Wlak yo2borne rabbak ya phil.samways, fhemna kel chi mennak, hawdik keno kelloun 3ambye7ko karchouni!
This anonymous is so stupid he always thinks that he's talking right. If i join the discussion adding this paragraphe(my opinion) nobody will notice that this paragraphe is out of subject because the discussion doesn't have a subject at all!
My opinion in this discussion:
"Richard Sogn, MD, attended medical school at the University of California, Irvine. He completed training in psychiatry at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., and training in child and adolescent psychiatry at The Children's Hospital National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. For the past 20 years, Sogn's focus has been in the area of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its associated disorders.Sogn enjoys skiing, swimming, and biking with his children and spouse and is an avid golfer."
Am i right or wrong?

Hi lebnene
That's a very good point. But is there an instant where his weight is equally distributed while he's skiing, swimming or biking?
You'll soon get the hang of these disussion pages!! (only joking)

Phil. I would have loved to be at the Alber Hall also. Maybe next year.I think this might interest you. With a peice of paper the size of a shopper docket. Fold about an inch with a crease to the right.A bit higher and longer a crease to the left. Higher again a crease to the right. We now have a model where we can bend the shin to an angle of 45 degrees by moving it like a concertina. We can also make it sit with the weight too far back. We can also pitch it too far forward. Or we can see exactly where the balance should be if the knees are used correctly. Which is identical to standing against a door and moving our body up and down using the knees. I make no claim for this little invention, somebody a lot brighter than me thought this one up.It does show though over what part of the foot the balance needs to be . What do you think ?

"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."

I don't know, perhaps you could tell me, and if your conclusion is at odds with my intent I could work on communicating the idea more clearly.

"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."

The body weight is briefly unsupported - I guess you could call that airborne, but as the feet are on the floor it will not share the look of more obviously airborne positions in jumping type sports.

"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."

Oh, believe my I understand that. Question is, do you understand that the weight is on the rear edge of the heel of the front foot? Many people miss that.

"Then it will become a ball. Not as you tried to say that the toe will remain high , of course it won't."

I thought you were saying that, and I objected - guess we just had a miscommunication.

"Then you likened it to a Waltz which is high as we all know."

As an example of where what I thought you had been describing would be appropriate.

"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."

Really, what do I have wrong about it?

"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."

Same words mean different things to different people. There is most definintely a necessary difference in the rotation of various body parts about their common axis at certain points in CBM actions.

"Anyway just stick to the Backward Walk as it is written in the book. ???"

When you are dancing the exact situation described in the book that would not be a bad starting point. When you are dancing in a different situation (higher, lower, rising, falling) you will need to do it differently.

Anonymous. At last you are writting sensibly. I would have written this earlier but who wants to spoil the fun.You have heard the song "Two different Worlds ", and it goes on.
" We live in two different worlds". I have a tape from 1986 and I have a very recient tape. They are as different as chalk and cheese. Today they get lower through the knees, which gives them much more rising and lowering. The moves are more dynamic. The musical interpretation is far better because of the raising and lowering. It just wasn't there in those olden days. The lady creates miles more shape than ever before. And the ladies dress is so much different. Need I go on.
If you came from that era like a Rip Van Winkle you have been left behind along with a lot of others.This might be OK for a group of Social Dancers especialy elder ones. They would not be able to bend their knees, the strength in the ankles just isn't there anymore.But for a competition dancer. Never.
The moral behind this story is. We have people being taught by the elite, and some being taught with the flavour of those bygone days. Which means that most of the arguments are coming from Two Different Worlds.
All of the above could have been said in two words which are UPDATE.
I hope that makes sense. Signing off. Quickstep.
Last minute joke. If you don't think that people can rise from the dead. Be here when the over 60's Quickstep final goes on.

Interesting Quickstep, that you have finally decided to pay attention to what I have been saying for the past several weeks - dancing across the feet lower in the legs for a more dynamic action as performed today requires different technique than dancing across on a straighter (but not straight) leg as performed in yesteryear.

If you would have been willing to recognize that the first or second time it was posted, this topic wouldn't have over 100 posts...

"Or we can see exactly where the balance should be if the knees are used correctly. Which is identical to standing against a door and moving our body up and down using the knees."

That is abosolutely an incorrect way to do it!

You must move your body weight through your foot as you bend your knee - you must not try to keep it stationary in place, which is what your exercise against the door produces.

Take the door off it's hinges and carry it in front of your body like a shield, and lower so that your standing knee, hip, and shoulder are aligned just behind this shield and all moving forward together - that is the way to lower in partner dancing.

And yes, this means you will go off balance when your knee (and the rest of your body) passes beyond the end of your toe. That is ordinary, that is proper, and you have problem done it a few hundred times today while just walking around (even without lowering, the knee still goes forward of the standing toe thus sending you off balance)

Anonymous. Here you go again. Changing things around so that the other person is saying what you were saying in the first place. Or do you really believe that you did say the knee bends. Think about it. You did conceed that the person going backwards bends the knees to the front If as you say you get to the point of imbalance going Forward you will have to have a straight knee to be able to do this unless you lean forward. We can't have that can we.
And just to remind you, you had the lady also going to the point of imbalance. Isn't that right.That is before you came into the bending of the knee. I pretty sure it was you who said the lady lowers early and not as the foot reaches its nuetral position under the body. The book makes it very clear. But then you said words to the effect that I didn't understand the book and was putting my own interppretation into it.
At this momment in time you still haven't given us your interppretation of what is written on just simply the Backward Walk. I didn't yet write the Forward Walk, so it is the Backward Walk.
Standing agains a door proves where your balance will be if you raise your heels and lower your knees to about 46 degrees. Do you find your center of balance is over your heels which in turn is over your toes. The point that needs watching is as the knees bends the heel lowers. You will notice as the knees bend so the heels lower.Lets have an argument on which arrive first the heels or the knees. Only kidding.

Anonymous. The door is to show you where the point of balance is, A runner would understand this. Now that we have the point of balance do we try to maintain that balance, and let our under carriage carry us ?.

Anonymous. Your off again. First you tell us that on a Forward step we arrive at the point of imbalance and fall.
Now you have taken the door which is our guide, held it in front like a shield our knees hips and so forth are behind the shield all moving forward together. That is the way to lower. Except something you have missed. The front knee thigh , call it leg has got to go under the table.This has been an example given for years. The table being the ladies hips. This is what we do not do walking normal, unless your Groucho Marx. To me it would seem that you tilt the door or your body weight forward to arrive at an imbalanced position. But your not saying that now are you. Tilt that door forward and you've found yourself completely off balance. In fact your body would be in front of your toes and your knees. Now you would have to take the next step or fall flat on your face. But you have just written that everything is behind the shield and lowered.Which means you are now singing another song.