I know that a cross can be led from almost any position, and that, with skill, can seem to be created out of almost nothing. (I can't do it, but I accept that more experienced leaders can). I think I know that the follower never crosses (indepentantly), but that the cross is created by the leader. The follower 'crosses' because it is where her moving foot ends up in the position in which she finds herself. It is natural, comfortable and easy. Not to cross would be unnatural, uncomfortable and difficult.
with you so far. (although there are those who say the follower should cross as a default unless prevented... I am NOT one of those people)
The easiest position from which to lead a cross is in a series of walking steps, and if we took steps 345 from the dreaded 8CB, we have follower walking back LRL, but she finds that on the last step, her natural backward walk has led her to take one foot over the other into the cruzada. But she just walked backwards, and the idea of stepping diagonally never presented itself.
Well, she isn't
thinking about stepping diagonally, true. She is thinking of stepping back. But the path on the floor that her foot takes ends up being diagonal (slightly, but diagonal, nonetheless)
But this raises the question.. are we talking about diagonal to the line of dance or diagonal to her pelvis? In the case of the side,back,back,cross walk, something somewhere is going to be diagonal to her pelvis, and unless some of it is also diagonal to the line of dance, the couple will migrate to the center of the room rather than remain in their lane.
So what made the follower cross in the typical setup found in the 8CB? The most obvious answer, to me, was that if the movement was taught IN the 8CB, she crossed because the teacher told her to. All the ladies have just spent three minutes dancing those 8 steps solo to the teacher's count, and they are about to come together and find that they can dance tango - viola!
yep... too often true! haha
But seriously, why does the follower cross? I looked at the structure of the 8CB, and having missed out the backstep, took the sidestep to my left, a little wider than my partner, and with a fair bit of body rotation to my right, and then led her back by stepping forward with a marked left side lead from my own torso, while moving straight down the line of dance. I put a little additional acceleration into my fourth step (LF), slightly disturbing my partner's balance, and then as I moved to my own close, hopefully communicating a cessation of forward intention together with the reversal of my initial body rotation, my partner took the opportunity to recover her own balance by the cruzada. I set it up: she just stepped back. But it was back - not consciously diagonal, and had it not been for that rotation, led while her foot was in movement, the feet would have passed, and we would have carried on down the floor.
Or would we?
ok... first of all, I agree with Peaches that there is no imbalance specific to this step. You could say that EVERY step involves a change in balance because the weight changes to the other foot. If the follower just stood there, yes, she'd be off balance while the leader goes about the lead. But she moves to stay with him and therefore remains on balance (unless they are sharing.. let's not go there for the purpose of this discussion) So cruzada is no more off balance than any other step. They all involve her keeping her balance by moving where she's led.
What
does happen is that if she is led to cross and she resists crossing, she will find she can't balance and have to get to the cross to get back on balance. It's possible that as you learned to lead this step and danced with followers who were not yet following it smoothly, you felt this "lost/regained" balance. But it is not permanently inherent in the step, it's just part of the learning process for followers.
Now.. on to the real question... when it works, why does she cross? What you say is pretty much how I teach it: Body rotation in order to maintain a connection when stepping "outside partner" and a return of the rotation helps send the follower to the cross because it also brings the follower back in front of the leader (eliminating the outside partner walk) However, I disagree that no diagonal in the path of her foot travel is involved. (see above)
If she needs to be consciously thinking "diagonal" for it to qualify as a diagonal, that's a rather odd requirement. Even in a traveling crossed ocho, she should be reaching her leg straight
back from her pelvis not diagonally to it. However, due to the
leader's slight diagonal movement, the actual landing point of her foot, as determined by where he takes her, will be
diagonal to her pelvis. If it isn't, she's no longer connected squarely to him directly in front. She reaches straight back because she can't know until he places her how diagonal he will take her. If she reached diagonally, she would be anticipating the placement of her foot and might have to adjust.
In other words, she reaches
straight back but he
places her so that she lands diagonally. If she kept her front foot on the floor (basically stopping mid-step) you would see that her legs are actually
both diagonal to her pelvis when her foot gets placed. HOW diagonal depends on how he places her.
Two other points (which relate to each other):
Whether or not you cease the forward movement as she crosses depends on whether you are walking in parallel or crossfeet. You can walk her right through the cross without slowing or changing the forward movement
Two: Yes, if you rotate to get to outside partner walking and you remain rotated, you will just keep walking down the floor outside of her without her crossing. In fact, doing this is a good exercise for both the leader and the follower.
So the point is: It's the change in upper body rotation that gets her to walk to the cross. The presence or absence of forward momentum is not the key.
