hustle and the laws of physics
Ron Nicholson
hustle and exactly how much force was required to move back and forth
in a fast slotted dance like the hustle.
Before someone adds that hustle should be a light dance and no force
should be required, I'd like to point out that movement in dancing must
obey the laws of physics. Any movement back and forth indicates a
change in velocity with respect to time and this requires a force. The
only question is where the force comes from, the floor or ones
partner.
So I made some measurements, pulled out my old physics textbooks and
made some calculations.
According a measure per minute chart posted by Jay Dusenbury, hustle
tempo in 28-30 mpm. This corresponds to 112-120 beats per minute or in
the range of 500 to 535 milliseconds per beat. A hustle open and close
basic requires 6 beats to do 8 steps (&1 2 3&4 5 6) or in the range of
3.0 and 3.22 seconds for a woman to move up the slot and return to her
starting position.
At the local Tuesday night hustle dance, I was able to measure slot
lengths in the range of about 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) depending on the
height and energy of the dancers. A typical slot was about 1.3 meters
(4 feet) in length. The music was averaging 120 bpm or even a little
faster at times.
The minimum acceleration required to move back and forth across a
1.3 meter slot at 120 bpm is 2.31 meters/second/second. This is
equivalent to 0.24 G's or almost 1/4th the force of gravity. To put
this in terms of something you can feel, if a lady weighing 120 pounds
were to solely depend on her partner to pull her up and down the slot,
the force required would be equivalent to holding a 28 pound weight.
And this is the minimum possible force, assuming a constant
acceleration towards the center of the slot. A more reasonable
acceleration profile would be a periodic motion where the acceleration
towards the center of the slot was proportional to the distance from
the middle, e.g. coast in the middle of the slot and push on the floor
the most when stopping and turning around at the ends of the slot.
This periodic motion requires a max acceleration of 0.29 G's at the
ends of the slot.
In order for a woman not to pull on her partner when doing a hustle
basic at the above dimensions and speed, she needs to take a back step
of 7 to 9 inches behind her at the end of the slot (on the "3" count or
second slow, NOT on the "&" or the first step of the coaster, which
should be a "together") to get enough force off the floor to accelerate
herself. This back step gives a good hustle follower the look of a
split weight step where there body seems to be between their two feet
instead of over one foot; but in actuality the acceleration will put
all their weight over the back foot.
In actuality, I expect to feel a few pounds of connection when leading
a hustle basic with a good partner. So the womans acceleration might be
split 90% from the floor and 10% from the hands.
In addition, the total leg force required to provide both the lateral
force to accelerate up the slot and the vertical force to counteract
the force of gravity is an extra 3-4% over the normal standing force.
I think that failing to provide this extra leg force leads to the
(incorrect) bounce I sometimes see in beginners hustle, where they sink
or skid into the floor on the "1" count (second step of the coaster).
for reference:
hustle open and close basic, woman's footwork and timing:
timing - & 1 2 3,& 4 5 6
R L R L,R L R L
together forward forward back, together forward back back
or quick quick slow slow, quick quick slow slow.
8 steps in 6 beats.
"together forward" is sometimes called a "coaster step".
Any corrections to my physics calculations would be appreciated.
---
Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. r...@engr.sgi.com, r...@netcom.com
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // I speak only for myself, etc.
Icono Clast
RN}Any corrections to my physics calculations would be appreciated.
I can't believe I understood the whole thing! What a fine exposition!
I also have no idea how to make use of the information but I'm
fascinated by the fact that you bothered to create it. Thanks.
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * Are you an accomplished Hustler? -- Travis Kershner
Rahul Dhesi
>At the local Tuesday night hustle dance, I was able to measure slot
>lengths in the range of about 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) depending on the
>height and energy of the dancers. A typical slot was about 1.3 meters
>(4 feet) in length. The music was averaging 120 bpm or even a little
>faster at times.
Thanks for making the effort. Two minor points:
1. Good dancers will shorten the slot for faster music.
2. The feet move the full length of the slot, but in most hustle
moves, the center of gravity of the body will move considerably
less. (Lean back when decelerating, lean forward when accelerating.)
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Victor Eijkhout
> To put
> this in terms of something you can feel, if a lady weighing 120 pounds
> were to solely depend on her partner to pull her up and down the slot,
> the force required would be equivalent to holding a 28 pound weight.
> In order for a woman not to pull on her partner when doing a hustle
> basic at the above dimensions and speed, she needs to take a back step
> of 7 to 9 inches behind her at the end of the slot
As a corollary: a woman who thinks she needs to hang back from
you will easily exert 50+ pounds of force on you.
> And this is the minimum possible force, assuming a constant
> acceleration towards the center of the slot.
I.e.: x''=c. That would give a nasty jar in the middle of the slot.
> A more reasonable
> acceleration profile would be a periodic motion where the acceleration
> towards the center of the slot was proportional to the distance from
> the middle,
So: x''=-cx which is a spring action.
> e.g. coast in the middle of the slot and push on the floor
> the most when stopping and turning around at the ends of the slot.
Sounds basically correct. for the next refinement on your calculations,
I think you need a model where in the middle part
of the slot there is basically no force, only at the ends.
> This periodic motion requires a max acceleration of 0.29 G's at the
> ends of the slot.
Under the assumption of a spring, yes. If you would try a rope plus
a spring :-) you can have considerably more. The limit case of
a follower who holds her arms completely stiff gives +oo G's.
--
Victor Eijkhout
405 Hilgard Ave .............................. `We must brush aside the ACLU
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ................. and others who want to get
Los Angeles CA 90024 ..................... hung up on constitutional rights.'
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............................... [Senator Exon]
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/
Scott Allen
>
>I was wondering why some women pulled on me so hard when dancing
>hustle and exactly how much force was required to move back and forth
>in a fast slotted dance like the hustle.
>
>Before someone adds that hustle should be a light dance and no force
>should be required, I'd like to point out that movement in dancing must
>obey the laws of physics. Any movement back and forth indicates a
>change in velocity with respect to time and this requires a force. The
>only question is where the force comes from, the floor or ones
>partner.
>
>So I made some measurements, pulled out my old physics textbooks and
>made some calculations.
>
WOW! I'm impressed! I regularly apply the laws of physics in what I
teach for Whip/Push/West Coast Swing, but I've always worked off basic
concepts like Newton's laws. I've never actually done any numeric
calculations except in regards to counterbalance moves (in which the
ratio of the angles of incline of the partners is inversely proportional
to the weight ratio between the two).
Anyway, my question is this - if you maintain a constant connection,
10 or 15 or 20 pounds of pull doesn't seem like very much. How much
does the average briefcase or purse weigh?
I've been reading numerous posts saying that the "&" step of the hustle
should be a together rather than a rock back.
I'm here to tell you that this is a PURELY STYLISTIC PREFERENCE!!!!!!!
In Texas, the majority of the hustle dancers I have seen dance with a
rock back for the woman on "&" and a step forward on "1". I've danced
with many of them, and none of them feel heavy to me. The exception is
on spins. Coming out of spins, the woman must take her "&" step in place
and then step forward on the left. In other moves, however, the back
step on the "&" gives an extension that seems to be missing when the woman
steps in place on "&".
The question is - do you want the dance to be TOTALLY smooth or do you
want more extension and some use of counterbalance?
To my mind, it very much reminds me of the issue in West Coast Swing of
whether the woman walks forward on one or hesitates until the "&" after
one. Frankly, I think it usually depends on the lead. If the man doesn't
lead until count "1" and the woman is already coming forward, she's
BACKLEADING. On the other hand, if the man leads on the "&" before 1
(6& or 8&), and the woman tries to take a hesitation, she's fighting him
and will feel heavy to lead.
I think the same holds true for hustle. To give the woman a hard and
fast rule to step in place on "&" OR to rock back on "&" is not teaching
her to follow the lead. What she needs to learn is to KEEP THE RHYTHM
in her footwork. The man's lead will then determine her exact foot.
This is a concept we try to apply regularly in our teaching. For example,
what is the woman's correct footwork on a left side pass or underarm pass.
Does she turn on beat 2? 2&? 3? 3&? 4? 4&? Guess what! Every single one
of them works! Her job is take a strong walk-walk down the slot and then do
a triple step, wherever she may be. When she runs out of arm, she'll turn
around. Simple. So the point is, depending on how long both partners arms
are, how long their legs are, how big steps they take, how strong the man
leads, etc., the turn of the underarm turn can be anywhere between "2" and
"4&".
We need to teach women to follow their partner, NOT the exact foot placement
instructions that this or that instructor says is the "right" way to do it.
albert boulanger
This is a concept we try to apply regularly in our teaching. For example,
what is the woman's correct footwork on a left side pass or underarm pass.
Does she turn on beat 2? 2&? 3? 3&? 4? 4&? Guess what! Every single one
of them works! Her job is take a strong walk-walk down the slot and then do
a triple step, wherever she may be. When she runs out of arm, she'll turn
around. Simple. So the point is, depending on how long both partners arms
are, how long their legs are, how big steps they take, how strong the man
leads, etc., the turn of the underarm turn can be anywhere between "2" and
"4&".
Yeah, this is this element of robustness or structural stability that
I believe a dance from must have to have a permanence in time and to
become popular.
Regards,
Albert Boulanger
aboul...@ldeo.columbia.edu
Ron Nicholson
>Anyway, my question is this - if you maintain a constant connection,
>10 or 15 or 20 pounds of pull doesn't seem like very much. How much
>does the average briefcase or purse weigh?
The 30 pound number in the absolute minimum. Less smooth force
patterns can easily require half a G (half the womans weight!) in force
to turn her movement direction around. Hopefully it comes from the
floor and not my wrists, arms, shoulders and back. The ability to
dance with a light connection is just as important in a fast Hustle as
it is in a West Coast Swing.
>I've been reading numerous posts saying that the "&" step of the hustle
>should be a together rather than a rock back.
If the womans weight is going backward on the "&" step, she has very
little time to reverse herself and accelerate forward for the next
step. Although it is possible to do this and be smooth, many women
when using a rock back on the "&" step, yank their partners back
with them or end up not moving anywhere on the next (coaster) step.
>To my mind, it very much reminds me of the issue in West Coast Swing of
>whether the woman walks forward on one or hesitates until the "&" after
>one. Frankly, I think it usually depends on the lead. If the man doesn't
>lead until count "1" and the woman is already coming forward, she's
>BACKLEADING.
Just to be clear, there is a difference between West Coast Swing and
Hustle (at least as danced around here). In West Coast, the follower
should never step forward on "1" unless led; in Hustle the woman
should always step forward on "1" unless prevented (&1 2 3 count).
This give Hustle a more ballistic feel than West Coast Swing.
>We need to teach women to follow their partner, NOT the exact foot placement
>instructions that this or that instructor says is the "right" way to do it.
Yes. Very important in any partner dance.
---
Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. r...@netcom.com, r...@engr.sgi.com
Bart L. McJunkin
: Anyway, my question is this - if you maintain a constant connection,
: 10 or 15 or 20 pounds of pull doesn't seem like very much. How much
: does the average briefcase or purse weigh?
This is an incredible amount of force! If this doesn't feel heavy to
you, then we differ greatly on the definition of heavy.
: I've been reading numerous posts saying that the "&" step of the hustle
: should be a together rather than a rock back.
: I'm here to tell you that this is a PURELY STYLISTIC PREFERENCE!!!!!!!
I'm here to tell you that that is WRONG. The woman is not
moving her center backward on "&." Why should she rock
back. The return on "1" from a rock back is likely to make
her hop in the air.
: In Texas, the majority of the hustle dancers I have seen dance with a
: rock back for the woman on "&" and a step forward on "1". I've danced
: with many of them, and none of them feel heavy to me. The exception is
: on spins. Coming out of spins, the woman must take her "&" step in place
: and then step forward on the left. In other moves, however, the back
: step on the "&" gives an extension that seems to be missing when the woman
: steps in place on "&".
:
: The question is - do you want the dance to be TOTALLY smooth or do you
: want more extension and some use of counterbalance?
You shouldn't be trying to get extension on the "&."
That's rodeo swing. Hustle is smooth.
: I think the same holds true for hustle. To give the woman a hard and
: fast rule to step in place on "&" OR to rock back on "&" is not teaching
: her to follow the lead. What she needs to learn is to KEEP THE RHYTHM
: in her footwork. The man's lead will then determine her exact foot.
Hustle is different from WCS. In the Hustle closed basic,
the man brings her forward while he does the check step. He
doesn't rock her back like a WCS throwout.
: This is a concept we try to apply regularly in our teaching. For example,
: what is the woman's correct footwork on a left side pass or underarm pass.
: Does she turn on beat 2? 2&? 3? 3&? 4? 4&? Guess what! Every single one
: of them works! Her job is take a strong walk-walk down the slot and then do
: a triple step, wherever she may be. When she runs out of arm, she'll turn
: around. Simple. So the point is, depending on how long both partners arms
: are, how long their legs are, how big steps they take, how strong the man
: leads, etc., the turn of the underarm turn can be anywhere between "2" and
: "4&".
: We need to teach women to follow their partner, NOT the exact foot placement
: instructions that this or that instructor says is the "right" way to do it.
What's wrong with an instructor who has enough courage and
strength of conviction to say "this is the right way to do
this?" They usually have a good reason. Pick a basic
footwork and then teach the real rules of WCS:
ie Side Pass:
Man leads on 1 (no other lead is necessary for the Side Pass)
Be close to your partner on 2
Stay near the location of your 4 step
Don't interfere with your partner on the anchor.
Be ready to move on 1
Bart.
####################################################
mcju...@spk.hp.com
Tel: 509-921-3449
Mail: Hewlett-Packard Company
Bart Mcjunkin, 3WU
24001 E Mission Ave
SPOKANE, WA 99019-9599
Victor Eijkhout
> : Anyway, my question is this - if you maintain a constant connection,
> : 10 or 15 or 20 pounds of pull doesn't seem like very much. How much
> : does the average briefcase or purse weigh?
>
> This is an incredible amount of force! If this doesn't feel heavy to
> you, then we differ greatly on the definition of heavy.
Look at it this way. Do you want to lift an above average briefcase
(and 10 pounds, that is a laptop with accessories plus a few books :-)
every 1.5 seconds for a few minutes straight? I'd rather not.
> : I've been reading numerous posts saying that the "&" step of the hustle
> : should be a together rather than a rock back.
>
> : I'm here to tell you that this is a PURELY STYLISTIC PREFERENCE!!!!!!!
>
> I'm here to tell you that that is WRONG. The woman is not
> moving her center backward on "&."
Ah, but there is a difference between stepping back instead of together
and moving your centre back. If a rockback is understood as
`step back right, replace left' then we will probably agree that
this is not the way hustle is (supposed to be?) done.
But it is possible for the & step to be back and the subsequent
1 or 3, depending on how you count, to go forward. I was watching
a beginning hustle class the other day, and Patricia Reeves (a longtime
NY style hustle dancer) does not do a together step, but rather
a back in 3rd or maybe even 5th position. Her 1 is then definitely
forward.
Btw, I danced with her and was thoroughly confused. I'm not good
enough yet that I can keep up with a woman who syncopates the
hell out of her hustle. I felt just as small as when I first
ran into WCS syncopations. Probably smaller, because I thought
I had made some progress since then :-(
Ron Nicholson
..
> Ah, but there is a difference between stepping back instead of together
> and moving your centre back. If a rockback is understood as
> `step back right, replace left' then we will probably agree that
> this is not the way hustle is (supposed to be?) done.
`Step back right, replace left' may work for a stationary pattern, but
leaves the woman with no momentum to get to the other end of the slot
in slotted patterns. My previous post was only discussing the physics
of patterns like an open and close basic, where the woman has to move
from one end of the slot to the other. For these types of patterns, I
think that the idea is to start moving ones center forward before
the end of "&" step, instead of letting it float back. The apex of the
womans backward motion may be somewhere between the beginning and end of
the "&" step. But she has to start accelerating forward much earlier
than this in order to dissipate her backward momentum.
> But it is possible for the & step to be back and the subsequent
> 1 or 3, depending on how you count, to go forward. I was watching
> a beginning hustle class the other day, and Patricia Reeves (a longtime
> NY style hustle dancer) does not do a together step, but rather
> a back in 3rd or maybe even 5th position. Her 1 is then definitely
> forward.
This works and can be used to nicely accent the music. But, the
later the backwards motion is reversed, the more POWER it takes
to get going forward in time for the "1". (&1 2 3 count)
---
Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. r...@engr.sgi.com, r...@netcom.com
Rahul Dhesi
>For these types of patterns, I
>think that the idea is to start moving ones center forward before
>the end of "&" step, instead of letting it float back. The apex of the
>womans backward motion may be somewhere between the beginning and end of
>the "&" step.
What I see is:
As she steps back with her left foot on the 3 count, her body is
leaning forward, and her CG (center of gravity) is slightly ahead of
her left foot.
On the & count she brings her right foot back to both feet are about
side by side. At this point she is leaning forward and is on her
toes, and her CG is above or a little ahead of her toe.
Now she moves, by stepping forward with her left foot on the 1
count. Since she is already leaning forward, she can push with her
right foot and gain momentum quickly.
The force due to change of momentum is primarily exerted aginst the
floor at an angle, not against her partner.
The correction I would make to the quoted text above is that her
forward motion doesn't begin significantly before the & count. But she
is *already leaning forward* when the & count occurs.
The way to reproduce this in slow motion is to face a wall and lean
against it with your hands. Now do a coaster step while still leaning
forward.
So now it's possible to see how an expert dancer could actually step back
(a little) on the & count: She steps back with her foot, but her body
*still leans forward without moving back* and no momentum is lost. She
will need to lean a bit more to compensate.
But when a beginning dancer steps back on the & count, she may be
stepping back *and moving her CG back* on the & count. This is what
causes the jerkiness. In fact such jerkiness is easily caused without
stepping back on the & count -- if she merely moves her body back with
her foot on the & count, thus losing the forward lean.
Scott Allen
>
>eijk...@jacobi.math.ucla.edu (Victor Eijkhout) wrote:
>..
>> 1 or 3, depending on how you count, to go forward. I was watching
>> a beginning hustle class the other day, and Patricia Reeves (a longtime
>> NY style hustle dancer) does not do a together step, but rather
>> a back in 3rd or maybe even 5th position. Her 1 is then definitely
>> forward.
>
>This works and can be used to nicely accent the music. But, the
>later the backwards motion is reversed, the more POWER it takes
>to get going forward in time for the "1". (&1 2 3 count)
>
Actually, it's not just a matter of the timing. When I sat and thought
about this topic for a while, I realized that what my wife and the other
hustle dancers around here do is not REALLY a rock. It is a small back
step on the right on & and then a strong forward walk on the left on 1 -
technically a ball-change, not a rock step. The trick is not to take
the weight back over the right foot.
In fact, consider this - doesn't a slight back step as described above
make the woman LIGHTER going into 1? When she picks up her left foot,
if the right foot is slightly behind her, she will actually fall forward
slightly, whereas if she takes her & in place, she is relying just on the
leverage motion of her foot & ankle and the man's lead. If the goes
slightly back on &, then gravity is working for her as well.
Ron Nicholson
> What I see is:
>
> As she steps back with her left foot on the 3 count, her body is
> leaning forward, and her CG (center of gravity) is slightly ahead of
> her left foot.
>
> On the & count she brings her right foot back to both feet are about
> side by side. At this point she is leaning forward and is on her
> toes, and her CG is above or a little ahead of her toe.
>
> Now she moves, by stepping forward with her left foot on the 1
> count. Since she is already leaning forward, she can push with her
> right foot and gain momentum quickly.
> her
> forward motion doesn't begin significantly before the & count. But she
> is *already leaning forward* when the & count occurs.
Well, I actually see the same thing you do. However the laws of
physics do not allow one to lean without accelerating, so what I
assume is really happening during the 500 milliseconds between the
the 3 count and the 1 count ("&1 2 3 " @ 120 bpm) is a de-acceleration
of reverse motion and then an acceleration forward, with the "&"
step somewhere around the apex. Plotted as displacement vs. time,
the CG motion would describe a shallow arc, never standing still
except for an instant.
I think a lot of what we see in dance is visual illusion. That's
one of the reasons I started to analyze the physics of this
particular dance movement.
Scott Allen
>
>Scott Allen (win...@io.com) wrote:
>: Anyway, my question is this - if you maintain a constant connection,
>: 10 or 15 or 20 pounds of pull doesn't seem like very much. How much
>: does the average briefcase or purse weigh?
>
>This is an incredible amount of force! If this doesn't feel heavy to
>you, then we differ greatly on the definition of heavy.
It doesn't feel heavy to me. Of course, I weigh about 260+, and I use
body leads for EVERYthing. My arms aren't flexing to support that force,
so it's really not tiring.
>I'm here to tell you that that is WRONG. The woman is not
>moving her center backward on "&." Why should she rock
>back. The return on "1" from a rock back is likely to make
>her hop in the air.
Who died and made you hustle god?
Where do you get off? I've seen DOZENS of hustle dancers in Texas AND
around the country (especially South Florida, and even some in NYC and
Southern California), and that's the way they do it.
I'm really sick and tired of people telling other people that this or
that is "WRONG". If no one's getting hurt, and both partners are having
fun dancing to the music, it isn't WRONG. It may not be how YOU teach
it, or even a larger group of self-proclaimed experts. That still
doesn't make it "wrong".
For example, I think that for the woman to be doing a coaster step as a
break ending in WCS in such a way that her center goes back on 5 and comes
forward on 6 totally ruins the man's ability to lead the woman into
high-energy moves. But guess what - that's the way it's been in the
Arthur Murray AND Fred Astaire syllabus for YEARS!
I don't like it. I don't teach it. I'll even offer an explanation of
why I don't like it to just about anyone who will listen. But I NEVER
call it WRONG.
>You shouldn't be trying to get extension on the "&."
>That's rodeo swing. Hustle is smooth.
What is rodeo swing? Never heard of it. The dance I described is
called hustle here.
>Hustle is different from WCS. In the Hustle closed basic,
>the man brings her forward while he does the check step. He
>doesn't rock her back like a WCS throwout.
Same song, different verse.
>: We need to teach women to follow their partner, NOT the exact foot placement
>: instructions that this or that instructor says is the "right" way to do it.
>
>What's wrong with an instructor who has enough courage and
>strength of conviction to say "this is the right way to do
>this?" They usually have a good reason.
Here is EXACTLY what is wrong with this. Narrow-minded instructors who
say that this or that way is the RIGHT and ONLY RIGHT way to do it usually
end up producing dancers who can only dance with other people who have
learned by those exact same rules.
I GUARANTEE that Robert Cordoba's rules of WCS are not identical to
Mario Robau Jr.'s or Barry Durand's or etc., etc.
The approach I take teaches dancers to adapt to different styles easily.
The dancer I teach hustle to will be able to adapt to the one you do and
dance comfortably with him/her. The dancer you teach as you described
will end up being an elitist dance snob and be unable to dance hustle
with anyone who has learned in a different style which DOES exist and is
taught in various parts of the country by very reputable instructors.
Skippy Blair asked a great question once:
Q: When two people are dancing together and they have different
styles, whose responsibility is it to adapt to the other,
the man or the woman?
A: Whichever one is aware that there IS a difference and can
make the adjustment.
With the approach I take to teaching the woman, her right foot follows her
right shoulder, which follows her right hand. If the man doesn't give her
extension, she doesn't take it on her own. On the other hand, if the man
gives her extension, she takes it. For her to automatically step forward
ahead of the lead would be considered BACKLEADING!
> Pick a basic footwork and then teach the real rules of WCS:
>
>ie Side Pass:
>
>Man leads on 1 (no other lead is necessary for the Side Pass)
>Be close to your partner on 2
>Stay near the location of your 4 step
>Don't interfere with your partner on the anchor.
>Be ready to move on 1
Different words, but basically the same thing I was saying. It's nice
to end on an agreeable note.
All I ask is for you to open your mind to the possibility that there
may be other people around who do things differently from you, but in
a way that works for them. Is that such a hard concept?
Icono Clast
$4...@bug.rahul.net>
RH}I think a lot of what we see in dance is visual illusion. That's
}one of the reasons I started to analyze the physics of this
}particular dance movement.
Indeed! In other contexts, I've said that as one reason to avoid
taking non-dancers with whom one has an emotional attachment to a
dance. Much of what we do is far more provocative in appearance than
reality. You've pointed out another illusion.
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * . . . menage a hustle . . . -- Robinne Gray
Scott Allen
>Look at it this way. Do you want to lift an above average briefcase
>(and 10 pounds, that is a laptop with accessories plus a few books :-)
>every 1.5 seconds for a few minutes straight? I'd rather not.
No. But lifting it requires additional force. I wouldn't mind carrying it
for ten minutes walking to my office from the car.
>Ah, but there is a difference between stepping back instead of together
>and moving your centre back. If a rockback is understood as
>`step back right, replace left' then we will probably agree that
>this is not the way hustle is (supposed to be?) done.
>But it is possible for the & step to be back and the subsequent
>1 or 3, depending on how you count, to go forward. I was watching
>a beginning hustle class the other day, and Patricia Reeves (a longtime
>NY style hustle dancer) does not do a together step, but rather
>a back in 3rd or maybe even 5th position. Her 1 is then definitely
>forward.
As I added in a later post, we actually take the right foot back as
the ball of a ball-change. The woman does not ordinarily take her
center back unless the man has deliberately led an explosion or
extension. In fact, the woman putting the right foot slightly
behind her center actually helps give her forward momentum. She's
now got gravity working for her, not just the flex of her ankle.
And we agree completely - 1 is absolutely a (usually big) step
forward.
>Btw, I danced with her and was thoroughly confused. I'm not good
>enough yet that I can keep up with a woman who syncopates the
>hell out of her hustle. I felt just as small as when I first
>ran into WCS syncopations. Probably smaller, because I thought
>I had made some progress since then :-(
What are you doing watching her feet, anyway? Hardly seems like
proper head position to me. Heh. Just keep that old walk-walk-
touch going and you'll be fine.
Victor Eijkhout
> >Look at it this way. Do you want to lift an above average briefcase
> >(and 10 pounds, that is a laptop with accessories plus a few books :-)
> >every 1.5 seconds for a few minutes straight? I'd rather not.
>
> No. But lifting it requires additional force. I wouldn't mind carrying it
> for ten minutes walking to my office from the car.
Eh, in Aristotelian physics you are indeed using force to carry
a briefcase. In Newtonian (which Ron and I were talking about) not.
Force is associated with acceleration and deceleration. In this case,
the change of direction of the follower at the ends of the slot.
Actually, there is an aspect that Ron has not brought up:
hustle motion does have a strong circular component to it,
at least in the basic figures, and since rotating is a change
of the velocity vector, hence acceleration, there is force
that way too. This would probably diminish the force
as calculated by ron for a purely linear change of direction.
Shawne Neeper
SA>>If the man doesn't
SA>>lead until count "1" and the woman is already coming forward, she's
SA>>BACKLEADING.
>
RN>Just to be clear, there is a difference between West Coast Swing and
RN>Hustle (at least as danced around here). In West Coast, the follower
RN>should never step forward on "1" unless led; in Hustle the woman
RN>should always step forward on "1" unless prevented (&1 2 3 count).
RN>This give Hustle a more ballistic feel than West Coast Swing.
>
The other night, I was dancing Hustle with a friend who just started
beginning Hustle classes (and is learning quickly). He felt that I was
stepping out on "1" too soon. I think he felt that because he's used to
WCS, where the lady would normally wait for a lead to step forward on 1.
I've been taught to step out strongly on 1 unless, as Ron writes, I am
prevented from it. Or is this just my hubris speaking? ;-)
Shawne Neeper To be is to do. - I. Kant
sne...@parker.bio.uci.edu To do is to be. - A. Sartre
Department of Psychobiolgy Do be do be do. - F. Sinatra
U of California, Irvine, CA Yabba dabba do! - F. Flintstone
Scott Allen
>
>The 30 pound number in the absolute minimum. Less smooth force
>patterns can easily require half a G (half the womans weight!) in force
>to turn her movement direction around. Hopefully it comes from the
>floor and not my wrists, arms, shoulders and back. The ability to
>dance with a light connection is just as important in a fast Hustle as
>it is in a West Coast Swing.
Good. That makes me feel better. My wife and I regular use smooth
force patterns. I find it much more exciting dancing.
Actually, in taking a private with Michael & Amber Cross specifically
on the subject of speed swing (160+ bpm), they said that the connection
actually has to get tighter and shorter. They said that this was compen-
sated for by switching places more rather than the man holding cross-slot.
If the partners switch places, the woman doesn't have to travel as far
and doesn't require as much force in the lead. Also, the man doesn't
have to pre-lead by moving his center back to pull the woman forward. He
leads more with the arm, pulling himself up to her as well as pulling her
towards him.
>If the womans weight is going backward on the "&" step, she has very
>little time to reverse herself and accelerate forward for the next
>step. Although it is possible to do this and be smooth, many women
>when using a rock back on the "&" step, yank their partners back
>with them or end up not moving anywhere on the next (coaster) step.
As I said in a later post, I realized that what we do is not actually
"rock" back on the &, but place the foot slightly back as the "ball" of
a ball-change. In this case, placing the foot slightly behind the
woman's center actually HELPS her move forward.
>Just to be clear, there is a difference between West Coast Swing and
>Hustle (at least as danced around here). In West Coast, the follower
>should never step forward on "1" unless led; in Hustle the woman
>should always step forward on "1" unless prevented (&1 2 3 count).
>This give Hustle a more ballistic feel than West Coast Swing.
I understand. So if you wanted to hit an extension line, that would
be considered "preventing" the woman from coming forward?
>>We need to teach women to follow their partner, NOT the exact foot placement
>>instructions that this or that instructor says is the "right" way to do it.
>Yes. Very important in any partner dance.
I think a lot of people miss this basic concept.
BTW,
THANK YOU for carrying on an intelligent, non-critical conversation on
this subject. You have discussed it in such a way that I am learning
from it without feeling that you are saying that waht a large number
of people in this part (and other parts) of the country do is "wrong".
I'm going to try working with this. I'm not saying I'm going to change,
but I will try it.
Victor Eijkhout
> RN>Just to be clear, there is a difference between West Coast Swing and
> RN>Hustle (at least as danced around here). In West Coast, the follower
> RN>should never step forward on "1" unless led; in Hustle the woman
> RN>should always step forward on "1" unless prevented (&1 2 3 count).
> RN>This give Hustle a more ballistic feel than West Coast Swing.
If you write &123 as 23&1, you can verbalize this as 'step triple-step'.
And swing dancers are used to doing triple-step in place. Well, in
hustle that would reduce your travel to just one step, which is not
all that much.
My current hustle teacher, Jamie Arias, explains it as a 'rubberband
action', which stretches on that triplestep, and leads you
forward on the 1. Or the 3 is his 12&3 way of counting.
> The other night, I was dancing Hustle with a friend who just started
> beginning Hustle classes (and is learning quickly). He felt that I was
> stepping out on "1" too soon. I think he felt that because he's used to
> WCS, where the lady would normally wait for a lead to step forward on 1.
> I've been taught to step out strongly on 1 unless, as Ron writes, I am
> prevented from it. Or is this just my hubris speaking? ;-)
Well, you should really be led into stepping strongly, but yes,
stepping forward on 1 is the thing to do. For as far as I
understand it :-)
Scott Allen
>
>So now it's possible to see how an expert dancer could actually step back
>(a little) on the & count: She steps back with her foot, but her body
>*still leans forward without moving back* and no momentum is lost. She
>will need to lean a bit more to compensate.
>
>But when a beginning dancer steps back on the & count, she may be
>stepping back *and moving her CG back* on the & count. This is what
>causes the jerkiness. In fact such jerkiness is easily caused without
>stepping back on the & count -- if she merely moves her body back with
>her foot on the & count, thus losing the forward lean.
I think I see a solution that answers all of these issues.
One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
"&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
"&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
on back to the same foot.
So, in hustle, we all agree that the EMPHASIS is on the strong
forward step on the left foot on 1. I can practically guarantee
you that if you teach beginners to concentrate on the strong "1"
step instead of worrying about the exact foot placement of the "&"
step, you'll get the desired result: the truly novice dancers will,
in all likelihood, take the "&" in place or only very slightly
back. The more experienced dancers who understand how ball-changes
work, may add the slight back break.
I'm going to experiment with this. I've been doing hustle a while,
but I only recently started teaching it, so this discussion has
been great for me.
Once again, let me say how nice it is to have a rational, logical
discussion that allows for the possibilities of variations. You
are very open-minded. Thanks.
Bart L. McJunkin
: I'm really sick and tired of people telling other people that this or
: that is "WRONG". If no one's getting hurt, and both partners are having
: fun dancing to the music, it isn't WRONG. It may not be how YOU teach
: it, or even a larger group of self-proclaimed experts. That still
: doesn't make it "wrong".
We both agree that the number one rule of good dancing is
not hurting your partner. But there's more to good dancing
than that.
<Deleted coaster step description>
: I don't like it. I don't teach it. I'll even offer an explanation of
: why I don't like it to just about anyone who will listen. But I NEVER
: call it WRONG.
: >What's wrong with an instructor who has enough courage and
: >strength of conviction to say "this is the right way to do
: >this?" They usually have a good reason.
: Here is EXACTLY what is wrong with this....
If I see dancing that makes it difficult for a couple to
dance, I will tell them what is WRONG (when they ask me.)
You won't call bad dancing wrong. But, if someone stands up
and says "Thats bad dancing.", you say "You're wrong."
I guess we can't all get along.
: I GUARANTEE that Robert Cordoba's rules of WCS are not identical to
: Mario Robau Jr.'s or Barry Durand's or etc., etc.
I've had group or private instruction with all of them and
almost every one of them has a reason for their "rules." I
don't agree with everything I've heard. But if a teacher
waffles and cannot give me a good reason, my opinion of
their teaching ability drops. Too many of the top teachers
try to avoid controversy by refusing to voice any opinion.
A wishy-washy teacher is not getting the job done:
teach (verb)
1: to cause to know a subject
2: to show how
3: to guide the studies of
4: to make to know the disagreeable consequences of an action
5: to impart the knowledge of
A great way to get your money's worth is to ask the teacher
what you are doing wrong.
: The approach I take teaches dancers to adapt to different styles easily.
: The dancer I teach hustle to will be able to adapt to the one you do and
: dance comfortably with him/her. The dancer you teach as you described
: will end up being an elitist dance snob and be unable to dance hustle
: with anyone who has learned in a different style which DOES exist and is
: taught in various parts of the country by very reputable instructors.
Name a reputable hustle instructor that teaches the follower
to hang back and wait for a lead on 1.
: Skippy Blair asked a great question once:
: Q: When two people are dancing together and they have different
: styles, whose responsibility is it to adapt to the other,
: the man or the woman?
: A: Whichever one is aware that there IS a difference and can
: make the adjustment.
Skippy was asked the adjustment question in Seattle at
Easter Swing. In a social situation, the aware dancer
should adapt. But if that dancer is paying for instruction,
they should be corrected. Then the student and their
partners don't have to do so much adapting. Social dancers
need only hear the first part, but those that teach need to
learn the whole message.
: With the approach I take to teaching the woman, her right foot follows her
: right shoulder, which follows her right hand. If the man doesn't give her
: extension, she doesn't take it on her own. On the other hand, if the man
: gives her extension, she takes it. For her to automatically step forward
: ahead of the lead would be considered BACKLEADING!
In NY slotted hustle, counted &123, stepping forward on 1
isn't backleading.
<Side pass description deleted>
: Different words, but basically the same thing I was saying. It's nice
: to end on an agreeable note.
I'm glad to see that it took two days to compose your reply.
And possibly yourself. :)
: All I ask is for you to open your mind to the possibility that there
: may be other people around who do things differently from you, but in
: a way that works for them. Is that such a hard concept?
We both agree that the number one rule of good dancing is
not hurting your partner. But there's more to good dancing
than that. Different is cool, but wrong is wrong. A
teacher that doesn't have the courage to teach isn't doing
anybody a favor.
From the backwoods of Washington,
Jon Leech
>As I said in a later post, I realized that what we do is not actually
>"rock" back on the &, but place the foot slightly back as the "ball" of
>a ball-change. In this case, placing the foot slightly behind the
>woman's center actually HELPS her move forward.
I realize you're talking about hustle, but there's something similar
which seems to be near-universal behavior among beginners in ECS: the lead
(often the follow too, but almost always the lead) will tend to take an
immense back step on the "rock", and plant their entire weight on the left
foot. Of course if the music is at all fast, this makes it virtually
impossible to recover on the right foot in time with the music, and things
break down from there. Even when the instructor repeatedly emphasizes and
demonstrates a small back step with weight on the ball, it takes more than
one session to sink in.
Since this is IMO such a common problem, I wonder if there are any good
teaching approaches out there to helping people work through it?
While on the area of really common beginner problems, another one is in
patterns working from foxtrot/waltz/rumba box steps. When doing a
side-together, there's a tendency to forget to change weight on the
"together", so the lead will do something like
Fwd L "forward"
Swd R "side"
Touch L "together" (oops, no weight change)
Back L "back" (follow tries to avoid stepping on lead :-)
Confusion "side" (but which one, he thinks frantically?)
In waltz one can at least emphasize a mantra of changing weight on every
step, but I'd be interested in other solutions. IMO the ideal solution is to
punt box steps and just start with passing feet, but I suppose that's a bit
radical.
Jon
__@/
Ching Liu
> I realize you're talking about hustle, but there's something similar
>which seems to be near-universal behavior among beginners in ECS: the lead
>(often the follow too, but almost always the lead) will tend to take an
>immense back step on the "rock", and plant their entire weight on the left
>foot. Of course if the music is at all fast, this makes it virtually
>impossible to recover on the right foot in time with the music, and things
>break down from there. Even when the instructor repeatedly emphasizes and
>demonstrates a small back step with weight on the ball, it takes more than
>one session to sink in.
> Since this is IMO such a common problem, I wonder if there are any good
>teaching approaches out there to helping people work through it?
One thing I do to have the partners put the proper rocking foot back in
open position, and just keep rock-stepping for a while. It simultaneously
works on the proper tone (getting the rubber band action in the arms),
and keeping the heel up. Once they've gotten used to just the rock-step,
I get them to do basics, paying close attention to the rock-steps. It
works fairly well.
> While on the area of really common beginner problems, another one is in
>patterns working from foxtrot/waltz/rumba box steps. When doing a
>side-together, there's a tendency to forget to change weight on the
>"together", so the lead will do something like
> Fwd L "forward"
> Swd R "side"
> Touch L "together" (oops, no weight change)
> Back L "back" (follow tries to avoid stepping on lead :-)
> Confusion "side" (but which one, he thinks frantically?)
> In waltz one can at least emphasize a mantra of changing weight on every
>step, but I'd be interested in other solutions. IMO the ideal solution is to
>punt box steps and just start with passing feet, but I suppose that's a bit
>radical.
When I'm teaching a closed position dance, I always start with passing
feet. It works on the lead-follow connection and the frame before they
even have to start worrying about footwork, and I'm sure I don't have to
tell you that the lead-follow is more important. Once they're used to
moving together, I'll have them try the basic steps - at first, having
them lift the foot they're not on with each step, then relaxing to a more
normal walking motion.
--
Ching Liu, chin...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~chingliu/
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" -Tennyson
Check out the Caltech Ballroom Dance Club Web Page!
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~chingliu/Ballroom.html
Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems
> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
> on back to the same foot.
Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
Now it's possible I've misinterpreted her, or you; but my triple steps
(and &34, and similar) work a lot better when I do them (as I
interpret) the way she describes, rather than the way (I think) you
describe.
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@cmkrnl.com (JH645) CompuServe: 74140,2055
Scott Allen
>
>Ron Nicholson and Scott Allen exchange, in part:
>
>SA>>If the man doesn't
>SA>>lead until count "1" and the woman is already coming forward, she's
>SA>>BACKLEADING.
>>
>RN>Hustle (at least as danced around here). In West Coast, the follower
>RN>should never step forward on "1" unless led; in Hustle the woman
>RN>should always step forward on "1" unless prevented (&1 2 3 count).
>RN>This give Hustle a more ballistic feel than West Coast Swing.
>>
>beginning Hustle classes (and is learning quickly). He felt that I was
>stepping out on "1" too soon. I think he felt that because he's used to
>WCS, where the lady would normally wait for a lead to step forward on 1.
>I've been taught to step out strongly on 1 unless, as Ron writes, I am
>prevented from it. Or is this just my hubris speaking? ;-)
I have been taught that in ANY partner dance, the woman stepping ahead
of the lead is backleading. Imagine any smooth dance with the woman
stepping before the man's frame moved!
Richard Simpson
> I think a lot of what we see in dance is visual illusion. That's
> one of the reasons I started to analyze the physics of this
> particular dance movement.
I know this is entering the Engineering domain rather than Laws of Physics, and
I have no expertise in the hustle, but what about the effects of *grounding* of
the dancers - surely this adds a *spring and damper* effect, altering the forces
on each partner?.
Richard (Dickkun) Simpson, VA Beach
Scott Allen
>
>
>> >Look at it this way. Do you want to lift an above average briefcase
>> >(and 10 pounds, that is a laptop with accessories plus a few books :-)
>> >every 1.5 seconds for a few minutes straight? I'd rather not.
>>
>> No. But lifting it requires additional force. I wouldn't mind carrying it
>> for ten minutes walking to my office from the car.
>
>Eh, in Aristotelian physics you are indeed using force to carry
>a briefcase. In Newtonian (which Ron and I were talking about) not.
>Force is associated with acceleration and deceleration. In this case,
>the change of direction of the follower at the ends of the slot.
>
>Actually, there is an aspect that Ron has not brought up:
>hustle motion does have a strong circular component to it,
>at least in the basic figures, and since rotating is a change
>of the velocity vector, hence acceleration, there is force
>that way too. This would probably diminish the force
>as calculated by ron for a purely linear change of direction.
Geez. I know you're the math expert, but still - you can't carry a briefcase
without closing the grip of your hand to counteract the downward force of
gravity, right? You must apply an equal force, whether there is motion or not,
right? Force over time = work, right? Even if there's no motion, right?
Your own original example was holding it at arm's length without moving, right?
Stop me, I'm on a roll...
Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach here!
Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
Ron Nicholson
> >Just to be clear, there is a difference between West Coast Swing and
>
> be considered "preventing" the woman from coming forward?
Yes, any definite and well communicated lead counts.
As an example of a (unless) lead, let me use a mans free spin. In WCS,
if I release a woman's hand without any forward pressure or motion and
do a free spin I would expect her to anchor in place and to be on the
same side of the slot as I left her. (Actually, to avoid unexpected
collisions, I would check to make sure the woman isn't the kind who
coasters instead of anchors before I try a free spin.) Anchoring in
place and making funny faces over my attempted spinning is acceptable.
I hustle, I would do a free spin slightly off the center of the slot,
and afterwards expect to find the woman across the slot or rotating
the slot around me even if I didn't lead her hand forward beforehand.
Very disconcerting to find she had stopped to watch me spin (read
wobble) and I have to go an extra 1/2 wobble (spin) to find her.
*** Not to lead is really to lead, but ya have to speak the same
kinesthetic language.
Ron Nicholson
>
> In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
> > One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
> > "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
> > you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
> > "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
> > on back to the same foot.
>
> Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
> instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
> don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
> and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
Oh good. More physics!
You can put ALL your weight on one foot for a short period of time
without having your CG directly over that foot. Try it.
- Stand completely on your left foot.
- Put the ball of your right foot on the floor about 6 inches back
without weight.
- Press into your right foot hard enough to pick your left foot
completely off the floor and slip forward about an inch without
bobbing your head or body up and down.
Congratulations. You have just done a "ball change" with complete
weight change (or you wouldn't have been able to pick up your left
foot without bobbing down and up) but without your weight being over
your foot (because your right foot was behind you and you moved
forward.)
This is completely within the laws of Newtonian physics. The only
limitation is that the time your weight can be on the ball of you
right foot is limited by knee and ankle flex, since your body will
accelerate away from it. But if the music is fast enough, then
the "ball change" will happen within the time of a comfortable
amount of knee and ankle flex and body motion. This is why certain
dances only feel comfortable at certain tempos.
And this is a problem with teaching dance. Where your weight is
and where your center of mass is can be different when changing
your direction of motion (accelerating). Try to explain that to
a dance newbe.
Icono Clast
In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
> on back to the same foot.
JHKM}Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
}instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
}don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
}and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
I agree with you, Jamie. I tell beginners "you can't fake it" meaning
a TriPleStep is a TriPleSTEP!
On the other hand, I occasionally fake it. Sometimes I'm
dancing with someone I'd rather not, or the music doesn't grab me, or
m'legs are saying: "Why are you making us do this? We wanna go t'bed!"
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * Swing is a state of mind -- Victor Eijkhout
Bart L. McJunkin
: c...@anarchy.io.com>
I agree Jamie. There are a lot of simple syncopations that
you cannot do unless you take full weight on an "&" step.
Such as "triple-kick" on an anchor:
5 R hook step
& Left replace
6 R kick
(This is a Robert Cordoba owned syncopation and you must
forget it after reading.)
Ron Nicholson
> I have been taught that in ANY partner dance, the woman stepping ahead
> of the lead is backleading. Imagine any smooth dance with the woman
> stepping before the man's frame moved!
Not quite true. In many dances there is a lead moment and a
follow thru moment. Imagine a free spin. You may start your
partner turning. But she doesn't stop halfway around when you
release her hand or expect you to run around her so that she
can follow your frame. The language of a free spin is that the
leader can start it and the follower is expected to continue for
a bit.
In hustle, the language is that the lead can be at times other than
the "1" step (&1 2 3 count) and that the lady is expected to follow
thru with a coaster forward on the "1".
Victor Eijkhout
> Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach here!
> Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
The woman moves in a slot. The guy, of necessity, make more of an ellipse.
Edbj
writes:
>Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach
here!
>Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
I don't know where "here" is, but here in the wild west (So Calif), it's a
"rotating slot" as opposed to WCS which is a stationary slot.
Edbj
Kernel Mode Systems) writes:
>In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen)
writes:
>> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
>> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
>> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
>> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
>> on back to the same foot.
>
>Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
>instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
>don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
>and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
>
>Now it's possible I've misinterpreted her, or you; but my triple steps
>(and &34, and similar) work a lot better when I do them (as I
>interpret) the way she describes, rather than the way (I think) you
>describe.
Perhaps you're both correct? On the triple step you don't really stop and
rest on the &; however, there is a full, albeit brief, change in weight to
the opposite foot. This holds true for a true triple step, but, not for a
triple that's performed as a tap step.
Ron Nicholson
> Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach here!
> Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
Depends on what part of the country you're from and how crowded
the floor is. Hustle can be danced strictly slotted (a la WCS),
in a rotating slot, or as a traveling dance. A lot of hustle
figures work out well when danced in a triangle, e.g. 120 degree
turn at each end of the slot instead of 180 degrees. For
travelling, I used alternating forward and back grapevines and
free spins with an overturned basic exit.
And just like WCS, it can be danced very smooooothly, or with
a lot of snap, acceleration and posing (vogue).
Ching Liu
> Geez. I know you're the math expert, but still - you can't carry a
> briefcase without closing the grip of your hand to counteract the
> downward force of gravity, right? You must apply an equal force,
> whether there is motion or not, right? Force over time = work,
> right? Even if there's no motion, right? Your own original example
> was holding it at arm's length without moving, right? Stop me, I'm
> on a roll...
Well, it's been a while since my last classical physics class, but I
vaguely remember work being defined as distance * force, or something
to that effect. What I'm sure about is this: if there's no motion,
then there's no work done. It's not science's fault that the human
body needs to expend energy to stay in one place, when a table doesn't.
> Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we
> teach here! Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
I was talking with Richard Orosco a couple weeks back (he started dancing
hustle a long time ago, and is a former Latin Amateur champion of some sort),
and he said that hustle used to be circular, but that nowadays it's been
modified into a slot dance.
Mark Anthony Balzer
>The other night, I was dancing Hustle with a friend who just started
>beginning Hustle classes (and is learning quickly). He felt that I was
>stepping out on "1" too soon. I think he felt that because he's used to
>WCS, where the lady would normally wait for a lead to step forward on 1.
>I've been taught to step out strongly on 1 unless, as Ron writes, I am
>prevented from it. Or is this just my hubris speaking? ;-)
There is a good section on Hustle dancing in a file on the Dancer's Archive
which answers your question thoroughly. It can be found at:
ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/nonprofits/dance/topics/lead-follow-discussion.txt
Mark
Cheri Burk
(snip)
> As an example of a (unless) lead, let me use a mans free spin. In WCS,
> if I release a woman's hand without any forward pressure or motion and
> do a free spin I would expect her to anchor in place and to be on the
> same side of the slot as I left her. (Actually, to avoid unexpected
> collisions, I would check to make sure the woman isn't the kind who
> coasters instead of anchors before I try a free spin.) Anchoring in
> place and making funny faces over my attempted spinning is acceptable.
>
> ---
> Ronald H. Nicholson, Jr. r...@engr.sgi.com, r...@netcom.com
> #include <canonical.disclaimer> // I speak only for myself, etc.
>
Why do coasters interfere with your free spins? My partner does free
spins regularly and I do coasters as my basic break ending. Okay, so
I don't do them perfect but I do try! Anyway, with a coaster I stay
where my 4 puts me (5& are back, 6 is even with where 4 was). What's
the problem?
Cheri
My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of my employer or any one else (sigh!)
Victor Eijkhout
> Why do coasters interfere with your free spins? My partner does free
> spins regularly and I do coasters as my basic break ending.
Apparently you know how to do them right. The naive interpretation of
a coast propels you forward, so if you would coast on 5&6 and
your partner would do a spin on 5&6 *and* 78, then you would
run into him on 7, where a better anchor would simply keep you
in place, waiting for a lead.
This topic comes up every with a certain regularity. If you know
that you are not supposed to come forward unless led, then you
are perfectly free to do a coaster step. However, in particular
ballroom studios are likely to teach you a coaster step that
will make you come charging into your partner.
Icono Clast
BLM}I agree Jamie. There are a lot of simple syncopations that
}you cannot do unless you take full weight on an "&" step.
}Such as "triple-kick" on an anchor:
BLM}5 R hook step
}& Left replace
}6 R kick
BLM}(This is a Robert Cordoba owned syncopation and you must
}forget it after reading.)
Uh, I don't think so, Bart.
I was taught the hook almost immediately that I learned a
side-by-side triple and that was a _very_ long time ago, probably
before either of the Cordoba brothers was born.
However, I don't do the kick so I'll give 'im dat.
I'm occasionally conscious of doing the hook so assume that I do it
with some regularity. I occasionally do it with a step on the Left
heel on &. Kick's a good idea. Methinks I'll try it.
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * 1 person's theology is another's hilarity -- after L.Long
Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems
> In article <4119ol$k...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen)
> writes:
>
>>Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach
> here!
>>Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
>
> "rotating slot" as opposed to WCS which is a stationary slot.
Not sure what you mean by this. The way Michael Kiehm teaches it, the
slot doesn't "rotate", in the sense that if we start out in a
north-south slot, that's the way we stay. Folks who allow the slot to
"rotate" are viewed as being sloppy.
Edbj
Kernel Mode Systems) writes:
>>>Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach
>> here!
>>>Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
>>
>> I don't know where "here" is, but here in the wild west (So Calif),
it's a
>> "rotating slot" as opposed to WCS which is a stationary slot.
>
>Not sure what you mean by this. The way Michael Kiehm teaches it, the
>slot doesn't "rotate", in the sense that if we start out in a
>north-south slot, that's the way we stay. Folks who allow the slot to
>"rotate" are viewed as being sloppy.
>
Without realizing it, I meant the northern part of Southern Calif :) I
guess slop must be in the eyes of the beholder, no? Given the floor space,
most hustle up here uses as much real estate available, and the slot
rotates. I paid particular attention to the dancers doing the hustle last
night at the Press Box. I watched as Lance Shermoen, Wayne Bott, Michellle
French, and others used almost every square inch of floor, with slots
varying all over the compass. What's really interesting to me is the way
Michael Kiehm and his former partner, Lynn Vogen, used to do the same
thing. Perhaps Michael teaches a stationary slot because it's the most
appropriate on today's crowded dance floors.
Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems
> Without realizing it, I meant the northern part of Southern Calif :) I
> guess slop must be in the eyes of the beholder, no? Given the floor space,
> most hustle up here uses as much real estate available, and the slot
> rotates. I paid particular attention to the dancers doing the hustle last
> night at the Press Box. I watched as Lance Shermoen, Wayne Bott, Michellle
> French, and others used almost every square inch of floor, with slots
> varying all over the compass.
If they do it because they're deliberately trying to use up floor, or
as part of patterns that are designed to rotate the slot, that's one
thing. If they're doing it because, e.g., they just aren't bothering
to get all the way around on a turning closed basic, that's sloppy,
and I don't care *who* they are.
All the beginning and intermediate hustle patterns I've ever seen are
taught to begin and end with the slot in the same orientation. Most
newcomers, especially those who come to hustle from ECS, let this fall
apart a little bit, especially on faster music. That doesn't make it
right.
> What's really interesting to me is the way
> Michael Kiehm and his former partner, Lynn Vogen, used to do the same
> thing.
When was that? I've been taking from him and others at his studio off
and on for years, and have only seen him with Sherie and, now, with
Mari.
> Perhaps Michael teaches a stationary slot because it's the most
> appropriate on today's crowded dance floors.
Then again, perhaps it's because he's a precisionist (which I think he
his) and he thinks that's the way the dance should be done. If he
used to do it differently, well, hustle HAS evolved a lot since the
disco era; for one thing, it's now mostly done to slower music (e.g.
"Vogue" vs. "Turn The Beat Around") which makes it easier to "close
the slot".
Psychohist
few thoughts.
Regarding closing on the '&' versus stepping back: I suspect those of us
who disapprove of stepping back are thinking primarily of people who only
use the &, and not the preceding step, to reverse direction. Typically,
people who do this will lower the heel on the step before the '&'. All of
the reversal of direction (which this thread started out discussing, after
all) then occurs on the &.
At 120 bpm, and a velocity change from -1.2m/sec to +1.2m/sec (based on
covering a four foot slot in two beats), the acceleration is (1.2m/sec +
1.2m/sec)/(0.25 sec), or 9.6m/sec^2, or 0.98 gees. To do this without
pulling on one's partner, one would have to lean at about 45 degrees from
vertical. Many who use this technique instead pull on their partners. In
fact, if the lady is 120 lb, and doesn't use the floor, the pull will be
not 20 lb, but 117 lb! Even if one takes a 30 degree lean, about 50 lb of
help is still needed from partner. No wonder this technique doesn't seem
very smooth.
If one uses both the '&' and the step preceding the '&' to reverse
direction, the required acceleration is halved (because twice as much time
is available - velocity equals acceleration times time). This requires a
lean of about 25 degrees from vertical to avoid pulling on one's partner,
which is considerably more achievable. In this case, one's center of
gravity is stationary at the point where the '&' foot is placed, so it is
natural to take the '&' as a 'together' step - though minor variations,
such as a third or even fifth position placement, would achieve basically
the same effect.
In effect what is happening is that a rock step is being taken over two
steps, and the dancer will appear to hang in the air with the toes of both
feet on the floor well behind the center of gravity. The difficulty of
teaching this to beginners is probably why the 'back on the &' took hold
as sling hustle spread out from New York. In Boston as recently as five
years ago, when I moved (back) here, everyone did the 'foot back'
footwork. Now, with some evangelizing from myself and others, almost
everyone does the 'feet together' footwork - fortunately for leaders who
don't like being jerked around, at least physically.
Regarding the lead, one is actually starting to lead the lady to come back
on the count before the &. If you don't do this lead, and the lady is not
on autopilot, she will not reverse direction, but instead fly off towards
the edge of the dance floor. With this lead, she will decelerate and be
hanging in the air as described in the previous paragraph on the '&'; she
then has no choice but to step forward on the following step. No further
lead is necessary at this point (although it is reassuring); if none is
given, the lady is still correct in coming forward rather than falling on
her face.
Finally, regarding the briefcase: you aren't doing any work carrying a
briefcase because you aren't moving it in the (upward) direction of the
force. In the case of a hustle where the lady relies on you to reverse
her movement, there is work being done. She is technically doing work on
you while decelerating (you absorb energy into your arm), and you are
doing work on her when accelerating her back towards you. This isn't like
carrying a briefcase, but rather like picking it up and putting it back
down. Picking up a 20 pound briefcase and putting it back down every
couple seconds for three minutes would indeed be a lot of effort for most
people.
And this post was more physics in one day than I ever used as a nuclear
engineer.
Warren J. Dew
Profession: Psychohistorian
Avocation: Ballroom Dance
Victor Eijkhout
One step missing here:
> BLM}5 R hook step
> }& Left replace
> }6 R kick
add: & R step
Otherwise you have an even unit instead of an odd one.
> BLM}(This is a Robert Cordoba owned syncopation and you must
> }forget it after reading.)
At least that's the way Robert once taught it in the thursday
class. If I remember correctly he followed it with
1 L kick
& L step
2 R cross/step/whatever to get into an underarm pass.
This is a really surprising syncopation. Everone knows the
double kick on 5&6&; this one is on 6&1&. Neato!
> I was taught the hook almost immediately that I learned a
> side-by-side triple and that was a _very_ long time ago, probably
> before either of the Cordoba brothers was born.
Yes, well, the hook was not the point.
> However, I don't do the kick so I'll give 'im dat.
Indeed.
Edbj
Kernel Mode Systems) writes:
>In article <4150e0$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ed...@aol.com (Edbj)
writes:
>>Given the floor space,
>> most hustle up here uses as much real estate available, and the slot
>> rotates. I paid particular attention to the dancers doing the hustle
last
>> night at the Press Box. I watched as Lance Shermoen, Wayne Bott,
Michellle
>> French, and others used almost every square inch of floor, with slots
>> varying all over the compass.
>If they do it because they're deliberately trying to use up floor, or
>as part of patterns that are designed to rotate the slot, that's one
>thing. If they're doing it because, e.g., they just aren't bothering
>to get all the way around on a turning closed basic, that's sloppy,
>and I don't care *who* they are.
I agree that if they are not properly completing a pattern it is sloppy
(regardless of the type of dance). But, are you now saying if the rotating
slot is part of a pattern it isn't slop?
>All the beginning and intermediate hustle patterns I've ever seen are
>taught to begin and end with the slot in the same orientation.
I understand that all beginning and intermediate classes teach the
stationary slot. I also understand that after learning the basics
individuals develop their own styles and patterns. Just because those
individually developed styles and patterns don't comply with the basics,
that doesn't make them slop.
> Most newcomers, especially those who come to hustle from ECS, let this
fall
>apart a little bit, especially on faster music. That doesn't make it
right.
OK...
>
Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems
> In article <1995Aug19.103924.6004@cmkrnl>, j...@cmkrnl.com (Jamie Hanrahan,
> Kernel Mode Systems) writes:
>
>>In article <4150e0$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ed...@aol.com (Edbj)
> writes:
>>>Given the floor space,
>>> most hustle up here uses as much real estate available, and the slot
>>> rotates. I paid particular attention to the dancers doing the hustle
> last
>>> night at the Press Box. I watched as Lance Shermoen, Wayne Bott,
> Michellle
>>> French, and others used almost every square inch of floor, with slots
>>> varying all over the compass.
>
>>If they do it because they're deliberately trying to use up floor, or
>>as part of patterns that are designed to rotate the slot, that's one
>>thing. If they're doing it because, e.g., they just aren't bothering
>>to get all the way around on a turning closed basic, that's sloppy,
>>and I don't care *who* they are.
>
> I agree that if they are not properly completing a pattern it is sloppy
> (regardless of the type of dance). But, are you now saying if the rotating
> slot is part of a pattern it isn't slop?
I'm admitting that there are patterns that can (optionally) involve a
deliberate change of direction. However, these are very much the
exception, and I think that using them that way should be a rarity:
As a dramatic change; to make more room for a couple that just came
on the floor; etc.
> [...]
> Just because those
> individually developed styles and patterns don't comply with the basics,
> that doesn't make them slop.
otoh, just because the way someone does something is an individually
developed style, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
The way I see hustle, its drama and flair and (oh, hell, I'll say it)
"look and feel" are inextricably associated with its "slotted" design.
If you habitually allow the slot to rotate, you lose (IMO) a lot of
what makes hustle so visually appealing.
(How interesting would ECS or Lindy be if you kept the same patterns,
but the partners DIDN'T rotate around each other? Could that be
dismissed as an acceptable individual style?)
Scott Allen
>
> c...@anarchy.io.com>
>
>In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
> > One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
> > "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
> > you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
> > "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
> > on back to the same foot.
>
> }instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
> }don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
> }and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
>
>a TriPleStep is a TriPleSTEP!
> On the other hand, I occasionally fake it. Sometimes I'm
>dancing with someone I'd rather not, or the music doesn't grab me, or
>m'legs are saying: "Why are you making us do this? We wanna go t'bed!"
Let me clarify:
Let's take for example the leader's footwork on a whip: side-together-side, L-R-L.
When the man puts his weight fully centered over the left foot, then shifts
weight to his right foot, in order to move his center over his right foot, he
has to stop and reverse the direction he is travelling in.
Try it. Stand in front of a mirror. Stand on your left foot. Then shift your
weight to the right foot. Your center moves slightly to the right, right?
If the man does this on the L-R-L triple, he teeter-totters from side to side
and ends up looking robotic. What he needs to do is CONTINUE MOVING HIS CENTER
to the left, in which case his "&" step on the right foot will not quite reach
his center.
ON THE OTHER HAND, for followers doing the run-run-run on a side pass, of course,
the center is over the "&" step.
The rule is not that the center does or doesn't stay over the foot. The rule is,
your center is what travels the smooth path. You don't stop and reverse the
direction of travel of your center just to get it over the foot.
There are plenty of examples of where it is appropriate for an "&" to be not
directly under your center. There are also plenty of examples where it WILL
be under your center.
If anyone has any suggestions particularly on the L-R-L 3&4 of the whip step
for the leader, I'd love to hear them.
Scott Allen
>
>In article <1995Aug17.210957.5996@cmkrnl>, j...@cmkrnl.com (Jamie Hanrahan,
>Kernel Mode Systems) writes:
>
>>In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen)
>writes:
>>> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
>>> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
>>> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
>>> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
>>> on back to the same foot.
>>
>>instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
>>don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
>>and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
>>
>>(and &34, and similar) work a lot better when I do them (as I
>>interpret) the way she describes, rather than the way (I think) you
>>describe.
>
>Perhaps you're both correct? On the triple step you don't really stop and
>rest on the &; however, there is a full, albeit brief, change in weight to
>the opposite foot. This holds true for a true triple step, but, not for a
>triple that's performed as a tap step.
EXACTLY MY POINT! As I described in my other post, if you really stop and
rest on the &, you break the momentum of your center. Obviously, there
is a weight change - I certainly didn't intend to mean that the person hops.
Scott Allen
EVEN MORE EXACTLY MY POINT! I used a poor choice of words when I said
that it is not a full weight change. What you are describing above
is what I regularly teach.
This applies especially to side-together-side triples.
Scott Allen
>I agree Jamie. There are a lot of simple syncopations that
>you cannot do unless you take full weight on an "&" step.
Well, of course there are. Sometimes you have your CG directly
over the "&", sometimes you don't. See Ron Nicholson's very
eloquent article on the subject.
>Such as "triple-kick" on an anchor:
>
>5 R hook step
>& Left replace
>6 R kick
>
>(This is a Robert Cordoba owned syncopation and you must
>forget it after reading.)
Some of us do that move without ever having sone RC do it.
Or anyone else for that matter.
There are very few TOTALLY original moves there are in this
dance. There are so many that many people come up with
simultaneously and independently across the country. That's
why it's virtually impossible to say that anyone "owns" a
move.
Scott Allen
>
>Well, I actually see the same thing you do. However the laws of
>physics do not allow one to lean without accelerating, so what I
>assume is really happening during the 500 milliseconds between the
>the 3 count and the 1 count ("&1 2 3 " @ 120 bpm) is a de-acceleration
>of reverse motion and then an acceleration forward, with the "&"
>step somewhere around the apex. Plotted as displacement vs. time,
>the CG motion would describe a shallow arc, never standing still
>except for an instant.
>
>I think a lot of what we see in dance is visual illusion. That's
>one of the reasons I started to analyze the physics of this
>particular dance movement.
Right. So wouldn't a SLIGHT backstep by the woman on the "&" actually
make her lighter to lead vs. a step in place on the "&"?
With the slight back step, you've got gravity helping you out.
Scott Allen
>
>In article <4119ol$k...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen)
>writes:
>
>>Circular component? Your hustle really is different from what we teach
>here!
>>Here it's considered a slotted dance, like WCS.
>
>I don't know where "here" is, but here in the wild west (So Calif), it's a
>"rotating slot" as opposed to WCS which is a stationary slot.
Agreed. But "rotating slot" is very different from saying "circular component".
Actually I guess it depends on how often you rotate your slot, which is often
determined by how crowded the dance floor is and what dance everyone else on
the floor is doing. I usually find myself dancing to Top 40 music where the
floor is crowded and everyone around is either dancing WCS or freestyling, in
which case it becomes basically a safety issue, not a stylistic one.
That's probably why I've adapted and dance hustle almost entirely in a strict
slot, although I do sometimes use particular moves to change the direction of
the slot. But I don't shift it slightly with every pattern.
Scott Allen
>
>We both agree that the number one rule of good dancing is
>not hurting your partner. But there's more to good dancing
>than that.
We both agree on that, too.
>If I see dancing that makes it difficult for a couple to
>dance, I will tell them what is WRONG (when they ask me.)
>You won't call bad dancing wrong. But, if someone stands up
>and says "Thats bad dancing.", you say "You're wrong."
>I guess we can't all get along.
It's just a matter of the choice of words. I find students
get really offended (especially advanced ones) when you say,
"you're doing it wrong". Instead, I say, "you might find it
easier if you did this...", or "you know, that would look a
whole lot better if you..." or something like that. I just
try to be a little more tactful and a lot less critical and
still get my point across.
>I've had group or private instruction with all of them and
>almost every one of them has a reason for their "rules." I
>don't agree with everything I've heard. But if a teacher
>waffles and cannot give me a good reason, my opinion of
>their teaching ability drops. Too many of the top teachers
>try to avoid controversy by refusing to voice any opinion.
>A wishy-washy teacher is not getting the job done.
Absolutely. I pride myself on being 100% consistent. Every-
thing that's in our curriculum and on our tapes has a reason,
and I can give it to you. Of course, sometimes advanced
students can really put you on the spot. But I haven't had
one yet that I haven't been able to figure out an answer that
was consistent with my basic technique concepts.
That's the nice thing about dancing by rules and not by rote.
All too many instructors teach things a certain way because
that's the way THEY learned it, not because they've really
studied it, given it some thought, and decided it was really
the right thing to do.
>teach (verb)
>1: to cause to know a subject
>2: to show how
>3: to guide the studies of
>4: to make to know the disagreeable consequences of an action
>5: to impart the knowledge of
>
>A great way to get your money's worth is to ask the teacher
>what you are doing wrong.
I totally ag
>
>: The approach I take teaches dancers to adapt to different styles easily.
>: The dancer I teach hustle to will be able to adapt to the one you do and
>: dance comfortably with him/her. The dancer you teach as you described
>: will end up being an elitist dance snob and be unable to dance hustle
>: with anyone who has learned in a different style which DOES exist and is
>: taught in various parts of the country by very reputable instructors.
>
>Name a reputable hustle instructor that teaches the follower
>to hang back and wait for a lead on 1.
Tony Pace - Dallas, TX. He's had two hustle teams competing in Cabaret
division in Dallas DANCE and is generally considered one of the best hustle
dancers in the state of Texas.
I would do him a gross injustice by trying to totally explain his teaching
method here, but I have learned from him and watched him teach on numerous
occasions, and he teaches a very tight lead-follow method in which the
woman would never step forward ahead of the lead.
Also, I can't name a specific instructor, but the Miami style of hustle
has the woman raising her left leg into a little tuck before coming
forward, and she is very much set back with her weight FULLY on her right
foot. In fact, I'm not sure that they don't slightly change the count as
habit to accentuate this. In watching them , it seems like they hold at
the end of the slot an incredibly long time.
>Skippy was asked the adjustment question in Seattle at
>Easter Swing. In a social situation, the aware dancer
>should adapt. But if that dancer is paying for instruction,
>they should be corrected. Then the student and their
>partners don't have to do so much adapting. Social dancers
>need only hear the first part, but those that teach need to
>learn the whole message.
Absolutely right.
>: With the approach I take to teaching the woman, her right foot follows her
>: right shoulder, which follows her right hand. If the man doesn't give her
>: extension, she doesn't take it on her own. On the other hand, if the man
>: gives her extension, she takes it. For her to automatically step forward
>: ahead of the lead would be considered BACKLEADING!
>
>In NY slotted hustle, counted &123, stepping forward on 1
>isn't backleading.
Even if the man hasn't produced a forward lead?
>I'm glad to see that it took two days to compose your reply.
>And possibly yourself. :)
Yeah. I get really upset when I hear absolute words - "right", "wrong",
"always", "never". I'll get over it.
>: All I ask is for you to open your mind to the possibility that there
>: may be other people around who do things differently from you, but in
>: a way that works for them. Is that such a hard concept?
>
>We both agree that the number one rule of good dancing is
>not hurting your partner. But there's more to good dancing
>than that. Different is cool, but wrong is wrong. A
>teacher that doesn't have the courage to teach isn't doing
>anybody a favor.
Right. Like I said, I don't let students dance poorly without
commenting. I just avoid the word "wrong".
Along those lines, I think if you came to Texas and went out
hustle dancing and saw some fine dancers, you wouldn't presume
to say, "I think they're doing hustle, but they're doing it
wrong". At least I hope you wouldn't.
I hope you would be open-minded enough to say, "I think they're
doing hustle but it looks really different from what I do. But
they're really good dancers, and they look good doing what they're
doing, so more power to them."
There's a reason there are 31 flavors at Baskin-Robbins.
Scott Allen
>
>In article <DDJ5Jt.2x1@da_vinci.ecte.uswc.uswest.com> cburk@ramoth1265612 (Cheri Burk) writes:
>
>> Why do coasters interfere with your free spins? My partner does free
>> spins regularly and I do coasters as my basic break ending.
>
>Apparently you know how to do them right. The naive interpretation of
>a coast propels you forward, so if you would coast on 5&6 and
>your partner would do a spin on 5&6 *and* 78, then you would
>run into him on 7, where a better anchor would simply keep you
>in place, waiting for a lead.
>
>This topic comes up every with a certain regularity. If you know
>that you are not supposed to come forward unless led, then you
>are perfectly free to do a coaster step. However, in particular
>ballroom studios are likely to teach you a coaster step that
>will make you come charging into your partner.
Exactly. That's why UCWDC tried to outlaw coaster step break endings
from WCS last year. I'm not sure what the current ruling is on it.
Any UCWDC rules experts out there know the current status of that?
Scott Allen
>
> I realize you're talking about hustle, but there's something similar
>which seems to be near-universal behavior among beginners in ECS: the lead
>(often the follow too, but almost always the lead) will tend to take an
>immense back step on the "rock", and plant their entire weight on the left
>foot. Of course if the music is at all fast, this makes it virtually
>impossible to recover on the right foot in time with the music, and things
>break down from there. Even when the instructor repeatedly emphasizes and
>demonstrates a small back step with weight on the ball, it takes more than
>one session to sink in.
>
> Since this is IMO such a common problem, I wonder if there are any good
>teaching approaches out there to helping people work through it?
(The following applies to WCS and hustle, not ECS, but I'm sure it could be
adapted)
Yes. Absolutely. I teach students not to think about the "&" steps. If they
concentrate on the step AFTER the "&", then they concentrate on where their
CG needs to be, and the take the "&" step in such a way that they are in the
right place for the next step.
If they're in the right place on the next step, who cares where the "&" is?
Regarding ECS, isn't it as simple as teaching them to take the back-step on
the ball of the foot?
Icono Clast
VE}Yes, well, the hook was not the point.
What? Y'mean I missed the point??? Nahhhhh.
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * I don't need to see a psychoceramicist any more than you!
Icono Clast
SA}There are very few TOTALLY original moves there are in this
}dance. There are so many that many people come up with
}simultaneously and independently across the country. That's
}why it's virtually impossible to say that anyone "owns" a
}move.
Quite a few years ago, dancing with a young woman I don't remember, I
was "forced" into creating an "original" move that I _really_ liked.
It took me a long time to figure out how to Lead it (it's really
quite simple) and now I do it about once a night.
This evening, dancing with a woman with whom I dance about
once a month, _she_ Led the same move. No, she didn't Back Lead it,
she Led it just the way I Lead it forcing me into the Follower's role
for that step. I was delighted and immediately turned the move
around.
I don't know of anyone else who does it, or two or three other
steps that I think are m'own creations, but that particular step is
Led by Michelle when she dances with my Partner. My Partner calls it
the ChooChoo. It's a good-enough name.
---
* SLMR 2.1a #346 * United We Swing -- Scott Allen
Ron Nicholson
> All the beginning and intermediate hustle patterns I've ever seen are
> taught to begin and end with the slot in the same orientation.
Some of the verbal history I've heard regarding the origins of
hustle describes it as a rotating or rotating slot dance. IMHO,
what happened is that teachers re-codified it as a slot dance
because it was easier to teach that way. A strict slot allows
you to pack a bigger class onto the floor and helps keep beginners
from underturning the patterns.
I learned it as a slot dance. But after watching several old-tyme
hustle dancers and several top level pros dance it as a rotating
slot, I experimented with a rotating slot and found I prefered
it to a strict slot for many patterns.
A rotating slot (my def: lady travels in a straght line from one
end of a slot to another, but doesn't turn an exact 180 degrees for
the next slot.) allows you to dance geometric figures like triangles
and squares. It also allow you to travel by zig-zagging the
slot accross the floor.
Of course, if there is very little room on the floor, a strict
slot is sometimes the safe thing to do.
Bill Sherman
have given a good deal of thought to issues of the mechanics of dance,
and I should tell everyone that it is a bit more complicated than it
seems at first. Most of the analyses I have seen have missed some
important issues.
Regarding pulling on a partner in hustle vs picking up a
briefcase - the force you put on your partner may be the same, but the
distance over which you exert that force is probably much smaller, so
you would need less energy. The most important reason, however, why
it would be easier to pull on your partner is because most of the work
is not done by the muscles in your arm - your arm only flexes a little
while your leg pushes your whole body, and your arm and your partner.
Further, most of the force on the woman is generated by the man
shifting weight off his back foot, so he is effectively leaning
backwards. The total work done by the man, on the woman is actually
much less than her kinetic energy. (Bear in mind that when you are on
a swing, you go quickly and then come to a stop without the swing ever
doing any work on you - there's nothing impossible about this, and
with hip, ankle and knee joints working in tandem, humans are very
good at taking advantage of gravity in similar ways).
As for some specific comments:
In article <415sh2$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>Regarding closing on the '&' versus stepping back: I suspect those of us
>who disapprove of stepping back are thinking primarily of people who only
>use the &, and not the preceding step, to reverse direction. Typically,
>people who do this will lower the heel on the step before the '&'. All of
>the reversal of direction (which this thread started out discussing, after
>all) then occurs on the &.
>At 120 bpm, and a velocity change from -1.2m/sec to +1.2m/sec (based on
>covering a four foot slot in two beats), the acceleration is (1.2m/sec +
>1.2m/sec)/(0.25 sec), or 9.6m/sec^2, or 0.98 gees. To do this without
>pulling on one's partner, one would have to lean at about 45 degrees from
>vertical. Many who use this technique instead pull on their partners. In
>fact, if the lady is 120 lb, and doesn't use the floor, the pull will be
>not 20 lb, but 117 lb! Even if one takes a 30 degree lean, about 50 lb of
>help is still needed from partner. No wonder this technique doesn't seem
>very smooth.
This is assuming that the force of the floor is always along a
straight line from the foot through the woman's center of gravity.
This is not the way forces are usually exerted on the floor - when
walking, and particularly while dancing, people push at odd angles off
the floor. They pick up angular momentum (ie they temporarily start
to rotate heels over head about their center of gravity), but they
compensate somewhere else in the dance.
In hustle, as I learned it, the woman's foot shoots back
quickly on -and-, and then she steps forward on -one-. What happens,
is that her foot moving back quickly on -and- carries a lot of angular
momentum (in the heels over head direction). When she puts it down,
she pushes forward at a very steep angle - as though she were leaning
over 50 or 60 degreees, but she doesn't fall over because the net
result is that she looses the angular momentum she already had. She
ends up moving forward with no angular momentum without actually
having lost her balance, and without having pulled tremendously hard
on her partner. I get the impression that some of the elastic parts
of the leg actually help reduce the amount of work the muscles need to
do by just acting like springs (that's part of why it feels
comfortable to dance at certain speeds).
Of course, it becomes important that the woman should have
decided where she is going a bit earlier than when she starts to
take the -and- step so that she knows how fast to push back her foot.
So either there should be a convention or a lead by then...
--Bill Sherman (who's glad that it's easier to do a shoot through with
Charles Koeppen
>In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
>> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
>> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
>> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
>> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
>> on back to the same foot.
>
>Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
>instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
>don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
>and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
>
some amount off the ground? If it doesn't, I think there's a strong
possibility that there is still some weight on it. Most instructors
teach that if you can hear the anchor-in-place in WCS that you are being
too severe in the weight changes. I think this could translate into
"if you take your feet off the floor you are being too severe in the
weight changes", and could possibly mean not too make a full weight
transfer. Even in dances like Cha-Cha where the triple step moves,
since your sliding your feet, doesn't it mean some weight is kept
on the non-weighted foot? I will agree that if you don't make some
definite weight shift it's all too easy to just stand there and count
"triple-step". I'm not convinced though that it is possible or
practical to make a full weight shift without lifting the feet off the
ground which I'm pretty sure is something not to do in WCS.
Charlie
Psychohist
on the coaster step results in a smoother hustle, relying on use of
angular momentum changes to justify the back step.
Bill, you might want to work out the numbers on your analysis - I suspect
that the moment of inertia of the body is not sufficient for your theory
to work out without excessive acceleration of various parts of the body.
I'll stand by my quantitative analysis until someone comes up with
quantitative, rather than qualitative, response.
Ron Nicholson
she...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Bill Sherman) says:
> This is assuming that the force of the floor is always along a
>straight line from the foot through the woman's center of gravity.
>This is not the way forces are usually exerted on the floor - when
>walking, and particularly while dancing, people push at odd angles off
>the floor. They pick up angular momentum (ie they temporarily start
>to rotate heels over head about their center of gravity), but they
>compensate somewhere else in the dance.
I would tend to believe this hypothesis. A lot of beginners topple
back and forth when first trying to dance hustle to faster music or
in larger slots. This tells me that they're picking up some
(head-over-heels) angular momentum that they haven't yet learned to
control.
However, I can't think of a simple way to test for this hypothesis.
Someone in the ballroom community would need to borrow a force
platform or some such. Perhaps the angle of force can be infered
from careful, frame by frame, analysis of video tape. (sort of
like infering gravity by noting the nightly positions of the
planets.)
You were correct in noticing that my first order approximation of
hustle motion assumed strictly a straight line force from the floor
contact patch through the CG.
Scott Allen
>have given a good deal of thought to issues of the mechanics of dance,
>and I should tell everyone that it is a bit more complicated than it
>seems at first. Most of the analyses I have seen have missed some
>important issues.
I can't speak for anyone else. I just know that the last time I took
physics was ten years ago. Most of what I say/teach/theorize, etc.,
comes from trial and error, application and analysis, etc., in the
real world, not a lab. I guess that means I'm talking about
engineering, not physics. Heh. ;-)
> Regarding pulling on a partner in hustle vs picking up a
>briefcase - the force you put on your partner may be the same, but the
>distance over which you exert that force is probably much smaller, so
>you would need less energy. The most important reason, however, why
>it would be easier to pull on your partner is because most of the work
>is not done by the muscles in your arm - your arm only flexes a little
>while your leg pushes your whole body, and your arm and your partner.
>Further, most of the force on the woman is generated by the man
>shifting weight off his back foot, so he is effectively leaning
>backwards. The total work done by the man, on the woman is actually
>much less than her kinetic energy. (Bear in mind that when you are on
>a swing, you go quickly and then come to a stop without the swing ever
>doing any work on you - there's nothing impossible about this, and
>with hip, ankle and knee joints working in tandem, humans are very
>good at taking advantage of gravity in similar ways).
> As for some specific comments:
In other words, the woman actually participates in changing her direction?
Wow, what a concept! Actually, I knew something was amiss with Psychohist's
analysis below, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. I'm glad you did.
> This is assuming that the force of the floor is always along a
>straight line from the foot through the woman's center of gravity.
>This is not the way forces are usually exerted on the floor - when
>walking, and particularly while dancing, people push at odd angles off
>the floor. They pick up angular momentum (ie they temporarily start
>to rotate heels over head about their center of gravity), but they
>compensate somewhere else in the dance.
> In hustle, as I learned it, the woman's foot shoots back
>quickly on -and-, and then she steps forward on -one-. What happens,
>is that her foot moving back quickly on -and- carries a lot of angular
>momentum (in the heels over head direction). When she puts it down,
>she pushes forward at a very steep angle - as though she were leaning
>over 50 or 60 degreees, but she doesn't fall over because the net
>result is that she looses the angular momentum she already had. She
>ends up moving forward with no angular momentum without actually
>having lost her balance, and without having pulled tremendously hard
>on her partner. I get the impression that some of the elastic parts
>of the leg actually help reduce the amount of work the muscles need to
>do by just acting like springs (that's part of why it feels
>comfortable to dance at certain speeds).
> Of course, it becomes important that the woman should have
>decided where she is going a bit earlier than when she starts to
>take the -and- step so that she knows how fast to push back her foot.
>So either there should be a convention or a lead by then...
OK, so no one misreads this - I'm not being facetious, judgmental, or
anything else in the words that follow. I'm just trying to understand
(like I said, it's been ten years since I took physics).
Here goes:
Based on this angular momentum of the leg concept, then it really shouldn't
make a whole heck of a lot of difference whether the "&" is slightly back
or in place, then, should it? By the time the right leg is even with the
left leg, hasn't it probably already reached its maximum velocity? And as
soon as the foot is put down, isn't the force really coming from static
friction between the foot and floor? And, therefore, the amount of that force
is proportional to the backwards velocity of the right leg immediately
before impact? Do I understand you correctly?
But, if anything, a slight back step would help by increasing the angle of
incline, thereby increasing the forward force (with a little help from gravity).
Scott Allen
>
>I'm admitting that there are patterns that can (optionally) involve a
>deliberate change of direction. However, these are very much the
>exception, and I think that using them that way should be a rarity:
>As a dramatic change; to make more room for a couple that just came
>on the floor; etc.
I agree.
>otoh, just because the way someone does something is an individually
>developed style, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
Just because it's different from the majority doesn't make it wrong,
either. There you go throwing around absolutes again...
>The way I see hustle, its drama and flair and (oh, hell, I'll say it)
>"look and feel" are inextricably associated with its "slotted" design.
>If you habitually allow the slot to rotate, you lose (IMO) a lot of
>what makes hustle so visually appealing.
Like I said, I agree. But it's just an opinion. One that we share,
but an opinion, nonetheless.
>(How interesting would ECS or Lindy be if you kept the same patterns,
>but the partners DIDN'T rotate around each other? Could that be
>dismissed as an acceptable individual style?)
Er, it could probably be dismissed as West Coast Swing. Heh.
Peter Renzland
>win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
>> Force over time = work, right?
>[I] remember work being defined as distance * force
>to that effect. What I'm sure about is this: if there's no motion,
>then there's no work done. It's not science's fault that the human
>body needs to expend energy to stay in one place, when a table doesn't.
I wouldn't dare say that Scott is *wrong* in his physics. Perhaps
he is differently correct.
Ching Liu (Nin gui xing? Ching, haishi Liu?) states the correct
law of physics, while remaining wisely nonjudgemental as to its
relevance in this matter.
Stretch out your arms sideways and hold them in place for a few minutes.
It may not be "work" in the sense of work = force * displacement, but
what you will begin to feel is _pain_. And when dancing, while we like
to minimise work (so that we can keep cool, look cool, feel cool, and
dance all night), we certainly want to avoid pain. And having someone
yank at us, especially repeatedly at the same spot, can get to be a pain.
Whether it's a stationary "vise-grip" or a full body spine jerk, we don't
care about the work, but we feel the pain. In the former case, it's
our tender cells disintegrating under the thumbscrew-pressure, in the second,
there is the pressure resulting from various forces (linear, centrifugal,
gravity), etc. It's the actual pressure that hurts. Pressure is greater
if the same force is applied to a smaller area. (That's why tiny heels
ruin floors.) Whether you start riding your bicycle in 1st gear or in 10th,
the works is the same. But if you start going uphill in 10th, either your
body or the bicycle (chain) may break.
BTW, IMHO, Kenneth Law's book "The Physics of Dance" is of very little
use in couple dancing. I wish there were something that addressed the
physics (and geometry) of dancing. For example, lets take the simplest
step -- a one-step. Now, let's do a one-step turn, in closed hold, with
a partner -- half a turn per step. What is the trajectory of each of the
four feet? How does it change as we start progressing in LOD? What happens
if the dancers dance in semi-open position, rather than closed?
Dance teachers like to use the term "pivot-turn". Is it possible for *two*
people to do continuous pivot turns, if pivot means "stationary centre of
circular motion"?
Now let's look at the Waltz, and what happens when we dance perfectly
smoothly, centred, and erect. Now, what if we bend our head or shoulder
off to this side and then that one.
Or, let's look at a buzz-step swing, where a couple rotate quickly around
their common centre. How do the forces on the leader's wrist and spine
depend on distance, upper body inclination and declination, head position,
knee bend, leg/foot turnout and other postural factors?
Getting to more practical matters -- while actually dancing, what
techniques of self-defense and subtle correction can we use?
(Letting go of a rock-back jerk may be a bit unsubtle ;-)
--
Peter Renzland +1 416 323-1300 @__{) Cajun Contra ECD SCD , @ _{)_ ,
Pe...@Passport.Ca EntP Kia Ora! (>~(] Hambo Irish Pol(s)ka \/( )\/"\/\ /\/
Toronto Traditional Social Dance /\ /| Snoa Schottis Square /=\ /==\
Calendar: mail Da...@Passport.Ca /( (\ Swing Tango Vintage /___\ |/\|
Je danse donc je suis tanztoll Waltz Zwiefach Zydeco _/ \_ \# _#
Scott Allen
>
>In article <41ed80$l...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
>> In article <1995Aug20.174651.6006@cmkrnl>, j...@cmkrnl.com (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems) says:
>>>otoh, just because the way someone does something is an individually
>>>developed style, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
>>
>> Just because it's different from the majority doesn't make it wrong,
>> either. There you go throwing around absolutes again...
>
"Right", "Wrong" - Absolutes, usually applied to morality issues, and
last time I checked, dancing wasn't a morality issue. ;-)
>Look, dammit, how can we have an argument if you won't even agree that
>we disagree?!? Or if you won't disagree that we agree? Or... what
>WERE we disagreeing on again?
We really weren't disagreeing. I just have a personal hangup about
using the terms right and wrong when talking about dancing.
Scott Allen
>
>I wouldn't dare say that Scott is *wrong* in his physics. Perhaps
>he is differently correct.
>
>It may not be "work" in the sense of work = force * displacement, but
>what you will begin to feel is _pain_. And when dancing, while we like
>to minimise work (so that we can keep cool, look cool, feel cool, and
>dance all night), we certainly want to avoid pain. And having someone
>yank at us, especially repeatedly at the same spot, can get to be a pain.
>
>Whether it's a stationary "vise-grip" or a full body spine jerk, we don't
>care about the work, but we feel the pain. In the former case, it's
>our tender cells disintegrating under the thumbscrew-pressure, in the second,
>there is the pressure resulting from various forces (linear, centrifugal,
>gravity), etc. It's the actual pressure that hurts. Pressure is greater
>if the same force is applied to a smaller area. (That's why tiny heels
>ruin floors.) Whether you start riding your bicycle in 1st gear or in 10th,
>the works is the same. But if you start going uphill in 10th, either your
>body or the bicycle (chain) may break.
Thank you. You got my point exactly.
I'm frequently verbose and rarely eloquent, and I usually comprehend
concepts better than I communicate them to others.
Henry Neeman
>By a full weight change do you mean that the non-weighted foot comes
>some amount off the ground? If it doesn't, I think there's a strong
>possibility that there is still some weight on it. ... Even in dances
>like Cha-Cha where the triple step moves, since your sliding your feet,
>doesn't it mean some weight is kept on the non-weighted foot? ...
I realize that this is kind of off Charlie's point, but I was under the
impression that, in both American and international style cha cha, the
cha cha cha steps are three full weight changes, and in fact you do lift
the stepping foot entirely off the floor. (Not *way* up (8-) ....)
In fact, I believe that in American style this is true for all five
steps, but I think in int'l style both of the steps in the break
(counts 2 3) leave the other leg in place, and its toe stays in contact
with the floor.
Corrections invited. And if Charlie is talking about CW cha cha, I have
no idea (8-).
Henry Neeman
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
hne...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Ron Nicholson
>
>>By a full weight change do you mean that the non-weighted foot comes
>>some amount off the ground? If it doesn't, I think there's a strong
>>possibility that there is still some weight on it. ... Even in dances
>>like Cha-Cha where the triple step moves, since your sliding your feet,
>>doesn't it mean some weight is kept on the non-weighted foot? ...
In some absolute sense, contact implies some weight. However, at dance
speeds, less than 1% of a persons weight left on the moving foot is
essentially insignificant with respect to the overall forces moving them
about. And I would call the moving foot non-weighted if there isn't
enough pressure (really force) on it to move the dancer a noticable
amount (maybe just enough floor pressure to keep a dollar bill under
the moving foot from getting left behind).
Many beginners haven't learned to sense whether or not they've really made
a full weight change. Sometimes it's helpful to make them pick up the
unweighted foot to force them to transfer all their weight (or else fall
over). Better dancers know how to slide their feet horizontal to the floor
with essentially no weight (or a controlled amount of weight, depending
on the dance).
Ruth Gersh
>I realize that this is kind of off Charlie's point, but I was under the
>impression that, in both American and international style cha cha, the
>cha cha cha steps are three full weight changes, and in fact you do lift
>the stepping foot entirely off the floor. (Not *way* up (8-) ....)
>
>In fact, I believe that in American style this is true for all five
>steps, but I think in int'l style both of the steps in the break
>(counts 2 3) leave the other leg in place, and its toe stays in contact
>with the floor.
>
>Corrections invited. And if Charlie is talking about CW cha cha, I have
>no idea (8-).
>
I'm nowhere near as good as Henry and Victor et al at explaining in words --
but I believe Henry's right, there are weight changes in Int'l cha-cha. The
front foot is left in place on the rock step but with pressure on the ball
of the foot. And you complete the weight change on "three" so you get the
hip action. And you need the weight changes on the four-and so you can get
the push off from the standing leg and the hip action. Especially with the
syncopation in int'l style.
I'm not sure I can understand that and I know what I meant. <g>
Cheers,
Ruth
Ruth Gersh
Assistant to the President
Associated Press
50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020
(212)621-1718 (voice)
(212)621-5456 (fax)
rge...@ap.org (e-mail)
Vanessa F. Calvin
by Lola Pick...@LOC.GOV
>In Arthur Murray the teachers teach that you drag your foot in
>cha cha and rumba. Even in swing you don't lift too much.
An addendum to what Lola said:
My AM studio does place a lot of emphasis on grounding in latin dances
(I'm sure many other instructors do this as well). I spent part of one
group class trying to keep paper towels under my feet while doing basic
rumba steps--it was actually a very enlightening exercise. I always
THOUGHT I was keeping my feet on the floor, but there was a big
difference between what I knew I should do and what I was actually doing
(and boy, that will probably always be the case in one aspect of my
dancing or another...the learning/implementing process never ends).
But, as this relates to weight changes:
Even though AM emphasizes grounding in American cha cha, they still want
weight changes to occur. I guess they teach full weight changes (at
least in the beginning), but I tend to maintain some type of resistance
in the other leg, especially on counts 2 & 3, so that I can really put
some power into my hips. So, while my weight is centered over the
supporting leg, the other isn't just flapping in the breeze out there :)
Vanessa Calvin
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA
ta...@andrew.cmu.edu
Lola Pickering
Mark Anthony Balzer
>My AM studio does place a lot of emphasis on grounding in latin dances
Dancing is full of vague terms like this that can be very confusing.
Does anyone have a good definition for grounding that they could share?
(I think it's easier to recognize than to put into words...)
Does (or did) it confuse anyone else when "leverage" is used to refer to a
tensile "pull" connection ?
When "tension" is used to refer to everything from tensile (pull) to
compressive connection to arm tone ? (how many times have you heard
an instructor ask for more "tension" when he/she wants a forward (push)
connection?)
When "resistance" is the term chosen to describe frame and connection?
(Oh, the damage that one word has caused to many a beginner... )
Mark
PS - there's a new version of lead-follow-discussion.txt out now.
It's about 25% longer than before, with a greatly expanded Hustle section.
Check it out at:
ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/nonprofits/dance/topics/lead-follow-discussion.txt
Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems
> Jamie Hanrahan wrote:
>>In article <40t4ig$s...@anarchy.io.com>, win...@io.com (Scott Allen) writes:
>>> One of the things we are very big on in teaching our WCS is that
>>> "&" steps are never FULL weight change steps. In other words,
>>> you don't really stop and rest your CG over an "&" step. The
>>> "&" step is simply a transition to get you from the foot you are
>>> on back to the same foot.
>>
>>Hmmm. That certainly isn't consistent with what I thought my private
>>instructor said. Whenever we work on "grounding" she says that if you
>>don't do a full weight change (or none) you are partway over one foot
>>and partway over the other -- which is never where you want to be.
>>
> some amount off the ground?
Not necessarily. But if there's so little weight on it that I *could*
lift it, or move it, without any problem, ie if my other foot is
providing all of the support for all intents and purposes, that's a
"full weight change" even though the non-weighted foot isn't off the
ground.
> Even in dances like Cha-Cha where the triple step moves,
> since your sliding your feet, doesn't it mean some weight is kept
> on the non-weighted foot?
sure, but very very little.
Someone else mentioned that we are really incorrect to think of this
in static terms -- the weight transfers to the other foot and then
back again. There is a brief period in there where it is *possible*
to lift the foot off the ground with no additional "weight transfer".
The point is to not "slur" it -- there should be a definite transfer
of *almost all* weight, or none (as in a touch or point), but not in
between. If your vocabulary says "that isn't a full weight transfer
unless the foot comes off the ground," fine; I think we're talking
about pretty much the same thing and arguing about definitions...
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@cmkrnl.com (JH645) CompuServe: 74140,2055
Lois Finello
nice, (not artificial looking) hip movement. Done properly it will give
all the "hip power" you'd ever need ; ) We called it the "Cuban Movement"
and it's used in one form or other in Mambo, Cha Cha, Rumba, Bolero,
Merengue, etc.
Of Course, we're "on 2" to begin with, right- (and for "flapping feet",
there were always "tap" steps : ) But most important, don't forget the
fun part- When you enjoy dancing, it Shows!!!
> >In Arthur Murray the teachers teach that you drag your foot in
> >cha cha and rumba. Even in swing you don't lift too much.
>
>