Floor Craft.... Or lack of

[ducasi]

...imagine calling Elite "vintage" when it was clearly the word "classic" he was looking for.

Certainly, "classic" is a better synonym for "dull".

[Thetruth]

I'd suggest the "some folks just can't" group is a small proportion of those who regularly attend MJ venues. Very small, even (I really am sounding more and more like Snagglepuss as I get older). Then there's the "some folks who can dance a wee bit", "some folks who can dance OK", "some folks who can dance as well as The truth", "some folks who can dance almost Elitely", etc. etc. categories. But you haven't made a special distinction for them. So, going back to your original statement, that makes nearly everyone an Elite dancer. But "Elite" is a word implying a small group (or a vintage computer game). I'm really confussed now and I'm going away to a thread with simpler rules

So from now on I shall refer to dancers in the comp levels perhaps. Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced. Rather than offend with the word scrubbers. Hope thats cool..............

[Gadget]

My 2p about floorcraft...

- It is taught; I have been to a few workshops where it is not only mentioned, but explained.

- It can be practiced; I practice almost every time I dance. I would not be able to dance from one end of the dance floor to the other (avoiding collisions) if I had not practiced.

- The lead decides where to place the follower; rule number one of MJ is don't injure your partner - if the lead places the follower into a space that will cause them harm, then they have broken the cardinal rule and will go to dance hell (A morris dancing class in Chiswick I think).
If the follower can see an impending collision and due to their inaction causes injury to the lead, then they queue for dance hell too.

- Faster music and music with a stronger beat will exact larger and more flamboyant moves from dancers, therefore the risk of injury is greater. I've not heard of many people getting bashed, nudged, knocked,... in a blues room

- Standing still will encourage people to bash into you; your space on the dance floor is amorphous and ever-changing - people expect you to move and share the responsibility of collision avoidance. You see someone hurtling towards you and know they have not seen you - do you stand there and then complain that they bashed into you? MJ is about a community of shared responsability - everyone looking out for everyone else, not the self-centered approach of 'me' against 'them'.

- Ability of the dancer has little to do with floorcraft; two different skills that can be at different levels for every individual.

[happygoldfish]

My 2p about floorcraft... {snip to save space why doesn't everyone snip?} … every individual

- The lead decides where to place the follower; rule number one of MJ is don't injure your partner - if the lead places the follower into a space that will cause them harm, then they have broken the cardinal rule and will go to dance hell (A morris dancing class in Chiswick I think).

If the follower can see an impending collision and due to their inaction causes injury to the lead, then they queue for dance hell too.

Woohoo! Gadget, you're the first person who's agreed with me on this!

Let's just check (I think you've not posted in this thread before) … I'm trying to persuade everyone that it's the leader's responsibililty to avoid injury (from collisions) to a (cooperating) follower.

I think it's obvious, but everyone else seems to think it's obviously rubbish.

I call that a culture of denial of responsiblity, and I think it causes lots of avoidable injuries to followers, primarily from leaders dancing as if "collisions are bound to happen, so they're nobody's fault," or "if a collision does happen, the other leader will be equally at fault, so neither of us will blame the other!"

I'm particularly upset if a leader dances as if "when my follower is cooperating but still gets injured, it's partly her resposibility!"

(And, of course, I agree with you about injury to the leader.)

Erm …

This is your chance to back down!

[straycat]

- Standing still will encourage people to bash into you; your space on the dance floor is amorphous and ever-changing - people expect you to move and share the responsibility of collision avoidance. You see someone hurtling towards you and know they have not seen you - do you stand there and then complain that they bashed into you?

Moves that could involve more-or-less 'standing still' include arm-jive, first move, close-hold blues - there's a lot of them. If someone cannot spot that I'm doing such, and hurtles into me from behind, then a) it usually happens so fast that there's not a lot I can do about it even if I see them coming, and b) if they don't have the ability to anticipate what I'm doing and that I'm going to stay still, they certainly won't have the ability to judge where couples in motion will be heading and to avoid them.

A flipside to this is that no - I shouldn't dance into another couple's 'space' then do a static move there - if I'm going to do static moves, they should be in the centre of 'my' dance space. BUT. It really isn't hard to avoid a colliding with a static couple. Trust me on this.

[bigdjiver]

This is all giving me new insight into what I have taken for granted.

"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our
exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the
place for the first time." -- T. S. Eliot

If the intermediate lesson was "The Columbian" it is foreseeable, though unlikely, that we could have 3 first time performers of the Columbian heading straight for us, and all tripping.

If I trip or slip, and stumble and fall, my head could end up 9ft away from the point where I was tripped. If I allow other dancers the same amount of falling room I have to keep my partner 10 ft away from the nearest dancer to keep her safe from their accidents. Given that other dancers might perform a travelling move I have to keep an extra distance clear so I we can move when we see them coming, say 15 ft total from the nearest couple. We need some space to move into, say another 5ft. Since the danger may come from the other side simultaneously we need an extra 5 ft to cater for that. To move my partner into a space mid-floorwhere she is safe from forseeable circumstances she will need to be about 25ft from the nearest dancers.
If the intermediate lesson was "The Columbian" it is foreseeable, though unlikely, that we could have 3 first time performers of the Columbian heading straight for us, and all tripping.
This assumes that we have 360 degree vision between us. If we are not doing the "back-to-back" then I should allow extra space for scanning time.

[straycat]

I'm trying to persuade everyone that it's the leader's responsibililty to avoid injury (from collisions) to a (cooperating) follower.

I think it's obvious, but everyone else seems to think it's obviously rubbish.

I don't think that anyone's denying this. I agree it's obvious, and the answers I've seen on the thread suggest that most, if not all, of the contributors share that opinion. I'll go so far as to strengthen it slightly by removing the phrases in brackets.

All I and others are saying is that it is not possible for any leader to avoid all accidents on a dancefloor. You can't anticipate everything that happens around you, you can't even see everything that happens around you, and inevitably, despite your best efforts, accidents can happen that you could not have avoided.

Factors that can help minimise this include: your partner being attentive to what's going on around the pair of you, and warning you or taking action if she sees a need, and everyone else on the floor adopting the same attitude.

No-one is denying leaders' responsibilities. We're simply discussing ways of making the dancefloor safer.

[happygoldfish]

No-one is denying leaders' responsibilities.

Yes they are. Most of them (not you) are actually using the phrase "shared responsiblity"!

Straycat, you (and everyone else) are perfectly entitled to disagree with Gadget and me, but what you're doing is saying you're agreeing, and then (I think, but see below) saying it's a shared responsibility after all.

Gadget (I think) and I are saying that avoiding injury to the follower is the leader's responsibility, not a shared responsibility.

To use Gadget's words:

- The lead decides where to place the follower; rule number one of MJ is don't injure your partner - if the lead places the follower into a space that will cause them harm, then they have broken the cardinal rule and will go to dance hell (A morris dancing class in Chiswick I think).

While you, for example, say:

Factors that can help minimise this include: your partner being attentive to what's going on around the pair of you, and warning you or taking action if she sees a need, …

Now I'm not sure which way you're going on this. I did earlier ask you (in a post with which I almost entirely concurred) to clarify your position:

I'm not sure whether you're with me here.

I think that you are, but that you're just not saying it.

When you say …

Yes, the leaders have the biggest role in avoiding accidents.

… you're presumably saying that the followers also have a role.

But are you actually saying that that role (in relation to injuries to herself) is anything more than a mere duty to cooperate?

If you're only referring to injury to the leader, then you're agreeing with Gadget and me, and disagreeing with everyone else.

But if you're including injury to the follower herself (in relation to her being attentive and warning or taking action), then you're agreeing with everyone else that the follower has a share of the responsiblity to avoid injury to herself, and disagreeing with Gadget and me!

So come off the fence!

You're a very agreeable person!

But stop trying to agree with everyone!

[straycat]

You're a very agreeable person!

Why thank you.

But stop trying to agree with everyone!

My position then. To clarify.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every single person on the dancefloor to dance in a manner that minimises risk to everyone else. I am responsible for my partner's welfare. I am responsible for avoiding clashes with other dancers. I am responsible for my own welfare. And I believe that the dancefloor will be at its safest if every single dancer on the floor (leaders and followers alike) shares the same attitude.

Clarified enough?

[bigdjiver]

Why thank you.


My position then. To clarify.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every single person on the dancefloor to dance in a manner that minimises risk to everyone else. I am responsible for my partner's welfare. I am responsible for avoiding clashes with other dancers. I am responsible for my own welfare. And I believe that the dancefloor will be at its safest if every single dancer on the floor (leaders and followers alike) shares the same attitude.

Clarified enough?

[happygoldfish]

Why thank you.

You're very welcome!

Stracycat … you've done it again … I agree with everything in your last post … but …

Clarified enough?

No! I give up! I'll let Gadget field this one …

[straycat]

You're very welcome!

Stracycat … you've done it again … I agree with everything in your last post … but …

What you want, is a straightforward yes/no answer, I think. I believe that life just isn't that simple. So - the only way I could answer is to state my own beliefs as clearly as I can. Which I have done.

Looks like we'll just have agree to differ on perspective

Particularly as I'm away for a week, so can't continue the debate in any case.

[Gadget]

Woohoo! Gadget, you're the first person who's agreed with me on this!

Perhaps, perhaps not....

Let's just check (I think you've not posted in this thread before) … I'm trying to persuade everyone that it's the leader's responsibililty to avoid injury (from collisions) to a (cooperating) follower.

I think it's obvious, but everyone else seems to think it's obviously rubbish.

Not really - everyone is avoiding taking such a narrow stance: Yes, it is the leader's responsibility to avoid injuring their partner. But that's not to say if the follower is injured that the lead is wholy responsability for it, or that the lead has the sole responsibiliy for avoiding injuring their partner.

Both people colliding have some responsibility. Both their partners have some responsibility. The partners dancing next to them that could have prevented it have some responsibility. The DJ who selected the track they are dancing to has some responsibiliy. The teacher who taught them has some responsibiliy. The venue has, the artist who recorded that music, the person who introduced them to MJ, the other dancers that inspired them, the person who let them through the door,... Without any of these elements having been in place, then the collision would not have taken place; therefore each holds some responsibility for the events unfolding as they did.

As a MJ dancer in a venue (not exclusivly on the dance floor), you can accept that you have responsibility for yourself, your partner, and eveyone else to a slightly lesser degree as they radiate away from you.
Or you can decide how far away from you your responsibility stops. I think that you will find that the closer to yourself you put this barrier the more insular, aloof, snobish, hot-shotish, cliqueish, self-opinionated and undesirable a dancer you will be... but that's my opinion.
I think that most problems with floorcraft are from people who have decided that their responsibility barrier is erected by preventing themselves directly damaging their partner, and that's it.

[bigdjiver]

I blame it all on Eve ...

[bigdjiver]

... and having concluded that MJ is just not absolutely "safe", I now ask "Is it the chief function of the male of the species to act irresponsibly, and to persuade the female to act irresponsibly too?".

[MartinHarper]

I believe the confusion arises in this thread as follows: fish believes that the leader is solely responsible, and therefore the leader is responsible. Other folks believe that both dancers share responsibility, and therefore the leader is responsible. Thus, everyone can say "the leader is responsible", but they mean different things by this.

To my mind, shared responsibility is a type of responsibility. Fish disagrees. Ahh well.

Faster music and music with a stronger beat will exact larger and more flamboyant moves from dancers, therefore the risk of injury is greater. I've not heard of many people getting bashed, nudged, knocked,... in a blues room

Faster music really should result in smaller moves, though it's a common beginner mistake to try to dance bigger as the music speeds up.
I've seen lots of collisions in "blues" rooms. I'm sure you can find lots of threads about folks complaining about poor floorcraft taking them out of their bliss zone.

[Gadget]

Faster music really should result in smaller moves, though it's a common beginner mistake to try to dance bigger as the music speeds up.

Should; but faster music normally requires more energetic and dynamic movements, which can get bigger than intended and can show up any mistakes in a much larger and dynamic way

I suppose I should have said faster and more dramatic music - it's also a sense of drama in the music that the dancers are trying to emphisise and create their own 'presence' on the dance floor that can result in collission.

I've seen lots of collisions in "blues" rooms. I'm sure you can find lots of threads about folks complaining about poor floorcraft taking them out of their bliss zone.

That's what happens when you dance with your eyes shut! A little jostle in blues just disturbs and de-rails the dance for a bit. The same impact from an energetic, swing track can send dancers ricocheting like a pinball.
I've also almost had collisions when the floor only has two couples on it - give a dancer some space and they tend to use it.

In all cases above, I think a lot of the problem (if one exists) is due to simply being more focused on {ie allocating more crainial resources to} the music/movement during tracks like this than during "normal" tracks.
The lead's brain has a lot to process - puting in musicality can take away from floorcraft; better leading can take away from floorcraft; controlling an unruly follower can take away from floorcraft; leading a new move can take away from floorcraft; compensating for the floor can take away from floorcraft; dodging pillars, furniture, walls and walkers can take away from avoiding other dancers...

[happygoldfish]

… fish believes …

Oi! Have some respect! I don't call you "per"!

"happy" or "happyg" is fine (though a little familiar). Or even "hgf".

BUT NOT "FISH"!!

Perhaps, perhaps not....

Gadget, I'll go for "perhaps" … I still think you agree with me , because you still haven't resiled from your original statement …

- The lead decides where to place the follower; rule number one of MJ is don't injure your partner - if the lead places the follower into a space that will cause them harm, then they have broken the cardinal rule and will go to dance hell (A morris dancing class in Chiswick I think).

Gadget, suppose, for example, a leader does a five-beat first-move, and his partner completely cooperates, and he manages to push her, backwards, into another couple, and she's injured.

Then, according to the First Book of Gadget, he has broken a clear commandment, and the Judges at the Final Dance-off would order him to be dragged to the Door of Morris.

But, according to the Second Book of Gadget …

As a MJ dancer in a venue (not exclusively on the dance floor), you can accept that you have responsibility for yourself, your partner, and eveyone else to a slightly lesser degree as they radiate away from you.
Or you can decide how far away from you your responsibility stops.

… he can always get away with saying "it was partly her responsibility!"

If I were the injured partner, I'd be extremely upset at that! I'd say "I did exactly what you wanted, you pushed me backwards, I was looking towards you (and looking out for your back). I can see it might be wholly or partly someone else's fault … but I can't see how it can possibly be partly my fault!"

O wise prophet! Is the clarity of your First Commandment superseded by the brotherly-love of your later work?

I think that most problems with floorcraft are from people who have decided that their responsibility barrier is erected by preventing themselves directly damaging their partner, and that's it

I agree with you!

But the culture amongst leaders is to use this wide responsibility as applying to their partners at all times, and particularly when they're pushing their partners into danger!

If accused of denial-of-responsibility, they would doubtless instantly reply "But I accept the principle of responsibility in all cases, and for everything." So far, so good. But they would soon add that it applies to everyone else, including their partner, and so this fine-sounding principle always means that it's never their fault.

I think that this fine-sounding principle, of responsibility in all cases, results in a culture of denial of responsibility which causes a lot of injuries to followers.

Gadget, in the five-beat first-move example, do you agree that it isn't a shared responsibility?

[ducasi]

Gadget, suppose, for example, a leader does a five-beat first-move, and his partner completely cooperates, and he manages to push her, backwards, into another couple, and she's injured.

[...]

But, according to the Second Book of Gadget …

[...]

… he can always get away with saying "it was partly her responsibility!"

If I were the injured partner, I'd be extremely upset at that! I'd say "I did exactly what you wanted, you pushed me backwards, I was looking towards you (and looking out for your back). I can see it might be wholly or partly someone else's fault … but I can't see how it can possibly be partly my fault!"

Leading his partner backwards, it is entirely the lead's responsibility to ensure that he is not backing her into somebody. (Let's ignore the issue of responsibility of other people on the dance floor for the moment – as you say someone else may be at fault.)

Also, if I lead my partner to walk forward into someone, then I am responsible. But my partner would also be responsible for being stupid enough to let me, and not do anything to stop it.

Therefore there is shared responsibility. It varies from moment to moment – if the follower adds a styling point and bashes herself against something or someone she should have seen, she is responsible. If I am leading her to step backwards into someone, I am responsible. At other times when both the leader and follower can see and influence their own and each others movement, the responsibility is shared.

Why do you have a problem accepting this?

[ducasi]

But the culture amongst leaders is to use this wide responsibility as applying to their partners at all times, and particularly when they're pushing their partners into danger!

Can you show us evidence of this "culture"?