No, those who tilt their pelvis arch their lower backs. That's pretty much the definition of arching -- to tilt your pelvis under the body. But there's a huge difference between tilting the pelvis and extending the leg. Unless your thigh bone is fused at the hip joint, it is by no means necessary to tilt the pelvis in order to extend your legs outward.

To say that you can't extend your leg without arching is a restriction you've imposed on yourself. And if everybody else had that kind of limited mobility, you'd probably have a point. But since most human beings can actually swing the leg at the hip without swinging the hip itself (and therefore not arching the lower back), the restriction is not necessary.

There is some truth to the notion that one will *tend* to tilt the pelvis (even when it's possible not to) when one leg extends while the other reminas vertical. And so you'll tend to see this problem on people who reach the moving foot too quickly. But then again, you'll also see it on people who push off the standing leg without equal extension of the moving leg. It's exactly the same problem in reverse.

So I would suggest that you're actually tilting your pelvis, because if you're keeping your moving leg vertical, then at the moment you arrive, your other leg is now in a "reached" position the other way. As I said, same problem in reverse.

When your legs divide and retract equally, neither leg has a tendency to pull the pelvis in either direction. It splits the difference, and remains vertical. Vertical pelvis translates to no arch.

...and yet the book clearly states that the body is to be between the feet at mid-stride, as well as stating that the leg swings from the hip. The English, the champions, and everybody else with any training knows that the moving leg must move ahead of the body. The only question is one of how much.

Jonathan

You miss the linkage between leg reaching and pelvic tilt. It isn't the act of reaching the leg that causes tilt and back arch. Rather it is the collision of the thigh with the partner's crotch that prompts one or both partners to pull their hips back in an attempt to make space. Truly aligned posture is only possible if you keep your leg out of you partner's space - either by not reaching it, or by not dancing in a fully closed hold. The English tradition both discourages leg reaching in front of the body, and also puts more space between the bodies in general than is common in the rest of the world. As a result, these are pretty much the only dancers you will see without back arch.

This thread is going a bit deep, and the messages are falling off to the right-hand side of the screen. My reply includes a wide horizontal image, so to spare everybody from those annoying scroll bars, I've decided to start a new thread. Please see the topic entitled "Stride and Leg Division" to read my reply.

Jonathan

Hi, Jonathan. This is first time I obtained a thorough description regarding the foot and body movement in general single movemnet and in the tipical pattern . I have a clear concept now. I am so happy !
What is a good stance for a lady ( in closed prepared position in tango )? I do quite expect to have a detailed description as you always did , which very helpful.
ylchen

I'm not sure what you mean by "stance". Generally in Tango, in a standing position the weight is held slightly back towards the heel of the supporting foot (note the word "towards", not "directly over"), as opposed to the swinging dances where the weight is held farther forward towards the balls of the feet.

Be careful that in your attempt to adjust your weight distribution, you do not lean back. The shoulders and hips should maintain vertical alignment. To shift your weight distribution, you can adjust the relationship of the center over the feet without leaning. Think of pulling your center back rather than your shoulders. Actually, the two should really shift together, but if you have a tendency to lean, it's a good idea to think in terms of your center.

All of the concept of leftward poise apply to Tango in a very similar manner to the swinging dances. The main differences in the position result from the fact that you are slightly farther offset to the left. This causes the man's right arm to be positioned slightly farther around your back, which in turn creates a more compact frame.

Regards,
Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,
I am so glad to get your correct instruction timely. I feel more natural and better now .
I supposed the problem resulted from language barrier :"toward "the heel replased by "directly over" the heels . Unfortunately, I can't straightly tell my teacher and their teacher the truth . I hope they find and correct this fault soon.( I had called for one female dancer about it. She said they had lessons emphasized to stand over the heels, but she aggreed with that I can put my right toe at the level with my left instep , right heel slightly outword .Left foot is standing foot in lady in stand position; the region at the level with sternal angle and left elbow shift further left to maintain my head over my left soulder .).
Jonathan, I found no people around me walk like a cat in Tango. Some ladies used even their toe going backward similar to the foxtrot or waltz.
I hope you show tango basic footwork in your vedio for copying . Thanks a lot .

All I have to say is...your momentum should move through your spine making your back and body move before the foot rather than stepping out. Also as far as posture, unless you are doing a line or pose, the right side of your body should always be stretched and never broken!

Juice,

You should clarify what you mean by "body moving before the foot". That can be taken the wrong way. Someone might think you mean to say that the body actually moves forward in space before the foot does. That would put your body in a position literally ahead of the foot.

It's true that the free foot should be caused to move as a result of the movement of the body through space (which in turn is caused by pushing off of the standing foot). If the body doesn't move, the free foot shouldn't have any motivation to move, either. When the free foot moves of its own accord, that's when it is perceived to be "reaching".

But that's not to say that shouldn't end positioned in front of the body. It reacts to the body, but because the foot speed is faster than the body speed, it arrives ahead. This is what I describe as "following ahead with the foot".

Regards,
Jonathan

Good dancers always have one foot moving. When lowering in the waltz the free foot is moving forward or backward in preperation for the next step. Many people do not move the free foot untill they are in a down position,this means that while they are lowering no foot is moving.

Actually it is not true that good dancers always have a foot in a motion. There was a sequence of pictures of Marcus Hilton doing an open impetus floating around the net, and in them he can be seen to visibly hang out developing through the upper body with both feet in the same place on the floor for a substantial fraction of the time alloted to step three. The development to promeande is a dynamic action which is not executed in static balance - he spends time in an unstable position from which he must purposefully exit before he begins to fall over.

Similarly, in an open telemark at the point in the man's action where a lady dancing that part would brush her feet, the man instead leaves his left toe in place on the floor throughout the entirity of step two (right foot) and then moves it away from this position only well into the time alloted to step three.

But it is true that when lowering from foot closure, the backwards partner's new free foot needs to already be moving back a little bit to create some space.