A place all our own to discuss, diss, and defend (if you dare) everything the judges do and say.

What do I think? Watching the judges is like listening to a Goldilocks story gone freakishly awry, where no one ever manages to critique or score anything "just right".

Plus ... Carrie Ann still needs a seat belt.

I'll kind of defend them. I certainly don't have the massive hate for them that most do. For the most part I find them pretty inoffensive.

I didn't mind Len's tirade last week, I just wish he wouldn't be so bitter about it. Both he and Bruno can get a bit nasty, instead of offering actual constructive criticism.

And in a complete minority opinion, Carrie Ann doesn't bother me and I actual find her the most helpful of the judges in giving critiques. Yes, I know she has no ballroom experience and I don't necessarily agree with her scoring (her giving Billy Ray and Ian the same score for instance left me scratching my head), but when she does offer performance criticism I think she is often right on point.

Overall I don't mind the judges, they're better than Randy (yo dawg! yo! yo! yo!) and Paula (kjdfak;sjdfhskdjfhaje) from AI. I just don't like when Len or Carrie Ann get holier-than-thou about the show. I hated Carrie Ann's self-righteous "I would appreciate it if you followed the rules" to Mario last year. Sheesh, he isn't your elementary school student.

I actually like that they expect them to follow the rules. It doesn't seem fair that they shouldn't be penalized when there are specific rules against lifts and breaks in the middle.

However, I am completely confused sometimes on how they determine the scores they give the contestants. It seems strange when they will slam a dancer and then give him one point less than a dancer they praised. I know there's some sort of divide between artistic and technical merit but I definitely think they need to hand out more 4s and 5s then they actually do.

Yeah, Carrie Anne definitely has her bad moments ("That isn't a samba.") but she does attempt to give constructive and concrete criticism. So, I can't despise or hate her.

Except, of course, when they don't. Like when they blast one couple while giving a tongue bath to other couples for doing the same thing.

The judges appear to have no real rules except what they decide to pull of their butts that day.

There's a comment I can get behind.

<ba dum dum>

I think the judges had and ax to grind and they ground it on Clyde. Clyde danced better than Billy Ray Cyrus and yet Clyde received much harsher scores and more criticism. Was it that their feelings were still hurt after Clyde showed them up last week? They seemed to go out of their way to find nice things to say about Billy Ray. Carrie Ann complimented him on his arms and it wasn’t about how he used them in dancing either. It seemed like they went out of their way to be harsh on Clyde, except for Len. When Len’s the most positive judge that means there’s something wrong. The judges seem to have their favorites but on the other hand they seem to have those that they target for elimination. They have their sights on Clyde. It’s too bad they can’t be professional and put their feelings aside because they were wrong. They were wrong to over praise and over score Billy Ray and wrong to trash Clyde.

Agreed, mjforty. They give the worst ones 6 most of the time. The scale only goes up to 10! Don't say 6 when you really mean 3.

I agree they need to start giving some lower scores. Billy Ray was way worse than John Katzenburg, and Joey was so much better than both of them. A 2 point difference does not account for that difference.

I know this is subjective but I disagree that Billy Ray was worse than Clyde. Clyde simply walked through his routine. There didn't seem to be any motion or footwork. Len (I think), complimented Billy Ray Cyrus on sticking with the footwork, even though his dance routine was not that great. So I think that's why Billy Ray received higher scores. He was at least trying to dance. Whereas, Clyde seemed to just walk from point A to point B.

I agree. I'm almost shocked at how many times I find myself agreeing with the specifics of what Carrie Ann says, if not her actual scores. I do think she tends to get overshadowed by Len and Bruno's hyperbole, unfortunately, so that the celebs don't really hear her and just dismiss the judges as a group.

I think the judging might be better if the judges were left to judging different aspects of the dance. Len can judge the technical ballroom stuff and Carrie Anne can stick to performance aspects. I don't know where that leaves Bruno, since I know a lot of people's gripe with Carrie Anne is she knows nothing of ballroom.

But last night I agreed with most of Carrie Anne's performance critiques--from Ian to Joey and etc. At least she tries to be constructive which I think is ten times more useful than Bruno's little kitschy sayings that leave the celebs scratching their heads. At least Carrie Anne usually gives them things to work on.

If I had to vote for the most useless judge in terms of critique it would be Bruno.

The judges were malicious. When Len jumped all over Clyde last week about his work ethic, it was just plain wrong. Did Len know what kind of work schedule Clyde had? Did he talk to his partner to see how hard Clyde was working, or did he just make an assumption? When Carrie Ann said on Monday that Clyde was the worst dancer, how would she know? Did she see the rest of the competition in advance or was she just getting Clyde back for what he said the week before? The judges last year kissed Jerry Springer’s ass. Jerry Springer wasn’t trying and at one point said as much on the air but the judges kept giving him good scores and he kept on dancing. I think it’s funny how Jerry Springer was praised while saying he wanted to leave and Clyde was ridiculed. He was a 6’7” basketball player dancing with a 5’4” woman. He spent the week in China and every judge knew that he was going to have a terrible schedule but did they take that into consideration? The same judges that praised Billy Ray Cyrus for barely moving and over scored him ripped Clyde apart for making a greater effort. The judges would have had to have been blind to not see that Clyde was doing more than he did the week before. Who knows what he would have done if he didn’t have to spend hours on a plane going back in forth from China. Even so he was still better than Billy Ray. I saw these same judges last week show mercy to John Ratzenberger who was absolutely terrible. Why does it seem that only some nice guys get a break? Clyde was in a difficult situation and he was treated poorly by the judges. I would have loved to seen him on another week but if he wanted to go, I certainly understand why.

It's not just that she doesn't know about ballroom. It's that she pretends to and then sometimes says stuff that's wrong, incredibly offensive, or both.

She's been better this season. However, she still needs to Sit DOWN.

I am in absolute agreement. She really bothered me in series two, because it appeared she went out of her way sometimes to snark on Stacy and find things she did wrong, but the longer I watch her, the more I think she's the only one doing any actual judging. Sometimes I agree with Len on things like the no-props stance, but then he'll praise someone who used props (Joey/Light saber?) and it makes him appear incredibly inconsistent. At least most of the time if Carrie Ann sees a violation such as a lift, she'll mention it, as opposed to the other two who gloss over it to discuss the 'character' or 'mood' of the dance. My order for judges goes

1)Carrie Ann
2)Len
3)The viewing audience
4)Bruno.

IMO Len Goodman's scolding was rude, unnecessary, and fully for drama scripted by ABC. If Len really thought it necessary, he could have delivered it off-camera for greater effect on the dancers themselves. Caste a pitiful pall over the whole show --- "no one's really trying" type of thing.

And their promise not to favor Heather has gone completely to hell in short order. Not even deducting for a complete fall? Phooey. Her posture has been so bad as to be comical, really funny, at times. And never a word.

In previous seasons, Iwas not as aware of the collusion among the judges as is obvious by now in Season 4. Does Bruno ever make a judgment on his own, without a signal from Len? I guess I should have expected it. They work very hard to make themselves irrelevant for the second half of the season so that the popular vote determines it all.

The judging is one of the lowest points of the show.

That's just ridiculous. Their disagreements are legendary. Hilarious as well.

I honestly think that people are far too eager to call 'conspiracy' on a reality show simply because the results aren't what they want or expect. I think that on this show, the judges are fair, tough and give accurate commentary and critique. When Bruno calls Billy Ray a lumbering bear, it's because he moves like one. When Carrie-Ann calls Clyde the worst dancer still in competition, it's because he is. I watch this show for the dancing, and I'm glad that the judges have the balls to be harsh. I don't believe in this delicate snowflake, hurt feelings crap. And I think it's unevenly applied, because when Mario/Karina got blasted by the judges, the viewers weren't all up in arms, talking about the 'meanie' judges. The judges do need to use the full range of paddles though. Although I'm sure that's an American thing, because the dancers on SCD start off much better dancers than the American version, but get scored much lower. Aside from the 2 paddle coming out for P in S3, I've never seen the judges award lower than a 4. And on SCD 10's are almost impossible to come by.

I know people see this show as fluff, but as a dancer, I take it a little more seriously and I DO get pissed when I see people get PAID to take lessons with champion professional ballroom/latin/10 dancers and do like Clyde or P or any contestant who doesn't try or doesn't take it seriously. And the ones who do but just aren't good dancers (Jerry R, Billy Ray, Leeza) get some respect, but in the end I just want them off my screen. It's a competition. I want to see the best dancer win. Which is why S2 was almost perfect to me, with the exception of Jerry beating out Stacy for second place; the best dancer won. All the other seasons turned me off because the popularity contest winner won the dancing competition.

I suppose the point of this diatribe is that I like the judges, I think they're doing just fine, and that if the 'stars' are insulted because they're too diva to take knocks, I don't really care. Dance better and you won't get hosed by the judges. The way to make the judges eat their words isn't with snarky interviews and 'ooh SNAP' remarks, but with good, solid, engaging work on the dance floor.

I know I shouldn't fall for this, so I will try to keep it short. <re-reads entire message again. sorry. this is as short as I can make it.>

1. I think it would be impossible to make any statement that is consistently true about the judges.

If you dance well, you may or may not be recognized for it. If you dance poorly, you may or may not be recognized for it. The structure of this sentence applies to almost anything that the contestants have in their control, whether it is breaking the rules, trying to portray the character of the dance, etc. I think this level of inconsistent attention to the things that the contestants have in their control is outrageous and John R., to name one example brave enough to say it, was entirely appropriate to be disappointed in his lack of constructive criticism from the judges. Drew, Ian, and others may have been among those lucky enough to get constructive criticisms but these ought to be given to everyone on the dance floor, not just some. It is not the judges' place, imo, to pick and choose. The fact that they do so looks like an abdication of responsibility to me. I hate that. It makes me mad on the contestants behalf. Even the good contestants. Who wants to win a contest in which your competitors' have had their knees cut out from under them? <Gack. It's a figure of speech! And yes, it's the only one I can think of that works, so I AM going there.> My point is, the judges inconsistencies make a perfectly decent set-up completely not sporting. That pisses me off, because there's nothing wrong with the set-up. It would be much, much better (not perfect, but better) if they had an understanding of what judging means ("to form an opinion after careful consideration" - this means, for EVERYONE) and would just TRY to do their bleeping jobs. And yeah, yeah, bias dancesport political whatever. I understand there's some subjectivity even under the best of circumstances in trying to judge, but we can't even see those problems from here.

2. It is widely accepted that they have knowledge deficiencies. This irritates me a lot for many reasons, but mostly because they fail to give credit to some contestants for credit well-deserved, contestants which (aHEM) might forgo the gimmicks and who try instead to, you know, dance properly. Seems to me the home audience at large won't know the difference and it would be nice if the judges knew enough to help them along. Which they DON'T. (Well, maybe Len, but I'm not impressed by what he does about his knowledge if that's the case. Nigel, even Mary, on SYTYCD are a million times better, a statement that would probably make some SYTYCD fans go wtf! in comparison. There. I said it.)

3. It is less widely accepted maybe that the judges may have agendas and scripted comments and so forth. I don't know where I stand on that - to answer shortpplfedup's hypothesis for myself, I am distinctly NOT a conspiracy theorist. And I'm not worked up because the outcomes are not what I want. It is really and truly the insult to the process, as an abstract concept, that gets me so hot under the collar. Anyway, back to scripted comments and so forth. I do think it's glaringly obvious that many comments have nothing to do with an overall assessment of the dance at hand, on its merits. It's not like they think, ok, here's the technical portion and here's the performance portion and this is how it all nets out. No. Too many times for comfort, they're keying in on one obvious piece "S/He looks Hot! I'm having fun! I feel like dancing now! And I think I'd like a burger!" which, you know, ok, but what about the dancing?

Whereas I think it would be ok to introduce an entertainment portion of their judging, I strenuously object to how inconsistently these content-less comments are distributed. If EVERY contestant got fluff and nonsense from Bruno, then fine, but that is not what happens. Again, this makes me angry on behalf of the competitors and angry for my own sake because it's allegedly a contest. If you want to call it the ABC Pimps Contestant X Show, then do it. But don't call it a contest.

4. Why should anything else have any bearing at all? They get out there and do their thing and that there effort is what should be critiqued. Not practice time, not birthdays. Judges are supposed to judge performance. You know, it occurs to me that if they were called "the panel of silly blowhards", much of my anger would dissipate because then all of my expectations and irritation at how those expectations are dashed would vaporize. I might even think they did an exceptional job, in that case. Such is the power of a name.

4. Last, if you can't interpret the judges' judging in a relative way across the field, then their scores are utterly useless. No way in hell is one person's 8 another person's 8. There's absolutely no uniformity. And there's no rhyme or reason that I can detect to underlie any justification for grades given on some kind of a curve. Which makes their scores nonsense. Which makes it a travesty. Which implies, why are the judges there, again? <repeats new personal mantra. Panel of silly blowhards. Breathe in. Breathe out.>

What. That wasn't short, not even a little bit? Ok. I'll consider my piece said for this season. Why dribble it out when you can get rid of it all at one time.

Len annoyed me last year. He'd nitpick at Mario practically every single week, and rarely had a negative thing to say about Emmitt, especially toward the end. Judging by his interviews, Emmitt was his clear favorite. He was damn near in love with him. Therefore, I think his judges comments were a concerted effort to be biased.

Also, I totally disagreed with him about Joey seeming feminine this week. He was actually a lot more masculine than some of the male pros during the Rumba, IMO.

I havent gotten in on these discussions for a long time but since the opinion of the judges seems to be all over the place, I cant be too far out of touch. Like them or not, I would say the judges (all of them) are better suited to judge than the vast majority that know how to hit a redial button on a phone. I say we should give them a 60% voice and not a 50% until you get down to the final 4. We have this time and in all the shows past, people making it totally on who they are and not how hard they work or have accomplished. Ok, I am ready for the tirades.

I agree, dbird. I get a bit annoyed when someone with a huge fanbase gets to stay on over someone who is really trying and shows real potential. Like Vivica Fox being voted off before Master P last year. I think some of that would be solved if the judges were more willing to hand out 3s and 4s, though.

Because Mario was a talented, amazing dancer, almost at pro level, with a tendency to break the rules. There was very little to criticise, dance-wise, so I can understand the nitpicking. When a dancer is really good, you want to see them be perfect. And Len did get very upset at the constant rule-breaking. He even said, that for somebody so good to break the rules like that constantly pissed him off. Emmitt worked hard, made great strides, and improved a lot. The judges always like that. Me, I'd have given the higher scores to Mario, but Emmitt wouldn't have suffered.

I'm leaving the Mario/Emmitt controversy alone. They both had their merits as dancers. Both also had their flaws. The only thing I will argue with is the Mario as almost professional declaration.

But if Len's clear favorite was Emmitt, then Bruno's clear favorite was Mario. So what's the difference? Didn't they both have an agenda? Why is Bruno's agenda okay, but not Len's? The judges always have clear favorites and it doesn't always mean they win--see Bruno fawning over Stacey in S2.

If the judges fawn over someone, it doesn't always translate to the vote. The judges probably wouldn't have picked Kelly as the winner in S1, but she still won.

No judge is going to be clearly impartial on a show like this, but if the judges are both fawning over different competitors, doesn't it cancel each other out?

Because Bruno was not constantly pointing out negatives about Emmitt every single week. So no, Bruno didn't have an agenda.

But if they were giving them the same scores, what's the difference? It's not like Mario was going into the popular vote at a disadvantage. He was still receiving perfect scores, outside of rule-gate.

Because the judges comments can often influence the way people think. I can't think of how many times people would latch on to Len's comments like they were the gospel and it would totally negate all the positives about Mario's performances. I'm not saying his comments weren't accurate. A lot of times they were, but I wish he would have been as critical of Emmitt. Or even just remotely critical of him at all. One thing that really sticks in my mind is how much more difficult Mario's Samba was compared to Emmitt's Samba during the top 2 show. Yet things like that were never even recognized by Len.

I'm not saying it would have made a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. I'd be surprised if Emmitt wasn't leading in the votes since day one. I'm just saying that it was unfair. That's the way the show goes, though.

Why? I never understand why commenting that a good star is almost as good as the pro dancers is some kind of terrible insult to the pros. When Carrie-Ann said it about Stacy, everybody went off, when people said it about Mario, everybody went off. The truth is that they were both very good dancers and looked almost as good as the pros out there. Pro is just a designation denoting whether or not your get paid for dancing, it isn't an insult to the pros to say an 'amateur' is as good as or almost as good as a pro. There are a lot of amateurs who are at pro level or better, they just aren't 'pros' because they don't get paid to dance full-time.

While I agree with this statement because it's true and the way the real world operates - to me, it's a completely disingenous defense.

Bear with me for just one second. I'm an amateur, not even a very serious one, and I'm better than the pros at two of the local dance studios where I've tried to find a teacher. So what. I think when a judge says, "this celebrity is as good as a pro", they don't really mean to say, "this celebrity is as good as some of those schmo pros who get paid to dance worse than 2cents over there, but you all know what we mean because you're all conversant in the differences in dancesport between pro vs amateur (wink wink)". No one means that. I can barely type it all out and still know what that means.

Instead, the clear implication from the judge is that they are making a distinction between the pros we have on this show to the celebrity category. When a judge says, "as good as a pro", they are saying, "I'm such an idiot that I can't tell the difference between watching you, a celebrity, and watching one of our very own pro partners." Period. (imho) And that seems pig ignorant and insulting to the pros who have devoted themselves to dance and are doing things that the judges either have never known or have forgotten completely. And it's incredibly misleading to the public. And, and ... mmmrph*"#%#"*)!@$ it really pisses me off. On behalf of the pros, this time.

(shortpplfedup, I hope you don't think this is directed at you. I just haven't indulged in a "tirade" about this for quite some time.)


Len has cultivated an aura of knowing more and Bruno has cultivated an aura of being a buffoon. (No, I DON'T know what colors those auras are. Leave me alone.) In any case, because of this, I don't think they'd cancel each other out at all, even if their comments were comparable in content, which they weren't.



I could've saved myself a lot of time if I could've been as pithy as you, QueenL. I'll work on that. But yes. That's what gets me, too.

But it's a lot better this season, yes? <ends by dancing around and gracefully handing out flowers and antacids to everyone in sight>

Exactly.

When Carrie-Ann says Mario and Stacy are on the pro level, I think she just means in relation to the other celebrities. I think it'd probably be a little fucked up to say "you're sooo much better than the other celebrities" so that's her way of saying it. I could be wrong, but that's just always the vibe I've gotten. Maybe she should just say "you're dancing on a different level than the other celebrities" if that's what she really means.

It's funny, though. If they started training seriously for a few years, who knows. Didn't Jonathan not start dancing until he was around 20? A few years later he was winning big competitions.

CARRIE ANN, if you are reading this, I would be totally ok with the above. And if you apologized on the show for your stupid prior wording, I might even forgive you.



Yes, perhaps. Honestly, I'd be among those cheering for any celeb who took it that seriously. Even for the likes of Lisa Rinna. But that's exactly the point. It would take years.

But again you're counting on that the average Joe Schmo on the street knows that Len is more knowledgable than Bruno as a ballroom judge. I'm sure most viewers that are watching the show for entertainment and aren't all that familiar with the world of dance, let alone ballroom, aren't sitting there taking every word out Len's mouth as verbatim and ignoring Bruno.

To most people the judges are the judges. They don't know who is qualified to judge what or that Bruno and Carrie Anne know zip about ballroom. As pointed out earlier, they all still know more than the average non dancer sitting on the couch at home.

I really doubt that people are taking Len's word as gospel and tuning out Bruno. To them, the judges carry equal weight. I personally don't like Bruno's critiques because very rarely is he constructive in his opinion. He either fawns or insults, but doesn't really give ways to improve.

At least Len can sometimes be constructive. So he nitpicked Mario. The people that wanted to vote for him still voted for him and the people that didn't didn't. Rest assured that even without Len's nitpicks there are people who would have enjoyed Mario's dancing and others who wouldn't have.

Then again, I think most of this is just all coming back to last season and whether people (no one person in particular) were rooting for Mario or Emmitt. I just can't see how fawning from one judge is considered okay and not leading the viewers at home, but fawning from another judge is not okay and perhaps swayed viewers to vote another less desireable way. It's either all or nothing.

Or would it have only been okay if the judges fawned over Mario?

But I will agree with you justmy2cents on Carrie Anne's "as good as the pros" comment. In reference to Stacey, the way Carrie Anne phrased it implied that Stacey was as good as some of the DWTS pros, which was insulting to them considering they had been training to be dancers for most of their lives.

I guess my original point was that the judges shouldn't be fawning, period.



I'm glad about that point of agreement, msrayrudd. Bob Newhart. That particular comment really did stick in my craw. (In case I've been hiding it too well. ;))

I am going to go and double my daily dose of chill pills, now. I was being so good before this forum-thingie happened and then I think I temporarily lost my mind.

I wasn't talking about fawning. I was talking about Len's criticism. It's not even comparable because my point was that if Len was gonna be that critical of Mario, he should have at least been a bit critical of Emmitt. That has nothing to do with Bruno, as Bruno didn't criticize Emmitt much. Anyway, I do think Len is seen as a more authoritative and serious judge in most quarters, so we'll have to agree to disagree about his comments not having more influence.

I have some questions about the judges:

Do the judges watch practice and the dress rehearsals to see what the routine is supposed to look like or are they seeing it for the first time when the couples dance live on Monday nights?

Is it like figure skating where there are a list of 'elements', for lack of a better word, that the couples submit ahead of time so that judges know what to look for?

Some of the comments (whether scripted or not) make it seem as tho the judges are watching the dances for the first time but with all of the rehearsal footage they use during the shows it makes me wonder if the judges have seen the dances before?

thanks

It has been heavily implied, if not stated out right (can't remember when) that the judges see the dress rehearsal for each dance. I've also gotten the impression that they come up with their terrible "lines" earlier in the day (?) because they sometimes fumble the delivery like actors who aren't quite ready to be off book. No, I don't believe there is a list of elements submitted ahead of time. Case in point: the two times Louis was told his sambas weren't real sambas when they were in fact full of syllabus steps. D'oh! I don't think Bruno or Carrie Ann would be able to interpret a list of the elements were one given to them anyway.

Yes and no. The couples don't submit anything. But Dancesport dances have a codified syllabus. If you ever hear people talking about Bronze, Silver, Gold steps etc. that's what it's referring to. So while many things about dance are subjective, certain things are objective. Whether a dance is the dance that it's supposed to be or which celebrity is dancing the more complicated dance is a theoretically objective determination (in practice, this is a bit more complicated). If the judges know anything about the dances, they'll recognize the steps that the couples are doing. However, Bruno and Carrie Anne have no ballroom experience, so it's unclear how much they can recognize. Bruno's been judging a number of seasons of DwtS (he's also on another country's version) and Carrie Anne is now (or was, don't know if they're still together) dating a professional ballroom dancer. So they may have picked up stuff. Carrie Anne has made mistakes in the past, though.

In the past, I have not been a fan of Carrie Anne's. However, I've thought her comments this season have been very good. I find myself agreeing with her almost every time.

Time spent in training =/= talent. Stacy and Mario had natural talent, some prior dance experience and were training hard, and they were excellent dancers...I don't see how that is 'insulting' to the DwtS pros. Because they didn't actually compete in DanceSport? It's not like they were some kind of hacks. I'm an amateur dancer in that I don't get paid to dance, but I trained 14 years in ballet, jazz, modern, a little tap and different types of folk dancing, and I dance better than some of my old colleagues from my dance school who now get paid to dance. Conversely, look at Jonathan, who only started dancing when he was 20 and started competing professionally very shortly after. When you're good, you're good, whether or not you get paid for it and/or win competitions. And I think it's insulting to the VIEWERS to assume that they don't know that the difference between a pro and an amateur is a strictly financial one. Sometimes I really think that the viewers are perceived as a bunch of drooling morons with no brains of their own. How is THAT not insulting?

They were in different seasons - Master P was Season 2 and Vivica was Season 3.

Some good answers above regarding syllabus steps/patterns, which certainly are recognizable (and especially when Louis is doing them. Natural Top said it best: "D'oh", indeed.)

I'd argue that, instead of specific steps, there's a composite "element" in each dance that the judges should know how to look for if they knew what they are doing. That composite element is called the dance's character. It's important to emphasize that character is not merely a role, costume, and facial expression. "Rumba is the dance of love", "Tango is two lovers who are having a quarrel" doesn't even begin to sum up how a dancer must learn to try to convey the dance's character. The characteristic look and feel of each dance is produced by a myriad of different actions from the head to the feet. If you know what you are talking about and are watching a good ballroom dancer, you can tell within the first few seconds which dance it is by the way a dancer is holding their body and moving across the floor - even without recognizing any specific steps - because the "element" of the dance is there already.

Many of the steps in the routines are not syllabus - they're showy steps that fit in the dance because they preserve the character of the dance. Anyway, my argument is that, no matter what steps the couples put in front of the judges, the judges should always know what they're looking for just by knowing which dance it is and understanding how the effects are produced by using the entire body (bodies). One of the reasons I think the judges' comments are less than stellar is because they comment on the dance's character as if it were simply acting. "I didn't believe you" is really not a good criticism. If they knew what they were talking about, they'd be able to break it down a bit more and describe some of the exact problems that were making the results so uncharacteristically not that dance.

As for insulting the viewers, I certainly was not trying to do that. I suppose mileage varies strongly on this one, shortpplfedup and neither one of us is ever going to agree with the other on these issues. I propose peace between us. :)

Thanks for the help. I come from a figure skating viewing background with compulsories and the such that have required elements in each routine/dance. I appreciate the help. This is my first season of DWTS and I am kicking myself for not watching it soon. Thanks again.

Welcome!


I popped back because I belatedly thought of an example that might make my previous post make more sense. What I was trying to say was more like, if you're watching figure skating, you could think of some element as "Axle" or you could think of it as "how well does the skater lift off on their inside?outside? edge and then rotate and land on whatever edge". All while maintaining beautiful lines and expressing the music appropriately and whatnot. The skaters don't really need to submit whether they're doing a double or triple axle - or even an axle at all - ahead of time in order for the judges to be able to determine on the spot how well they skate.

I think that analogy would carry through to dance. It doesn't have to be so much about "samba roll" as, you know, whether the judges can evaluate all the stuff that would go into it, which they could see at other points throughout the dance.

I'm done now.

I didn't find Carrie-Ann's comment to Stacy so much insulting as bat-shit crazy (speaking as a DanceSport pro myself). Yes, Stacy (and others) are better performance dancers than the pros who are just off the street teaching for a franchise studio, or those who know their set tiny amount and can wangle people into paying them. That means nothing.

But no amateur on this show has come close to the level of any of the pros on the show. Stacy and Mario never understood the fundamentals of partner dancing, and only the very basics of technique, never mastering the foot and leg action, poise, or lead/follow. Stacy's Freestyle was a sad demonstration of that - that was the culmination of all her training, and she wasn't doing Hustle, or partnering of any sort, at all. To be fair, there was one element that used partnered weight transfer: the lift.

Now, the celebs get a crash course in DanceSport and don't have time to learn the traditional way, through basic steps that establish the rationale & habits needed to do the more advanced steps properly. Bronze routines don't make for exciting tv.

Carrie-Ann's comment said more about her lack of understanding of DanceSport than it did about any of the contestants. She doesn't know what DanceSport really entails, and is only looking at general dance/performance value.

But isn't that Tony's fault? He choreographed that sad, sad routine. I remember watching that, I wanted to spork my eyes out. I disagree that Mario never mastered the poise, lead/follow and leg action, but will agree that he too often didn't get the toe/heel leads, or mixed them up. Stacy was screwed by Tony's terrible choreography more often than not. He did her a disservice by being so enamoured of her flexibility/extension (aka hot legs) IMO.

True, Carrie-Ann is not a DanceSport person, and may not get the fine points of technique right, but she does know her dance quality and performance, which is what she judges on. The LOOK is what is important to her, and Mario/Stacy did master the LOOK, therefore I see nothing wrong with her comments based on her knowledge base and expertise, and find nothing insulting/batshit in them either. But maybe it's time for me to stop beating this dead horse since our mileages obviously vary. Nice to discuss these things with another dancer though, even though we're trained in different disciplines.

To add quickly to the celebs as pros argument too, even Karina who many times declared Mario the best dancer in the competition, told Mario that she would be able to get him to a pro dancesport level if he practiced about twelve hours every day for a year. No, a year isn't that long. But it also backs the belief of Karina's that Mario was nowhere near ready to go pro (using competing at dancesport as a definition, not getting paid to teach at some random dance studio somewhere).

That just re-inforces to me that somebody like Mario or Stacey had the necessary abilities and could probably train to get to that sort of level, but in the few short weeks on the show they weren't even close.

No, it's not about how long you train so much as natural ability, but I also think it's rather safe to say that no one becomes even a mediocre dancesport competitor from about ten weeks of condensed training. I would imagine most of the pros on our show, whether top dancers or not, not only have natural talent, but years of training to refine that natural talent on top of that.

shortpplfedup said:


Yes. The fault wasn't so much with the choreography than the total absence of connection (and I mean physical leverage, not emotional connection). And that's his fault as a teacher. Stacy may have resisted it - as a former solo dancer, let me tell you, learning to use a partner is weird - but it's his responsibility to get her to do it anyway. I haven't had a student yet who couldn't quickly grasp how the connection helps for balance and speed. But the question at hand is whether she's at competent pro level, not why she isn't.


As Carrie-Ann demonstrates, it takes experience in DanceSport to be able to perceive it.


Right - her comment shows what she knows.


I was a ballet, tap, and jazz dancer before coming to DanceSport.

shortpplfedup, what is your dance background? It might be easier to explain what the dancesport competitors are saying if we knew where you were starting from.

None of these dancers are anywhere near as good as the pros on the show (although many of them are probably better than the six-week wonders that you can find in many studios). Mario might do ok in pro-am showdance, but if he had to compete in the actual dances, I think his footwork would prevent him from succeeding at above the silver level (if that). It's clear that he was not leading in any of his routines, so he'd have been crushed on a pro floor (perhaps literally, for lack of floorcraft). Stacy might actually get a little farther in latin, but I think, again, she'd be demolished in open-level pro-am competition, let alone in the actual pro division.

If Carrie Anne would say something like, "You portray the look of the dance as well as the pros," or even, "Your performances are as entertaining as the pros'," I wouldn't see it as insulting (maybe wrong, but not insulting). But what she actually says is a little like telling a student that she's just like Isadora Duncan because she choreographs a dance with scarves in it. It eliminates all consideration of lots of stuff that may seem subtle, but really is important.


The fact that Mario didn't get every toe/heel lead correct is evidence that he hadn't mastered leg action and poise. If you're dancing correctly with your body, it's just not possible to do it wrong.

The judges aren’t fair. If they were truly fair they would score like Olympic judges. They’d break down the scores in terms of artistic and technical merit. If that was the case, Billy Ray would have gotten a zero for technical merit because he barely moved. Frankly Billy Ray's artistic merit sucked too because once again it was mostly posing. Clyde however did move. He moved around the dance floor and did it with grace. I have never seen an Olympic judge go off on a contestant because they didn’t put enough hours in. Creating a work of art, whether it’s dance or painting or writing, is not purely time coded. There’s been great songs written in an hour, great movies written in a few days and I would bet great dances created in a short period of time. It’s the results that matter and if Billy Ray was bad it didn’t matter how hard he tried or how hard Clyde “allegedly” did not try. The judges went off on Clyde because they were angry that they were shown up. The judges are there for entertainment. What they know or don’t know about dance means very little. At times their agendas are transparent and their lack of objectivity is also.
You’re right that the judges criticisms are unevenly applied. Why is it that people with vast amounts of dance experience are praised? Why is it that somebody like Clyde with no dance experience, a height disadvantage and time constraints don’t have those things taken into account either? Part of judging is to evaluate the whole picture. What judge would judge a professional dancer the same way that they would judge an amateur? It’s clear the ones on Dancing With the Stars do.
This is a popularity contest not the Olympics. The judges are all over the map, so they’re useless. That’s why the people decide. It’s an entertainment show and it is perfectly fair that Emmitt won and Jerry Rice came in 2nd the previous year. Besides being great dancers, they were also very popular with the fans. Their fan bases cross all lines. They went beyond their sports beginnings and that along with their dancing ability got them the win. ABC couldn’t have been more happy that Emmitt Smith won. Mario might have been a good dancer but he couldn’t go beyond his Saved by the Bell fan base in terms of entertaining people.
I disagree with that. Monique Coleman was a great dancer and she got hosed. Jerry Springer was a terrible dancer, except for those few times he tried and yet he lasted way beyond his ability. He was praised by the judges for the weakest dancing and the tiniest efforts. The only way to make the judges eat their words is to win the popular vote.

This doesn't happen in real dancesport competition (which is on the list for potential inclusion in the Olympics). There's no requirement that scores be broken down that way, just because they do it for figure skating.

I agree. I thought she was saying Stacey was as good as say, Cheryl and the the Russian redhead she was competing against. Totally untrue. IIRC Drew, while not slamming Stacy, was very quick to stick up for the pros and I'm sure he was offended on Cheryl's behalf. I do think as others have said the Carrie Anne frequently does say helpful things so I don't hate her and I only dislike her some of the time. I was particularly unhappy with her when Louis was listing elements that were in his samba that Carrie Anne had said was not a samba. I sat there going, well between the choreographer for some pop dancers and a guy who has won a whole lot of Latin pro competitions I'm going to believe the Latin Pro as to what is and is not a Samba. That just seemed a no brainer. On a tangent I believe that if Monique trained with Louis for a number of years, she COULD become a pro-level dancer, but that is my non-expert opinion.

Bruno is hilarious to watch but I trust Len's POV about the specifics of Ballroom dance IF I remember to ignore his POV when he goes off on the I hate Argentine Tango rant. If Argentine isn't against the rules then let them use it. He's like the loonies on Amazing Race who rant about the yield when the damned yield is part of the game.

I do think that the punishment for rule infraction is not uniform. I also think the judging is not uniform but I can see how correcting that is impossible in an entertainment show. We could go for the straight down the middle judge JUST the dance on execution and difficulty as if the dancers were in a real pro am competition (something I didn't know actually existed I thought it was ameteurs or pros only in the real world). In which case we would get 2's and 3 's the first night for Clyde, Billy Ray, Leeza and John, 4's and 5's Heather Paulina and Shandi and maybe 6's or 7's for Joey Apolo and Layla and I'm being KIND. NOBODY would EVER get straight 10's with Drew's Thriller maybe earning one 10 two 9's and Apolo's Move it Move maybe one 10 and 2 9's also or maybe just 3 9's as my understanding was the footwork wasn't all that good. A smattering of one 10 for all the rest of the 4 seasons. But what would happen? RIOTING! Nobody would agree to be on this thing or watch this thing if they actually judged the dances impartially and honestly. So instead you get the pity 6 and the good feeling 8 and the achievable straight 10's although there is no way they are deserved. It is also hard to judge everybody to the same scale even once you acknowledge the scale has been artificially inflated. Can you tell an old fat guy he danced only at the level of a 4 when he really tried? In the real world yes. On tv when it is more of an entertainment show than a competition (I mean the prize is a damned disco ball for God's sake)? No. Don't get me wrong I get mad at the judges when I think they are skewing things way off reality in a more than usually biased way. I thought they were rediculously harsh to Monique and too easy on Jerry, but I don't usually find it THAT bad. Oddly I sometimes think they DON'T fudge the scoring enough. Granted this is influenced by MY personal bias, but I felt IF you are going to be biased anyway, and are going to score old people easier and out of shape people easier, then score ringers more harshly. But I acknowledge that is just my POV of what they should do. I don't play golf but from what friends who do tell me, I gather that they try to handicap people so that people of various levels can play together without the outcome being a complete lock. In theory I would want something like that on DWTS.