Anonymous. I think that now th WDC are coming into Amateur scene we might see more control of what constitutes correct technique. At the present we have people adjudicating who don't know what they are looking at. If the top line looks good, never mind about the feet. Figure Skating was that way for a while. Now if the wrong part of the skate touches down, for instance an outside edge. It is an automatic deduction. Never mind if they land it, it is still a deduction. And thats how it should be. Who thinks otherwise.
Talking about skating. They now cannot skate in a championship to a vocal unless the vocal is acompanying the orchestra. Which is a pity I thought Brian Boitano skating to Michael Crawford's Phantom of the Opera was the ultimate. Not any more.

Competitors are judged on their footwork at the lower levals and are expected to have correct footwork and technique by the time they are dancing at the championship leval. At this leval we want to see style and artistic flair along with flight,grace,etc.

reply to anymouse re no absolutes


ok so what are the relative angles for ft vs w

OK, interested, here are the details.

The foot rise in a Waltz must be precisely 37.5% at its height for your supporting foot.

You'll need to freeze your motion on the third step of the Waltz while your coach measures the angle with a protractor. If the angle is any higher or lower then you are a hopeless dancer and should take up step aerobics instead.

For the more blockheaded users of this forum, that advice is sarcasm.

Do yourself a favor and pay attention to anymouse. Polished has nothing but contempt for beginners and believes that you should be dancing at Marcus Hilton's level in your first lesson.

Your posts make it appear that you're only taking up dancing as a geometry assignment.

If you're honestly interested in learning to dance then go to the Learning the Dances pages on this website and watch Jonathan and Melissa perform both the basic Waltz and Fox Trot figures.

jj

I salute you JJ. Finally some sanity/sarcasm to snap the rise/fall junkies out of their obsession.
After reading all ten gazillion posts on the rise and fall in the waltz my heart sank when I saw we were going to continue the same nonsense in regards to the FT.

well if youre not interested in it - do not read it - its not compulsory.

Thanks, LadyDance. I can't believe how much time must be wasted in these endless exchanges over the minutiae of details that, while they may matter to some degree, are not the "be all and end all" of dancing.

Do you get the feeling there's a serious problem with literacy on this board?

jj

Re last past of jofjonesboro-I am not sure what you are trying to say, but it smacks of rudeness and sarcasm to me, and doesn't seem particularly useful.

You are incorrect in assuming I am taking up dancing as a geometry assignment. I am training for professional exams after a long and successful amateur career. My standpoint is that I love the artistry of good ballroom dancing and seek to understand the factors that underpin it, particularly from a teaching point of view, in the perhaps naiive hope that such an understanding might inform my teaching.

So lets have a look at where you stand.
On the on hand you are happy to tell me that there are differences in foot rise and that this is important for retaining the character of the dance etc. You argue with someone else and challenge them when they tell you of a 45 degree angle they claim to have seen on video - so you obviously have some idea of your own as to what those angles should be. But then in your most recent post you kind of imply that the details do not matter and I am a fool to even consider it. So which is it ?

Perhaps the unnerving truth is that good quality, eye-pleasing dancing is NOT the result of the sorts of technicalities that the text-books consider in such detail, and not quite as easy to box off as some would like to think. Which is fine - but then perhaps it is time to start analysing the things that do matter.

You claim to "love the artistry of good ballroom dancing" but post questions ad nauseam asking for precise angles on foot rise.

What matters in foot rise depends, as anymouse and I have been trying to tell you, on the character of the dance in which you're using them.

In Waltz, the foot rise for the man on the third step of the Natural or Reverse Turn must be greater than that on the second step. It is the relative rise that matters.

Foot Rise in Fox Trot is only used to maintain the flowing character of the dance. The fact that some professionals may use more or less is beside the point.

How on earth could you have danced for years and not understand these things?

I don't deal with foot rise in any dance in terms of degrees and angles. Please tell me which dance manuals do so.

The most ridiculous aspect of your questions is that you're trying to define proper foot rise of each of two different dances according to the nature of the other.

If my sarcasm gives you offense then you deserve it. It is very rude to keep asking the same question once it's been answered.

So is playing "gotcha" on a message board.

jj

Interested. I read these boards but rarely contribute. You must realise that if you just want to clarify points from Guy Howard or whatever this is the perfect forum. But if you want a sensible discussion on current dancing trends don't bother. You won't get any answers and most of these guys on here get very hot and bothered by the fact that their beloved theory seems to hold less and less. Yes top dancers do deviate from the book, and it still looks good ! Interesting - but don't go there - least not here !