Level 5 weight connection - American Smooth and Standard

[discovery]

... This is just some basic feedback. I have tons more to say but am out of time this morning.

Where'd you go? I'd like to hear your feedback very much.

I'd like to hear more specifically if the proposed idea as applied to closed position includes an apart or "pull" force transmitted through the arms - aka, leverage...

I'm not sure if, by "proposed idea", you're referring to the original post or to subsequent ones. Assuming the former, to my understanding the technique does involve a "pull" force that is created by the body and transmitted through the arms.

In this discussion, it seems to me there are two scenarios here (generally speaking. I'm not trying to exhaust every possibility):

A. My original post and/or people's interpretation of it is erroneous. If the ideas were somehow presented differently then there would be agreement.

B. My original post and people's interpretation of it are correct, but people have not heard it, do not like it, and/or do not understand it.

I am currently of the mind (and I am willing to change) that it is more the situation of the second case. I say this knowing that 1) my original post may not have clearly or accurately explained the ideas and also knowing that 2) it is difficult to discuss technique by snippets of text exchanged on a daily basis.

However, I also think if my post was way off that 1) either Larinda or Michael would have said so and 2) if you have experienced the technique, to my mind, you could relate to what I was saying even though perhaps you might say that my explanation was less than ideal.

Of course I may be wrong in this, but it's what I'm thinking now.

My original intent was just to see how wide spread this technique was among top level dancers. While I am still interested in this, as Porfirio Landeros pointed out I may just have to schedule those coachings (obviously a good idea in any case).

 

[Chris Stratton]

I don't actually see where there had been any substantial clarification of the idea (as applied to closed hold) by its proponents. There has been plenty of speculation by the skeptics, which no one has really challenged as a misunderstanding, but I'm not sure the lack of disagreement with those intrepretations should be considered agreement.

That leaves things a little puzzling - my interepretation of your original post sugggests things that I think it would be very unwise to do, so unless/until someone points out where I've misintrepreted it, I'm going to have to consider it to not be a desireable thing to incorporate into ones dancing.

It's also quite possible that the element you really want is already incorporated, but under a different conceptual name.

But now we do have something specific: you personally believe there is a pull force transmitted through the arms. I really don't believe that is a wise thing to do - communication may involve a tiny symbolic force, but in most figures an actual pull is unwise. As Warren pointed out, the arms are positioned too far from the center of mass for that - push or pull exerted there will break body alignment and ruin a partner's balance. In order to stay balanced with a high connection, essentially all of the motive energy needs to come from within each partner's own body.

 

[madmaximus]

Interesting topic.

IMO

Partner dancing--specifically International Standard --requires a finely tuned symbiotic relationship.

Ideally, propelling one's body (whether forwards or backwards) should be in such complete syncronization with the partner that there will be minimal force (if any at all) exerted through the different points of contact that indicate the direction of (often complex) movement.

One should be SOLELY responsible for moving one's body through time and space--otherwise, one creates variables that distract the partnership's movement.

Thus, one should move in a manner that does not impose unnecessary force (in terms of proceeding or receding pressure) upon one's partner. Only minimal pressure (however one can describe light contact) should be present--and-- only enough so as to provide a clear picture (to the partner) of the state of the movement as it is being carried out.

The technique requires accuracy in propelling the body--specifically the velocity of the travelling foot and the transportation of the torso/hips over the legs--such that contact may be maintained without the imposition of undue force or pressure against the partner.

madmaximus

 

[Porfirio Landeros]

I have more to say, but Steve is huffing and puffing that he hasn't seen the computer since we got back home...

Sounds like you need to get hooked up with some Wi-Fi and an additional laptop... that's the only way Laetitia and I keep our sanity

 

[Laura]

That kind of set up totally keeps my household sane!

 

[Chris Stratton]

So the pulling is mechanically more efficient than pushing. And the rotation is much easier to control.

Sure, if you are willing to switch the role of leading to whoever is currently ahead in the direction of travel.

If you aren't willing to swap roles, it's a lot easier to lead a person ahead of you if she isn't pulling you, or running ahead away from you. In fact, I find it's precisely the subtle things like CBM and the swing generating footwork, which are necessary for foreshadowing future actions to a partner ahead of you, that would be the most difficult to lead if she tends to move past a step before you can fully accomplish it's action.

As an aside, even the leader is fairly strongly constrained by trends-in-progress such as swing. I can't just place a foot anywhere I want, but rather only in the general position pointed to by extending the alignment of my body in a ray to the floor. The opportunity to take things in a divergent direction is limited to changes that can be communicated as gentle modifications of what the bodies are both already in the process of doing. Actually pulling or pushing your partner (or even simply stepping elsewhere than into the position pointed to by the body) should be limited to severe situations like an impending collision, though the permissable force would be higher if it was transmitted by a connection closer to the height of the center of mass.

 

[Chris Stratton]

I thought this had come up before, and in fact there was an earlier thread that seemd to be about the same thing:

http://www.dance-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1040

Of particular interest is the following:

We just had lessons for ourselves yesterday, and the coaches (standard) kept telling me "take me with you, take me with you" as I swung back into a running chasse. These are two people that are former retired champions and well known and respected coaches. So it isn't just us wacky Smooth couples that have found some merit with this idea.

What immediately strikes me about this is the difference between "take me with you" and what was not said, "pull me". I'd actually read "take me with you" as meaning "stay connected, don't run away and leave me behind". That's a very clear concept for a leader, but also applicable to a follower if we are talking about motion that is within the scope of interpretatation of what has been lead. It's leaving the partner behind that is unacceptable for either partner, and movement beyond the scope of an enthusiastic intrepretation of what has been lead that is of special concern for the follower.

Another hint is the phrase "swung back into" - part of bringing a partner with you is moving in a way consistent with the swing that has been set up. In effect, when the leader creates a swing in step one, he's leading much of the character of the entire figure, and giving the follower license to go for it, because the ending point is already somewhat indicated by the angle of the swing. But until he leads that swing and applicable CBM, she won't know if he's thinking heel turn, closed reverse or chasse, or open reverse, so she can't very well bring him anywhere.

 

[mjmead]

Hi Larinda, nice to connect with you, hope you are feeling better, please convey a hi to Steve and a pat for your dog from me...

The reason I love this discussion is that I totally appreciate (and identify with) the posters ardent search for a better understanding of how to improve their dancing. However, I still say that an online dialogue is inadequate for the task and prone to misunderstanding, and a one on one session is needed to clear up any questions.

You certainly exhibit a very sharp analytical mind Chris and if you took a couple of clarifying private lessons with a good coach you would totally understand what we are talking about. In fact if you ever come to California let me know, I would be happy to give you a free private lesson just to start you on your way by answering some of your questions and showing you how effective the technique that has been raised in this thread truly is.

I will leave you to ponder on the thought that, notwithstanding the fact that you are only in control of your own body, you are interacting in various ways with your partners body, and, all talking aside, a good test of whether you are dancing as a couple in the most effective and efficient way is to see whether you are producing, as a couple, a multiple of everything (power, shape, balance etc) that you are able to produce when dancing on your own. You should be able to, if you are not, ask yourself (or your coach) why not?

Michael

 

[Laura]

a good test of whether you are of dancing as a couple in the most effective and efficient way is to see whether you are producing, as a couple, a multiple of everything (power, shape, balance etc) that you are able to produce when dancing on your own.

And this is exactly why I love dancing Standard!!

(Not that Smoothies etc. don't get this too...it's just that Standard is my thing.)

 

[Chris Stratton]

In the end, we each create our own competitive advantage from the resources available to us. My personal perspective on standard dancing is that jugement in achieving a coordinated balance of all elements of dancing is so critically important that in many cases it is far better to reduce some actions to actually below your isolated capability in order not to exceed what you are capable of supporting in other areas. Artistry is better supported by a balanced composition than by athletic optimization.

At virtually any competition it's easy to see numerous examples of maximized everything - but what is really rare is to see a couple where all the elements are in such a precise adjustment to each other that the dancing looks ultimately easy and elegant. And I think it's in that area that the British tradition has provided the strongest leadership. While the most easily quantified aspect of top couples is in the volume, in my own work with such coaches, the message has never (so far) been to move more, but rather to create movement through more coordinated means. In the short term that may actually mean moving less, in order to develop skills that will eventually result in movement that by virtue of better coordination is not only larger, but smoother. But I'll certainly work in a question on this specific subject the next time I get a chance.

Incidentally, my friends say I have strong opinions, and am always pointing out problems in dancing but never allow myself to really dance. Can't imagine where they got that idea!

 

[mjmead]

Hi Laura,

That's great, then you will love Smooth too since the technique utilized for Standard and Smooth is the same. It is all the same equipment and environment, just the physical points of contact differ on occasion.

Michael

 

[Chris Stratton]

But until he leads that swing and applicable CBM, she won't know if he's thinking heel turn, closed reverse or chasse, or open reverse, so she can't very well bring him anywhere.

From a really good guy... I can tell almost immediately. And you are right, I wouldn't be driving anywhere until I get these cues from him. But that doesn't stop me from going once I get my signals.

This is the mark of a "really good girl". The problem is that many who read about the subject concept will run with it without that critical but subtle constraint, if for no reason other than lack of familiarity with what it feels like to have a figure lead with those enabling details.

 

[Porfirio Landeros]

The problem is that many who read about the subject concept will run with it without that critical but subtle constraint, if for no reason other than lack of familiarity with what it feels like to have a figure lead with those enabling details.

If people only read about technique, and don't take lessons in person, then it'll be their own fault for running away with their interpretation of this concept instead of getting the required in-person guidance.

Written dialogue and notes can be useful, but the only way you're going to get the feeling is hands on, at any level.

 

[Laura]

One of the things I've been going through for the past six months is upping my dance game, as it were. I express it as being the difference between dancing like a student and dancing like a dancer. Dancers are always students, because they are always studying and improving, but I think there's a difference between how the average syllabus-level student thinks about and performs their dancing, and how a succeessful high-level competitor thinks and performs. So that's the distinction I'm making, and struggling with my self at times.

Learning when and how to apply my foot to the gas, as it were, is part of this for me personally. When K. & I started last fall with our coach, one of her first comments was that I was very soft and clear, but that I needed to really learn how to activate and use my own power so that I would contribute to the amount of energy we had to use together. One of my old teachers once told me the leader can only take and use what I give him, so if I don't give him anything he can't go anywhere. So in my mind that's how some of this "level" stuff fits in to Standard.

It's been much more challenging mentally for me to get this whole concept of putting my power out there than it has been physically. I've always had such a sense that the follower had to be light and quiet and just go where the leader actually put her, rather than being light and quiet AND strong AND powerful and putting out as much power as my partner can match so that we can generate even more together -- the old "sum is greater than the parts" kind of thing.

Sorry if I've gone off topic here....

 

[Laura]

The problem is that many who read about the subject concept will run with it without that critical but subtle constraint, if for no reason other than lack of familiarity with what it feels like to have a figure lead with those enabling details.

If people only read about technique, and don't take lessons in person, then it'll be their own fault for running away with their interpretation of this concept instead of getting the required in-person guidance.

Written dialogue and notes can be useful, but the only way you're going to get the feeling is hands on, at any level.

I'm all for people reading things and messing up and making their own mistakes. What the hell, you have to try things to learn and if you try them wrong and it makes your dancing all weird and unacceptable it's better for me in the long run 'cause then I'll be thought of as one of the better dancers Hahhaha. But seriously. Sometimes Chris sounds like the doesn't want anyone doing, let alone thinking about, anything unless it's the absolutely most perfect approach explained in the most engineering-friendly perfectly clear manner