hi guys,
i've been a big fan of your website ever since i took to ballroom dancing 3 years back. what really excits me is the knowledge and insight you guys have in this field.
i have now realised that to be a good dance you not only need to have the skills but also the right kowledge of physics to seperate you from the rest.

i'm based in melbourne, australia
do you know of any good instructors (male /female) who think at the same level as you guys?

"i have now realised that to be a good dance you not only need to have the skills but also the right kowledge of physics to seperate you from the rest."

No, you don't, and probably only a minority of top dancers do. It's enough to do it the right way, it doesn't matter how you got there, and simply having a teacher who is really teaching it right is the usual method.

What thinking through the physics of the situation does is allows you to figure out, when world-class authorities disagree on something, which one is right, and which one got where they are on the strength of other areas rather than the specific topic under discussion.

""What thinking through the physics of the situation does is allows you to figure out, when world-class authorities disagree on something, which one is right, and which one got where they are on the strength of other areas rather than the specific topic under discussion""


i cant figure out what point you are trying to make here.
all i'm asking is if you know of any instrcutors here in melboure.
i'm not interested in the world class authority etc...

people see things differently and to me dance = skills + physics

"" It's enough to do it the right way, it doesn't matter how you got there, and simply having a teacher who is really teaching it right is the usual method.
""

i must disagree on the above.

every step in dance is for a purpose.
ever wondered why do we dance at a diagnal and not sideways??

Twinkle toes 1978. What Suomynona is saying but not in plane English, is that some dance teachers who specialised in one style should keep quiet when it comes to a style they know nothing about and have had very little experience in as a top class competitor. You're in Australia where as you know have a style called New Vogue.They are as different as chalk is to cheese from Standard and Latin. But here they are having all their success in New Vogue for instance, are teaching Latin, and also the other way around. This is what to watch for if you want top class competition type teaching. I would not be as polite as Suomynona. I would say they should keep their trap shut. By one who has been bitten more than once. >

no, that's what "looking in" is saying.

What suomynona is saying is that most good dance teachers and dance students do not intellectually know much about phsysics, though they know it by feel in their bodies very well. Thinking things through is not the usual route to success, but might be a more reliable guide than pure look or provincial competition results in figuring out which teacher to study with. Otherwise you can be one of the lucky few with a good teacher or you can be one of the unlucky mass with a bad (even if famous) teacher or one who at least isn't going to create the right result in you.

Don't you think that all of this scientific jargon gets a bit ridicules. For a Spin Turn for the lady just show that on step four the lady has half a turn on her right foot and the rest on her left foot depending whether it is over or underturned. As a bit extra follow Richard Cleave and get the lady to turn her head further to the left on step four so that it is the last thing to arrive. That's all she needs to know regarding technique except to rise at the end of five, up on six lower at the end of six. That is to be taken literally. What else is there.

Lookingin,It's more simple than that, just have the Lady follow the man's turn and let him position her head.

"For a Spin Turn for the lady just show that on step four the lady has half a turn on her right foot and the rest on her left foot depending whether it is over or underturned."

In actuality, the lady has very little turn on her right foot on step four of a spin turn. Regardless of how much turn is to be made in the spin, the turn is made in the spin (step 5), not step 4.

Don't bother quoting what it says in the book, as this is a case where you cannot take that simply and literally. The full execution will not be inconsistent with what is written, but it's very hard to explain - the simplest course to a correct action is to not really try to pivot over the foot.

What sort of a foot position will that give the lady.She will look like Daffy Duck. Try the man's steps into a turning lock, half a turn on the RF ,very much with the same technique as the ladies step four which is not a true pivot.Incidently the Spin Turn does not travel like it did in the beginning. There is very little movement down the floor between step four and five. If there was a pivot on four there would be.The step under scrutiny is step five for the lady. There is coninuence of technique in todays steps. What we do to the right does not change when we go to the left. Try this. Imagine you are doing the ladies steps. Facing straight down LOD. Do the first three of the Natural to pick up the correct alignment, at some time you will be with the feet apart closing the RF to th LF. just complete 3/8ths of a turn on the left foot to finish, or where the man wants to finish. It's as simple as that. If the lady does Pivot the forth step the fifth will go to far down the LOD. If she steps four with no or not much turn onto five, then we have travel as well as a duck footed lady.

You experts have lost me? Are you talking about the NST. On step four the the Lady has a strong swing forward,up and arround and into her brush,the amount of her turn is determined by the mans body lead