Hi to all,
I have reproduced this post from the Drag Hesitation thread.

The Drag Hesitation in the English Waltz Style.

The Drag Hesitation is certainly an unusual figure and needs careful study. If you have made rules in your technique then this figure is sure to break one or two of them. When dancing this figure you don't swing into the first step. The character of the figure is to keep down; knees flexed, and 'reach' with the RF down the LOD. -this is known as a dead entry - then 'pull up' hesitating (are hesitations normally danced by the man on the inside of a turn?) while the LF closes witout weight.

Because of the lack of power on step one, this stops the lady from completing her turn between 1 & 2 of 3/8 to the left (Lady on the inside of the turn would normally complete the turn in the feet with the body turning less.) This then accounts for her unusual alignment on step 2 of pointing almost diag to wall.

The man uses the footwork of HT on step one, the use of the toe signifies that he commences the turn on the ball of the LF making a 1/4 between 1 & 2, straightening the right knee, making a foot swivel on the RF of an 1/8 between 2 & 3 with his body turning less. The lady makes her foot swivel between 2 & 3 of just under an 1/8, with her body still turning less, which will assist her in keeping contact when taking the following step outside partner in CBMP.

Why?

Not impressed then?

What's wrong with the Drag Hesitation thread?

Sorry to upset you. If you want to stay with the original thread you can do so.

The Drag Hesitation appears - at least superficially - to be the forward version of 4-5-6 of a Hesitation Change.

Other than the directions, the two patterns differ curiously. The DH has foot rise but no sway; 4-5-6 of the HC has sway but no foot rise.



jj

I'm not upset, but don't really see the need to have a new thread, that's all.

As for the similarity with the Hesitation Change, I can't see it. The heel pull action of the HC is distinctively different (and, for example, brings lady around in a 3/8 undivided turn), and denies man any opportunity for foot rise. In the DH, I don't view/feel the figure as one which turns 3/8 to R, but from facing LOD (typically after a DRS), to turn 1/4. The last 1/8 just allows the lady to step OP with ease, and sets up the direction of the usual back lock.

"The heel pull action of the HC is distinctively different . . . . "

I was actually calling attention to the different uses of sway and foot rise. I'm aware that there are several differences between the patterns, hence the use of the phrase "Other than direction."

I assume you mean that step 5 of the HC is different from step 2 of the DH. Structurally, however, the two steps are similar: a step to the side with the RF followed by a closing of the LF without weight. Functionally, the two patterns have similarity because they enable a change of feet (even though that's the primary function of the HC and a secondary function of the DH).

As for the turn, 1/4 + 1/8 = 3/8. The only difference is that the HC will complete the turn before the LF closes while the DH closes the LF as the turn completes. You state that you ". . . don't view/feel the figure as one which turns 3/8 to R . . . ." Do you mean that you demarcate the turns of the DH into two separate actions?



jj

Yes, I've always danced it that way, right or wrong. My biggest difficulty with the figure is that I have never really sorted out what I'm doing with my R side on step 3. The temptation is to bring it around, as part of the overall 3/8 to R, but I think it probably better to take the LF back into the lock, as you would the RF on a turning lock, with very pronounced CBMP and R side lead. My partner prefers the former approach, and says the lead is clearer, but it makes the hold a bit messy.

"Functionally", I have to disagree with you. 4/5 of the HC is a modified heel turn for man (a heel pull), and really has a completely different feel, apart from the obvious difference in direction. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

In terms of comparing these figures the lack of sway on the DH is probably due to the smaller turn and also the fact that you going into a PO position. I would think that you cant have sway at that point because the movement of the upper body (relative to the feet)needed for CBMP and close contact, will be incompatible with that required for the sway. Its a case of knees having to point one way or t'other. And also you cant easily incline L from the waist and at the same time rotate the upper body clockwise from the waist (presumbly something to do with the anatomy of the hip joint such that when rotated to its its extreme in one plane its movement in other planes is more restricted)

So if you were going to develop sway on the DH (on 2) you would have to loose it again so quickly then i suppose it would become virtually redundant.