Log In

Username:

Password:

   Stay logged in?

Forgot Password?

User Status

 

Attention

 

Recover Password

Username or Email:

Loading...
Change Image
Enter the code in the photo at left:

Before We Continue...

Are you absolutely sure you want
to delete this message?

Premium Membership

Upgrade to
Premium Membership!

Renew Your
Premium Membership!

$99
PER YEAR
$79
PER YEAR
$79
PER YEAR

Premium Membership includes the following benefits:

Don't let your Premium Membership expire, or you'll miss out on:

  • Exclusive access to over 1,620 video demonstrations of patterns in the full bronze, silver and gold levels.
  • Access to all previous variations of the week, including full video instruction of man's and lady's parts.
  • Over twice as many videos as basic membership.
  • A completely ad-free experience!

 

Sponsored Ad

+ View Older Messages

Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Quickstep.
5/5/2007  5:34:00 PM
So are you saying you never pass the half way point on your travell from forward or back. Do you manage that with everything you do. Crossing the Atlantic for instance. Do you some how get teleported from one side to the other never having been half way. Beam me across Mt Spock.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Anonymous
5/6/2007  8:08:00 AM
"So are you saying you never pass the half way point on your travell from forward or back."

I do not normally pass through the halfway point that you seek to pass through; specifically, my weight leaves the old foot before it begins to arrive on the new one, in the swing dances I ordinarily I have no point where it is divided beteween the two.

But that is really beside the point of this thread: was this thread is about is proving that if you do seek to split your weight between two articulated feet, and intend to keep your knees stright, then your body wil HAVE TO BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT FOOT THAN TO THE BACK.

That is simply, irrefutable geometry.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Quickstep
5/6/2007  11:45:00 PM
Not till the front toe touches the floor. Your geometry teacher was no dancer.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Anonymous
5/7/2007  6:54:00 AM
"Not till the front toe touches the floor."

WRONG AGAIN

The height of the front ankle doesn't depend more than a small amount if the toe is up or not.

In contrast, with the back heel up, it's ankle is much higher than the front one.

This PLAINLY REQUIRES that with straight legs the BODY MUST BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT FOOT.

If yours isn't, then you in denial about the FACT that you are BENDING YOUR BACK KNEE there.


"But that is really beside the point of this thread: was this thread is about is proving that if you do seek to split your weight between two articulated feet, and intend to keep your knees stright, then your body wil HAVE TO BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT FOOT THAN TO THE BACK.

That is simply, irrefutable geometry.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Novice Q.
5/7/2007  9:06:00 PM
For so many times I have told you that the body will reach a point which is exactly half way between the front foot and the back foot. This is going forward or backward or to the side. take your pick.
Going Forward. Just put a bit of common sense here. As the weight arrives midway the front foot will stop moving. This will allow the body to catch up to the foot that is in front. From what you have written I believe you have never got a straight leg, possibly the rear leg straightens but that front leg. What a mess.
Draw a triangle with the long side at the base. draw a line down exactly half way. with the triangle divided into two we have a front and a back. As we enter the front this is the half where the knee will start to bend. Behind you this is where the leg will be straight showing that beautiful leg line right to the tip of toe before it starts to bend.
Try to remember that the front foot will become flat immediatly.
The ladies steps are not a mirror of the man's steps. Can you pick the main difference. I would be quite happy if you were to quote from an Official Handbook.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Anonymous
5/7/2007  9:26:00 PM
"Draw a triangle with the long side at the base. draw a line down exactly half way. with the triangle divided into two we have a front and a back. As we enter the front this is the half where the knee will start to bend. Behind you this is where the leg will be straight"

If both legs are straight and both feet articulated, then the rear leg is noticeably longer (measured to the floor) and the body will have to be CLOSER TO THE FRONT FOOT THAN TO THE REAR.

It's ELEMENTARY GEOMETRY.

Yes, there will be a point where the body is halfway between the feet, but this CANNOT OCCUR when both feet are articulated and both knees are straight.

It's simply not possible to create an isoceles triangle when your foot articulation puts your ankles at such different heights.

"Try to remember that the front foot will become flat immediatly."

Doesn't really matter, the rear ankle will STILL BE HIGHER, meaning the triangle will still not be isosceles. If your body is equidistant between your feet, then either your back knee is bent, or your back heel is still very low to the floor.

Elementary and irrefutable geometry...

Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by N. Q.
5/7/2007  11:00:00 PM
So are you saying because the front foot is flat and the back heel is off the floor and there is a difference in the height of the ankles we dont have a central position. Regardless of that there had to be a mid point. You surely aren't trying to tell us that we can only pass a mid point if the ankles are the same height. All of this it seems is to justify your inability to get on the heel of the front foot and the toe of the back foot with your weight equally distributed between the two with the knees straight. Once There was a Spot . That For One Brief Shining Moment Was Midpoint.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by phil.samways
5/8/2007  4:49:00 AM
I've been trying to follow this discussion to make sense of it.
I have a genuine question, not wishing to take 'sides'
This point:
"""""to get on the heel of the front foot and the toe of the back foot with your weight equally distributed between the two with the knees straight."""""
When should i be doing this? I was sort of avoiding having my 2 knees straight.(except maybe when they're together)
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Anonymous
5/8/2007  8:11:00 AM
"So are you saying because the front foot is flat and the back heel is off the floor and there is a difference in the height of the ankles we dont have a central position."

Not with your feet in these positions and both legs straight you can't. It's geometrically impossible.

"Regardless of that there had to be a mid point. You surely aren't trying to tell us that we can only pass a mid point if the ankles are the same height. "

For the body to be halfway between the feet, either the ankles must be the same height or the knees must be bent by different amounts to accomodate the difference in ankle height.

"All of this it seems is to justify your inability to get on the heel of the front foot and the toe of the back foot with your weight equally distributed between the two with the knees straight. "

Inability? No, it's a piece of cake. I just don't feel that it is usually appropriate, and so I make the strategic choice not to. But I easily can if/when I want to.
Re: Try this (why it ain't isosceles)
Posted by Quickstep
5/8/2007  7:37:00 PM
I must believe then that you do not have a knee that can be considered straight at the extent of your stride.. 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. If this was a major competition the judges would be on it in a flash. Do it once maybe. Do it consistently and you are gone. Maybe where you are everybody bends their knee, that just makes you all a law unto yourself. Move out of your evironment and your gone.

+ View More Messages

Copyright  ©  1997-2024 BallroomDancers.com