Harry Smith Hampshire seems to have been mis-cited here a bit recently.

It's true he had some complaints about tango, and one of this two options for action was to re-write the book to match what is being done. But if you look at what he wrote the actual nature of the situation turns out to be nothing like the arguments it's been used to support here (such as in the spin turn thread).

HSH's website is down (he is deceased after all)( but you can still see it here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050407171059/http://www.hsmithhampshire.eurobell.co.uk/index.html

"The Tango has now become the worst championship dance in terms of the destruction of its historic character by unsuitable choreography, the change from the Tango Walk basis of movement to body-flight dancing and the introduction of Rise on many figures."

The key point here is that what he is griping about is a collection of offenses against what he sees as the basic character of tango as a dance.

That's a far cry from complaining about someone interpreting a particluar figure differently, particularly when the interpretation is entirely in KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DANCE.

For example, sway on the spin turn. The kind of sway that many apply there is just about as characteristic of waltz movement IN GENERAL as you can get. The really fundamental waltz figures - things like the natural turn - have such sway at the base level of their identity as dance actions. To incorportate this into the spin turn is actually to dance an action that is even more CHARACTERISTIC OF WALTZ MOVEMENT than it would be to dance a purely vertical pivot.

So before you drag Smith Hampshire into a controversy in which he didn't enter himself, keep this in mind: he was complaining about transgressions again the character of a dance, not about applying traditionally characteristic elements of a dance to a figure within it that might not, in its simplest explanation, make use of them.

Let's take another example: The back corte in tango. Most people put a strong CBM on its first step and establish a conta-body shape with a left shoulder lead for the lady. But if you look in the book, there's no CBM on step one, and it's given with a right shoulder lead for the lady. The way it is commonly danced is far more interesting, and it's entirely in keeping with tango character, but it's not quite what's in the book. Wrong? I don't think so - though if you are taking a teaching exam, perhaps you should do the official version.

There are people reading who maybe are learning the Tango and the Back Corte. If you are going to draw attention to that there is no CBM on step one, you must mention that there is not only CBM, but there is also CBMP on step two. Also when it is mentioned that the lady has the Right shoulder leading on step one, The left shoulder leading for the man should also be mentioned.
The Back Corte is a good one to teach pupils about keeping in rhythm with the music
From a Link and a Closed Promenade. Into a Back Corte that is to be turned diagnal to the centre. To be followed by a Open Reverse Turn. Two beats must be allowed to go by at the end of the Corte. a head flick would be OK. If the music is 4/4 which it is most likely we can't be stepping off on 3.4.1.2.............. Professional competitors treat Tangos as 4/4 even if they are 2/4 Time.. 4/4 means 4 beats to every bar of music. I hope somebody may find this bit of information helpfull.

Talk about totally missing the point...

Missed the point. I don' t think so. You did say there was no CBM on one and forgot to say there was not only CBM on two but CBMP also. Don' t you think that to draw attention to this is instructive. And you also left out one of the shoulder leads. Half the story is no story at all. The Tango, my favourite dance.