thinking of the same couples

Better not open a whole new can of worms!

Er I think you will find Kate and John are completely different. Kate didn't entertain John does. Kate had no saving grace except free advertising on GMTV. John makes me laugh not because he's incompetent but because he's damn amusing http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=umEShQ2SXK8

Must admit to being guilty to voting if I've seen a dance I liked or thought was done well, rubbished or marked low against one I thought was not so good. Colin got a lot of votes from me for that reason...... ......

I particularly voted for anyone who was slated for something and then someone else made the same error and it was ignored.....

John sitting on the floor for all his time would be memorable but neither dancing or entertaining.

Better dancer has aspects of subjectivity as, as you say it combines. performance, credibility connection with the audience and sound steps.Its even more complex though as easy steps are easier to make sound and leave more time for performance and complex steps can look brilliant, dynamic or just complex. Its the package that matters but weighing up the different aspects is difficult - arguably this series some people have been overmarked for simplicity and incredibility and others undermarked for complexity or credibility.

Thats something anyone who has ever marked an essay will say is difficult. There are things that you shouldn't do though like bring in the fact that the person starts from a low base or is a blue eyed blonde or you dislike them because they are rich, confident, don't have a nice partner, were bad characters on TV or are black or threaten someone else.

The problem with the moved by the dance argument is that the voters are moved in different directions at any random whim imaginable and vote on all the dubious grounds too including the naughty boy's revenge on the judges argument. Many of the people who failed to motivate people to vote for them are very popular in any other context. The studio audience clearly are moved by them. The judges are moved by them. The other pros and celebs are moved by them . For some reason the demographic groups that vote on SCD are not moved - though in the next series thay may be by something very similar. It often tells you more about the voters than it does about who was dancing better

An excellent post from someone who is obviously knowledgeable in the real world of ballroom and latin dancing. Not surprisingly there are many controversial comments and opinions on these forums but, just once in a while, it's nice for experienced dancers to read something from someone who knows what he/she is talking about.