La Crusada

[Zoopsia59]

Crossing just doesn't seem to be a natural motion for beginners - whereas walking and pivotting, to a point, is.

OK, you could argue that this is exactly why beginners need to be taught it... but I prefer to get them walking as quick as possible. Crossing is clearly not an essential part of the dance, so I leave it until a bit later.

I agree with what you said about it being "unatural" and beginners resisting it, but I disagree that it needs to wait. It only takes about 2 minutes to show them the crossed position and say "The cross is a common element in tango, so if you feel that this position is where you are being led, don't resist it"

I also disagree that it is not an essential part of the dance. Can you dance without ever leading a cross? Absolutely. Are followers likely to experience that when they go to a practica or milonga? No. They are extremely likely to be expected to cross. Even when a leader fails to properly lead a cross, he might very likely say "You were supposed to cross" to the follower. (I've had this happen to me quite often)

I don't think you have to choose between walking and the cross. In fact, most beginners I've met get frustrated very quickly if you don't throw in something "tango'ish". After about 2 lessons on walking and technique, they're bored and ready to quit, wondering when they will get to learn TANGO!

And there is no shortage of instructors willing to show them not only the cross, but ganchos and boleos in the first few lessons, so you can't wait very long or the student just goes elsewhere. I'd much rather give the cross in lesson 1 or 2 than front ochos. I've no idea why some people think front ochos are good beginner moves. They are so hard to do without overuse of the arms, it seems like deliberately teaching bad habits to me! Its much easier to get people doing back ochos without the arms AND they at least won't violate LOD. But I've met several beginners who were taught front ochos in the first or second lesson.

Some of them come from other dances and are expecting to be shown "moves" so they certainly aren't stymied by the cross. Well, at least the followers aren't... the leaders take awhile to learn the proper lead. I can accept waiting to teach the leaders, but for reasons stated above, I think it leaves the followers at a disadvantage if you don't expose them to it quite early.

So the point where one might introduce it could vary quite a bit depending on whether one has (at one end of the spectrum) a large class of total beginners, both leaders and followers, OR (at the other end of the spectrum) a single follower taking private lessons.

 

[Dave Bailey]

I agree with what you said about it being "unatural" and beginners resisting it, but I disagree that it needs to wait. It only takes about 2 minutes to show them the crossed position and say "The cross is a common element in tango, so if you feel that this position is where you are being led, don't resist it"

Yes, it's arguable that if something's difficult, you should spend more time teaching it, not less. On the other hand, my methodology is to keep things as simple and natural as possible - for example, natural embrace stance, none of that weird V-shaped rubbish. And if you have to teach something "unnatural", that disrupts from that flow.

And when you think about it, how many times do you cross your legs when you're walking along normally?

I also disagree that it is not an essential part of the dance. Can you dance without ever leading a cross? Absolutely. Are followers likely to experience that when they go to a practica or milonga? No. They are extremely likely to be expected to cross.

Milonga, maybe - depends where you dance. I agree that you should learn the cross before going to a milonga, but that doesn't mean you need to learn it on Day One.

Personally, I think the cross is fine to leave until, say, you've done 8-10 classes.

Even when a leader fails to properly lead a cross, he might very likely say "You were supposed to cross" to the follower. (I've had this happen to me quite often)

Well, that'll be rubbish leading then. It's not my fault that some leaders can't lead.

I don't think you have to choose between walking and the cross. In fact, most beginners I've met get frustrated very quickly if you don't throw in something "tango'ish". After about 2 lessons on walking and technique, they're bored and ready to quit, wondering when they will get to learn TANGO!

I agree that sometimes you need a bit of flash in classes, but if you have to throw in something too complex, too early, that's poor technique.

And there is no shortage of instructors willing to show them not only the cross, but ganchos and boleos in the first few lessons, so you can't wait very long or the student just goes elsewhere.

Interestingly, I did a full-day workshop yesterday. The programme originally had included boleos, but the teachers decided - quite rightly - that boleos were too advanced for the class, and so didn't do them.

I'd much rather give the cross in lesson 1 or 2 than front ochos. I've no idea why some people think front ochos are good beginner moves.

A front ocho is a pivot and a step. I taught this within the first hour of a class I'm taking. The trick is to not think of it as an ocho, but as a pivot, then a step.

They are so hard to do without overuse of the arms,

Leading a pivot - changing direction - is a fundamental part of Tango. It has to be, otherwise no-one could ever walk around a corner.

But I've met several beginners who were taught front ochos in the first or second lesson.

 

[ant]

Personally, I think the cross is fine to leave until, say, you've done 8-10 classes.

DB I believe it is much harder to lead the cross than it is to follow. I am wondering therefore if your judgement may be clouded because of this and many of the problems you have mentioned are problems with the leader rather than the follower?

 

[Zoopsia59]

Yes, it's arguable that if something's difficult, you should spend more time teaching it, not less. On the other hand, my methodology is to keep things as simple and natural as possible - for example, natural embrace stance, none of that weird V-shaped rubbish. And if you have to teach something "unnatural", that disrupts from that flow. And when you think about it, how many times do you cross your legs when you're walking along normally?


I agree that sometimes you need a bit of flash in classes, but if you have to throw in something too complex, too early, that's poor technique.

A front ocho is a pivot and a step. I taught this within the first hour of a class I'm taking. The trick is to not think of it as an ocho, but as a pivot, then a step.

ok... I guess we have to agree to disagree.

For one thing, when I agreed that the cross is "unnatural", I never said, nor do I think, that it is difficult for the follower. Women cross their legs all the time. They may not do it when walking normally, but then they don't often walk backwards normally either. The cross is FAR less "unnatural" than walking backwards while pressing forwards. That's both unnatural AND difficult to get correct, but I don't know anyone who has followers only walking forwards for several lessons just because it isn't easy to walk backwards properly.

You can get around a corner without pivoting by using rocksteps. In fact, many people I know teach this as the first way to learn how to negotiate corners.

I stand by my assertion that forward ochos to soon can easily create bad habits concerning arm leading and breaking the connection. I've been led in far too many front ochos by people who haven't even learned to walk rhythmically yet, and who just send me here and there with their arms, AND who violate the LOD by leading a succession of them because its easier to keep going with them than get out of them. Obviously anything that gets taught has to be taught correctly, but I've seen far more bad front ocho sequences from leaders than bad crosses from followers.

Speaking of which, ochos are much trickier for followers to get correct than the cross is... and having them led badly doesn't help.

As for unnatural, apparently many of the men around here find rotating their body MUCH more unnatural than women find crossing to be. Followers are able to cross properly while leaders are still needing to be told to rotate their body for a pivoting move instead of pushing the follower into place with arm movement.

Throwing in a bit of flash... I think we both agree that boleos and ganchos are too complex and its poor teaching to throw them in too soon. I just don't agree that the cross is in that category.

I agree that LEADING a cross is probably less important than pivots and certainly less important than walking. But its not that big a deal for followers and I see no reason to wait to expose them to it. The only reason they don't follow it naturally is because they don't realize its a legitimate move. Its counter-intuitive. Often they do FEEL it, they just don't THINK its right. As soon as you say.. "Its ok to go to that position... that's what I WANTED you to do" they stop fighting it in their head and let their body find it.

So you could say that what is unnatural about it isn't that it FEELS unnatural or is physically difficult in any way, but that they THINK its incorrect. Clearly, if someone crosses, but then UN-crosses because they think they are wrong, then it's actually physically not difficult OR unnatural.

 

[Zoopsia59]

DB I believe it is much harder to lead the cross than it is to follow. I am wondering therefore if your judgement may be clouded because of this and many of the problems you have mentioned are problems with the leader rather than the follower?

I agree. As I stated above, if the problem is that followers resist it or do it then try to quickly "fix" it, then that means its pretty easy to follow... they just don't realize it's a correct follow until you show it to them and say "This is a legitimate move". Its counter-intuitive to the BRAIN, not the BODY.

 

[Dave Bailey]

DB I believe it is much harder to lead the cross than it is to follow. I am wondering therefore if your judgement may be clouded because of this and many of the problems you have mentioned are problems with the leader rather than the follower?

Well, firstly, I'm not sure about the initial premise - I'm not sure it's harder to lead than to follow.

Secondly, even if true, then surely that's a good reason to delay it? God knows leaders have enough to learn at the start anyway, why make it harder for them by introducing the cross at lesson 1?

 

[Zoopsia59]

Well, that'll be rubbish leading then. It's not my fault that some leaders can't lead.

I'm not sure why you would assume I am blaming you for this? Why take it personally?

I mentioned leaders who say "You were supposed to cross" as an example of how much followers are expected to cross when they go out dancing. Even though its possible for someone to go all night without ever leading one, its extremely unlikely that a follower will go all night without being LED one (and expected to know it)

That was my point... along with a less direct point about the fact that leaders sometimes expect it even if they haven't been taught to lead it (there are schools of thought where followers cross as a default unless actively prevented... that's not MY philosophy, but I've run into it)... so I think its best to start talking about the cross early on. Maybe not in lesson 1 or 2 (unless its a private for a follower) but not waiting til lesson 10 either.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Zoopsia59]

Well, firstly, I'm not sure about the initial premise - I'm not sure it's harder to lead than to follow.

I can't speak for every person in the world, but I learned to follow it in 5 minutes or less and I'm still not as consistent in leading it as I'd like even though I "know" technically HOW to lead it.

My experience of followers having trouble with the cross is that there is something else that is creating a problem that prevents them crossing or feeling the cross... usually falling backwards away from the leader or not having the correct stance, posture, or forward pressure. Its common for followers (IME) to try to take another backstep if they are not reaching back properly with their "intention" forward. Once that gets fixed, they cross front effortlessly. So in that regard, it's a good thing to expose them to early because it makes other fundamental problems more obvious.

ok... I"m going to stop for awhile because I'm really tired of fixing "corss" to "cross"... for some reason, I just CAN"T type this word correctly and I can't respond on this thread without it!

 

[ant]

Well, firstly, I'm not sure about the initial premise - I'm not sure it's harder to lead than to follow.

I would be interested if you could list the technical problems you consider that the leader must address when leading the cross compared to those of the follower. I think you will find when the list is complete that the leader has to navigate far more technical problems compared to the follower, some of which are considerably more difficult to those of the follower. And not only that if the leader does his job properly then the follower will almost certainly do the cross correctly.

Secondly, even if true, then surely that's a good reason to delay it? God knows leaders have enough to learn at the start anyway, why make it harder for them by introducing the cross at lesson 1

This may be a reason not to teach it to leaders but not to followers and I suggest the view given by Zoops is relevant in this regard.

Originally posted by Zoopsia59
I agree with what you said about it being "unatural" and beginners resisting it, but I disagree that it needs to wait. It only takes about 2 minutes to show them the crossed position and say "The cross is a common element in tango, so if you feel that this position is where you are being led, don't resist it"

I believe you are doing the followers in your beginners class a disservice if you do not at least touch on the subject as Zoops suggests and give each of the followers that 2 minutes of individual attention at the end of the relevant class.

 

[AndaBien]

I can't speak for every person in the world, but I learned to follow it in 5 minutes or less ...

ok... I"m going to stop for awhile because I'm really tired of fixing "corss" to "cross"... for some reason, I just CAN"T type this word correctly and I can't respond on this thread without it!

I've taught many classes and I find that most followers struggle with cruzada for several class sessions before they feel comfortable with it. I've never seen a student learn it in 5 minutes.

"Becasue" is my nemesis. It's far worse than cruzada.

 

[Zoopsia59]

I've taught many classes and I find that most followers struggle with cruzada for several class sessions before they feel comfortable with it. I've never seen a student learn it in 5 minutes.

Maybe I was at an advantage because I wasn't trying to learn it by dancing with other beginners but rather by being led by my teacher?

I don't know... I recently taught it to a total beginner in her first lesson and she followed it quite easily when led by me or her husband (who has been dancing for awhile)

What is the nature of the struggle you are seeing?

BTW - I have other things that I'm sure took me longer than average to get so in the long run, things always balance out....

 

[AndaBien]

...What is the nature of the struggle you are seeing?

Followers often seem reluctant to put their L foot to the right side of their R foot and take weight on it. It seems un-natural to them. This is only at first. After brief experience they do it quite easily, but it usually takes a while to learn.

Anecdotally, I had one student who was never able to do a cruzada. Another teacher and I both did our determined best to teach it to her, but she seemed unable to comprehend putting her L foot to that position.

 

[dchester]

Followers often seem reluctant to put their L foot to the right side of their R foot and take weight on it. It seems un-natural to them. This is only at first. After brief experience they do it quite easily, but it usually takes a while to learn.

Anecdotally, I had one student who was never able to do a cruzada. Another teacher and I both did our determined best to teach it to her, but she seemed unable to comprehend putting her L foot to that position.

This seems strange to me. I first demonstrate the step, then have them try it by themselves. 5 Minutes (like zoopsia said) it about how long it typically takes. The lead takes longer to teach then the step, for me.

 

[mkjohnson]

We covered the cross on the second class of my first 4 week (1 class per week series). I didn't understand the cross (other than the "leader takes two steps outside - follower crosses) so I had trouble following it. And I also had the "always cross unless blocked" teaching - which was very little help at all in the classes or the milongas.

It wasn't until a more advanced leader that was helping out in the practica explained what the cross was essentially for - in his words, 'to line back up with your leader' - though this was accompanied with a demonstration of his point, so it loses something written like that.

He basically explained that sequences like taking two steps outside the follower, created the "twist" or disassociation feeling, and then crossing, brings the follower back in front of her leader which is more or less her default position.

While that explanation was limited and probably overly simplistic, it made sense at the time. I got it. And because I knew to feel for the disassociation, I could feel cross leads that didn't necessarily involve that 'two steps outside' thing. When I attended the milonga that following weekend, I finally understood and followed the cross leads. It can be taught early - but I think a little more explanation than, "two steps outside and cross" is necessary.

 

[Zoopsia59]

to line back up with your leader'

the "twist" or disassociation feeling, and then crossing, brings the follower back in front of her leader which is more or less her default position.

I think a little more explanation than, "two steps outside and cross" is necessary.

I dislike the "2 steps outside then cross" even as a first explanation because that promotes the idea that the follower automatically crosses and the leader doesn't actually LEAD the cross. That's how we end up with leaders who lead it badly and then say "You were supposed to cross" to their followers.

I know there are multiple schools of thought on this, but MY thnking is that the leader leads the cross (no, not the corss, gosh darnit!... grrrr)

A leader can take 2 steps outside and then maintain his twist and continue walking so that she doesn't cross (and it would be awkward for her to). The number of steps is less important than the changing rotation which requires her to cross to stay in front of him.

So I prefer the same explanation that you finally got. One of the first things I tell a follower is that its her job to stay in front of the leader, not the leader's job to make her stay there. (Keep in in mind that I am only able to teach flat on parallel embrace, so this instruction is correct for that style although maybe not some other styles) WHen I teach either leaders or followers about the cross I teach them to continue the outside walk without crossing in the same lesson so that they get a feel for what the body does and why it all works. That way, nobody gets stuck at "2 steps outside and the follower crosses"