As to VW... there has always been a lobby to increase the variety... even Scrivener said he could not understand why there were so few variations compared to the " 4 " .

So... satisfied ?--- maybe not

"If you could dance as good as that would you in a competition do any more than Luca did in his Foxtrot demonstration."

*IF* I could do it as well as he did, or really as well as someone whose dancing I prefer to his, then yes I'd probably dance something very simple.

And I'd do the same thing if I were dancing only for my own enjoyment.

But neither is the situation for a typical competitor at a typical competition.

"Wouldn't it be wiser if you were to do the parts you do well on side one and two and from there repeat."

Most mere mortals cannot dance the basic figures well enough to win a fiercely contested competition on something so transparent. That classic material just shows faults too readily - it's like strutting around in a string bikini or speedos if you don't quite have the body for it. As a result, beyond the "development divisions" most competitors can create a more pleasing performance by showing their ability to execute more complicated and exciting patterns at a fairly high level of mastery than they could by pointing out that they still can't do the basic ones as well as a world champ might.

By all means we should put time into these eternal challenges in the studio, but for a competition, we should choose what maximally present our balance of skills.

Anonymous. Isn't it a fact that most of us try to learn too much too soon. That's in any style. Socialy its fun. To the uneducated it might impress, But to a competant adjudicator they shudder, that's the adjudicator who shudders looking at a person who cannot even walk down the floor correctly trying advanced choreography..Would we become a better dancer if we did only a Bronze Medal Syllabus for say a year.
If you go to Luka's Foxtrot do you notice the lift that he gets on bar three and any simular step. And how that rise is executed How many of us are capable of seeing it, or even know it is there, let alone do it.
Yet it's in the book.

"To the uneducated it might impress, But to a competant adjudicator they shudder, that's the adjudicator who shudders looking at a person who cannot even walk down the floor correctly trying advanced choreography."

No.

Most people who dance 'advanced choreography' quite well in competition can not, in fact, execute a simpler transparent 'walking down the floor' type of action (say an extended reverse wave) at a quality that demonstrates mastery.

Actions such as that are just too transparent and too readily put the tiniest faults prominently on display.

This makes them extremely good things to work on in practice, but not something that should be depended on as the cornerstone of a competitive performance. You can use them of course, but you need some more interesting things as well. Unless you are one of those who can do the basics so well that you make the judge wish they could dance them like you...

"Would we become a better dancer if we did only a Bronze Medal Syllabus for say a year."

You would think so, but in fact no. Because we are human.

The best answer is to dance a variety of things - some basic, some more complicated, and to educate the dancer overall.

The true educational value of the "bronze material" will only become apparent as you come back to it time and time again over the years. Nobody can fully appreciate it the first time, because they don't yet have the requisite experience or skills to really understand or execute it yet. The first time through you only get a superficial understanding.

Looking at the more complicated variations will actually help your understanding of the basic figures when you come back to them - you'll start to see the basic figures as a very specific path through a forest of alternate possibilities not taken, because now you know that if you let it go a little bit more this way, it would become something else, and a little bit that way, yet another something else. The more you know of the possibilities, the more clearly you can dance the chosen one.

Again... many " blanket " statements, in as " nobody " etc.

Much depends on the person receiving the information and the one one supplying it.

Grasping concepts in ANY discipline is always an individual exercise.

If you were to say " generally " , that might be more palatable .

As to staying on basics for a yr... you obviously never new Charles Thiebault !

"Again... many " blanket " statements, in as " nobody " etc.

Much depends on the person receiving the information and the one one supplying it."

You should pay more attention to the actual statement that was made:

"Nobody can fully appreciate it the first time"

It's not that people can't appreciate it the first time, it's that nobody can FULLY appreciate it the first time - if they learn more in the future, they will be able to appreciate aspects that were previously beyond their ability to perceive or understand.

Someone who 'fully' appreciates it at the first time would have to be someone who is incapable of learning any more about it, because any future expansion of their insight based appreciation would mean their initial appreciation was less than full. Such a hypothetical person might as well quit, as they can never get any better.

Anonymous. Basics can you tell me of any top competitor who doesn't include a Featherstep Reverse Turn into a Reverse Wave once in their routine in the Foxtrot..The judges expect to see it . I have a copy of a Professional final when the comentator said. We are looking at six couples all starting with a Featherstep which they will do only once. The judges expect to see this. So why shouldn't the rest of us pay a little more attention to the very first step we ever learn in the Foxtrot.

"Anonymous. Basics can you tell me of any top competitor who doesn't include a Featherstep Reverse Turn into a Reverse Wave once in their routine in the Foxtrot.."

I never implied that it wouldn't be present.

What I said was that only very high level couples can safely depend on their quality of execution in these very transparent figures which show any and all flaws quite readily, to win events.

Most other's simply can't dance them well enough - the transparent figures make them look bad, not good. They probably should still do them, but they shouldn't make the mistake of depending on them as the entirity of their performance, because they simply can't dance them well enough for that.

To win, you need things that showcase what you can do, not things that remind everyone of what you still can't quite get right.

Only if your feather step is going to be the best one the judges have seen in months, can you really depend on it to win the competition for you.

"So why shouldn't the rest of us pay a little more attention to the very first step we ever learn in the Foxtrot."

We should pay a lot more attention to it, but we shouldn't let our entire presentation of foxtrot be limited to the obvious fact that our feather step will never quite measure up to what we'd like it to be.

Dance the best feather you can.

But do some other things that show your other skills too.

Guys, i think you're both in agreement but trying to make an argument.
Dance the figures that suit you. If you're tall and lean, the flowing movement of the basic feather, reverse turn ....3-step wil suit you. And this group of figures does represent the inherent characteristics of the foxtrot(that's my view anyway). If you really like doing them, work on them, it'll be so rewarding. But if you don't like them, or they don't suit you, do something else. But as i've said before, everyone needs a good repertoire of figures that they can do nicely, even though they may go through a whole string of comps without doing them.
Anymouse, would you agree that if a couple does perform a feather, reverse turn...etc and does it well, they're likely to be raised in the judges estimations, rather than if they stuck to other figures which they perform well. Obviously if they have a group that looks gorgeous, they should do that for sure. If only...

HEY!!
How did all this stuff get into a thread on the meanings of rhythm, phrase and timing??