The answer actually depends on the perspective of the person who is answering larkim.

If you agree that the judges are entirely fair in their scoring then of course a 2 person final is fine.

If however you feel that the judges skew the scoring to promote some and underpraise others then no, a 2 person final is definitely not a good idea.

A two person final is more fair since the judges scores can't change the outcome, whoever tops the public vote wins. It's unfair though that a dance off with three people means the judges could well kick off the person whose topping the public vote in the semi's.

I would much much rather my favourite if he/she went went under the public vote in the semis instead of being Gethin'd, as I wouldn't spend the year wondering what if.

Good point, I am not much of a voter tbh, but threw my hat in with the rhumba, it made me bother to call!!

Rachel and Vincent are also coming second to Austin and Erin in the few fave couples polls I have seen which seems at odds with the consensus here.

I think it is a genuine race to the finish this year which makes it all the more exciting!

Lisa could wow us, and battle out of the bottom two-great dances may not garner many votes on the assumption they are safe-anyone could go really.

Christine escaping bottom two will throw a spanner in the works if Lisa does too-who would stay out of the top three? I would not assume Rachel as we haven't seen them dance yet!!

Waffle waffle. lol.

I might be misinterpreting your post CityofRoses and if so I apologise. I think you are suggesting that in a 3 person final there is a dance off between the bottom 2 and the judges decide who goes. That was never the case. The final has always been decided purely on the public vote.

In fact your argument makes the case perfectly for a 3 person final as in the 2 person final the judges decide between the 2nd and 3rd in the public vote in the semi and can eliminate the 2nd placed person.

That's what I was referring to, it's ridiculous that judges can kick off the person who potentially topped the public vote in the semi's, there shouldn’t be a dance off with only three couples, it's too easy to manipulate.

It WOULD be manipulated.

I am very much in favour of a 3-way final. Last year Gethin deserved to be in a 3-way final. We have seen this year, that most of the way though the show the public has more influence than the judges. Some people seem to want the judges to have no influence.

I do not have such vehement anti-judge opinions as some do. I think the judges do a good job generally, but after watching the show for a few seasons, I have developed a feeling that Len and Bruno occasionally seem to vote in a way that isn't entirely about the dance they just saw. Maybe it's just the way they do things, or they are taking other things into consideration - I dont know. All the judges have a responsibility to make the show successful in terms of voting figures, so I can understand if they are influenced by that.

In this series the judges have been accused of conspiring in favour of Austin and Tom, and lately Rachel. Those three are the best dancers. If the judges give them the best marks, I dont need a conspiracy theory to explain that.

The judges add to the show, and the purpose of the dance-off is to protect the better dancers, which is OK with me - I like watching the dancing. It is a show where celebrities have to work their socks off to learn something very difficult and perform it live, and when it works, it's a thing of beauty. I wouldn't want to lose that for a show where you can be mildly entertaining and get by. There are plenty of those shows already.

I agree 100% - and Gethin is a prime example (I was an Alesha supporter btw )



I'm really looking forward to Saturday to see who survives the dance off.



I'm well known for being a numpty, but I don't understand what you mean CofR. I agree with GA - it is the other way around. Can you say it again another way?

I didn't know that Buddy!

What I was trying to say is if the person at the bottom of the judges leader board in the semi's tops the public vote they could still get kicked off by the judges. No dance off in the semi-finals would be the fairest thing was my point, although I'm a bit confused myself now

At the end of it all, the winners WILL be the couple with the most votes.

Or am I getting confused now??

At least, despite what many theorists seem to think, the dance off on strictly is about the dancing.

The judges do not have a vested interest in a particular pair, why would they? (not like the tactical sing off on x factor!!)

The judges DO have favourites, but based on talent, not personality.

This, in my view balances the public's view which can be based on personality, perception, previous knowledge of a celeb-all sorts of factors that aren't based on dancing.

I think it is fair, Craig is no ones puppet and neither are the rest. The spats between them strike me as old school versus new school and also create a diversity in scores which makes sense to me-not a lot, but some!

Roll on the Saturday double I say!!

Plus, a final is always between two, so it makes no odds to me either way. Though Gethin was adorable and would have worked instead of Matt for me, frankly the marathon of it all is exhausting!! (from my sofa that is)

Oi! Cheeky!


LOL! I'm going to quit while I'm ahead!

lol, I'm sure many Gethin fans argued the same point last year, they may have put it better than me.

You're partly right.

Scenario 1
Top with judges 3+1 = 4
Middle 2+2 = 4
Bottom 1+3 = 4

In this scenario, the one with the most public support would be saved, and the top two would have a dance off.

Scenario 2
Top with judges 3+2 = 5
Middle 2+1 = 3
Bottom 1+3 = 4

In this scenario, bottom would face middle, meaning although they're top with the public, bottom'll still probably go.

Problem is the Sunday show - how can you have a results show with no results? It would be easy to run the judges marks or even a public vote over into next week's result otherwise and easily done with one show on Saturday or a show and a short results show later the same night . The long show on Sunday would look silly though with no result.

Its not fairer - its a choice. Either you have a system to get the best dancers there or one to get the most popular there. Either is fair in its own way. One is more democratic the other is designed to get the best dancing. Its fair for the best dancers to get there too. The rule is there because the experience was that the democratic result some years not only didn't get the best dancers into the final but it put people there who couldn't produce either good performances or a real competition. In the worst case, the most popular could be the least credible dancer left and you could end up with a totally bizarre final. Democracy is fine but it also votes for Hitler or Hamas or the current President of Iran ( or if you like George Bush) Actually its so prone to odd and bad results that most political systems do what SCD tries to do now and set up the questions asked so you get a reasonable working answer.

No dance off in the semis is the fairest if it's a two couple final as, as you say, there is a possibility of the public's favourite being eliminated in a dance off which couldn't happen if there wasn't one.
There is still a chance that the least favoured couple with the public will get through even without a dance off but that's always been the case. No dance off is still the fairest way IMO.

Dancing with the Stars have managed it by having a 'fake' departure - showing how it would have gone and who would've left if it was real. Can't see why BBC couldn't have done that.

Hopefully, though, this will show up the ratings chasing stupidity of the Sunday Results Programme, and BBC'll switch it back to Saturday again.

Not true. Had there been a three couple final, there would not have been a dance off between these three couples (at least I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been - time constraints would have seen to that.) Therefore, the judges would not have had the power to eliminate the public's favoured couple with only three couples left.

Now that we have a three couple semi-final and only a two couple final, suddenly the judges are given more power with a semi-final dance off and have more say than the public in determining the final two.

While I understand the points you were making about the public's choice not always being the wisest one and that the concept of "fair" can be taken either way, here we have a scenario where, in effect, the rules suddenly change. A decision that was meant to be influenced more by the public (that of the final two) is now influenced more by the judges. That's what I don't agree with. Just because circumstances change doesn't mean power should shift as well.

But the rules have not changed at all!

All that's changed is the number of people left.

Maybe rules isn't exactly the right way of putting it - goalposts is a better word. What changes is the amount of power the judges have when the number of people decrease. With three couples left in series three and four, the public knew that whoever they placed first would get through to the final two.

With a three couple final (and no no dance off) the same would have been true last year and this - the public's favourite guaranteed immunity. But with a two couple final, the judges can make the choice to boot off the public's favourite before they get to the final two. This was not the original intention when the show started and that's what I take exception to.