Controlling F. Finish to Three Step Transition

[Chris Stratton]

The transition between the feather finish and the three step in foxtrot (which if we go by the book is actually between steps 6 and 7 of the reverse turn) seems to present a very common difficulty.

Usually the problem is blamed on overly rapid lowering into the third step of the feather finish (book step 6) and drills involving things like arriving over the foot and then slowly lowering are suggested. But as I look at videos of high level couples and experiment, I think this may actually be counterproductive. Loss of altitude turns out to commence with leg division out of the middle step of the feather finish (step 5), and both dancers' heels seem to lower as they fully arrive into the third step (step 6). I think if we try to fight this, and arrive before lowering, all we really end up doing is steepening the path of the eventual fall - which likely ends up causing us to lower further than we should.

I'm beginning to think that the end of the feather finish should be executed as a natural and unarrested "landing approach" on a shallow angle from the moderate height of foot passing. But after the heel touches down, the leg must really engage to slow and arrest the fall, and convert it to a sustained floating travel through a flat connecting step. Trying to fully absorb the fall in the foot is actually trying to stop it too early - when I manage to do that, I usually over-run my foot before the heel can touch the ground. So I don't think we should resist the foot rapidly lowering, but after the foot is down we need to do something to re-direct the movement - if the downard trend continues into a rapid knee bend, then what should have been a flat walking step (step 7) will instead be a stumble - a short, premature step with the foot trapped under the body before either can move. One additional benefit of absorbing later is that we can move the job from the relatively small muscles of the foot to the relatively large muscles of the leg. I also think this is consistent with closed foot lowering, where we commence by lowering the standing heel but then proceede to convert the lowering into travel with substantial assistance from the leg muscles.

That's not to say that it isn't possible to lower into the foot too quickly on step 6, however I think such a "falling backwards" is really more likely to be a result of allowing the upper body to overbalance ahead of the lower while drifting over step 5. As long as poise slightly against the direction of travel is maintained to preserve balance, and the energy subsequently absorbed and redirected by the leg, I don't think we need to put undue effort into slowing the fall of the foot.

Thoughts?

 

[callen]

I suppose I should say your quandry here does not surprise me based on your last message about being split weight. Using the split weight time before and after being over the last step of the feather finish gives all the extension and time that is needed to make this figure ooze (for lack of a better word at the moment) well. Skipping the split weight times will make the figure very difficult both in terms of speed and in terms of smoothness.

Christopher

 

[Chris Stratton]

I suppose I should say your quandry here does not surprise me based on your last message about being split weight. Using the split weight time before and after being over the last step of the feather finish gives all the extension and time that is needed to make this figure ooze (for lack of a better word at the moment) well. Skipping the split weight times will make the figure very difficult both in terms of speed and in terms of smoothness.

Hmm, looking at the video of you at MIT, it really doesn't appear you are using split weight between 2 and 3, nor do any of the other couples appear to be. I think the issue is more that the teaching description doesn't match reality than that what is actually being danced is wrong - the only people trying to actually do split weight between 2 and 3 are those intermediates who believe their teachers ;-)

But the case for no split weight between 3 and 1 is not quite as conclusive.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

Trying to fully absorb the fall in the foot is actually trying to stop it too early

I agree with this, but I have a slightly different solution.

Given the same amount by which the center of mass moves over step 6 of the reverse turn - and thus the position on the floor at which the weight will land - I try to take a little more body swing, and allow the right foot to swing out a little further, so that it's the right heel, rather than the right toe, that's over the place on the floor that is going to take the weight. By taking the weight into the heel, rather than the toe, I defer the moment at which I need to start taking the next step by the amount of time I spend rolling through the length of the foot. This extra time is invaluable in neutralizing the shape and transitioning from the feather to the three step.

 

[Chris Stratton]

By taking the weight into the heel, rather than the toe, I defer the moment at which I need to start taking the next step by the amount of time I spend rolling through the length of the foot. This extra time is invaluable in neutralizing the shape and transitioning from the feather to the three step.

Yes, that is a basic implication of the given footwork. My principal objection to trying to absorb the fall into the foot (or arrive and then lower) is that there is enough forward momentum that you end up over-running the heel and settling immediately into the toe instead. With dancers who get a really great flighting projection off of step 5, the angle of arrival into the foot is so shallow that here is hardly any change in the angle of the man's ankle required to lower it. However, I think the man's foot will really engage as he moves through it and prepares to project into step 7.

 

[callen]

Hmm, looking at the video of you at MIT, it really doesn't appear you are using split weight between 2 and 3, nor do any of the other couples appear to be. I think the issue is more that the teaching description doesn't match reality than that what is actually being danced is wrong - the only people trying to actually do split weight between 2 and 3 are those intermediates who believe their teachers ;-)

But the case for no split weight between 3 and 1 is not quite as conclusive.

Where do you see me hopping between steps 2 and 3 of a feather finish? In actuallity, I use split weight between 2 and 3 better than I use it between 3 and 1, probably because there's twice as much time in the latter. As for my not using it perfectly, there are reasons I'm not #1 in the country; I'm working on it. If you want to see it done well, look at some much better dancers than me and you'll see it done much better.

Christopher

 

[Warren J. Dew]

My principal objection to trying to absorb the fall into the foot (or arrive and then lower) is that there is enough forward momentum that you end up over-running the heel and settling immediately into the toe instead.

I don't think it matters how much forward momentum one has. If one absorbs the lowering into the foot before the heel touches, by definition one is taking the weight into the ball and toe of the foot. Even with no momentum, the weight will already be past the heel.

 

[Chris Stratton]

If one absorbs the lowering into the foot before the heel touches, by definition one is taking the weight into the ball and toe of the foot. Even with no momentum, the weight will already be past the heel.

That's an interesting point, but I think only an issue if the arrival is so fully absorbed that the path of the weight doesn't cause the heel to touch down. The footwork is TH, which means we should first take the weight in the toe, and then the heel - and then unwritten some time after the official end of the step, back in the toe. In this case, "force" is a much better term than weight, because it is inclusive both of resisting gravity and of efforts to change the body trajectory.

My feeling is that we should exert some force with the toe, but not that much more than the static weight of the body, so that the path of arrival causes the heel to touch down.

 

[Chris Stratton]

Where do you see me hopping between steps 2 and 3 of a feather finish?

Short segments of partially ballistic (feet supporting less than body weight) trajectory to connect pendulum and metronome swings are not going to "jump out at you" visually, because they would of course be tangential to both swings.

That's doesn't mean that both legs couldn't share the job of incompletely supporting your weight, however the usual argument for having at least some period of split weight is that without it, you can't constantly support your full static body weight - something I'm trying to argue is unecessary.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

The footwork is TH, which means we should first take the weight in the toe, and then the heel - and then unwritten some time after the official end of the step, back in the toe.

I read it to mean only that the toe touches the floor, then the heel as well, without addressing the weight.

My feeling is that we should exert some force with the toe, but not that much more than the static weight of the body, so that the path of arrival causes the heel to touch down.

Whereas I would only "touch" the toe down, but not have it take more than about half the weight of the foot - only a tiny fraction of that of the entire body - with the weight of the body plus the deceleration of the downward movement all happening entirely in the heel. The toe would not get significant weight or force until it had been taken fully into the heel and transferred forward.

 

[Chris Stratton]

Whereas I would only "touch" the toe down, but not have it take more than about half the weight of the foot - only a tiny fraction of that of the entire body - with the weight of the body plus the deceleration of the downward movement all happening entirely in the heel. The toe would not get significant weight or force until it had been taken fully into the heel and transferred forward.

I used to be really good at that out of the progressive chasse in quickstep... toe lead? why bother if you are going to absorb it all in the heel anyway ;-)

More seriously, you could be right about the amount of weight taken in the toe - I was saying static weight so that at least the fall would not be continuing to accelerate, but don't have any proof that's right.

But just to stress the contrast, anyone who teaches "arrive and then lower" is asking their students to take not only static weight into the toe, but enough additional force to retard the fall. Actually, I know that was one coach's alternative to toe strength exercises... so it may accomplish something if not explaining how to dance foxtrot smoothly.

 

[Chris Stratton]

The more I think about it, Warren is right about not taking any substantial weight in the toe. The weight needs to reach the heel, and putting weight in the toe means it is already too far forward. I could put weight in the toe and then shift it back into the heel, but only if I was pushing from the toe to slow the speed of my body. I've always assumed I should be doing that... but now that I think about it, on the downswing we should be trying to increase body speed, not decrease it, because it is at the bottom of the swing that we move fastest.