A couple of seasons ago, I created a set of criteria with which to measure the benefits some dancers on DWTS have compared to the other dancers. That is, ringers versus non-ringers. I attempted to be as logical and scientific as possible, although it’s impossible to remove all subjectivity from the issue. But it’s far better than simply saying “so and so isn’t a ringer, IMO”. In your opinion? If your opinion is purely subjective with no effort at logical or rational thought, then what good is it??
No good at all, actually. The original series sprung from an effort to debunk the old, tired and stupid claim that the only reason Derek does well is because he gets all the good partners and no one else gets them. Utter BS, of course. It would be a good idea to read that series before starting this one as I can’t guarantee that I’ll include all the same rationale this second time around and I don’t take well to discussing a subject with someone who is so rude as to not read the blogs.
Of course, certain people who didn’t like the results of that research tried desperately to turn the argument around and claim: “Well, Derek never gets any ‘bad’ partners, like Kate Gosselin”. Um, there has only been ONE Kate Gosselin and ONE Wendy Williams – it’s not at all like everyone is getting those kinds of partners except Derek. Tony is the only one who gets them and there’s good reason for that one, I would say. But that’s a different subject altogether. …Read more