"Good points, however I will say I played college tennis, and just like in say kicking a ball, when striking the ball you are never out of balance. Never,Ever!!"

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.

It's the whole equal and opposite force. You put yourself off balance so that you are falling forward at the time you collide with the ball. It goes flying, and you end up back on balance, because it pushed you back there.

Or if you don't, after it hits you you are off balance backwards, and have to restore your balance.

If you hit the ball while split weight between your feet this may be a bit less obvious because you have your feet spread out like outriggers, but if you look at the actual amount of support in the feet and did the math to translate that to an single point of support at the moment that counts, you'd see you are off balance then.

"Just like in dance, you are never in a position, at any time, of being out of balance."

Get a picture of one of the top dancers just before his foot stops moving for the last step of a feather. Where is his body? Way, way ahead of his only standing foot, which has been left far behind despite being the only foot providing support. So please explain to me how he is balanced?

Answer: he's not.

"In striking a tennis ball, kicking a ball, the drive thru the ball comes from powering and balancing thru your center"

You are trying to balance the wrong set of forces. The ball provides a force on the body too - you have to consider that alongside the force of gravity when calculating the balance. Otherwise, you are not analyzing the situation at hand!

Mike. you are flogging a dead horse if you argue with you know who. He is the only one who can stand on one leg without the centre of the body being over the centre of your foot. John Wood explained this one when he said we move from foot to foot, and said, the centre of the body to the centre of the foot . If you want to give somebody an example ask them if they have ever played Hop Scotch or hopped on one leg. End of story

"Mike. you are flogging a dead horse if you argue with you know who. He is the only one who can stand on one leg without the centre of the body being over the centre of your foot."

Not for very long... but then I only need to for 1.6 beats. Someday maybe I'll be able to do it for 1.74 beats like Mr. Andrew Sinkinson

(of course, to be fair, he weight is still over his foot for the first part of it - it is only the last half or so that is off balance)

Folks, this is not rocket science. Unless you keep your body stationary over your standing foot while probing out with your moving foot, and thus moving in an funny stop-start way, you are going to be sending your body forwards, off balance ahead of the standing foot when you walk.

You've just been doing it for so long, while analyzing it wrong, that you haven't a clue what it is you are actually doing.

In Andrew Sinkinson's lecture only a few weeks ago had us step forward as step one in the Waltz. Then bring the other leg under the body then lift it off the floor and down. Then step to the side, draw the foot to the other and again lift it off the floor and put it down. Keep repeating this . His advice is do this whenever you have a minute to spare. Also we had to retain that backleg after the first step as long as possible even though we were moving. There was also a knee flexing as the rear foot was under the body to push to the side. Most people forget there is a flexing of the knee there and a drive to the side . Lets hear it for Andrew.

"In Andrew Sinkinson's lecture only a few weeks ago had us step forward as step one in the Waltz. Then bring the other leg under the body then lift it off the floor and down."

Sure. If you arrive on a step without the intent of continuing your movement, you will arrive into a position of balance and be able to lift your foot.

But chances are extremely high that during most of the time you were "striding" you were OFF BALANCE with your weight forward of the standing foot. During most of this time you would not have been able to balance unless your moving foot was sharing the task of supporting you. Do you slide your moving foot across the floor with body weight on it? I SURE HOPE NOT.

"His advice is do this whenever you have a minute to spare."

Knowing where you balance is sounds like a good idea. But that can't contradict the simple physical fact that you are not in balance the majority of the time when dancing. You need definitely need the skill Sinkinson is building, but the guy who said you MOVE FROM IMBALANCE TO IMBALANCE is much closer to understanding the physical truth of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

"Also we had to retain that backleg after the first step as long as possible even though we were moving."

Yes, this helps you remember to project your body into the steps, vs. the common tendancy to whip the free leg through once your weight leaves it.

As you may know, i did ask a question about body flight recently, so this topic really interests me.
I am a real glutton for punishment, so i actually read everything that's written here. Some of it is even useful.
I've got my bullet-proof vest and tin hat on to protect me, so here are some things which are obvious to me:
It's impossible to move very much without the body weight (through the centre of mass - which is what i assume the "centre" means) moving outside the supporting foot. When i dance i generally have to keep moving my "free" foot otherwise my butt would hit the floor. This proves to me that my centre must be outside my supporting foot a lot of the time. but i wouldn't say i'm out of balance in the sense of static balance.
I play tennis too and know that in all sports, good balance is paramount.
I think this argument is taking place because there are 2 different types of 'balance' being spoken about.You don't need the centre of mass to be over the supporting foot to be 'balanced' in a dancing sense.
I've been to a Sinkinson workshop about slow waltz and the importance of beats 3& and 1&. His demonstration, where he does indeed stand on one leg with the other under his body, is to emphasise the importance of step 1& - that he is about to use a lot of power to drive into steps 2 and 3 (sorry Andrew if you're reading this - i hope i said that OK). He never intended to say that this was a static position to be held while actually dancing.
Anonymous - i'm actually agreeing with you without trying to admit it! . You do actually speak a lot of sense, but, if you don't mind me saying it, you can appear very rude.

"I am a real glutton for punishment, so i actually read everything that's written here. Some of it is even useful."

Phil, thanks for making an effort to put real though and consideration into the subject.

"It's impossible to move very much without the body weight (through the centre of mass - which is what i assume the "centre" means) moving outside the supporting foot. When i dance i generally have to keep moving my "free" foot otherwise my butt would hit the floor. This proves to me that my centre must be outside my supporting foot a lot of the time."

Exactly.

"but i wouldn't say i'm out of balance in the sense of static balance."

Think about it this way: if we took a mannequin with the same mass distribution as your body, and posed it in a given position with the standing joints locked, would it fall over? If the center of mass is over the foot, and you set it up gingerly enough, it shouldn't. On the other hand, if the center of mass is outside the foot, then it will fall over, because the position is unbalanced.

When we walk, we don't maintain balance, but we do maintain something called the ZMP critera. What this says is that there is a point within our standing footprint (the Zero Moment Point) from which a simple push directed at the center of mass will be able to support the body. Of course if that push is not directed purely upwards, it will also make the body accelerate (or decelerate if the push is from a foot ahead of us, against our direction of movement). As long as you can keep such a pure push point in your foot, without also requiring a torque (ie, keep the moment zero), you can keep extending the step by projecting from that standing foot. But when your ZMP passes the toe of your standing foot, then you moving foot had better be ready to become the new standing foot, otherwise you will start to fall.

Human running does not maintain a ZMP, because often both feet are off the floor. Human walking does maintain a ZMP. It's my belief that dance movement "almost" maintains one - in that there may be a brief lack right as you switch from one foot to the other, but the rest of the time you are adequatly supported, even though generally off-balance.

"Anonymous - i'm actually agreeing with you without trying to admit it! . You do actually speak a lot of sense, but, if you don't mind me saying it, you can appear very rude."

Yes, that's unfortunate - what I would say is that the 100th retelling of the same basic concept, to the same person who persists in denying it against all logic, has sadly tended to be a bit less polite than the first explanation.

Phil. Your foot will always move faster than your body. End of story.

Yes, it will. What's the point you're making?

OK - i just read your other posting