Wouldn't it be nice if on an instruction tape or DVD the camera could be overhead . Then there would never be any argument among us of where exactly should we be on an Open Telemark. I will ask. On a line diagonal to the wall with the LOD should the man be on that line. Or should he be upside of the line with the lady on the line. Or should the line be straight in between dead centre of both couples. I dont think there are any other places it could be on the normal alignment.

"Wouldn't it be nice if on an instruction tape or DVD the camera could be overhead . Then there would never be any argument among us of where exactly should we be on an Open Telemark. I will ask. On a line diagonal to the wall with the LOD should the man be on that line. Or should he be upside of the line with the lady on the line. Or should the line be straight in between dead centre of both couples. I dont think there are any other places it could be on the normal alignment."

They should be wherever they want to go.

The normal alignment is not an exact one, but a range of possibilities with probably at least 30 degrees of variation in chosen direction before you'd have to give it a different name.

What is really important here is the relative positions of the partners to each other. Where they are in the room is relevant only in terms of traditional traffic flow.

Anonymous. There must be set down in a technique book rigid rules. If it says turn at the end of a step , then we are incorrect if we turn into the step. If this is allowed what an absolute mess dancing would become. Some people will always be able to bend the rules.We all know the correct rise and lowering in the first three of the Natural Waltz.If I was to step to the side on step two with my heel one millimetre from the floor and it doesn't touch the floor I would be as correct as the person who is doing it in the accepted manner and I could argue that point untill the cows come home. Incase my point has got lost. We must accept that the way our champions are performing and is accepted by the judges. Then we must also. I would like to point out that the very best dancers are technicly perfect in there alignments and their footwork . Which comes back to the Open Telemark on normal alignments. Which starts Diagonal to the Centre with the LOD. And we have ??? amount of turn. In which direction should we be travelling if we follow this with a Chasse in the Waltz into a Natural movement. Or if you like a Feather Ending starting in Promenade. The guidelines are in the book.

The "rules" in the technique book apply rigidly only to syllabus competitions. Championship-level competitions - for both professionals and amateurs - are open.

It's interesting that you claim that ". . . the very best dancers are technicly (sic) perfect . . . ." when they are not "technically" consistent.

jj

jofjonesboro.We are both capable of finding anything on youtube. Point to me any step by any of our very best competitors where the would do a step that is technicaly wrong. This also includes Latin. I was at a lecture by Corkey Ballas who said that if you do this American Cha Cha step in a competition in Europe You may get away with it once, but don't do it twice they will crucify you.
Have you noticed that all of our very best finalists always include at least one Feather Step. And they always include a Wave usually all the way down one side of the hall. Why do you think they do that. Its because the adjudicators expect to see those absolute basic steps and are partially judging them on that. And are they not absolutely perfect in there technique. You tell me.

I didn't say that anyone was wrong - you said so. I said that they are not consistent and they aren't.

I'm not wasting anymore time with you on this thread.

All you ever do is "refer" - usually with little clarity - to some video somewhere and claim that it proves your point. When I or anyone else disagrees with your interpretation of what the video shows then you make accusations of incompetence or dishonesty or both.

Feathers and other basic steps are generally incorporated into advanced sequences to link one to another or just to set one up.

From what I'm seeing, most of the Fox Trot sequences contain Reverse Waves, sometimes continuing for two walls and more. I saw this practice in the 2007 IDSF Standard Championships filmed in Moscow.

Are these folk "perfect in their technique" (whatever that may mean)? If you mean to ask if they perform their figures exactly the same way every time then the answer is "no."

I certainly didn't see any judges with protractors or compasses checking angles of foot rise.

jj

"Anonymous. There must be set down in a technique book rigid rules. If it says turn at the end of a step , then we are incorrect if we turn into the step."

This is a quite different issue than the subject of the thread, as the difference between turning into a step vs. at the end of it remains a difference regardless of how your orient the step in the room - it's fundamentally a different if you do it into or out of. However, many actions and figures now exist in two legitimized forms - a traditional one where CBM occurs into the step but the direction of movement is unaltered until a subsequent step, and a modified alternative with "curvy CBM" where the direction of travel is modified before the step is placed. I'd very nearly be willing to consider these two different figures, or at least two very different technical methods, and to be blunt only the first has any support from the technique books - but even that doesn't make the other "wrong"

"Point to me any step by any of our very best competitors where the would do a step that is technicaly wrong."

Leaving behind the curvy CBM issue, what they do is usually technically correct, but often markedly different than what is written in the technique books. This is because what they are doing is rarely exactly the same in important respects as the situation documented in the technique books, so applying the same basic rules of technique means that the actual details of execution will need to be somewhat different than given in the book in order to support the needs of the actual situation being danced.

Now as for the subject of the thread, the concluding orientation of an open telemark, the only thing that really matters is that the partners match each other, and have each part of their bodies in a relative orientation compatible with where they want to go next. Even if you name a direction such as diagonal wall for the movement, there's at least a 30 degree range of directions that can legitimately qualify as diagonal to wall. The real dancer will choose the precise direction that's best in the circumstances they find themselves in, reflecting things such as the size of the room, their position in it, other couples who may be present on the floor, and of course the overall shape of the line of choreography they are intending.

This is a reply to Polished
On your first point about alignment in open telemark: My understanding is that it is the lady who opens. The man 'opens' the lady. So i would imagine his shoulder line would be on the line he intends to come out on. The technique book just says 'DW' The angle is not specified. I believe top dancers use whatever angle they like to allow them to 'dance'. When i dance i attempt to come out at about 45 degrees. But mainly i try to exit smoothly into the next figure, avoiding anyone in the way.
On the point of differences in top dancers: I agree basically with what jj and anonymous say. The technique book isn't that rigid. But let me give you an example which is open telemark.
Get Gozzoli's DVD and watch his beautiful open telemarks (actually, everything he does is beautiful) He brings his left foot to brush right against his standing right foot, before moving it out on 3. Now look at Marcus hilton. One of his waltz teaching videos (i'm afraid i can't remember which one) has him making a specific point about this left foot movement. He says he doesn't like to see it brushing against the right, but rather move naturally 'under the body' to it's position on 3. He thinks it gives better balance.
They look very different. I've studied them very closely because of the problems i've had with open telemarks.
Neither of these guys is wrong. But they are different. To me Gozzoli's method has more elegance.
Of course judges like to see basics performed well. The basic steps usually embody the character of the dance.

"On your first point about alignment in open telemark: My understanding is that it is the lady who opens."

This is not really correct. The anticlockwise rotation means that the lady is rotating in the direction of "closing", while the man is rotating in the direction of "opening", and the rotation by both is far more than would be needed to achieve promenade. The promenade occurs simply by stopping the body and foot rotation at different angles.

If anyone can be said to open here, it is the man, as any actual opening out (which should probably be avoided) would be a result of his rotating more than the lady did.

If you look at an open impetus or a turning lock to right, then the rotation is clockwise and the situation is reversed - any actual opening out (still of questionable merit) would be a result of the lady turning more than the man.

I think that problems in the Open Telemark can result from focusing the attention on the wrong aspect of the turn.

My previous partner and I also had continuing difficulties with this figure until I learned to be careful to place her into the heel turn properly. Once she was comfortable with that move, our problems disappeared.

In that light, a view from above would offer no more information than a floor-level perspective would.

Strange that we never seem to discuss Closed Telemarks; they can also be troublesome although for different reasons. Maybe I overlooked a thread somewhere.

jj