"'I'...that's why you deserve the insults. Not everyone attaches exactly the same meaning to terminology. Neither does the same term mean exactly the same thing in every context. If you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with another then you must first seek to understand the essence of what the other is trying to say."

Rha,

That's actually a good and fairly universal point. For example, when I mention that many dance actions need to include a phase of falling, many readers are clearly imagining some kind of stumbling over the partner that is not what actually occurs at all. The action does, in physical terms qualify as falling - but it is does not have the alarming properties that some imagine when they read the word.

Similarly, I would be quite suprised if Quickstep does not when walking around go through phases where his or her body weight is not located over or between standing feet. But because there is nothing alarming about that to anyone with the reflexes for normal walking, a person can be quite unaware that such a posiion unsustainable over time is actually being passed through

"'I'...that's why you deserve the insults. Not everyone attaches exactly the same meaning to terminology. Neither does the same term mean exactly the same thing in every context. If you want to engage in meaningful dialogue with another then you must first seek to understand the essence of what the other is trying to say.

Rha "


But have you listened to yourself rant? Have you truly sought to understand what the other person is saying? Honestly? Or is your reply so wrapped-up in an entrenched position that you cannot open your mind.

Inadequate knowledge and perspective, such as demonstrated by Don, QuickStep, and his other weak-minded persona is excusable. Charge that to comprehension issues or ego, but not listening with an open mind...?

"Of course the other possibile explanation is that the vast majority of dancers would disagree your definition of the term 'unbalanced', you bombastic, self-righteous, moron."


For those who like the comfort of a well-known name to believe in before they accept a theory, here's one.

Attributed to MARCUS HILTON:

"dancing is movement from 'out of balance' to 'out of balance'".

Anonymous. Some of yesterdays comments get left behind. This is 10/16 at 7.20pm. You said you teach your students that the knee bends on a Backward Walk. Have you forgotten that the knee also bends towards the front on a Forward Walk. It will remain flexed. This how we continue. We used stored power which is now at our disposal. If you free fall at that time you will have to spend some time getting out of that hole you have dug for yourself.
I'm beginning to understand now one of your earlier statements that we feel that we are below the floor level. You might care to write that one again.
I have enought tapes to study of people far better that you or I will ever be. So why would I tape myself.
To recap. At the extent of the stride front and back . Going back or forward. The legs are straight. My body is right in the middle being passed towards the standing foot where the knee will bend to accept the body. Then we come to a nuetral position with the knees still bent ready to continue.
Rha. Is that right.
With Markus Hilton. don't mistake free fall with sway. As it is in the book. Waltz Open Imputes for instance. Sway to the right on 2 3 to the left on 5 . Got to go. I have some miles to travel.

"Anonymous. Some of yesterdays comments get left behind. This is 10/16 at 7.20pm. You said you teach your students that the knee bends on a Backward Walk. Have you forgotten that the knee also bends towards the front on a Forward Walk."

Of course I haven't forgotten that. In fact, bending the standing knee forwards, with the body moving forwards over the knee, plays a large role in sending the weight past the point of balance over the standing foot.

"It will remain flexed."

No, it will soon start to straighten again as the body moves even further away from the standing foot. If you are one who believes in a mid stride position, that (or whateve you do reach) would have both legs substantially straighter than they were earlier in the process of leaving the standing foot.

"This how we continue. We used stored power which is now at our disposal."

The power is stored primarily in the altitude of the body - gravitational potential energy. Human muscles are not very good springs for storing energy - they can store a small amount, but the fraction of energy put in that you can get back out again is quite small.

:If you free fall at that time you will have to spend some time getting out of that hole you have dug for yourself."

You shouldn't free fall into a hole - you should fall past your standing foot, which means the potential energy you loose by lowering is converted to kinetic energy.

"I'm beginning to understand now one of your earlier statements that we feel that we are below the floor level. You might care to write that one again."

It's a key component of the modern dance action. Even ten years ago, dancers were staying high in their legs with compartivley little knee bend. But today they are much more athletic - dancing much lower in their legs, with swings that effectively cut below floor level (more literally, below the level of ordinary standing on the floor). This is much more powerful and stable, but requires different foot timing.

"I have enought tapes to study of people far better that you or I will ever be. So why would I tape myself."

To discover what it is that you actually do, which I strongly suspect is not what you think it is.


"At the extent of the stride front and back . Going back or forward. The legs are straight."

Oh they are now? So why did you start by saying the leg stays flexed?

"My body is right in the middle being passed towards the standing foot where the knee will bend to accept the body. Then we come to a nuetral position with the knees still bent ready to continue."

But what about before you got to the midpoint... wasn't your body projected beyond all of its support? In that position you are falling (you cannot stay there), regardless of if you think of it that way or not. Of course you've been doing this since you learned to walk, so it's nothing noteworthy - unless you try to argue that it doesn't happen.

"With Markus Hilton. don't mistake free fall with sway."

Good point. Sway is a graceful curve in the line of the body. Off balance is having your weight not over or between points of floor contact. We would not say that a forward step has sway - but it will pass through a phase when the body is forward of its support.

"As it is in the book. Waltz Open Imputes for instance. Sway to the right on 2 3 to the left on 5 ."

You must be working from memory and combining 1-3 of something like a natural onto the open impetus (it's not presented that way "in the book"). There are some pictures of Marcus Hilton poised on 5 of an impetus floating around, and they would be a good demonstration of this. But potentially confusing, as they show him both with sway and overbalanced, hanging unsupported in space about to fall gracefully through the final step. If you look instead at a forward action (again, learning center:forward walk:2:extension) you will see an overbalanced position that cannot be confused with sway.

In an eariler posting, i wrote
"""""Starting with horizontal movement, keeping both feet off the floor for just 1/10 second would result in a fall of 2 inches, which would be very visible.""""""

To which you replied

****If you are dancing on a small asteroid you might get 2 inches, for those of us on the planet earth you might want to check your calculation.*****

Anyone who studied basic physics at school will already have checked this calculation, and found the fall to be 16/100 of a foot, or 2 inches. And on a small asteroid, with negligible gravity, there would be negligible fall.
Clearly you don't have a grasp of these simple concepts. You should stick to making comments about things you understand, whatever that may be .

yes, I had momentarily neglected the square root and thus come up with a much larger answer

Anonymous. To me it seems that everything you write is to defend your beiief that there is no split weight, and that the body travell ahead of the foot, that's the front foot.It has to be ahead of the back foot. That's there just incase you do one of your now famous twists. I will quote what you wrote.
The weight must move forward through and behond the foot ready to receive it. It must depart before there is a new foot ready.
Reading that. What is the average person going to conclude.
Then you were asked.
Are you saying there is an instant when neither foot is on the floor.
Your answer. No, I am saying that there is an instant in which neither foot is bearing weight.
My response .So you are airbourne are you.
Just answer one last thing in plain English. When Alex Moore wrote in the Technique Book on a Backward Walk.
At the full extent of the stride, lower on to the Ball of the of the Left foot, so that at this point the ball of the back foot and the heel of the front foot are touching the floor
Contiue to move backwards, draw the RF back to the LF at the same time slowly lower the Left Heel to the floor, making sure that it does not touch the floor untill the RF is level with it.
There is one part which you failed to understand was that the toe extends to the rear with the weight still to the front. Then it will become a ball. Not as you tried to say that the toe will remain high , of course it won't. Then you likened it to a Waltz which is high as we all know. Are you with me.
I won't bother our readers with the Forward Walk. Unless somebody would like me to copy from the book, which Anonymous has completely wrong.
One very last thing.
They having just returned from a succesful trip to the International in London. I asked. Do we ever get a twist in the spine. Never was the answer.
Anyway just stick to the Backward Walk as it is written in the book. ???

Weightlessness

“Parabolic flights are a perfect test bed for performing space experiments without actually going into space. Being weightless is in fact very easy: jump. Weight could be defined as 'the inability to fall'. The resistance from the ground that stops you from falling down is the experience we call 'weight'.”
”To fly a parabola, the pilot makes the aeroplane climb sharply at maximum speed, and then allows it to 'fall'.”

At the full extent of the stride you are on top of a parabolic movement and most weightless while walking.

I'm apprehensive about getting involved in this discussion, which has been very acrimonious. However, this does make the number of posts up to 100, and i hope also that i'm contributing something.
On Balance: - clearly we're talking about dynamic balance which is very different from static balance. If i had to explain this to someone i would say that dynamic balance is the situation where all the forces involved in the movement are controlled as they need to be so that you can perform exactly the movement you want to do, and don't have to 'adjust' because they (the forces) aren't correctly controlled.
Weightlessness and so on: 'Falling' is quite clear. It means there is no force opposing gravity. This only happens in dancing in a quickstep (as far as i know, but i may be wrong). There is lots of 'lowering' in dancing, which is very different from falling. Anonymous claims that there are times in dancing and walking where there is no 'weight' on either foot. This means there is falling. I've never seen anyone walk like this. Run - yes. But walk- no.
Quickstep - i was at the Royal Albert Hall too(only as a spectator of course). I noticed that the finalists ALL did simple things but VERY well. Also noticed how the lady always follows the man perfectly under ALL circumstances (i'm tempted to add even if he's falling, but i won't).