Discussion in 'Videos' started by Musique, Mar 18, 2008.
Thanks Musique. These are great!
It was good to see Richard again ( Gleave )-- he was so far ahead of that group in style and execution, and Janet was one of the best ever " ladies " .
# 31-- The techn.in the W was pretty bad .--- didnt even look at their other dances--
Gleaves just captivate .
That was the 7th yr of 8, they went un defeated .
I guess there was no way to hide bad foot work in those days.
awesome! the dresses made my day...
What number are the Gleaves, 11?
# 10--- also on the tapes Hilliers and Barr-- the Jap. couple I believe are the Tanakas .
I gave a further look and noticed some really fundamental faults ( and this at World level ! )
Compare Richards leg ronde to another couple shortly after- the Caddillac and the VW .
Tanakas are much younger, they're the 90's competitors. I have no idea who that Japanese couple is, but I thought they looked rather nice.
I was very impressed. Even it's 30 years ago, the look & action would still be very competitive by today's standard (esp. when they pan the camera from far, the movement was huge & smooth!) The puffy dresses were funny Ya, better have nice legs & feet!
Help! The giant mushrooms are attacking the men!
There is more than one Tanaka !!
The puffy dresses as you call them stand out because of the 20 plus yds of net underneath-- trying to get in front of your partner took a degree in engineering !!
To those of us on the West Coast...
Please notice Stephen Cullip as one of the competitors (he is I think 3rd from the end in the by country introduction), dancing with Rita. There is a nice quickstep sequence that is shown in the first clip with them in it - enjoyed seeing him on the competition floor...
And as for getting in dance position - the ladies had to part their dresses to allow for body connection, is that correct? Not entirely certain how to take dance position otherwise....
Now that you mentioned & I went back to watching the clip, John Kimmins was right before Stephen Cullip!
His dad and I were very good friends and he competed in a comp. that I ran in nyc in 1964 ( their 1st in the US. )
Please show the source of these videos!
Thank you for copying the vids that I've placed on Youtube. I've done this with the intention to please people.
What I feel is disappointing is that you do not mention the source, and by this willingly or unwillingly keep all the comments watchers make for yourself.
So please be as kind as to refer to where you've copied the videos from!
Many thanks for your cooperation
Nice video. Some very nice dancing ... I think I like it better than most of what I see today.
#13 is Honda, #14 is Nakagawa; I don't think there's anyone named Tanaka out there. I don't see the Hilliers, and I would have thought the English would have been limited to two couples?
Do you like it better than Mirko and Alessia, Arunas and Katusha, Jonathan and Hazel, Timothy and Joanne, Domenico and Gioia, and Victor and Anna? As those are the couples that would be dancing in a world final today..
With the Gleaves, I really think there's no comparison. Granted, the Gleaves were at their peak at the time of that video, and most of the couples you name still have quite a few years of improvement to go, but the size of the gap makes me think there's something wrong with the approach people are taking today.
I like both of the Japanese couples, one of the German couples and Vicki Barr - Michael seems a bit off in that video - better than the last time I saw most of the couples you mention. I would note, though that I haven't seen those most of those couples in a couple of years - I haven't seen Jonathan with Hazel at all - so they might have improved since then. Still, I saw Mirko and Alessia as recently as a year ago, and I don't think I'd put them in the top half of a final drawn from that video.
I don't know; I guess I like to see heel leads from all the ladies in tango, not just some of them, and the preferred error of today - painfully arched backs - bothers me more than the moderate amount of turnout that seems to have been the error of the day at the time of the video.
Couples on these videos are great, the dancing looks elegant, easy and perfect. The biggest difference with how people dance today i think is the dynamics and choreography. The choreography today is much louder, and much more difficult.
Of course if i do nothing i make no mistakes. The more difficult is the thing i want to do the more room is there for imperfections. Does this mean i should do nothing? or does it mean, i should go for it if in my opinion the goal is worth the risk? besides maintaining dance position, and making sure they have the heel leads, couples today do so much more.
regarding the gap in level, i just don't see it... in my opinion this is a ridiculous opinion. The dancing may look different, but that doesn't mean it is not as good. According to what criteria? Do you know that Gleaves are coaches for Mirko and Alessia and many other top dancers..
I see that the main problem with your approach is that instead of looking for what couples can do, you seem to be looking for mistakes (as defined by you). I am pretty sure all of those technical things are there for the purpose of achieving a better connection, quality of movement, musicality and space. those are the main things to look at and judge.
and which top lady has a "painfully arched back"? I cannot think of one.
Looking for " mistakes " as you put it, is what is necessary in finals where technique may be the only defining factor .
Of course, we do weigh all the " ingredients ", and remember... judging is opinion based on current standards .
Interesting observation..... there are many of us "older " coaches and dancers, who would agree in principle .
We all agree, that certain technical changes had to be made to fit the current style. having said that, has the " style " departed too far off the tracks ?.
Scrivener always believed ( and many others ) that simplicity ( NOT simple movements necessarily ) was
the key to the execution of great movement .
The comment that was made about the content being more difficult, obviously never saw Fryer do Q/step and I could name others who included remarkable control and precision with very complex material.
My q would be more this...... how would todays " crop " fare in the company of Binnick , Irvine, Eggleton , Scrivener,
Burgess, Fryer, et al ?? .
A difficult Q to answer unless one had witnessed all of them at the peak of their career . ( which I did )
Lastly... as to heel leads in Tango ; thats not even close to its also current form of a F/trot appearance to Tango music ( ya know, the swing ,swing look in the stride on occasion, and little if any stillness )
Actually, I strongly suspect that many of these things would, in the abstract, be rated as mistakes by their coaches, too.
Perhaps not the highest priority mistakes, but mistakes still.
When I've watched someone like Vicki Barr work with high placing US couples, she spends a lot of time drilling them in things I first heard from people like Warren, as a bronze beginner. There are some things like footwork that seem to make a lot of difference at the start of the journey and at the end, but tend to fall out of concern in favor of more "overall affect" issues for the middle ranks.
Separate names with a comma.