Rereading "Ballroom Dancing" by Alex Moore

[spatten]

Last night, I was looking back at the descriptions Alex gives in his books about dance hold and the walks looking for jewels I might have missed.
I came acrross two points which troubled me.

The first is about the hold. Alex Moore wrote:
" The man should endeavour to hold the lady in a position in front of him, very slightly to his Right side, but care must be taken not to let this position become too pronounced"

I don't know that I see anyone dance with the lady "very slightly" to the right. When I dance, I would say the lady is at a 30 degree angle relative to me center at least. I wonder if the hold has migrated over the years, or whether there might be two schools of thought. Or maybe Alex was just being cautious?


The second point is about the walk. Alex Moore wrote:

"Although standard technique demands that some part of the foot is kept in contact with the floor in all the forward steps, the majority of advanced dancers do no adhere to this rule. When moving the back foot to a forward position the heel does not actually touch the floor until it reaches the full extent of the stride. The movement thus becomes softer and lighter than could be acheived with the heel in contact with the floor."

Hmm. Does anyone do this? Is there a demonstable difference? To the best of my recollection, the best teachers I have had talk about having your feet together and weight even when the moving foot passes the standing foot. To me it seems like my heel should touch here. To effect what he seems to be suggesting, the feet would have to be extended as the moving foot comes under to keep the heel off the ground. I don't think he is suggesting the toes come off the ground. Any thoughts....

Scott

[cl5814]

on your first point, a comment on the waltz video said that you should always see 2 heads, the lady shouldn't disappear i.e. stay to the man's right side ( i think it was a comment during the chasse step ). In social dancing (which is probably irrelevant to this ) the lady tends to stay more to the right than what is suggested by Alex.
On your second point, i can't really comment due to lack of experience/knowledge.

[Elizabeth]

I don't know that I see anyone dance with the lady "very slightly" to the right. When I dance, I would say the lady is at a 30 degree angle relative to me center at least. I wonder if the hold has migrated over the years, or whether there might be two schools of thought. Or maybe Alex was just being cautious?


Terms like "very slightly" can be frustrating as they aren't terribly specific. Clearly the lady can't be right in front of the man, or they won't be able to move without stepping on each other. Clearly she can't be too far to his right either or they risk getting into a weird contorted position. In this case I expect the imprecision is somewhat deliberate. Just how far to the right the lady should be depends on the body types of the two dancers, so a more precise answer is impossible if you're writing a general description.

I'm a little curious about your 30 degree angle. Some ladies rotate their tops towards the man and some keep their shoulders parallel to the man while translating a certain distance to the right. Are you and your partner in the first category, or are you using the angle to describe translation to the right in terms of an angle between a line through your centers and the direction of travel?


To the best of my recollection, the best teachers I have had talk about having your feet together and weight even when the moving foot passes the standing foot. To me it seems like my heel should touch here.

I'm not sure what the coaches you're referring to are trying to get across, but the best coaches I've worked with have all emphasized dancing from foot to foot. As I understand it, that means your weight should be in the standing leg and not in the moving leg at all. As a lady it would by very awkward to have the heel of my moving leg in contact with the ground when it passes the standing leg. The toes is usually brushing along the ground here, but with absolutely no weight in it. The statement that you quoted from Alex Moore makes a great deal of sense to me. If I were to flip my foot over so that the heel were in contact with the floor too soon I would most likely cut my step short and land on it with a not-very-graceful clumping sound.

[spatten]

Hmm. Yes, I agree the term is ambiguous and frustrating. I guess my 30 degrees is also imprecise. Let's see if I can describe what I am thinking better.

Okay, let's say I am going to get in dance position with my lady - for simplicity I will start facing LOD. (Here I am refering to body direction and not feet as the book would do). In order to have a strong left side, and create shape I will rotate my trunk about my spine approximately 30 degrees. So if I define the spine as my center, the center of my chest is now that many degrees off of LOD towards DW. I invite the lady, who was facing against LOD. She rotates and the center of her chest is also about 30 degrees off towards against DC. Her body is definately rotated, this allows us to match the curves of our body to each other. She is to the right of me just enough, so that I can place the right side of my chest inbtween her boobs. I guess that would be the first example you described. She isn't much closer to the wall than I am, and I guess this is the translational direction you were talking about and must be what Alex was referrring to. He doesn't want the lady standing too far to your right. It just feels like she is on my right side because of the rotation. That actaully makes sense now. Thank you.

As to the second question, I went to the dancefloor and tried it out. The best way I can describe what my feet are doing (and what my coaches seem to want) in a forward walk is to compare the action to my foot drawing an arc with a vertex at my knee. If my left foot is behind the right foot, (right foot standing leg), I bring the l. foot forward the toes are in contact with the ground. I am moving along the downslope of the arc. The further forward the foot becomes more of my foot is in contact with the floor. When my feet are both centered under my body, this feels like the lowest point of the arc. I agree the weight is mostly in the standing leg. Here both heel and toe of both feet are in contact with the floor, but weight is on right foot. As I push the left foot forward, I begin to move up the arc and the toes start to lift off the floor. This is what I was taught and the heel lead begins.

However to accomplish what Alex seems to be suggesting, I think I need flatten the arc so to speak and continue with only my toes of left foot touching out past the end of my right foot all the way till left foot is extended and then land the heel. This almost feels to me much more like a Tango walk. It almost feels like you have to flick your feet.

Either way I am having trouble seeing this as a lighter looking walk.

Scott

[Chris Stratton]

As to the second question, I went to the dancefloor and tried it out. The best way I can describe what my feet are doing (and what my coaches seem to want) in a forward walk is to compare the action to my foot drawing an arc with a vertex at my knee. If my left foot is behind the right foot, (right foot standing leg), I bring the l. foot forward the toes are in contact with the ground. I am moving along the downslope of the arc. The further forward the foot becomes more of my foot is in contact with the floor. When my feet are both centered under my body, this feels like the lowest point of the arc.

I believe the lowerst point of the arc would occur somewhere between when your knees pass and when your feet pass. When the knees are closed, the moving foot will still be behind, with the ball in contact with or nearest the floor. I think the moving leg will have as much, or slightly more knee flex than the standing one. So by the time your feet actually pass you are somewhat forward in the standing foot. If the moving foot is parallel to the standing one then that would suggest that the ball is the lowest point, or perhaps a chord across the arch would parallel the floor. Anyway, it's only as you roll over the standing toe and achieve substantial leg division that the moving heel contacts the floor, just as it begins to take weight.

Either way I am having trouble seeing this as a lighter looking walk.

I think it's lighter because the body weight is supported in the projection off the standing foot. Though based on a small sample size, it seems that sometime in the first year or two, people often go through a stage of partially-weighted 'skating' on the back edge of the moving heel for the last bit of the leg swing. This causes that part of their shoes to wear out quickly - I actually put some giant suede 'heel covers' onto men's standard shoes where the heel was worn through to the white plastic. But after they learn better control, the skating seems to be much reduced, along with the shoe wear. (Or it would be, if not for the not quite flush floor outlet that I did a reverse wave over on the sidelines at MAC, taking a nice little notch out of my comp shoes...)