There's definitely no argument with posture not being the same thing as shape; and nobody in this exchange made that claim. neither is posture implied in alignment: alignment being simply the position of the feet in relation to the room (reference to the immortal "The Ballroom Technique" is superfluous). Perfect alignment is possible while slouching.

Of course, posture is what dancers strive toward, but poise is how one presents, and maintains it. Referring to my post of 05/22, it's clear that I am describing the lady's poise: upper part of the body and head slightly back and a little to the left (again, see "The Ballroom Technique"). One can almost see the beginnings of "shape".
I should point out an error in my description: I meant to say that the lady has her weight over the balls of the feet, the man has his towards the balls of his feet. The result is that the lady is ever so slightly forward weighted, which should help considerably moving backward; the man is ever so slightly back weighted, which should help considerably moving forward.

The position is still stationary, nothing has moved yet: we're ready for the preparatory step. The couple is balanced, ie. the centers of gravity are vertically aligned over the support, defined by the feet.

In order to move, the balance has to be disturbed, and the c o g displaced. During this displacement the body changes shape, and the c o g shifts. The whole point of dancing is to stay balanced while moving, stability. Stability is attained when the c o g is kept within an area of support, which is determined by the size of the stride, which in turn, is determined by the degree of knee bend of the supporting leg. Lateral area of support is determined by alignment . (ref. http://www.kgl-hga.eu).

I have to disagree with the concept of "it's going to be necessary to take the body weight to the back of the standing foot". If that is done before the moving foot does move, the result would be falling backwards, and pulling the partner forward. Before the Follower moves back, she settles on the supporting leg, ie. vertically aligns her c of g with the support which now lies between T and H, bends the knee, establishes the point of next support, then steps. The footwork, ie. the descriptions of which part of the foot is in contact with the floor, in the charts show it as TH, not H. Also, weight should not fall back, or anywhere, at all, early,late, or on time.

This ties in very neatly with the posts of phil.samways and clumsyfellow about the lunges. Their observations equally apply to back and side lunges. I submit that any of them can be done with a higher degree of frame and posture control and maintenance, if the knee of the supporting leg is optimally bent before the step-lunge. You would end up being able to do a wicked, languid bolero, too. Solutions to any problems with rise and fall will also come more readily.

All of the above applies to dancing in a social setting, as well as dancesport. Frame and posture cannot be compromised; topline, and size of steps/strides vary in degree. It's impossible to create big volume, big topline on a small base, and to try and cover 60 ft of long wall with a feather step, reverse turn, reverse turn and check, basic weave on a crowded floor during a social.

"There's definitely no argument with posture not being the same thing as shape; and nobody in this exchange made that claim."

Actually, the post I replied to did mix up the two subjects, which is why I posted.

"Neither is posture implied in alignment: alignment being simply the position of the feet in relation to the room"

The reference was not to foot alignment, but to the postural alignment of the body.

"In order to move, the balance has to be disturbed, and the c o g displaced. During this displacement the body changes shape, and the c o g shifts. The whole point of dancing is to stay balanced while moving"

Moving while remaining balanced is not possible, unless you position the moving foot while keeping the body stationary in balance over the standing foot, or slide the moving foot with weight on it. It's precisely trying to do this which causes dancers to buckle forward, leaving the weight of their hips behind when moving forward, or arch their back leaving the center forward when moving backward.

"Stability is attained when the c o g is kept within an area of support"

With only the standing foot bearing weight, this is impractical. Dancing (and indeed walking down the street) is dynamically UNSTABLE - however, it can still be elegant if skillfully done.

"I have to disagree with the concept of "it's going to be necessary to take the body weight to the back of the standing foot". If that is done before the moving foot does move, the result would be falling backwards"

Walking is well-aimed falling.

"and pulling the partner forward."

If it's badly aimed, sure. The answer is to be more careful in the aim of your departure from balance - essentially to make a nearly horizontal fall that lands softly on a foot that has moved into position only during the fall towards it.

"Before the Follower moves back, she settles on the supporting leg, ie. vertically aligns her c of g with the support which now lies between T and H, bends the knee, establishes the point of next support, then steps."

Establishing the moving foot in position before rolling through the standing one is precisely the problem that leads to poor postural alignment in the lower back, and choppy movement!

People do not walk this way; they shouldn't try to dance that way either.
"Also, weight should not fall back, or anywhere, at all, early,late, or on time."

Walking and dancing are precisely about falling "on time". The difference between a skilled and elegant execution and an unskilled and clumsy one is the strength to aim the departures from balance with sufficient accuracy that the arrivals are exactly as desired.

"This ties in very neatly with the posts of phil.samways and clumsyfellow about the lunges. Their observations equally apply to back and side lunges. I submit that any of them can be done with a higher degree of frame and posture control and maintenance, if the knee of the supporting leg is optimally bent before the step-lunge. You would end up being able to do a wicked, languid bolero, too. Solutions to any problems with rise and fall will also come more readily."

This is true.

"All of the above applies to dancing in a social setting, as well as dancesport. Frame and posture cannot be compromised;"

Frame certainly can be compromised. Skilled dancers are able to do fine with a general "awareness" of each other not mediated by any specific contact in body or arms.

"topline, and size of steps/strides vary in degree."

Of course

It would appear that this post has acquired a second "Anonymous". You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect the difference in the writing styles between the original threads and the more recent ones under the "non de plume" of anonymous. I wonder if "Anonymous too" felt sorry for the original contributor, or perhaps he is his Father!

This is where the Technique book falls down. Whether it be the man or the lady who is going backwards the footwork must be Toe Ball Heel and not T.H. And to get that toe onto the floor the standing knee must bend to the front, that is towards their partner. If the knee is straight or even straightish it will be the ball only that is on the floor and there will be an insufficient extension of the moving leg.

"This is where the Technique book falls down. Whether it be the man or the lady who is going backwards the footwork must be Toe Ball Heel and not T.H."

It goes without saying that the ball of the foot is located between the toe and the heel.

"And to get that toe onto the floor the standing knee must bend to the front, that is towards their partner. If the knee is straight or even straightish it will be the ball only that is on the floor and there will be an insufficient extension of the moving leg."

What is sufficient depends on how large a movement is intended - most of us are able to vary our step sizes to suit the varying situations we find in dancing.

But you are fundamentally mistaken about the mechanics. At the time when the moving foot achieves it's ultimate position, the standing knee would no longer be substantially bent forwards, because at this time the body will be located well behind the standing foot.

You seem instead to be describing the novice's mistake of reaching the moving foot into position while holding the body stationary, in balance over the standing foot with the standing knee still bent forward. That is not how skilled dancing - or for that matter - skilled walking - is done. Skilled, efficient movement involves sending the body while the moving foot is in motion. For a backwards movement, this means that by the time the moving foot stops moving, much of the forward bend of the standing knee that may have occurred at the start of the body movement has now been negated in order to push the body away from the standing foot.

If you really want to achieve greater backwards extension of your moving leg, work on increasing the range of motion of your leg in the hip joint. Hoping to achieve this by keeping your weight forward in the standing foot via a bent standing knee and pulling your hips back to extend from your back instead of your hip joint just pulls your hips away from your partner. Most dancers who resort to this end up habitually using far more backwards extension than is appropriate for their limited body travel, resulting in choppy dancing that is inelegant and difficult to partner. If instead you move your body smoothly and continuously, less leg extension is needed because the body carries the leg with it. If what is obtained this way in insufficient, a little careful stretching of the leg in its socket (while keeping the pelvis neutral) will increase it over time.

perfect description of pendulum swing and split weight in fox. for ladies TH - T, for the guys HT - T.

can't see much of this split weight concept in walz, qs, or tango, though. of course, there's got to be, even if for a millisecond, otherwise how could the c of g traverse the midpoint of travel.

in definition of footwork in "Technique":
"The term Toe is intended to include the Ball of foot." As a corollary: " A step forward is given as Heel, although it is understood that the whole foot is used. It is not necessary to say Heel then Flat."

But we all knew that.

Otherwise, I'm with you: the degree of flex of the knee determines the reach backward, and the ability to do so in balance, stably. Has to do with converting the potential energy being made available into kinetic energy, while keeping the c of g within the area of support, the feet. Would apply to moving forward as well.

You would step BH in tango, no?

Bronze. For a competition dancer the stance altered long ago. Google any top couple, or look on this site, and tell me that the conection is not.
" The right area of the chest of each partner touches that of the other.
I have been instructed that I could swing a brick on a rope and not touch a thing at the hip level.
These are the points of contact.
1. The man's left hand holds the ladies right hand
2. The ladies left hand rests on the top of the man's upper arm. ( behind in Tango )
3. The ladies armpit rests on the man's wrist
4. The ladies left elbow rests on the man's right elbow.
5. The right area of the chest of both couple touches that of the other.
You will notice that the hips don't get a mention.
This way you can actually dance without arms which can be a good way to practise.

correction

you do confuse me: "tell me that the conection is not.
" The right area of the chest of each partner touches that of the other."", and in point 5: "The right area of the chest of both couple touches that of the other."

but i don't recall mentioning the right areas of the chest touching. my earlier posts indicated body contact with follower on leader's right side, and concentration on both partners keeping hips forward. i also have looked closely at top couples, and on this site, and what i see are right hips closed or very close, certainly no brick swinging room, in such a way that the follower's right inner thigh contacts the leader's right inner thigh, from mid-quad to just above the knee.

i rather fail to see how it would be possible to lead, and for the follower to sense rise and fall, particularly in the walz, WITHOUT RIGOROUSLY MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH THE RIGHT HIPS, unless the arms are used for, what would become, "steering".

Teachers sometimes say "hips forward" to compensate for the tendency of their students to leave the hips back. However, one doesn't literally want the pelvis tilted forward, because that would result in both poor posture and loss of contact above hip level. Anytime you distort your posture in one way or another to connect a specific point in your body, it is always at the expense of the contact of the rest of the body. Remember: A flat front will connect to the longest area.

Body contact is not a single point but an area. Viewed from above, the area of connection in basic closed ballroom position is man's "right front" to lady's "right front", an area which spans from centerline to right corner. Viewed from the side, the area of connection starts at the hips (or thighs*) and extends upward to the lower ribs, slightly below the bottom of the sternum.

Teachers who want to emphasize a higher connection might use the word "chest", but it too can be a misleading expression when not explained in more detail. True, the highest point of the connection area is technically part of the chest, but it's not the part that the average student might think of when he hears the word.

* Note: Thighs often make contact, but this contact is not constant, so I don't include it in my description of body contact.

Believe it or not, "steering" is not necessarily a bad thing. However, like everything else in dancing, there are good and bad versions. Students early in the learning process tend to overuse their hands, and use them in ways that are artificial, either without the involvement of the body, or worse, in conflict with the movement of body. So the first goal of most teachers is typically to extinguish all extraneous movements of the arms and hands in dance position, to teach the student to lead purely through the movement of the body.

"Good" hands, if and when they are introduced, are subtle and complementary to the body movement. There is a certain limited range of freedom in which hands can move, although often it comes down to more of a subtle change in pressure than an actual change of position relative to the body. However, when taken together with the body movement, the net result is very much a feeling of "steering" the lady.

Dance position is a collection of contact points, all working together as a team to produce the best possible result. Each connection point contributes to the communication of direction, momentum, rotation, shape, etc. And while each has it's strengths, no one of them is singularly critical for the success of lead and follow. With each lost connection, the communication deteriorates to some extent, and the remaining connections must increase in sensitivity to compensate.

In a complete dance position with all points intact, body contact may contribute to the communication of direction and linear momentum. But body contact should not be relied upon unilaterally for this information. In expert dancers, all of the points contribute to the transmission of this information to varying degrees at various times. If you are under the impression that body contact (especially the lower half) is indispensable for the purpose of lead and follow, I fear you may be putting too much stock into it.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to say that any point of contact is unimportant. But when one particular connection becomes too important, it's indicative that the others may be being under-used.

Regards,
Jonathan