Another reason is I get lumped into the same category as some other pros who “only like dancing with their own”, which is not true for me. I LOVE dancing with beginner dancers. Beginner dancers are the reason I am who I am. Dancing with beginners for me is refreshing because they don’t try so hard to overlead ridiculous patterns. I have time to think and chill and express myself. They also don’t get pissed off like some intermediate dancers when something they tried didn’t work because they think I didn’t follow it properly (gag!). I’ll take a modest novice with great connection over a sloppy overbearing all-star anyday.

I love dancing with my friends. But if there are 1000 people at a convention, 500 of them are leaders. I am usually out dancing ALL NIGHT. I don’t like hiding in the bar or in my room. I’m there to social dance. That means there are potentially enough songs throughout the weekend to get through half of the leaders in attendance. But many nights, I will dance with the same people 2 and 3 times in a night. It’s not by choice, though – it’s because I really want to dance and no one else is asking. And, just in case you are thinking it, sometimes I DO ask guys I’ve never met.

Now, all that said, I do have one caveat about when/how NOT to ask:
This has happened to me twice now, and each time I was appalled:
I was standing or sitting talking to someone, and a guy I’d never met approached me while I was talking and grabbed my hand and started pulling towards the floor. As he pulled, he asked, “You said you dance with beginners, right?”
I was fuming. It took all of my effort not to slap his hand away and walk off the floor. The common courtesy that everyone else in the dance world gets, but seems to have escaped these two guys, is: When you ask someone to dance, you ASK, with words, and await their reply. You can add a gesture or offer a hand, but you DON’T GRAB AND HAUL like a caveman and then try to lay a pre-emptive guilt trip on them to prevent them from declining.

So, bottom line is:
A great time to ask is Sunday, when everyone’s more relaxed.
A great time to ask is right after you’ve just had an awesome dance with a trusted friend, so your confidence is high.
A great time to ask is when they are walking out to the floor with someone else – ask if you can have the next song.
Be respectful of WHEN and HOW you ask pros to dance, but don’t be afraid to ask. We’re all human.

Q: Do you see any fundamental differences between dancing Down beat/ Up beat pairs versus Up beat/Down beat pairs? What are they? More specifically, do you see the differences affecting each dance’s ability to interpret/reflect the music, and if so how?

A: The first question about the possibilty of being limited by dancing upeat/down beat vs. Downbeat/upbeat is a good one, the debate is still going on in the Hustle community and the Nite club Two-step community. There are two answers, one simple, one not so much…
Once two dancers start moving (one on the down, the other on the up) they will look equally on time. If a hustle dancer or MJ dancer were dancing to a techno song that had bass hits on all beats 1, 2, 3, 4 etc….. then you would not be able to tell the difference of an upbeat dancer or a down beat dancer.

Here’s the trickier part. Most modern music (unlike classical) is accented on the up beats. The main pulse is on the ups (think of what beat you would snap on) and the phrasing and structure of the songs are all set on the 1′s or downbeat. This allows people to think it best to dance on the upbeat to stay on the accent. These people will dance to only one aspect of a song. Musicians aren’t thinking about dancers when they write music. They will start their instrumentation around the 1 beat and same with the lyrics. When a song hits a break or a dancer starts dancing to the start of the song is where the difference of the downbeat or upbeat dancer shows itself.

A downbeat dancer will begin moving when the song starts or resumes after a break. An upbeat dancer will either move before or after the start/resume of a song and will appear to be “off-time”. Again, once they’re going and until the next break they will both look fine except to the musically trained person who understands phrasing.

Almost every song that we would wcs or mj to will have the breaks on 1 or 5 of an 8 beat measure of music. A down beat dancer will be more likely to be “naturally” hitting it by having their patterns beginning on the downbeats because they will hear the break or phrase change coming a few beats early and will only have to pause or not start a pattern and they will hit the music.

An Upbeat dancer will have to interupt their patterns or wait an extra count once they hear the break coming. The upbeat dancer will be forcing the breaks as it is more likely that they will be beginning a new pattern on the 8 and have to wait from 7 until the break on 1 or start and stop their patterns.
As far as the interpretation of music goes, it is in most cases more beneficial to the overall dance to dance on the downbeat. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, again in the case of classical music and most traditional asian songs where the pulses/accents are on the downbeats. These songs would best be danced on the upbeat. (I have a fascinating summary of a study done on Chinese people and North American music and Dance, I’ll bring it up in another post if people ask)

Question #2

I understand that in WCS you work down beat/up beat units with your feet but what about your body at its most basic level-what beats does it move on when travelling through space on the simpler patterns (improvisation aside)?

Body flight is imperative to acheiving true dance. “Dance is the expression of one’s center movement”- Martha Grahme. In Wcs there “should be” a pulse of some sorts on every beat. In Lindy or Ballroom jive it is a pulse down in the knees, again on every beat. Look at most people in a club, their bodies are pulsing or lurching forward and back or up and down (sometimes both…give your card to that guy LOL!) modern jive should be no different. The body should initiate the foot movement. If your foot moves on every beat, then the body should be moving on every in between beat. Now, everybody will take a different amount of time to create the movement so some fire on the and, and some on the a` before the beat.

I truly believe that MJ not having the rhythm changes that west coast swing does allows it to be much more musical as one doesn’t have to “force” a triple step. Dancing any dance on the upbeat however limits the dance by not being able to dance to the whole song. It will only dance to the simplest part of the song and that is the downbeat and upbeat. If that is all we cared about as dancers, our music would be pretty monotonous.
Some Lindy hop instructors feel that to preserve Lindy, it can only be danced in the style of the 40′s and with the same moves done in the same order as they were done in the movies or by the dancers that were around at the time (what Frankie Manning says becomes law not opinion). If Modern Jive teachers feel that it too needs to be preserved as a basic dance with no rhythm variances then there is no room for musicality and it won’t ever matter as the dance won’t evolve. I have already heard some MJ teachers say “that when the students get advanced enough to want to add steps or musicality, they should go to WCS or Lindy. Modern Jive is not the place for them any longer”

I am very impressed with the depth of knowledge and challenge of standards in this thread. Rarely have I seen on a forum people willing to get this detailed or have anything credible to say about it.

I LOVE the reference to Jazz musicians and how it can relate to dancers! DO I have permission to use that example in my own teaching?
One thing that Jazz music, dancing and tap dancing all share is a certain disrgard for numbers and an emphasis on rhythms. Think of a singer scatting, it’s random sounds meant to fit a rhythm or combination of sounds not to be specifically timed (and a 1 2 and 3 for example.) My favorite explanation of this concept comes for the Gregory Hines film “TAP”. He takes his tap students out into NY and teaches them to listen to all the city sounds around them construction, cars over a manhole cover and horns etc. He gets the “hoofers” to start using the existing rhythm set by these sounds and then they elaborate on them. It is a stunning visual but more so audio spectacle and one that I beg all of my students to watch.

Being a Jazz and Ballet trained dancer and a vocalist I have been blessed with a very indepth understanding of rhythm and adaptability. So I agree with Dan sin about using the proper numbers to count the dance. 8123 rather than and 1 and 2etc. Just like we in WCS don’t advocate counting WCS 12 123 123 as our walk walk triple step triple step. If the dance is even time, the sound created by the count or rhythm should be even timed. Any time you get a musician in a dance class and you try to teach and 1 and 2 instead of 1 2 it will mess them up to no end. Sure the average person doesn’t know any different, but they also would not know any different if it was always taught 1 2 3 4. So I would always consider all of the potential students. Because it matters to some, it should be taught more to them IMO. Using the &1 &2 concept will
be a detriment to the later development of musicality because of the association of and as an even beat. A whole beat is dived into four parts as most of you are very aware. 1 e and a. It is this break down that allows for any and all syncopations. By not giving proper respect to that breakdown people will get lost with the introduction of e and a.
Here’s a trick I use to get people to understand the beat breakdown. I play a techno song. Very clear 1 2 3 4…. and I have them drum out the whole beat on their leg or floor etc. Then I get them to double time it 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 so they are drumming twice as fast. Once they have that I have them try and double that (Quarter notes). The great thing with a lot of house music is that it often does that for me. Once they have felt and heard it I can explain about using combinations of the beats to create rhythm changes and syncopations. I DO NOT USE NUMBERS TO TEACH SYNCOPATIONS. Numbers are still to structured and I am about giving the freedom to be dynamic. I use scat sounds for rhythms Ba de dada di.

Adams girlfriend had a great post that I would like to comment on as well. She talked about 8 being more of a prep step rather than an actual start step. From all the videos I have watched and the local, Ceroc instructors and better Ceroc dancers, that is what I see. I see them initiate momentum on 8 but the dance really takes flight on 1. Every partner dance in the world uses this principle, but some people just don’t know it. In Cha Cha for example, to the beginners we teach them to step to the side on 1 and then rock back on 2 (leaders foot). In the higher levels of ballroom(gold up) The dance starts on 2 with the leaders rocking forward on 2. BUT there is initiation of the dance on 1 with the release of the hip to power the foot onto 2. Waltz uses a side sway on 2 3 to gain momentum into the first drive on 1. WCS is slowly catching up. There are a few of us that teach the movement on 8 first. You guys in AUS will notice this when we come out. The idea is that if we change our weight on to the leads R foot on 8, we can establish the anchor and stretch in order to initiate the dance on 1. Most adv on up dancers naturally do this as they don’t want to jerk there partner on 1, they pre move on 8. Those of you with videos from WCS events of the last few years will notice the Allstars and Champions using less of the traditional “starter step” Sideways triple, sideways triple rock step a la lindy, and using more of just swaying back and forth into walking up or down or around then they will fall onto a 1 beat. Even if they do use a traditional “starter step” look closely to where the first weight change really is. You will see alot of weight transfers (mostly sideways) on 8.

One last arena to comment on from the previous responses. The idea that in WCS and MJ that the majority of the TOP dancers are highly trained in multiple dances. Yes this is pretty common, as stated there are exceptions to some very gifted people out there but most have worked their buns off in other forms first. For the record: Dance is universal! Sure there are certain principles that are different between them but mostly there are just rhythm changes. In a basic sense, what makes Cha cha different from rumba -rhythm, what Makes Modern Jive different form Traditional jive or ECS – Rhythm. Leading is leading following is following and centre control is centre control. If you can do it in one dance you can do it in another, you just have to learn the difference in the timing or rhythm. The more rhythms one knows for other dances, the more they can elaborate in any one dance because their body is used to it.
I am a Huge advocate that anyone who wants to be good in one dance should learn multiple dances. Because of my training I request all of my dancers to seek out Jazz dance training or let me teach it rather than just WCS in our lessons.

Quoted Question:

“There is a phrase I use from time to time when teaching beginners “lets get the nuts and bolts in place and then worry about the finer details”. In other words there is a difference between talking about technique and doing it. A beginner who is copying an action of a teacher is using many of the techniques the teacher is, they just don’t know it and as such don’t know how to fine tune these techniques to make the dance smooth and flowing.

“MJ is not a simplified dance, but a “non-emphasized” dance. ie when one sees advanced MJ dancers doing their thing they often lead/follow a lot of basic moves. They look cool doing these moves because they have refined their dance technique. These same techniques could be taught to beginners but it would run the risk of overloading them with technique and mean that their progress to freestyle would be slower as the teacher would need to spend more time working on a specific technique before moving on to the next. The goal of MJ (to get people dancing as quickly and easily as possible) should not be confused with the level of technique available in the dance form.”

First, we cannot assume that a beginner dancer observing an advanced dancer and “copying” them is actually authentically replicating the technique of the dance. In order to accurately replicate a dance, one must understand the mechanics required to create the movement. Dancers with no training simply do not have this knowledge base…

Second, people learn in different styles – some are visual learners, some are kinesthetic. A teacher must cater to each learning style in order to reach each student. Visual copying is not enough.

Third, the problem with alot of dance training is that there are teachers out there who started out as competent dancers who had no clue how they did what they did, then they discovered that they can make money from people who want to look like them, so they started teaching lessons. But the problem was that they still didn’t understand how to explain what they were doing to other people, so they do alot of demonstrating but not alot of ACTUAL teaching.

This is the bane of my existence. As a technically trained teacher, I constantly come across these “instructors” who are unintentionally passing on bad habits to their students. Their students learn to copy dancers they admire because that was the teaching method that was used on them. But they have no idea HOW or WHY to execute the movement in their own body, so they end up doing something totally unnatural, unergonomic and inefficient. This makes their learning slower, their leads less effective, which makes social dancing less fun and so they quit. Argh! If only they had been taught correctly from the beginning, they would have achieved more success sooner, had more fun, and therefore would still be involved in the dance.

You say you “run the risk of overloading them with technique” if you spend too much time teaching it to beginners. I say it is the irresponsible teacher who bypasses technique and cheats their students out of their potential to really “get” the dance faster and better. I understand that MJ was created to “get people dancing immediately”. I totally get and support the mission. But technique does not have to take a long time to teach. This is a big problem in WCS too – loads of teachers teaching pattern after pattern but no one wanting to “take the risk” of teaching the technique the students NEED in order to make the patterns actually work! This is why Myles and I teach WCS the way we do. We teach technique in a way that’s fast, simple, palatable, practical and applicable. It’s not boring. It’s what your body’s been craving. Our students are constantly commenting things like, “Why wasn’t I taught this from day one?”, “Why doesn’t anyone else teach this stuff?”, and “I wish I’d learned this years ago – I would have stuck with it”. Check out our testimonial page if you want proof:
http://www.canadianswingchampions.co…6apr18_008.htm
We have taken brand new dancers with zero experience, and in 5 weeks (5 hours) taught them in such a way that they have better connection and understanding of the dance than 90% of the people who attend local dances and who have been taking classes for years. It’s not quantity – it’s quality…THEN it’s quantity.

But my point was not to fluff my own feathers, just to point out that technique is ESSENTIAL to teaching beginners and it is a crying shame that most teachers are afraid of it, either because they don’t understand it themselves, or if they do understand it, are afraid that they won’t be able to present it in a way that their students would take to, and they want to protect their investment. My point was to show that technique is ACCESSIBLE to beginners and makes the whole dance more DESIREABLE.

Yes, I agree that “Physics has not changed, merely our appreciation of it”, but that appreciation should not be limited to “advanced dancers”. Science is a integral subject in primary school (ages 6-10). If developing children can learn about the food chain and gravity and earthquakes, adult beginner dancers can be taught basic physics and biomechanics.

I know there are assumptions made that Pros only want to dance with other Pros. This unfortunately, is a result of people observing the behavior of a few Pros and assuming that all Pros are the same. This is not the case for all Pros. Yes, I like dancing with some other Pros, but just as you have dancers that you seek out for dances and some that you…don’t seek out…I have Pros I love dancing with and some who I could take or leave. I would rather have a kick-@#$ dance with a Novice than a lukewarm dance with a Pro. In fact, I LOVE dancing with Novice dancers. I find it relaxing and refreshing to just do basics for a whole song and not have to work about hanging on for dear life in pattern after wrappy-pattern. I get to work on my following skills, since their lead might not be fully developed yet, and I get time to work on my syncopations and make sure they don’t negatively affect my partner. It is proven that social dancing makes you a better dancer. It’s like 4,5,6 hours of non-stop practice. Also, coming from a more isolated part of the continent (in terms of WCS) I appreciate and take advantage of all the social dance time I can get, since I won’t get to see the same dancers again until the next convention.

I think you will get a different answer from every Pro. Just as we are all different individuals, we all come with a different set of preferences, priorities, insecurities, circumstances, moods, experiences, training, and responsibilities.

In general, I could probably speak for almost everybody that they love social dancing. That’s the whole reason we started partner dancing in the first place right? But, depending on all of the above conditions, that level of desire to social dance fluctuates:

Responsibilities:
Have they been working all day?

Priorities:
Are there certain people they NEED to dance with? (Privates students, Strictly partners, romantic partners, etc) Is their goal for the evening to relax and socialize, or to burn off some energy?

Preferences:
Do they prefer dancing only with people who they know? Maybe they prefer choreography over social dancing. Maybe they aren’t inspried by the music.

Insecurities:
We are all human, with the same fears as everyone else. Maybe they are shy and uncomfortable asking people to dance. Maybe they’re afraid they will disappoint your expectations.

Circumstances:
Maybe they have an injury they prefer not to subject to the unpredictability of a Novice dancer. Maybe they’re in a bad mood because of something that happened outside the ballroom.

Training:
Pros who were trained in a studio might have been trained to serve their students and not think twice about social dancing with everyone all night long. But, some Pros might not have had that training, so it is not an automatic response.

To answer your question about “What makes a social dance enjoyable for you”, it’s the exact same answer regardless of the level of my partner:
CONNECTION!!!!!!
Having a dance where both people are 100% into each other and the music and are working together and having a great dancing conversation…is not limited to the Pros. This is why everywhere we go we are advocates for teaching conenction and technique.
What might be a better question is, “What makes a dance un-enjoyable for you?”, to which I would respond, “Lack fo connection”. Of course, there are other ways to have a crappy dance: lack of eye contact, bad hygiene, over-leading, too many patterns, letting me run into the next couple, hurting me, etc. Basically the same complaints non-Pros have. But most dancers have that stuff under control. It’s the connection that really makes it or breaks it for me. So if you get an opportunity to learn more about connection in a workshop, private or group class, take advantage of it!!!

In each heat, I usually use the first song to pick out my “No’s”. That means, I look for the dancers who are offesive either in behavior or dress, grossly off time, missing major techniques, or not being a good team player with their partner. Once I have them eliminated, I can concentrate on narrowing down the field of dancers who don’t have these major errors…

Of the remaining dancers, I then try to pick out my definite “Yes’s” – dancers who stand out above the rest in any of their 3 T’s. Once they’re solidified, then I focus on the dancers who fall in the grey area (“Maybe’s”).

Grey area dancers are the ones who aren’t doing anything really wrong, but they’re also not doing much else. My main criteria for this group is to ask myself the question: “Do they Swing?” or “Are they DANCING?”. It is extremely common to see master pattern executors or master followers who are terrible dancers. So I look to see if they are actually expressing themselves in their dancing. This does not mean taking risks. This means that they OWN their dance – they are the author of their dance. They are not just walking through patterns. “Does it Swing?” refers to the criteria of authentic swing content, as opposed to hustle, ballroom WCS, or wiggly-jiggly-whatever, etc.

So, NO, I would not recommend sarificing the 3 T’s to take risks, but rather augmenting the 3T’s with your own personality. I recently was asked for feedback/advice from a dancer who qualified for Novice finals and needed only a few points to graduate to Intermediate. I told her she was doing everything right, but I thought she was holding back. I told her it was time to turn up the volume a little bit – time to take risks. She took my advice in the final and won. Because her 3 T’s were in place, all she needed was that little extra to give her the edge over the other dancers. Had she not have asked me, she would have still held back. But if her 3T’s weren’t solid and had she assumed that risks were ok, she might have blown the dance.

These questions usually help me narrow down my top 10. I usually wait until the end of the last heat to make my final decisions on the grey area dancers. If I’m really stuck or conflicted on whether I should advance a dancer, I’ll ask myself the question, “If I were a finalist in this division, how would I feel about drawing that partner?” and “As a judge, or spectator, would I want to spend 90 seconds of my life watching this dancer again in a spotlight final?” These last questions usually make-or-break a dancer’s advancement for me.

I’m a stickler for efficient and ergonomic technique, so once they make it to spotlight finals, if one partner is missing one of the 3T’s, unfortunately I mark both partners down. I consider myself a master fudge-r (as in, I’m really good at fudging my own or my partner’s mistakes) which is the only way you can really compensate for a partner who is “T-deficient” in some way. But it’s possible that no amount of fudging can rescue the dance. I recently judged an advanced spotlight strictly final where one couple had decent technique but awful teamwork, but the other couple had a follower with good technique and a leader with horrible technique, but they had superior teamwork. I put them in 1st, and so did all the other judges. Assuming the spotlight finalist couple has their 3T’s in place, the first thing I look for is the dance conversation. Then I look for the personality of the dancers to come out. Then I look for their relationship to the music.

Yes I would change the criteria for the division I’m judging. There comes a point between intermediate and advanced where the 3 T’s become assumed, and if you haven’t got your 3 T’s by then you should be taking more private lessons. At the advanced level, I am looking more for creativity, flow, control, a more sophisticated conversation. This is where risks become acceptable. When I judge my peers at the Champions level, I am very careful to judge the DANCE, not the DANCER. That means, no one is guaranteed a placement in my books until they show me they deserve it, no matter what their name is or how good a friend they are. I look for all the same criteria as above, with the addition of showmanship/entertainment value and the elusive “mind-meld” phenomenon, where it looks like both partners are sharing the same brain!

We trained with former Cirque-du-Soleil coaches in Vancouver. They put me in a harness and assisted me on cables to do our first lifts. Once I got past the scary ignorance and felt how stable he was and how ergonomic it was, I was good to go.

Now, coming from a Human Kinetics background, I had the advantage of an understanding of physics and biomechanics that really helped me comprehend and predict the mechanics required to execute the lifts. This also enabled me to be creative and invent new tricks and lifts. I already have a very fit physique, but I have found that if I sloth around for too long (like after the Open, over the holidays), I feel alot more strain after doing our routine at an event. This past year I increased my own strength, balance, and coordination by training in Ballet and Jazz 3-4 times a week. Core muscle exercises are by far the most critical thing to focus on, specifically Erector Spinae, Lats, Hip Flexors, Glutes, and Oblique Abdominals. And lots of stretching before and after!!!!!

Myles started working out quite heavily last year, losing 5% body fat and putting on 15 lbs of muscle by going to the gym every day and taking supplements. This helped a lot!!!! My weight never fluctuates, but he said that I started “feeling lighter” when he started working out!

The lady does not need to be super skinny, but she definitely needs to be able to carry herself well. This means awesome posture and core strength. She can make herself feel lighter by holding herself up and thinking “up, up, up” at every opportunity. The bigger the girl (in proportion to the guy), the stronger the guy needs to be so that lifting her appears to be effortless. There are lifts that require more leverage and momentum than sheer strength, for example out “Rainbow” head-over-heels toss from our “green” routine from 2003. The stiffer the girl can make her body, the easier she is to lift.

That said, the lighter and tinier the girl, the easier she is to toss around. So when you see a medium-to-large size guy (imagine Mark the Marine type) lifting a teeny tiny little girl (imagine Sarah Vann Drake type), yeah, it looks good, but it’s not nearly as impressive as a small-to-medium sized guy lifing a small-to-medium sized girl, especially if the latter couple can make it look just as easy.

But if at a larger event a stranger asks me to dance and he clearly has no idea of connection, it is not my place to “train him” on the social dance floor (politeness takes priority). What I might suggest in addition to “the clamp” is, ask him “do you mind my arm like this? I feel like I can feel you and follow you better if I do this.” Then, he’ll either be more aware of his connection and give you more on your back, OR, he’ll let you put your arm there and be more aware of how much better it feels when you can follow him better, and he’ll eventually figure out that he can create that feeling himself without the clamp. It’s win-win either way.

Quick story: this weekend I was social dancing with a newbie from my hometown who doesn’t take lessons from us. He’s so green, his connection is ok, but he can’t count to 6 yet. Within the first few bars of the song, I figured out what to do: since there was no way I was going to teach him such a massive and critical element of the dance within a 3 minute song, and since he was not a student of mine, I knew I would not be able to dance WCS (as we all know it) with him. So in order to be polite and give him the best possible dance under the circumstances (like you might do in a competition), I single-stepped every pattern he led. (No triples). And smiled like nothing was wrong. It worked brilliantly and he walked away blissfully ignorant. But at least 5 people sitting by the side of the floor watching us came up to me after the dance and acknowledged me for my courtesy and grace. He’ll eventually figure it out – hopefully in a private lesson, maybe in a group class or workshop when feedback is solicited, but at least I salvaged our dance and his ego in the moment.

If I saw a follower doing what I did (salvaging the dance and conforming to a bad lead) in a competition, not only would I recognize it, I would applaud it and send her straight to finals.

Okay I’m exaggerating. As a judge, I would definitely notice what was going on. Remember the people sitting at the side of the floor watching my dance? They weren’t even judges, yet they could tell what was going on. Besides, what are the chances that the guy with the worst timing in the whole division draws the girl with exactly equal bad timing? Pretty slim. So as a judge I would look at that couple and my internal dialogue would go, “ok, something’s wrong there…is it him who’s off time? Or is it her? Or is it both? Hmmm..they’re both off time, but in perfect time with each other, which shows amazing teamwork. Since the guy is supposed to be the one leading, he must be the one who’s off time, and she must be just a brilliant follow.”

See, if it was HER who was off time, I would be able to see him making corrections to keep her on time. But since it was HIM who was off time, if she constantly made corrections for him it would have looked like a fight. She’s better off just to follow – at least then she gets credit for having great teamwork.

I wouldn’t “send her straight to finals” – that was just for dramatic effect. But that rare kind of follow skill would definitely get my attention. I would make a note to watch her with her next partner (hopefully a leader with better timing) and look for consistency. If she gets back on time and gives me no other reason to give her a “no”, I want that woman progressing to finals. She’s a true follower.

Now, the technology has shifted again to counteract this downward sprial. “Hijacking”, as in “interrupting the flow of the dance and aborting the intention of the leader to initiate something else” is no longer acceptable in WCS. Instead, it is refined now: If the follower wants to express herself, she needs to do it:
1. within the context of the flow of the dance
2. taking responsibility for the leadership of the partnership (temporarily turning into a leader)
3. Giving the leader adequate notice of her intentions

So, to answer the question, “How is it indicated in WCS?”:

It is indicated by the follower taking leadership of the partnership and temporarily becoming a leader. Yes, initially she might use a hand squeeze to get his attention, but after that she better be prepared to lead him through whatever she wants to do! So, think of what you do as a leader to get your follower to do something. That’s what the followers need to do to you to get you to do something. Responsible followers who want to learn how to backlead need to learn how to lead first. How, you ask? Well, that’s what lessons are for! (or videos)

To answer your question about the slot: The “slot” has expanded in recent years to more of an hourglass shape. It’s not nearly as strict as it used to be. But it is still a good default shape for beginners or for general social dancing. Given what I said above, if the lady is taking over the leadership, she is likely to have more success if she sticks to backleading the man within the slot. She no longer has the right of way, because she’s not the follower – he is. So she accommodates for HIS slot.

One of my favourite topics! (I’m a reformed hijacker!)

My gut reaction to “follow x’s” comment is to get a second opinion and to not ask her for feedback anymore. Compression is an integral part of WCS. Without it you might as well abort stretch as well, and then what do you have? Walking around…

It sounds to me like “follow x” is a victim of the “teaching the ladies their footwork” pandemic. When the vast majority of us first learned to WCS (or any dance for that matter), the men were taught their footwork and the lead, and the women were taught their footwork and what to expect the lead to do. What that did was ensure that everyone “got” the move as quickly as possible so that the class could move on. What it also did was it cheated the leaders from ever getting a chance to truly lead their followers. How can they lead a follower to compress and change direction if she always assumes to know the pattern and duplicates it on her own without a lead? So the vast majority of beginner leaders still don’t know how to lead and same goes for followers.

The frustration you have is common. As a follower, when I come across a leader who has no idea how to compress and send me away from him, the first time he does it I’ll practically run into him. Sometimes he gets the hint and reminds himself to use compression to change my direction. But if he doesn’t, I can’t tell him on the floor. So I have to fake it for him. But I fake it in a way that doesn’t sacrifice my need for compression: I use my left hand and push off his chest. For a female follower I would push off her right hip. Either way, remember you are generating a compression, which is usually the leaders job. So in a way, you are back leading this direction change, so make sure he really did intend to lead that sugar push and wasn’t aiming for something else. Also, be sure to apply the same principles of leading as the leader learn: Don’t push your hand into his chest, just use his chest as a wall to gently but firmly absorb your forward momentum and redirect yourself backward.

You could even extend the question to, “what if you’re dancing with another Pro who has bad habits?”

Which raises the question, “bad according to whom?”

Since we all come from different regions and have different styles and dance training, no two dancers are going to feel the same… That’s part of the beauty of this dance. So what should be going on is a mutual compensation between both partners. aka “Finding common ground”. If we play “He Says/She says”, the follower might see it as “tightening her connection to be able to handle his rough lead”, but the leader’s perspective might be that he “has to keep a tight rein on her in order to make her follow properly.” Each dancer might think that the other has the worse habits and they are the ones who have to do the compensating for the other’s handicap. Which is actually quite funny, if you think about it.

So here’s the rule I apply:

If it makes sense in the world, and in your own body, chances are it’s a good idea. Think critically about your own dancing. “I lead sugar pushes splitting my hands vertically on the compression.” Ask yourself, does that make sense in your body? If you can’t come up with a good reason, stop doing it. Think critically about the instruction you get. Ask yourself, does this instructor’s advice make sense in the world? Is it based in science and reason? Does it make sense for my body to do that? If your answer is no, keep looking for better instruction.

Of course, there is more than one correct way of doing things. However, the trap people fall into is using that statement as an excuse for doing things that “don’t make sense in the world or in your body” just to be different. So actually, the statement is false. There is not more than one way of doing things correctly. The word “correct” implies that there is no room for anything other than that which is correct: everything else is incorrect. A more accurate statement would be, “there is more than one way of doing something EFFICIENTLY. EFFECTIVELY. ERGONOMICALLY.” Just because something is “correct” in one person’s world does not make it so in others. For example, it is correct for a ballroom dancer to compress the lady down the slot on 4 of a pass. Just because a movement is EFFECTIVE, does not make it ERGNOMIC or EFFICIENT.

So, what’s a bad habit in your world is standard in someone else’s. And who are you to tell them that their standards are wrong? This is the challenge we face whenever we teach a workshop in a remote area that has not had current, authentic WCS instruction in a loooong time. Like fashion, you can’t judge people’s choice of clothes – in their country, in their world, they might be revered for their fashion sense, even though to you it looks like they need a makeover. The only thing that’s ever wrong is if it’s not FUNCTIONAL. If the clothes don’t fit, they’re wrong. If the clothes don’t suit the climate, they’re wrong. So, if the dancer’s techniques are hurting their partners, they’re wrong. If the techniques are not accomplishing the task at hand (leading, following, etc) they’re wrong.

Now, there are “bad habits” that are less desirable, less efficient, less trendy, etc. But they’re not wrong, they’re just outdated. Like your walkman. It’ll still play the tapes, won’t it? But it’s not as efficient, fast or high-quality sound as CD or mp3. We should be accepting of dancers with these habits. They’ll come along when they’re ready. In the meantime, we have to speak to them in their language.

There are “bad habits” that are actually wrong. This means they are not functional. They hurt people. These are the habits that defy science. Movement that negates natural ergonomic body flow and basic physics. Those are wrong. You can’t argue with science. Fortunately, natural selection will eliminate most of these people – they’ll learn or they’ll quit.

Finally, there are “bad habits” that are under the radar. These are the ones that good people have no idea exist in their bodies. For example, once Myles told me I had a bad habit of pushing my thumb into his fingers forcing him to slip in my hand. I had no idea! I’m so glad he told me, because I was always complaining that I could never get a good enough grip on him! It was me all along! These bad habits are little things that are sabotaging determined efforts to practice good habits.

Back to your question:

The only times I would ever bring attention to a bad habit during a social dance is:

1. If it was a student of mine and I did it in a kind and playful manner
2. If it was a friend of mine and I reminded them of something they asked me to help them work on
3. If it was a stranger and I asked them to change something as a “favour to me”.

A few times I have been dancing with someone who’s bad habits were so wrong, I was scared for my safety. In those cases, I would release my own hand before it got yanked away, or even walk a few paces away nice and slow (within the pattern) to give him a breather and a chance to settle down. When he looks at me with confusion, I tell him in a kind but matter-of-fact way, “My arm doesn’t twist that way”, or “My body wasn’t ready for that yet”.

During the rest of the dance, I would try to ignore the habit, and just focus on following and working my own footwork, isolations, etc. Sometimes, if he’s paying attention, I can actually get him to adopt MY good habits (opposite to his bad habits) during the dance. Those are the dances where my leader walk away with an exhilerated look on his face, saying “Wow! You made me look so good! I had not idea I could do that! That felt amazing!” because then he’ll take those habits with him to his next partner.

If it was a Pro with “bad habits”, I would question myself, like I mentioned above. “Is what they’re doing more reasonable than what I’m expecting?” I will have an open mind during the dance and see if I can pick up on anything I can do better. If they are doing an outdated bad habit, I pretend that I am dancing with them in the era that the technique was appropriate and then I really play it up (like if they do swivel anchors, I might do swivel anchors too to play along, but without making fun of it)