There is a wide range of opinions on this matter, and my guess is the person who originally asked the question was hoping to resolve two conflicting sources of information. If that's the case, my advice is to do what seems to work best and most comfortably for you, and follow the methods of that teacher.

Having followed both camps at various points in my career, here's my take: I do believe that one should curve the track, but the degree of curve will depend on many factors, such as:

-- Overall amount of turn required. The greater the turn, the more curve will be needed. Some would argue that a traditional Feather Finish with 3/8 should be done without any curve. Perhaps, but a Feather Finish with 1/2 turn absolutely requires it.

-- Inside vs. outside of turn. No matter what the overall net curve, the person on the inside of the turn will always have more than the person on the outside.

-- Natural vs. reverse turns. Due to the offset dance position, the curve *differential* -- that is to say, the difference in curviness between partners -- is greater on natural turns than it is on reverses. Without getting into a huge, lengthy explanation, I might suggest thinking of natural and reverse pivots to illustrate the differences, as they offer more extreme examples of rotation.

-- A multitude of other factors. Every pattern is unique, and comes with its own set of requirements. A Waltz Reverse, Foxtrot Reverse, Reverse Pivot, and Fallaway Reverse all require a slightly different execution. A Spin Turn and Impetus, in spite of having a similar entry, have entirely different requirements, curve-wise. (Watch my poorly executed Impetus videos on this website to see the pitfalls of over-curving the entry).

You've touched on a very complicated and hotly disputed concept. Expect to hear a variety of opinions throughout your career. In the end, the choice is yours. Do what works.

Regards,
Jonathan

I dont see what all the fuss is about.If we turn even slightly we have sway. If we have sway then we must have turn. It is as natural as it is possible to be. If an Aircraft or a Boat turns it lilts to that side. So do we. Alex says there is Sway on a Three Step. He also wrote that the right side leads and that there is by the advanced dancer a curve to the Left. Surely that ends the story.

Actually a boat doesn't: centrifugal force makes it roll the other way - have you never watched one? Dancers sway to counteract that force, not in response to it - although the greater use of sway is still for effect, not necessity.

And if there was nothing to add to the words of Alex Moore, we could all have packed it in in 1936.

Surely there is only one neutral position. If there are two then why not three or more. I think some of you guys make it up as you go along to suit your own arguments. Neutral is when both feet are under the body with the full weight on the standing foot and the moving foot is in contact with the floor on the ball of the foot.Who is going to say that is not being in the one and only completely neutral position.

You're right, there is only one neutral position. The question is not how many neutral positions there are, but where exactly the one in question occurs. Different people have different opinions in this matter.

This being a discussion of CBM, we are talking about rotational neutral. So all this stuff about "moving foot in contact with the floor" and "ball of foot" is unrelated and irrelevant. Neutral as it applies to rise & fall or sway or any other such technique does not necessarily coincide with neutral as it applies to the upper body's orientation with respect to the feet.

If your version of CBM puts you in (rotational) neutral at the exact beginning of the pattern, then that's your version. I would advise against it, because in so doing, you are arriving in CBMP as you place your foot on step 1 of every closed position pattern. This, of course, is contrary to the book. The only other options would be to avoid turning until after the body arrives over the standing foot on 1, which doesn't qualify as CBM, or curve your track to match any rotation, which keeps you moving squarely at your partner throughout.

Most people agree that the body begins most turns "wound up", and rotates throughout the forward step, passing through neutral at some point along the way. There is much debate throughout the ballroom world, even between the top technicians, about where exactly this magic moment occurs. But it is generally agreed that it is after the beginning of the step.

Regards,
Jonathan

"If your version of CBM puts you in (rotational) neutral at the exact beginning of the pattern, then that's your version. I would advise against it, because in so doing, you are arriving in CBMP as you place your foot on step 1 of every closed position pattern."

That is untrue.

CBMP is defined by the position of the moving foot relative to the standing foot, not by the rotation of the body relative to the feet.

"This, of course, is contrary to the book."

No, you are attempting to apply a definition of CBMP which is contrary to that in the book.

Even that, however, cannot be taken too literally and must be filtered through the lens of application. Consider for example Moore's observation that on a forward CBM step the moving foot will "cover" slightly in front of the standing one. You would call this CBMP, but you would be mistaken to do so, because it properly occurs even in situations which do not call for CBMP. Effectively, it is not CBMP (even if there is partial or even total track overlap) because it is not intended to accomplish the purpose of CBMP.

"Most people agree that the body begins most turns "wound up", and rotates throughout the forward step, passing through neutral at some point along the way. There is much debate throughout the ballroom world, even between the top technicians, about where exactly this magic moment occurs."

Indeed.

"But it is generally agreed that it is after the beginning of the step."

I'm not sure that I would agree that it should always occur after the feet pass, which is the formal beginning of the step. In many cases that may work well. But there are teaching presentations in which rotational neutral, foot passing, body over feet, and feet flat on floor all coincide, and those are dance-able. They do not even preclude the application of a windup, provided that it is lost during the first portion of the travel of the moving foot.

In terms of what is ideal, a lot depends on what body dynamics are to be employed. The latest neutralizations tends to go with the "rowing down the floor" concept which is disastrous on beginners but can be tamed with time. Earlier neutralizations go with the "dance the length of the standing foot and utilize it's spring" for which beginners lack the requisite physical strength.

I'll comment again that only the second method is fully applicable to the step one outside partner cases, so it needs to be mastered regardless of what is chosen for the inline ones. I've also noticed many couples in their teens or early twenties who try to make use of the "rowing" method by reaching their newly extended legs far beyond their bodies... they do well against others applying that technique less capably, but always end up showing the discomfort that results from leading the movement with their feet rather than their body centers.

"I dont see what all the fuss is about.If we turn even slightly we have sway."

How's tango working out for you?

I don't know why every one is assuming you were talking about a Three Step.

I am going to talk about a Natural turn.
I will further assume you are the follower and dancing 1-2 of the Natural.
(the man does the same thing on 4-5 though) I lagree with what Telemark said. I just want to be sure you understand that the turn comes from the supporting right foot. (leg actually) I am talking about the right foot you are standing on before step 1. As you lower and travel through the right foot,you need to soften the (right) hip joint and create turn from the right foot. The turn is at the ankle. The foot itself will not turn. This turn on your supportig leg lets you move "straight back" by definition and feeling. ( the eyes would argue that it's a bit curved.
BY the way the amount of turn is just to get you out of the Man's path.

You may or may not, be interested to know, that Scrivener believed one of its main purposes was to do the opposite... that is , bring the lady back "in" line..

Hi to All,
I wish to thank all subscribers to the CBM discussion. I've found it to be a very interesting read.

The following is a paragraph taken from the writing of A.H.Franks. He wrote:

/* CBM is a misleading term by which we define the initial action necessary to start any turning movement. A more apt description would be, 'Sympathetic Body Movement', as it is the action of the body which works in sympathy with the legs to produce turn.

Leading teachers stress the importance of a swinging movement in Contrary Body Movement. They are unanimous in asserting that this swing should predominate with a rotating movement, using the leg upon which the turn is made as an axis for the swing. */

The above was written in 1940.