Actually a boat doesn't: centrifugal force makes it roll the other way - have you never watched one? Dancers sway to counteract that force, not in response to it - although the greater use of sway is still for effect, not necessity.

And if there was nothing to add to the words of Alex Moore, we could all have packed it in in 1936.

Surely there is only one neutral position. If there are two then why not three or more. I think some of you guys make it up as you go along to suit your own arguments. Neutral is when both feet are under the body with the full weight on the standing foot and the moving foot is in contact with the floor on the ball of the foot.Who is going to say that is not being in the one and only completely neutral position.

You're right, there is only one neutral position. The question is not how many neutral positions there are, but where exactly the one in question occurs. Different people have different opinions in this matter.

This being a discussion of CBM, we are talking about rotational neutral. So all this stuff about "moving foot in contact with the floor" and "ball of foot" is unrelated and irrelevant. Neutral as it applies to rise & fall or sway or any other such technique does not necessarily coincide with neutral as it applies to the upper body's orientation with respect to the feet.

If your version of CBM puts you in (rotational) neutral at the exact beginning of the pattern, then that's your version. I would advise against it, because in so doing, you are arriving in CBMP as you place your foot on step 1 of every closed position pattern. This, of course, is contrary to the book. The only other options would be to avoid turning until after the body arrives over the standing foot on 1, which doesn't qualify as CBM, or curve your track to match any rotation, which keeps you moving squarely at your partner throughout.

Most people agree that the body begins most turns "wound up", and rotates throughout the forward step, passing through neutral at some point along the way. There is much debate throughout the ballroom world, even between the top technicians, about where exactly this magic moment occurs. But it is generally agreed that it is after the beginning of the step.

Regards,
Jonathan

"If your version of CBM puts you in (rotational) neutral at the exact beginning of the pattern, then that's your version. I would advise against it, because in so doing, you are arriving in CBMP as you place your foot on step 1 of every closed position pattern."

That is untrue.

CBMP is defined by the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot, not by the rotation of the body relative to the feet.

"This, of course, is contrary to the book."

No, you are attempting to apply a definition of CBMP which is contrary to that in the book.

Even that, however, cannot be taken too literally and must be filtered through the lens of application. Consider for example Moore's observation that on a forward CBM step the moving foot will "cover" slightly in front of the standing one. You would call this CBMP, but you would be mistaken to do so, because it properly occurs even in situations which do not call for CBMP. Effectively, it is not CBMP (even if there is partial or even total track overlap) because it is not intended to accomplish the purpose of CBMP.

"Most people agree that the body begins most turns "wound up", and rotates throughout the forward step, passing through neutral at some point along the way. There is much debate throughout the ballroom world, even between the top technicians, about where exactly this magic moment occurs."

Indeed.

"But it is generally agreed that it is after the beginning of the step."

I'm not sure that I would agree that it should always occur after the feet pass, which is the formal beginning of the step. In many cases that may work well. But there are teaching presentations in which rotational neutral, foot passing, body over feet, and feet flat on floor all coincide, and those are dance-able. They do not even preclude the application of a windup, provided that it is lost during the first portion of the travel of the moving foot.

In terms of what is ideal, a lot depends on what body dynamics are to be employed. The latest neutralizations tends to go with the "rowing down the floor" concept which is disastrous on beginners but can be tamed with time. Earlier neutralizations go with the "dance the length of the standing foot and utilize it's spring" for which beginners lack the requisite physical strength.

I'll comment again that only the second method is fully applicable to the step one outside partner cases, so it needs to be mastered regardless of what is chosen for the inline ones. I've also noticed many couples in their teens or early twenties who try to make use of the "rowing" method by reaching their newly extended legs far beyond their bodies... they do well against others applying that technique less capably, but always end up showing the discomfort that results from leading the movement with their feet rather than their body centers.

"I dont see what all the fuss is about.If we turn even slightly we have sway."

How's tango working out for you?

I don't know why every one is assuming you were talking about a Three Step.

I am going to talk about a Natural turn.
I will further assume you are the follower and dancing 1-2 of the Natural.
(the man does the same thing on 4-5 though) I lagree with what Telemark said. I just want to be sure you understand that the turn comes from the supporting right foot. (leg actually) I am talking about the right foot you are standing on before step 1. As you lower and travel through the right foot,you need to soften the (right) hip joint and create turn from the right foot. The turn is at the ankle. The foot itself will not turn. This turn on your supportig leg lets you move "straight back" by definition and feeling. ( the eyes would argue that it's a bit curved.
BY the way the amount of turn is just to get you out of the Man's path.

You may or may not, be interested to know, that Scrivener believed one of its main purposes was to do the opposite... that is , bring the lady back "in" line..

Hi to All,
I wish to thank all subscribers to the CBM discussion. I've found it to be a very interesting read.

The following is a paragraph taken from the writing of A.H.Franks. He wrote:

/* CBM is a misleading term by which we define the initial action necessary to start any turning movement. A more apt description would be, 'Sympathetic Body Movement', as it is the action of the body which works in sympathy with the legs to produce turn.

Leading teachers stress the importance of a swinging movement in Contrary Body Movement. They are unanimous in asserting that this swing should predominate with a rotating movement, using the leg upon which the turn is made as an axis for the swing. */

The above was written in 1940.

Altho i agree with the term " sympathetic " ( one which scriv. used frequently ,,, he also believed that it was present to some degree, in all movement).. however, you need to realise that the advances in theory and techn. have changed, in some instances, dramatically over the yrs ( I dont always agree with everything, it is after all, only theory )..

I started my humble " career " before that was written( as a Juvenile ), and the body "pitch " for e.g. that existed at that time, has long since disappeared, and a new paradigm in fwd stance/poise and motion, has now developed .

And.. as far as quoting what past champions believe , is not always accepted by all in the profession,, styles and concepts change,, some good, some not so .Each one tries to cut their "niche" in the time period in which they excelled ..

You need to research the " four schools" of thought , in coaching styles.

They are conceptual ideas that have evolved, and each may have their own merits .

Its worth noting, that fundamental techniques , are, by and large,pretty much unchanged .

And lastly.. one of the most important changes that seems to get overlooked.. the MUSIC..

T and QS at one time written in 2/4.. the tempi of W and FT.. slowed down.

Hi Terence,
Can you remember if your Juvenile Tango style, was based on Freddie Camp's? I know that in the 30's, in the South, (I live in the North) it was very popular. I believe it was the mid-thirties when he danced his Tango in the British Amateur at Blackpool.