Long-term Intermediates [Archive] - Ceroc Scotland Forum

ChrisA

21st-December-2005, 12:37 AM

Not read that thread fully yet, but my interpritation is those dancers that dance well enough to be happy and content on the dance floor. They have no immediate desire to work hard at improving; they love to dance how they dance. :flower:
I agree with this, more or less.

I was going to phrase it:

"Those who aren't getting better, and don't know or care."

It's not quite the same, I know - I'm inclining this definition in the same slightly pejorative sense in which I used the term earlier.

But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with being a long-term intermediate in Gadget's sense, providing they don't hurt anyone.

It's when they expect all the people whose dancing they admire to suddenly want to dance with them, and go all rejected and needy when they discover that those people have lives of their own, and don't want to live those lives entirely for the benefit of others around them, that you get the conflict that so often gets expressed here.

I think you have a happier life as someone that fits Gadget's description, in fact there's a lot to be said for it. It sounds like bliss to me - to enjoy practically all the music, enjoy dancing with practically everyone, at practically all venues.

Why would anyone want to be any different?

Gadget

21st-December-2005, 03:40 AM

under par

21st-December-2005, 03:45 AM

..... dancers that dance well enough to be happy and content on the dance floor. They have no immediate desire to work hard at improving; they love to dance how they dance. :flower:

"Those who aren't getting better, and don't know or care."

Of the two quotes I think Gadget provides a more positive slant compared to what Chris has written. Probably both mean the same but one sounds slightly less negative.

Both are just about right as far as the definition of long term intermediate:yeah:

ChrisA

21st-December-2005, 09:23 AM

Of the two quotes I think Gadget provides a more positive slant compared to what Chris has written. Probably both mean the same but one sounds slightly less negative.

The difference in tone was completely intentional. As I said, I gave that definition deliberately to fit the context in which I used it in http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=181440&postcount=45, when I said:

Real beginners, and people that genuinely want to improve, are usually very prepared to work at it, put the effort in, and respond positively to feedback.

It's long-term intermediates, and like it or not, ones that often really aren't very good, that are the ones that go all huffy about it all.

The majority probably fit Gadget's definition better than mine. :flower:

stewart38

21st-December-2005, 10:49 AM

Much easier for me to say Im a long term Intermediate dancer (after 11yrs of ceroc/jive) then saying im advanced

Interesting thread

David Franklin

21st-December-2005, 11:15 AM

It's when they expect all the people whose dancing they admire to suddenly want to dance with them, and go all rejected and needy when they discover that those people have lives of their own, and don't want to live those lives entirely for the benefit of others around them, that you get the conflict that so often gets expressed here.
:confused: I must have a different view of what's expressed here; I've not seen this conflict from "long-term intermediates" - most of the moaning comes from the "good" dancers who work to improve themselves but don't want to dance with another dancer who is not interested in getting any better.You're being incredibly selective in what you read then - because I'd say there at least as many posts from people complaining that "the good dancers don't ask me to dance", or "the good dancers only want to dance with each other" as there are complaining about the 'long term intermediates' (LTI). And that's not taking into account that most posts complaining about LTI are in response to an accusation of hotshotism.

Perhaps I'm nieve, but I don't think that anyone Expects(*1) all the people who's dancing they admire to suddenly(*2) want(*3) to dance with them. unless you take the following provisos...

*1 - "Expects" - only in that if they ask them for a dance, they expect to get one. I don't think anyone "expects" to be asked by better dancers than themselves, but that's more human nature thing :rolleyes:Well, there are certainly enough posts from people complaining that the better dancers don't ask them - I'm not sure they'd complain if they didn't expect it!

*2 - "Suddenly" - These dancers will improve with time and patience as they either get used to your style, or you learn how to accomodate theirs.Although I'd argue how much they will improve, I think this point is a bit of a red herring - more a figure of speech than anything else - it doesn't really change ChrisA's statement if you get rid of it.

*3 - "Want" - strange word... can mean a level of posessive desire that will not be barred. Or the fact that there's music playing, you are in a dance venue and that's what you like to do.Let's not argue semantics here. When it comes down to it, a lot of the complaints about hotshots boil down to the "hotshot" not showing enthusiasm for the dance or for the asker. In other words, they don't indicate that they "want" to dance with that person.

As far as point 3 goes, I actually think the "long term intermediate" is right to expect some amount of diplomatic nicety. But it only goes so far - if every time I dance with someone it's a completely miserable experience, after a while my eyes are not going to light up as they approach. (For what it's worth, my personal feeling is if a dance sucks for me, it probably sucks for my partner. If that's a perpetual situation rather than a one-off, we're both better off finding someone else to dance with. There are a lot of people out there to dance with! :flower: )

doc martin

21st-December-2005, 11:20 AM

Can I be a long term intermediate without the obnoxious behaviour?

But I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with being a long-term intermediate in Gadget's sense, providing they don't hurt anyone.
For me, this is the heart of it. It doesn't matter if someone has been dancing for a long time and not improving for most of that time, whether they know or care about the lack of improvement, or even how much enjoyment they get out of dancing the way they do.

What matters is how it affects the person they are dancing with. The way long-term intermediate is being used on these threads seems to me to imply that the person's bad habits lessen their partner's enjoyment of the dance. And that could range from physically hurting them to damaging their delicate musical sensitivities. And add to that the perceived bad habits are long term too.

MartinHarper

21st-December-2005, 12:13 PM

Idea for a thread - can people give their definition for the kind of dancer who would fit Chris' term?

People who dance at an intermediate level, and have done so long-term.

Clive Long

21st-December-2005, 12:19 PM

Much easier for me to say Im a long term Intermediate dancer (after 11yrs of ceroc/jive) then saying im advanced

Interesting thread
I too am a long term (weak-)intermediate.

I remain so because I don't devote enough time to develop.

The problem and frustration is only mine, not anyone else's.

Clive

Icey

21st-December-2005, 01:40 PM

People who dance at an intermediate level, and have done so long-term.
This is the meaning I placed on the term because I don't want to be one of these:

Those who aren't getting better, and don't know or care.

I want to be getting better, even if my path getting there is a long one.

ducasi

21st-December-2005, 02:05 PM

You're being incredibly selective in what you read then - because I'd say there at least as many posts from people complaining that "the good dancers don't ask me to dance", or "the good dancers only want to dance with each other" as there are complaining about the 'long term intermediates' (LTI). And that's not taking into account that most posts complaining about LTI are in response to an accusation of hotshotism. I must also suffer from Gadget's selective blindness, as I don't recall many posts like that at all.

David Franklin

21st-December-2005, 02:32 PM

I must also suffer from Gadget's selective blindness, as I don't recall many posts like that at all.Looking over the last few weeks' posts, I think you're right (well, there were quite a few posts like I described in the FunkyLush thread, but it wasn't the LTI's who started it!). Apologies to Gadget. :flower:

To slightly change topic - I really can't be bothered to search back through the archives, but my perception is that suddenly a lot more people are coming out and saying "actually, I am fed up of dancing with the intermediates who never seem to get any better". Anyone else think this, or is it just me again?

Andy McGregor

21st-December-2005, 03:37 PM

To slightly change topic - I really can't be bothered to search back through the archives, but my perception is that suddenly a lot more people are coming out and saying "actually, I am fed up of dancing with the intermediates who never seem to get any better". Anyone else think this, or is it just me again?No, but it might be just you and me :flower:

IMHO the long term intermdiate is caused by the lesson structure in MJ. The lessons are the same standard, week after week. So how can people be expected to improve and rise above that standard? This is especially so with Ceroc as the objective seems to be to have the teaching standardised, homologated and regulated. At least independents will offer something different to visiting Cerocers, even if the standard is the same :whistle:

LMC

21st-December-2005, 03:44 PM

It's not just that the lessons are the same standard every week, they focus purely on moves.

I posted elsewhere about having a pure "style/technique" class every few weeks to build on basics. If that ideal can't be met, then I would far rather have one less move taught in each class with a bit more focus on the "bits" of each move and style/technique points that could apply generally - basic lead and follow (backwards/forwards, tension) in beginners and in intermediates, e.g. if a pretzel is being taught, include a timely reminder about gripping (for both men and women). And adequate cover of dip/seducer technique/safety (but that's a whole other thread...).

ChrisA

21st-December-2005, 04:27 PM

This is the meaning I placed on the term because I don't want to be one of these:

Those who aren't getting better, and don't know or care.

You aren't within a million miles of being one of those. :flower:

under par

21st-December-2005, 04:34 PM

Baruch

27th-December-2005, 06:11 PM

IMHO the long term intermdiate is caused by the lesson structure in MJ. The lessons are the same standard, week after week. So how can people be expected to improve and rise above that standard?
I'm not sure that it's the content of the lessons that's to blame. Many's the time I've had ladies tell me that I'm unusual because I usually put in a few moves from the lesson during freestyle afterwards. Why is that unusual? If people don't put into practice what they learn, they're never going to improve.

I've also had ladies say something along the lines of, "What the hell was that?!?" when I've tried something new that wasn't in the lesson, but we won't go into that :whistle:

RogerR

28th-December-2005, 12:18 AM

Is it not normal to socialise with ones peers, Heisenberg almost certainly liased with Pauling and Bohr. The problem as in all walks of life is people who do it exclusively and do not socialise outside their peer group. Several of us lack the ability or commitment to audition for ENB or Rambert successfully.

However we put some effort in and reach our own standard, where the effort in vs pleasure out payback suits us each separately and individually.

KatieR

28th-December-2005, 10:43 AM

No, but it might be just you and me :flower:

IMHO the long term intermdiate is caused by the lesson structure in MJ. The lessons are the same standard, week after week. So how can people be expected to improve and rise above that standard? This is especially so with Ceroc as the objective seems to be to have the teaching standardised, homologated and regulated. At least independents will offer something different to visiting Cerocers, even if the standard is the same :whistle:

IMO you get to a point that the standard lessons aren't really going to improve your dancing as you say, it is the same week after week. You can go 7 times a week but if you arent learning correct technique, styling, musicality etc.. you will still remain an intermediate dancer. I believe that once this point has been reached a person needs to decide if they are happy with their level of dancing or not, if yes, keep going to the classes and freestyles and having a ball, but if not, I think to really improve you need to start going to workshops, weekenders, have private lessons etc to work on things that arent covered in classes.

under par

28th-December-2005, 02:58 PM

LMC

28th-December-2005, 03:11 PM

IMO you get to a point that the standard lessons aren't really going to improve your dancing < snip rest, it's just up there ^^^ >
:yeah:

Even only about 6 months in, I'm already getting to the stage where as a follower, I don't get all that much out of weekly lessons - it's great to practice so I do attend all the lessons I can - but these days, I rarely learn anything new following in the intermediate class. I get more out of freestyles, particularly with better dancers than me.

I'm looking forward to my next couple of weekenders and next style workshop. And when I've pinpointed what I want to work on (apart from "everything") I'll book another private lesson (or a few). I still have SO much to learn. I wish more of it could be included in regular classes.

Gadget

28th-December-2005, 08:05 PM

... but these days, I rarely learn anything new following in the intermediate class.Is that learn from what's going on on-stage, or what your partner is doing? There are many different places to draw from.

tsh

28th-December-2005, 11:09 PM

I'm not sure that it's the content of the lessons that's to blame. Many's the time I've had ladies tell me that I'm unusual because I usually put in a few moves from the lesson during freestyle afterwards. Why is that unusual? If people don't put into practice what they learn, they're never going to improve.

I've also had ladies say something along the lines of, "What the hell was that?!?" when I've tried something new that wasn't in the lesson, but we won't go into that :whistle:

I disagree - it is the format of the lessons. The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves - nothing like it. (I'm now waiting for a follower to correct me!). If they don't learn it, how can they practice it?

What's being taught is not often particularly useful either - The classic moves being imo a good example - mostly these are not moves that I use 'as is', some variations on the theme would seem to be much more useful for anyone who actually wants to improve. The moves which are technically difficult might be OK, if there were some explanation of how - otherwise the lead/follow in freestyle does not happen.

Sean

LMC

29th-December-2005, 12:34 AM

Is that learn from what's going on on-stage, or what your partner is doing? There are many different places to draw from.
Either/both - I hope I *improve* my following skills from dancing with different partners and following sometimes unfamiliar moves in lessons - that's why I do them.

But "new" things recently have come from freestyle partners or workshops rather than rotating round a class.

Baruch

29th-December-2005, 03:47 AM

The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves - nothing like it.
Eh? :confused:

under par

29th-December-2005, 08:29 AM

Eh? :confused::yeah: :confused:

David Franklin

29th-December-2005, 11:02 AM

The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves - nothing like it.Eh? :confused:Perhaps he meant to say:

The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves is the missing gap between walking through the moves; what's needed is some teaching of lead and follow, but unfortunately there's nothing like it.
:whistle:

tsh

29th-December-2005, 11:56 AM

Perhaps he meant to say:

The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves is the missing gap between walking through the moves; what's needed is some teaching of lead and follow, but unfortunately there's nothing like it.
:whistle:

Something like that... What I was trying to explain was why moves from the class don't get used - i.e. they are not learnt in the class because the class is demonstrating a routine as a routine, and not as a collection of moves to be used in freestyle. The biggest reason is probably that the classes are designed such that it isn't necessary to teach lead and follow.

Sean

under par

29th-December-2005, 04:23 PM

Perhaps he meant to say:

The reason that most people who do the intermediate class do not learn the moves is the missing gap between walking through the moves; what's needed is some teaching of lead and follow, but unfortunately there's nothing like it.
:whistle:

David having deciphered that last post for tsh can you help me with my earlier request to give a simple translation to this...

Is it not normal to socialise with ones peers, Heisenberg almost certainly liased with Pauling and Bohr. The problem as in all walks of life is people who do it exclusively and do not socialise outside their peer group. Several of us lack the ability or commitment to audition for ENB or Rambert successfully.

However we put some effort in and reach our own standard, where the effort in vs pleasure out payback suits us each separately and individually.posted by rogerR

Baruch

29th-December-2005, 08:23 PM

The biggest reason is probably that the classes are designed such that it isn't necessary to teach lead and follow.
Ah, I see. Good point.

Of course, it doesn't help when even at intermediate level you have ladies who lead themselves through the moves. Such as the lady who, last Tuesday night, led herself into a turn early, with the result that I didn't even have hold of her hand. Normally I probably would have just let her do her own thing and wiggled a bit, but this was during a class. Maybe there should be a national campaign for the teaching of lead and follow more effectively. You make the banners, and we'll have a protest march simultaneously in London, Cardiff and Edinburgh....... :nice:

David Franklin

29th-December-2005, 11:01 PM

David having deciphered that last post for tsh can you help me with my earlier request to give a simple translation to this...
Is it not normal to socialise with ones peers, Heisenberg almost certainly liased with Pauling and Bohr[1]. The problem as in all walks of life is people who do it exclusively and do not socialise outside their peer group. Several of us lack the ability or commitment to audition for ENB[2] or Rambert[3] successfully.

However we put some effort in and reach our own standard, where the effort in vs pleasure out payback suits us each separately and individually.I didn't think this one was too bad, actually...

It is normal to make friends with similar people. The problem is people who will not be friends with people of differing abilitites or interests.

Many of us will never be professional dancers. But we do work at our dancing and reach our own level. The best level of effort v.s. payback is different for each of us.

Notes:

[1] Heisenberg and Bohr were pioneers in quantum theory. Pauling was of a slight later era and actually more of a molecular biologist, so I'm not sure he's the best example of a peer. They did know each other though.

[2],[3] ENB - English National Ballet; Rambert - Rambert dance company.

under par

30th-December-2005, 07:00 AM

I didn't think this one was too bad, actually...

It is normal to make friends with similar people. The problem is people who will not be friends with people of differing abilitites or interests.

Many of us will never be professional dancers. But we do work at our dancing and reach our own level. The best level of effort v.s. payback is different for each of us.

Notes:

[1] Heisenberg and Bohr were pioneers in quantum theory. Pauling was of a slight later era and actually more of a molecular biologist, so I'm not sure he's the best example of a peer. They did know each other though.

[2],[3] ENB - English National Ballet; Rambert - Rambert dance company.

David you are an angel thanks..:cheers:

Chef

6th-January-2006, 06:09 PM

Well there seems to be some chat about this already but I thought I would come at it from the angle of putting down my own thoughts about what it is, in terms of specific skills, that defines an intermediate dancer. In particular, those skills that they lack that keep them at the intermediate stage.

The reasons that some dancers don’t pick up these skills mostly seem to be a combination of

a) The teacher at their dance class has never taught them
b) They have been taught but the students have trouble understanding the lessons
c) They think they are doing everything right while not actually doing something correctly
d) They lack motivation to improve beyond their current level.

This is from a leaders point of view, is in no particular order, and only my personal view.

The Rock step.

When an intermediate takes a rock step they step backwards and put their full weight on the rear foot. This can be seen from the side of the dance floor because the front foot does a little kick upwards that looks a little like the goosestepping march of the Nazi army and causes their shoulders go backwards. At the same time their hand goes backwards with them giving my arm a good tugging every 6-8 beats. Sometime this transfer of weight backwards is so severe that if I let go at that point they would fall over backwards. If this is also coupled with the “long straight arm” (see below) the yanking and jerking is very uncomfortable. What I am looking for is when the person takes a rock step the majority of their weight stays forwards and their hand stays at the same position in space because they compensate for any rearward motion of their shoulders by a forward motion of their hand.

Bouncy hands.

Don’t bounce my hand up and down. It adds absolutely nothing to the flow of information from me to you. It is merely noise on the line and besides, I am not leading it so it shouldn’t be there. I don’t need it to hear the beat and it contributes to the yanking, so stop it. For a leader the only reason to bounce your hand up and down is if you actually want your partner to jump up and down. Any meaningful lesson on lead and follow would address this as part of the lesson and explain why it is counterproductive.

Long straight arms.

I can understand where this one originates from so I have sympathy for this unhelpful habit. When women are learning to dance one of the most tricky things is learning to spin. It is often accompanied by falling off of the spin part way through and so the women feel that they have a large danger area around them. As a result they put a lot of distance between themselves and their partner before starting their spin. Once they finish their spin they reach out to connect with their partner, but they are already at full stretch before they take a rock step. Since they have a fully straight arm and their shoulders go backwards when they take a rock step they yank your arm. The solution is to 1) learn to spin accurately on the spot without falling over in a single smooth motion and 2) stay close enough to your partner so that when you have finished your spin you can both offer your hands at waist level with your elbows near your waist. One of the benefits of being closer to your partner is you don’t have to move so fast because you don’t have to move so far.

Arm tension

There are two extremes of this.

TOO LITTLE. Spaghetti arms are frustrating but not damaging. There is so little tension that it doesn’t matter where you lead the lady to go she is just going to stand there like she has had her feet nailed to the floor. It really is like having the connection between her hand and her shoulder being made by a piece of wet spaghetti. You provide tension on her arm and you would hope that her having her elbow pulled slightly away from her waist would make her think “that is my arm going over there, I think I will follow it” but no, she is not going to move at all until and unless she start to feel pain in her shoulder and would rather fall flat on her face rather than move her feet. You try pushing her hand so that she will go backwards and nothing happens except her hand is now at the waist and still her feet are nailed to the floor.

TOO MUCH. That arm is locked rigid. It is a real struggle to lift it upwards so that you can lead her in a return. If you do manage to lead her return she won’t allow you to bring it back down afterwards. The worst one is what I call “the begging dog”. Despite your best efforts to offer and use your hand to lead at waist level she grabs hold of your hand and yanks it up to her shoulder height effectively destroying any meaningful connection between you.

Spinning.

Most spinning is done on the spot. If I want a follower to move and spin at the same time I will lead the movement part and then lead the spin part. Being able to spin on the spot without falling over or travelling unintentionally is pretty fundamental to the followers’ part of MJ. If the follower cannot do this the leader has to chase them around the room trying to stop them from hitting things like people, table and chairs. Something that intermediate followers seem to have particular trouble with is staying on the spot when following a simple return.

Timing.

We hear a lot about the need for leaders to keep in time with the music. Followers also need to keep time with the music. If you are going to do a spin in a song there is no point you flinging yourself around it as fast as you can so that you can charge into the next move. If I put you into a free spin you have one, two, three or four beats to do it depending on your interpretation of the music. What you don’t have is 1.27, 2.42, or 3.56 beats of music to get the job done. We have both been taught the moves and the counts required for each part, we each have our own parts of the dance to do in order to be able to dance together.

Ladies that lead themselves

I actually think that this is one thing that keeps a follower at the beginner stage rather than in the intermediate stage. If the follower isn’t following then they aren’t a follower of any standard.

So that is it for now. I think of beginners, intermediate and advanced dancers in terms of the skills that they have acquired rather than just the length of time they have been dancing.

I would be very interested to hear a followers view of the essential skill set of an intermediate dance leader is.

robd

6th-January-2006, 06:30 PM

Being able to spin on the spot without falling over or travelling unintentionally is pretty fundamental to the followers’ part of MJ.

Agree strongly and I always feel I am dancing with a top class follower if they can spin on the spot easily. However I appreciate that it is not easy (I can't spin on the spot myself) and that this does require input from the lead or. rather, a poor lead can make it difficult for a follower to spin on the spot.

We hear a lot about the need for leaders to keep in time with the music. Followers also need to keep time with the music. If you are going to do a spin in a song there is no point you flinging yourself around it as fast as you can so that you can charge into the next move.

Absolutely. It's lovely when the follower can double or even triple spin but if the reconnection is mid-beat it can and does severely disrupt the flow of the dance.

On a side note I had a strange time at an event recently whereby either I or very many of my partners were, or seemed to be, out of time, much more so than is the norm. The music was unfamiliar and I had enjoyed a couple of beers beforehand :blush: but it still seemed really odd, almost as if we were listening to different tracks. I do fall out of time with the music but usually I can tell that this is the case and pretty quickly get back on track - this night I felt that I was in time with the music but the quantity of partners with which I had this odd sensation of mismatched timing was such that I couldn't just put it down to a 'faulty' follower. Weird.

jivecat

6th-January-2006, 06:50 PM

Don’t bounce my hand up and down. It adds absolutely nothing to the flow of information from me to you. It is merely noise on the line and besides, I am not leading it so it shouldn’t be there.

So if he is leading it I suppose that means I should be doing it as well. *Sigh*.
Resistance is futile, in any case.

LMC

6th-January-2006, 06:58 PM

OK, I'll bite...

Reasons for not progressing
Agree with all of those, but would also add lack of ability. At my age and weight, I am unlikely ever to reach JiveMasters standard - which isn't going to stop me trying to be the best follower possible, but in terms of moves that I can be led into - no aerials, no huge horrible drops, I'll probably be classed as intermediate for ever and ever amen.

The Rock step
The main problem with this, IMO, is that many dancers take too large a step - both leaders and followers. All my weight is on my back foot - and I think this is how it should be - but I don't compensate for this by 'leaning' on the lead because I'm balanced. If a leader steps back too far, then he may throw me off balance. I hate it when I take a tiny step back and the leader takes such a huge step back that I *still* end up with a straight arm - that way lies yanking... If followers take too large a step then yes, there is a risk that they will end up leaning on the lead.

Bouncy hands
Agreed. It's painful. STOP IT. At least as followers, we have the choice of jumping up and down to make the point :devil:

Long straight arms
Oh, and spinning, which Chef talks about later...

Often happens because dancers are taking too large steps, even if a spin isn't in the equation.

In the case of a spin - sorry, I'm going to have to slightly disagree there... We are spinning which restricts our ability to "see". Leads are not - so at that point, they should be following us. Having said that, I agree that women should be able to spin on the spot. I can now, most of the time - and I can free spin on the spot (just don't ask about the double spins, OK?). So if I'm travelling, there's an evens chance that I've actually been thrown off balance by the lead, leading me into a spin too early, or from an incorrect arm angle/position. Same goes for turns and returns - my head is UP THERE dammit.

Arm tension
Agree.

Leads with insufficient tension - particularly noticeable on a turn or return, which is basically a "block and change direction".

Leads with too much tension - OUCH - again, particularly while turning.

Timing
Agree. Leads: don't grab please - if we are spinning in 1.27 rather than 1 beat, then pick us up on 2. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, floors have sticky bits or we're just not quite with it :blush:

Ladies that lead themselves
Agree.

So that is it for now. I think of beginners, intermediate and advanced dancers in terms of the skills that they have acquired rather than just the length of time they have been dancing.
Absolutely - the obsession with "how long have you been dancing?" and "if you've been dancing 6 weeks" (rather than "if you're confident with all the beginners moves") drives me :mad:. On Wednesday, I was talking to a beginner guy at some length who said he intended to move up to intermediate. As I was on taxi duty, I recommended he stay in review classes for a while longer. One day, he has the potential to be a fantastic dancer - he's very enthusiastic and has mentioned watching DVDs at home. But he does need to lose the grip (see below) and "stop panicking" - he can hear the beat, but tends to get off time through rushing moves. Knowing those beginner moves inside out will mean that he won't rush them... I hope.

Last thing, which Chef didn't mention - it does seem to be mainly men, although there are some guilty women as well: LOSE THE B****Y THUMBS. At beginner level, guys worry about 'losing' their follower - and if she is leading herself, they will - so followers: let the guys lead and they won't feel the need to hang on... However, at intermediate level there is no excuse for thumbs.

I'm sure more experienced followers will be able to add more :)

David Franklin

6th-January-2006, 07:21 PM

Agree with all of those, but would also add lack of ability. At my age and weight, I am unlikely ever to reach JiveMasters standard - which isn't going to stop me trying to be the best follower possible, but in terms of moves that I can be led into - no aerials, no huge horrible drops, I'll probably be classed as intermediate for ever and ever amen.Sorry, but I'd have to disagree here. I don't see aerials and big drops as having anything to do with dancing ability. Yes, MJ is probably at the stage where your not going to win the open categories without being reasonably athletic, but there's a lot between "intermediate" and "best of the best".

In the case of a spin - sorry, I'm going to have to slightly disagree there... We are spinning which restricts our ability to "see". Leads are not - so at that point, they should be following us. Having said that, I agree that women should be able to spin on the spot.Agreed. However, I recall a contrasting view (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=184356&postcount=63): :devil:

I have seen a lot of guys attempt a double manspin and the lady ends up just standing there, there really isn't much a lady can do in that situation the guy always ends up a mile away and you end up running after them...
I think people have a lot of unrealistic expectations about spinning - 99% of dancers are going to travel on their spins a fair amount of the time. So it is pretty unreasonable to say "you travelled, you're nothing but an intermediate", or "you can't be advanced until you can do double spins".

LMC

6th-January-2006, 07:36 PM

Nice Harperlink DF :wink:

I guess in theory, whoever is not spinning should follow whoever is. But if the whole point of the lead is to provide a "frame" for the follower to look gorgeous, then if he's multiple spinning and she can't multiple spin, then she needs to be wiggling or something. And it's quite difficult to follow a travelling spinner while you're wiggling. Well, it is for me.

And then what happens if you're both spinning? :devil:

ChrisA

6th-January-2006, 08:08 PM

And then what happens if you're both spinning?
The guy needs to finish his spin enough ahead of the lady to give him the time to adjust his position and be ready to take the lady's hand again when she stops spinning.

Usually this only means a moment - nowhere near a whole count. I won't spin myself if my partner travels significantly in hers.

David Franklin

6th-January-2006, 08:15 PM

I guess in theory, whoever is not spinning should follow whoever is. But if the whole point of the lead is to provide a "frame" for the follower to look gorgeous, then if he's multiple spinning and she can't multiple spin, then she needs to be wiggling or something.That's a big "if" there. There's nothing to say the follower can't provide a "frame" for the lead to look gorgeous (you could argue they've momentarily swapped leads). Looking at video clips with good male spinners (I have Kevin St Laurent and Ben Thomas in mind), the women don't do much more than wait. They pretty much stop and wait for the man to stop spinning, with that slightly attentive "I'm ready to jump in a turn early to save his balance if needed" look. A major point being, of course, that he's the one people are paying attention to, so they don't need to do anything much.

And then what happens if you're both spinning? :devil:In freestyle, if I lead a spin, I see it as my responsibility to be ready to collect the follower after her spin. In practice, that means I have to finish my spin and be back on balance and ready before she would complete a single spin at normal speed. This pretty much precludes anything more than a single spin for the man - and he will probably still have to "whip" the turn around. This is another reason why men tend not to be good at spinning - there's very little room for error when you have to be there for your partner.

ChrisA

6th-January-2006, 08:17 PM

All my weight is on my back foot

:really:

- and I think this is how it should be

Why do you think this?

- but I don't compensate for this by 'leaning' on the lead because I'm balanced.
I don't know what you mean by "balanced". You don't really want to be balanced on one foot, which is what effectively happens if all your weight's on it.

It's much harder to step forward again if you have all your weight on your back foot, with a resulting tendency to rely substantially on the lead for the force required to get you moving forward again.

ducasi

6th-January-2006, 11:13 PM

Gadget

7th-January-2006, 12:56 AM

The Rock step.

When an intermediate takes a rock step they step backwards and put their full weight on the rear foot. This can be seen from the side of the dance floor because the front foot does a little kick upwards that looks a little like the goosestepping march of the Nazi army and causes their shoulders go backwards. At the same time their hand goes backwards with them giving my arm a good tugging every 6-8 beats. Sometime this transfer of weight backwards is so severe that if I let go at that point they would fall over backwards. If this is also coupled with the “long straight arm” (see below) the yanking and jerking is very uncomfortable. What I am looking for is when the person takes a rock step the majority of their weight stays forwards and their hand stays at the same position in space because they compensate for any rearward motion of their shoulders by a forward motion of their hand.
I dissagree with some of the above: the most common problem I see with the "rock step" is either that they don't transfer the weight or that they take too big a step.
Basically it's all about distance and how you controll it with your partner - I've recently found myself taking a "step back" with my torso and weight transfer rather than any movement of my feet {Whether this is good or bad I have yet to work out... it allows me greater controll, but I'm sure that something is being sacrificed :confused:}
More to the point is that MJ is not about a simple "Rock step" - a rock step goes from a central position, back, then returns to the central position. Most people seem to miss the point that MJ is about both a backward and forward step - it's what adds that 'elasticity' to the dance.

In the quoted description above, it's the arm going back rather than the step that causes the problem: if the arm went forward, then there would be little to complain about.

{and a :yeah: to Ducasi's post}

Franck

7th-January-2006, 01:57 AM

The Rock step.

When an intermediate takes a rock step they step backwards and put their full weight on the rear foot. This can be seen from the side of the dance floor because the front foot does a little kick upwards that looks a little like the goosestepping march of the Nazi army and causes their shoulders go backwards. At the same time their hand goes backwards with them giving my arm a good tugging every 6-8 beats. Sometime this transfer of weight backwards is so severe that if I let go at that point they would fall over backwards. I would like to get clarification for this point too.
Transferring your full weight on your back foot is not the same as transferring your weight backward.
For a standard step back (or a rock step) I would teach to transfer your weight on the back foot, but not your centre of gravity, or indeed your momentum.
What you describe is not about weight transferance, but about balance and momentum(as LMC mentioned). If a follower is off balance (i.e. falling backward as you describe in your example) or is adding her own (backward) momentum then she is breaking the connection (via a sudden increase in leverage) and can either hurt your shoulder or force you to match her leverage (as in a hi-jack).

If you don't transfer your weight on the back foot (in a step back), you're either doing a 'tap' (very useful in styling or to keep a foot free), or you are distributing your weight between both feet, which is not particularly desirable as neither foot is available.

I don't know what you mean by "balanced". You don't really want to be balanced on one foot, which is what effectively happens if all your weight's on it.Balanced means that you are not falling over, not necessarily that you are standing on one leg. Indeed it should be possible to have your weight fully committed to the back foot, whilst your centre of gravity is still forward and balanced. This is possible because we can use our muscles and body to balance.
This also works because it is not a static balance but balanced transition between 2 positions.

It's much harder to step forward again if you have all your weight on your back foot, with a resulting tendency to rely substantially on the lead for the force required to get you moving forward again.This is not accurate either. It is much harder to step forward again if you have sent your Centre of gravity off balance beyond your back foot. In fact if you try standing balanced on your back foot, it's much easier to step forward on your free (forward) foot, than it is to step back!

I feel we would be better served if we taught everyone (not just followers) to become more aware of their own balance an not rely on their partner.

David Franklin

7th-January-2006, 11:42 AM

Balanced means that you are not falling over, not necessarily that you are standing on one leg. Indeed it should be possible to have your weight fully committed to the back foot, whilst your centre of gravity is still forward and balanced. This is possible because we can use our muscles and body to balance. I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to describe here, but from a physics point of view, if all your weight is on your back foot (i.e. no downwards force acting through the front foot), the situation will not be stable if your center of gravity falls outside the base of your back foot. (Assuming normal friction-like shoes - you could do it if you wore suckers!).

None-the-less, as described in the old rec.arts.dance FAQ (http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/weight_change.html):

You can put ALL your weight on one foot for a short period of time without having your CG directly over that foot. Try it.

* Stand completely on your left foot.
* Put the ball of your right foot on the floor about 6 inches back without weight.
* Press into your right foot hard enough to pick your left foot completely off the floor and slip forward about an inch without bobbing your head or body up and down.

Congratulations. You have just done a "ball change" with complete weight change (or you wouldn't have been able to pick up your left foot without bobbing down and up) but without your weight being over your foot (because your right foot was behind you and you moved forward.) This is completely within the laws of Newtonian physics.

This also works because it is not a static balance but balanced transition between 2 positions.In the light of the above - this only works because it is a transition between 2 positions. But I'd hesitate to call it balanced, personally. Half way through a fall, I'm in transition between two balanced positions, but I am not balanced!

ducasi

7th-January-2006, 12:40 PM

I would like to get clarification for this point too. {skip lots of good stuff} I'm glad Franck posted this, as it's much better than what I was going to write based on what he has taught me.

When I step back, most of my weight is on my back foot – depending on the tempo of the music, maybe all of it. But as my centre of gravity is forward, I'm not going to be yanking my partner, but instead have built potential energy ready for the step back in.

At all times through the step back and step back in I'm going to be balanced. If I'm not, the correction necessary is going to upset the connection I have with my partner.

LMC

7th-January-2006, 02:09 PM

Thank you Franck - although I wish I'd stayed up to see that instead of spending about half an hour in my bathroom last night stepping back before coming to the same conclusion - and that I had just worded my post poorly and that is what I meant :rofl:

Thinking about ducasi's post too - v. positive, well done that man... it seems to me that the difference between intermediate and advanced is maybe in terms of a "percentage" thing. I'm struggling to articulate this, but perhaps this will be comprehensible:

An intermediate follower can follow moves that s/he doesn't know, but only to a certain level beyond their "knowledge". For example, I can follow some moves derived from other styles of dance but others leave me confused and humbled (not necessarily in a bad way as it's good to be aware of how much I still have to learn). Whereas an advanced follower has such a good connection that they can follow "anything".

Can't even begin to try to define the version for "leader" - ducasi, IMO you'd do a dam' fine job, off you go... :D

ducasi

7th-January-2006, 02:45 PM

Can't even begin to try to define the version for "leader" - ducasi, IMO you'd do a dam' fine job, off you go... :D I'm a sucker for flattery... :blush:

Aspects of advanced leadership... :D

No longer thinks purely in terms of moves
Musicality goes well beyond just marking breaks
Stylish stuff which you don't think you'd have the nerve to do
Can lead beginners into fairly tricky moves they don't know
Can make a connection with a stuffed dummy
They make it look as easy as breathing

Not all advanced dancers will have all these things, but they'll have most to some degree. And like I said about following, some of these things can be learnt, probably all of them... I don't think they all can come naturally though.

While I think I'm making good progress in a few of these things, I have a way to go.

Franck

7th-January-2006, 09:43 PM

I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to describe here, but from a physics point of view, if all your weight is on your back foot (i.e. no downwards force acting through the front foot), the situation will not be stable if your center of gravity falls outside the base of your back foot. (Assuming normal friction-like shoes - you could do it if you wore suckers!).

None-the-less, as described in the old rec.arts.dance FAQ (http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/weight_change.html):

In the light of the above - this only works because it is a transition between 2 positions. But I'd hesitate to call it balanced, personally. Half way through a fall, I'm in transition between two balanced positions, but I am not balanced!I think on principle we agree, the degree to which your centre of gravity stays forward will depend on many factors: The speed of the music, the quality of the connection, the style of dancing you prefer, your own body shape and fitness, etc...

Taking the concept further, if you don't transfer your weight on the back foot when stepping back (in a rock step for example) then you get this permanent feeling of falling forward (similar to falling backward and relying on the lead to keep you upright if you transfer your centre of gravity behind your back foot).

As a result, anything other than a balanced step back will either be falling backward, or anticipate a step forward, which is indeed what usually happens anyway, but is still anticipation, I would rather a good follower was not anticipating a bounce back forward all the time but was always balanced (i.e. poised for any direction of travel).
This might explain what David James mentioned in the Tango thread, where he said that the easiest way to confuse an MJ follower is to lead a walk (forward or back).
Coincidentally, I am teaching that sort of stuff on Sunday at the Focus Workshop in Stirling, as we are working on leading / following and changing the direction of travel (Back & Forward, Lateral, Rotation, Up & Down as well as leading nothing).
Attempting to lead a proper stop (leading nothing) when the follower is anticipating an automatic step forward and is off balance as a result is still possible but requires a much stronger frame than it should.

I have taken a look at the link you mentioned and agree completely with the FAQ.

LMC

7th-January-2006, 09:52 PM

I can see how DF is right on the centre of gravity bit - hence the need for small steps. I'm still working on the not anticipating the 'bounce' bit :blush: - I don't do it always, and it's progress that I'm aware I'm doing it :nice:

As MJ is about compression and leverage, surely you need that full weight transfer to be able to 'spring' back effectively/quickly enough?

David Franklin

7th-January-2006, 10:47 PM

I think on principle we agree, the degree to which your centre of gravity stays forward will depend on many factors: The speed of the music, the quality of the connection, the style of dancing you prefer, your own body shape and fitness, etc...I must admit, I'm not sure we do agree. The physicist in me is going to be pedantic here. Regardless of your shape, fitness, or anything else, if your weight is entirely on your back foot, and your center of gravity remains in front of all parts of the back foot, you will fall forwards in the absense of an external force.

ChrisA

7th-January-2006, 10:54 PM

Balanced means that you are not falling over, not necessarily that you are standing on one leg.
Ok, let's agree on this definition of balanced, and I'll just make it a little more specific, and say that not only are you not falling over, nor are you moving. This isn't quite the same as the situation where you step back and are then about to step forward again, but I'll come to that in a bit.

Indeed it should be possible to have your weight fully committed to the back foot, whilst your centre of gravity is still forward and balanced.

I don't understand this either.

Starting standing up straight, on either one foot or two, it is not possible to lean forward such that the body's centre of gravity is further forward than the front edge of your big toe, without then falling over forwards.

Similarly, it is not possible to lean backwards such that the CG is further back than the back edge of the heel, without falling over backwards.

All that happens when we
use our muscles and body to balanceis that our muscles are providing the stiffness to maintain the shape without bending - our CG is still over some part of the footprint of contact with the ground.

Ok, so much for standing and not falling over.

In the moving case, where you're stepping backwards just before you step forwards again, it is certainly possible to step back with enough momentum for the total force exerted through the back foot* required to stop the backwards travel and start the forwards travel, to be equal to the weight of the body, and for it therefore to feel like you have all your weight on the back foot. It is even possible to need this much force, while still having your CG well forward.

This, however, is not the same, as a) standing balanced, with all your weight on the back foot, and at the same time b) having your CG in front of the front edge of that foot - which is not possible, as I say. I can provide a diagram to prove it if you don't believe this, but it might be easier to try it :wink:

In terms of the way people step back, I interpreted LMC's original statement

All my weight is on my back foot
as implying that she steps back in such a way that if she were to stop in the stepped back position, all her weight would be on her back foot.

If this is the case, then I still maintain that it is harder (note, not impossible) to step forward from that point without pulling on the lead, than it is if you step back in such a way that if you stopped there, only about half or maybe a bit more than half of the weight would be on the back foot.

If, when she said

- but I don't compensate for this by 'leaning' on the lead because I'm balanced
she meant, that when she steps back, (a force equal to) all her weight is on her back foot, but that she can step forwards without pulling on the lead, then I can well believe it, as I've explained in the moving case above.

However, if the situation is that there is no weight on the front foot, yet the CG is still forward, then effectively she is overbalancing forwards, or in the process of an inevitable step forward to prevent such overbalancing.

We call this anticipation :)

But, Chef is still perfectly correct - there are plenty of people that step back, the front foot comes off the floor a bit, and you get a yank in the connecting arm. And that's not nice.

---------------------

* this is actually equal to the component of the (vertical) weight that acts through the inclined leg, plus the component of the (horizontal) force that stops the moving backwards, that also acts through the inclined leg.

LMC

7th-January-2006, 10:55 PM

I'm still trying to work all this balance and weight transfer stuff out after the BFG :eek: - that's how thick I am being with it.

But for me, it's like my pelvis is a fulcrum - I'm pushing down onto the ball of my back foot and counterbalancing with my upper body - not in the sense that I'm leaning forward - the words that spring to mind are "moment of inertia" but I'm no physicist so that may not be a correct application.

Interestingly, IIRC (and I have my severe doubts but am going to put this up for discussion anyway) Adam's comments at a style workshop indicated that the weight transfer is different for lead and follow - the lead does not need to transfer their weight back to the same extent. If I got that wrong then apologies to Adam (and I'd better get my a*se along to the next style workshop and do it as a leader :rofl: )

EDIT due to cross-post: ChrisA's explanation makes really good sense. But for me, the whole point of that 'moment of inertia' is that I can pick my front foot up off the floor, still be balanced and still be led either backwards or forwards.

ChrisA

7th-January-2006, 11:06 PM

EDIT due to cross-post: ChrisA's explanation makes really good sense. But for me, the whole point of that 'moment of inertia' is that I can pick my front foot up off the floor, still be balanced and still be led either backwards or forwards.
Coming to Funky Lush tomoroow? We could put it to the test... :whistle:

LMC

7th-January-2006, 11:10 PM

You got there first :D - I'd be delighted, because I is starting to get v confused - it's difficult to check this sort of stuff without a lead, the door is not providing especially helpful feedback :mad: - thanks :nice:

EDIT: yes, I really am putting the laptop down and jumping up between posts to test... obsessed? me? :innocent:

Gadget

7th-January-2006, 11:10 PM

I must admit, I'm not sure we do agree. The physicist in me is going to be pedantic here. Regardless of your shape, fitness, or anything else, if your weight is entirely on your back foot, and your center of gravity remains in front of all parts of the back foot, you will fall forwards in the absense of an external force.
But we are always falling. Even just standing "still", there are hundreds of minute adjustments and movements that the body makes to keep it's self vertical - no matter where your weight is centred.
In the Bruce Lee film "Enter The Dragon" {? the one with the tourniment on an island and the baddie has a claw weapon} someone enters his room as he is practicing and he is extended in a side-kick. He maintains this position and pivots on the grounded foot to face the door. No way is his centre or weight distribution over that foot, but he is in perfect control and does not fall.
We have muscles. They are used to keep us from falling. Especially while moving. Being poised to move is a state of falling, just slowed down. It's like the AT "Pause" is not a ceaseation of movement, just the movement slowed to almost static.

Attempting to lead a proper stop (leading nothing) when the follower is anticipating an automatic step forward and is off balance as a result is still possible but requires a much stronger frame than it should.That's because it's normally lead too late: the lead should actually be quite a bit before the point that you wish the follower to stop so that they slow and you 'place' them gently to rest. Alternativly, for a 'sharper' stop, more is led into it, and the lead is pulled up short, out of time by a fraction so that the follower stops on time.
What normally happens is that the lead simply prevents the follower from moving forward again, which is when the strong frame is required.

{Actually it was following your advice that I worked this out - "If something isn't working, look at what preceeded it" :worthy:}

ChrisA

7th-January-2006, 11:44 PM

No way is his centre or weight distribution over that foot, but he is in perfect control and does not fall.
If he is stationary (and, for the sticklers for accuracy out there, also not accelerating), in whatever pose you are trying to describe, then you're wrong.

And the reason you're wrong is that it is notoriously difficult to estimate visually where something's centre of gravity is.

That's why the Leaning Tower of Pisa looks amazing.

David Franklin

7th-January-2006, 11:57 PM

And the reason you're wrong is that it is notoriously difficult to estimate visually where something's centre of gravity is.:yeah:

I did an image search for "Bruce Lee" "side kick" (and "sidekick"), and in all the pictures, Bruce is leaning back for balance. But, I have to admit, my first thought was "you know, he's not leaning back that far, and his leg is a long way out".

But it turns out I can hold a horizontal sidekick myself. And looking in the mirror (well, the patio window at night works as one!), I don't lean back any further than Bruce Lee does in those photos. And I'm not even working hard for balance - I don't have the "toes trying to grip the floor" feeling or anything. So I'm forced to agree with ChrisA. (Oh, and my hip-flexors are tired now!).

It's even worse doing aerials. Was learning a particular lift with two other couples; they went first, and they both tried to transition when the ladies c.of.g wasn't over the man (oops!). And when it came to our turn, I waited until I thought Bryony was well over before the next part. And in fact, I made exactly the same mistake. Even forewarned, I literally couldn't believe where her weight actually was!

Dizzy

8th-January-2006, 12:00 AM

I have to say that this thread has been very interesting in bringing up something that I have been guilty of doing and have tried my best to stop :blush:. I have had a lot of problems with weight distrubution when I dance and has caused me to kick inappropriately when I step back.

I have been working on trying to get rid of it and been successful in many ways after certain people have given advice :worthy:, but this thread has actually been useful in explaining why I am doing it so thank you guys for your knowledgable insight. I hope that I can now finally get rid of this stupid kick!! :clap:

I hope that I can also be included in some of the discussion tomorrow, LMC & ChrisA as I would really appreciate it (although I realise you guys will to want to dance too!! :hug: )

LMC

8th-January-2006, 12:13 AM

Dunno if this is the same pic... but it seems fairly obvious to me that his COG has to be in his pelvis and he's counterbalancing - his spine is not wholly at the same angle as his leg - head and shoulders are further in, which is what you would expect if the weight was level on both sides of the leg he's standing on (which it won't be - a head and torso are way heavier than one leg!). But that's intuitive, my sidekicks are truly pathetic in comparison if my living room window is anything to go by (hope the neighbours weren't watching :what: )

When I'm stepped back, it feels like my COG is in my pelvis too - if I took a larger step back then that would be impossible - because the COG would be too far in front of my foot. Maybe in purist terms I'm not stepping back properly :shrug: If that darned door would just learn to lead properly it would help :sad: - I don't know if there is a change in my connection and look forward to feedback. As the door isn't latched and doesn't move I don't believe I'm yanking (hope not :eek: )

EDIT: Dizzy, I can't tell you how fantastic it would be to have another follower's point of view - double trouble Chris? :innocent:

Dizzy

8th-January-2006, 12:27 AM

EDIT: Dizzy, I can't tell you how fantastic it would be to have another follower's point of view - double trouble Chris? :innocent:

Don't know if double trouble would be the most accurate method for viewing your COG but I can certainly watch you from the sidelines :flower: :hug: (If you watch me too :wink: )

ChrisA

8th-January-2006, 12:29 AM

There are lots of examples of things that look very precariously balanced. This is a picture of the Bowder Stone, in the Lake District. I've climbed up those steps several times over the years and believe me, it looks even more unlikely up close than it does in the photo.

The reason it's perfectly stable, is that the force that would be required to lift it, so that it pivoted such that its CG moved beyond the edge of its footprint, would be huge. Only erosion or a major landslide will ever achieve this.

(No, Gadget, it's not the steps that hold it up...)

LMC

8th-January-2006, 12:34 AM

The reason it's perfectly stable, is that the force that would be required to lift it, so that it pivoted such that its CG moved beyond the edge of its footprint, would be huge. Only erosion or a major landslide will ever achieve this.
If the cap fits :rofl:

Sorry Chris, as I'm 5'9" and probably weigh more than you do that just really made me giggle.

Dizzy - as we can both lead we can practise walking each other backwards and forwards to test this whole balance thing somewhere quietly out of the way while the grown-ups dance properly :D :hug: - wouldn't want to take up too much of Chris' time :flower:

Franck

8th-January-2006, 02:48 AM

Starting standing up straight, on either one foot or two, it is not possible to lean forward such that the body's centre of gravity is further forward than the front edge of your big toe, without then falling over forwards.

Similarly, it is not possible to lean backwards such that the CG is further back than the back edge of the heel, without falling over backwards.I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you should lean (forward or backward) beyond your toes or your heel. That's exactly what I was saying caused the problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said:

Indeed it should be possible to have your weight fully committed to the back foot, whilst your centre of gravity is still forward and balanced. This is possible because we can use our muscles and body to balance. Our foot is not a single pin-point (unless we're doing Ballet) and there is a huge range of positions for your centre of gravity to be placed between your heel and your toes. Having your Centre of gravity forward (i.e. nearer the front of your feet) rather than at the back means you have more options to balance (using your toes if required) and the way our bodies are designed less likely to fall over, especially when you involve momentum.
There is not need to try and prove impossible physics or use images of Bruce Lee.

In the moving case, where you're stepping backwards just before you step forwards again, it is certainly possible to step back with enough momentum for the total force exerted through the back foot* required to stop the backwards travel and start the forwards travel, to be equal to the weight of the body, and for it therefore to feel like you have all your weight on the back foot. It is even possible to need this much force, while still having your CG well forward.

This, however, is not the same, as a) standing balanced, with all your weight on the back foot, and at the same time b) having your CG in front of the front edge of that foot - which is not possible, as I say. I can provide a diagram to prove it if you don't believe this, but it might be easier to try it :wink:i would argue that a 'poised' balance on the back foot, with the forward foot free to slide, do a kick, a ronde, or indeed nothing (without affecting the connection) is a valuable skill for any follower and would give a much lighter and versatile style. But would be interested to hear from other followers.

In terms of the way people step back, I interpreted LMC's original statement as implying that she steps back in such a way that if she were to stop in the stepped back position, all her weight would be on her back foot.

If this is the case, then I still maintain that it is harder (note, not impossible) to step forward from that point without pulling on the lead, than it is if you step back in such a way that if you stopped there, only about half or maybe a bit more than half of the weight would be on the back foot.Well, I wouldn't recommend a non-experienced dancer lift their forward foot off the floor, especially as they might not have enough strength or balance skills to do so without affecting the connection, so in effect, we could argue that only 80% of their body weight actually transfers to their back foot, but I would still describe that as a 'weight-transfer'
What puzzles me is what happens if they don't transfer their weight on the back foot (at all or hardly), what happens then? It seems to me like they are just pushing back briefly on the back foot and creating an immediate forward motion (which I described as anticipating earlier)

However, if the situation is that there is no weight on the front foot, yet the CG is still forward, then effectively she is overbalancing forwards, or in the process of an inevitable step forward to prevent such overbalancing.

We call this anticipation :)Yes we agree, but having your CG forward, whilst your weight is on the back foot does not mean you're overbalancing as I clarified above.

But, Chef is still perfectly correct - there are plenty of people that step back, the front foot comes off the floor a bit, and you get a yank in the connecting arm. And that's not nice.Yes, and I agree with the bad habit, and consequent problems it causes. I just wanted to clarify the weight-transfer / balance issue. :)

ChrisA

8th-January-2006, 02:56 AM

we could argue that only 80% of their body weight actually transfers to their back foot, but I would still describe that as a 'weight-transfer'
I think we're agreeing. I interpreted your use of weight "forward" differently from the way you meant it, clearly. But I wasn't the only one :)

What puzzles me is what happens if they don't transfer their weight on the back foot (at all or hardly), what happens then?
Ah, well, that's wet haddock time. :innocent:

David Franklin

8th-January-2006, 11:09 AM

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you should lean (forward or backward) beyond your toes or your heel.

Our foot is not a single pin-point (unless we're doing Ballet) and there is a huge range of positions for your centre of gravity to be placed between your heel and your toes. Having your Centre of gravity forward (i.e. nearer the front of your feet) rather than at the back means you have more options to balance (using your toes if required) and the way our bodies are designed less likely to fall over, especially when you involve momentum.
There is not need to try and prove impossible physics or use images of Bruce Lee.Unfortunately, there are a heck of a lot of dancers who do think you can do impossible things like balance with your c.of.g. in front of the supporting foot. They think it's just a matter of technique! Many of them know a lot more about dance than I do, as well, so it's not that they are idiots in any way - they just don't know a lot of physics, and some of these things are not immediately intuitive. (There's a particular lift David Howland and Vivien Ramsey do where I still can't quite work out how the balance works - I can't tell if it is a stable lift or only works because he spins it).

So, like ChrisA, when you wrote the earlier post, I assumed "forward" to mean "forward of any part of the back foot". Sorry. :flower:

Gadget

8th-January-2006, 12:48 PM

(No, Gadget, it's not the steps that hold it up...)
It looks more stable to me than Bruce Lee :sulk:

The point about momentum and balance is that you are never stationary: your balance is only ever actually at a 'neutral' point for a fraction of a second before you start to fall in another direction. If you use momentum, you can get into positions and shapes where, if were stopped, gravity would pull you down. The step-over drop is a prime example. Think on motorbikes going round corners and how far over they lean. An ice-skater coming to a stop from speed will angle their body and use momentum to lift them upright. Yes, these are at one end of the scale, but the same principles apply for slower momentums; just the ammount you can be 'off balance' is less.

The confidence that you can move your other foot or change your weight distribution to prevent actually hitting the ground is what we learn when we learn to walk. If you excercise how you can recover from 'falling' (eg with a balance board) and can push the limits of how far you can 'fall' before catching yourself, then you are said to be improving your balance. That's what 'balance' is: stopping yourself from falling.

From my observations, I think that most good leans, seducers and 'show off' moves use balance and momentum to look like they are on the 'edge' of falling over. The control to recover from these positions is 50% of what makes it look cool. (The control to enter I would put at 20% and the control to hold before recovering 30%) Almost anyone can get into a standard first-move seducer. Those that look cool doing it are those that exit with grace.

{Somehow I feel we have gone slightly off-topic :rolleyes:}

David Franklin

8th-January-2006, 01:13 PM

The point about momentum and balance is that you are never stationary: your balance is only ever actually at a 'neutral' point for a fraction of a second before you start to fall in another direction.Even when you're lying down?

More generally, there is a trade-off between stability and ease of movement. The most stable positions (like lying down) are hard to move from. The least stable positions (balanced on one foot) are easy (though most of us will struggle to control how you move).

From my observations, I think that most good leans, seducers and 'show off' moves use balance and momentum to look like they are on the 'edge' of falling over. The control to recover from these positions is 50% of what makes it look cool. (The control to enter I would put at 20% and the control to hold before recovering 30%) Almost anyone can get into a standard first-move seducer. Those that look cool doing it are those that exit with grace. There are very very few drops that I would consider even close to the 'edge' of falling over. The exceptions are not drops that I would do in freestyle - the implication of going "near the edge" is there is little margin for safety. Even if your balance is perfect, if a move takes you 90% of the way to overbalancing, all you need is your partner to throw her leg up and her head back, and you will have gone that extra 10%.

Many of the flash moves get their impact from speed - it looks like you are falling, until you catch yourself. But I'm not sure looking like you are nearly falling ever looks good when dancing. (In acrobatics a la Cirque, it can look good - but there the suspense of wondering if someone will fall is a good thing. Not sure it ever is in dance). After all, one of the cardinal sins in bringing someone up from a drop is looking like you're off balance at the time...

Gadget

8th-January-2006, 05:25 PM

Even when you're lying down? Your're lying down when you dance? :what: cor. Been taking lessons from DavidB again? :wink:

There are very very few drops that I would consider even close to the 'edge' of falling over...Hmmm... drops to me are about falling over; the follower falls and trust that you as the lead will use control this momentum and lead her into something while maintaining both your balances.

The exceptions are not drops that I would do in freestyle - the implication of going "near the edge" is there is little margin for safety.I thought that the implication is that you would have to move yourself away from the edge to recover: akin to putting a hand down or moving your feet.

Even if your balance is perfect, if a move takes you 90% of the way to overbalancing, all you need is your partner to throw her leg up and her head back, and you will have gone that extra 10%. yes. They do that while you are perfectly balanced and you have to re-adjust to take extra weight. If you are already supporting them, then you may be unable to take the extra weight and they/you fall or strain something. Even at you perfect balance point, you are only braced for lateral movement; your feel line up with the direction of momentum or weight. If your partner decides to add some weight in a direction perpendicular to this (eg by throwing an arm out to the side) then you may suddenly find that your perfect balance isn't so perfect after all.

Many of the flash moves get their impact from speed - it looks like you are falling, until you catch yourself. But I'm not sure looking like you are nearly falling ever looks good when dancing."it's not flying - it's falling. With style"

looking like you are "nearly falling" is about windmilling arms, wobbling motion and panic-stricken looks.
Looking like you "are falling" is nearly falling, but with controlled movements, confidence and a smooth recovery.
And I dissagree that it's speed that gives moves impact; it's contrast.

David Franklin

8th-January-2006, 07:55 PM

I think that most good leans, seducers and 'show off' moves use balance and momentum to look like they are on the 'edge' of falling over.

looking like you are "nearly falling" is about windmilling arms, wobbling motion and panic-stricken looks.
OK, you win. I can't possibly argue with logic like that.

Chef

9th-January-2006, 12:31 AM

Good heavens you go away for a weekend and this is what happens on a thread that looked as if it was all but dead.

marty_baby

9th-January-2006, 12:53 AM

Oh yeah... being side lined this weekend - this thread was the most interesting read of the lot.... :rofl:

... guys getting out the Bruce lee Videos... trying out some moves infront of patio doors for some reason best known to themselves - checking out their COGs (From back reading the thread - this means CENTRE OF GRAVITY - guys - CENTRE OF GRAVITY)....

...just waiting for LMC, Dizzy and Chris A to get back to us - with the findings of their COG Experiments at Funky Lush today!

...Only kidding posters! :devil:
A very interesting read :D

LMC

9th-January-2006, 10:20 AM

Ah, well, that's wet haddock time. :innocent:
Here, borrow mine...

I agree with Franck, but am nowhere near good enough at actually putting it all into practice to articulate clearly. It's good to have something to aspire to :D (I think that makes about 14,792 on my list of aspirations)

Marty - sorry, think we were all having too much fun actually dancing to worry about it for more than the couple of minutes Dizzy & I spent in the back room. It has all been very interesting and educational, thanks all :nice:

Dizzy

9th-January-2006, 12:29 PM

Marty - sorry, think we were all having too much fun actually dancing to worry about it for more than the couple of minutes Dizzy & I spent in the back room. It has all been very interesting and educational, thanks all :nice:

:yeah:

I was a lot more aware of my weight transference yesterday though and this thread has certanly made me realise where it is I am going wrong. Thanks guys. :flower: :hug:

Franck

9th-January-2006, 01:01 PM

I think we're agreeing. I interpreted your use of weight "forward" differently from the way you meant it, clearly. But I wasn't the only one :)I thought we were really :)

My initial reaction came from stating that one shouldn't transfer their weight on the back foot, which is clearly misleading.

Having given it further thought (and practised in the Focus workshop last night) it seems to me that the problem Chef identified wasn't about 'Weight transfer' but about tipping the balance backward, which forced the follower ( in his example but it applies to leaders to) to use arm strength to avoid falling over.

On further analysis, it is possible that the 'lifting of the toes' on the front foot might be the source (rather than a symptom) of the problem, as it tilts your balance backward and may add to an already over-enthusiastic step back?

The best way I have found to teach / correct that problem is to ask both leaders and followers to lift their forward heel to indicate they have transferred their weight on the back foot.
This not only ensures they don't overbalance backward, but somehow helps to keep their centre of gravity slightly to the front of the (back) foot and gives the follower the flexibility and responsiveness to follow in any (lead) direction.

David Franklin

9th-January-2006, 01:22 PM

On further analysis, it is possible that the 'lifting of the toes' on the front foot might be the source (rather than a symptom) of the problem, as it tilts your balance backward and may add to an already over-enthusiastic step back?From the physics front, I'd argue symptom not cause. Your toes don't exactly weigh much, so they're not going to change your balance by themselves. Conversely, (and speaking loosely), as your balance becomes "precarious", you end up with more and more of your weight going onto the part of your foot closest to your center. So there is very little weight going through the toes of your front foot, and they tend to lift.

The best way I have found to teach / correct that problem is to ask both leaders and followers to lift their forward heel to indicate they have transferred their weight on the back foot.

This not only ensures they don't overbalance backward, but somehow helps to keep their centre of gravity slightly to the front of the (back) foot and gives the follower the flexibility and responsiveness to follow in any (lead) direction.My experience tallies with this. I think the big effect is psychological - how we think about things affects our movement. Thinking "toe on the ground, heel up" tends to make people move in a much more controlled way. But I think physics also argues that this has a much better "failure mode" - if you are "toe down" and start overbalancing, you can bring the foot in and heel down to regain balance. But if you are "heel down", it's much harder to do regain your balance in a nice way.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 01:30 PM

From the physics front, I'd argue symptom not cause. Your toes don't exactly weigh much, so they're not going to change your balance by themselves. Conversely, (and speaking loosely), as your balance becomes "precarious", you end up with more and more of your weight going onto the part of your foot closest to your center. So there is very little weight going through the toes of your front foot, and they tend to lift. I agree that the toes don't have enough weight to tip you over, but the very act of lifting your toes straightens your leg muscles (and often locks your knee) and the effects of that are felt all the way up to your hip, and pushing your weight back, so I'm not talking about inert object balance here, the subtle change at toe level affects your body, from the ankles, via the locking of the knee to a subtle but clear push back at hip level which is sufficient to tip your balance from a slightly forward stance to an overbalanced backward lean.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 01:41 PM

From the physics front, I'd argue symptom not cause.On a point of further clarification, I wouldn't say lifting your toes was the only cause either. So maybe talking about an aggravating factor rather than a symptom might be more accurate.

ChrisA

9th-January-2006, 01:48 PM

it seems to me that the problem Chef identified wasn't about 'Weight transfer' but about tipping the balance backward, which forced the follower ( in his example but it applies to leaders to) to use arm strength to avoid falling over.

Sure. If the body's CG is actually behind the footprint of the back foot, then the only thing holding her up is the connection to the lead.

The best way I have found to teach / correct that problem is to ask both leaders and followers to lift their forward heel

A nice technique. But I don't think it indicates that

they have transferred their weight on the back foot.
As you step back, it is very hard to raise the heel of the front foot, leaving the ball and toe in contact with the floor, without also leaving some (it doesn't have to be much) weight on that front foot.

Which means that not all the weight is transferred to the back foot, as I originally argued.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 02:01 PM

As you step back, it is very hard to raise the heel of the front foot, leaving the ball and toe in contact with the floor, without also leaving some (it doesn't have to be much) weight on that front foot.

Which means that not all the weight is transferred to the back foot, as I originally argued.
Not sure if you're discussing semantics or actual benefits to dancers. We can discuss what percentage of weight transfer to the back foot is ideal, though the original quote from Chef (with which I disagreed) was:
What I am looking for is when the person takes a rock step the majority of their weight stays forwards I believe from experience, experiments and other teacher's input that most of your weight is (and should be) transferred to your back foot when taking a step back.

What I would like to know from you Chris is what benefits you see in keeping some of your weight on the forward foot? (assuming that you are balanced on your back foot, i.e. not falling backward). I understand that many people might need to keep some weight on the front foot as they are not able to balance properly, or are not strong / controlled enough, but assuming a very good follower, with good leg tone, control and balance, would you still advise them to keep some weight distributed on the forward foot?

David Franklin

9th-January-2006, 02:04 PM

I agree that the toes don't have enough weight to tip you over, but the very act of lifting your toes straightens your leg muscles (and often locks your knee) and the effects of that are felt all the way up to your hip (and pushing your weight back, so I'm not talking about inert object balance here, the subtle change at toe level affects your body, from the ankles, via the locking of the knee to a subtle but clear push back at hip level which is sufficient to tip your balance from a slightly forward stance to an overbalanced backward lean.Fair point - I think you're actually talking more about ankle flexion than toe flexion, but when dancing in shoes, that is the main cause of "toes in the air", so you are right to do so. I'd kind of jumped towards thinking "toe flexion" (not wearing shoes at the time :blush: ).

Chef

9th-January-2006, 02:37 PM

Not sure if you're discussing semantics or actual benefits to dancers. We can discuss what percentage of weight transfer to the back foot is ideal, though the original quote from Chef (with which I disagreed) was: I believe from experience, experiments and other teacher's input that most of your weight is (and should be) transferred to your back foot when taking a step back.

What I would like to know from you Chris is what benefits you see in keeping some of your weight on the forward foot? (assuming that you are balanced on your back foot, i.e. not falling backward). I understand that many people might need to keep some weight on the front foot as they are not able to balance properly, or are not strong / controlled enough, but assuming a very good follower, with good leg tone, control and balance, would you still advise them to keep some weight distributed on the forward foot?

Perhaps I didn't express it well enough in my first post. It was a long post, made on a friday afternoon before leaving work, but this tiny bit about the rock step does seem to have caused the bulk of the response.

My model of the rock step that I use is based on lessons by Andy Fleming on Lindy Hop and Nigel and Nina in MJ because I have never had any meaningful input on the subject from a Ceroc teacher.

What it seems like to me is that my left foot goes back and pressure is placed on the ball of my left foot but not to the point where my left heel hits the ground. As the left heel appraoches (but doesn't reach) the ground the slight bit of weight transferance allows me to raise the heel of my right foot. As my left foot is going back my torso angles forward very slightly to compensate for that part of my mass (my left leg) that is now going backwards. My right leg is slightly flexed. My leading hand adjusts it position in space to compensate for any movement of my body so that, after initiating the rock step in my partner I do not provide any unintented lead for her until she is nearly completed her rock step (at which point I MAY lead her towards me or I may lead a stop - her charging at me should not be an automatic response to being lead into a rock step).

I think the benefit for dancers of not putting too much of your weight on the back foot is that you don't have to waste time and energy getting it forward again. This makes an evenings dancing (a 17st middle aged bloke) much more relaxing and means that I am able to dance to faster tempo music than most of the younger and smaller dancers around me. It just feels more efficient.

It is really hard to express in words the fine detail of what I THINK is going on.

I don't know if the forward foots toes pointing skyward is a cause or a symptom of excessive backwards weight transferance that would require a follower to pull on the leaders hand in order to regain stability. I just know that when I look around the dance floor I first look at the feet of the dancers and make a mental note of the people that do this. If I have seen them in the beginners class then that is fair enough but if they have been dancing for a number of years and are still doing this then I don't go out of my way to seek a dance with them.

I do think it is a pity that there are many dance videos on the market for weekenders and learning moves, while I have not seen anything that teaches the core skills that allow these moves to be done well. Over the last few years it is these technique lessons at weekenders and workshops that I have found so valuable. I am sure that if someone like Franck (or someone else) put his technique workshops on video they would find enough of a market to made the venture worthwhile.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 03:00 PM

Perhaps I didn't express it well enough in my first post. It was a long post, made on a friday afternoon before leaving work, but this tiny bit about the rock step does seem to have caused the bulk of the response.Yes, I agree that it's easy to be misinterpreted, which is why I wanted to clarify your points in case intermediate dancers picked it up and learnt a new bad habit.

My leading hand adjusts it position in space to compensate for any movement of my body so that, after initiating the rock step in my partner I do not provide any unintented lead for her until she is nearly completed her rock step (at which point I MAY lead her towards me or I may lead a stop - her charging at me should not be an automatic response to being lead into a rock step).I agree with your long definition of a rock step above, but what happens if you decide to lead your partner in a further step back (as in a walk?), if your partner is 'saving energy' by keeping her weight forward, she will be put off balance by your subsequent lead.
It is much more versatile from a follower's perspective to be weight-committed and balanced on every step so that a lead in any direction (back, forward, rotational or indeed stop) is possible and comfortable.

I think the benefit for dancers of not putting too much of your weight on the back foot is that you don't have to waste time and energy getting it forward again. This makes an evenings dancing (a 17st middle aged bloke) much more relaxing and means that I am able to dance to faster tempo music than most of the younger and smaller dancers around me. It just feels more efficient.That might work as a Leader (I believe DavidB specializes on not moving at all to save time and energy :wink: ), but it's very different for a follower who (in theory) never know which direction the lead might take them, so they have to always be prepared.

Incidentally, the rock step with no proper weight transfer for men can also be a cause of yanking as the guy doesn't transfer his weight on the back foot, but just taps his foot back, he does this much quicker and as a result tends to lead the next part of the move earlier and interrupting the natural rock step you described above in his partner. As a result, the follower's momentum has not completed (and so is not yet able to change direction) causing a sudden yank which is indeed very painful and uncomfortable.

ChrisA

9th-January-2006, 03:06 PM

We can discuss what percentage of weight transfer to the back foot is ideal, though the original quote from Chef (with which I disagreed) was:

What I am looking for is when the person takes a rock step the majority of their weight stays forwards
Well, I took it to mean "forward" in the same sense you did, when you said:

....and there is a huge range of positions for your centre of gravity to be placed between your heel and your toes. Having your Centre of gravity forward (i.e. nearer the front of your feet) rather than at the back means ...

I don't see why you were so quick to disagree with Chef, when you insisted yourself that having your weight forward does not mean with the CG in front of the back foot.

Not sure if you're discussing semantics or actual benefits to dancers.
I'm not at all interested in semantics, except when people use pseudo-physics language and just confuse the issues.

But in practice, far too many followers (and some leaders) take their weight far too far back. At worst, you get the case you described where their CG is behind their back foot. But even if it's not as bad as this, if all the weight goes on to the back foot, the front foot will usually be close to coming off the ground, and as I've said, it is harder to step forward without pulling on the lead if the weight is as far back as this, than if it isn't.

I believe from experience, experiments and other teacher's input that most of your weight is (and should be) transferred to your back foot when taking a step back.

I've never disagreed with this. I was probably underestimating the percentage of weight on the back foot a bit, when I referred to "about half, maybe a bit more", but I've never said less than half.

What I would like to know from you Chris is what benefits you see in keeping some of your weight on the forward foot? (assuming that you are balanced on your back foot, i.e. not falling backward).
Well, as I've said several times now, it's easier to step forward with at least a little weight still on the forward foot.

It's bad to risk having to exert an untoward tug on the lead to hold herself up, which is likely if you're balanced on one foot.

I understand that many people might need to keep some weight on the front foot as they are not able to balance properly, or are not strong / controlled enough, but assuming a very good follower, with good leg tone, control and balance, would you still advise them to keep some weight distributed on the forward foot?
Well, it's more that if they take a normal step back, a bit of the weight will naturally still be on the forward foot - it's difficult to step so that the forward foot is still touching the ground but has no weight at all on it.

If the person is a very good follower, with all the qualities you describe, of course, then I prefer them to put as much as possible on the back foot, since if I then want to lead them to take another step back, the force in the compression required for the second step back is then lower than if they have more of their weight on the front foot.

But for most people, in most situations, where the step back is to be followed with a step forward, having a little weight on the forward foot (and your step back raising the front foot's heel is plenty for this) is helpful all round. As well as easier.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 03:26 PM

I don't see why you were so quick to disagree with Chef, when you insisted yourself that having your weight forward does not mean with the CG in front of the back foot.I was quick to ask for clarification, as I was worried it might confuse any intermediate learner. Now that Chef has clarified, I can see that we agree, and indeed, the full discussion has been very useful in making many people become aware of their balance and weight-distribution.

I was probably underestimating the percentage of weight on the back foot a bit, when I referred to "about half, maybe a bit more", but I've never said less than half..
If the person is a very good follower, with all the qualities you describe, of course, then I prefer them to put as much as possible on the back foot, since if I then want to lead them to take another step back, the force in the compression required for the second step back is then lower than if they have more of their weight on the front foot.Ok, we've finally reached a point where we both agree!
The only thing I would quibble with is you mentioning 'the force of the compression'.
I would have thought that increasing the compression would not be necessary or indeed desirable to get your partner to take another step back(even if a follower was anticipating forward). Maintaining the level of connection (compression in that case) is sufficient if you move yourself forward, using a body lead (rather than an arm lead).

Well, as I've said several times now, it's easier to step forward with at least a little weight still on the forward foot.Ok, it is easier, and for 90% of dancers it will work as they rarely get lead into anything unsual (i.e. different from a step forward) after a rock step. It still counts as a form of anticipation though.
Quoting from the excellent F.A.Q. link (http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/follower_tips.html) posted by David Franklin:

3. In addition to the above mental state of mind, you must be constantly balanced so that you can respond to your partner's lead (needless to say, the state of being "balanced" is one of the absolute criteria that enables you to respond when your partner leads.) Balance is very difficult to teach to a student who lacks it. Dancing independently until you are capable of keeping your body moving easily, and wearing sufficiently flexible, well fitting, comfortable dance shoes will help. The best way to keep from sliding when coming onto a foot is to already have the body weight over the foot when the foot stops moving. In other words, when you step forward, move forward with the body, rather than sticking the leg out first. Then, just place the foot underneath where the body ends up.

4. In her workshops, Beth Emerson recommends committing your weight immediately each time you step on a foot rather than having your weight split between feet for a moment, which is what we tend to do when walking. This makes the follower much more ready to follow instantly.

ChrisA

9th-January-2006, 03:57 PM

I would have thought that increasing the compression would not be necessary or indeed desirable to get your partner to take another step back(even if a follower was anticipating forward). Maintaining the level of connection (compression in that case) is sufficient if you move yourself forward, using a body lead (rather than an arm lead).

I didn't say that you need more compression to lead a second step back, in the case of an excellent follower.

I said that the force in the compression will be more, if the weight is partly over the front foot, than it would be if the weight is (almost) all over the back foot.

And even that isn't necessarily true in the case of our hypothetical excellent follower, since even with the weight partly on the front foot, she'll feel the continued lead and push off the front foot to initiate the step back, thus moving in response to the lead, but with her momentum under her own control.

Oh, and while we're quibbling,

as they rarely get lead into anything unsual
... it's "led", not "lead", unless the wet haddock has been stuffed with lead. Which might not be a bad idea in some cases :devil:

Franck

9th-January-2006, 04:03 PM

Oh, and while we're quibbling,

... it's "led", not "lead", unless the wet haddock has been stuffed with lead. Which might not be a bad idea in some cases :devil:Well at least I didn't type laid :wink: :devil:

David Franklin

9th-January-2006, 04:23 PM

Disclaimer: I'm throwing some thoughts out here for discussion, but I am very aware that I'm talking about stuff I've picked up on the web, and that I don't actually know much about WCS, and virtually nothing about Hustle. But I hope the following is interesting, none-the-less.

It seems to me there's a continuum for the follower between "I am prepared to sit back, and it will take some effort for me to come forwards" and "I am prepared to come forward, and it will take some effort for me to go back". Although a good follower will adjust, and should never be committed to one or the other, if the dance is such that they are always going forwards, it's probably easier and looks better if the bias is in that direction (or vice-versa).

Now WCS is very "sit back", and lots of people get very upset to see a WCS dancer going forwards (coaster step) instead of anchoring. Since the vast majority of rec.arts.dance discussion is about WCS, that tends to be the emphasis of the FAQ.

But to my eyes, the typical dynamics in MJ are much closer to hustle than WCS. And in hustle, the converse holds - it's a coaster step that is the norm. In the section 'on rock steps in Hustle' (http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/hustle_rock_step.html) there is the following:
As she steps back with her left foot on the 2 count, her body is leaning forward, and her CG (center of gravity) is slightly ahead of her left foot.

On the & count she brings her right foot back to both feet are about side by side. At this point she is leaning forward and is on her toes, and her CG is above or a little ahead of her toe. Her forward motion doesn't begin significantly before the & count, but she is *already leaning forward* when the & count occurs.

Now she moves, by stepping forward with her left foot on the 3 count. Since she is already leaning forward, she can push with her right foot and gain momentum quickly. The force due to change of momentum is primarily exerted against the floor at an angle, not against her partner. The way to reproduce this in slow motion is to face a wall and lean against it with your hands. Now do a coaster step while still leaning forward.
Sounds familiar?

Of course, this also gets into the question of which camp MJ really does fall into. I would say the roots have always been in the "hustle" direction, but that as the emphasis has moved towards smoother dancing to slower music, a lot of people are going for the WCS look. But I suspect the 'hustle' weight change is more suited to fast music.

Chef

9th-January-2006, 04:27 PM

Incidentally, the rock step with no proper weight transfer for men can also be a cause of yanking as the guy doesn't transfer is weight on the back foot, but just taps his foot back, he does this much quicker and as a result tends to lead the next part of the move earlier and interrupting the natural rock step you described above in his partner. As a result, the follower's momentum has not completed (and so is not yet able to change direction) causing a sudden yank which is indeed very painful and uncomfortable.

Well I am back from my afternoons meeting and see that most things that I spoke about have been adeqately mulled over and resolved leaving just the bit above for me to provide clarification.

The above fault is a fault of the leader and as such I didn't feel that I was really the best person to talk about it as it is possible that I unknowingly commit the same error. This is why my origional post asked for a similar expression of what is required by followers from leaders, written by a very competant follower. Even if the woman is being slow in relation to the music in completing her part there is little to be gained by yanking her agianst the flow of her momentum.

My thoughts about the above fault is that it is simply an error of timing on the leaders part. If his movement is much more efficient and he CAN complete a movement quickly then he can slow it down or wait for the follower. The thing that is controlling the timing of both leader and follower is the music. Ignore it at your dancing peril.

I do think of it like trying to push someone on a swing. You can't push the swing at any old time. You have to wait until the right point in the motion and then provide the right amout of force, in the right direction, at the right time, and then it all goes smoothly.

LMC

9th-January-2006, 04:29 PM

I've done exactly 1 WCS lesson and have never done hustle, but sounds good to me DF. My weight not being far enough forward would explain why I find fast tracks difficult I suspect... hmmm, more to think about, thanks.

I prefer the weight-committed approach as well (I can't see how the lead would know where my weight was otherwise), shame my balance hasn't quite caught up yet (especially LH). A closed-eyes lead and follow workshop would come in *really* handy about now!

Franck

9th-January-2006, 05:06 PM

My thoughts about the above fault is that it is simply an error of timing on the leaders part. If his movement is much more efficient and he CAN complete a movement quickly then he can slow it down or wait for the follower. The thing that is controlling the timing of both leader and follower is the music. Ignore it at your dancing peril.I'd like to expand that and add that what is really controlling the timing is not the music, but the connection.
As you say, just because you can do a movement quickly (and our hands can move very quickly) does not mean you should. Becoming aware of your partner's position in the dance (e.g. is she ready to travel forward now?) and controlling the timing through the connection is much more important.
Many people hear different things in the same piece of music and interpret it differently, so the follower might be dancing in time to the music, following a slow bass, whilst the leader is dancing in time to the music following the faster drums!
Using frame and connection, the lead can control the timing of his partner (without frustration if he does it early and smoothly enough) but if there is no connection to start with or if it starts too late (ideally it should be continuous) then the follower will dance at her perceived timing, which thankfully more often than not, will match her partners, though sadly not always.

When you mention that a lead can either slow down or wait for his partner, this only works with confident leads, many intermediate dancers hate standing still, and feel very ackward, which is why as soon as they've completed their part (ie a perceived step back) they move to the next part and often ignore the 'status' of their partner :sad:

By the way Chef, thanks for bringing this thread back to life and encouraging some of us to talk more about dance :nice:

Franck

9th-January-2006, 05:15 PM

Of course, this also gets into the question of which camp MJ really does fall into. I would say the roots have always been in the "hustle" direction, but that as the emphasis has moved towards smoother dancing to slower music, a lot of people are going for the WCS look. But I suspect the 'hustle' weight change is more suited to fast music.I think that's the essence of it. Modern Jive is really a bit of everything to everyone, so it is hard to pin down or get too comfortable with a particular technique, for example, I believe that because we don't have the concept of the slot (like in West Coast Swing) our followers have a much tougher time, and have to be much more versatile!
This applies to whether or not you're committing your weight on each step, both will work to an extent, but as leads become more adventurous (and the evidence from the WCS and Tango influences in recent threads and classes is that they are) then MJ followers have to become all the more ready to adapt as new styles (I'm not allowed to call them fads anymore :wink: ) are introduced.

This is why I would advocate and teach committing your weight on each step as a worthy aim, since it gives you more flexibility and makes you more receptive to changes of direction.

I would love to hear from great followers on this subject, assuming we haven't scared them off by now! My perception of LilyB for example is that she is always exceptionally balanced on every step she takes, and unless requiring specific balance from me (where she increases the intensity of the connection), she was very fast, responsive and able to handle gracefully any lead.

ChrisA

9th-January-2006, 05:22 PM

I would love to hear from great followers on this subject, assuming we haven't scared them off by now! My perception of LilyB for example is that she is always exceptionally balanced on every step she takes, and unless requiring specific balance from me (where she increases the intensity of the connection), she was very fast, responsive and able to handle gracefully any lead.

..... :yeah:

Far be it from me to name my half-dozen or so favourite followers (who have my profound thanks for the privilege it is to dance with them), but Lily is certainly among them. Her following is so good that it instantly exposes any errors I make in my lead. It's a private lesson on leading in a dance.

Chef

9th-January-2006, 06:10 PM

This is why I would advocate and teach committing your weight on each step as a worthy aim, since it gives you more flexibility and makes you more receptive to changes of direction.

I am not going to be saying that anyone is wrong here. I just want to share something, that when it happened, made me think more about what I was doing with my lead.

I have had a couple of dances with Nina that lead to some lessons where she ended up in a position where she had one of her feet just off the ground and just hung there. I wondered what was going wrong and asked her. She told me that I had led her to take her foot off of the ground and move in a particular direction but that I had not yet led her to put it down again. My lead had been incomplete. I have implicit faith that when Nina tells me something then she is right but I had to think about this one long and hard.

Now I can grasp what she is getting at but I still feel that I am not really able to put it into practice.

I can see how it would be useful. If I can provide the lead for the woman that can get her to get ito this position and hold it then I have the option of swivelling the woman before leading her to put her foot down. If anyone has lead argentine tango ochos this would make more sense. The woman is lead to bring her feet together but with her weight only on one foot, her body and feet swiveled around by 180 degrees and then lead to step forward with her still unweighted foot and only then place her weight on it. Difficult to fully explain in words, harder to fully lead.

Being able to lead all of the stages of a followers movement would allow a leader the opportunity to produce more interesting dance patterns, shapes, pauses or changes of direction. The automatic response of a follower to being lead off of one foot and automatically stepping forwards or backwards onto it with full weight commitment cuts off these other possibilities.

The more you learn the more you realise how much there is still to learn. Interesting - this life thing.

Franck

9th-January-2006, 06:25 PM

I have had a couple of dances with Nina that lead to some lessons where she ended up in a position where she had one of her feet just off the ground and just hung there. I wondered what was going wrong and asked her. She told me that I had led her to take her foot off of the ground and move in a particular direction but that I had not yet led her to put it down again. My lead had been incomplete. I have implicit faith that when Nina tells me something then she is right but I had to think about this one long and hard.

Now I can grasp what she is getting at but I still feel that I am not really able to put it into practice.Yes, that would be exactly what I'm getting at. I've only danced with Nina once (and that was a few years back) so would love to have another go, and to get that level of connection and 'non-anticipation' :D

Of course none of it is easy, and the better our connection on the dance floor, the more our own mistakes (balance or otherwise) have an impact on our partner and can result in awful mistakes...

As you say, interesting stuff!

LMC

9th-January-2006, 06:39 PM

OK, that's about 50 posts on the rock step, what was next on Chef's list? :devil:

Actually, I'm not quite done sorry :blush:

First, wow :worthy:, I'd never even dreamt of that level of following...

Second, I seem to remember hearing somewhere (probably from you Franck) that a top-class leader was actually leading before the beat so that the follower was on the beat. This ties in with what Franck said about knowing (through the connection) when the follower is "ready" to move and Chef's original post which was actually about yanking. Because if a follower yanks because their weight distribution being wrong, a leader yanks because s/he is anticipating where the follower is going to be or is unable to judge where their weight is distributed. I still have such a long way to go... but I've actually noticed that I get yanked far less than I used to. And it's always the same few people who do it...

ChrisA

9th-January-2006, 06:48 PM

leading before the beat so that the follower was on the beat.

But of course. It's not possible to provide the lead at the same time as the follower is expected to act, since there is inevitably a delay. And with every partner, the lead has to be early enough for the follower to be able to dance in time with the music - otherwise it's going to be horrible.

Good followers can react more quickly, and it's therefore inherently possible to do more interesting things if there's less lag between initiation and reaction, but good leaders can still help the followers that can't react as quickly, by leading earlier and more progressively, so that it doesn't as you say, feel like yanking.

I posted a while back on the categories of followers :

- good connection, quick reactions
- good connection, not so quick reactions
- not so good connection, quick reactions
- not so good connection, not so quick reactions.

For myself, all other things being equal, the pleasure decreases down the list (a bit simplistic, since obviously the 2nd and 3rd categories overlap a bit).

Chef

9th-January-2006, 07:38 PM

First, wow :worthy:, I'd never even dreamt of that level of following...

Second, I seem to remember hearing somewhere (probably from you Franck) that a top-class leader was actually leading before the beat so that the follower was on the beat.

I think we might have to come down out of the clouds now and remember that we were all talking about intermediates and what skills they would need to master to start their journey beyond. We are not talking primarily about people with the following skills of Nina or Lily who react to and follow the inaccuracies in a persons lead to a truly heart sinking level.

During a lesson with Nina she said - "imagine this is the music. Beat......................................beat.... .........................................beat..... .............................beat".

"OK" said I. Nina said - "I notice that you are leading on the b of beat and I want you to lead smack bang between the e and the a". Now I really think that this would work with Nina but I haven't come across many other people that I could do that with. Everyone else is going to need me to build in a bit of reaction time into the lead.

And it's always the same few people who do it (the yanking that is)...

Imagine how peeving that is going to get when the same people are still doing it to you in six years time.

Dance teachers of the world - we need those technique videos and workshops. Franck - you are excused since you are already doing your bit.