Thanks Jonathan. That comment hopefully will end this session of blather about bent this and inside that or outside the other. Sheesh that gets tiring!!. Just do it people!! Leave the micro analysis to those in the science labs.

Owendancer, no offence mean't but I have to lend support to Don (and Skipper) and 'blather' on a bit more because he is correct in my opinion.

Jonathan, GDT

In many reverse turning movements like the SFT Reverse Turn the person dancing backwards, the lady, in this case will be forced to take a bigger step than the man.

Don says that 'she has to get out of the way' and that's a nice non-technical way of saying that she take's the CBM lead of the man on step 1 and is compelled to dance with a certain amount of 'loss of alignment' to allow the man to complete is progressive reverse turn unobstructed. This backstep with some 'loss of alignment' will force her to travel a greater distance to keep the connection and the top unaffected. The lady dancing backwards is not dancing exactly the same line or parallel to the same line as the man.

I agree that 'loss of alignment' and 'the larger step' or not deliberate actions on the part of the lady but reactions to the CBM lead.

Rha

Rha -- what you're describing is the rotational differential (and resulting directional differential) necessary for maintaining a consistent dance position while executing turns. But this is not to be confused with taking a larger step. The size of the step is still the same, even if the direction is slightly different.

It should also be noted that the differential is much smaller on reverse turns than it is on natural turns, owing to the offset dance position. In a natural turn, the person moving forward has almost no curve, while the person moving back has quite a strong curve. This is an example of substantial differential. In a reverse turn, both parties curve to a certain degree, with only a fraction of differential. If the person moving backwards curves too much more than the person moving forward, he will start to cross into his partner's space.

Regards,
Jonathan Atkinson
www.ballroomdancers.com

Hi Jonathan

I must say that at no time do I feel or want to feel that I am taking a bigger/smaller step 1 than my partner or that she is taking a bigger/ smaller step than me. Heaven help me if she tried. The feeling is one of togetherness and that we are matching each other step for step. I read Don's comments as statements of fact and what is actually happening.

It's a question of how much of a loss of alignment one wants to dance a reverse turning figure with, that will determine the actual difference in step size between the partners. I vary the Loss of alignment I dance based on the figure I dance, and it's relative position in the choreography.

I understand what you've saying about using a curve on reverse movements and both partners curving to the same amount. I suspect that you may also be 'underturning' the amount of turn between 1 and 2 leaving more turn for the foot swivel or just leaving the amount of turn there and perhaps adjusting the line on the next figure (or the 2nd part of the figure). All of these techniques would almost nullify the lost of alignment and hence the step size of both partners would be almost the same on the reverse turn.

However if the partner dancing forward dances a reverse turning movement with a fairly straight progression then the partner dancing backwards must dance with loss of alignment. The partner dancing forward 'gets out of the way' and crosses the straight line of progression of the partner dancing forward but this does not necessarily equate to crossing into the partner's space. Because as the cross is happening they are also simultaneously and progressively rotating left. The net effect will keep them in their offset windows. The amount of turn for both partners is the same because the forward partner has CBM turn while the backing partner has loss of alignment turn. I have not felt the net effect to be obstructive and I've not experienced loss of connection either.

I don't believe that either option is wrong, but choreographically speaking, I feel that, generally, the 1st option works well for me in the Waltz Reverse turn while the latter is my choice for the SlowFox Reverse Turn. I feel like I'm placing my feet on the inside of the lady's right foot on that 1st step of the SFT Reverse Turn but by the end of the figure it's in it's correct offset position, when I use the latter technique, because of the pronounced loss of alignment. I don't get this feeling when I 'curve' and/or underturn, which reduces or nullifies the loss of alignment.

Hence my support for Don's point of view on that figure.

Having said all of that I'm still open to being convinced otherwise.

Rha

Rha writes:
When you say that the person dancing backwards "gets out of the way" (you wrote forward, but I think you meant backwards), it's the same thing as what I called the directional differential. Someone has to move to the inside.

My point was that the actual amount of difference cannot be as great on a reverse action as it is on a natural action. But that's not to say that there's no differential at all on a reverse. The analogy I've used in previous discussions has been with numbers that represent the degree of "curve". If 0 = no curve, and 3 = maximum curve, then you might have something like this:

Natural Turn
    partner moving forward: 0
    partner moving back: 3
Reverse Turn
    partner moving forward: 1
    partner moving back: 2

These numbers don't represent any concrete measurements, just a concept. There are plenty of other mitigating factors, such as the actual amount of turn (the greater the overall turn, the greater the differential), the high degree of flexibility afforded by a dynamic dance position, and so forth.

For example, if you're only dancing a quarter turn, because the differential is less in either direction (natural or reverse), you could definitely argue that the person moving backwards on the reverse can track inside just as much as the person moving back on the natural. But if we look at an opposite extreme -- pivots -- where on a natural the person on the inside of turn deflects to the inside a good 1/8 turn -- I don't think you'd want to do the same on the reverse. I guarantee if you move DC on a reverse pivot while your partner moves LOD, you'll cross his or her space no matter how hard you try to strecth out to the left.

Incidentally, I'm a bit mystified by your expression "loss of alignment". I understand that it's your version of what I call a differential, but what I'm not clear on is the choice of the word "loss". To my mind, an alignment is something you can change or alter, not something you can gain or lose. Just some food for thought.

Regards,
Jonathan

Just like to point out that straight track (Eggleton style) CBM does not require the backwards person to step out of the way, but merely to feather their body to create a clear path.

Jonathan. I think you will agree that when John Woods said That in a Promenade. Foxtrot was the topic being discussed, If both take the same size step either the man or the lady depending on who it is will not be able to get around except with force. Also I have seen a demonstration of how the lady gets pulled of her Heel Turn by the man who does not reduce the size of his step on the first of a Reverse Turn and on any similar movement. I was one of those who thought the first of a Reverse as a man was a driving step, untill it was proved to me that was totally wrong. There is a saying that. The proof is in the pudding.So there you go. Anybody care to try it. Sorry to disagree there.

The only thing you've proved is that you haven't figured out how to do with equal step sizes, inline progression, and a driving first step.

I do it that way all the time, and am hardly the best dancer to do so!

In line as in a Three Step.Yes the steps would be of an equall size. But not on a turn.

You don't pass your partner until step two of the turn; step one still has equal sizes because all that happens on step one is body rotation.

Incidentally the three step is not really colinear, unless you count the figure as starting from the rising step like the book does.