Anonymous. I have never seen or been told that the man shapes to his left. As the preperation step is taken all the mans weight will be a straight line over his RF. From there we dance from foot to foot but keeping our shape upright. Head to the left directly over the spine. No tilting of the head either for the man whos eyes are horizontal ( both level with the horizon). Please dont tell me you have your head as man tilted and not both eyes level with that horizon.

this is a reply to anonymous some time back.
""""Yes, which is why it doesn't do that. It changes from 100% down to 0% on one foot and then from 0% up to 100% on the other. In between, it is not completely supported. But the body movement is smooth, because the forces acting on it change only smoothly, while the inertia is continuous. It is, in effect, an almost purely horizontal falling off one foot and towards the other."""""
You're saying that there is an instant when neither foot is on the floor. Is that how you dance natural turn?
I've never seen it danced this way (maybe that's why nobody's ever danced it 'right') - even the best dancers have both feet on the floor for some short period. 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. Inertia has nothing to do with this.
It's such a pity nobody has ever described how to do the natural turn 'right'. Perhaps you could do this ,anonymous, and then dancers could get it right. It would be a great service to dancing.

Hi quickstep
I've been told to shape slightly to the left - but slightly. You probably didn't mean to say "keeping our shape upright" because of course, there would be sway. Maybe you're using "shape" differently
I think anonymous has been employed to disagree with everything, and so keep discussions going on these pages.

"You control flight by controling the aim of departure (path and timing), not by misaiming and then slamming on the brakes to fix things. That is the fundamental error you still haven't discovered. Your departing leg controls the aim - your receiving leg as long as it is ahead of you is nothing more than the brakes, which you should try to avoid having to use."

Again, I don't see how using the interaction between the 'point of pressures' and the 'centre of weight' in the walk, in the manner I've described would lead to any of the nonsense you're writing. If anything one should establish a 'pull point of pressure' with the receiving leg, which is hardly acting as a brake. But I don't want to detract from the main argument so let's leave that 'pull' for another time.

Let's not confuse the issue here with this 'launching' and 'breaking' nonsense. We both agree that the 'centre of weight' is over the standing leg and it has to be transferred too the receiving leg. Therefore there is a 'point of pressure' established by the standing leg at the beginning. When the weight has been transferred to the receiving leg there is a 'point of pressure' established by the receiving leg. Let's agree on that, that the 'point of pressure' on one foot must go to the other foot.

Now where do we differ is in how this 'point of pressure' get transferred from one foot to the other. Your point of view is that at any point in that transfer only a single 'point of pressure', by one foot and then the other is necessary for the optimal walk in dancing. My point of view is that at an interval of time during the 'centre of weight' transfer two 'points of pressure' will be established, one decreasing as the other increases. In my view, the transfer is a more gradual process in your view it is two events.

That's the essence of the argument. Stop cluttering it with all the other unsubstantiated claims of what will happen if the transfer happens the way I suggest. Because for the most part you are drawing these conclusions from things that I'm not saying or even remotely suggesting. For the most past it is fabrications of your own misguided reasoning, not stuff I'm actually saying.

Rha

"We both agree that the 'centre of weight' is over the standing leg"

No we don't, because it isn't. One must not make the mistake of leaving the center of weight over the standing leg or even over the standing foot. It must move forwards through and then beyond the foot - it must depart before there is a new foot ready to receive it. Otherwise you get the stuck between overspread legs, and/or the rear end left behind situations.

"Now where do we differ is in how this 'point of pressure' get transferred from one foot to the other. Your point of view is that at any point in that transfer only a single 'point of pressure', by one foot and then the other is necessary for the optimal walk in dancing."

More than that, there is an inbetween phase you are still overlooking - the point of support moves through and then off one foot, at which point it dissappars and briefly there is no support at all. A new point of support is then established in the recieving leg - fairly rapidly for an upswing action, quite gradually (pressure only slowly building to equal and then exceed body weight) for a lowering action.

"My point of view is that at an interval of time during the 'centre of weight' transfer two 'points of pressure' will be established, one decreasing as the other increases."

Yes, if you try to do it that way. But doing it that way destroys the easy flight of the dancing and spoils the body alignement as well.

"In my view, the transfer is a more gradual process in your view it is two events."

At at all - my process is far more spread out through time than yours - the point of weight support moves, dissapears, then gradually reappears while moving.

"Stop cluttering it with all the other unsubstantiated claims of what will happen if the transfer happens the way I suggest."

They aren't unsubstantiated, as you would see if you were to take the time to carefully study stills of those dancing the way you propose.

"Anonymous. I have never seen or been told that the man shapes to his left."

Then you have never studied with someone who truly understands their subject matter. Note that understanding is not the same skill as doing - there are quite a few teachers out there who are good dancers, but whose words do not match their dancing, becuase they do not understand what it is that they are actually doing.

A forward, leftwards stretch past the partner is as essential for the man as it is for the lady - and in a way it's clearer, as the man's other elements of poise are too simply to distract from this.

"No tilting of the head either for the man whos eyes are horizontal ( both level with the horizon). Please dont tell me you have your head as man tilted and not both eyes level with that horizon."

As I have already pointed out, the man does not have the same kind of poise as the lady - which actually makes the leftward component more visually obvious. But this is all in the horizontal plance.

Sway of course will produce incline when it is employed. There are to an extent three styles of sway - in one (the ignorant) the topline and head incline more than the body. Two educated forms remain - in one, the incline of the body center and topline & head are comparable. In the last, the incline is primarily in the body, with the top more level. (Note that this is actually the opposite body stretch of those who incline their topline more than their body)

"You're saying that there is an instant when neither foot is on the floor."

No, I am saying there is an instant in which neither foot is bearing weight. That is not the same thing as neither foot being on the floor!

"Is that how you dance natural turn?"

Yes, unless I make a mistake.

"I've never seen it danced this way"

Yes you have, you just didn't realize what you were seeing.

"even the best dancers have both feet on the floor for some short period."

Actually the best dancers have both feet on the floor and stationary for a suprisingly long period (much longer than merely average dancers). But that does not mean they are bearing weight. you need to learn to seperate these two concepts in your mind before you can understand dancing.

"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."

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.

But then, how do you justify the 1/10 second assumption?

"'We both agree that the 'centre of weight' is over the standing leg'

No we don't, because it isn't. One must not make the mistake of leaving the center of weight over the standing leg or even over the standing foot."

Typical of you being argumentative again. It's clear from my post the context in which I make the above statement, at some point, hypothetical or otherwise, we must choose a 'start' point for the walk, for the purposes of discussion at the very least. Yet you construe it to mean something else for your own purposes. That's what I mean by you being argumentative in case you don't understanding the meaning of the word because you do it all the time in almost all your other posts creating confusion.

"More than that, there is an inbetween phase you are still overlooking - the point of support moves through and then off one foot, at which point it dissappars and briefly there is no support at all."

No, I have'nt overlooked that because you've repeated it often enough this time and many times before. It's just counter-productive to quality dancing that it no matter how many times you keep saying it. Note just because you say something over and over again does not make it true.

"Yes, if you try to do it that way. But doing it that way destroys the easy flight of the dancing and spoils the body alignement as well."

Nonsense, another unsubstantiated claim you keep repeating. The flight you're describing as easy is not controlled enough for high quality dancing. It's typical of intermediate level dancers who have learned to use their supporting leg but not their receiving leg as well.

"At at all - my process is far more spread out through time than yours - the point of weight support moves, dissapears, then gradually reappears while moving."

Rubbish, the two 'weight transfer' events plus that 'unsupported' inbetween phase is closer to a 'run' then a 'walk'. And we all know which has the potential to be more controlled and spread out in time.

"'Stop cluttering it with all the other unsubstantiated claims of what will happen if the transfer happens the way I suggest.'

They aren't unsubstantiated, as you would see if you were to take the time to carefully study stills of those dancing the way you propose."

You can't fully comprehend what I'm proposing in the first place so I don't see how you know whether other couples are doing what I'm saying or not. Another unsubstantiated claim.

Rha

"No, I have'nt overlooked that because you've repeated it often enough this time and many times before. It's just counter-productive to quality dancing that it no matter how many times you keep saying it. Note just because you say something over and over again does not make it true."

That is an argument which can help neither side. It is no more true that you repeatedly denying the existence/necessity of something makes it not present or not important than it is true that my repeatedly asserting its presence and importance makes it present and important. These are just words. The proof is in examining the actual dancing, which you are yet to do with sufficient attention to detail.

"The flight you're describing as easy is not controlled enough for high quality dancing."

It is suffienctly controlled, because control comes from carefully aiming the departure in the desired direction, not from correcting a mistaken aim after you are already moving in the wrong direction. The more careful aim, the less force you will later have to apply to achieve your intended motion.

"It's typical of intermediate level dancers who have learned to use their supporting leg but not their receiving leg as well."

You first see something fitting the desrciption in inexepericenced dancers yes, and on them it is a mistake. However, it then reappers in highly advanced dancers, done properly as a virtue. This overusage of the arriving leg to correct for mistakes - which is what you are advocating without realizing that this is reason you need to use your receiving leg so much - is a training stage. To advance, you have to build strenght and precision aim to the point where you can take off the training wheels and ride the bicycle normally.

""At at all - my process is far more spread out through time than yours - the point of weight support moves, dissapears, then gradually reappears while moving."

Rubbish, the two 'weight transfer' events plus that 'unsupported' inbetween phase is closer to a 'run' then a 'walk'. And we all know which has the potential to be more controlled and spread out in time."

This is a perfect illustration of your flawed understanding. You see a walk as controlled and spread out in time, because you avoid ever commiting to the movement - you feel in control because you can arbitrarily avoid completing any action at will. In short, you avoid the actions that on you would be short but on me are long - because I, unlike you, know how to fill them out. Until you can learn to send your body off its support into an elongated linear fall, you will always have to rely on oversupporting your body - as long as you fear falling, your body will fall rapidly when in an unsupported position. But if you learn to harness falling, build the necessary strenght in your toes to take your weight even further forward, you can learn to draw out your falling into a usefull movement.

Fear falling and you will fall unless you avoid the situations where falling is needed. Master falling, learn to draw it out, and you will start learning to dance.

"You can't fully comprehend what I'm proposing in the first place so I don't see how you know whether other couples are doing what I'm saying or not. Another unsubstantiated claim."

I know exactly what you are proposing, and I can switch to dancing that way at a drop of a hat - and I do, at times, when it is useful to explore something that illustrates. However, you cannot comprehend what I am talking about, because you have not yet embarked on building the physical skills which would make it possible.

Rha

Anonymous or anybody else who thinks the man has shape to his left. From an upright position if you were to put your weight even slightly to the left. Are you going to dance that way all through.Think about it. Your eyes are level with the horizon. If you shape to the left and keep your eyes to the horizon then you will have a bend of the neck at the top of the spine, won't you.That's not right. Anonymous. I'm beginning to believe that you might have trained in a different style. Did you do that Australian style called New Vogue. In that because most of the steps are side by side, it is taught that they push ahead with the forward steps ( weight to the front and go as far as is possible ). The man and lady in this style move there head about all the time, and get heavy sways to both sides. A friend of mine once said. If I am driving my car behind a New Vogue dancer I can always tell. Before they turn left or right they lean there head in that direction. I think after many years I could still manage a Swing Waltz. To get back to modern. Our spine doesn't stop below our skull but goes straight through the top of the head to the ceiling. Thou shalt not bend thy spine or roll thine head..