Anonymous. Your giving as an example guys who are into there forties.

My response to this discussion is simply to look at the photographs. Of top dancers. In positions where their hips are not under their shoulders.
This is not a 'plump' dancer thing at all.

Phil. I went to a lecture given by Steven Hillier. He went to great lengths to point out that we should imagine that at the pelvis we have three blocks of wood which are stacked one on top of the other. That's the way they stay. If we were doing Latin the hips move contrary to the upper body. This is the Latin motion. In Modern we don't do this. If you put yourself in a CBMP position. You will find that your right shoulder is over your right hip with your weight over your left foot. The right foot will be level with the left shoulder across the body. Ther is no twisting of the top contra to the bottom of the body and consequently no twisting of the spine. Our blocs of wood remain one on top of the other. Apply the same to a CBM position. If you put your right arm straight down by your spine and use it as a guide so that the whole of your side comes around as a fixed unit. Now go to Learn the Dances. Choose Reverse Turn Feather Finish Foxtrot. What do you see. Do you see what i see. Then have a look at the Waltz Spin Turn. Again what do you see with the sides of the body.Do they come around as a unit. I sometimes freeze frame an image and think if this guy puts his right arm straight down by his side. Where is it.

Quickstep, please refrain from dropping names when you haven't the first clue what you are talking about... it's insulting to the teachers!

Are your ideas going up in smoke. You always get nasty when this happens. End of story

Quickstep
I respect your views and we all have our own interpretation of things. such is dancing, an art form rather than science.
On the 3 blocks of wood thing - they are still on top of one another, even if my upper body is rotated relative to my hips. I've never seen any form of teaching which says the blocks are fused into position.
I don't dance my CBMP with my right shoulder over my right hip. Rather, my right shoulder is nearly over my left foot.Foxtrot feather step - i'd lose the shape of my frame if i didn't rotate my shoulders relative to my hips.
However, i'm always willing to learn. I'll ask my coach about it (it's not Stephen Hillier!)

Have you actually studied with these teachers? I don't think so.

Anyone can take away mistaken impressions from a lecture, in many ways more easily than they can from a carefully written description. Take a few lessons, and you will start (just start) to get a sense of to what degree you actually understand what the teacher is saying.

And even then, you would be better off to keep in mind that those are your impressions, and should not have the teacher's name on them. To confuse your impressions for the teacher's teaching is quite disrespectful. Even quoting is such, unless you are sure you have captured the full context, which in this case you obviously have not!

There's some quite mixed up conclusions being drawn here.

Most glaringly mistaken is the idea the the videos here match the English teachers - they don't, as will soon be demonstrated.

In the English tradition, CBMP is not in generally a very twisted position, because the hips stay as parallel as possible. When we speak of the hip at times not being over the shoulder in that tradition, it is not a rotational displacement so much as a linear one - shoulder stretching forward ahead of hip, or hip stretching backward relative to shoulder. On the other hand, in the American tradition CBMP does tend to be twisted - and you need look no further than the promenade video clips here to see that! When you see 90 degree of difference between the shoulders and the feet, it most certainly isn't all below the waist. Instead, that twist is distributed - the hips are turned out a good degree too. Whears in the English tradition they are as parallel as possible, and less foot turnout is used.

On the other hand, rotational actions go the opposite way. There the English tradition does make use of body twist - upper body leading the hips in rotation on natural figures, hips leading the upper body in reverse figures. In contrast, the American method shown here will be much more body moving as an inflexible block, all turning at once.

So what do we have? The answer is that we have a variety of ideas about how things should be done. And quickstep's big mistake is trying to pretend that they are the same, when in fact they are quite different. In each case, one side supports his(?) view, while the other contradicts it. To fail to see the difference between the two sources is to exposte one's inexperience as an observer!

I'm using Quicksteps Computer. This is Me. I am only intersted in the Traditional English style of ballroom dancing which is the only style taught here and I can take this with me to Blackpool. Any other way is quite foreign and unaceptable.

"I'm using Quicksteps Computer. This is Me. I am only intersted in the Traditional English style of ballroom dancing which is the only style taught here and I can take this with me to Blackpool. Any other way is quite foreign and unaceptable."

When you get to the point of looking at things in greater detail, you will notice substantial differences between the dancing demonstrated here and that of the traditional English coaches. As mentioned in the previous post, look at how much the hips are or aren't turned out in promenade. Also see where the CBM occurs in turns compared to the change in the direction of movement, and if everything turns at once or if body parts turn in sequence.

Yes, it is all internatinoal style ballroom - but the execution shows a lot of difference depending on who you are watching. And what you see here is quite representative of how American couples were dancing about a decade ago.