Hip joint flexion during lowering action [Archive]

Angelo

06-26-2010, 10:33 PM

When executing a forward moving action in standard, during the lowering phase, how much should the hip joint flex?

Clearly, the ankle and knee flex, but if the hip flexes too much it seems that the hips will not move forward sufficiently to create a correct and strong movement forward, but rather, it will drop back, not a good idea.

Additionally, what are the ramifications on pressure to the knee as a result?

I would suggest that it depends on what type of movement you want to make. In my experience, greater flexion of the hip leads to a greater pre-stretch in the muscles and connective tissues of the glutes and hamstrings, which in turn will yield a mor powerful contraction during the projection phase of the movement. How much you flex the hips would then depend on how powerfully you want to project forward. I feel it more distinctly in Tango than in the other standard dances.

As long as you have sufficient flexibility in the hips and ankles, and your alignment is good, I think the risk to the knees is fairly low

Chris Stratton

06-26-2010, 11:09 PM

(wierding out everyone in my bus line)

Bringing up tango is important - the hip can be further behind the knee in a compressed tango stance than I think would generally be appropriate for a comparable altitude on the way down in the swing dances. And tango tends to prefer the directions of movement in which there's room for the knee and foot to precede the body. Also, since we're not descending into this compressed position repeatedly during the dance, there's no action of sitting back against the travel, we're simple a bit further back throught the entire dance.

For lowering in the swing dances, I'd like to see the hip kept as closely behind the knee as possible, so that a lowering has as much forward travel as is consistent with TH still including a touch down of the heel.

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 12:36 AM

Does this look like a good amount of hip flexion for tango?

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/hilliers_feather_lowered.png

That's a snapshot of the Hilliers as world champions, after lowering from the second quick in the foxtrot feather step. I think they used as much hip flexion in foxtrot as in tango.

Here's a shot of an up and coming couple of the period at the same point in the foxtrot, a couple years before they won the foxtrot at the British Open, showing almost as much hip flexion. Notice how you can see Lorraine's dress between Andrew's knee and his tailsuit tail:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/sinkinsons_feather_lowered.png

The weight should ideally lower solidly into the heel on forward travelling steps, and the amount of associated hip flexion is significant, if fleeting. The important point is that the flexion should come entirely from the knee being ahead of the hip - it may not feel like as much flexion as it is because the rest of the torso should also be over the hip at that point, and not forward of it.

wooh

06-27-2010, 01:12 AM

....

hereKittyKitty

06-27-2010, 03:36 AM

The hip flexion of the person moving forwards should be based/timed with the person moving backwards...the more movement the backward mover has,the more the hip will flex / swing into the movement.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 08:59 AM

The hip flexion of the person moving forwards should be based/timed with the person moving backwards...the more movement the backward mover has,the more the hip will flex / swing into the movement.

Actually its the other way around. The human body is much more suited to the backwards version of the lowering action, so the person with the easy job needs to accomodate the person with the harder job.

Josh

06-27-2010, 10:11 AM

That's a snapshot of the Hilliers as world champions, after lowering from the second quick in the foxtrot feather step. I think they used as much hip flexion in foxtrot as in tango.

In your picture of the Hillers, his left hip joint is obviously flexed because the knee has pulled the femur forward, but I'm not so sure about his right, which is his supporting leg. I can see that it has some flexion, but this is the source of my inquiry--how much? THIS is the joint I'm talking about, the joint of the hip which is driving the movement, not the joint of the moving leg, which will naturally have more flexion.

Josh

06-27-2010, 10:21 AM

For lowering in the swing dances, I'd like to see the hip kept as closely behind the knee as possible, so that a lowering has as much forward travel as is consistent with TH still including a touch down of the heel.

"kept as closely behind the knee as possible" -- taken to an extreme (which would not be reasonable, but just for the sake of clarity), as closely behind as possible would equate to zero hip flexion, right?

So I'm going to ballpark an ideal maximum of 10-15 degrees of movement in the joint. Anyone see that number as crazy? Again, I'm talking about the supporting leg, on a lowering action, in the swing dances.

Actually its the other way around. The human body is much more suited to the backwards version of the lowering action, so the person with the easy job needs to accomodate the person with the harder job.

Agreed, but in the case of the man moving backwards, the lady moving forward must still match his timing, not the other way around, yes?

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 10:42 AM

"kept as closely behind the knee as possible" -- taken to an extreme (which would not be reasonable, but just for the sake of clarity), as closely behind as possible would equate to zero hip flexion, right?

In a waltz lowering from foot closure, it would seem ideal if we could do this. In a separated lowering, I'm not so sure, since we are accomplishing more of our knee descent as we arrive onto the foot rather than only as we depart it.

Agreed, but in the case of the man moving backwards, the lady moving forward must still match his timing, not the other way around, yes?He can initiate and request a degree of fullness, but the request had better not exceed her capability. Since forward lowering (especially from closure) is one of the most limiting actions, I expect desired amounts of movement will often be beyond the limit, so practically it becomes an exercise in helping a partner ride the edge of her maximum capability.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 10:57 AM

Actually, let me rethink that. Knee or ankle only descent produces an overhanded arc, but the desired ending trajectory is that of an underhanded arc, and while the initial trajectory is overhanded for foot apart, its underhanded from foot closure. So figuring out the amount of hip flexion needed to create an underhanded trajectory might be a guide.

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 03:51 PM

In your picture of the Hillers, his left hip joint is obviously flexed because the knee has pulled the femur forward, but I'm not so sure about his right, which is his supporting leg. I can see that it has some flexion, but this is the source of my inquiry--how much?

You can see the right foot on the floor in that picture, and the part of Lindsay's dress just ahead of the tails is behind both knees, and underneath both hips. That means the right knee is at least as far forward as the left knee, so the right hip is at least as flexed.

In fact, the right hip is probably slightly more flexed than the left hip because the right hip is lower. That's more obvious in the picture of Sinkinson, but if you look carefully, it's also true of the picture of Hillier.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 03:58 PM

Additionally, what are the ramifications on pressure to the knee as a result?

When lowering it must be part of the action of moving forward or backward. When moving forward, the weight is leaving the leg, taking pressure off the knee. There is a trap of trying to lower for the sake of lowering, reducing the swing of the action and efficiency too.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 04:03 PM

Actually its the other way around. The human body is much more suited to the backwards version of the lowering action, so the person with the easy job needs to accomodate the person with the harder job.

I can't agree that the human body is more suited to move backwards. "Technically" you can take a bigger step backward, but I'd like to see your posture when you try to take that bigger step! Once you qualify with posture, the forward step is always easier, including the lowering and swinging.

The weakest part of the action is always the backward mover, and therefore the backward mover sets the distance. I think there can be a misconception that if the man somehow drives more or lowers more or leads more or pushes more or otherwise does more, the woman will somehow magically move bigger backward. :) And just like the women, the men can be well served realizing they are often the weak link when they are moving backward. ;)

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 04:19 PM

When lowering it must be part of the action of moving forward or backward. When moving forward, the weight is leaving the leg, taking pressure off the knee. There is a trap of trying to lower for the sake of lowering, reducing the swing of the action and efficiency too.

I suspect that the force on the knee inceeases substantially before it decreases.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 04:32 PM

I can't agree that the human body is more suited to move backwards. "Technically" you can take a bigger step backward, but I'd like to see your posture when you try to take that bigger step! Once you qualify with posture, the forward step is always easier, including the lowering and swinging.

The weakest part of the action is always the backward mover, and therefore the backward mover sets the distance. I think there can be a misconception that if the man somehow drives more or lowers more or leads more or pushes more or otherwise does more, the woman will somehow magically move bigger backward. :) And just like the women, the men can be well served realizing they are often the weak link when they are moving backward. ;)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

LOWERING backwards with the trunk upright is an action to which the layout of our bodies is far more suited - we were sitting on our backsides back when we lived in trees, but we've only been trying to do big forward downswings for maybe three generations of modern humans.

In terms of level horizontal movement, its true you can swing your leg futher forward than backward, but only when alone. Put a partner there and your reach is limited simply by their presence - while their reach backwards is not physically limited by you, but must be willfully limited to match the movement of which you are capable within the constraint of their presence in front of you.

Finally there is the issue of foot usage - the heel is a stronger part of the foot than the toe, so a dancer who has learned how to use it can project their weight backwards in a much more supported manner than forwards. HOWEVER, until this is learned the backwards partner will likely be the limiting factor, and because it is a widely neglected skill a lot of people assume the backwards limitation they experience from its absence will be a lasting one.

(As an aside, its an interesting question if we would move better bipedally if our legs worked the opposite way that they do. We ourselves haven't had time to have differntiated that much from our quadraped relatives. But birds which have long been bipedal on the ground have a functional knee (anatomically it's their ankle) which bends the opposite of ours - is this to make ostriches run better, or is it about a better layout for flight? (petasours had small conventional legs, and bats which walk on their thumbs have 180 degree turnout so the knees effectively work sideways))

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 04:32 PM

I suspect that the force on the knee inceeases substantially before it decreases.

Yes, and increases as the weight goes toward the floor rather than across the floor.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 04:37 PM

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.

while their reach backwards is not physically limited by you, but must be willfully limited to match the movement of which you are capable within the constraint of their presence in front of you.

I would say this about the forward mover. They can only match what the backward mover provides. Now if you are talking about turn, the backward mover when on the inside of turn always has the advantage. If you are talking about movement in a direction, the forward mover has the advantage, and why one would race-walk or sprint forwards in the Olympics.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 04:49 PM

Yes, and increases as the weight goes toward the floor rather than across the floor.

My suspicion is that it increases as the knee bends but decreases as the hip takes over. In other words, I think lowering into the foot produces less stress than lowering forward of it (while the support is still on that leg)

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 04:57 PM

I would say this about the forward mover. They can only match what the backward mover provides

The presence of a partner limits the forwards partner, but once full foot usage is learned the backwards partner can out travel them, especially when lowering.

(The case of a backwards partner who moves by leg reach without rolling through the foot is particulary interesting - first their stationary body blocks the forward partner into a small step, but when they do finally move their body onto their reached foot placement, they pull away.)

If you are talking about movement in a direction, the forward mover has the advantage, and why one would race-walk or sprint forwards in the Olympics.

1) We like to see where we are going, especially without a partner

2) No partner to limit your forward reach - or forward lean out of the blocks which is pretty important when you consider as dancers we are accelerating in new directions as much as continuing in existing ones. (the analysis of the double amputee who wanted to run on spring steel blades was interesting - he had a disadvantage at the start but would "unfairly" pull ahead in a long enough race)

Josh

06-27-2010, 05:16 PM

You can see the right foot on the floor in that picture, and the part of Lindsay's dress just ahead of the tails is behind both knees, and underneath both hips. That means the right knee is at least as far forward as the left knee, so the right hip is at least as flexed.

In fact, the right hip is probably slightly more flexed than the left hip because the right hip is lower. That's more obvious in the picture of Sinkinson, but if you look carefully, it's also true of the picture of Hillier.

I see now what you mean Warren--I think I had mistaken one of his tails for his right leg! :-) I just ran across this which discusses a lecture by Stephen Hiller:

Time constraint made it difficult for Stephen Hillier to fully explain the mechanics of the swing. He however stressed the importance of a good physique and the understanding of the mechanics of the swing which involved the muscles of the legs, the joints and the importance of the hip.

Stephen and Jennifer then illustrated the importance of the hip in creating the swing by dancing the slow foxtrot. "Never swing directly at the lady," he stressed. " You must swing past the lady and the lady must posture herself in such a manner that the man can swing freely and with ease."

The question is how do other dancers utilitize the hip, regarding flexion. Stephen Hiller was a great dancer, now what about others? (yes you posted Andrew Sinkinson I know)

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 08:24 PM

The question is how do other dancers utilitize the hip, regarding flexion. Stephen Hiller was a great dancer, now what about others? (yes you posted Andrew Sinkinson I know)

Well here are a few other couples I've liked, again at the end of the lowering in the feather step or feather finish.

Hawkins & Newberry and Howson & Bolton:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/hawkins_newberry_feather_lowered.pnghttp://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/howson_bolton_feather_lowered.png
from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h97GAECCcE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1m9vInkvy0&feature=related

To me they look basically the same as the Hilliers and the Sinkinsons, with a bit less flexion at the hip, at least than the Hilliers, due to less lowering.

Then there are the Hiltons. But before we get to the Hiltons, I'd like to note one thing: the above pictures and the ones I posted earlier of the Hilliers and Sinkinsons are looking at the man's hip flexion in the forward lowering. The lady would be different: because of her backward poise, she would have less hip flexion for the identical leg position - for example at the end of the back feather.

So here are some pictures of the Hiltons in this positions:

http://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/hiltons_feather_lowered_1.pnghttp://www.powderhouse.com/~wdew/dance/feather_step/hiltons_feather_lowered_2.png
from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94JbmwxOy_0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5I9iuzvuNY&feature=related

What's interesting here is that it appears that Marcus takes the backward poise at this point in the feather. While I didn't get pictures, Karen takes the backward poise in the back feather.

So now I wonder what the relative merits are of the Hilliers' style, with the lady always being the one with the backward poise, and the Hiltons' style, where they trade off at least to some extent. Is one better than the other? Which one?

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 09:10 PM

1) We like to see where we are going, especially without a partner

So maybe we should put some rear view mirrors on our olympic athletes; maybe devise some special attachments for the glasses, and then have them compete backwards. And to make them run faster, we'll have someone run forward toward them yelling "follow!". :)

All jokes aside, the human body was built to move forward. Sure, you can lower and move bigger on a single step, but again, I'd like to see your posture when you do that.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 09:30 PM

Sure, you can lower and move bigger on a single step, but again, I'd like to see your posture when you do that.

Posture when lowering backwards tends to be more easily vertical, because the very thing you need to avoid doing when moving forward (keeping the hips back) is now the primary driver of movement.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 09:36 PM

Posture when lowering backwards tends to be more easily vertical, because the very thing you need to avoid doing when moving forward (keeping the hips back) is now the primary driver of movement.

Have you tried measuring the size of your steps moving forward versus moving backward? What is the result?

One thing I wanted add is that the backward mover is the limit. The forward mover can work harder to move you are going to reach a point of inefficiency if the backward mover is not doing their job. Often guys get the idea that they can work harder the "couple" will move bigger. I find that forward movement is easy when I am thinking of moving into open space created by the backward mover. If the backward mover is off balance or for whatever reason taking a smaller step than usual, the forward mover's job would not be to create the movement irrespective of the space that was not created.

Josh

06-27-2010, 09:43 PM

What's interesting here is that it appears that Marcus takes the backward poise at this point in the feather. While I didn't get pictures, Karen takes the backward poise in the back feather.

So now I wonder what the relative merits are of the Hilliers' style, with the lady always being the one with the backward poise, and the Hiltons' style, where they trade off at least to some extent. Is one better than the other? Which one?

Thanks for posting all the pictures Warren. I find it interesting that Marcus would take a more backward poise. I wonder if that's representative of how he normally would dance it. My guess is no. Or perhaps it's a less aggressive poise than what many dancers are doing today, particularly the non-English ones.

Functionally, I'd have to say that a symmetric poise will naturally work better. But aesthetically, we favor a more upright and forward man, and a more shaped and slightly backward (though not back-weighted) lady. Since the man and the woman take different roles in dancing, it's only natural that the poise would also differ.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 09:49 PM

What's interesting here is that it appears that Marcus takes the backward poise at this point in the feather. While I didn't get pictures, Karen takes the backward poise in the back feather.

I took a look. I think poise is pretty simple when you see it as a part of the swing. Ladies can be tricky sometimes to see that, but I like to watch their ribs in relation to their feet. You definitely see even more exaggerated swing in today's dancing. Everyone was more upright when the Hiltons were dancing.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 10:21 PM

Have you tried measuring the size of your steps moving forward versus moving backward? What is the result?

Backward is not only larger, it's also softer

One thing I wanted add is that the backward mover is the limit. The forward mover can work harder to move you are going to reach a point of inefficiency if the backward mover is not doing their job. Often guys get the idea that they can work harder the "couple" will move bigger.

This is only true when dancing with someone who does not know how to roll through their feet. Which unfortunately is the situation for a majority of intermediate dancers. But with someone who does know how, you won't be able to keep up, because the more supported projection backwards off the standing foot means they can continue expanding their step past the time when you've fallen on your moving foot.

hereKittyKitty

06-27-2010, 10:33 PM

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 11:23 PM

If a majority of intermediate dancers don't know how to roll through their feet then this must not be an easy, natural action to learn.

Regular forward walking isn't an easy, natural action to learn, either. It takes several years of toddlerhood to go from one's first steps to smooth, natural walking - and that's practicing pretty much full time every day.

Chris Stratton

06-27-2010, 11:31 PM

Not to mention toddlers have ever present local role models, and aren't wearing heels

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 11:33 PM

This is only true when dancing with someone who does not know how to roll through their feet. Which unfortunately is the situation for a majority of intermediate dancers. But with someone who does know how, you won't be able to keep up, because the more supported projection backwards off the standing foot means they can continue expanding their step past the time when you've fallen on your moving foot.

So if the backward mover does not do as you say, they are the limit. I would simply argue the limit is more commonly found in the backward mover (men and women). And of course its pretty clear the human body wins races moving forward, not backward. If spring is allowed, which would be part of a powerful forward step, the backward mover is toast even on a single step.

That said, when you reach a point where you are trying so hard to achieve distance, some of the beauty starts to disappear. So much emphasis is placed on size of steps, and emphasis on size in one part of a group has detrimental effects on later steps.

Hip flexion I believe should be thought of as a part of the swing and resulting poise. When we start measuring steps, there is hardly going to be proper swing, and often we are totally missing the point.

Josh, my knees don't hurt, and my movement is not bad when the knee is bending as part of the down swing. I used to start thinking of lowering to drive forward, and then swing up. Now I swing down to swing up, including on the prep step. There is even a growing number of pros and coaches that are doing a toe lead on the prep step in Foxtrot because they see it as a down swing. That debate will (toe vs heel on prep) will surely go on for a long time, and we will see both for a while to come.

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 11:43 PM

And of course its pretty clear the human body wins races moving forward, not backward.

The human body wins races by running, not by walking. I don't think races are relevant to dance.

I do suspect that forward walking is more energy efficient than backward walking. Again, though, I don't think that's relevant to dance, where we only have to last minutes rather than hours.

DanceMentor

06-27-2010, 11:50 PM

The human body wins races by running, not by walking. I don't think races are relevant to dance.

I do suspect that forward walking is more energy efficient than backward walking. Again, though, I don't think that's relevant to dance, where we only have to last minutes rather than hours.

Well then, its good to know dancing is not a race. :) I agree also that forward movement is more natural, and while the forward mover can give signals, they are ultimately following the backward mover, and limited in distance by the role the backward mover plays. You can more naturally and efficiently take a large forward step, but when moving backwards, you are doing far more work. The backward mover does the work. The forward mover swings through naturally.

Warren J. Dew

06-27-2010, 11:55 PM

I agree also that forward movement is more natural

More energy efficient is not the same as 'more natural'. As I pointed out at the end of the previous page, forward walking is far from natural, given how much effort it takes to learn.

The difference between racing and dancing is that you are allowed to increase the tempo of your stride if you want to go faster in a race. In dance, the tempo is fixed by the music; if you want to go faster, you have to increase the length of your stride instead.

I agree with Chris that a given stride length is easier going backward than forward.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 02:49 PM

I agree with DanceMentor that forwards is easier than backwards - and I've tested the theory myself and with a male professional. Maybe the two of us are somehow different from everyone else, but we found it to be a very obvious win for forward travel.

In the natural turn in Waltz, I'm easily able to go between 6" to 1' farther forward than backwards. The difference was about the same for him (though his overall maximum distance was about 6" farther than mine). These are undistorted steps, using good posture. We didn't try to see how far we could go if we broke out of normal dance form.

I don't see how the reverse action could be more natural to us as humans, since we've spent our lives walking forward. The reverse action is similar to sitting down, which is not something we usually do with a large horizontal traveling motion. Until you've gotten used to the falling feeling, it's not a terribly comfortable feeling to take a large back step with a lot of power in something like Waltz.

Tango is the one case where I might agree that a back step is easier than or just as easy as a forward step, but Tango is a different type of movement.

Also, about the prep step being danced by some with a toe lead, when I first tried doing a natural turn going forward with a prep step (when doing the above experiments), I naturally did it with a toe lead on the prep step. Then I asked myself if that was correct, and I tried it with a heel lead. I found the toe lead to be much more natural, and to give me more power (and distance) on the heel lead in the first step of the natural turn, so I stuck with the toe lead for the prep step. I'm not sure which one the book says to do, but I know which one I would do if I were leading a couple!

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 03:07 PM

When you learn to make use of the longer supported projection backwards of the standing foot as compared to forwards of it, you will find moving backwards is an action you can sustain for a greater distance. Additionally, you have more available free leg reach into the empty space behind your body than into the partner occupied space in front of it.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 03:14 PM

Sounds like you both could use some work on your backwards technique. When you learn to make use of the longer supported projection backwards if the standing foot as compared to forwards of it, you will find moving backwards is an action you can sustain for a greater distance.

If it's really more natural, shouldn't it already be better?

Considering I actually do spend significant time (hours at a time) working on my backwards technique, and I rarely spend time practicing forwards technique, I really find it hard to believe that backwards technique is supposed to be more natural...

laylamah

06-28-2010, 03:21 PM

When you learn to make use of the longer supported projection backwards if the standing foot as compared to forwards of it, you will find moving backwards is an action you can sustain for a greater distance.

Your standing knee moves in the same direction as your step going forwards... it moves in the opposite direction going backwards... If we're talking about a static step, then I agree you can probably take a farther one backwards (especially if you distort your posture)... but it seems to me that a dynamic, moving step using your bodyweight to drive it (not your legs) should travel more going forwards...

laylamah

06-28-2010, 03:24 PM

Additionally, you have more available free leg reach into the empty space behind your body than into the partner occupied space in front of it.

As I understand it, assuming that your partner is moving correctly, you shouldn't be bumping into them (we step between each others legs, and or, our partners rotate out of our way, and our partners should be moving to accommodate us)....

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 03:24 PM

If it's really more natural, shouldn't it already be better?

I did not call walking backwards natural. What I said was that our bodies are more suited to lowering backwards than forwards. And if you try dancing consecutive naturals turns, you will find you can lower from foot closure while commencing movement with much better backwards than forwards.

Considering I actually do spend significant time (hours at a time) working on my backwards technique, and I rarely spend time practicing forwards technique, I really find it hard to believe that backwards technique is supposed to be more natural...

Both forwards and backwards dance walking are (at their exaggerated modern scale) unnatural actions that have to be learned. But with targeted instruction and practical shoes, the backwards action seems to gain the support needed for a full, soft action at slow swing dance tempos long before the clunkiness and alignment problems of the forward one are brought under control. Maybe time to try some different guidance?

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 03:35 PM

Your standing knee moves in the same direction as your step going forwards... it moves in the opposite direction going backwards... If we're talking about a static step, then I agree you can probably take a farther one backwards (especially if you distort your posture)... but it seems to me that a dynamic, moving step using your bodyweight to drive it (not your legs) should travel more going forwards...

It's the temporary bend of the knee against the travel which helps you continue to support the body as you move backwards away from the foot, without distorting posture.

What a lot are missing is that a major problem at waltz/foxtrot tempos is to not move too fast early in the step as you approach the limit of balance on the standing foot. Going forwards, the temptation to leave the hips behind for balance and advance only the chest often takes years to overcome.

Going backwards you get better support off the heel, and the task of the leg muscles supporting you partially descended weight can borrow from the sitting action to which we are better suited than kneeling.

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 03:41 PM

As I understand it, assuming that your partner is moving correctly, you shouldn't be bumping into them (we step between each others legs, and or, our partners rotate out of our way, and our partners should be moving to accommodate us)....

Unless you are shorter, dancing with space, or arching your back for extra hip separation, you probably will have more limited reach forward than back in the all important inline natural cbm cases.

Tango on the other hand prefers directions in which reaching is fine, and thus has a different character of movement.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 03:48 PM

I did not call walking backwards natural. What I said was that our bodies are more suited to lowering backwards than forwards. And if you try dancing consecutive naturals turns, you will find you can lower from foot closure while commencing movement with much better backwards than forwards.

Maybe we use such different technique that you find this to be true and I don't? I'm not saying that I have trouble lowering backwards - at this point, I find both actions to be quite comfortable. I'm only saying that I found the forward action to be initially more natural, and that in my case, as well as the case of the male pro I mentioned, doing a natural turn in the forward direction has more travel than one in the backwards direction.

Both forwards and backwards dance walking are (at their exaggerated modern scale) unnatural actions that have to be learned. But with targeted instruction and practical shoes, the backwards action seems to gain the support needed for a full, soft action at slow swing dance tempos long before the clunkiness and alignment problems of the forward one are brought under control. Maybe time to try some different guidance?

The techniques I use for forwards and backwards dance walking resemble walking. Just as in walking, the actions are initiated by the body (resulting in an off-balance situation which provides the power), and controlled and received by the legs.

In the case of walking forward, the body weight falls forward, onto the femur of the standing leg (which modulates the speed of the action), the moving leg swings out ahead to receive the bodyweight and momentum as it continues to move forward away from the standing leg.

In backwards walking, the body weight initiates the swing backwards, the hip joints flex backwards, while the knees flex forwards - the moving leg swings back and doesn't really receive weight until the body has traveled sufficiently, and then the toe ball heel of the moving leg articulates to smoothly accept it.

Do you find issue with these techniques?

I feel that I've gotten past the "clunkiness" in both forward and backwards movements - I continue to practice a lot to obtain the longest possible movements I can without breaking tempo, posture, or smoothness - but I don't have any complaints with the way things are working...

laylamah

06-28-2010, 04:02 PM

It's the temporary bend of the knee against the travel which helps you continue to support the body as you move backwards away from the foot, without distorting posture.

In my experience, holding the weight on the femur of the standing leg when going forwards supports the body very well... am I misunderstanding the distinction?

What a lot are missing is that a major problem at waltz/foxtrot tempos is to not move too fast early in the step as you approach the limit of balance on the standing foot. Going forwards, the temptation to leave the hips behind for balance and advance only the chest often takes years to overcome.

The chest progressing without the hips sounds like falling over... which is just wrong.

Keeping the body moving together from hips all the way up the spine, while controlling the progression with the quadriceps muscles of the standing leg allows one to not move too fast in the beginning of the step, because you can modulate the speed by how much you flex the quadriceps (strong enough quadriceps is a given assumption).

Going backwards you get better support off the heel, and the task of the leg muscles supporting you partially descended weight can borrow from the sitting action to which we are better suited than kneeling.

Is the argument here that we aren't stable enough on our toes in the forward action? I don't like the idea of accepting any muscle weaknesses as a reason to dance differently. A good dancer should feel balanced and strong up in full releve, just as they are on a flat foot...

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 04:11 PM

It's not really clear what controls the speed of descent in your forwards description - you seem to describe riding a toppling standing femur onto you arriving leg, which would be a rather clunky landing.

I would instead describe the forward action as commencing below the knee, with substantial separation of the upper legs occuring only later.

It might also be interesting to ask the following: why are forward inline, natural cbm descents from foot closure nearly extinct for the taller partner, but retained for the shorter? I would maintain its because this is a very weak action when your forward reach is limited and you are largely confined to a forward kneeling descent, so its retained only for the partner who has room for their leg and license to keep their upper body lagging back for a longer period of balance.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 04:23 PM

It's not really clear what controls the speed of descent in your forwards description - you seem to describe riding a toppling standing femur onto you arriving leg, which would be a rather clunky landing.

Why is the standing femur "toppling"? It's compressing down and forward with the action... it's very smooth...

And while I didn't explicitly mention it, there is certainly articulation in the foot and ankle of both legs (just as in walking), which provides smoothness throughout the range of motion of the action.

waltzgirl

06-28-2010, 04:32 PM

Chris, I'm not quite clear whether you are saying that, because of biology, a backward step will always be larger and stronger than a forward step. That is, would the "ideally conditioned and trained" dancer still have a longer, stronger backward step?

Or are you saying that most of us come into dance with muscle development that makes the backward step more efficient sooner than a forward step? In the latter case, that might not be true for everyone; for example, someone with a lot of ballet training may have the foot strength for a forward step but be less used to moving with the "sitting" action of the backward step.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 04:35 PM

I would instead describe the forward action as commencing below the knee, with substantial separation of the upper legs occuring only later.

I've tried to interpret my instructions very literally and and I see what you mean - If I take my description very literally and attempt it inorganically, then I do see the toppling you mentioned.

I would have you try to walk normally, and realize that you don't stand and keep your femur back like that. The ankle and knee articulation that happen when you walk happen during the action I was trying to describe. The action really is just an exaggerated form of walking.

After reading what you said about the action commencing beneath the knee, I imagine that we're doing the same thing or something similar, but using different terminology to describe it.

I didn't mention what happens beneath the knee, because it doesn't really differ much from walking - I was focusing on the main difference, which is controlling substantial bodyweight over the femur for an extended period of time. While in walking, we just have a gentle stride that doesn't require such control - the weight just sort of rolls through.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 04:42 PM

Chris, I'm not quite clear whether you are saying that, because of biology, a backward step will always be larger and stronger than a forward step. That is, would the "ideally conditioned and trained" dancer still have a longer, stronger backward step?

Or are you saying that most of us come into dance with muscle development that makes the backward step more efficient sooner than a forward step? In the latter case, that might not be true for everyone; for example, someone with a lot of ballet training may have the foot strength for a forward step but be less used to moving with the "sitting" action of the backward step.

That's (the latter) exactly what I'm wondering / what I imagine might be true...

laylamah

06-28-2010, 04:44 PM

It might also be interesting to ask the following: why are forward inline, natural cbm descents from foot closure nearly extinct for the taller partner, but retained for the shorter? I would maintain its because this is a very weak action when your forward reach is limited and you are largely confined to a forward kneeling descent, so its retained only for the partner who has room for their leg and license to keep their upper body lagging back for a longer period of balance.

You've got me there - I've got no clue - I don't (yet) know that much history of what people used to dance compared to what they dance today and why. I would have to guess to attempt to answer your question, so I'm not even going to touch it. :)

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 04:57 PM

Figures where the man lowers forward from closure are still taught to and used by beginners, but seem almost universally abandoned thereafter - presumably because they don't work as well.

laylamah

06-28-2010, 05:08 PM

Figures where the man lowers forward from closure are still taught to and used by beginners, but seem almost universally abandoned thereafter - presumably because they don't work as well.

Which figures have this?

Chris Stratton

06-28-2010, 05:27 PM

456 of the natural turn and the left foot closed change end with the challenge of trying to create a full downswing from closure. Its not as much of an issue for the reverse cases given the offset and generally smaller expectation of subsequent swing.

Warren J. Dew

06-29-2010, 05:36 PM

In the natural turn in Waltz, I'm easily able to go between 6" to 1' farther forward than backwards.

This is a red herring. The technique of the waltz natural turn is designed to cut movement for the backwards traveling partner, to allow the forward travelling partner to pass.

Chris Stratton

06-29-2010, 05:59 PM

Warren J. Dew

06-29-2010, 06:06 PM

Chris, I'm not quite clear whether you are saying that, because of biology, a backward step will always be larger and stronger than a forward step. That is, would the "ideally conditioned and trained" dancer still have a longer, stronger backward step?
Even world champions are rarely perfectly conditioned and trained for ballroom.

For those who are conditioned and trained for ballroom, but less than perfectly, a backward step can be longer because while they'll be able to do both a full heel lead going foward and a full toe release going backwards, they'll only be able to do a full toe lead going backward, and not a full heel release going forward. The lack of a heel release to full ankle extension and ideal toe flexion limits the length of the forward stride.

The forward heel release is more difficult than the backward toe lead because the forward action uses the flexor hallucis and flexor digitorum muscles in contraction, while the backward action uses those muscles opposing extension. Muscles are not as strong in contraction as they are opposing extension.

In contrast, most dancers who are reasonably conditioned in ballroom will have a strong enough tibialis anticus muscles to do a full toe release going backwards, as well as to do a full heel lead going forward.

Or are you saying that most of us come into dance with muscle development that makes the backward step more efficient sooner than a forward step? In the latter case, that might not be true for everyone; for example, someone with a lot of ballet training may have the foot strength for a forward step but be less used to moving with the "sitting" action of the backward step.
Since ballet emphasizes ankle extension but not ankle flexion, some ballet dancers might have insufficiently developed tibialis anticus muscles to take a proper toe release going backward, which would indeed shorten the backward step. With adequate ballroom training, this deficiency should be corrected.

Warren J. Dew

06-29-2010, 06:09 PM

Pass when?

I think that depends on if you are cbm into 1 style, or if you wait until after the end of 1 to rotate the side into advance (at which point its no longer literally cbm)

Edit: actually, not sure that matters - in either case I'm not seeing a role for a stride differential between partners on 1 - if theres passing it would only be from the side in advance.

I was reading laylamah to mean the entire forward or backward half of the waltz natural turn. If she's only talking about step 1 or 4, then I agree with you, though body inclination can be used to encourage the forward moving partner to take a longer step.