"Anonymous. Well what do you know, one of those 20 years old went straight from the Ametuer Ranks to a place in the Professional Final on Friday at the International at the Alber Hall. I think you called them Juveniles or was it Junior."

No, if you look back up a few posts you will see I pointed out that this couple, like their recently crossed over countrymen at the top of the ranking, show technical maturity not seen in many older couples - my actual words were that they have grown up.

"What makes you think that height as anything to do with the angle of the shin to the floor. It wouldn't matter if you were 6 feet or 5 or the size of the feet either."

The height of the dancer does not matter, what matters is the fraction of ultimate height at which the dancer chooses to execute the figure. If you dance it lower in your legs, your shin will be more horizontal than if you dance it higher. As for the foot length, the proprotion of foot length to overall height is not constant. During the phase when the end (or even top) of your toe is tracking the floor, the lenght of your foot relative to the lenght of the shin will contribute to determining its angle. For a given height in the legs, a dancer with a longer foot relative to their body will have a more horizontal shin, and a dance with a shorter foot in relation to their body will have a more vertical shin.

"Did I answer all your questions.."

No, you still haven't explain how it is that you avoid going off balance in a dance walk... Learning center, 2:Extension - what do you do differently from this?

"Hold it to a mirror and what do you see. You will see a Natural Turn. What does that prove."

That is not accurate. They are not symmetric figures unless you change the offset in the hold. The major differences are in the body positions relative to the feet, but the difference I would expect to see in the foot positions is one of scale - the natural turn will easily incorporate more overall travel than is possible in an even remotely aligned reverse turn.

Anonymous. Are you looking at the back heel, it has yet to come of the floor. If you go back to the pictures I directed you to at Brtentwood last week. Don't you think the man is in a simular position. Then go to mid stride and you get the weight in a split position with the body having moved forward. My understanding is you think the body will be forward of the feet at this point, to a position of imbalance where you catch your weight. I beleive you called it dropped..
For anybody wondering about this go to the Learning Center and find the four positions of a Forward Walk. Anonymous would have the weight ahead of the foot. Anonymous. Take a look at the angle of the shin which in turn creates an angle of the thigh. Tell me what do you see in that, that is is different to what I have written. You really are trying to flog a dead horse here. That's all for the present. Look at that angle of the shin which would stop the weight pitching forward

"For anybody wondering about this go to the Learning Center and find the four positions of a Forward Walk. Anonymous would have the weight ahead of the foot."

Indeed, this is obviously the case in the frame of the forward walk labeled "2: Extension". The entire body is obviously and visibly ahead of the back foot.

As a result, anyone can see that this position is either unbalanced, or balanced only by sliding a substantial fraction of the body weight on the moving foot (which is clearly still moving, if you compare the small stride at this point to the full stride in the next frame)

How could you possibly miss this???

"Take a look at the angle of the shin which in turn creates an angle of the thigh. Tell me what do you see in that, that is is different to what I have written."

You have the causality backwards - the angle of the thigh and the length of the foot create the angle of the shin. It's simple geometry.

"Look at that angle of the shin which would stop the weight pitching forward"

There is no pitching forward, unless you try to hold back from the fall. If you send your weight, your body will stay perfectly aligned. As indeed it does when you walk down the street.

Anonymous. Very clever, now you have learnt that the weight is not in front of the foot. You have twisted and are now saying the weight is in front of the back foot, that is looking at picture three in the Learning Center Forward Walks.
Twisting again. Do you ever stop. You've done a comlete turn around on the angle of the shin to floor.
Let's be honest here. Untill you read on this site about the knee bending you didn't have a clue did you?. Otherwise you wouldn't have written that the weight goes to the point of imbalance and is then caught.. That is the most stupid thing you ever wrote. Go back over your own writting before you answer this otherwise it will be quoted.

"Anonymous. Very clever, now you have learnt that the weight is not in front of the foot. You have twisted and are now saying the weight is in front of the back foot, that is looking at picture three in the Learning Center Forward Walks."

No, see picture TWO, in which the entire weight of the trunk is quite obviously positioned forward of the back foot. Because this is a forward walk, the back foot is the standing foot. Therefore the position is unbalance forward of the standing foot.

However I suspect that this picture was drawn by someone in the habit of sliding a substantial portion of their weight on the moving foot. So they would be balanced - but for a very very bad reason.

"Twisting again. Do you ever stop."

I haven't changed my statement at all - you are now simply misreading it in a different way that you did before. Look at the picture #2, and try to claim any integrity in continuing to deny that the body weight is not forward of the standing foot as I have been saying all along

"You've done a comlete turn around on the angle of the shin to floor."

Nope, haven't changed one bit. Please quote the statement which you claim are in conflict.

"Let's be honest here. Untill you read on this site about the knee bending you didn't have a clue did you?."

My students would be suprised to hear that, as it's one of the major points in my teaching of the backwards walk. However, unlike you I don't treat it as simple isolated trivia - there's a reason that explains how much and when.

"Otherwise you wouldn't have written that the weight goes to the point of imbalance and is then caught.."

I wrote it because it's true. Get out a video camera and tape yourself. You will find that either:

1) You weight is overbalanced past the moving foot before the standing foot catches it, in between you are off balance (the only proper way)

2) You are keeping your body over the standing foot while placing the moving foot (introductory latin, before developing the slightly more dynamic action that Quickstep prefers)

3) You are sliding your weight on the moving foot. Are you dancing or roller skating?

4) You are shuffling around taking tiny steps.

So, get your camera and then tell us, which is it?

"That is the most stupid thing you ever wrote. Go back over your own writting before you answer this otherwise it will be quoted."

Please do quote it. But please tape yourself before you make a fool of yourself in ignorance of what it is that your body is actually doing.

Anonymous. Now I know you are an idiot.Your last post stating that the body is ahead of the rear foot on sample two. You would have great difficulty having your body behind the rear foot. If it was you fool it would be the front foot. What colour is the sky on your planet.

"Anonymous. Now I know you are an idiot.Your last post stating that the body is ahead of the rear foot on sample two. You would have great difficulty having your body behind the rear foot. If it was you fool it would be the front foot. What colour is the sky on your planet."

Presumably the people who believe that the body is balanced throught the walk - and thus at that point - are seeing the body directely over the standing foot in that picture.

I'm glad that you can see it is indeed forward of the standing foot.

So will you know accept that it must be either unbalanced if there is only one standing foot in that picture, or can be balanced only by resorting to sliding a substantial part of the weight on the moving foot?

"..it must be either unbalanced if there is only one standing foot in that picture, or can be balanced only by resorting to sliding a substantial part of the weight on the moving foot?"

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.

Rha

"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."

If the position cannot be maintained over time, I would call it unbalanced.

Yes, where it is used, nothing alarming results because the body moves smoothly through this position. It can however cause some problems in demonstrating, because you cannot arbitrarily slow down the action - spend too much time in this unbalanced (or whatever you prefer to call it) position and you will indeed fall over. But you won't if you dance through it as part of a full coordinated action.

"....I would call it unbalanced."

'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