"if you can run all of that through your mind as you dance you will undoubtobly some day blow a casket."

You don't run it through your mind AS you dance, you run it through your mind IN BETWEEN trials in practice, or afterwards, or while watching your competition tape - in order to figure out why something didn't quite work right, and how to change it.

"You wont find any of this in any dancing manual."

It is a more detailed description of the dancing that IS in the manual. You won't find Newton's laws of motion spelled out in star constellations, yet they were dervied to describe the motion of heavenly bodies and do it quite well (at least to the accuracy with which such could be observed in Newton's era)

"For those who are into the Internation Style of Rumba will be aware that in a Rumba Walk after the step the feet freezes and the body weight is allowed to go to the point of imbalance after which it is caught by the now moving foot. Don' t do that in Modern."

Too bad you weren't in my lesson where a many times world champ, and frequent coach of more recent champs TOLD ME TO DO SPEFICIALLY THAT IN MODERN. Face it - you just don't know your subject matter!

(from the same anonymous who complained about your physics)

Anonymous, thanks for the explicit description of what you were referring to. This is the first time, in this whole thread, where I can begin to see what you're trying to say.


you: Why don't you try doing the vector sum of the horizontal and vertical velocities to calculate the body speed? I already know the answer, but you apparently don't.

Me: Well, without space to practice, and without any videos in front of me, and without any measuring devices, I'd expect the speed to increase before it decreases. Then, I'd expect it to decrease to a nominal value, before it increases, again.

But, no, I don't already know the answer, because I've never examined the question that way *shrug*.



You: Yes. But the way you change direction EFFICIENTLY is to first convert much of your kinetic energy in the original direction into the potential energy of rise altitude - which has no direction across the floor, since gravity is "down". Then you convert this back into kinetic energy in the new direction.


Me: I didn't realize that I said anything about efficiency, or anything that implied or required inefficiency.


You: If you go and examine all of the characeristic figures of the "swing" or "body flight" dances in the context of this insight, you'll see how elegantly it all works out.

Me: Not every dancer is a physicist/mathematician/etc. And dancers don't need to be. You whole point (unless I've gotten confused between who posted what) is that "body flight" is an inexact term, described in an inexact way, by dance teachers.

But I contend that it doesn't matter if something is described, exactly, because that doesn't necessarily teach. People learn to walk without knowing the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, or principles used to model and understand the universe. It's more important that the concept be understood by the student than that the description be perfect.

In fact, I believe that the vast majority of people will be hindered by getting too much detail, when trying to understand something.


P.S. I don't frequent this site often, so I apologize in advance if I don't reply to this thread, for a while (if at all).

"Anonymous, thanks for the explicit description of what you were referring to. This is the first time, in this whole thread, where I can begin to see what you're trying to say."

Sorry it wasn't clear before, but glad if it is making some sensenow.

"Me: Well, without space to practice, and without any videos in front of me, and without any measuring devices, I'd expect the speed to increase before it decreases. Then, I'd expect it to decrease to a nominal value, before it increases, again."

I personally have a lot of doubt that you will establish enough vertical velocity to offset the loss of horizontal velocity as you rise. In simpler words, my argument is that the maximum body speed should occur at the lowest body altitude, and from there the movement is uphill and simultaneously slowing.

Done in the right proportions, this lets you cary a constant level of energy throughout the dance - meaning it is efficient. Even if you don't get the proportions quite mathemtically perfect, getting them close will still be better than producing and then wasting large amounts of energy on each cycle, such as would happen if you actually increased your body speed while you rose.

"Me: I didn't realize that I said anything about efficiency, or anything that implied or required inefficiency."

You didn't. I'm saying physical efficiency is a good guideline for elegant dancing, and also for physically sustainable dancing.

"You: If you go and examine all of the characeristic figures of the "swing" or "body flight" dances in the context of this insight, you'll see how elegantly it all works out.

Me: Not every dancer is a physicist/mathematician/etc. And dancers don't need to be. You whole point (unless I've gotten confused between who posted what) is that "body flight" is an inexact term, described in an inexact way, by dance teachers.

But I contend that it doesn't matter if something is described, exactly, because that doesn't necessarily teach. People learn to walk without knowing the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws, or principles used to model and understand the universe. It's more important that the concept be understood by the student than that the description be perfect."

What I am saying is that if you examine what is known (documented in the books and/or taught or exhibited by the champs) about dance technique, it very nicely matches this physical model. You can then use the model as an at-least-plausible guide for questions that aren't covered in the formal rerfences available to you. Instead of memorizing lots of little rules as trivia (only some of which got written down), you can memorize the organizing principle behind it all, and figure out any rule you forgot by applying that organizing princple to the question at hand.

(That's what scientists do - we create a model that fits the available data, and use it to predict the things for which we don't have data)

Is it possible that the coach who' s instructions were to let the body in the Standard Style go to the point of imbalance meant that to be for your eyes only and not for every other person. If I Drive when I am supposed to Drive, and Swing when I am supposed to Swing.Add to that Sway.There isn't any need for anything else apart from the correct footwork, and rising and lowering.
Something that is never spoken about is Posture. I believe if a person is even the slightest bit round shouldered, or has an arched back then everything that is learnt and applied is going to be second rate. Why is that. Because the centre of balance is not where it should be. It should be straight down the centre of the spine . If a coach was to ask me where the centre of my balance is. I do stand straight. I would be able to tell him. If he said I want you to drive your centre through. That makes sense. But that still doesn't mean my centre overtakes the legs.
Also those who find it hard getting to the point where the front leg is straight and on the heel at the extent of the stride. And the rear leg is straight with the heel off the floor. Just like it says in the technique book. Then the step is not being finished. most likely caused by not driving with sufficient power off the standing foot. The other reason is you were never told about it. Now we are back to standing straight and driving the spine through , which should be our balanced centre.

"Is it possible that the coach who' s instructions were to let the body in the Standard Style go to the point of imbalance meant that to be for your eyes only and not for every other person."

No, because it is what every healthy adult does when simply walking around, and what every skilled dancer does when takin a heal lead. This is fundamental to the physics of bipedal locomotion - the only thing remotely unusual about it was that the teacher chose to address the subject literally.

"If I Drive when I am supposed to Drive, and Swing when I am supposed to Swing.Add to that Sway.There isn't any need for anything else apart from the correct footwork, and rising and lowering."

If you do all of that correctly, you will be off balance a lot of the time... as you should be.

"Something that is never spoken about is Posture. I believe if a person is even the slightest bit round shouldered, or has an arched back then everything that is learnt and applied is going to be second rate."

Actually, posture tends to be talked about a lot more than foot action. But in today's practical viewpoint, arching your back is apparently not considered a fault - it SHOULD be considered one, but usually isn't objected to, at least if you look at how common it is amongst winning competitors.

"Because the centre of balance is not where it should be. It should be straight down the centre of the spine."

Perhaps - but then you would have to carry your spine extremely forward in your foot - for a forward action, actually AHEAD of your toe, OFF BALANCE. By arching the back, the dancers can achieve a nice connection without having to have such strong feet. It's a very popular way of cheating!

"If he said I want you to drive your centre through. That makes sense. But that still doesn't mean my centre overtakes the legs."

The coach literally said that his center went outside his footprints - which is exactly what happens. You take your weight forward beyond the point of imbalance. Soon your moving leg starts moving out too - but it won't take any weight until it stops moving, so for pretty much the entire stride you are OFF BALANCE.

"Also those who find it hard getting to the point where the front leg is straight and on the heel at the extent of the stride. And the rear leg is straight with the heel off the floor. Just like it says in the technique book. Then the step is not being finished."

No. More likely they've lowered too much for their amount of movement. Stand up tall and take a step - very easy to get to straight legs. Lower a lot, and geomtery would require your feet to be absurdly far apart to get your legs straight. Most championship dancing lowers just a bit more than the foot seperation can accomodote, meaning most champions won't quite get straight legs. There's nothing magical about getting there... overall proportionality of the movement is far more important.

"Now we are back to standing straight and driving the spine through , which should be our balanced centre."

You should have said your CENTER OFF BALANCE FORWARD OF THE STANDING FOOT.

If I have my heel in contact with the floor I cannot fall onto the step. That is walking not dancing. Do you mean to say that your heel is off the floor untill your imbalance brings it to the floor.
By the look of your paragraph eight. It would seem that either your teacher or you are trying to alter the correct technique. I mean you can't be serious if you believe that to arch the back will hide not so strong feet. You should be able to stand against a door and get your head and shoulders as well as your back onto the door. If you have ever done any Polatis they do this laying on the floor. The idea is to get the posture back to where it should be. It is a sad thing to say but if you do have a spine which is not straight then your dancing days are numbered. Unless done in moderation.

"If I have my heel in contact with the floor I cannot fall onto the step. That is walking not dancing. Do you mean to say that your heel is off the floor untill your imbalance brings it to the floor."

I'm afraid that you just do not understand the physics of how the human body moves. Let's examine what would have to happen in order to take a step while maintaining balance. The answer is simple: as long as your moving foot is moving (unable to bear any body weight), your body would be restricted to moving no more than the lenght of your standing foot. Does a dancer's body actually hesistate like that while the moving foot swings into position? No, it does not.


"I mean you can't be serious if you believe that to arch the back will hide not so strong feet."

I don't advocate it, but it does work to an extent. You wouldn't see so much of it in the final rounds of competitions (or more easily, watching the same dancers in street clothes) if it didn't "almost" work.

"You should be able to stand against a door and get your head and shoulders as well as your back onto the door."

Yes, you should. But most succesful dancers habituatl posture does not satisfy this. It probably should come a lot closer, but it usually doesn't - posture and feet have been de-emphasized as dancers try to do as much as they can with the large leg muscles.

I think that on a Forward Walk you need to be a lttle more exact. If i have both my knees dead straight and walk ther will be weight on my moving foot. We don' t want this. So we flex our standing knee which stores up enough energy for us to drive the moving foot forwards.I think some of you thinkers out there might be able to say when the moving foot starts to take some weight. If indeed it was ever weightless.
Some of the things said can be very misleading and would be better left unsaid. Like do we really swing the leg, or is it the body that swings which just happens to have a leg on the end of it
Going back to the first part. The body weight must be going forward with the drive. I think it would be impossible not to have some weight on the moving foot, remember we are not walking we are dancing. I don

These computers have mind of there own. That message went off on its own.
I was then going to the person going backwards. Now we definitely have pressure on both feet all the time. So now we come to this. The person going forward, if this is a Foxtrot Feather Step will Swing. The person going Backwards will not Swing. No two people Swing at the same time. As I said some things are better left to a teacher. Otherwise it can be very misleading to say the least. Don't you think we have varying foot pressures if we are stepping or Swinging. Do what feels the better for you. Leave the refinements to a professional. For instance. The weight might be too far back, or much too far forward.

I do believe that the lady swings her hip back and to the side on the feather step just like she swings her hip back and up on the first bar of the nateral turn in the waltz.