My statement was not an assumption (Do you even know what that word means?). It was a refutation of your overly broad generalization based on my own experiences and observations.



You do not work with an amateur partner so your opinion in this matter is meaningless. Additionally, partners can "struggle" with each other for reasons which have nothing to do with the quality of their instruction. One partner may simply learn much more quickly or have a more acute sense of timing than the other.

And yes, your attitude as expressed is peculiar to those who have opted for dancing with a professional instead of actually learning to lead or follow.


Instructors with no "successful" students usually are not around for very long - unless thay are very good looking.

Your definition of success (i.e. "dancing fluidly") is rather simplistic. Would you call a well performed Tango or Quickstep "fluid"? Well, yes, you would.

Graceful motion comes from one thing: practice. A couple can appear to be graceful but still execute their steps incorrectly.



jj

"My statement was not an assumption"

No, your statement was an assumption, and a WRONG one. To quote from your message:

"Your assertions may have some relevance to students dancing with their pro/am partners but have no validity whatsoever in regard to amateur couples."

You WRONG ASSUMPTION was that I was describing something having to do with pro/am.

In fact I was not. As already stated, I was describing the actual facts observed in the context of teachers failing with their amateur couples.

"It was a refutation of your overly broad generalization"

I was not making broad generalizations, I was speaking about a specific type of failure. I already pointed out that other situations, such as one that you raised, where not within the scope of my comments.

"You do not work with an amateur partner"

Again, an UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION.

And also, an irrelevant one. Dancing is basically dancing, and trying to do figures with impractical geometry is still a problem, regardless of who you are dancing with.

"Additionally, partners can "struggle" with each other for reasons which have nothing to do with the quality of their instruction."

Already pointed out. What you have yet to acknowledge is that they can also struggle for the simple reason that their teacher has not taught them a practical method of dancing the figures.
When you watch the teacher struggle with the same action, it's pretty clear where the fault is.

"And yes, your attitude as expressed is peculiar to those who have opted for dancing with a professional instead of actually learning to lead or follow."

Again, your unfounded and WRONG assumptions leads you to a WRONG conclusion.

"Instructors with no "successful" students usually are not around for very long - unless thay are very good looking."

You would think that, but my post was specifically about those who have managed to give the impression of competence, while utterly failing their students.

"Your definition of success (i.e. "dancing fluidly") is rather simplistic. "

It was intended to cut to the essence of the matter. Fluidly vs. forced. Yes, different dances have different character, but the need to approach things in a way that makes them work well (vs. a way that makes everything forced) is universal.

"Graceful motion comes from one thing: practice. A couple can appear to be graceful but still execute their steps incorrectly."

To some degree. But some of the forms of incorrectly which are being taught or at least not corrected make the dancing entirely impractical. Example: turn too early in a figure and cut off your partner's path of movement, yet persist in trying to accomplish that figure: grace becomes utterly impossible.

"My statement was not an assumption"

No, your statement was an assumption, and a WRONG one. To quote from your message:

"Your assertions may have some relevance to students dancing with their pro/am partners but have no validity whatsoever in regard to amateur couples."

Your WRONG ASSUMPTION was that I was describing something having to do with pro/am.

In fact I was not. As already stated, I was describing the actual facts observed in the context of teachers failing with their amateur couples.

"It was a refutation of your overly broad generalization"

I was not making broad generalizations, I was speaking about a specific type of failure. I already pointed out that other situations, such as one that you raised, where not within the scope of my comments.

"You do not work with an amateur partner"

Again, an UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTION.

And also, an irrelevant one. Dancing is basically dancing, and trying to do figures with impractical geometry is still a problem, regardless of who you are dancing with.

"Additionally, partners can "struggle" with each other for reasons which have nothing to do with the quality of their instruction."

Obviously that can often be a cause, but it is not the ONLY possible cause for such a problem. What you have yet to acknowledge is that they can also struggle for the simple reason that their teacher has not taught them a practical method of dancing the figures.
When you watch the teacher struggle with the same action, it's pretty clear where the fault is.

"And yes, your attitude as expressed is peculiar to those who have opted for dancing with a professional instead of actually learning to lead or follow."

Again, your unfounded and WRONG assumptions leads you to a WRONG conclusion.

"Instructors with no "successful" students usually are not around for very long - unless thay are very good looking."

You would think that, but my post was specifically about those who have managed to give the impression of competence, while utterly failing their students.

"Your definition of success (i.e. "dancing fluidly") is rather simplistic. "

It was intended to cut to the essence of the matter. Fluidly vs. forced. Yes, different dances have different character, but the need to approach things in a way that makes them work well (vs. a way that makes everything forced) is universal.

"Graceful motion comes from one thing: practice. A couple can appear to be graceful but still execute their steps incorrectly."

To some degree. But some of the forms of incorrectly which are being taught or at least not corrected make the dancing entirely impractical. Example: turn too early in a figure and cut off your partner's path of movement, yet persist in trying to accomplish that figure: grace becomes utterly impossible.

I have asked you repeatedly in other threads if you have an amateur partner. You have refused to answer that very simple question. My assumption that have no partner is FOUNDED on your childish refusal to respond.

My obversation about the relevance of your claims is a simple statement of fact whose truth is unrelated to whatever type of partnership in which one may be involved. You are refusing to acknowledge my earlier post in this same thread in which I pointed out that teaching a couple and teaching a single staudent are different tasks.


That claim is completely unqualified and therefore constitutes a generalization.


If, according to you, one can simply observe that ALL of a certain teacher's students are failing to improve in their dancing then exactly how is that instructor giving "an impression of competence"?

You failed to respond to my question about the Tango and Quickstep. Is "fluidity" part of their essence?


Is this sentence supposed to make sense?

You have made the completely unsupportable claim that the fault for a couples' poor dance performance lies solely with their instructor(s). That assertion is absurd on its face.



jj

"My assumption that have no partner is FOUNDED on your childish refusal to respond."

No, your assumption is founded in nothing but thin air and your preference for attacking the messenger rather than responding to the actual content of the message.

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

That claim is completely unqualified and therefore constitutes a generalization."

The claim was not a general statement, it was about a number of situations which I was present to observe and you were not. I1ve repeatedly said that this is not the only type of failure that can occur, but one specific category.

Perhaps you should read again the opening statement of my comments on the subject, which was:

"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."

After the first time you tried to read this as a general summary of all failures I pointed out that it was not, that it was only one category/cause of failure amongst many. Yet you continue to treat it as an explanation of failure in general, despite being told that it is not.

"If, according to you, one can simply observe that ALL of a certain teacher1s students are failing to improve in their dancing then exactly how is that instructor giving "an impression of competence"?"

There are many other factors that contribute to the perception of dance teachers which do not necessarily have anything to do with their actual ability in that role: resume, certification work as a judge, business ownership, family connections, political role in dance organization, and on and on. My comments were specifically about the people who these "clues" suggest would be great teachers, but actual analysis of their work shows that they are not.

"You failed to respond to my question about the Tango and Quickstep."

Actually I already did respond.

"Is "fluidity" part of their essence?"

In the sense it was used (fluid vs. forced) it absolutely is. And fluid is not the opposite of sharp or staccato - a good tango will be sharp at points, even soft at points, but always fluid, never forced. And quickstep despite all the tricks remains a very flowing dance.

Do you have an amateur partner? Yes or no? The question is binary. Answer it.

Most of your response is just repeating the same backtracking that you've been doing.


Not one of these factors concerns the preception of an instructor's efficacy AS AN INSTRUCTOR. They may affect the perception of someone's standing in the overall ballrooom community but not the person's reputation as a good teacher.

"Fluid" and "forced" are not antonyms.

From Merriam-Webster, we get this definition of fluid:
(Definition of fluid)

Neither Tango nor Quickstep can accurately be described as "smooth and flowing."

Answer the question.



jj

"Not one of these factors concerns the preception of an instructorRs efficacy AS AN INSTRUCTOR. They may affect the perception of someoneRs standing in the overall ballrooom community but not the personRs reputation as a good techer."

They don't prove anything. But for better or worse, such factors (especially judging and certification) do "hint". My line of comment was specifically about the situations when such "hints" are badly misleading. When people who we might think are great teachers turn out to be anything but, that's highly relevant to a discussion of what things indicate a good teacher or would be useful in selecting one.

And I am hardly the first to suggest looking at the success of someone's students as good determining factor. Surely you have heard the old saw "find someone who's dancing you like, and then get lessons with their teacher". At the least we could say that if someone has no students who's dancing you would wish to emulate, that's a strong warning sign that they may not be a good choice.

"Fluid" and "forced" are not antonyms.

Not precisely, but they can be used in a sense of contrast.

"From Merriam-Webster, we get this definition of fluid:

Smooth and flowing; graceful: the fluid motion of a cat."

This definition your provide fits quite well with my original point: you cannot move in this way if you do not have a practical knowledge of the figures - if you keep blocking your partnerRs body with your own, your dancing will be forced, not in any way matching with the definition you quote. And yes, this definition applies to tango too. Surely you can see the similarity between that dance and "the fluid motion of a cat".

"Answer the question."

Stick to the topic.

your "judgments" as expressed in this thread about the performance of amateur couples.

You made the claim that amateurs' problems are solely the fault of the instructors. You have used every dodge imaginable to try to avoid backing up that claim.

If you are not in an amateur partnership yourself then you have no basis for that opinion other than your own prejudices. You do not understand that the process of learning to dance with another amateur requires much more effort and commitment and presents many different issues than simply working with a professional, wherein the only necessary commitment is financial.

Answer the question. Do you have an amateur partner?

Obviously, you have never spent much time around cats.

My point about the nature of Tango and Quickstep movements stands. You're using the word "forced" when you should be using "awkward."

Answer the question.



jj

"You made the claim that amateurs problems are solely the fault of the instructors."

No, I did not.

Please learn to read more carefully.

I mentioned that there is a TYPE of failure that is the fault of the teacher rather than of the students.

But you have repeatedly ignored where I have repeatedly pointed out that there are MANY OTHER TYPES of failure as well.

In a discussion of teacher certifications and picking teachers (which this thread is), failures that are the fault of the teacher are of particular interest. In contrast, much of the rest of the time failures that are the fault of the student would indeed be a more worthy topic of conversation. But not when we are talking about how to identify good teachers.

"You're using the word "forced" when you should be using "awkward.""

Both words are applicable to the cases I was describing, but I find "forced" to be more descriptive of the problem. Dancing that was "forced" but did not at first glance appear overtly awkward would still have a problem: even if the dancers were able to conceal it from less experienced eyes, they could not conceal it from each other.

"Answer the question.:"

Stick to the topic.

Yes, you did.

I notice that you are trying to ignore my argument about your partner status and your fitness to judge either amateur couples themselves or their instructors. I pointed out this fact in my first response to you on this thread:


You claim that you've "repeatedly pointed out that there are MANY OTHER TYPES of failure as well (emphasis yours)." Gee, I guess you'll have to help us here because I've read back through this entire thread and don't see any post of yours which discusses various "types of failure."

This forum is not a court of law. Your refusal to answer my question about your having an amateur partner is more than an adequate basis on which to assume that you do not.

Doll and Scottyboy are an amateur couple. Because you are not part of one, you cannot understand the issues that they or any other amateur couple face, especially that of choosing a teacher.

Perhaps you would be wise to stay safe and secure in your pro/am world and stop presuming to impart wisdom to amateur couples that you clearly don't have.



jj