Jonathan,

I think you will agree that none of the posted pictures show situations where there is the slightest risk of the moving leg colliding with the partner's crotch.

As such, they are interesting, and do show a greater leg division than I would have generally prefered. Thus they are educational, and were no doubt chosen because they show an unobstructed view of the moving leg - but because it is also an unobstructed position of the moving leg, they cannot be assumed to demonstrate how those dancers would take a step into an obstructed position with the right leg.

I think if you take the first step and mentally project his right leg to the other side of hers, you will see that it would in fact collide with her crotch if her hips remain in the present position. Something would have to change for an inside step - either his leg less in advance, or their hips held further apart.

However the three step and its preceding walk are also an interesting case by themselves. In effect, they are as much two steps borrowed out of tango as anything in common with the rest of foxtrot. In order to set up something of a right side lead without losing the leftwards stretch of the hold, it is necessary to take the left foot step into a position approaching CBMP. We can see this in the closed appearance of the man's thighs - were his hips not contrary to the step, that much leg division would show the thighs open. This is important because it implies that the following right step will, like tango, have a large sideways component, being really something of a diagonal step. Because of this same side lead, the right foot step is more in parallel with the partner's, and not towards her body the way an ordinary right foot heel lead with CBM would be. In tango this "twisted" nature of the walks is precisely what lets us extend our legs ahead of our body without interference (and it's lack why square beginner tango feels and looks so awkward). Presumably, if it makes space for leg extension in tango it would do so as well in foxtrot.

I don't know that I would personally use that extra space at this point in my career, preferring instead to concentrate on improving the action of the more common obstructed case. But it is an interesting point that the freedom to extend the leg further exists in certain circumstances.

In general though, we would need to see a right foot step one with CBM to really understand how these dancers would execute that - and yes, it will be harder to see the position of the leg with the partner's body there.

The mistake you're making here is the assumption that one partner's crotch is an obstruction to the other's moving leg. That may well be true if your partner is a foot shorter than you, but for a normal difference in height, it's not.

Most successful standard partnerships have a height difference of within 6 to 9 inches, a difference which is diminished by the lady's high heels, as well as the fact that either person can adjust their overall height through the usage of their knees -- hence I can have the same experience dancing with my partner whether she's in flats or 4-inch heels (She may dance a little higher in her legs and I a little lower when she's in flats, but it's an automatic adjustment that we make, with no conscious thought).

The greater the height difference, the more difficulties you will have, and hence there may have to be some trade-offs. In such a situation I may well be inclined to shorten my stride slightly when stepping forward on my RF between my partner's feet, or back on my left when my partner steps between my feet. But again, it's not something I actually think about doing -- it just happens as a natural reaction to accommodate circumstances. And it still doesn't cause me to have to literally keep my foot under my body, which amounts to never taking anything larger than a Rumba-sized step. As I've been saying all along, it's a matter of how much the leg moves ahead of the body, not whether or not it does.

More to the point, the RF step between partner's feet is a unique circumstance. It is the only circumstance for which this "obstruction" is a consideration (and only when the height difference is considerable), and shouldn't dictate the technique of movement in general... especially if that technique involves "making a sacrifice".

There's no argument that the English technique (or book technique, or both) is more vertical with a faster body-to-foot speed and later lowering than the alternative -- Italian, American, or whatever you want to call it. But I think you have a misperception about the technique itself. Even the most English of English is not a foot held under the body. You may find that it helps you to *think* that way in order to keep your foot from being too reachy, but it's not what's truly happening. If it was, you'd be literally tripping over your feet. If you'd like to take a video of your dancing, I'll convert it to Quicktime so that we can watch it frame by frame and I can prove it to you.

As for a photo of a RF walk for analysis, I think I can find one that's clear enough for our purposes. I might even be able to find one from the same video clip. But I'll have to get back to you on that, because it's fairly time consuming to do, and I've already spent more time than I should on this topic.

Regards,
Jonathan

I could just as easily point out that the mistake you are making is assuming you won't collide with a same height partner.

In fact you will, because you leg is not a zero-thickness line hinged at the inseam. Instead it has thickness - we are looking at the top of your thigh potentially colliding with the bottom of hers. Also the hinge point is substantially higher (it's also a little bit back, but mostly it's higher).

In a partnership with an difference in inseam heights, the shorter persons forwards step will have more room, and the taller persons will have less.

Yet dancing with the English technique, I now have no problem taking full steps even with a drastically shorter partner - because I am never trying to swing a leg into her space.

While this primarily applies to right foot steps with CBM, something related also applies to left foot actions with strong CBM - get the foot too much ahead of the body and the knee becomes trapped on a path outside the partner's leg. It is similarly necessary to keep the foot closer to the body here, so that the path of movement can go inside the partner even as the left toe actually lands outside their foot.

A general thought on looking for things like this in videos: sometimes technical principles are more clearly demonstrated by the consequences of their abscence on the performance of ordinary dancers, than by their masterful but subtle application by champions.

Also, the need to keep the moving foot close to the body applies to outside partner steps as well. Here it is the hips which could collide, creating the dreaded "four hips wide" position. Keeping the foot closer to the body is a key component of keep the thigh contact closer to the front and thus keeping the same relative body positions as for an inside step.

So, tallying up, we've got:

Potentially Obstructed:
Inside right foot steps w/o side lead
Outside right foot steps
Strongly turning left foot steps
Left foot steps in left side outside position

Unobstructed:
Less turning left foot steps
Right inside steps with side lead
promenade outside foot

Uncertain:
promenade inside foot

Looks to me like the potentially obstructed cases are far more numerous. They also include the all important first impression steps like the natural turn and feather.

If your only method of moving outside partner is to literally shift off of your partner, that would be the case. But most dancers learn early on that the amount of horizontal offset need not change. Instead, the feet and legs point -- and therefore swing and travel -- on a line that is diagonal to the body. This enables them to move freely past the partner without a need to shift the area of contact, which is higher up.

The easiest way to illustrate this concept to students is to have them orient themselves to LOD (say, man facing LOD and lady backing). Then turn both feet 1/8 to left, so that man has both feet pointing to diagonal center, lady pointing to DW against LOD. Then have them walk towards diagonal center (or DW against LOD). What they realize immediately is that by simply turning the feet, and traveling in the direction the feet point, they can move freely past each other in either direction without ever shifting the position of body contact.

Here's another champion couple (in this case, Blackpool rising star champions) illustrating O.P. position with CBM with man moving forward on RF:



As for all of your other examples of "potentially obstructed" positions, it won't be any more difficult for me to find photos and video to debunk your theory. In fact, most of them can be found on the same video clip from which I extracted the first example. It was a video of English finalists demonstrating very basic Foxtrot -- Feather, Reverse Wave, 3-Step, Natural, etc. Every single step was taken with the moving foot ahead of the body... as is nearly every Foxtrot step taken by the entire set of dancers on the Superstars DVD.

Unfortunately, it's too time-consuming to keep making these image sequences. So you'll have to take my word for it on the remainder of examples. These are not rare, isolated incidents, they're commonplace. In fact, it's far more rare to find a step where the moving foot literally stays under the body, except in instances where the steps are extremely small (eg Tipsy in Quickstep).

Beginners or experts, in dance position or apart, if we analyze a video of people dancing, you will clearly see the moving foot momentarily in advance of the body. Even a video of your own dancing would show the same thing. The exact amount is negotiable, but make no mistake... your foot is ahead of your body to some degree. If it wasn't, then on the next step the moving foot would be behind your body.

Think about it: The body is in continuous motion. The foot left behind must retract before it can advance towards the next step. If the body arrives directly over the standing foot, then the new moving foot doesn't actually begin to move until the body is beginning to move past the standing foot. So for the period of time it takes the new moving foot to retract and then catch up to the body, you're actually dancing in front of both feet. You're basically tripping. Talk about wreaking havoc on your dance position!

It's not physically possible to always be directly over your standing foot because when you move through space, your body moves away from the standing foot. When that foot becomes the moving foot, it's not under the body anymore. When you understand this principle, you realize that dacing directly over the foot during the extension means dancing in front of the standing foot for the retraction. And it also means dancing in front of the moving foot during the beginning of the next extension.

By the same principle, if your moving foot is directly under the body on anything other than the very first step you take, it means that you had to have been behind your foot on the previous step. Because in order for your foot to move directly underneath the body from the moment you begin to pass your standing foot, the moving foot would already have to have retracted from the previous step. That retraction would have taken place while you were still moving towards the standing foot (iow, body still behind the foot), which in turn means that the foot would have been placed ahead of the body.

So my question is, when you say that your moving foot is "directly under the body", do you mean that it is directly under the body during the latter part of the extension, and actually behind the body at the beginning (as in the first example), or are you beginning your extension with the moving foot directly under the body, and therefore finishing the extension with the moving foot in advance (as in the second example)? It has to be one or the other... unless your body is literally stopping to wait for the moving foot to contract.

Regards,
Jonathan

Basic outside partner techique. You are in error to point your feet in the direction of motion. Outside partner requires moving across the feet at a small angle, because it requires swinging the legs an angle to the hips in order to achieve partner clearance. If you point your feet straight, your will damage your joints eventually. In your example, you should leave your feet pointing LOD and move slightly DC, with your hips turned slightly DW.

The outside partner clip. Notice how the man never fully extends his right leg? If you look at the actual axis of his body, his foot, hip, and shoulder are fairly well aligned. I've had many arguments with those who erroneously want full straight leg extension here - thanks for finding an example of a top couple doing it correctly. (The leg would be fully extended for an outside partner step 3 as in a feather, but that has a different dynamic we'll talk about below)

You talk a about body staying over the standing foot and argue that it won't work. Actually, that's precisely the error in the waltz clips on this site - the leg developing forward while the body stays in place visibly forces the partner's hips out of position.

There also seems to be some confusion about the precise constraint of moving foot under the body: To clarify, the moving foot cannot swing ahead of the body, because that is the partner's space. But it can, and must, be far behind the body at certain points. Moving backwards, we could say that moving off the standing foot and leaving it behind (in front of the body) presents the same problem in reverse. Do a degree it does, however if we use a well timed toe release we can change the angle in a way that creates more space.

Finally, there's still confusion between driving steps and swinging steps. In driving steps the foot is vertically under the body for most of the step. But as the body line begins to incline as a result of swing, the position that is "under" the body is actually further across the floor, at the point where the inclined body axis intersects the floor. So on step 2 of a natural or feather you will see the foot pointing ahead of the position of the body, but you should not see the leg breaking forward of a line joining the shoulder, hip, and foot. This is a quite common error if one neglects to initiate foot rise before the end of step 1. Granted, the more you lower into a driving step the more your knee will project towards your partner, but we really try to minimize that projection and emphasize the movement off the standing leg - lowering is a means to achieve motion, it isn't a goal all by itself.

Anonymous. Argue as you will. I have enought dancers on tape collected over the years. If I wish to see how the leg extends I have the information right at hand. I have one from Blackpool . Modern Waltz. Tony Dorkman the Dutch guy in slow motion. Natural Spin Turn. The right leg is straight and in front on one. His knee bends as his weight comes onto it .From there you have two of the straightest legs you will ever see on Two and Three. The swing and sway and the amount of rise getting, right up on the tips of his toes. And wasn't he seventh or eighth this year. I do beieve this is beyond most of us Only after years of training and having the strength in the legs and incredible balance and conrol, could any of us mere mortals gain those heights. Or should I say straight legs where necessary.

Anyonymous,

Your counter-arguments are becoming a little pathetic in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary.

Loosely, I also hold the opinion that the moving leg does extend ahead of the 'body'. Of course that does not mean that it must be fully extended and Jonathan made that point quite clear. By how much varies based on a number of factors. I experience this while dancing and I also see other top dancers doing the same.

You are clearly being argumentative, which leads me to question whether you are interested in the truth or just winning an argument. You get into a lot of detail that obscures that real issue. This is just a tactic to 'muddy the waters' in my opinion. Then you see a 'straight' alignment of body, hips and foot in the images, something that I don't see. I'm going to be kind and say that you don't see too well do you.

There is always room for differences of opinion and argument but I can't help but feel a little irritated by your argumentative, unconvincing half-truths.

Jonathan, well put and thanks for the time and effort to help us dancers.

Rha

Ignore the arguments - just look at all the videos you see with a harsh eye and decide for yourself what works and doesn't. A lot of what is being taught clearly doesn't - nor does a lot of what is being danced at Blackpool. But without that many people who do it better, someone has to fill up the final. And there are people who do and teach it right - too bad they are lost amongst the contrary advice from those who claim to be almost as good. Sometimes the difference between first place and third is night and day.

"Then you see a 'straight' alignment of body, hips and foot in the images, something that I don't see. I'm going to be kind and say that you don't see too well do you.
"

1) print out the pictures

2) find a ruler

3) tell me in which picture the ankle of the right foot is not in a line with the (right) shoulder and hip, or behind that line?