Close embrace

[UKDancer]

The line formed by the foot's path is diagonal to the line of the pelvis at SOME point in the walk to the cross.

Most steps could be said to be diagonal, on that basis. Several reputable published authors (David Turner, Christine Deniston & others) would say that backward walks are, effectively, taken on one track, not two, requiring every step to be diagonal to a small degree, but we would not generally think of them in that way, even if such a movement satisfied a 'dictionary definition' of the word.

Perhaps you should address your own rhetorical quotation : what IS diagonal? I originally cited Ballroom technique as saying that it is as much to the side as forward or back (ie 45 degrees to the reference line, whatever it is). I accept that such a definition doesn't 'rule' here, but goodness, neither does the personal view of any individual poster who wishes to tell me off for my impertinence (and that is not a reference to you) ...

The dictionary is clear. Diagonal is a straight line between the opposite corners of any rectangular shape, so the angle can be anything between a tiny fraction more than 0, or a tiny fraction less than 90. That isn't terribly helpful.

 

[Lilly_of_the_valley]

In other words, why can't you actually EXPLAIN any of this instead of telling us over and over to watch this person or that person and then call us disabled that we can't see it ourselves?

Could it be because a constructive discussion was not on the OP agenda to begin with?

 

[Lilly_of_the_valley]

So much for THAT resolve.

There is nothing wrong with giving people a benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ampster]

Originally Posted by Ampster
Do you have a video of yourself demonstrating it as you say it should be? You're very vocal about it. So I assume you can demonstrate it to us? You describe it as if your such an expert. Show us, please. I want to see you do it.

If you can't post a video, send the links to me and I'll post them for you.

I appreciate but no need for that. Look at Homer doing then Murat. See the differences? I'm not talking about style or physical attributes. Just focus on the movements of the legs relatively to the pelvis.

I saw them both. They are both fundamentally correct with style differences.

Why don't you show us with a video of yourself instead? It is hard enough to write about dancing and leads to much misunderstanding, if not written right.

If you can show us with your own video how it's supposed to be done, then maybe it will explain your position better. You have such an expert opinion that I'm sure you can practice what you preach. So please, show me.

I'll post the link for you...

 

[UKDancer]

Well, from someone who thinks that in standard dances the leg is not to be moved before the body, I think I have no lessons to take from you. And if you're tired of debating, why are you back again and again?

Wish you good afternoon.

Oh good!

But by the way, I'll be back for just as many times an aspect of this discussion hold my interest, and while anyone wants to debate/discuss with me. Dave Bailey raised an interesting point about diagonal movement, and I'm afraid that it has not been your rather eccentric contributions that have prompted me to post here at all.

 

[Shaka]

What mind-boggling arrogance!

You are right, but you don't have to explain CLEARLY because WE are incapable of understanding? The ENTIRE Argentine Tango Forum?

Guess it's not a language barrier after all.. you're just unable to do anything but repeat and/or contradict yourself. (so now Christina is doing them wrong too? You use her as an example and when I talk about how she proves my point, you backtrack? You should be a politician!)

I'm a polite guy. Do I have to tell you that you were first to be disrespectful? "Arrogance", "arrogance" again and again, don't you have objective arguments to oppose? I don't mind about insults but I answer to them. We can share opinions in a polite way between ladies and gentlemen but it's sad that it wasn't the way you chose.

Have a nice day (and I'm sincere about it).

 

[dchester]

So much for THAT resolve.

It's sort of like the Jerry Springer Show. You know you shouldn't be watching, but it's so ridiculous, it becomes rather funny to watch. It's one thing to have style preferences, but quite another to just come out and flatly state well established things as wrong. She's already been put in checkmate by Temza (and others), but she fails to acknowledge it, and she still keeps stepping into it and acting like it smells good.

At least you have to admire her resolve.

 

[Zoopsia59]

Perhaps you should address your own rhetorical quotation : what IS diagonal?

I did, didn't I? That was why I made that post.

I originally cited Ballroom technique as saying that it is as much to the side as forward or back (ie 45 degrees to the reference line, whatever it is). I accept that such a definition doesn't 'rule' here, but goodness, neither does the personal view of any individual poster who wishes to tell me off for my impertinence ...

Did I do that? If so, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I was not trying to tell you off, I was trying to point out that we may not all mean the same thing by diagonal. If diagonal means 45* to some, and anything less (more?) is forward or back, then we are not using the term the same way. If direction relates to the LOD and not angle to the pelvis, then people are clearly talking about two different things. I'm just trying to clear up misunderstandings based on use of the words rather than our views of technique.

The dictionary is clear. Diagonal is a straight line between the opposite corners of any rectangular shape, so the angle can be anything between a tiny fraction more than 0, or a tiny fraction less than 90. That isn't terribly helpful.

My point exactly. That's why saying things like "Never step diagonally" doesn't make much sense. (not that you said that.. it was someone else, I believe )

 

[Zoopsia59]

I'm a polite guy. Do I have to tell you that you were first to be disrespectful?.

You really don't see how your VERY FIRST POST was disrespectful?

 

[Shaka]

I saw them both. They are both fundamentally correct with style differences.

Thank you Ampster. I now understand why people do wrong. That will be something I have to make my partners focus on. I'm glad I had that discussion.

Have a nice day too

 

[dchester]

I'm a polite guy.

Do I have to tell you that you were first to be disrespectful? "Arrogance", "arrogance" again and again, don't you have objective arguments to oppose? I don't mind about insults but I answer to them. We can share opinions in a polite way between ladies and gentlemen but it's sad that it wasn't the way you chose.

Have a nice day (and I'm sincere about it).

I know I shouldn't ask, but what made you think your first post was not arrogant and disrespectful (BTW, also, whiny and preachy)?

 

[UKDancer]

I did, didn't I? That was why I made that post. )

No, I don't think you did: which was why I took the question to be rhetorical. Perhaps I misunderstood your intention (followers do that with me all the time, and it's usually my fault).

As I understand what you said, you are of the school that holds any deviation from 'straight' is diagonal, which while being strictly true, isn't very useful on its own...

Did I do that? If so, I didn't mean for it to sound that way.

No, you didn't. I realised after I posted that I might be misinterpreted, and edited my post after you started your reply. I always meant someone else.

My point exactly. That's why saying things like "Never step diagonally" doesn't make much sense. (not that you said that.. it was someone else, I believe )

No I don't think I did ever say that (or if I did, I didn't mean it in an absolute sense). But forward or backward are not the only alternatives to diagonal, even on my normal usage of the word (which is 45 degrees to the reference line), because there are all the points in between. I think all I really have to say (but have taken a great many words to express) is that the diagonal component of a step into a cross is so small a part of the whole movement, that it is not particularly helpful to think of the step as being predominantly diagonal.

I haven't really anything to add, so perhaps it's time to just let the topic drop. The thread doesn't really deserve to be kept alive, even if off topic (although I thought it a valiant attempt to take it there...)

 

[Shaka]

Most steps could be said to be diagonal, on that basis. Several reputable published authors (David Turner, Christine Deniston & others) would say that backward walks are, effectively, taken on one track, not two, requiring every step to be diagonal to a small degree, but we would not generally think of them in that way, even if such a movement satisfied a 'dictionary definition' of the word.

Perhaps you should address your own rhetorical quotation : what IS diagonal? I originally cited Ballroom technique as saying that it is as much to the side as forward or back (ie 45 degrees to the reference line, whatever it is). I accept that such a definition doesn't 'rule' here, but goodness, neither does the personal view of any individual poster who wishes to tell me off for my impertinence (and that is not a reference to you) ...

The dictionary is clear. Diagonal is a straight line between the opposite corners of any rectangular shape, so the angle can be anything between a tiny fraction more than 0, or a tiny fraction less than 90. That isn't terribly helpful.

I appreciate that kind of sharing. I can be rude to rudeness but I'm usually an open-minded guy. So don't take it too personnaly if I'm rude in my words.

I think we're confusing about diagonal patterns and diagonal movements of the legs.

 

[UKDancer]

...I think we're confusing about diagonal patterns and diagonal movements of the legs.

I think you are confused, full stop.

...and I really haven't anything to add, and will leave it there.

 

[Zoopsia59]

don't you have objective arguments to oppose? .

I have written quite a few posts objectively responding to yours. I have also asked you specific and direct questions that you chose to ignore and never answered. Others have as well.

Instead you call us disabled (colorblind) and insist that the problem is that we aren't capable of understanding, as a way for you to avoid actually explaining clearly.

You deflect, repeat and then contradict yourself. You make references to how your posts have brought to light other people's errors of technique without knowing anything about how anyone here dances or referencing whose technique needed (and gained) improvement through your posts.

You consistently refuse to give us examples of what you think is correct method, going so far as to backtrack when your example (Christina) is used as proof of other's points. Requests for you to better explain or illustrate what you mean are answered by continued references to the 2 videos already posted (changing your tune on Christina midway) and your all too frequent excuse that you can't explain to people who can't see.

There are MANY ways in which you have not been polite, gentlemanly, clear with your explanations, or even consistent.

If you want to clear this all up, I suggest you start by answering the direct questions already put to you.

Or, as so many have requested, send us to a link of you demonstrating how it should be done. There's limited value in seeing how it SHOULDN"T be done, so pointing out videos that are wrong is not enough. Teachers don't show their students only the wrong way and expect them to figure out the right way through process of elimination (especially using only 1 or 2 examples). They demonstrate the right way.

I'd hate to see the result if a teacher showed students a few wrong examples without any context of the correct way for comparison and then when they still didn't get it, told them that he couldn't teach them because they were unable to see it for themselves due to some personal flaw of theirs

If you want to teach us, you're going to have to demonstrate the right way. Its really that simple