"Mike. you are flogging a dead horse if you argue with you know who. He is the only one who can stand on one leg without the centre of the body being over the centre of your foot."

Not for very long... but then I only need to for 1.6 beats. Someday maybe I'll be able to do it for 1.74 beats like Mr. Andrew Sinkinson

(of course, to be fair, he weight is still over his foot for the first part of it - it is only the last half or so that is off balance)

Folks, this is not rocket science. Unless you keep your body stationary over your standing foot while probing out with your moving foot, and thus moving in an funny stop-start way, you are going to be sending your body forwards, off balance ahead of the standing foot when you walk.

You've just been doing it for so long, while analyzing it wrong, that you haven't a clue what it is you are actually doing.

In Andrew Sinkinson's lecture only a few weeks ago had us step forward as step one in the Waltz. Then bring the other leg under the body then lift it off the floor and down. Then step to the side, draw the foot to the other and again lift it off the floor and put it down. Keep repeating this . His advice is do this whenever you have a minute to spare. Also we had to retain that backleg after the first step as long as possible even though we were moving. There was also a knee flexing as the rear foot was under the body to push to the side. Most people forget there is a flexing of the knee there and a drive to the side . Lets hear it for Andrew.

"In Andrew Sinkinson's lecture only a few weeks ago had us step forward as step one in the Waltz. Then bring the other leg under the body then lift it off the floor and down."

Sure. If you arrive on a step without the intent of continuing your movement, you will arrive into a position of balance and be able to lift your foot.

But chances are extremely high that during most of the time you were "striding" you were OFF BALANCE with your weight forward of the standing foot. During most of this time you would not have been able to balance unless your moving foot was sharing the task of supporting you. Do you slide your moving foot across the floor with body weight on it? I SURE HOPE NOT.

"His advice is do this whenever you have a minute to spare."

Knowing where you balance is sounds like a good idea. But that can't contradict the simple physical fact that you are not in balance the majority of the time when dancing. You need definitely need the skill Sinkinson is building, but the guy who said you MOVE FROM IMBALANCE TO IMBALANCE is much closer to understanding the physical truth of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

"Also we had to retain that backleg after the first step as long as possible even though we were moving."

Yes, this helps you remember to project your body into the steps, vs. the common tendancy to whip the free leg through once your weight leaves it.

As you may know, i did ask a question about body flight recently, so this topic really interests me.
I am a real glutton for punishment, so i actually read everything that's written here. Some of it is even useful.
I've got my bullet-proof vest and tin hat on to protect me, so here are some things which are obvious to me:
It's impossible to move very much without the body weight (through the centre of mass - which is what i assume the "centre" means) moving outside the supporting foot. When i dance i generally have to keep moving my "free" foot otherwise my butt would hit the floor. This proves to me that my centre must be outside my supporting foot a lot of the time. but i wouldn't say i'm out of balance in the sense of static balance.
I play tennis too and know that in all sports, good balance is paramount.
I think this argument is taking place because there are 2 different types of 'balance' being spoken about.You don't need the centre of mass to be over the supporting foot to be 'balanced' in a dancing sense.
I've been to a Sinkinson workshop about slow waltz and the importance of beats 3& and 1&. His demonstration, where he does indeed stand on one leg with the other under his body, is to emphasise the importance of step 1& - that he is about to use a lot of power to drive into steps 2 and 3 (sorry Andrew if you're reading this - i hope i said that OK). He never intended to say that this was a static position to be held while actually dancing.
Anonymous - i'm actually agreeing with you without trying to admit it! . You do actually speak a lot of sense, but, if you don't mind me saying it, you can appear very rude.

"I am a real glutton for punishment, so i actually read everything that's written here. Some of it is even useful."

Phil, thanks for making an effort to put real though and consideration into the subject.

"It's impossible to move very much without the body weight (through the centre of mass - which is what i assume the "centre" means) moving outside the supporting foot. When i dance i generally have to keep moving my "free" foot otherwise my butt would hit the floor. This proves to me that my centre must be outside my supporting foot a lot of the time."

Exactly.

"but i wouldn't say i'm out of balance in the sense of static balance."

Think about it this way: if we took a mannequin with the same mass distribution as your body, and posed it in a given position with the standing joints locked, would it fall over? If the center of mass is over the foot, and you set it up gingerly enough, it shouldn't. On the other hand, if the center of mass is outside the foot, then it will fall over, because the position is unbalanced.

When we walk, we don't maintain balance, but we do maintain something called the ZMP critera. What this says is that there is a point within our standing footprint (the Zero Moment Point) from which a simple push directed at the center of mass will be able to support the body. Of course if that push is not directed purely upwards, it will also make the body accelerate (or decelerate if the push is from a foot ahead of us, against our direction of movement). As long as you can keep such a pure push point in your foot, without also requiring a torque (ie, keep the moment zero), you can keep extending the step by projecting from that standing foot. But when your ZMP passes the toe of your standing foot, then you moving foot had better be ready to become the new standing foot, otherwise you will start to fall.

Human running does not maintain a ZMP, because often both feet are off the floor. Human walking does maintain a ZMP. It's my belief that dance movement "almost" maintains one - in that there may be a brief lack right as you switch from one foot to the other, but the rest of the time you are adequatly supported, even though generally off-balance.

"Anonymous - i'm actually agreeing with you without trying to admit it! . You do actually speak a lot of sense, but, if you don't mind me saying it, you can appear very rude."

Yes, that's unfortunate - what I would say is that the 100th retelling of the same basic concept, to the same person who persists in denying it against all logic, has sadly tended to be a bit less polite than the first explanation.

Phil. Your foot will always move faster than your body. End of story.

Yes, it will. What's the point you're making?

OK - i just read your other posting

"Phil. Your foot will always move faster than your body. End of story."

Obviously false!

For this to be true, then either the body would have to stop its travel every time you change weight, or the old moving foot would have to instantaneously decelerate and the new moving foot would have to instantaneously accelerate.

In fact, while the foot moves faster than the body most of the time (and probably if averaged over its full travel, twice as fast), it is NOT always moving faster, and it is most certainly not always moving exactly twice as fast.

What really happens is that the body moves some while the foot has not yet moved, and then while it is accelerting. In compensation, there's almost certainly a point where the foot is moving at more than twice the speed of the body.

Thats right. The body moves from over the heel to the ball then the foot takes over.
Your last paragraph. Now you are talking my language. Its not very clever the way you have done an about turn on this. Why don't you just write I can see the error of my ways. Caused through floors not fit for dancing on. Most likely.