"The heel pull action of the HC is distinctively different . . . . "

I was actually calling attention to the different uses of sway and foot rise. I'm aware that there are several differences between the patterns, hence the use of the phrase "Other than direction."

I assume you mean that step 5 of the HC is different from step 2 of the DH. Structurally, however, the two steps are similar: a step to the side with the RF followed by a closing of the LF without weight. Functionally, the two patterns have similarity because they enable a change of feet (even though that's the primary function of the HC and a secondary function of the DH).

As for the turn, 1/4 + 1/8 = 3/8. The only difference is that the HC will complete the turn before the LF closes while the DH closes the LF as the turn completes. You state that you ". . . don't view/feel the figure as one which turns 3/8 to R . . . ." Do you mean that you demarcate the turns of the DH into two separate actions?



jj

Yes, I've always danced it that way, right or wrong. My biggest difficulty with the figure is that I have never really sorted out what I'm doing with my R side on step 3. The temptation is to bring it around, as part of the overall 3/8 to R, but I think it probably better to take the LF back into the lock, as you would the RF on a turning lock, with very pronounced CBMP and R side lead. My partner prefers the former approach, and says the lead is clearer, but it makes the hold a bit messy.

"Functionally", I have to disagree with you. 4/5 of the HC is a modified heel turn for man (a heel pull), and really has a completely different feel, apart from the obvious difference in direction. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

In terms of comparing these figures the lack of sway on the DH is probably due to the smaller turn and also the fact that you going into a PO position. I would think that you cant have sway at that point because the movement of the upper body (relative to the feet)needed for CBMP and close contact, will be incompatible with that required for the sway. Its a case of knees having to point one way or t'other. And also you cant easily incline L from the waist and at the same time rotate the upper body clockwise from the waist (presumbly something to do with the anatomy of the hip joint such that when rotated to its its extreme in one plane its movement in other planes is more restricted)

So if you were going to develop sway on the DH (on 2) you would have to loose it again so quickly then i suppose it would become virtually redundant.

"I would think that you cant have sway at that point because the movement of the upper body (relative to the feet)needed for CBMP and close contact, will be incompatible with that required for the sway. Its a case of knees having to point one way or t'other. And also you cant easily incline L from the waist and at the same time rotate the upper body clockwise from the waist (presumbly something to do with the anatomy of the hip joint such that when rotated to its its extreme in one plane its movement in other planes is more restricted)"

Wouldn't this argument also apply to the quick open reverse? Only that does have sway.

Well as Guy Howard says, the technique isn't perfect. Its certainly a compromise.

In this case, surely something will have to give. I think I am right in saying that the sway will compromise the contact. But in this case its only for one step,in fact less as the follow will commence in line again. Maybe the larger amount of turn justifies it in the case of the QOR.

On the other hand, maybe, my argument is flawed.

"I think I am right in saying that the sway will compromise the contact."

The classic example of an outside partner action - the feather, or even more so, the back feather - would seem to dispute this in their dramatic use of sway.

so do you think the contact is compromised.

what else might be the reason for the lack of sway on a back lock. i guess the pointing of the knees would also be opposite to what happens when crossing in front. also the toe release/balancing would be difficult with sway as the leg is too straight for sway at the point of equal weight distribution.

"so do you think the contact is compromised."

No. If anything, the sway makes it easier to retain a good relative body position.

"what else might be the reason for the lack of sway on a back lock."

The syncopation makes the steps shorter and thus less swingy, so there's less call for swing sourced sway. And the lack of turn means no call for turn sourced sway.

"as the leg is too straight for sway at the point of equal weight distribution."

Due to the smaller step size in a lock I dispute that the leg is straight, and also that having the leg straight would preclude sway.

Interested. Why not accept that there is no Sway on a Drag Hesitation and there never has been since the beginning. You might as well ask why in a Change of Direction there is Sway. The answer is because there is.
I think maybe you are trying to keep Anonymous at it.

i think if that is the case then you have to conclude that the whole exam system amounts to testing one's ability to rote memorise obscure details that dont have any real significance. is that what you think ?