The "reputation at comps" thread got into a discussion about judging and technique, and rather than continue that somewhat unrelated topic in that thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

I liked what Operabob was saying, so I'm going to expound on it:

Why do we have technique? Good technique helps us to move in the best way, create the best picture, have the best balance, etc so that the artistry of the dance can shine through. We don't take a heel lead just because the book tells us to...it's because that's the best way to take a forward step on that count in that pattern in that dance. Therefore, judging high level competition is not about making sure that every couple is dancing according to the book...it's about who dances the best. You won't be the best dancer if you have bad technique, it's impossible. However, you can take libertties with the technique in the book if that's what it takes to do what you're doing in the best possible way. That's how dance evolves! We didn't always step forward on a heel in waltz, at least not in American style. I don't know the history of how the technique changed, but change it did and for the better!

It's kind of like bronze american waltz and foxtrot...they're totally different than silver and above. Why? Because you have to learn the foundation first...you have to learn to bring your feet together before you can pass them properly. That seems off topic, but I think it's related.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Anyone want to chime in?

I'm a relative newcomer to competition dancing, but have played racket sports all my life.
Read a coaching book on tennis and it will tell you the correct footwork to play forehand and backhand. Watch Wimbledon championships (or of course the American open)and you will see the top players playing their shots with footwork which often departs from the coaching manual.
In learning any skill, you must walk before you can run. And the quickest way to get to the running is to learn to walk well.
Hey!! I'm very philosophical this morning!!
But Twinkletoz is correct - good technique is there to optimize the learning process and develop good solid basics. These are important in learning any skill. Skip the basics, and you will eventually suffer.
The top dancers or tennis players or whatever have these basics mastered perfectly and they know exactly what they're doing, and all the risks associated with it.

I agree, I coach Ballroom Dance and Fencing and I find that as Coaches and Instructors, we need to take into consideration a persons coordination, physical abilities and mental committment when it comes to acheiving a level of skill and mastery in any sport or for that matter any new activity.

Once an athelete has mastered the fundamental level and moves on to competition at a higher level, he/she adds their own style, skill, emotion to their fundamental skills that have been taught many years earlier.

Every person is different, they interpret basic skills being taught in many different ways. For this reason, there are several Coaches/Instructors present in any establishment.

twink,

Again, Thank You for the kind words.

My friend would agree whole heartedly with you. If we are talking about the technique books he says they are there for the purpose of teacher examination and are a standardized way of "parroting" information, a best approximation as it were. His opinion is that if you follow the book exactly you'd never learn to dance correctly.

A good example:

We had a lesson with him last night. My wife and I dance out of syllabus but that doesn't mean we are out of syllabus dancers. We were working on tango and having trouble with one particular "simple" corner:

Chasse right into a twist turn coming out diagonal to center.

The problem for me was I was stepping forward into the twist sending the lady straight back and then having to pull her forward.

I had tried all sorts of ways of adjusting what I was doing on the twist turn.

Our teacher/friend just said the problem was not with the twist turn but the chasse before it.

"Just curve the chasse to the right to get the lady going forward before the twist turn."

Bingo!

He followed that with, "Every competitive dancer in the world would do it."

Following the book in this case had kept me from getting this step.

OB

A lot of the allegedly necessary departures from book technique are in reality misundestandings about what the book does and doesn't ask for.

The book mostly describes what your feet do, with progressively fewer hints about body parts located further above them. If you read this sparse description with the mindset in which the old masters wrote it, it's pretty clear what is happening throughout the body - but if you read it from an un-initiated modern perspective, you can get some confused ideas about what is really being asked for. Look at what top English couples actually do, and you'll have a hard time finding many true inconsistencies with the book, though you will probably find many things that don't match what you thought it said.

I agree with you all too. Having the basic technique to begin with helps enormously once you've mastered the basics and moved on to a higher level. It means you don't have to think about it anymore and just comes naturally ... and it applies to everything: dancing, sport, playing a musical instrument ... If you skip the basics sooner or later you will have to take a few steps back to learn what you should have learnt first!

Sarah x

Hi All,
At a recent technical lecture given in the Winter Gardens, Blackpool, for the UKA dance society, Mr Ken Akrill, of the UK, gave two notable definitions on the technique. First,'Skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity.' His parting words were,'Remember, technique will tell you WHAT to do but not HOW to do.' Those two statements I've written inside my technique book.

The technique book will tell you what to do but will not tell you how to do it. That is written above and how true it is. Footwork, toes and heels can be learnt from a book, they have not altered, not since I first became interested. Here is a simple example of something not quite right from the book. A Natural Spin Turn is a pivot not a spin. After all a spin is a spin and a pivot is a pivot. Foxtrot . Feather Step followed by a Reverse Turn.The man going forewards has the straight line. The lady going backwards has to move over slightly, off line. If she follows the book and jams her left foot back diag to centre how do they come back to a good balanced position in the Reverse Turn and not spend the rest of the turn trying to get on balance. Unless the lady does as somebody who it would be hard to contradict says . Turn the hips to the inside of the turn and don't particularly worry where the right foot goes. That's not in the technique book is it. Also turn the right toe inwards slightly, and believe me that's the best advice you will ever get for a Heel Turn.