Discussion in 'Tango Argentino' started by Mario7, May 6, 2010.
Shrug...didn't help me.
God, I've been gone a year and things are still the same. Though why I should be surprised I don't know.
In a lot of these discussions I just want to say, listen to Zoops and Peaches and just shut the f up.
Larry Carroll - L. de Los Angeles
Seriously! The guy's chest is blocking everything.
Are you trying to say that sharing weight is impossible if you are alone, and that this walk is someway different than natural walk of a single human?
In this case I agree, but it doesn't mean wrong...
tango with titles..and change of embrace!
[yt]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VyIytLlm5Oo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VyIytLlm5Oo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]
Yes, all my posts on the topic are based on the distinction between sharing weight at the torso's level and leaning with the whole body. If you don't get (or accept) this distinction, there is no way to understand what I'm saying.
And yes, there is always a shared (through the hold weight) in open embrace, it's not much usually but it's there. For some bizarre reason, for a lot of people shared weight means " a lot of shared weight".
Still, there is a purely geometric explanation why constant uniform lean from the ankles is incompatible with any decent human walk which I hope will be clear for everyone. It consists of the following picture:
Explanation: These are the two legs of a human being in the middle of a step. While making a step the angle which your leg forms with the ground changes from obtuse to acute. To be even more explicit , in the symbol above the angle at the front leg is acute and the angle at the back leg is obtuse. Obviously that fact of life is not compatible with the idea that one leans forward from the ankles above uniformly. The only way to achieve something like that would be to try to step with knees bent at constant angle throughout the step , a rather ugly sight, which I hope no one is advocating
Now if you tell me that by a constant lean forward from the ankles you mean something else (something metaphorical perhaps ?) you'll have to tell me what precisely (in terms of mechanics and anatomy) you mean and then I could comment on that and even apologize for taking your statements too literally...
Consider these facts:
when we step forward the leg bends at the knee,
the foot is also "hinged" at the ankle
and the pelvis rises and falls as we walk, too.
Although the "milongeuro walk" is rather "stiff legged", ther eis some beding at the knee.
When the real world shows that something is indeed possible, the model that predicts that it is impossible needs, at the very least, some refining.
(I remember someone arguing that recovering a population once it had dropped to a certain level was not possible, as shown by his/their model. This came after presentations by people who HAD in fact dome what his model said coulnd't be done. Sadly, the conference organizers weren't wise enough to see that the model had problems, and basically talked down anyone who argued with them.)
Have you run the numbers on how much lean is needed to "share" x amount of weight? Even with that information in hand, you still have to consider how much "unsupported" lean is possible. How do we add "toe strength" and leverage to this model? I think we would find that the "real" unsupported" angle is not that great, and could reasonably be made up by action in the knees and pelvis.
This distinction is not making any sense to me at all. Could you, please, explain further.
If you are talking about one individual maintaining a lean such as that and moving then, yes, I would imagine it to be quite difficult.
If, however, you're still thinking about the original exercise you proposed, whereby one person leans forward over the balls of their feet (but still able to stand up and support themselves), then you are still incorrect. This is entirely possible and done all the time.
If, as your diagram seems to suggest, you are talking about the style of dance generally referred to as "apilado," where both partners are sharing weight, and have a shared axis between them, and neither can stay upright without counter-pressure from their partner...well, again you are wrong. That is exactly what apilado is, and the diagram, if I had to make one, would be much like what you've shown. Again, it is entirely possible for two people, together, to walk like that.
Is something being lost in translation?
Hmmm, I have to agree with 'peaches':shock:..And even though I've only been dancing 2 1/2 yrs...my best, unforgettable dances were all those as described above...I can't understand why this configuration is so hated by many forum posters, but yes, I do live in a Hollywood movie and yes, they are the bad guys......(Where's the cowboy ikon when you need it?)
Once on this forum, someone used the shape of the eifel tower to descripe the posture of close embrache. This has been the best metaphor I’ve encountered so far. This exactly describes what I think to have recogniesed by all the oldtimers. A lean from the ankels and than a backwards correction at the hips to keep the torso straight upward. This way the bodies have a big comfortable area of contact and no doward force is exerted – walking works like a charm. Everybody may try this, taking a small step back and than leaning against a wall. There is no better alternative.
Leaning with a rigid body from the ankles into an upside down “V” is desirable for some effects but is not a very comfortable position to maintain a whole night. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to walk in this position, otherwise nobody would ever get out of a volcada.
Leaning only from the hips is a funny European misinterpretation – don’t know, maybe some Americans do it too – as it results in sticking out one’s behind. Further, bending over - even slightly - will result in an back ache when maintained over any longer period. Nevertheless, there is a marvelous appliance of this posture in this ingenious choreography:
I think specific configuration of the torsos depends a little on partner height and physical fitness too. I was taught not to lean back, but rather to bend at the ankles then lift up with my core until it feels like I am supporting my partner. I have no clue what it actually looks like, whether my torso is upright or forward. maybe I'll get someone to record me someday... or perhaps I'm better off not knowing. Heh.
Are you a man or a woman? It would help to know. Maybe you could change your ikon to give us a hint?
Thanks for bringing this up.
Yes, Americans do it, too.
If you work with a teacher long enough, I'd say you should be corrected periodically.
(Before there was video there were mirrors in studios, too!)
Yes, you don't bend forward at the hips.
The knees are "softened" to allow the forward "lean" along wih the "bending" forward at the ankles.
The stick figure model is very much a simplification of the reality, really an abstract. Sometimes simple models can make a thing easier to understand, and sometimes they are taken too literally.
Yes, there is. A lot. Especially considering that you haven't even bothered to read my post till the end and have directly proceeded with the standard vague mantras
If you read my post you'll see that the "/\" doesn't refer to to two people leaning against each other but to the legs of one person being in mid-stride.
After all, yet again an illusion?
Actually I did read your posts in their entirety. Doesn't mean I don't miss some points, but I did read them. And I still maintain my position...that it is possible to walk in a leaning-type configuration. Hell, that the diagram refers only to the legs makes even more sense (even though it was in no way clear in your original post), given that torsos are smooshed together and upright.
So, again, will you please explain your distinction between sharing weight at the torso level and leaning with your whole body. Because, otherwise, I stand by my position that you are, in fact, incorrect.
I'm glad that you confirm my point. A posture which is not good for the whole night, is not good also for half of the night, for quarter of the night, etc., and is potentially harmful physically. And getting out of a volcada is getting out of this posture so it is certainly possible.
Leaning from the hips means leaning from the center of mass of one's whole body because that's where the center is. And I totally agree that this is a bad idea and that one of the consequences might be bending at the waist level which leads to a quite awkward posture. Another consequence might be trying to keep the whole body rigidly leaning which is physically harmful. The goal in this case is, strictly speaking, impossible, as I explained above.
Leaning from the torso's center however is perfectly fine and it doesn't require any bending at the waist level. Why? Well, let me recall, in case you have forgotten, that human spine is S-shaped, so it's natural for the chest to be forward.
Peaches, I totally respect your desire to disagree with things you don't understand but my philosophy of life is slightly different...
You have misunderstood me, sir.
My understanding of what you have written directly contradicts what I have been taught and what I understand to be true.
My question, therefore, given your tenacious insistence on the veracity of your statements, is if there has been something lost in the communication somewhere. Print is, after all, a significantly less-than-perfect medium for communicating about dance.
In an attempt figure out just where this disagreement is coming from, I am asking you, once again (for the third time), to explain what you mean by "the distinction between sharing weight at the torso's level and leaning with the whole body."
Wait wait wait.
So you don't bend at the ankles.
So you don't bend at the hips.
You bend at the torso?! The hips and ankles are natural hinges... bending at the ankles is certainly possible, I freakin do it every time I go out dancing. Bending at the hips is possible, but uncomfortable. Bending at the torso... the spine is certainly flexible, but to get the right amount of lean would require collapsing the chest and hunching forward. Definitely not natural or comfortable. The most "natural" and comfortable position for the spine is straightened, with support by the surrounding muscles. You have to bend SOMEWHERE to get the space for your feet. Where are you bending?
I've been trying to understand what you've been trying to say about the torso. I still don't quite understand your description. Would you happen to have a picture? Perhaps a video?
Separate names with a comma.