"Obviously, the "hips are part of our anatomy.. but.. their " usage " for want of a better term, should be only thru the result of the primary action, the Core.

To Intentionally portray and use "them" as an initial source of power or direction, would be contrary to good dance physics as needs to be applied in the closed position dances ."

You are seriously mistaken in saying this, and the reason is that you have gotten into the habit of saying this kind of thing without seriously thinking about its physical implausibility.

What you think of as the "core" may or may not (depending on style and application) be the focus or center of a body movement. But it is far too high in the body to be the source of activity or power. Active usage of the center for power merely results in the top flopping around - shaping without moving (or worse, lunging the upper body), which is a very weak kind of dancing.

As we'll all realize if we take a step back and think about it, the input of actual muscle power comes primarily from the feet, ankles, and legs. All the core has to do in the way of actual activity for this to work is to hold the upper body connected to the power being created in the lower.

Changes in the body configuration, such as rotation or sway, have to come from a body part below the one that is being subjected to the change. If you want to have sway in the core, it must be achieved in places such as the ankles and hips. On the other hand, if you are one of the many who does not sway your core but only your top, then you achieve sway primarily via flexibility of the ribcage. This is even more true for the expressive/decorate sways and shapes - a dancer who involves their hips will use them substantially in this, while one from the school which believes in keeping the hips level will create all such decoration from the ribcage.

I believe that most trained dancers understand WHERE the power is generated.. we all know about " compression " ( or should ) thats not my point,, the response was to show WHICH part of the body moved first thus using the generated energy primarily thru the core .

And, as to WHERE I place that "core " is not remotely in the position you suggested.. how could you possibly know ?... you are somewhat a sophist in your conclusions .


HOW we use that energy is a whole other topic .


I still believe that the usage of the word " hips " is or may be, a very misunderstood teaching statement for a beginner in the context that it was given,( AND ,I did not deny that they are part and parcel of motion) .

In real terms,we should know that ALL parts of the body are used to a greater or lesser degree,

As a by note.. the word "core" and "centre " are purely semantics meant to imply the same thing .

"And, as to WHERE I place that "core " is not remotely in the position you suggested.. how could you possibly know ?..."

Because it's a common word.

"As a by note.. the word "core" and "centre " are purely semantics meant to imply the same thing ."

Ah, so you mean exactly the same thing by "core" as I thought you did.

The human body's center of gravity is between the hips (one of the first things learned in Taiji). It is erroneous to speak of the hips and the center as though they are separate entities.

Claiming that the core is "too high in the body" to initiate movement is simply ignorant

I have never heard any professional at any level claim that the center (or hips) is a point of contact. What they do teach is that dancers drive (i.e. initiate movement) from their center using their legs.

jj

"The human body's center of gravity is between the hips (one of the first things learned in Taiji). It is erroneous to speak of the hips and the center as though they are separate entities."

What makes you think that "center" in dance usage refers literally to the center of gravity in free space?

"Claiming that the core is "too high in the body" to initiate movement is simply ignorant"

It's muscles are. Regardless if we speak of the center of mass or the slightly higher dance center, muscles in that area are only going to be able to play a small role in influencing movement of this region through space - while muscles between there and the floor are in a position to create powerful movement.

"I have never heard any professional at any level claim that the center (or hips) is a point of contact."

Contact isn't really relevant to this discussion. But they do often identify the center as being higher than you do - somewhere in the abdomen (many speak of a high center and a low center separated by a few inches, the low one might be the slightly below the navel position where the free body center of mass is usually found)

"What they do teach is that dancers drive (i.e. initiate movement) from their center using their legs."

Literally, movement OF their center, by the use of their legs. Now you are agreeing with the very statement ("What you think of as the "core" may or may not (depending on style and application) be the focus or center of a body movement. But it is far too high in the body to be the source of activity or power") that you called ignorant.

For the primary active movements of ballroom, the center is the "movee", not the "mover".

Because it does. What other center of the body would there be when you're discussing the movemment of body weight?


Yes, it is. Please reread the previous posts in this thread.


If so then those of whom you speak simply don't know what they're talking about.


No, I did not agree with that statement in any way. This is just your old, dishonest tactic of claiming that your adversary said something that in fact was not said. In debating, it's known as a "straw man" and you're not very good at it.


Duh! I never claimed otherwise.

I'm done with this exchange. Now you can again fulfill your pathetic need to have the last word.

Have a nice day.

jj

"What makes you think that "center" in dance usage refers literally to the center of gravity in free space?

Because it does. What other center of the body would there be when you're discussing the movemment of body weight?"

We aren't discussing the movement of body weight in free space (turning somersaults on the space station) where the literal center of mass will be the center of rotation, but over the floor in a gravitational field. The distance of a component of mass (say the head) from the point of floor friction and support has relevance too.

"Contact isn't really relevant to this discussion.

Yes, it is. Please reread the previous posts in this thread."

Where it was at best a distraction from the understanding of connection. It's not relevant to the current line of discussion. As you pointed out yourself, the location of contact has nothing to do with the location of the center.

"But they do often identify the center as being higher than you do - somewhere in the abdomen (many speak of a high center and a low center separated by a few inches, the low one might be the slightly below the navel position where the free body center of mass is usually found).

If so then those of whom you speak simply don't know what they're talking about."

No - unlike you, they do know what they are talking about with regard to dance movement. You on the other hand import an ungrounded assumption that the free body center of mass is what is important.

"Now you are agreeing with the very statement ("But it is far too high in the body to be the source of activity or power") that you called ignorant.

No, I did not agree with that statement in any way."

In fact you did agree with this - you wrote yourself that it was the lower body which moves the center.

"This is just your old, dishonest tactic of claiming that your adversary said something that in fact was not said."

Did you or did you not write "dancers drive (i.e. initiate movement) from their center using their legs." ???

""The center is the "movee", not the "mover".

Duh! I never claimed otherwise."

Then why did you call my first statement of this principle ignorant?

Blame it on the English language. When I used "bracing" I was thinking of the way Alex Moore used the word in his book's section on "Rise and Fall--Body" (referring to what the legs do), which, granted, is not the same thing. What I actually meant was the opposite of "spaghetti arms," what is usually called "tone in the arms." I would have been better advised to say something about the connection achieved by proper dance frame, which apparently is what the original poster's instructor was trying to get across.

There was nothing at all incorrerct or even unclear in your first post. Braced - or toned - arms are absolutely necessary to maintain a proper dance frame. The importance of the role of other parts of the body do not in any way diminish the necessity of strong arms.

Do yourself a favor and don't take anymouse seriously. He pollutes this board regularly with nonsense which has no meaning to most dancers and little to any.

jj

"Blame it on the English language. When I used "bracing" I was thinking of the way Alex Moore used the word in his book's section on "Rise and Fall--Body" (referring to what the legs do), which, granted, is not the same thing. What I actually meant was the opposite of "spaghetti arms," what is usually called "tone in the arms." I would have been better advised to say something about the connection achieved by proper dance frame, which apparently is what the original poster's instructor was trying to get across."

I would consider the choice of the word "bracing" in the description of a lady's heel turn a bit unfortunate, as most people read into that quite a bit more muscle activity than what is really desired. What is actually needed there is to simply not allow the arriving knee to bend to the degree which it does in a foot-separating turn. The legs should as always remain as soft as possible consistent with achieving this.

But the situation with the arms is extremely different. Unlike the legs which must carry the force of supporting and accelerating the body weight, in the vast majority of situations between highly skilled dancers, the arms need only carry minuscule communication forces.

"Spaghetti arms" is a well known beginner mistake. But it also comes confusingly close to something that in a more advanced dancer becomes a necessary virtue which world-class coaches will demand when a student is ready. The actual focus of hold activity needs to be in the hands, rather than the arms. Top teachers will insist that you demonstrate an ability to hold a partner securely with your hand, while at the same time leaving your arm relaxed and free to be moved. Needless to say this can be a bit confusing and difficult concept when first introduced! But it's key to a higher level of dance capability to understand that the arm muscles are not activated, and the arms are not braced in position. Instead, they achieve their customary position passively, as a result of joining two bodies which are kept in relationship to each other by information - not by force. The reason that you don't see the arms moving around a lot is not that they are braced, but that they are joining two bodies that are in full cooperation. Nothing keeps the arms from deflecting - but there's nothing to cause them to either.

For the new dancer, spaghetti arms a mistake because they are symptomatic of a total lack of the principle of connection (and possibly, of a distracting "express the music in the arms" habit). In a more advanced dancer, relaxed, floating, arguably un-toned arms are a virtue, because they are symptomatic of a connection that is no longer in the domain of force, but instead has developed into an ability to sense and share the information needed to move the bodies in cooperation, without force.