Not at all... I'm not the one jumping into a thread about "why did Rachel kick ass on the tour?" with "but it's not as important as the real show so it doesn't matter!!" It's the response commonly used by Tom fans and those who dislike Rachel to justify why her wins are meaningless. They're not. Either way people voted for them to win, it's simply people in smaller but more focused numbers. Me? I'm happy that Tom won the show and that Rachel got so much happiness from her popularity on tour. Best of both worlds and I'm not going to devalue either of them (even though I have plenty of ammunition to devalue the main show win )


Given that the vast majority of people in the arena couldn't see Rachel closely enough to see how technically excellent she is, they must have seen something other than technical excellence to vote her the winner. Did you attend the tour? A LOT of people (people who criticised her previously) said she's better live than on TV. If you didn't attend the tour (and therefore don't really have a clue what you're talking about) why are you disagreeing with me?


And that's great, but it's utterly irrelevant because this is a thread about the tour And the series is not the tour And we didn't ask whether her victories mean anything to the majority of SCD viewers


I didn't say they were irrelevant to the marking, I said they were irrelevant to her being the underdog. If she would never have made the final had she not had good marks, then that proves she was the underdog You're defeating your point there. Tom was always getting the highest public vote or one of, and his future was never in doubt. Rachel was bottom two twice - hence, underdog. An underdog CAN be superior if nobody votes for them.

I think in addition to all the factors mentioned there may be Vincent's fanbase which is pretty strong are more likely to disproportionately represented at shows than on the tv. I agree with quite a lot of what people have said.

I think Tom' and Cam's showdance was a factor in them winning - I was fine with either him or Rachel winning until I saw the showdances then I voted for Tom again having voted for him and Rachel earlier in the evening of the final.

Since the public have total control over who wins then there may be less willingness to do an 'eff the judges vote' and if it does happen then it tended to go to Julian (I would be tempted to say Kenny too but the fact that Kenny won solely in Glasgow suggests his was a patriotic victory - not that I disagree with this I don't have a fight with the nation that produced David Tennant, James McAvoy and Ewan McGregor - I'll forgive them Nicky Campbell ).

Also speaking as someone who went to the tour you do see how good Rachel's footwork is during the tango especially if you're lucky enough to have good seats which I did - we're weren't quite so lucky for next year but I want to go as I think Austin will do it next year (it'll still be worth seeing if he doesn't though).

Yes, I know you can in some seats - like your good seats - but like I said, most people won't. I was in row F in Birmingham and row D in Manchester and couldn't see much by way of footwork. I could when I was dancefloor B though.

Rachel shoud have won the series - no question IMO - A lot of casual viewers just tune into the semi or final show and I think Tom definitely picked up the votes needed to win with his Showdance - I liked Tom but cannot stand Camilla - it seemed to me it was all about HER winning having come close last season with Gethin - I think she is probably the worst pro dancer with her strange gurney expressions and manic way of dancing - even the Rhumba was done at a mad pace - one of the reasons she probably left is that there was no way she would get a decent celeb for the next series - I think the fact that they have done so poorly on the Tour, says it all IMO

Agree 100%

OK .. I still don't understand how TRUE dance fans can vote for a CRAP dancer .. regardless of how funny they are.

If, as has been suggested, Rachel won the live shows she did because the TRUE dance fans outnumbered the 'general' SCD fans in the tour audience, and the TRUE dance fans where there to watch the DANCING ... why the hell did they throw away their TRUE dance 'morals' and vote for somebody (Julian Clary) who made them laugh instead?

And then to say that Rachel deserved to win the Series because she was the BEST dancer - and thus ignore completely the entertainment value of other contestants and the eventual winner - is completely hypocritical.

Would the TRUE dance fans have accepted Julian Clary winning the series because he was so funny??? I seriously doubt it

I am a true dance fan and went to a couple of shows and voted for Rachel each time - my mum and aunt came with me and each time they both voted for Julian!!

I want to bang my head against the wall here because you're either not reading what I'm writing or being deliberately obtuse.

How many times do I have to repeat that real dance fans are allowed to have a sense of humour? NOBODY in series 6 was like Julian, there was nobody with comedy value like him, so it's not even a valid comparison How many times did Tom dance comedy routines and make the audience laugh til they cried? Right... none. Plus, you get more out of it by being in the actual arena.

The point is - true dance fans don't vote for people because "it's that cute guy from Holby", which is the reason many gave for voting for Tom, not because they enjoyed it. People don't vote for Julian because "he's the cute guy from....", they vote for him because he's a damn good entertainer. Dance fans are allowed to have a sense of humour.

Fair enough that ava2007 .. at least you stuck to your guns and I can appreciate that completely.


Apparantly though, not all people who claim to be TRUE dance fans did the same

Do you have to be so antagonistic?

Toby Jugg, did you attend the tour?

OK .. so therefore, you don't vote on the dance, you vote on the Entertainment value then.

Which is what a great number of people did with Tom, John, Chris Parker, Kate Garraway etc.

The point I'm making is that if it is apparantly OK for TRUE dance fans to vote because they find somebody entertaining, then you (and TRUE dance fans across the country) cannot have any complaints about the fact that Rachel did not win the series because more people found Tom entertaining than found the China Doll entertaining.

You can't have it both ways

Again, Tom, John, Chris and Kate are not remotely similar to Julian. Have you attended the show?

I'm not complaining about Rachel not winning the series and never have, so you've got the wrong end of the stick there (and I'm not rising to your bait of personally bashing Rachel either). This is a thread about THE TOUR, therefore I am talking about why Rachel might have won THE TOUR.

I'm not being antagonistic .. I'm trying to get a point of view across.

And, no, I didn't attend the tour ... watching it (and enjoying it) on TV for free is one thing .. but I'm not that much of a fan of the show, and not a fan of dance at all, to pay good money to go and watch it

Not only is your response rude, it shows you haven't read my post properly, nor have you read the OP, which clearly contrasts Rachel's success on the tour with her struggle to win over the public on SCD6.

I never said Rachel's wins were meaningless – you did. They're different. Just as the shows are different from the TV series. The tour showcases people the public already know; the TV series sets out to generate interest in the celebs in the hope the audience will invest in them and care about them. So Rachel's success on the tour happened under different circumstances from the series - it was all about the dancing and not about her training/wedding/family/etc. I don't have to have seen the tour to be allowed to comment on that, do I? Or do I still really not have a clue what I'm talking about?

Nowhere in my posts here have I said I dislike Rachel. Again, you introduced that idea. Any "defensiveness" you may have interpreted came from such posts as jojo78's, where Rachel's success on the tour is used to justify the theory she was robbed. :yawn: If you're looking for sour grapes, they're there.

As for your last paragraph, I barely understand it. How can someone who constantly gets showered with praise by the judges be 'the underdog'?

Toby_Jugg – quite! Excellent post.

Okay, so I've just spent two pages arguing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. You can't pretend to know what happens during a tour show if you haven't attended one. And no, it's not the same as watching it on TV. Note that the only people in this thread who have a problem with what I've said are the only people who haven't been to the tour and that speaks volumes.

Sorry Psychosis, but these posts clearly state you think Rachel should have won the Series.

And if anybody's posts have been antagonstic .. well, as servalan says ... and your last post shows, you are not averse to being antagonistic yourself.

Like I said, read the OP … nobody said you had to have been there.

Or was there a rule that some of us didn't spot?

I apologise if you think I was rude. I wasn't being rude.


Rachel's wedding? You mean Tom?


No, but you have to have seen the tour to know what the tour is like and thus comment on the tour half of the thread. Really, it's like me going into the Big Brother forum and complaining about people even though I haven't watched it.


That's not sour grapes, that's an opinion. (before you start, no, I don't care that Tom won the main series. I expected it)


How can somebody who is not the favourite to win and who has never had a shot at winning be the underdog? Extremely easily. That would be the definition of it, really. Just how Jessica is the underdog in Dancing on Ice even though she's second on the leaderboard. And yes, Rachel was often second or lower, she certainly wasn't top every week.

Neither of those are my opinion. They are a suggestion why she might have won the tour.

And it's common sense that you had to have been there. How can you comment about something you haven't seen? It's like someone posting a thread in the forum. "What did you think of Rachel's rumba on Saturday night?" then getting comments from people who havent' seen the rumba about how bad it was. It goes without saying that if you're asked for your opinion about something you should comment having seen it.

I haven't commented about the Tour ... the question was how come Rachel has kicked ass on the tour .. not what our opinions of the tour are.

For all I know, she may not have kicked ass - I've not got a clue really.

My comment was that when you consider the fact that Julian Clary finished high up the leaderboard so many times on the tour, that it detracts from Rachel's wins and COULD mean that Rachel did not, in fact, kick ass at all.

Was everybody in the audience asked WHY they voted for who they did?

The point remains ... your 'suggestions' are based on assumptions just as much as mine are

And how can you answer a question about the tour if you haven't seen the tour?

My suggestions are based on actually seeing the tour

The question isn't about the tour per se.

The question is about the difference between the voting on the broadcast series and the voting on the live tour.

Okay. The question is about the series and the tour. Which you haven't seen I'm quite happy for anyone to have any opinion regarding something they actually have experience of. You and Toby don't. Coincidentally you two are the only ones so far to have any issue with anything I've said which probably demonstrates the significance of the fact that you haven't experienced it (although there's time for those who attended to jump in on your side, of course).

OK Psychosis ... from reading all your posts on this thread ..

Reasons given for Rachel doing so well on the tour have all revolved around the fact that the tour's audience has been predominantly made up of dance fans.

Dance fans voted on the dances they saw on the tour .. not on the personality, likeability factor, facial expressions, pre-conceived opinions of the celebs based on the shows etc they have been on.

OK .. I accept all that as a valid and logical explanation as to why Rachel did so well and won so many of the tour shows.

However, and this is the whole crux of my debate.

Julian Clary, who let's face it can't hold a candle to Rachel, Jill, Tom etc in terms of dance, also won a few of the Tour shows, and finished very high up the combined leaderboard in quite a few others.

This simple fact would seem to negate the whole argument about the make-up of the tour audience and/or the reasons the audience were voting.

So, either the dance fans who watched the tour weren't voting on the dance when they voted for Julian, so therefore should shut up about the fact that Rachel didn't win the Series - (and I know you haven't said that in so many words) .. or the people who went to watch the tour weren't predominantly dance fans in the first place - which negates the reasons that have been given for Rachel doing so well.

And, as you put so well - the vast majority of the fans watching the tour couldn't possibly see the facial expressions and, therefore I assume the footwork, of the celebs anyway ... so how could they possibly be voting on the technical nature of the dance?

It is a conundrum to me - one set of 'facts' seems to negate the other

I feel a bit like the time my friend was telling me how her son had been voted most popular in his class ... her son was at reform school at the time!!

Actually, that was only one reason proposed out of half a dozen *sighs* Never mind. I give up trying to reason with you.