Standard Geekery

[Warren J. Dew]

FYI the comment about Standard couples being better was Warren, not Fiesta.

It also only applied to "top" couples in the two styles - by which I mean, roughly, couples that make championship finals. I don't have much of an idea how average, noncompetitive couples in the two styles compare.

Perhaps the intended gist would have been conveyed effectively but less controversially, with by an argument that 5-dancers who compete in Standard are more likely to be judged winners of Standard events than are 10-dancers (regardless of whether the 10-dancers practice Standard-and-Latin or Standard-and-Smooth)? That seems like an intuitive expectation, given differing allocations of training time.

That would be a different argument. Your argument is essentially that specialists in a style will do better in that style than generalists will that also compete in other styles.

My experience is that's not the case for this particular situation - couples that dance both Standard and Smooth tend to do about as well in Smooth as couples that dance in Smooth only. The specialization theory doesn't explain that.

To put it another way, if a couple is placing 2nd in Smooth and 30th in Standard, the simplest explanation is that there is only one Smooth couple that are better dancers than they are, but there are 29 Standard couples that are better dancers than they are - which would mean there are more good dancers doing Standard.

Now, it might just be that there are more dancers doing Standard, period. But while there is an effect there, my experience is that on a percentile basis, couples that do both still do better in Standard - say, 75th percentile in Smooth is about like 25th percentile in Standard. So there's still a discrepancy.

Now, a difference in participation might have another effect. If there are a lot more competitors in Standard, the more intense competition, at least at the top levels, might push competitors to work harder and improve more. This is roughly what I believe to be the case.

It has also been pointed out to me that the situation has changed significantly in the last couple decades because Standard technique has gotten so much worse. That would certainly help Smooth dancers catch up, but I'd rather see it happen because Smooth dancers are getting better than just because Standard dancers are getting worse.

 

[DL]

It also only applied to "top" couples in the two styles - by which I mean, roughly, couples that make championship finals. I don't have much of an idea how average, noncompetitive couples in the two styles compare.

Bearing the above point in mind....

That would be a different argument. Your argument is essentially that specialists in a style will do better in that style than generalists will that also compete in other styles.

...it seems important to be specific about the argument: *top* specialists in a style will do better in that style than *top* generalists.

It seems to me that the use of generalizations, and of the word "good", are perhaps less-than-ideally cautious, in some of the reasoning in this thread. I also suspect that judged outcomes, being subjective, cannot quite be used to derive putatively-objective comparisons, even in principle.

But, besides all that, it might be that dancers with an affinity for Standard are less likely -- perhaps as a matter of personal preference, as was the case for me -- to attempt Smooth competition at all; whereas dancers with an affinity for Smooth might well undertake Standard competitions as a way to gain additional practice, grounding, and feedback for skills that are applicable to both styles. I once was told by one of Larinda's students that she specifically encouraged this. On the flip side, I do not recall any of my Standard teachers ever advising me that Smooth practice/competition would be beneficial for my Standard.

Under that construction, perhaps there are (many) more "top" Standard dancers than "top" Smooth dancers with implicit scores of "forfeit" in the alternate style, which are not accounted for by your reasoning. (Or, did I miss a part that accounted for such an effect?)

Certainly, if it had been the case when I competed in Standard, that I had been somehow compelled to enter corresponding Smooth events, I feel certain that my Smooth results would have been much, much worse than my Standard results, owing to unmoored torso movement, flailing arms, the look of misery on my face (not knocking Smooth, but as a matter of personal affinity I would not have been a happy camper), constant and wild-eyed and bumbling attempts to locate and reconnect with my partner after any figure that separated us...

tl;dr Can it be said equally, that "top" Standard dancers compete in Smooth, and "top" Smooth dancers compete in Standard?

 

[Warren J. Dew]

...it seems important to be specific about the argument: *top* specialists in a style will do better in that style than *top* generalists.

If you want to limit your argument to that, sure, though I don't see why the argument wouldn't apply at any level of experience.

It seems to me that the use of generalizations, and of the word "good", are perhaps less-than-ideally cautious, in some of the reasoning in this thread. I also suspect that judged outcomes, being subjective, cannot quite be used to derive putatively-objective comparisons, even in principle.

We'll have to agree to disagree on these claims.

But, besides all that, it might be that dancers with an affinity for Standard are less likely -- perhaps as a matter of personal preference, as was the case for me -- to attempt Smooth competition at all; whereas dancers with an affinity for Smooth might well undertake Standard competitions as a way to gain additional practice, grounding, and feedback for skills that are applicable to both styles. I once was told by one of Larinda's students that she specifically encouraged this. On the flip side, I do not recall any of my Standard teachers ever advising me that Smooth practice/competition would be beneficial for my Standard.

Under that construction, perhaps there are (many) more "top" Standard dancers than "top" Smooth dancers with implicit scores of "forfeit" in the alternate style, which are not accounted for by your reasoning. (Or, did I miss a part that accounted for such an effect?)

I deleted a paragraph that addressed that issue before posting, so you can't be blamed for missing it!

The salient underlying point is this: Standard is a subset of Smooth. In principle, any improvement to one's Standard must therefore be an improvement to one's Smooth (provided one believes that where the styles overlap, the technique should be the same, which it seems most Smooth dancers and coaches agree with). This doesn't mean one should necessarily spend time on Standard if the time could otherwise be spent on Smooth, but it does mean that spending time on Standard that would otherwise be spent on something other than dancing should help one's Smooth.

The opposite is not true: improvements to one's free arm styling, for example, might not affect one's Standard at all, so time spent on Smooth might be a complete waste of time for a Standard dancer.

That said, there's no requirement to use free arm action in Standard, so one could, in principle, enter a Smooth competition and just dance Standard, without its resulting in a forfeit. In my opinion, using the parts of Smooth that are not part of Standard is appropriate when they produce a better looking overall result, but I wouldn't consider them "required figures/actions".

tl;dr Can it be said equally, that "top" Standard dancers compete in Smooth, and "top" Smooth dancers compete in Standard?

I would say if you're competing in Standard you're a Standard dancer; if you're competing in Smooth you're a Smooth dancer. If you compete in both, you're both. While in principle Standard dancers could simply compete in Smooth with a Standard legal syllabus routine, that's not common in practice. Neither is it common for a Smooth dancer to compete in Standard without learning some material that they don't use in Smooth, such as a lady's heel turn in many cases.

Incidentally, it strikes me that we're not really geeking about Standard starting with post #821. If you agree, do you think this branch would be better in the Smooth thread, or in its own thread?

 

[j_alexandra]

Elsewhere, Warren wrote about watching Stephen Hillier:

His perfect armline dancing around the floor was mesmerizing.

Now, *that's* Standard Geekery!

ARMLINE is so challenging for me. At least I've stopped using the follow's poise when leading -- ouch, my very bad -- but the elusive beautiful armline seems hard to find in the wild. Any tips?

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

the elusive beautiful armline seems hard to find in the wild. Any tips?

My personal plan is to be reincarnated as Galina.

 

[DL]

If you want to limit your argument to that, sure, though I don't see why the argument wouldn't apply at any level of experience.

Rather, I think that you started out by setting that constraint; but then were not consistent in applying it to the discussion that followed. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether or not that constraint ought to be applied, but I do think that it ought to be applied consistently or else not at all.

The salient underlying point is this: Standard is a subset of Smooth. In principle, any improvement to one's Standard must therefore be an improvement to one's Smooth (provided one believes that where the styles overlap, the technique should be the same, which it seems most Smooth dancers and coaches agree with). This doesn't mean one should necessarily spend time on Standard if the time could otherwise be spent on Smooth, but it does mean that spending time on Standard that would otherwise be spent on something other than dancing should help one's Smooth.

More than that, I think that some highly-credentialed Smooth teachers have argued that Smooth dancers ought to allocate time to Standard. I don't think the converse is true. That seems like a confounding factor for the reasoning you have attempted to apply.

That said, there's no requirement to use free arm action in Standard, so one could, in principle, enter a Smooth competition and just dance Standard, without its resulting in a forfeit. In my opinion, using the parts of Smooth that are not part of Standard is appropriate when they produce a better looking overall result, but I wouldn't consider them "required figures/actions".

I do not think that top Standard dancers would fare well against top Smooth dancers in Smooth competitions, by applying this strategy. Furthermore, I don't think that top Standard dancers who intended to dance as you describe, would often feel inclined to enter Smooth competitions at all.

I would say if you're competing in Standard you're a Standard dancer; if you're competing in Smooth you're a Smooth dancer. If you compete in both, you're both. While in principle Standard dancers could simply compete in Smooth with a Standard legal syllabus routine, that's not common in practice. Neither is it common for a Smooth dancer to compete in Standard without learning some material that they don't use in Smooth, such as a lady's heel turn in many cases.

I think the crucial question is: Do *top* Standard dancers compete in Smooth, and if so how do they place? From your own posts upthread, I suppose you would describe yourself as a "top" Smooth dancer, but not a "top" Standard dancer. Even though you fall in the "both" category you describe here, I do not think that establishes a well-controlled basis for the reasoning you are attempting.

Incidentally, it strikes me that we're not really geeking about Standard starting with post #821. If you agree, do you think this branch would be better in the Smooth thread, or in its own thread?

Bluntly, I think (and I provide a hint above about the height of the bar that would have to be reached, to persuade me otherwise) that applying a notion of "better" in a standard-vs-smooth framing is altogether unwise. It's been done before on DF (too bad Larinda's posts are gone, alas). Probably there is nothing new to be said. Probably it is no more likely today than yesterday, to be persuasive. Probably it is just as likely today as yesterday, to provoke discordant reactions in the community. In any case I altogether agree that it isn't "standard geekery".

I hasten to add, however, that I think you *do* have good points (as usual!). Merely, I think you don't need to swim in "standard vs. smooth" waters to make them. They are even "standard geekery" points. For example, regarding "amount of suede on the floor" and "balance", I think it would be easy to talk about those technical details, how well they have been done before, how less-well they seem to be done in Standard comps today, and how even-less-well they seem to be done in Smooth comps today, without taking the additional step of comparing Standard and Smooth dancers outright. I suspect there would be very little controversy about that.

Indeed, I think there might be an uncontroversial "Smooth geekery" topic regarding the degree of emphasis placed upon Standard skills by Smooth dancers, how that has changed over time, the merits of such changes, what impact that has on Smooth dancing overall, etc.

tl;dr I think, as you say, that everyone agrees that Standard is a subset of Smooth. I think that applying the word "better" when referring to one in the context of the other is needlessly provocative and indeed unhelpful for arguing any particular point.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

ARMLINE is so challenging for me. At least I've stopped using the follow's poise when leading -- ouch, my very bad -- but the elusive beautiful armline seems hard to find in the wild. Any tips?

We're talking the leader's arm line, then, right? I have thoughts, not necessarily tips, partly from a discussion in a private thread almost a year ago. It's to be noted that different coaches from different schools of thought teach different holds which use different arm lines. So there are some choices involved here, but the caveats regarding mixing of schools of thought apply.

First I'll provide a video of Stephen and Lindsey Hillier hopefully cued to see the man's arm line when used in a hold with a partner. Pause quickly for the clearest view:


Stephen's arm line with a partner is not quite as magically straight across, elbow to elbow, as it was when he was practicing by himself, but it comes reasonably close. The straight across arm line is visually striking and in my experience does well with judges, or at least with European and British judges.

The basic idea behind this arm line is to extend the elbows as far apart as possible, which in principle pulls the arm line straight.

However, it also involves using some technical details that not all coaches agree with. In particular, it involves maintaining the right forearm straight from the elbow to the knuckles, not just to the wrist, with contact under the lady's arm from the wrist to the top edge of the right hand, rather than from the wrist up along the forearm. This allows the right elbow to be held further back, in line with the man's shoulder.

Note that contact on the top of the wrist under the lady's shoulder, rather than on the palm of the hand on the lady's back, may be an Eggleton thing. The shaping of the right hand at the knuckles may be a Hillier innovation.

In addition, with the man's right elbow held basically as high as his right shoulder, even a slight amount of downward pressure from the lady's left arm can cause pain and eventually tendinitis, so it's incumbent on the lady to keep her arm and left elbow high as well in this hold.

Finally, this hold involves more offset between the partners than in some cases, which may also require adjustment of the left forearm. It also works better with actual parallelism between the partners' shoulders, which everybody teaches but few actually dance.

To illustrate a different hold, I'll show Glenn Weiss with his earlier English partner Gillian Thickett:


Glenn's right arm comes more around the lady, with the right elbow slightly below and forward of his right shoulder. He curves at his wrist and not just at the knuckles to put his hand on the lady's back, and has contact on the palm of his hand rather than on top of his wrist. This can be more comfortable for the lady. It also does not require a lady as close to the man's height. However, because the right elbow is noticeably below the shoulder, the elbow to elbow arm line is not as striking.

 

[j_alexandra]

tl;dr I think, as you say, that everyone agrees that Standard is a subset of Smooth. I think that applying the word "better" when referring to one in the context of the other is needlessly provocative and indeed unhelpful for arguing any particular point.

Can I ask you guys to take this discussion over there -> like to a private conversation or something? Please?

 

[Warren J. Dew]

They are even "standard geekery" points. For example, regarding "amount of suede on the floor" and "balance", I think it would be easy to talk about those technical details, how well they have been done before, how less-well they seem to be done in Standard comps today, and how even-less-well they seem to be done in Smooth comps today, without taking the additional step of comparing Standard and Smooth dancers outright. I suspect there would be very little controversy about that.

I think the actual discussion about "satin vs suede" upthread showed that even such technical discussion can get controversial - not super controversial in this case, but not "very little" either. Granted the discussion did involve some comparison of specific dancers, in the persons of Joanne Bolton and Valeria Dragovic, but I don't think the personalities were the cause of the controversy. I also think use of videos and even frame captures helps illuminate technical discussion effectively enough to make using them worthwhile, even if that risks some controversy.

The frame capture of Joanne Bolton was from 20 years ago, and that of Valeria Dragovic was recent; I think this is an example of "better balance and foot strength" in Standard 20 years ago, but I wouldn't expect that to be uncontroversial either.

Can I ask you guys to take this discussion over there -> like to a private conversation or something? Please?

If I respond to the Smooth discussion in that post, it will not be in this thread.

 

[j_alexandra]

I think the actual discussion about "satin vs suede" upthread showed that even such technical discussion can get controversial - not super controversial in this case, but not "very little" either. Granted the discussion did involve some comparison of specific dancers, in the persons of Joanne Bolton and Valeria Dragovic, but I don't think the personalities were the cause of the controversy. I also think use of videos and even frame captures helps illuminate technical discussion effectively enough to make using them worthwhile, even if that risks some controversy.

The frame capture of Joanne Bolton was from 20 years ago, and that of Valeria Dragovic was recent; I think this is an example of "better balance and foot strength" in Standard 20 years ago, but I wouldn't expect that to be uncontroversial either.

If I respond to the Smooth discussion in that post, it will not be in this thread.

Private. Conversation. Please. Pretty please.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

.

 

[j_alexandra]

I see that Glenn Boyce and Caroly Janes went pro at the UK Open, and placed 4th. There's a clip of their Waltz on DSI TV, if you can find it, also as a Facebook "reel".

What are they doing after the Fallaway Slip Pivot? Is that an overspin to a DRS? Or am I totally wrong on all of it (entirely possible)?

Also, I like her gown -- even though it's black.

 

[Arun Garg]

I see that Glenn Boyce and Caroly Janes went pro at the UK Open, and placed 4th. There's a clip of their Waltz on DSI TV, if you can find it, also as a Facebook "reel".

What are they doing after the Fallaway Slip Pivot? Is that an overspin to a DRS? Or am I totally wrong on all of it (entirely possible)?

Also, I like her gown -- even though it's black.

Looks like Fallway Reverse Slip Pivot, DRS, overspin, full reverse pivot before slipping into SFL position for the develope! Very classic and traditional, and what a wonderful placement for a debut!

 

[singndance]

My personal plan is to be reincarnated as Galina.

I know this is a standard thread but….this has been my plan since I first saw her dance almost 20 years ago and I know this is absolutely impossible!!!!!

 

[j_alexandra]

Elsewhere, an AT person asked, "What is body flight?" and @fiesta0618 posted this:

High velocity, continuous movement of the spine(s) across the floor. Doing it well involves generating and controlling significant momentum. Highly skilled Ballroomers really push the envelope on this, running on the edge of losing control.


... body flight is indeed about speed ...

We live on different planets.

Totally agree with "continuous movement of the spine across the floor," although the mental image gives me a tiny bit of a giggle. But about that high velocity: um. In my world, high velocity has zero, zip, nada, squat, bupkis, to do with body flight.

If there's no flight in my Waltz, I'm doing it poorly. In Foxtrot, if there's no body flight, I'm freaking miserable.

What's speed got to do with it?