"First you wrote that any workshop will generate misunderstanding."

I maintian that any workshop will cause more harm than good for someone who does not have the background knoweldge to understand it - it is quite easy, as your case proves - to come away with exactly the wrong idea.

This happens when you take something that is important, but only one element, and instead get the idea that it is the whole story. When you do this, you focus on one small detail, but fail to include the more important things that make it dancing, and especially fail to get the proportions right.

So you go around babbling about 46 degrees or tip of toe or somesuch - which are all terrible bad advice outside of the specific contexts where they would be good advice.

"Anybody who believes that on a back Lockstep Quickstep that the hip goes back and the shoulder doesn't."

Please don't misquote. The hip goes back MORE than the shoulder.

"I said There is sway on step three of a Natural Spin Turn. What exactly did you mean by "I hope not"

The spin turn action is SSS

"Do you still believe that nobody has ever done the first three of a Natural correct ever."

Of course not, the state of the art is still evolving. If someone had done it correclty, there would be nothing left to discover.

"When you say you are forbiden from passing a person who is in front of you. I'm sure you will have difficulty grasping this. When I appear to be sideways. My partner is still in front of me. Second third step on the Feather. I am moving sideways but my partner is still in front of me. That is not too hard to understand is it."

Indeed, you have not passed them.
If you have, you have lost body position. The only time you are allowed to pass someone (move from a trailing position to a leading one) is if you are turning, which is what I said to start with.

"I see you now believe that the man does not shape to his left"

Take some lessons and you might discover this key element.

"and that the lady does move her foot into position before the man moves on a Backward Walk"

Her foot moves a little bit, but it does not move "into position" yet - it cannot do so, because "in position" will not be defined until the movement of the man's body shows what the position will be.

"And do you still believe that the heel of the supporting foot lowers before the moving foot comes along side on a backward step."

Not on a backward WALK, but yes, this is a key component of many backwards STEPS as you would know if you were taking PRIVATE LESSONS with blackpool champs and not merely confusing yourself trying to follow their lectures.

"I see you have changed your mind on whether or not there is a midway point between two steps."

No, but I did try to help with your confusion - everything has a midpoint, the dispute has always been what happens there. You can for example go from weight on one foot to weight on the other without ever having weight on both, because the midpoint in that case would be "weight on neither". It's still a midpoint, but it's the proper one, rather than what you prefer.

"And this is a classic. My aim is to establish sufficient doubt in the minds of other dancers who seriously want to improve."

you won't learn until you start asking hard questions.

"We go to the point of imbalance and did you say we fall out having to catch our weight."

Practically quoted from a blackpool champ...

"Don't forget to answer the questions will you."

Been doing so for months. When are you going to get around to looking at picture number two and admitting that it shows a body which CANNOT POSSIBLY BE BALANCED OVER THE STANDING FOOT.

Anonymous. Do you have tunnel vision.
For the present lets deal with your last paragraph. look at picture two.
For those wishing to get a print of the Forward or Backward Walks go to Learning Centre and click on Technical Tips. Then Forward Walks.
Anonymous . Look at picture two. Then look at picture one. Picture two is a continuation of one. On picture one the weight is over the RF.foot on the ball . The supporting heel is in contact with the floor. We are now ready to commence a Walk. On two the Walk has commenced.
Well what do you know. We are as in picture two. I would say without fear of contradiction that you never reach position three in the picture do you. Because you have never been taught. Some of the things you have said , and there are plenty. would lead me to believe that whoever taught you had very limited advice to pass on to you.
Just one more thing to add. You said plain enough twice that the shoulder does not go back with the hip on a Backward Lock.
On a Back Lock with the CBMP on the first step. Hold that line on the second and third step. On the third step the right shoulder is over the right hip which is over the RF. This is where the person going backwards has made space for the person going forward. So that the person going forward can maintain a straight line and still has the lady on his right hip. You do know we are diagnal to the wall don't you.
Last at this time.
And you still persist in saying that nobody has ever done the first three of a Natural in the Waltz, which was introduced by Victor Silvester December 1922, Correctly.
You really are a fool. Your reasoning for the above is it is still evolving. So what about the Spin Turn or the Feather and Reverse. Nobody has ever done them correct either because they are still evolving.So why would you give a person advice on something that nobody has ever done correctly.
You'll have a job to live that one down.

"Picture two is a continuation of one. On picture one the weight is over the RF.foot on the ball . The supporting heel is in contact with the floor. We are now ready to commence a Walk. On two the Walk has commenced."

The sequence of walks as shown has some serious errors - even their author now admits he wants to recreate them. However, picture two does show a proper position of the standing foot, standing knee and body - specifically it shows that the body is off balance. And that is the only reason I call your attention to that sequence - the rest of it should not be emulated, because the rest of it is wrong.

"You said plain enough twice that the shoulder does not go back with the hip on a Backward Lock."

Both go back with the body because the body is sustaining movement. However, the hip moves back relative to the body to create the CBMP postion - which means that the hip moves back relative to the shoulder too. The key here is that CBMP is taking the hip back without the shoulder, but of course everything is also moving. You seem to have the same problem understanding this superposition of movement in the feather step two - where the leg moves a small amount relative to the body, but the body is moving a large amont across the floor.

"And you still persist in saying that nobody has ever done the first three of a Natural in the Waltz, which was introduced by Victor Silvester December 1922, Correctly. You really are a fool."

If you think there is nothing left to improve - then you are the fool. Clearly, we are still learning as a community what a natural turn is supposed to be. We can't do it correclty, because no one yet knows for sure what would be correct. It's an ongoing process of discovery - execpt to someone who wants to claim they've already heard all the answers.

"So why would you give a person advice on something that nobody has ever done correctly."

Because there's dancing it slighlty incorrectly and then there seriously flawed. There's still a lot of room for you to improve before you catch up with the present state of the art - which of course will continue to improve while you are trying to catch up with it.

Anonymous. So you are saying nobody dances correctly. So I will never catch up ever because it is forever changing. So therefore none of us will ever dance correctly. All the books and tapes are not correct. Didn't the mathematician Stephen Hawking say in his book with time everything goes from order to disorder. Maybe the 1920 dancers were better than they are today, and the further we go the worse we get. So there is no hope for us, so lets stick to what we've got. One thing though if you twist your spine and have been doing it like that for a while. You most likely already have degeneration of the spine. Later you might say I wish I had paid more notice and checked it out with my physio people. Thats why I think it is almost a crime to try to convince people to torque their spine.

"Anonymous. So you are saying nobody dances correctly."

Exactly - show me a picture of anyone, and I will find mistakes in it. And if the dancers pictures are not total fools, they could probably find quite a few mistakes in their best performance as well. Nobody is perfect. But we can all try to be more perfect today than we were yesterday.

"Didn't the mathematician Stephen Hawking say in his book with time everything goes from order to disorder."

On the whole, yes. Eating and breathing while you learn to dance is contributing the overall disorder of the universe at a rate that vastly outweighs the tiny amount of order that you construct by improving your dancing.

"One thing though if you twist your spine and have been doing it like that for a while. You most likely already have degeneration of the spine."

I don't think so... It's a fairly normal human activity, the quantity of twist actually needed being well within the capability of any undamaged body.

Anonymous. If we were meant to twist our spine nature would have provided us with a swivel thing inbetween each of our disks to make it easier.

"Anonymous. If we were meant to twist our spine nature would have provided us with a swivel thing inbetween each of our disks to make it easier."

And what makes you so sure you don't have that?

You *can* rotate your head can't you?

And what is supporting it - spinal vertebrae. Now those in your neck may support more rotation than those in your spine, but that rotation has to be concentrated into just a few of them over a short distance. Wheras any net rotation of the spine between shoulders and hips could be spread over a long distance, with comparatively little rotation between each vertebra.

Anonymous. My head was made to turn. Now your getting it right.
Any rotation will be spread over a longer distance with little rotation through the vertebra. Try the whole of your side moving around your own centre. That's a longer distance with no rotation through the vertebra. Consequently no strain on the spine. No back aches.

"Anonymous. My head was made to turn. Now your getting it right."

When you rotate your head, you impose a twist in the cervical vertebrae. 90 degree or more of twist in fact, spread over just a few of them.

When you rotate your hips a small amount relative to your shoulders, you impose a twist over most of the length of the spinal column. That means there is much less rotation between any adjacent pair of vertebrae there than there is in the cervical vertebrae when you rotate your head.

Even if the cerical vertebrae are more accomodating of rotation in their "design" than the others, you'd have to be pretty ignorant (or previously injured) to claim that the vertebrae cannot comfortably accomodate a moderate degree of rotation.

And the amount that dancers use is nothing in comparison to other movement arts.

What was the question, anyway? I was twisting around trying to check my back. Oh, you guys forgot too, hey?

I prefer to focus on what is right, rather than who is right.
It's much more productive and makes for better dance partnerships. (Good thing you 2 do not dance together).