Closed Position - The Point of Connection

I am breaking this off into a new thread:

Quoting smoothdancinggal:

Usually I say swing the leg through keeping the torso connected.

Click to expand...

How do you go about deciding the place where the torsos should connect in closed position?

I've heard many differing views on this and I am curious what people think on this subject. I know one mistake I made in the past was trying to connect too much through the lower torso and this really limited leg movement. I'm guessing it's somewhere between the chest and the hips.

Usually my instuctor connects around the bottom of the rib cage, and way off to my right. I believe her center lines up with my right post. Unfortunately, keeping the follow where she's supposed to be is really difficult, if your frame starts to contract even in the least, she'll start to slide in front of you. This happens a lot on figures that turn substantially. And worse yet, sometimes you're actually supposed to roll her along your ribcage (this kind of action happens slightly when you take her to promenade, or in a wing or hover cross maneuver.) All the while, every single lead has to be generated from contractions and isometrics within the body and powered through the legs and feet.

I know Tango is different, but I haven't danced it at a high enough level to appreciate the differences. I know there are more thigh connections in Tango.

Well tradintionally each dance has a somewhat different partner relationship including the closed position connection. The American and International Ballroom dance styles tend to lean towards similar posture and holds for all dances in the same stylistic category... but msc's description is in keepping with what I learned for most of the American smooth dances (not that I have any skill, but just what I was shown).

Also keep in mind that there will be variance depending on the two bodies in question...no two will line up on each other identically. As far as a general rule I find that its around my theird rib from the bottom, on my right post where the body contact is centered. Also, mirroring msc, the tango I have learned does involve contact down through the thighs, usually to the knees (just as d'nice says though, doesn't mean I can do it...just that that's what I've been shown).

I love tango! I think it's going to end up being my best smooth dance. When I do it, people always compliment me on my "tango attitude", whatever that means. Now, if only I could get that staccato stalking action with the feet and legs!

Anyway, yes, tango is different. There's a closer embrace at the top, and it often feels like legs legs are embraced, as well. Lots of contact from the ribs all the way down through the knees, as you say, SD. And that's how you feel the body leads so well. I actually find it easier to follow tango for this reason. You can literally feel the other person's body, where with other dances, if your arms get in the way (which mine still sometimes tend to do :cry: ) it's easy to miss leads.

Oh my goodness. The things you find by doing a few web searches on google.

Don't want to get off on a tangent, semantics-wise, but perhaps for the sake of clarity, we should talk about dance positions and what they are. I was checking out a few ballroom websites and found two different definitions for closed position. One for smooth/standard, which includes body contact and one for rhythm/Latin, which does not (except for some in bolero). One of the web sites is here:

http://www.ballroomdancers.com/Learning_Center/Technique/Dance_Positions/Default.asp

This is also distinct from the not-really-a dance-position teaching technique of holding a new student learning smooth/standard in a more rhythm/Latin-type hold -- in close proximity, but not in body contact.

Sorry. That's my last digression into the hopelessly technical for today! :lol:

just my two cents

Click to expand...

Larinda, that was an awesome post!
and it's worth far more than two cents! :lol:
I really like the whole concept of the dynamic point of contact and I'll be thinking about it for some time.

Thanks again,
David

Great post Larinda, thanks!

It also reminds me of Luca and Loren Baricchi's lecture at this year's congress at Blackpool – they were emphasizing the concept of dynamic as opposed to static balance, a point that seems to articulate well with the shifting points of contact that you are mentioning.

the concept of dynamic as opposed to static balance

Click to expand...

Haven't heard this one. Would you elaborate a little, SD?

Larinda-
To shift focus a little, I'ver heard two different ideas about the supplied power of a step. The classic Standard approach is that the individual moving forward supplies the drive, the individual in the backing position remains forward poised and uses the drive of the "lead" to further open the back stride. On the other hand, I know of at least one very, very prominant Smooth couple that teaches that the backing individual supplies the power, and the individual stepping forward simply steps into the gap vacated by the dancer moving backwards.

Which approach do you and Steven take, and why?

msc said:

the concept of dynamic as opposed to static balance

Click to expand...

Haven't heard this one. Would you elaborate a little, SD?

Click to expand...

Will do msc. I'm just a bit swamped at the moment but will make a point of getting around to this this weekend.

Here's something else. What if the man indicates with his upper body the magnitude and direction of the movement he thinks is best for the couple, waits for the woman to move, and follows the woman? Yes, follows the woman. He leads, he follows, but above all, he indicates. He suggests and invites the movement of the lady with rhythm forward, left, right or backward. Let's face it. It is very complicated just to walk together with a partner. This a compromise in our way of thinking of leading and following.

LOL. I didn't mean to go into macho/control areas, but that was good. Anyway I prefer that the person going forward supply the drive, for several reasons.

First, to me, the human body has more translational power in a forward sense. Sprinters sprint forwards, baseball players turn around and run forwards on deep fly balls, basketball players aren't supposed to backpedal, but rather turn around and run down the court. So I really can't agree with you there, until I see sprinters backpedaling across the finish line. From a dance perspective, I find it awfully difficult to maintain a forward poise (in either Standard or Latin) and move backwards with any stride. This means that if I'm backing into a weave, or a backwards rumba walk, I have to be able to count on the follow to supply the drive, and I have to be able to absorb that energy and use it to open my stride. That doesn't mean that I supply no power, but that my ability to supply power with that shaping is limited. And in my experience, even relatively slight women have the capacity to drive me backwards (I weigh 180-185 lbs,) so I doubt it's a problem for some of the powerhouses one sees on the competition floor.

Second, it's hard to keep your centers joined if the person backing up pulls away. It usually creates a slinky effect, where there's suddenly a lot of "daylight" between middles, then suddenly they close again. Now for Smooth, that's maybe not such a big deal, I don't know, but for Standard that's not so good.

Third, and this is more subtle, but if I try to pull the lady, generally I arrive over my back foot too quickly, and my hip sort of pops back. That creates a somewhat ungainly stop to the motion, rather than the flowing appearance usually desired in the swing dances.

Of course, this ignores the power dynamic of turns, which is totally different.

Anyway this is not to say that I think there is no value to the new approach. Certainly, if I go to a local studio party, I often have no choice but to pull the follow, as social dancers rarely have the instincts to drive aggressively forward (probably because most leads would complain vociferously if they did.) And I realize that perhaps one could apply this model to higher levels, but IMO that just means the lead isn't supplying enough forward drive and isn't sensitive enough to the forward drive of the follow in the backing position. So basically it's the guy's fault

Yeah, MSC. I guess what you say makes more sense, but every time I think of it, I hear my inner Cro Magnon say, "Me lead. You follow."

Well, that's a problem in the ballroom world, Will, no doubt. It's amazing some of the, uhh, stuff, competitive ballroom follows have to put upwith.

Ultimatley we dont care about a forward poise from me. It is very contradictory to me to go backwards and keep seding my upperbody forward. I can't go in two directions at the same time, so in the end if I try that I stiffle my movement. We will cover way more territory if we all are moving all of our energy the same direction as each. I just try to keep my body in the correct shape, and we both try to maintain a consistent field of connection and contact. If I we gape then there are other problems that need to be fixed.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. There is no way to travel across the floor and try to have a poise that contradicts that motion. I believe that changes in the connection become much more subtle when you have been dancing for a long time. Newton's Law can come into affect here. Objects in motion remain in motion. Think of a shopping cart. It takes a small amount of force to get it moving, but then you don't need to push at all to keep it moving.