"When we started out we found a fully qualified instructor. His low key attitude and style of teaching suited us well. Until, we learned that this guy had not updated his skills in 13 years. Dancing has changed and we were taught to do things the old way. We had to re-learn and that was difficult."

Somebody has been misleading you, but it1s not clear from what you have presented if that is the old teacher or the new one.

While there have been minor style changes and continued evolution in dancing over the last 13 years, these changes in the "state of the art" are really too small to be of significance for any but the tiny fraction of dancers competing either internationally or as finalists in their own country. In fact, most of today's leading coaches have not been entered in a competition within the last 13 years - yet they are still the experts to which the current champions turn. Despite being that "out of date", the depth of expertise and artistic maturity of their dancing can still make many of the current champs look comparatively incomplete if you see them working together in a studio setting - but of course that is not the same as winning a competition.

But what really has changed that is significant for everyone is not the dancing, but the average expertise of everyday teachers. A teacher who might have been considered good under the standards of 13 years ago might well not be seen so today. Not because their knowledge is of old fashioned dancing, but because the standards for depth of knowledge and experience then were generally lower than they are today. A generation ago many studios trained their own teachers from adult hirees, and only a tiny fraction of those every sought out world-class instruction. Today, many of the new teachers have over a decade of personal experience in amateur competition before they turn pro; and much of that time they will have been getting regular input from world class coaches.

It's not the state of the art that has changed in an important way, it's that the greater availability of teachers with a real depth of experience in it makes it hard for those who never had a deep understanding to compete.

"Not to mention how annoyed we were that we had spent good money learning obsolete techniques and steps.""

Anything that was fundamentally sound and worthwhile 13 years ago is by no means obsolete today. With the exception of some things that have always been rather silly, step obsolescence is a marketing concept pushed by certain studios that wish to sell steps instead of teach dancing. It's like fashion trends, and about as shallow. The actual skills of dancing transcend these trivialities. A person thoroughly trained to dance 13 years ago, and a personally thoroughly trained to dance today will dance together just fine.

"but unfortunately his huge dance ego prevented him from progressing."

Progressing in depth of knowledge is not the same thing as tracking current trends of style. Not improving oneself is an issue - but an issue of depth, not of current styles.

Anonymous. Those changes in the art are small
They are not small the difference they make is hugh. Take the man's left hand. Do you see any of our best dancers where the thumbs by both the man and the lady are not protruding upwards. Why is this.
If you hold your hand out with the thumb up and the rest of the hand with the fingers out straight. Are you with me. We will call that a bridge. The lady places the palm of her hand on that bridge and closes. The man closes what remains of the fingers. There you are, two thumbs protuding.
We haven't even started on the connection of the bodies yet which is completely different to what it was just a couple of years ago. The teachers must keep up with the times or retire. I can say this with all honesty. I have a tape by one of the top teachers in the world today which I bought in 1990. He does not teach exactly that way today. Time Marches On.

"Anonymous. Those changes in the art are small
They are not small the difference they make is hugh. Take the man's left hand. Do you see any of our best dancers where the thumbs by both the man and the lady are not protruding upwards."

Yes. Quite a few. I personally prefer parallel thumbs, but the other way is and probably always will be quite common, even amongst some of the world class coaches I1ve worked with. There are sound arguments to be made in favor of both.

"We haven't even started on the connection of the bodies yet which is completely different to what it was just a couple of years ago."

And remains wildly different between different teachers. Some world champs are permanently glued to each other, others give you the occasional glimpse of daylight. Some connect high, some connect low. There's a world of difference out there.

But in the grand grand scheme of things, when the overall dancing is sound, these are small details, not day and night differences.

Most of us can switch between these at a whim - we have our preferences, but we can adapt to the needs of anyone we might dance with, too.

Individual dancers will change over the course of their life of course - something I've pointed out in the past is that most do not truly reach the peak of their expertise until they have retired from the competition rat race, gained a lot of insight observing and judging, and had time to contemplate the subject more deeply and in the context of teaching it.

Someone who was a thoroughly trained dancer in the state of the are 13 years ago would still qualify as one today. But someone who was a TYPICALLY trained teacher of 13 years ago, especially anywhere outside England, would probably not have comparable depth of experience or insight to the TYPICAL teacher of today, because in-depth training has become much more common and widely available across the world.

We should try to emulate our best dancers who incidently go to the very few, but the best teachers who do keep up with the latest methods. Not to many years ago nobody was teaching that the the right are of the ladies chest is conected to the right area of the mans and that you could swing a brick at the pelvis area without touching a thing. Those days where there was a heavy conection at the hips is gone forever. And what about the bending of the knees on lowering to and angle of 45 degrees. If you want to see this find Mirko and Alessia Waltz Demonstration hit the Pause button just as they exit the Turning Lock. What do you see. So we have changes. The hands. The conection of the bodies much higher. And the lowering of the knees to about 45 degrees. There is much more. Time Marches On.

Polished, comparing trivial aspects of a SUBSET of the dancing done today to a SUBSET of the dancing done yesterday proves nothing, because if you were willing to look wider you could find plenty of people doing it both ways in both eras.

If you compare the totality of it, especially in the areas of true importance, very little has changed in the past 13 years - and nothing that would make an expert dancer of that era obsolete today, or even stylistically out of place anywhere in today's world but a world event or national final.

What HAS changed is the average expertise - today, a greater fraction of teachers know their subject in depth, have serious competition careers in their background, and regularly improve the depth of their understanding through work with the best teachers.

It1s not how dancing works that has changed, it1s how widely it is understood in depth.

Very little of any importance has changed in the last thirteen years. Were you actually dancing thirteen years ago. As I pointed out the hold has changed. The position of the body has changed. As well as dancing in rhythm and in phrase with the music is now looked at very closely by a competent judge. Who among you knew that it is neccessary to contract the muscles below the shoulder blades to shorten the back which sends the spine more towards each of the partners. For this see Luca and Lorrain on posture. Dance in the Old Fashioned Way. Not Likely

No, I have been dancing for five years but we were taught the old hold and the old position of the body when we started out. We were taught some odd, old way of doing the tango. I do not know all the differences between then and now but just by watching the few students he has left, they do not look like the rest of us. No one stays with him for very long once they realize that what he is teaching is passe.

"No, I have been dancing for five years but we were taught the old hold and the old position of the body when we started out. We were taught some odd, old way of doing the tango."

What evidence do you have that what you were taught was not as "odd" in the grand scheme of things 13 years ago as it is today?

If you had been taught to dance they way they were dancing at Blackpool in 1995, 99.9% of the places you could go to dance today you would still bring down the house. On the other hand, if you were taught what was commonly known in some little corner of the world in 1995, that might not look so good today because in-depth understanding of ballroom is a bit more widespread today than it was then.

"No one stays with him for very long once they realize that what he is teaching is passe."

Passe? Or never that great to begin with?

When I first started dancing the lady stood very much in front of the man. Her position was determind by her right arm which was at a right angle.Later this changed to the ladies right bust was level with the man's shirt buttons. She then turned away slightly clockwise. The arm in most cases was straighter and not at a right angle.A description of the positions of the body was contact at the hips with the man's right side to the ladies left side. Today. I will quote. The right are of the chest of each partner touches that of the other.
This means of course that the lady is much more to the man's right and consequently the right arm of the lady is is straighter than in those far off old days. Each couple now have more freedom to move which is referered to as their space. No longer is the lady manhandled. She dances in her own space. Very often you will hear a lady say. I don't need you to dance my steps for me I can dance my own. I think I mentioned that on youtube there is a film clip of the Foxtrot and the Waltz as it was danced in 1920. Take a good look at the posture.The dancers are dancing solo as a demonstration. If you have one of the older copies of Alex Moores book. The one where he is pictured with his partner in a ballroom hold. Its nothing like it is today.

We are not talking about 1920, the poster said 13 years, which is 1995.

I maintain that nothing which was truly sound then is obsolete today - or as I put it before, a couple which could dance as they were dancing at Blackpool in 1995 would still bring down the house in the overwhelming majority of dance situations today.

The poster was not, after all, talking about training for winning an international competition - what is important for most purposes is not on which side of the tiny evolution from 1995 to the present someone1s dancing falls on, but rather what fraction of the dancing of either year a given individual has actually learned.