Latin: foot turnout a fallacy? (moved)

[btfgus]

[edited]Moved posts from another thread to this new one

In relation to latin, ensure your feet are parallel (no turn out) and that you are walking on two tracks.

A turn out will inhibit you transferring weight through the inside edge.

If your tracks are crossed this will not make it easy to use the inside edge of the foot. You would want to fall to the outside of the foot as your base of support is too narrow.

 

[Chris Stratton]

In relation to latin, ensure your feet are parallel (no turn out)

????

 

[btfgus]

????

Did I say something wrong?:cry:

 

[samina]

feet are famously not parallel in latin... i think that's the nature of chris' puzzlement.

 

[btfgus]

I respectfully beg to differ. Although I guess it is danced that way far too much. In reality there should be no turn out in latin.

 

[njdancegirl]

From what I've been taught, from a variety of people, I've always been instructed to keep my heels together, toes apart - a V position. Not a ballet turnout, but a turnout nonetheless.

 

[madmaximus]

There are no absolutes regarding parallel and turn-out.

It is one of those things in which one aspect is focused upon (dealt with during lessons, or lecture), and often taken to its extreme (often taken as gospel) without regard for the bigger, and often simpler, picture.

Here's one "rule"... when the foot steps forward the foot should be parallel EXCEPT if you're going to do a forward check in which case it should be turned out (many of this types of exception things in Latin).

Point is, learning the all exceptions is unimportant (even counter-productive), rather it is the underlying PHILOSOPHY behind the rule that matters (ie WHEN does one use parallel OR turn out, and more importantly WHY?).






m

 

[btfgus]

Here's one "rule"... when the foot steps forward the foot should be parallel EXCEPT if you're going to do a forward check in which case it should be turned out

m

Never more accurate words spoken. Nice!

 

[Josh]

I respectfully beg to differ. Although I guess it is danced that way far too much. In reality there should be no turn out in latin.

I do agree that turnout is often forced without cause, but to say there is NO turn out will greatly inhibit any hip movement that is desired. On forward walks, the back foot will turn out quite late, but turn out it must, even if very little. American Rhythm dancers, from what I have seen on average, tend to have a LOT of turnout (unnecessary), while Latin dancers tend to have less, though some of them overdo it as well.

I am not from the "twist your hips at all times" school that many are, and my Latin coach had to get a lot of the turnout out of my hips and feet that had been put there by other folks.

 

[btfgus]

I do agree that turnout is often forced without cause, but to say there is NO turn out will greatly inhibit any hip movement that is desired.

The technique was devised in parallel for a reason. There is no correlation between turn out and amount of hip action. It is a fallacy.

 

[madmaximus]

The technique was devised in parallel for a reason. There is no correlation between turn out and amount of hip action. It is a fallacy.

[WADR]
Would you mind explaining this (your view) further? (Didn't want to misunderstand your point).

I happen to have a differing POV---turning out the leg/foot, changes the profile of the hip line (especially viewed from the side of the dancer), not to mention the hip mechanics.

When stepping forward (or back) from an opened leg/foot, the trailing hip direction changes: up and rotates: 1/8th towards the trailing leg, changing the hip dynamic, and (IMO) improving the line's aesthetics...








m

 

[Chris Stratton]

The technique was devised in parallel for a reason. There is no correlation between turn out and amount of hip action. It is a fallacy.

It's not the only factor to consider in deciding the best body usage, but there is most definitely some linkage between turnout and hip freedom.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

When stepping forward (or back) from an opened leg/foot, the trailing hip direction changes: up and rotates: 1/8th towards the trailing leg, changing the hip dynamic, and (IMO) improving the line's aesthetics...

If, however, you turn out the forward foot when stepping forward, that will limit rather than accentuate the turnout of the hips toward the other foot. In this case, you actually get more hip action by taking the step with less turnout.

 

[btfgus]

I really respect other POVs and hope to read many. I also feel passionately about mine:

International Latin was born from International Standard. The writer and importer of the technique was a very much admired standard dancer. Therefore he naturally would only apply a turn out in a checking action. He understood that completing a good transfer of weight required a parallel or straight foot.

The straight foot allowed correct tracking and great communication through connection for partnering skills.

As far as it's impact on hip action, we need to be careful and distinguish between hip action and leg line. Hip action can only occur when one leg is straight and the other is bent. A turned out foot may give the illusion of more volume in the hip area (depending on the angle viewed from) and less from another angle. A parallel foot allows the leading side of the body to be fully committed to the end of a walk and more volume created in the whole body rather than just the hip.

Turning the front foot out will have you checking every step rather than being able to continue your weight fully in the given direction.

Don't need to mention that walking backwards naturally has a turn out due to the inside edge of the toe seeking the floor first.

 

[Josh]

I tend to agree with your other comments, but this...

Hip action can only occur when one leg is straight and the other is bent.

Maybe certain types of action, like a true settling action, but there's more than just that which can happen quite easily with two straight legs.