![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteWith all this in-depth discussion of the Columbian, can anyone post a link to a YouTube video which actually shows the move being done properly?
Actually, now that I've played around with it a lot, I almost prefer not bothering with my footwok (just walking forwards), but I dunno if it looks better or not.Originally Posted by MartinHarper
With all this in-depth discussion of the Columbian, can anyone post a link to a YouTube video which actually shows the move being done properly?
I'd like to see a vid also - a quick Google couldn't find one however...
Although it did unearth an interesting post from LilyB here, from 2002:
http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/i....html#post1678
Interesting thread – funny how we're revisiting stuff talked about 5 years ago.
The forum really misses the input of David B.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Maybe we should have a "come back David B" thread
I'll second that!
Maybe we should have a "come back David B" thread
Elaine
This is a move I struggle with – though I only found out last night that it’s called a Columbian. I think I saw it taught in class once, ages ago. About a year into doing Ceroc, I suddenly started to get leads trying to do this one with me – and I was completely clueless, just couldn’t get it. I don’t know if this was me, if it was badly lead, or a mixture of the two – probably the latter. What it did manage to do was make me panic every time I found myself being put into it, and absolutely hating it. So I asked the teacher about it, got some idea of what it was about and then didn’t have it lead on me again for ages, so completely forgot the technique.
Recently it started being lead on me again – just after I returned to dancing after being hit by the car, and my lower back was very fragile (which I was telling all the leads I danced with). It hurt like hell!So I’d just completely stop dancing, or just walk and refuse the twists, and say “that hurts”. It might be worth remembering that this can cause problem with follows with dodgy backs, just like dips and drops.
As things were returning to normal with my back, one of my favourite leads tried it on me again – we aborted as my back wasn’t quite ready, and I explained that I always panicked and fluffed the move. He admitted that he struggled with it a bit, so we agreed to practise together when I felt up to it – he’s a lovely and very experienced dancer, so having him admit he needed to work on it made me feel a whole lot better! Having had this lead on me twice on Saturday night with varying degrees of failureI resolved to track him down last night and get this one sorted – but he wasn’t there
Fortunately I managed to find someone else to show me – and that’s when I realised what you lot were talking about! I now have a better idea of what to do, but am still not sure that I’d be able to follow that well – I guess that it’ll depend on the lead, and even more so on the speed at which it’s done.
One thing that I’m curious about though, bearing Martin Harper’s comments on this being best lead on skinny follows with a good rotation in the lower half (I too am on the “curvaceous” side, though I do have good rotation, usually – still recovering from the accident – in my hips), why do leads decide to do this move on a particular follow? Is it in fashion at the moment (since I seem to get it at least once or twice in every time I go dancing – either in freestyle after class or in pure freestyle sessions)? Interestingly, one of the leads who tried it on me on Saturday I also spotted doing AT.
And more generally (though it’s probably another thread) – why do certain moves go in and out of fashion?
Mainly, if there's space, and if I think the follower can follow well - if there's no space, I use my patented "circular Columbian" (OK, giro) move instead.
Typically, I test the waters by leading a West Manhattan - if she doesn't follow that, I won't even attempt to try a Columbian.
The footwork is taught at Jango classes - obviously, as it's a linear giro - so maybe that's filtering through?
Yes - but my question was really, how do you assess that?
Ah, guts, skill, determination, flair ability - the usual.
Seriously, anyone experienced enough to lead the Columbian should be experienced enough to assess the follower's ability to follow.
It's very easy to assess this in general - takes a few seconds at most - but for some moves you need to test the waters as to whether they can actually follow, or whether they're just good at following moves.
Similar criteria apply to cross-body leads. Obviously, the better you are at leading these, the easier it is to follow them - I've been leading them now for several years and I can lead it to most followers. But, as they're invitational leads, the follower can still mess things up, by simply choosing not to follow the lead.
These moves are good ways of testing how good a follower is, at actually following, by the way
In that case I’m going for the “lead badly” optionThese moves are good ways of testing how good a follower is, at actually following, by the way(I’ve had comments of late that I’m easy to lead, or leads making moves up as they go along and being pleased that I’ve followed, so definitely not in the “oh that’s a yoyo, I know how to follow that” category anymore.)
I think it’s Pavlovian now… I realise what is happening, panic and the move goes wrong. Used to do that with some other similar but easier moves – practised with leads I trusted thinking “now just relax and let him lead” and managed to allow myself to be lead. Columbian, here I come!
Two quick points to add to the debate, before I run off back to work.
Firstly, the teaching debate - the Ceroc teaching script does not include an instruction to teach a verbal lead.
Secondly, there is a third way of leading this move which, in my mind, is perfectly acceptable. We've had verbal lead and contact lead - you can also use a visual lead in an open hold. Basically, 'ballroom' hold in both hands, and the lead uses his footwork and his upper body movement as a visual example to the follower. It will always take a few seconds for the lightbulb to come on but this is more comfortable than being lead roughly by contact, or verbally told what to do.
I know a couple of guys who lead the columbian this way, and I don't have a problem with it, even if it's not as satisfying as the real thing in close hold. What does anyone else think?
I think if I was going to lead the Columbian visually, I'd want to do it with a regular one-handed open hold. That way it has a more open feel and the visual element is clearer. Also, why go to the bother of getting to a two-handed butterfly grip if I'm not going to use it?
Yes. A visual lead in a two-hand open hold should work fine (PLUS, it wouldn't matter if it didn't!).
(In closed hold it would be a disaster, because the follower would never catch up!)
Wouldn't you have to whisper "Columbian" first, to stop the follower frolicking off?
Also, a two-hand hold helps the follower to balance.
And I think I'd use an ordinary arm-jive grip, not a butterfly: it isn't wrestling!
I was once following a guy and he said 'Columbian!'
I said 'no, New Zealand actually, but I do use sun beds a lot.' I was pleased he had noticed my dark smooth tan, and forgot all about it.
But years later, when I saw Pablo Veron leading the 'Columbian' (the last move they do just before it cuts to the 'cafe' scene) you can clearly see him whisper the word just before they start. So you can imagine my embarrassment when I remembered my unwitting faux pas all those years before!
But luckily, my pride was saved, when yet later I discovered you can lead this move without any verbalage whatsoever, (Pablo never made it to that class!) and many variations besides!
You can lead it with one hand even.
I recommend it. It leaves the other hand free to brush away any flailing curly locks. Plus, it doesn’t require the follower to memorise names of moves or capitals of states.
A good way to lead it is to use ‘frame’. Just shout 'frame' a few counts before trying to lead the move. (or see the related thread.)
I can finally lead this move properly!
I'm still struggling to see how folks body-lead the Columbian. As I see it, in the traditional Columbian, my body is pointing in the opposite direction to the direction I want my partner to move in.
Anyone care to explain?
I'm not quite sure how it worked, but we spent some time learning how to lead without using hands, and that really helped with developing an awareness of how the orientation of your body affects and influences your lead. It was a real eye-opener when I tried leading the Columbian with an appreciation of how my balance and body position was influencing my partner.
Body <> Feet
i.e. it doesn't matter where your feet are pointing, what matters is where your (upper) body - shoulders and chest, basically - points. Hence the need for dissociation.
But whatever happens, the followers should not follow the feet - expecially my feet, I never know where they're going...
EHH???Body <> Feet
. Hence the need for dissociation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks