Okay, I guess this is the geekery thread, after all.
The bombshell, iirc, is a double reverse spin followed by both partners doing a ronde.
Not exactly. The modifications start before the end of the double reverse spin: either the lady takes one step less - the original way when Eggleton and Winslade invented it - or the lady takes one extra step - the "cheaty" way. By the end of the first bar, both partners have weight on their respective right feet, allowing a simultaneous left leg rondez by both. The adjustments to lady's steps' timing also affect their positioning, of course.
Given this, I think you can see that following the full unmodified double reverse spin would preclude doing the bombshell properly the original way. I suppose it might just be possible still to do the "cheaty" way by adding a step to the double reverse spin using, say, 123&a timing instead of 123&, but that still might be a bit iffy.
If you wobble on step 2, regardless of what happens after my steps 3&4, in my case, I would feel your wobble was throwing me off my steps 3&4. And that you were falling over. And that you needed my partnering skills to help you stabilize. Because taking care of the partner is something both partners do.
When I've done this the original way, I've wobbled slightly in the middle of step 2 by leaning slightly to my right, causing the lady to lean slightly to her left and compensate by reaching further around with her right foot for her step 3. I then don't lead and she then doesn't take her step 4, and we end up solidly over our right feet ready to rondez our left legs.
A follower expecting a double reverse spin would, I suspect, feel this was "throwing off" her step 3.
There might be a more elegant way to lead this, but unfortunately Brenda is no longer around to experiment with. I did try this on my coach once - a student of Brenda's - and it worked the original noncheaty way with the following conversation ensuing:
Me: "I thought you said you did it the cheaty way."
Her: "Well, if you
lead it!"
That sort of suggests the cheaty way is the result of a lack of a lead, perhaps allowing the lady to complete a regular double reverse spin before taking that extra step.
I do not understand this statement.
two footfalls over three beats, I'd have thought: beat 1, step; beat 2, step; beat 3, close without weight
During the leader's step 2, the following footfalls occur:
- leader steps forward on the right toe, becoming a side step due to the rotation, on beat 2.
- follower closes left foot in a heel turn on beat 2, simultaneously with the leader's step.
- follower steps sideways on the right toe, on beat 3 if you use the 123& timing that I use.
- follower crosses in front with the left toe, eventually lowering, on the final & half beat.
The first two are not independent, because the leader's step 2 is leading the heel turn, so that only counts as one independent footfall. The other two footfalls are independent. Thus, three independent footfalls.
If I, as leader, am properly managing the couple's combined body weight, I should also be managing all the couple's footfalls. Thus, I'm managing all three of these independent footfalls, over beats 2 and 3, which is two beats.
I find it much easier to lead when I have a follow to manage. Lacking a real live follow, I have to work with the Invisible Dance Partner, which is good but not *as* good. I have to imagine manipulating the follow's weight.
Yes. Invisible partner contributes no real weight to the partnership to manage, but also contributes no real foot and leg strength to help manage it.
To me, then that's not a wobble. As follow I need to be able to recognize the difference between an intentional change and a wobble. Wobbles happen, even to the best. As Cal suggests, I want to "ignore" wobbles and maintain the figure, frame, and timing if at all possible.
My contention is that if the follower doesn't know the figure and timing being led, it may be quite difficult to distinguish between an intentional and an unintentional wobble. I still want to be able to lead the figure, though, and not have to default to a different figure the follower does know. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is for the follower to follow all wobbles, rather than try to distinguish between those that are leads and those that aren't.
