Rha,
I see your point. Now, if you (as I understand your reply) keep the hips aligned with the shoulders through CBM wouldn't that make the forward progression flat (devoid of CBM), because you don't have any body torque, just rotation of the ankles and knees, somewhat).


I say this because the fundamental (rough) definition of CBM is the rotation of one side of the body towards the moving leg. When the magnitude of the movement increases, doesn't it require more upper body (above the center) rotation? And therefore the shoulders, by virtue of spatial relationship with the partner, will rotate more than the hips?

While, I can see having torque through the legs and ankles, I find it difficult to do when the legs are bent and progressing forward/back. As a practical matter of body mechanics, when creating hip swing (as a by-product of CBM) don't you need body torque-which in this case, is isolated more from the hip upwards. And doesn't that presume, to some extent, rotating the shoulders beyond the hip's line?

from the 'overturned spin turn slow waltz' thread
-------------------
Hi El Capitan,

Agreed, I do need to create torque in CBM and I certainly can feel the torque however I feel the joints that the actually turning are my ankles and hip joints (1st the supporting leg joints and then the 'new' supporting leg joints, by the way). All this while both sides of the body are progressing forward. The torque gets one side doing 'faster' than the other.

I don't feel that shoulders are rotating more than my hips or less for that matter while I creating CBM. That's really the part that I'm questioning.

Rha
------------------------
Rha
I am curious, why do you not twist your (presumably) torso during CBM?

Because some would contend that the 'twisting' is necessary to create torque (which is also essential for swing) especially when entering a rotation--hence the general guideline that CBM is performed on a progressive movement rather than a rotating movement.

El Capitan.We need to find what torque means to you. To me it means to twist.
If I bring both sides of my body around equally is not torque and my spine will be straight. If I twist my shoulders or my hips so they do not align with each other then I have a twisted spine.I would call that torque.
CBM. CBMP. can both be applied without twisting the spine. But if I lose that verticle position you will twist. Keep that up long enough your dancing days will be numbered.
When somebody started to use the word torque, did they mean to rotate or twist. Torquer comes from the Latin which means to twist. The other meaning is a mechanical force that causes rotation. Do you have any thoughts of which is correct when applied to turning. Best of Luck.

"If I twist my shoulders or my hips so they do not align with each other then I have a twisted spine.I would call that torque."

You would be wrong.

Torque is a rotational force. But because angular momentum is conserved, merely rotating does not imply that a torque is present during the rotation.

"But if I lose that verticle position you will twist."

Vertical alignment and twist are not related.

Anonymous. I am always willing to get a little bit more education.
I can see that torque and verticle alignament are are not related. I can be flat on my back which is not verticle and I can easily move my hips or twist or torgue without moving my upper body or I can move my upper body without moving the hips. For me both are to be to be avoided whilst dancing.I would avoid this like I would the plague. Unless proved otherwise Torque is what we do to the cap of a bottle of sauce when we open it. But if as I turn the cap I allow the bottle to rotate I would not call that torque or twist. I would call that turning around my centre. Or if you like rotation.

Whicheve anonymous this is, he(or she) has something right - torgue is a force, not an alignment. It is possible to have torque without rotation, and rotation without torque (the Earth does it all the time).
Can we restrict ourselves to alignment of shoulders and hips. Of course, a human has to apply a turning force (or torque) to rotate shoulders or hips or both. Let's not talk about torque as these turning forces are complex because the human body is not a rigid object.

Phil. Lets not talk about torque. Add to that list imbalance( unless you talking Latin ). Then also catching the weight which is the sister of imbalance.

"Add to that list imbalance( unless you talking Latin ). Then also catching the weight which is the sister of imbalance."

If you want to ignore the key element of motion in the standard dancers, go right ahead and dance latin to your waltz and foxtrot music then.

Standard is propelled by imbalance.

As have most of the steps you took since you first learned to walk.

But you are too stuck in your treasured misconceptions to admit this basic physical reality.

Anonymous. Tell me where in the book is it written that we get to a position of imbalance. All I can see is words like step forward RF diagnal to the wall. I see CBMP and CBM. I see Sway and so on. One expression now used is Swing that's not in the book so it doesn't exist.

"Anonymous. Tell me where in the book is it written that we get to a position of imbalance."

Tell me where it is written that you shouldn't.

Because this action is part of the ordinary human's ordinary non-dance walking, it does not need to be explicitly specified.

Either go look at some research on human locomotion, or just take my word for it that you are wrong... your profound and obstinate ignorance is getting rather tiring.

"One expression now used is Swing that's not in the book so it doesn't exist."

I seem to recall someone was quoting a mention of swing out of the book the other day...