""After observing long enough I came to realize that the problem is specifically with the teachers and not with the students.

Yes, you did.""

Indeed I did observe the class of situations introduced by my previous post ("There are a number of teachers out there who by reputation, certification, and devotion of their students would be thought to be rather good, but when you actually watch their students try to dance, you realize that despite all the hard work by the students, the teacher has not been unable to communicate any of the key ideas that make dancing practical.") long enough to determine that. When the teacher is teaching the figure with impractical geometry, the skill of the two halves of the amateur couple they are teaching it to is irrelevant.

"You claim that you1ve "repeatedly pointed out that there are MANY OTHER TYPES of failure as well (emphasis yours)." Gee, I guess you1ll have to help us here because I1ve read back through this entire thread and don1t see any post of yours which discusses various "types of failure.""

I have not discussed them, because the point of discussion was selecting teachers and students' own mistakes are not as relevant to that as the mistakes made by teachers. But I'm glad that you1ve finally seen fit to admit that I've mentioned their existence - that I have never claimed (as you tried to suggest) that the situations I was talking about where the only type of failure that could occur.

"This forum is not a court of law."

Which is precisely why I will continue to refuse to answer your obsessive and off-topic questions about my personal life.

If you are unable to stick to the subject of dancing itself, that says more about you than anything else.

Having a dance partner is hardly a matter of personal privacy unless you dance together only in a secret studio somewhere.

Demanding privacy in consideration of such a public activity seems a bit silly, doesn't it?

Partnership is central to the subject of ballroom dancing. We're not discussing ballet or line dancing here, you know.



jj

"Partnership is central to the subject of ballroom dancing. We1re not discussing ballet or line dancing here, you know."

What is relevant to the particular discussion at hand is that partner dancing must make physical allowance for the presence of a partner in planning its movements.

Who that partner is does not matter if, as in many of the situations that prompted my line of comments here, the movement is not taught in a way that is possible for two bodies to execute together. As I said before, turn on the wrong part of the figure and you make it impossible for your partner. When a teacher allows their students to suffer the result of this without pointing out the cause, it doesn't really matter who they are working with - an amateur couple (as was the case in the majority of situations that prompted my comment), a pro/am student, a pro couple. It is not relevant. What is relevant is that they have failed their students. They have not fundamentally taught them how to execute partner dancing.

No, that topic is not relevant to this discussion. Judging the suitability of any particular instructor for an amateur couple's needs is.

Therefore, the matter of your status and experience as a member of an amateur couple is important when one considers the statements that you make on this board concerning such dancers.

You simply do not have a framework for giving advice in such cases.

I and the vast majority of posters on this forum have been very straightforward about our status and experiences. We know that anyone reading our posts deserves to know who is providing the information.



jj

"What is relevant to the particular discussion at hand is that partner dancing must make physical allowance for the presence of a partner in planning its movements.

No, that topic is not relevant to this discussion. Judging the suitability of any particular instructor for an amateur couple1s needs is."

A teacher1s inability to address the aspect of partner dancing that is the requirement to move in a way that works for two bodies is of key relevance to their suitability for selection to coach amateur couples (as in the situations I was writing about), or in any other category.

I wrote about a category of teachers who would appear to be suitable, but upon closer examination turn out to fail their students in this and related areas.

An experienced dancer can spot this by watching the teacher address - or as was sadly the case in these situations, fail to address - the problems holding back their students.

An inexperienced dancer can spot this in the persistent difficulty that these teachers' students' experience, compared to similar students of other teachers.

What matters to an amateur couple is a teacher's ability to teach the man to lead and the woman to follow.

Because you do not work with an amateur partner, you lack the experience to understand the dynamics of practicing and taking lessons together with another amateur.

For example, you do not know what you should be doing while the instructor is showing your partner her steps or helping her with an issue.

Because you only work with professionals, you cannot comprehend the give and take necessary for an amateur partnership to succeed.

When amateur couples leave a lesson, they can discuss what they just learned and share their concerns. When pro/am students leave their lessons, they can't share anything with anyone unless they're willing and able to pony up more money.

Inexperienced dancers lack the conceptual framework on which to base an evaluation of an instructor's students. Other than working with that teacher themselves, they should watch him or her actually teaching another couple as Terence suggested.

Your last post is just a weak attempt to obfuscate with awkward language.



jj

"What maaters to an amateur couple is a teacher1s ability to teach the man to lead and the woman to follow."

That1s only part of it. The teacher must also teach the figures with geometry that makes them possible for two bodies.

The teachers in question were failing in both respects - not teaching lead and follow skills, and also teaching the figures with impractical geometry, which made them impossible. Impossible I might add for not just the student couple, but for the teachers as well.

"Becuase you do not work with an amateur partner"

UNFOUNDED AND IRRELEVANT ASSUMPTION

"you lack the experience to understand the dynamics of practicing and taking lessons together with another amateur"

UNFOUNDED AND IRRELEVANT ASSUMPTION

"For example, you do not know what you should be doing while the instructor is showing your partner her steps or helping her with an issue."

"Because you only work with professionals, you cannot comprehend the give and take necessary for an amateur partnership to succeed."

UNFOUNDED AND IRRELEVANT ASSUMPTION

"When amateur couples leave a lesson, they can discuss what they just learned and share their concerns."

Obviously. And also irrelevant in the situations that I was writing about, which were THOSE WHERE THE TEACHER HAD TAUGHT THINGS IN AN UNWORKABLE WAY.

"When pro/am students leave their lessons, they can1t share anything with anyone unless they1re willing and able to pony up more money."

UNFOUNDED AND IRRELEVANT ASSUMPTION.

You keep harping on the difference between am/am and pro/am, and completely ignoring that these differences are IRRELEVANT WHEN THE TEACHER LACKS A FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF PARTNER DANCE.

If you want to start an am/am vs. pro/am thread, go start one. It's not the topic here, and it has no bearing on the topic here, especially when you insist on making UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS rather than responding in substance to the points that have been made.

Two bodies to . . . do the Hokey Pokey?

Ignoring the fact that relational positioning is one of the tenets of leading or following, this statement explains everything about your attitude toward dancing.

It also explains why you don't have a real partner.

You'll whine again that that claim is unfounded but you'll never deny it.

[drum roll as violins rise]

YOU CAN'T LEAD.

[/drum roll as violins rise]

Why didn't you just say so? I can teach you how to lead in just a few weeks . . . and on a message board at that. Jonathan's a decent chap and I'm sure he'll be able to toss in some helpful information.

Terence will, of course, offer alternative views.

How do I know that you can't lead? Just look at the way you describe ballroom dancing as two bodies moving together and not as one body following another.

Your entire danceview (i.e. a dancer's version of a worldview) is screwed up.

This absurd perspective is the result of NOT HAVING an amateur partner.

As I said, I'm always happy to help. I regularly show other guys at practice sessions and lessons what's wrong with their leads so I have experience.

The text-only aspect will limit the dimensions that we can investigate but you have a sufficiently well developed dance vocabulary to help compensate.

Just let me know when you want to start.

I bet you were thinking that this entire thread was a waste of time.



jj

""That1s only part of it. The teacher must also teach the figures with geometry that makes them possible for two bodies."

Ignoring the fact that relational positioning is one of the tenets of leading or following"

It is related, but a somewhat separate skill. Conveying what you want to do to a partner, or perceiving what your partner wants is a separate skill from choosing something that will be possible for two bodies.

In many of these cases, the problem was not that the teacher had failed to teach the students to communicate with each other, instead the problem was that the teacher had not taught them the sequence of actions required to make figures practical. That1s not a leading and following problem, it1s a problem with understanding the geometry of moving two bodies together.

"this statement explains everything about your attitude toward dancing."

Indeed it does. It also explain my habit of borrowing any available body and effortless executing what the teacher1s ignorance has both teacher and student couple so hopeless struggling with.

"It also explains why you don1t have a real partner."

Your habitual retreat to UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS says a lot more about your lack of ability to discuss the current topic from a position of any real knowledge than it does about me.

You failed to address this point.



You also failed to respond to the unassailable logic behind this somewhat less-than-spectacular conclusion.

Because of your failure to address this topic, you have acceded to my argument by your faulty logic in a matter that you did address . . . sort of.


You see, your problem is that you believe that you can refute the basis by gainsaying the conclusion. You completely failed to deal with my reasoning.

You seem to think that you can dispute an argument by ignoring it. Just like your failure to acknowledge your lack of an amateur partner, your attempt to "grease" past this unyielding logic supports the assumption that you don't know how to direct the movements of your partner while executing your own and scanning the floor.

You lose, dude.



jj