luv2dance. feel free to contribute. I am just keen to hear as many takes as possible on these issues-knowing full well there are rarely single, definitive answers.

(exam is IDTA)

anymouse. re your last statement. Thats a completely different issue. Tango has no swing because of the character and origins of the dance. But the variations within waltz must be due more to the practicalities and mechanics of individual figures.

(for some reason my replies are going in the wrong places so the thread structure is becoming a mess - any advice appreciated)

Hi to all,
The Drag Hesitation in the English Waltz Style.

The Drag Hesitation is certainly an unusual figure and needs careful study. If you have made rules in your technique then this figure is sure to break one or two of them. When dancing this figure you don't swing into the first step. The character of the figure is to keep down; knees flexed, and 'reach' with the RF down the LOD. -this is known as a dead entry - then 'pull up' hesitating (are hesitations normally danced by the man on the inside of a turn?) while the LF closes witout weight.

Because of the lack of power on step one, this stops the lady from completing her turn between 1 & 2 of 3/8 to the left (Lady on the inside of the turn would normally complete the turn in the feet with the body turning less.) This then accounts for her unusual alignment on step 2 of pointing almost diag to wall.

The man uses the footwork of HT on step one, the use of the toe signifies that he commences the turn on the ball of the LF making a 1/4 between 1 & 2, straightening the right knee, making a foot swivel on the RF of an 1/8 between 2 & 3 with his body turning less. The lady makes her foot swivel between 2 & 3 of just under an 1/8, with her body still turning less, which will assist her in keeping contact when taking the following step outside partner in CBMP.

well put. the figure starts with reduced swing and ends up with the lady preparing to step O/P in CBMP. cause and efect ?

Hi, Interested,
I was with the IDTA (previously IDMA) over 40 years. I proof-read Guy's book back in the 70's when the late Charles Frost was the chairman of the ballroom branch technical committee. I did 2 readings over 3 hours each read. There is only my word for this because it was Charles's task, not mine, and sadly he is no longer with us. I'm now an examiner with the UKA.

did you ever chat to howard about how the technique was devised and how he decided on the details.

Hi, Interested,
For the many years I knew, Guy, very rarely did I engage him in conversation on the why and wherefores of technique. Of course he knew me very well but he still referred to me as, Old Boy.

When he read my corrections from my proof-reading, (over 4 pages of A4) I got no payment or thanks. I always remember how his face was set. The trouble for me is I didn't know if he had altered the technique, or that I had found a typo.

Shortly after this I met with him again at the IDTA Blackpool Congress. He was coming up the stairs to the Spanish Hall, although he looked at me he didn't acknowledge my hello Guy, he completely ignored me. By the time I reached the bottom of the stairs I was holding back the tears.

That same day I met with him again in the foyer in the Winter Gardens, this time he was with Charles Frost. Charlie ask me if I had attended Wally Laird's lecture which was based on the reprint of his Latin book. I told him I had and showed him the notes I had taken. Guy then ask if he could borrow them so I gave him my notes, but I never got them back.

I met with him many times after this but he never once mentioned the proof-reading I did.

interesting story.

maybe the "justification" for the details of the technique (if there was any) were never really aired that much.

all the more unsurprising then that our current profrssionals now seem to want to deviate from it in so many instances.

Hello,
Is this Ken Ackryll, that has proof read the articles for Charles Frost.
Do you remember me, Carol Wllliams. I ran his dancing school until he died in 1997.
I also took my qualifications through Charles up to Fellowship, so I know what I am talking about.

If you are not Ken, please let me know who you are.

thanks carol WILLIAMS

anonymous. re ken ackrill. not sure if that was a question to me, as ive kind of lost the thread of this thread, but - no i'm not ken ackrill.