How does one remain verticle and pass the body forward of the foot.
What is meant by. He very nearly did say so. Either he did or he didn't.
Look. One of these dancing witch doctors has visited your village and said. Come into my hut and I will teach you the secrets of how to move. Its a gimmick. They could have just as easily said, just like the book. From a standing position the move forward is instigated by the body by moving the weight from over the heel to over the ball of the foot.
The actual words are . When commencing a Walk from a CLOSED
position , the weight must always be brought forward over the balls of the feet before a foot is moved..If the foot is moved before the body is moved, from the heel to the ball, the weight will be kept too far back. All they don't want you to do is stick the foot forward leaving the body behind.Does that make sense or does it not.
You have written in the past that the weight of the body goes to the point of imbalance and then is caught. You added. I wrote it because it is true. I wrote Have you thought what will happen to the lady when you thrust to the point of imbalance. You then cheerfully added. Not only that I insist on it. Really.

"How does one remain verticle and pass the body forward of the foot."

The spine doesn't extend below your pelvis, you know. So keep your head to pelvis vertically aligned on a straight spine, and send this whole thing forward of your feet while maintaining its aligment.

"What is meant by. He very nearly did say so. Either he did or he didn't."

He said what I said he said, which had a very strong logical implication towards the point I was arguing: the body goes first, and if it does, it's going to be quite likely that it will initially be ahead in some cases.

"From a standing position the move forward is instigated by the body by moving the weight from over the heel to over the ball of the foot."

And then, quite naturally, BEYOND the ball of the foot. This is natural human movement, but you can't understand it, because you still can't picture how it is that a vertically aligned body can be positioned entirely ahead of the foot supporting it. You've had it explained dozens of times, you've been shown pictures, but you just cannot understand something so simple...

"You have written in the past that the weight of the body goes to the point of imbalance and then is caught. You added. I wrote it because it is true. I wrote Have you thought what will happen to the lady when you thrust to the point of imbalance. You then cheerfully added. Not only that I insist on it. Really."

REALLY, that is exactly what I insist on, because that is how human beings habitually move - both when dancing, and when simply walking around. If you knew anything at all about human locomotion, if you'd ready any of the applicable literature, you would know this to be a fundamental truth.

But instead you are guided by your own failure to imagine how imbalace is compatible with controlled movement, and compatible with vertically aligned posture. In fact, compatible is too soft a word - "all but required in order to achieve would be more accurate."

And the really funny part is that you yourself have often described a situation in which the body is vertically aligned but entirely forwards of the standing leg: you call it mid-stride. Just rewind your picture there until there is zero weight on the front foot, and there you have it - an aligned body entirely in front of its supporting leg. Rewind further until the body is just a few cm in front of the supporting leg, swing the moving leg back to be next to the standing leg, and you have a vertically aligned body entirely forward of BOTH legs. Regardless if you choose to dance that way or not, your inability to understand this mental picture is really inexplicable. Because you can't understand what is being discussed, your argument against the idea are pure nonsense.

We are aware that on a Backward Step the book says to lower the standing heel to the floor only as the moving foot draws level.
It also says it is most important to remember that each step should move back from a forward position with the heel in contact with the floor
To some people who will remain anonymous might think that is the standing heel that is in contact with the floor. But we all know its the moving heel that is being spoken about.
If I support myself by having my fingers resting on the back of a chair. My LF on the heel. My RF is on the toe. I am inbetween the two feet. My body is being moved by my front leg with the heel in contact with the floor untill I am verticle over my two feet which is when the supporting heel is gently lowered to the floor.
Which now brings us back to. Each step should move back from a forward position. Which is aptly explained and demonstrated by Anne Lewis on her tape. If I wanted the body to go ahead of the feet I dont think I would have written it that way. .
I would have written that the body weight will go past the standing foot to a point of being unbalanced. But that is not what is written or can be seen on the demonstrations on this site or in the technique manuels.

"We are aware that on a Backward Step the book says to lower the standing heel to the floor only as the moving foot draws level."

WRONG.

As usual, you have ignored the CONTEXT of the recommendation you are passing on.

That instruction applies to a specific sort of backwards step - a WALK, taken inline, with ZERO rise and ZERO fall.

Change the circumstances, and the details must change to support the requirements of the new circumstance.

"It also says it is most important to remember that each step should move back from a forward position with the heel in contact with the floor"

But there are many steps where the heel does not move back in contact with the floor! Sure, the comment is applicable for the step about which it was written (that of the flat, inline walk) - but it is completely and obviously inapplicable to many other steps.

"Which now brings us back to. Each step should move back from a forward position."

And utterly impossible, when, for example, stepping backwards after waltz closure.

Context... without it there is no meaning!

"I would have written that the body weight will go past the standing foot to a point of being unbalanced. But that is not what is written"

It is strongly suggested by what is written about the body moving first, and it is not the least bit contradicted by any passage of the official technique.

"or can be seen on the demonstrations on this site or in the technique manuels."

You can readily see the body projecting off balance in many of the videos on this site!

The knee on lowering will go forward that is towards the partner on any step going backwards. If this is wrong then tell me what is right.Waltz Draw the RF to the LF. AS the RF starts to lower the LF foot is released and is moving behind touching the floor with the toe without weight. After the RH has touched the floor the knee will continue to bend towards the front. That is why it is written that each step back should move from a forward position. The word should is there not by accident.
It doesn' t matter whether we are closing the feet as in a Waltz. Or our foot is passing as in a Foxtrot. The actuall lowering is the same. Our weight is towards the front. Our knee is bending and the moving foot is being controlled by the standing foot.
If you like . The body is in a balanced position, some call it neutral, as the lowering takes place. This requires verticle balance and perfect timing.That is why the word should was used.

"The knee on lowering will go forward that is towards the partner on any step going backwards."

Wrong again.

First off, "any step going backwards" includes quite a few steps that don't feature any lowering at all. Once again, you wrecklessly ignore the context of the advice you are trying to pass on.

But it's also often erroneous even in the intended context. I know it may feel as if the knee is moving against the direction of progress, and many teachers will literally requrest this, but it doesn't usually happen. Watch the videos here carefully - it happens in some circumstances, and cuases intereference with the partner's body when it does, and doesn't happen in other circumstances where the dancing ends up flowing much more smoothly.

What actually happens when dancing is done well is that the knee is essentially stationary in space, but the body pushes backwards away from the knee. Without some stationary reference in the background, you might be forgiven for thinking that the knee moved against the travel - but it actually doesn't when things are done right.

Remember though that most teachers teach by FEELING rather than by FACT.

"If this is wrong then tell me what is right.Waltz Draw the RF to the LF. AS the RF starts to lower the LF foot is released and is moving behind touching the floor with the toe without weight. After the RH has touched the floor the knee will continue to bend towards the front."

Again, feeling, not actual fact. The forwards partner will already projecting their body forwards (by bending their standin knee). If the backwards partner also projects their knee forwards against the travel, into the space that the forwards partner's body is trying to occupy, something rather inelegant and uncomfortable will result! In coordinated dancing, that backwards partner's knee is nearly stationary in space - but their BODY MOVES AWAY FROM IT, making it APPEAR as if it had gone forwards.

"That is why it is written that each step back should move from a forward position. The word should is there not by accident."

You are taking things out of their proper context, and putting them into an IMPOSSIBLE one. The "from a forward position" is from a description of an action such as a WALK, where the feet pass, meaning the moving foot first has to move back to pass the standing foot. You simply can't apply it to a situation where the the step starts with the feet next to each other, such as you have when lowering from closing your feet! This applies to SOME steps, but by no mean ALL STEPS, and distinction you simply have to start PAYING ATTENTION TO.

"It doesn' t matter whether we are closing the feet as in a Waltz. Or our foot is passing as in a Foxtrot. The actuall lowering is the same."

Gross stupidity. You've had the differences pointed out time and time again, but you persist in ignoring them.

"The body is in a balanced position, some call it neutral, as the lowering takes place."

Look at any skilled dancer, and you will see that the body is OFF BALANCE, AHEAD OF THE FOOT during step three of a feather, from the time the feet pass to begin step 3, until the time the foot stops moving and prepares to accept weight. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to be otherwise, unless the process of the body stops over the standing foot... which is a good way to get yourself laughed out of the preliminary round.

"This requires verticle balance and perfect timing.That is why the word should was used."

Vertical YES.

Balance NO.

Perfect timing YES - but remember, that means landing step three sometime after the AND AFTER BEAT FOUR. Otherwise you are RUSHING ahead of the music.



Reply to this message

Just take one part of this. The forward movement of the knee towards each other. There we are both perfectly balanced because of it.
At this point both the man and the lady could lift there none standing leg off the floor as per Andrew Sinkinson' s lecture.
In closing . There is nothing magical about rising up and lowering through the feet. Everybody can do it dancer or not. All we are left with is where is the soon to move foot at the time the standing heel touches the floor and the knees flex to store energy for the drive which is to follow.

"Just take one part of this. The forward movement of the knee towards each other. There we are both perfectly balanced because of it."

Nope.

Beginners might be forgiven for lowering vertically in place, but advanced dancer's don't do that, as it KILLS THE MOVEMENT.

Instead, advanced dancers are already progressing somewhat as the lower from foot closure. By the time they are down, the body is already projected BEYOND the standing foot.

They are still ON the standing foot of course (they won't be on any other foot until the moving foot stops moving) but they are no longer in balance OVER it - instead, they have already begun to move.

This smooth blending of the initially vertical lowering, into a nearly horizontal travel is the mark of a skilled dancers. Wheras a beginner drops in place and goes "clunk"

It would be nice if a person would use themselves as a working model.
Both feet under the body. Knees bent towards partner. Look at the angle of the shins and where is the weight of the body.
Now. Both feet under the body. Knees bent but not towards partner. Your shins are verticle and your weight is over your heels and you are sitting with the bottom sticking out.
Which is it . Weight over the balls of the foot or is it the heels. Only one is correct.

"Both feet under the body."

Wrong already!

For the backwards partner, by the time your standing foot is flat, your moving foot will not be under your body but will have released from the knee to be behind it. This occurs BEFORE your standing knee even begins to bend.

"Knees bent towards partner."

For the forward partner, yes. For the moving partner, NO, though it will appear as if the knee went forward when in fact is the body moving backwards away from the knee.

"Look at the angle of the shins and where is the weight of the body."

For the forwads partner, the shin inclines forward while the thigh stays relatively vertical, placing the knee and the body in vertical alignment, both AHEAD OF THE FOOT.

For the backwards partner, the shin does not really incline much. Instead, the thigh declines and the body moves backward away from the knee.

"Weight over the balls of the foot or is it the heels. Only one is correct."

Depends on the direction. For the forwards movement, the weight is ON the ball of the foot. For the backwards movement, it moves until it is ON the heel. In neither case does the weight remain OVER the foot - instead, it projects beyond.

You just can't go anywhere without moving your weight beyond your foot after all...