It matters. It changes everything in the ease and fluidity of doing the figure.
International Standard Waltz: CBM vs no CBM
- Thread starter tyner
- Start date
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Obviously this still does not show the previous alignment, but Peter's right and Brenda's left foot both look to me like they are aligned perfectly diagonal to wall in that still. I agree the bodies are turned more to the right than the feet, consistent with doing some amount of CBM - consistent with about the same amount as Mirko and Alessia, in fact.
My reference was to the Reverse turn .
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Wasn't there something like "early CBM on the reverse, late CBM on the natural?" Or maybe it was a point of disagreement between coaches which way around that should be.
wahoo_foxtrot
Well-Known Member
I was told the same thing ...
Captain Price
Member
The opposite if anything. A better way to phrase it I think is "more in natural actions", "less in reverse actions". This is because the man passes the lady later when turning left due to the offset position.
I agree with Warren et al. This geometry doesn't make sense.
Natural turn is so called because the partner offset makes it easier for the forward-moving partner to pass when rotating clockwise, even with late or no CBM. In reverse turn with late or no CBM, the forward-moving partner is substantially blocked on step 2. Early CBM adjusts the geometry to allow linear passing.
That said, I do agree that natural turns lend themselves to much bigger shapes and movements...precisely because less effort is required for the simple act of passing.
Last edited:
madmaximus
Forum Master
This thread (and others like it) always reminds me of the parable of the three blind persons and the elephant.
One thought an elephant was a snake,
the second thought it was a wall, and
the third thought it was a tree.
I find it unfortunate that discussions on CBM (and other technical matters, for that matter) tend to devolve into the point-of-view purely about the mechanics of the gentleman—often to the exclusion of the lady's part which is just as critical.
[ as a side note: IMO, this tendency is a key reason we lose the participation of our other half in many of these discussions.
Something to be mindful about and change.
After all, the person moving backwards will likely dictate where things occur and how they evolve.]
It is easy to discuss individual shape and movement and so on—those do matter.
But how individual "stuff" contributes and how it is adjusted to achieve the final Silhouette of the couple is even more important.
As to the question at hand, I think any examination of CBM, to be meaningful, considers the whole context.
The details of how TWO dancers must move in order to form ONE synchronized unit—including placement of feet, of how one rotates the body together, AND the axis of the rotation within the combined torsi, regardless of the direction of turn—will yield better insight.
It would be wise for the novice dancer to realize that while the gentleman might seem to have the prerogative of choosing what to execute, it is often the lady that must ensure its success.
m
One thought an elephant was a snake,
the second thought it was a wall, and
the third thought it was a tree.
I find it unfortunate that discussions on CBM (and other technical matters, for that matter) tend to devolve into the point-of-view purely about the mechanics of the gentleman—often to the exclusion of the lady's part which is just as critical.
[ as a side note: IMO, this tendency is a key reason we lose the participation of our other half in many of these discussions.
Something to be mindful about and change.
After all, the person moving backwards will likely dictate where things occur and how they evolve.]
It is easy to discuss individual shape and movement and so on—those do matter.
But how individual "stuff" contributes and how it is adjusted to achieve the final Silhouette of the couple is even more important.
As to the question at hand, I think any examination of CBM, to be meaningful, considers the whole context.
The details of how TWO dancers must move in order to form ONE synchronized unit—including placement of feet, of how one rotates the body together, AND the axis of the rotation within the combined torsi, regardless of the direction of turn—will yield better insight.
It would be wise for the novice dancer to realize that while the gentleman might seem to have the prerogative of choosing what to execute, it is often the lady that must ensure its success.
m
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
This may be in the eyes of the beholder. What I'm seeing is that most in the discussion are discussing both parts and how they interact. People sometimes focus more on the part they are more familiar with, but in this thread, that has occurred both with habitual leaders and habitual followers.
madmaximus
Forum Master
Perhaps you're right—that it is all in the eyes of the beholder.
A quick find in pp. 1-2 yielded:
- 'Mirko' 36 mentions
- 'Alessia' 14 mentions
- 'Forward' 19 mentions
- 'Backward' 6 mentions
m
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Mirko is mentioned twice in the original post and Alessia not at all, so to the extent that the discussion deviated, it went toward discussing the follow more, not less.
Arun Garg
Well-Known Member
Agreed. To avoid this pitfall in my own perspective, I almost entirely remove the idea of man and lady or lead and follow. Rather it’s the forward moving and backward moving partner (when in closed or OP). This puts the focus on the mechanics of the turn as a unit, rather than delineating the concepts by gender or partnership role (lead v. Follow).
madmaximus
Forum Master
Captain Price
Member
This statement is not supported by the literature. For instance Hearn states "a general guide is that turns to the right have a stronger CBM than turns to the left" in his advanced technique monograph. Similar statements can be found by Oliver Wessel-Therhorn (attributed to Bill Irvine) and by Alex Moore.
Captain Price
Member
I should add that it does not matter whether we consider the man or the lady. To simplify a bit the bodies (say shoulders) must remain parallel throughout the turn; therefore the amounts of CBM must be matched. (Here I neglect that moving backward there is generally stronger foot turn in than there is foot turn out moving forward. But this does not impact the conclusions.)
Last edited: