Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles) Posted by anymouse 5/8/2007 9:53:00 PM
"I must believe then that you do not have a knee that can be considered straight at the extent of your stride.."
Because you are obviously going to keep right on IGNORING the NUMEROUS CLEAR STATEMENTS OF THE FACT THAT IT IS INDEED STRAIGHT WHEN THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
Face it - you don't actually read what you are replying to, you simply subsitute your own wild assumptions.
"If it isn` t straight then it must be bent You know as well as I do that that is not according to the correct technique."
On, the contrary, unlike you, I know that depending on the nature of the figure and the size of the movement, it may well be IMPROPER to have a fully straight leg.
"If this was a major competition the judges would be on it in a flash."
You generally won't see fully straight legs in major competition! The dancers at that level lower too much to make it practical to get the front leg fully straight. But at social dance height, it's very easy to have a straight leg.
"Do it once maybe. Do it consistently and you are gone."
Yes, gone all the way to the final, and then home with the world title. Try really looking at some of these champions, and you will often see legs that never fully straighten, because the y are dancing in a way that would make fully straight legs INAPPROPRIATE.
They are not dancing what is described in the book - they are not doing a walking EXERCISE, they are doing a fully dynamic, fully flighted dance step with TONS OF LOWERING. To get their legs fully straight when their center is that low would be an impractical SPLIT.
Anyway... the real point of the thread was to point out to those who want to pass through a split weight point the simple fact that such a mid-stride position CANNOT actually have all the characeristics described for it.
One of them has to be wrong: either the back heel isn't up, or the back knee isn't straight, or the body isn't equidistant between the feet - the combination of all three is not possible. That is irrefutable geometry.
That this flawed teaching has survived as long as it has simply points out how people will repeate things they've heard without first investigating to see if they are literally posssible, or if something has gotten distorted or mis-stated in the course of handing down the idea.