Re: Pushing off from the heels?
- From: avid_dancer@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 06:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 30, 1:04 pm, cs_post...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
That was not what you claimed, so it was not what I was responding to.
You need to read better.
I did not allege that the practical skill did not have to be
developed.
You surely implied this.
You also keep insisting how the way you prefer moving
(whatever that may really be) is "natural," which
implies innate/inborn. Now you are back-pedaling.
This is a perfect example of the dishonesty of your tactics - you keep
suggesting that I have claimed or would claim things things like this
when in fact I have said nothing of the sort.
Dishonest? Tactics? Either you don't know how to
write, how to express yourself, and/or how the
average person would interpret your
self-contradicting claims.
No. All you are doing is proving that you really don't know what you
are talking about. You repeatedly make value judgment claims about
various physical methods, yet these are clearly invalid as you
obviously still do not understand the methods you are comparing. This
is proved in how you repeatedly mis-state my methods, despite having
the same mistakes in your understanding of them pointed out time and
time again. You cannot compare the potential advantages of two
methods in theory when you only understand one of them, and you
cannot compare them in practice when you only have a ready example of
one of them.
You are the one who concurs that your way does not
maintain/maximize balance at all times. It's
probably safe to say that most dancers who desire
to dance safely have staying in balance/control as
a key goal, regardless of whether they can achieve
it or not.
what you wish I said rather than what I did in fact write. My passage
contained a specific qualifier "effective at achieving goals that both
they and I have stated". In other words, my comment only applies in
the situation where they and I have the same goals.
Learn to write better, as your clarification is in
no way implied by the original statement.
You are confused about your facts.
No. I may be confused by what you claim as "fact"
because you don't write clearly. I've requested
that you post videos for us to critique, to clarify
the situation.
No, working against the floor (well, ground) was actually the core of
my argument of why racers start low vs. dancers starting high. Racers
start low because they can accelerate faster forwards and up, by
pushing against the floor, than they could accelerate forwards and
down under the influence of gravity. When accelerating forwards and
down, you cannot exceed the local gravitational acceleration (ie, 9.8
m/s/s), and for a racer that is too slow a start. Instead, by pushing
forwards and up, their acceleration is limited only by their
strength. But dancer's aren't trying to start fast - we want that
slow graceful gravitational acceleration movement, because the whole
character of our (swing) dances is ultimately built around that.
You obviously don't understand what it is to work
off the floor, since you assume it has to do with
"fast" only.
The element of balance in my dancing is that I plan my movements so
that the accelerations in my force balance are of a direction and
magnitude that will achieve my movement goals, no more.
Every leader attempts to plan well. How well they
do often depends on their understanding of body
positioning and balance.
Early in the process of learning to send the body from the standing
leg, the experimenter will be quite uncomfortable, because once their
body weight is past their standing leg they are no longer in static
balance, and an acceleration is present in their force balance. They
aren't used to having that situation in dancing, and so haven't
learned to size that acceleration so that it will cause movement of
the size and speed they want - because of the lack of experience in
motion planning and sizing it, that acceleration will initially be
taking them places they don't want to go at speeds they don't want to
go at. Learning to make it all work together with acceleration
matching rather than exceeding desired movement takes practice -
practice guided by faith or local evidence that it is indeed possible,
which is what is usually lacking. They will in fact have already
solved the same problem on a smaller scale earlier in life when
learning to walk - but the dance problem sees a larger and longer-
duration phase of static imbalance, and is tackled at a time in life
when there's not usually any memory of learning to walk.
You keep describing non-swingin movemnt in the context
of a swinging dance. As I've pointed out many times
before, the way you describe above correlates to the
need to "get" to the destination, which means dancing
"on the beat," rather than dancing "between the beat."
But, I don't expect you to figure this out any time
soon.
Stopping instantaneously is impossible. The question then becomes one
of how much stopping distance you will allow - meters or millimeters.
Ordinary swing technique typically requires a step or two of upswing
to stop, which is what you want to do when it's possible, which it
usually will be if you do not begin a downswing until you have a clear
path of movement through to the natural completion of the following
upswing. In emergency situations, you could use a more tango-like
checking technique to stop in about a footprint. This will break the
character of (a swing) dance, but still void hitting the person who
surprised you.
You obviously don't understand angles, from what you
write here.
Torso stays behind relative to the moving leg.
In some cases yes, in some no, but that's not what you had said before
- though it may be what you had intended to say.
You don't read well. I have been very consistent in
my descriptions of standing leg verses moving leg
movement.
No, it's not the way I move, because as I've said numerous times I
plan my downswing so that it naturally results in the size of movement
I intended. No overpowering involved, so no brakes need.
What happens if another couple cuts you off is headed
for a collision course with you?
Notice what truckers do when and to the degree they can get away with
it - they coast down one hill and roll up the next, because that is
more efficient and saves them money. The alternative, which is
basically how you seem to want to dance, is to brake while going down
the hill and then use the gas to go up the next. Granted you can't
accelerate without limit on the downhill - but what's different about
dancing and driving is that in dancing the hills are only as high as
we decide they should be. The skilled dancer makes their hills -
their rise and fall - the height such that a no-brakes descent
achieves the speed they want to have at the bottom of the hill (the
speed they want to carry into the next uphill), and no more.
You don't need to describe the well-known techique of
"zooming" used by vehicles, which I've claimed doesn't
apply to dancing from the physics standpoint, starting
from the simple fact that people dance on flat floors.
No, just further evidence of your mis-understanding of these dance
principles.
Why do you assume that your understanding is the
only (right) understanding?
Remember, the swinging in traveling dances is not
at all a real physical swing.
More evidence of your lack of understanding of the concept.
Now you don't understand physics.
No, your bad physics. Skiiers routinely have more kinetic energy than
the equivalent potential energy change between their body lying
horizontal on the snow, and their body at standing height. This
means that no matter how much sway they entered a stop with, they
could not plant their skis immobile and absorb the energy by rising to
a standing position. It's a simple physical fact that they are going
to need to dissipate energy over distance, or impact an immobile
object sufficiently perpendicular to their direction of travel.
You obviously don't ski or skate enough. Your description
of a skate stop is plainly wrong.
No, they trip because they properly let their body get ahead of their
moving foot, but something unexpected then prevented their moving foot
from moving into position to receive it. This is different from a
slip, which is what occurs if you try to apply more horizontal force
to your standing leg than the floor friction can accommodate -
something also made less likely by skill, as the skilled dancer is
moving more smoothly, needing less horizontal acceleration from the
standing leg and so applying less force on it.
You are describing _exactly_ the problem of applying
moving leg (non-swinging) action in a standing leg
(swinging) dance. But you're not experienced
enough to understand this.
You just keep demonstrating over and over again that you haven't taken
time to understand the subjects you are talking about. You claim
that I'm taking random positions because it looks like that to you,
but in fact I'm not - what's changing somewhat randomly is your
understanding through which you try to interpret the quite consistent
trends of what I've been saying.
You are not taking random positions, but making
random claims about the benefits your preferences
offer. These claims are often self-contradictory.
Moving leg action, as in the "zooming" you
describe, is simply not "stable" in the "travel"
portion of the movement.
Opinions mostly developed based on your misunderstanding of facts.
Again, your facts are not my facts, and are in fact
only your opinions.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pushing off from the heels?
- From: cs_posting
- Re: Pushing off from the heels?
- Prev by Date: Re: Phoenix 2009
- Next by Date: Re: Phoenix 2009
- Previous by thread: SoCal-OCWCSDC WCS Sun and Int/Masters Prog J&J
- Next by thread: Re: Pushing off from the heels?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
