c4countdown

Not sure how many Strictly viewers we have on this forum, as it's a mainly male one.

I think John Sergeant is really bad... I mean I think he deserved the 1 he got from Craig, I was on the 1-side myself. But as John himself says, 50% of the vote goes to the public. Perhaps there are a couple of things that could be changed.

1) A ratio system of some sort. John scored 12 and the next lowest was 23, yet he only got one point less than Jody and Ian. Basically it uses the daily duel system (which is also used in French Scrabble) of going, x, x-1, x-2 for each finisher with x being the total number of couples. But it doesn't differentiate if the second-to-last place couple has 23, if the last couple has 22 or 12, it makes no difference.

2) Maybe instead of voting for the one you want to stay in, people should vote for the one they one to "evict". I reckon loads of people want John out, but those votes are spread around all of the other dancers.

Opinions?

I don't watch it, but I sort of know what's going on because the BBC deem that the Strictly Come Dancing results are an important enough story to feature in their breakfast news from 6.00am onwards every fucking Monday morning. Anyway, from my limited understanding, the public vote is only keeping John Sargent in for a laugh anyway, but I reckon the judges will concoct some sort of rule change in which he can only catch up ten points through phone votes, or something, then they can get rid of him.

The same happened with Kate Garraway last year, she stayed in much longer than she should have. At one stage two couples, who both had potential to win, ended up in the dance off and Kate and Anton stayed safe for another week.
I agree some sort of 'ratio' system for scoring would be much more sensible.

jimbentley wrote:Anyway, from my limited understanding, the public vote is only keeping John Sargent in for a laugh

I think that's the thing, it's not so much because of his "good personality" as the judges says, it's more that he dances so badly it's hilarious...

If they don't want someone who dances badly in the contest, then don't invite people to take part who dance badly. The public gets what the public wants.

He really should have gone out this time. When someone in the dance off has almost 3 times as many points from the judges as him, there's a definite problem

The attempt was, we are told, to combine dancing ability with entertainment value.
They are not mutually exclusive of course. But is designed not to be based on dancing only (much to the
irritation of the judges and many viewers.)
The voting system causes much viewer dissatisfaction every year.
But it seems we are stuck with it.
Slight consolation is that the winner is almost certainly goiong to be a reasonably good dancer.

I agree with pretty much all that has been suggested and do enjoy watching Strictly, mainly for Bruce's duff jokes and for the fact that it is (relatively) live entertainment and infinitely better than the X Factor which has gone completely barmy on the sob-story gag. Well done Peter Kay!

Mind you I did note Austin trying to cash in on this unsavoury m.o. last Saturday - NO SOB STORIES STRICTLY - Or you go the way of the X Factor and Britain's Got Talent and I switch off.

The solution is for the public not to have a vote and leave it to the judges, which cocks up the principle of contributions from the phone calls going to Children in Need and the BBC coffers, so it won't happen.

I also gree that there should be some way of keeping in say the top 2 or 3 couples on the judges' voting and letting the remainder of the contestants scrap it out in the public phone-in. Unfortunately, they won't do that either for the same reasons above on revenue, as lots of people do vote for the top ones too.

Well worth a rant though

I like John Sergeant but he really has to go. He should pretend to be ill or something - he owes it to his public.
I notice he is often missing from the back-up shots behind the scenes and wonder if the aggro between contestants is getting a bit hot.

Is that only because John Sergeant is in the running to host Countdown?

Could we possibly merge the two Strictly threads? But yes I'd like him to go, but as he says the rules of the competition are clear, the public gets 50% of the vote. As suggested previously, maybe some sort of ratio system would work better than just the 10, 9, 8, 7... system they have now. I think next year there will be some sort of change, which is normal for any 'game show' that's relatively recent - on Countdown they used to let you legally pick 9 vowels or 9 consonants, you can't do that now

Martin Gardner wrote:Could we possibly merge the two Strictly threads?

Sorry about that, Martin.

If I were able to vote, I would only stop voting for John Sergeant if the judges stopped complaining about the people voting for him.

If the people who run the programme want the couple who are technically better to win the contest they should employ a panel of experts to do the judging.But of course they will not do that because of the amount of money they make from the thousands of phone calls made by the suckers who cannot wait to vote for anything on these reality TV shows.

Ha ha, did anybody read the description in the paper - "not to be mistaken with: the churchill dog, a gnome, Jo Brand"

Latest news: John Sergeant has quit!

As much as I admired him for giving it a go, I have to say he has made the right choice.

As soon as I heard about John Sergeant, I texted my daughter, who I knew would be interested. What I didn't know was that she was in a loo, somewhere in London. She immediately called out the news to my wife, who was in the next cubicle. And in no time at all, the subject was being discussed by people in every cubicle, and by those waiting outside.

First time, to my knowledge, that I've ever sparked off a discussion in a ladies loo. Or a gents either, I hope.

I wonder if he has quit to start recording for the Countdown presenter's job? Just a thought...

Paul

Paul Gallen wrote:I wonder if he has quit to start recording for the Countdown presenter's job? Just a thought...

Next recording isn't til middle of the December so it's unlikely, thank God.

Howard Somerset wrote:First time, to my knowledge, that I've ever sparked off a discussion in a ladies loo. Or a gents either, I hope.

Only after you've left.

I sort of think he shouldn't have quit, as he said the public does get half of the vote, and he wasn't "cheating" or not playing by the rules, so I really wanted to see him voted out in a normal fashion. I have no problem with the fact he's not a very good dancer, he's not the only one on the show!

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:First time, to my knowledge, that I've ever sparked off a discussion in a ladies loo. Or a gents either, I hope.

Only after you've left.

I certainly wouldn't want to go back and find out.

I agree with Debbie I think he made the right decision. I think he was trying to do the honourable thing and return the show to a dancing competition. Unfortunately however he will be criticised for it one way or another and therefore was in a no-win situation.

Not that I watch it, but this is not some serious dancing competition but just another prime time celebrity populist ratings winner, so who cares if someone who isn't very good at dancing wins?

Ultimately something had to give here. I guess that they will change the scoring system next year to avoid a repeat.

John also had the jive this week, and of course he's very slow around the floor so I'm not sure he could even attempt it. I think if he had, he could have broken the record for the lowest ever score, which from memory I think is 11/40 and he's already got a 12/40 this series.

Martin Gardner wrote:John also had the jive this week, and of course he's very slow around the floor so I'm not sure he could even attempt it. I think if he had, he could have broken the record for the lowest ever score, which from memory I think is 11/40 and he's already got a 12/40 this series.

Apparently Quentin Wilson once scored 8/40

Martin Gardner wrote:Not sure how many Strictly viewers we have on this forum, as it's a mainly male one.

Only just noticed this daft comment. What is the connection between gender and what one watches on TV?

John Bosley wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Not sure how many Strictly viewers we have on this forum, as it's a mainly male one.

Only just noticed this daft comment. What is the connection between gender and what one watches on TV?

Well the vast majority of the show's viewers are women. So you're the one with the stupid comment.

Jimmy wrote:

John Bosley wrote: Well the vast majority of the show's viewers are women. So you're the one with the stupid comment.

But like Scrabble, the majority of players are female but the best players are male. I can only quote the statistics from the French Scrabble Federation, from Thierry Chincholle that 75% are women and 190 of the World's top 200 are male (95%). And this forum is mainly made up of top players, and other males.

I've just realised this is ambiguous and "show" could refer to Strictly or Countdown. I'm not sure if more men or more women watch Strictly; it gets something like 14 million viewers per week, so it's fair to say it appeals broadly! But on the other hand I think dancing is seen as a bit "feminine" and that might put men off from replying.

Re gender of viewers - my husband totally watches just to look at the female dancers bodies (mainly John's partner). And I do for the female dancers outfits.

I'm sad to see John go this way. Rightly or wrongly, the viewers have the right to vote for people based on whatever criteria they like. If the public's opinion isn't wanted, then have studio judges only - and lose the phone calls revenue.

Seeing as I just got accused of being patronising in another thread, it might be a good time to post this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 208095.ece

Charlie, why haven't you locked this thread?

I think David Mitchell summed up the situation quite well on 8/10 Cats.

I thought Rachael's dance was really good, although I don't find a foxtrot very exciting so at home I probably wasn't giving her a ten. I thought Austin's tango was the best dance of the series so far - it got 38/40. Christine probably deserved to go this week as I thought she was a bit stiff, the outfit she was wearing probably got her a few male votes though.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Jimmy wrote:

John Bosley wrote: Well the vast majority of the show's viewers are women. So you're the one with the stupid comment.

I did not say this.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think David Mitchell summed up the situation quite well on 8/10 Cats.

Are you sure about that?