Hi to all,
When using CBM on a backward walk, do you believe the foot travels on a curved track, when moving back,(which I believe) or does it keep on a straight track?

It depends whether the CBM step is initiating turn. If it is, then the foot placement is usually very slightly to the side, rather than straight back (but this shouldn't be overdone), and with the toe turned in, the foot will, inevitably, make a curved track as it moves from one position to another.

Where there is no turn (such as a Foxtrot Three Step), while there is slight CBM on Step 1, the foot should go straight back.

Wherever the backward partner's foot goes, both bodies will likely have to pass over that point, so this can provide a fair amount of guidance as to where that foot should or shouldn't go.

Generally I would say that CBM should be executed such that the thighs are "closed" rather than "opened", which is to say that the body rotation is greater than any curve in the path of foot placement.

When this is not done, the connection between the steps is effectively broken - all of the steps need to be tied one to another along a line of continuation - it's a line that can be arched into a curve, but it musn't be broken. Very often when people consciously try to turn the CBM step, what they end up doing is breaking the continuation of movement.

(For an idea of doing dramatic curves right, think about dancing a series of curved three steps, "brushing along a curve" on each middle step, so that you have a path that curves rather than simply folding in on itself)

In the ordinary three step it's very likely due to the right side lead that the movement is actually not square to the feet, but almost into CBMP much as it would be in tango. Most definitely no divergence of the foot placement is appropriate there. Even if doing a curvy version (think doing it backwards as waves), the "turn" does not show up in foot placement of the CBM step, but only the steps that follow after.

There IS no right side lead in an ordinary Three Step, but the same is not true of a Curved Three Step.

"There IS no right side lead in an ordinary Three Step"

It may not make the official description, but there most certainly is a right side lead on the corresponding step in practice. This is required to have any depth of fullness to the step, because it is what allows the partners to take a reaching step somewhat in parallel rather than suffer the limiting interference they will find when trying to move squarely in tandem.

Note that the CBM being discussed is not technically included in the three step either, because it is on the step that precedes the official three step.

Not according to written technique, but that's because the written technique does not typically account for the complexities of rotational differential (i.e. the difference in amounts of turn between top and bottom) in basic closed position turns. In actual application, most turns begin under-turned. Prior to the turn (for example, during the Change action), we wind up. This is the case in the Three Step, which is essentially a variation of Change action, preparing for the Natural Turn. So although the writers of the ISTD technique book may have thought it too complicated to explain without writing a ten-volume encyclopedia, I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel.

Regards,
Jonathan

"I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel."

Indeed, when you get right down it, only step one actions tend to be square, and even then only at the specific instant in which they pass through body-foot neutralization.

In the case of the Moore/ISTD three step, that actually occurs on the step preceding the three step itself, though the neutralization at the end (many would say the start of the next figure) is included.

You should compare the old techniques of Moore/ISTD with later Howard/IDTA, who can't agree where the figure begins or ends: perhaps we are not even talking about the same step?

Howard has quite a different take, and the differences are interesting. If I use a technical term like "Side leading" it will be supported by the technique in which I have trained. Here, Howard describes slight body turn between 1 and 3, always remembering that his 1 is LF fwd for man (with CBM), and no turn.



I don't, but the track of my foot is straight, as I am not turning (to return to the original question).

"I would not recommend dancing your Three step perfectly square to the direction of travel.

I don't, but the track of my foot is straight, as I am not turning (to return to the original question)."

There are two different issues here.

First, incidentally, side leading does not imply turn or even rotation, it is merely an observation that the body is not square to the feet, but instead aligned at an angle to them, specifically the one in which the moving foot's side of the body is in advance.

The second is the difference between "straight" and "straight forward in the direction of the standing foot". The movement in the three step is straight, but for the step that could legitimately be called side leading, it is not straight forward in the direction in which the standing foot is pointing. We might say it's straight, but not square.

The issue that was at the heart of the original question was whether the track of the foot should be straight, or curved, not whether the movement of the foot is square to the body.

BTW, can anyone with a copy of the current ISTD technique settle whether the figure does or doesn't call for a side lead (and does the figure start on LF or RF). My oldish copy of the Revised Technique has it start RF and with a slight side lead on 1 & 2, the preceding LF step being from another figure. Contradictory info has been posted here as to what the ISTD technique currently is. I am interested in the answer.