[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Don Veino via Contra Callers]

Absent bad behavior, the force put on the Lark's bicep is under 10 lbs. How
determined? Swing really fast, compare effort to a 10# barbell curl. My
wife is a great swing partner (and game for the experiment, which we tried
from both sides in "traditional ballroom" hold). Slower/normal swing was <5
lbs.

Obviously bad behavior clampers, leaners and hangers would change the
situation.

-Don

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024, 12:35 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Another possibility would be either a university dance department or the
> department that does human performance (sports) and/or physical therapy.
> They might have the required gear to analyze dance motions.  But, they will
> probably ask, what problem are you trying to solve?  Once you have the
> information, how will you use it?  (Or, how will it help me get tenure?)
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 7:36 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking about it, but my likelihood of following through based on
>> interest and difficulty is probably single digit percentages.
>>
>> The main reason is knowledge as Jeff said, but I do think we could
>> improve teaching if we had a deep knowledge of this stuff.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 15:45 Joe Harrington 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you actually thinking of doing this?  Why? Would it help anyone
>>> dance better? If someone does this kind of thing for work and could tap
>>> into those resources, it might be practical.  Otherwise, this looks like
>>> the kind of setup that would require significant thought, effort, and
>>> expense.
>>>
>>> One approach would be to green-suit up in a video-game studio, and then
>>> tap into the calculations that the game software uses to create game
>>> motions from human ones.  That wouldn't be measurements of forces directly,
>>> but it would be pretty comprehensive.  You'd know where all the momentum
>>> went and it would calculate transmitted forces through every surface, which
>>> you could sum for the hand and arm, etc.  They might also have force
>>> sensors of some sort.  Somebody must have, at some point in the development
>>> of those systems.
>>>
>>> --jh--
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:17 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>>>
 Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I
 can definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the
 tension, but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces
 (including possibly torque around a vertical axis)?

 I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on
 the ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.

 Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3
 axes (plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
 would cost to build?

 Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
 lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
 that feels bad in some natural way.

 On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
 contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
> world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  
> I
> decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...
>
> What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of
> course, there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor
> idea.
>
> As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal
> force, as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For
> physics buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a
> swing that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x
> faster rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much
> outward force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between
> the centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens,
> which I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's
> an outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or
> nearly 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the
> dancer's feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting
> dancer(s).  How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2
> rotations per 8 beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only 
> have
> to hold it for four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you
> accelerate and decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will 
> then
> be higher.
>
> ...and now I add...
>
> Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat
> misleading ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.
>
> The 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Joe Harrington via Contra Callers]

Another possibility would be either a university dance department or the
department that does human performance (sports) and/or physical therapy.
They might have the required gear to analyze dance motions.  But, they will
probably ask, what problem are you trying to solve?  Once you have the
information, how will you use it?  (Or, how will it help me get tenure?)

--jh--


On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 7:36 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:

> I'm thinking about it, but my likelihood of following through based on
> interest and difficulty is probably single digit percentages.
>
> The main reason is knowledge as Jeff said, but I do think we could improve
> teaching if we had a deep knowledge of this stuff.
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 15:45 Joe Harrington 
> wrote:
>
>> Are you actually thinking of doing this?  Why? Would it help anyone dance
>> better? If someone does this kind of thing for work and could tap into
>> those resources, it might be practical.  Otherwise, this looks like the
>> kind of setup that would require significant thought, effort, and expense.
>>
>> One approach would be to green-suit up in a video-game studio, and then
>> tap into the calculations that the game software uses to create game
>> motions from human ones.  That wouldn't be measurements of forces directly,
>> but it would be pretty comprehensive.  You'd know where all the momentum
>> went and it would calculate transmitted forces through every surface, which
>> you could sum for the hand and arm, etc.  They might also have force
>> sensors of some sort.  Somebody must have, at some point in the development
>> of those systems.
>>
>> --jh--
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:17 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I
>>> can definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the
>>> tension, but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces
>>> (including possibly torque around a vertical axis)?
>>>
>>> I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on the
>>> ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.
>>>
>>> Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3
>>> axes (plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
>>> would cost to build?
>>>
>>> Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
>>> lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
>>> that feels bad in some natural way.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
>>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
 world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
 decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...

 What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of
 course, there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor
 idea.

 As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal
 force, as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For
 physics buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a
 swing that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x
 faster rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much
 outward force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between
 the centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens,
 which I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's
 an outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or
 nearly 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the
 dancer's feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting
 dancer(s).  How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2
 rotations per 8 beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have
 to hold it for four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you
 accelerate and decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then
 be higher.

 ...and now I add...

 Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat
 misleading ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.

 The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation
 (centripetal, actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate
 when we dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many
 light rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles,
 and bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
 storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
 effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
 our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
 and theirs, and their

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Chris Lahey via Contra Callers]

I'm thinking about it, but my likelihood of following through based on
interest and difficulty is probably single digit percentages.

The main reason is knowledge as Jeff said, but I do think we could improve
teaching if we had a deep knowledge of this stuff.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 15:45 Joe Harrington 
wrote:

> Are you actually thinking of doing this?  Why? Would it help anyone dance
> better? If someone does this kind of thing for work and could tap into
> those resources, it might be practical.  Otherwise, this looks like the
> kind of setup that would require significant thought, effort, and expense.
>
> One approach would be to green-suit up in a video-game studio, and then
> tap into the calculations that the game software uses to create game
> motions from human ones.  That wouldn't be measurements of forces directly,
> but it would be pretty comprehensive.  You'd know where all the momentum
> went and it would calculate transmitted forces through every surface, which
> you could sum for the hand and arm, etc.  They might also have force
> sensors of some sort.  Somebody must have, at some point in the development
> of those systems.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:17 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I
>> can definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the
>> tension, but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces
>> (including possibly torque around a vertical axis)?
>>
>> I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on the
>> ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.
>>
>> Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3 axes
>> (plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
>> would cost to build?
>>
>> Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
>> lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
>> that feels bad in some natural way.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
>>> world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
>>> decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...
>>>
>>> What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of
>>> course, there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal
>>> force, as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For
>>> physics buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a
>>> swing that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x
>>> faster rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much
>>> outward force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between
>>> the centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens,
>>> which I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's
>>> an outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or
>>> nearly 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the
>>> dancer's feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting
>>> dancer(s).  How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2
>>> rotations per 8 beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have
>>> to hold it for four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you
>>> accelerate and decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then
>>> be higher.
>>>
>>> ...and now I add...
>>>
>>> Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat
>>> misleading ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.
>>>
>>> The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation (centripetal,
>>> actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate when we
>>> dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many light
>>> rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles, and
>>> bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
>>> storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
>>> effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
>>> our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
>>> and theirs, and their back, if we have a hand there.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, consider this model of a swing.  Each dancer's upper
>>> half is trying to execute rigid circular motion.  Our lower bodies (hips
>>> down) are doing something else, and half our mass is down there.  So, drop
>>> my estimated 90 lbs to 45 just for that (I'll drop it more in a minute).
>>> The lower half is essentially stepping a figure with 90 or 135 degree
>>> corners on each beat.  Consider the left foot.  In a standard swing (2x in
>>> 8 beats), it is wal

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

"Why? Would it help anyone dance better?"

To better understand the world!

Jeff

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 3:45 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Are you actually thinking of doing this?  Why? Would it help anyone dance
> better? If someone does this kind of thing for work and could tap into
> those resources, it might be practical.  Otherwise, this looks like the
> kind of setup that would require significant thought, effort, and expense.
>
> One approach would be to green-suit up in a video-game studio, and then
> tap into the calculations that the game software uses to create game
> motions from human ones.  That wouldn't be measurements of forces directly,
> but it would be pretty comprehensive.  You'd know where all the momentum
> went and it would calculate transmitted forces through every surface, which
> you could sum for the hand and arm, etc.  They might also have force
> sensors of some sort.  Somebody must have, at some point in the development
> of those systems.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:17 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I
>> can definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the
>> tension, but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces
>> (including possibly torque around a vertical axis)?
>>
>> I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on the
>> ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.
>>
>> Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3 axes
>> (plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
>> would cost to build?
>>
>> Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
>> lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
>> that feels bad in some natural way.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
>>> world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
>>> decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...
>>>
>>> What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of
>>> course, there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal
>>> force, as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For
>>> physics buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a
>>> swing that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x
>>> faster rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much
>>> outward force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between
>>> the centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens,
>>> which I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's
>>> an outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or
>>> nearly 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the
>>> dancer's feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting
>>> dancer(s).  How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2
>>> rotations per 8 beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have
>>> to hold it for four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you
>>> accelerate and decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then
>>> be higher.
>>>
>>> ...and now I add...
>>>
>>> Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat
>>> misleading ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.
>>>
>>> The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation (centripetal,
>>> actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate when we
>>> dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many light
>>> rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles, and
>>> bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
>>> storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
>>> effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
>>> our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
>>> and theirs, and their back, if we have a hand there.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, consider this model of a swing.  Each dancer's upper
>>> half is trying to execute rigid circular motion.  Our lower bodies (hips
>>> down) are doing something else, and half our mass is down there.  So, drop
>>> my estimated 90 lbs to 45 just for that (I'll drop it more in a minute).
>>> The lower half is essentially stepping a figure with 90 or 135 degree
>>> corners on each beat.  Consider the left foot.  In a standard swing (2x in
>>> 8 beats), it is walking a square, directing momentum along the sides of the
>>> square that the upper body picks up and turns into rotatio

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Joe Harrington via Contra Callers]

Are you actually thinking of doing this?  Why? Would it help anyone dance
better? If someone does this kind of thing for work and could tap into
those resources, it might be practical.  Otherwise, this looks like the
kind of setup that would require significant thought, effort, and expense.

One approach would be to green-suit up in a video-game studio, and then tap
into the calculations that the game software uses to create game motions
from human ones.  That wouldn't be measurements of forces directly, but it
would be pretty comprehensive.  You'd know where all the momentum went and
it would calculate transmitted forces through every surface, which you
could sum for the hand and arm, etc.  They might also have force sensors of
some sort.  Somebody must have, at some point in the development of those
systems.

--jh--


On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 3:17 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:

> Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I can
> definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the tension,
> but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces (including
> possibly torque around a vertical axis)?
>
> I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on the
> ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.
>
> Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3 axes
> (plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
> would cost to build?
>
> Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
> lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
> that feels bad in some natural way.
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
>> world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
>> decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...
>>
>> What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of
>> course, there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor
>> idea.
>>
>> As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal force,
>> as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For physics
>> buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a swing
>> that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x faster
>> rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much outward
>> force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between the
>> centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens, which
>> I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's an
>> outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or nearly
>> 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the dancer's
>> feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting dancer(s).
>> How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2 rotations per 8
>> beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have to hold it for
>> four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you accelerate and
>> decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then be higher.
>>
>> ...and now I add...
>>
>> Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat misleading
>> ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.
>>
>> The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation (centripetal,
>> actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate when we
>> dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many light
>> rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles, and
>> bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
>> storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
>> effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
>> our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
>> and theirs, and their back, if we have a hand there.
>>
>> With that in mind, consider this model of a swing.  Each dancer's upper
>> half is trying to execute rigid circular motion.  Our lower bodies (hips
>> down) are doing something else, and half our mass is down there.  So, drop
>> my estimated 90 lbs to 45 just for that (I'll drop it more in a minute).
>> The lower half is essentially stepping a figure with 90 or 135 degree
>> corners on each beat.  Consider the left foot.  In a standard swing (2x in
>> 8 beats), it is walking a square, directing momentum along the sides of the
>> square that the upper body picks up and turns into rotation.  Half of each
>> square side brings that leg closer to the middle, the other half takes it
>> farther away.  We land, push off, and do it again and again. That push-off
>> supports the centripetal needs of both legs (through the hip joint) and
>> some of the upper body.  If there is an outward 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Chris Lahey via Contra Callers]

Does anyone have any thoughts about how we can measure some of this? I can
definitely imagine a force pad on someone's back to measure the tension,
but I'm a bit lost as to how he can measure the ground forces (including
possibly torque around a vertical axis)?

I think normal force should be easy. That can be built into a pad on the
ground if nothing else, but friction would be harder.

Unless we had multiple pads each of which had force sensors in all 3 axes
(plus a rotational sensor) does anyone know how much such an apparatus
would cost to build?

Now that I think about 3 axis force sensors, i wonder if there's much
lateral or vertical force in the connection point and whether I'd there is
that feels bad in some natural way.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 13:37 Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
> world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
> decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...
>
> What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of course,
> there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor idea.
>
> As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal force,
> as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For physics
> buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a swing
> that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x faster
> rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much outward
> force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between the
> centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens, which
> I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's an
> outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or nearly
> 90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the dancer's
> feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting dancer(s).
> How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2 rotations per 8
> beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have to hold it for
> four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you accelerate and
> decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then be higher.
>
> ...and now I add...
>
> Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat misleading
> ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.
>
> The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation (centripetal,
> actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate when we
> dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many light
> rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles, and
> bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
> storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
> effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
> our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
> and theirs, and their back, if we have a hand there.
>
> With that in mind, consider this model of a swing.  Each dancer's upper
> half is trying to execute rigid circular motion.  Our lower bodies (hips
> down) are doing something else, and half our mass is down there.  So, drop
> my estimated 90 lbs to 45 just for that (I'll drop it more in a minute).
> The lower half is essentially stepping a figure with 90 or 135 degree
> corners on each beat.  Consider the left foot.  In a standard swing (2x in
> 8 beats), it is walking a square, directing momentum along the sides of the
> square that the upper body picks up and turns into rotation.  Half of each
> square side brings that leg closer to the middle, the other half takes it
> farther away.  We land, push off, and do it again and again. That push-off
> supports the centripetal needs of both legs (through the hip joint) and
> some of the upper body.  If there is an outward lean off the right foot,
> additional centripetal support is needed from either the legs or arms.  The
> right foot is mainly a pivot, while both feet support gravitational weight.
>
> Good dancers constantly adjust how far out their left feet land on each
> step and how hard they push off, simultaneously satisfying both their
> centripetal needs and the required spin rate.  This lets them control how
> much inward force they draw from their feet into the upper-body rotation to
> supplement the arms.  That reduces the support needed from the arms well
> below 45 lbs.  It can reduce it to zero.  Tweaking the lean also adjusts
> where the axis of rotation is, to balance the different masses of the
> dancers and make their differing force impulses produce matched torque
> impulses.  Dancers use the beat to step in sync with the other dancer's
> legs, or these torque impulses would come at different times, and the swing
> would wobble and fall apart, as Chris L

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Joe Harrington via Contra Callers]

Funny thing, I wrote the email below last Sunday and thought, do the
world's callers really want a physics calculation on their mailing list?  I
decided the better of it and didn't send it.  Ok, I guess I was wrong...

What I call support is against centrifugal force, not vertical. Of course,
there's no need to lift the other dancer, and it's a really poor idea.

As Jeff pointed out, in a fast swing, there's a lot of centrifugal force,
as seen from our rotating frame of reference in the swing.  For physics
buffs, centrifugal force increases as the square of velocity, so a swing
that goes around three times in 8 beats rather than twice (1.5x faster
rotation, the first-level "fast swing") has 2.25 times as much outward
force to support.  Estimating a 25 cm radius (about 50 cm between the
centers of mass of the two dancers, in the middles of their abdomens, which
I measured with a tape measure) and a 70 kg (150 lb) dancer, that's an
outward force for each of the two bodies of almost 390 Newtons, or nearly
90 pounds.  Much of that will be borne by the friction between the dancer's
feet and the floor, but the rest will be held by the supporting dancer(s).
How much depends on how they lean.  For a standard swing (2 rotations per 8
beats), it's just under 40 lbs.  Fortunately, you only have to hold it for
four to eight seconds at a time, or actually less as you accelerate and
decelerate inside that time, though the peak force will then be higher.

...and now I add...

Despite starting with it above, myself, I think we're somewhat misleading
ourselves with this Mv**2/r calculation.

The key thing here is that a centrifugal-force calculation (centripetal,
actually) makes some assumptions that we dramatically violate when we
dance. We are not rigid bodies. At best, we're collections of many light
rigid bodies (our bones) linked by ligaments, tendons, and muscles, and
bearing all sorts of other masses that move relative to one another,
storing momentum until we can deal with it in the next step.  We
effectively pump momentum up from our feet, into our bodies, and down to
our feet on each step. We transfer it to the other dancer through our arms
and theirs, and their back, if we have a hand there.

With that in mind, consider this model of a swing.  Each dancer's upper
half is trying to execute rigid circular motion.  Our lower bodies (hips
down) are doing something else, and half our mass is down there.  So, drop
my estimated 90 lbs to 45 just for that (I'll drop it more in a minute).
The lower half is essentially stepping a figure with 90 or 135 degree
corners on each beat.  Consider the left foot.  In a standard swing (2x in
8 beats), it is walking a square, directing momentum along the sides of the
square that the upper body picks up and turns into rotation.  Half of each
square side brings that leg closer to the middle, the other half takes it
farther away.  We land, push off, and do it again and again. That push-off
supports the centripetal needs of both legs (through the hip joint) and
some of the upper body.  If there is an outward lean off the right foot,
additional centripetal support is needed from either the legs or arms.  The
right foot is mainly a pivot, while both feet support gravitational weight.

Good dancers constantly adjust how far out their left feet land on each
step and how hard they push off, simultaneously satisfying both their
centripetal needs and the required spin rate.  This lets them control how
much inward force they draw from their feet into the upper-body rotation to
supplement the arms.  That reduces the support needed from the arms well
below 45 lbs.  It can reduce it to zero.  Tweaking the lean also adjusts
where the axis of rotation is, to balance the different masses of the
dancers and make their differing force impulses produce matched torque
impulses.  Dancers use the beat to step in sync with the other dancer's
legs, or these torque impulses would come at different times, and the swing
would wobble and fall apart, as Chris Lacey alluded to.

So, yeah, it's complicated, yet even children solve this problem when they
swing.  Everyone is an intuitive physicist!  And, each time I think about
this kind of thing, I get more amazed at the engineers who make robots.
Has anyone taught a robot to do a contra swing, yet?

--jh--


On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 3:24 PM Julian Blechner 
wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> You mean, palms flat on the back of shoulderblades? If so, it's how I
> teach it, lots of callers teach it, and this is the first I've heard a
> complaint about it.
>
> That said, you describe: "I've had my elbow bent backward by eager robins
> pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the right place."
>
> That _sounds like_ what I call "arm clamping". While yes, putting Robin's
> hand on the outside of the shoulder also alleviates the clamping, it's not
> the only way to fix it. A Robin can lift their elbow. (I just workshopped
> the issue with my partner in the living room to test a vari

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

I had poked around with the math as well, but struggled with all of the
estimates. I'm happy to see Jeff taking a stab at this and discussing.

I think likely some of that force is taken by core muscles, and transferred
to the feet against floor, and such.

This would be a really cool practical kinesthetics research paper!

Julian

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 1:28 PM Jeff Kaufman  wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks!  Note that it's a bit more complicated than where the center of
> mass is: you need the moment of inertia.  For example, imagine comparing
> (a) a point mass at r=1ft and (b) the same mass divided into two bits at
> r=2ft and r=0ft.  The center of mass in case (b) still rotates with r=1ft
> but the cases aren't equivalent: you need 2x the force in case (b). [1]
>
> But you may well be right that the effective radius is under 1ft!
>
> Jeff
>
> [1] Doing the math:
>
> F_a = m (ω2πr)^2 / r = m * r * (ω2π)^2
> F_b = m/2 (ω2π(2r))^2 / (2r) + 0 = m * r * 2 * (ω2π)^2
> F_a = 1/2 * F_b
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:18 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>
>> I addressed this in my other email, but this is a good example. In this
>> case my back is providing 100lbf to your hands.
>>
>> I also can't imagine being in this position and having centers of mass
>> two feet apart, but I would want to measure it before making this an
>> argument, hence going with your numbers.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 13:15 Jeff Kaufman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reviewing the calculation!  Imagine that I hold you around
>>> your back with both hands, and you put your hands up in the air and enjoy
>>> the ride.  While I don't think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12
>>> beats if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet your back I'd
>>> need to provide both enough force for our combined weight?
>>>
>>> (I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but that this
>>> total force must be covered by the couple somehow)
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>>>
 I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've
 calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm
 exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
 Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of
 two error.

 I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
 more.

 On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
 contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
> bit of physics.
>
> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
> which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
> 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some 
> math:
>
> r = 1ft
> m = 300lb
> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
>
> v = ω2πr
>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>   = 4.7 ft/s
>
> F = mv^2/r
>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
>
> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
>
> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>   = 207lbf
>
> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If
> you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
> significant 64lb.
>
> Jeff
>
> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2
> * weight * 1/32.2
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman <
> jeff.t.kauf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording
>> studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost
>> all "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
>> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' 
>> though
>> as illustrated above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at
>> 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they
>> each have their right hand around the other's waist, with their left 
>> hands
>> joined low in the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's 
>> possible
>> there were other couples that did other holds at some point?
>>
>> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q
>> .  I only see ballroom holds.
>>
>> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Hi Chris,

Thanks!  Note that it's a bit more complicated than where the center of
mass is: you need the moment of inertia.  For example, imagine comparing
(a) a point mass at r=1ft and (b) the same mass divided into two bits at
r=2ft and r=0ft.  The center of mass in case (b) still rotates with r=1ft
but the cases aren't equivalent: you need 2x the force in case (b). [1]

But you may well be right that the effective radius is under 1ft!

Jeff

[1] Doing the math:

F_a = m (ω2πr)^2 / r = m * r * (ω2π)^2
F_b = m/2 (ω2π(2r))^2 / (2r) + 0 = m * r * 2 * (ω2π)^2
F_a = 1/2 * F_b


On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:18 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:

> I addressed this in my other email, but this is a good example. In this
> case my back is providing 100lbf to your hands.
>
> I also can't imagine being in this position and having centers of mass two
> feet apart, but I would want to measure it before making this an argument,
> hence going with your numbers.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 13:15 Jeff Kaufman  wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the calculation!  Imagine that I hold you around
>> your back with both hands, and you put your hands up in the air and enjoy
>> the ride.  While I don't think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12
>> beats if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet your back I'd
>> need to provide both enough force for our combined weight?
>>
>> (I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but that this
>> total force must be covered by the couple somehow)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've
>>> calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm
>>> exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
>>> Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of
>>> two error.
>>>
>>> I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
>>> more.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
>>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
 counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
 shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
 don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
 your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
 bit of physics.

 If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
 which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:

 r = 1ft
 m = 300lb
 ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz

 v = ω2πr
   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
   = 4.7 ft/s

 F = mv^2/r
   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2

 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft

 F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
   = 207lbf

 This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If
 you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
 significant 64lb.

 Jeff

 PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2
 * weight * 1/32.2

 On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
 wrote:

> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording
> studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost
> all "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though
> as illustrated above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at
> 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they
> each have their right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands
> joined low in the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's 
> possible
> there were other couples that did other holds at some point?
>
> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q
> .  I only see ballroom holds.
>
> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q . Outdoor demo
> performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the couple all the 
> way
> on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which they continue doing
> in later iterations of the dance).
>
> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  At 0:30 I see two
> ballroom holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the
> elbows.  At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and
> one of the symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Chris Lahey via Contra Callers]

I addressed this in my other email, but this is a good example. In this
case my back is providing 100lbf to your hands.

I also can't imagine being in this position and having centers of mass two
feet apart, but I would want to measure it before making this an argument,
hence going with your numbers.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 13:15 Jeff Kaufman  wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the calculation!  Imagine that I hold you around your
> back with both hands, and you put your hands up in the air and enjoy the
> ride.  While I don't think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12
> beats if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet your back I'd
> need to provide both enough force for our combined weight?
>
> (I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but that this total
> force must be covered by the couple somehow)
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:
>
>> I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've
>> calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm
>> exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
>> Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of
>> two error.
>>
>> I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
>> more.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
>>> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
>>> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
>>> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
>>> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
>>> bit of physics.
>>>
>>> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
>>> which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
>>> 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:
>>>
>>> r = 1ft
>>> m = 300lb
>>> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
>>>
>>> v = ω2πr
>>>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>>>   = 4.7 ft/s
>>>
>>> F = mv^2/r
>>>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>>>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>>>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
>>>
>>> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
>>> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
>>>
>>> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>>>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>>>   = 207lbf
>>>
>>> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If
>>> you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
>>> significant 64lb.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 *
>>> weight * 1/32.2
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording
 studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost
 all "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
 lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though
 as illustrated above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at
 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they
 each have their right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands
 joined low in the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible
 there were other couples that did other holds at some point?

 Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q
 .  I only see ballroom holds.

 Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q . Outdoor demo
 performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the couple all the way
 on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which they continue doing
 in later iterations of the dance).

 Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  At 0:30 I see two
 ballroom holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the
 elbows.  At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and
 one of the symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though
 note that this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see
 three ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms.
 Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel
 the room shake through to the camera!

 Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom
 holds, except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of
 the gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look
 comfortable to me!)

 Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w
 .  Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
 hands are 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Chris Lahey via Contra Callers]

There's actually another factor of two if you both have your hand on the
other person's back or shoulder. To get the needed centripetal force, you
both are contributing.

You might say, "you need to lift me and I need to lift you" but that's not
quite right, because my shoulder is lifting your hand and your shoulder is
lifting mine.

To be more explicit let's use your 200lbf example which should actually be
100lbf. My hand can provide 50lbf to your shoulder and my shoulder can
provide 50lbf to your hand. I didn't feel the force my shoulder is
providing to your hand because it's so close to my core.

This is also how we can be uneven in strength and still rotate in place. If
I'm weaker and my hand is only providing 25lbf to your back, my back can
provide 75lbf to your hand, but that feels easy.

I'm going to address other forces that are in pay in a separate message.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:56 Chris Lahey  wrote:

> I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've
> calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm
> exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
> Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of
> two error.
>
> I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
> more.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
>> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
>> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
>> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
>> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
>> bit of physics.
>>
>> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
>> which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
>> 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:
>>
>> r = 1ft
>> m = 300lb
>> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
>>
>> v = ω2πr
>>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>>   = 4.7 ft/s
>>
>> F = mv^2/r
>>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
>>
>> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
>> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
>>
>> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>>   = 207lbf
>>
>> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If
>> you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
>> significant 64lb.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 *
>> weight * 1/32.2
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost all "outer
>>> arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand
>>> behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
>>> above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02
>>> etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their
>>> right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in
>>> the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were
>>> other couples that did other holds at some point?
>>>
>>> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q
>>> .  I only see ballroom holds.
>>>
>>> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q
>>> . Outdoor demo performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the
>>> couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which
>>> they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).
>>>
>>> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  At 0:30 I see two ballroom
>>> holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the elbows.  At
>>> 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and one of the
>>> symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though note that
>>> this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see three
>>> ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms.
>>> Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel
>>> the room shake through to the camera!
>>>
>>> Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom holds,
>>> except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the
>>> gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable
>>> to me!)
>>>
>>> Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w
>>> .  Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
>>> hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's
>>> waist, and the lady's l

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for reviewing the calculation!  Imagine that I hold you around your
back with both hands, and you put your hands up in the air and enjoy the
ride.  While I don't think we could get anywhere near 4.5x around in 12
beats if you did that, do you agree that where my hands meet your back I'd
need to provide both enough force for our combined weight?

(I'm not claiming each person needs to provide ~200lb, but that this total
force must be covered by the couple somehow)

Jeff

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM Chris Lahey  wrote:

> I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've
> calculated for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm
> exerting enough force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa.
> Those forces oppose one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of
> two error.
>
> I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
> more.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
>> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
>> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
>> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
>> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
>> bit of physics.
>>
>> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
>> which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
>> 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:
>>
>> r = 1ft
>> m = 300lb
>> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
>>
>> v = ω2πr
>>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>>   = 4.7 ft/s
>>
>> F = mv^2/r
>>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
>>
>> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
>> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
>>
>> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>>   = 207lbf
>>
>> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If
>> you're rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
>> significant 64lb.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 *
>> weight * 1/32.2
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost all "outer
>>> arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand
>>> behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
>>> above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02
>>> etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their
>>> right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in
>>> the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were
>>> other couples that did other holds at some point?
>>>
>>> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q
>>> .  I only see ballroom holds.
>>>
>>> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q
>>> . Outdoor demo performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the
>>> couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which
>>> they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).
>>>
>>> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  At 0:30 I see two ballroom
>>> holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the elbows.  At
>>> 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and one of the
>>> symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though note that
>>> this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see three
>>> ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms.
>>> Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel
>>> the room shake through to the camera!
>>>
>>> Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom holds,
>>> except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the
>>> gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable
>>> to me!)
>>>
>>> Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w
>>> .  Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
>>> hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's
>>> waist, and the lady's left hand is again on the back of the gent's right
>>> arm.  Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical swing with left hands
>>> joined low between their bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.
>>>
>>> Here's 1967 somewhere in New England:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM .  I see ballroom at 0:35,
>>> 0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10.  Then at 1:05 (and then again i

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

Richard is right – good technique and it should feel almost weightless! :-)

 

BTW: someone keeps referring to me or quoting me as “Joe”.  I am “John”. :-) :-)

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent 

 

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Chris Lahey via Contra Callers]

I think you're trying to calculate two 150lb dancers, but you've calculated
for a 300lb mass, but you shouldn't do that doubling. I'm exerting enough
force to provide your centripetal force and vice versa. Those forces oppose
one another, but they don't add up. That is a factor of two error.

I have to think more about one foot radius and 45 rpm and read upthread
more.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024, 12:25 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
> bit of physics.
>
> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
> which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
> 150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:
>
> r = 1ft
> m = 300lb
> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
>
> v = ω2πr
>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>   = 4.7 ft/s
>
> F = mv^2/r
>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
>
> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
>
> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>   = 207lbf
>
> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If you're
> rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
> significant 64lb.
>
> Jeff
>
> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 *
> weight * 1/32.2
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
> wrote:
>
>> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost all "outer
>> arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand
>> behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
>> above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02
>> etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their
>> right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in
>> the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were
>> other couples that did other holds at some point?
>>
>> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q .
>> I only see ballroom holds.
>>
>> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q
>> . Outdoor demo performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the
>> couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which
>> they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).
>>
>> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE  At 0:30 I see two ballroom
>> holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the elbows.  At
>> 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and one of the
>> symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though note that
>> this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see three
>> ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms.
>> Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel
>> the room shake through to the camera!
>>
>> Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom holds,
>> except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the
>> gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable
>> to me!)
>>
>> Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w
>> .  Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
>> hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's
>> waist, and the lady's left hand is again on the back of the gent's right
>> arm.  Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical swing with left hands
>> joined low between their bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.
>>
>> Here's 1967 somewhere in New England:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM .  I see ballroom at 0:35,
>> 0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10.  Then at 1:05 (and then again in the
>> background at 5:11, and then again at 5:23 and 5:33) I see a forearm hold
>> with arms that are straighter than I'm used to.  At 2:08 I see a hold where
>> the gents hands are both around the lady's waist and the lady's hands are
>> both over the tops of the gent's shoulders.
>>
>> Here's 1981 in Belmont MA, but it's an hour and I'm going to bed:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTVkWcehZo
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:33 PM Stein, Robert  wrote:
>>
>>> The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling also shows the same variety of
>>> swinging styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> > On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Richard Fischer via Contra Callers]

216 lb?!  That's certainly not in accord with my lived experience over decades 
of contra dancing. Jeff, assuming your physics and math are all correct, how 
much of that force is accomplished by our feet on the floor, rather than upper 
body connection with a partner? 

I haven't been dancing in a while, but I remember many swings, even fast ones, 
feeling almost weighless.

??

Richard
Arlington, MA

> On Mar 27, 2024, at 12:24 PM, Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to 
> counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it 
> shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I 
> don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and 
> your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a 
> bit of physics.
> 
> If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats, which 
> is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh 150lb and 
> approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:
> 
> r = 1ft
> m = 300lb
> ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz
> 
> v = ω2πr
>   = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
>   = 4.7 ft/s
> 
> F = mv^2/r
>   = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
>   = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
>   = 6662lbm * ft / s^2
> 
> 1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
> 1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft
> 
> F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
>   = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
>   = 207lbf
> 
> This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If you're 
> rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a significant 
> 64lb.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 * 
> weight * 1/32.2
> 
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman  > wrote:
> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k 
>  .  I see almost all "outer arms 
> making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand behind 
> gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated above 
> that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02 etc 
> there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their right 
> hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in the 
> center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were other 
> couples that did other holds at some point?
> 
> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q 
>  .  I only see ballroom holds.
> 
> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q 
>  . Outdoor demo performance.  
> Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the couple all the way on the right 
> has outer hands in a forearm hold (which they continue doing in later 
> iterations of the dance).
> 
> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE 
>   At 0:30 I see two ballroom 
> holds and two where the outer arms are holding a bit above the elbows.  At 
> 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold from 0:30, and one of the 
> symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR video, though note that this 
> is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to 8:38 I see three ballroom 
> holds and where the outer hands hold each other's forearms. Separately, I 
> really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you can feel the room shake 
> through to the camera!
> 
> Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg 
>   Almost all ballroom holds, 
> except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the gent's 
> right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable to me!)
> 
> Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w 
>  .  Looks like a performance.  
> At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer hands are joined as in ballroom, 
> the gent's right hand is around the lady's waist, and the lady's left hand is 
> again on the back of the gent's right arm.  Then there's one couple doing the 
> symmetrical swing with left hands joined low between their bodies. Same again 
> at 0:44, 1:11, etc.
> 
> Here's 1967 somewhere in New England: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM 
>  .  I see ballroom at 0:35, 
> 0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10.  Then at 1:05 (and then again in the background 
> at 5:11, and then again at 5:23 and 5:33) I see a forearm hold with arms that 
> are straighter than I'm used to.  At 2:08 I see a hold where the gents hands 
> are both around the lady's waist and the lady's hands are both over the tops 
> of the gent's

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

I was curious about John's "The shoulder-blade connection is purely to
counteract centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it
shouldn’t make you tired." above.  While ideally you could measure this, I
don't think swinging with a scale between your hand and partner's back and
your hand would be comfortable, and it would be hard to read.  Let's try a
bit of physics.

If you like to swing quickly you might go 4.5x around in twelve beats,
which is 45rpm at a tempo of 120bpm. Let's guess the people each weigh
150lb and approximate them as point masses two feet apart. Doing some math:

r = 1ft
m = 300lb
ω = 45rpm = 0.75 hz

v = ω2πr
  = 0.75 hz * 2π * 1ft
  = 4.7 ft/s

F = mv^2/r
  = 300lbm * (4.7 ft/s)^2 / 1ft
  = 300lbm * 23ft / s^2
  = 6662lbm * ft / s^2

1lbf = 32.17 lbm * ft / s^2
1lbm = 0.0311 lbf * s^2 / ft

F = 6662 lbm * ft / s^2
  = 6662 * 0.0311 lbf
  = 207lbf

This says you need ~216lb of force to hold the dancers together! If you're
rotating more slowly, perhaps 2.5x in twelve beats, it's still a
significant 64lb.

Jeff

PS: If you want something you can play with, this is (rpm/3 * 3.14)**2 *
weight * 1/32.2

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:08 PM Jeff Kaufman 
wrote:

> Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost all "outer
> arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand
> behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
> above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02
> etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their
> right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in
> the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were
> other couples that did other holds at some point?
>
> Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q .
> I only see ballroom holds.
>
> Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q
> . Outdoor demo performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the
> couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which
> they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).
>
> Here's 1986 in Francestown NH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE
> At 0:30 I see two ballroom holds and two where the outer arms are holding a
> bit above the elbows.  At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold
> from 0:30, and one of the symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR
> video, though note that this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to
> 8:38 I see three ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's
> forearms. Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you
> can feel the room shake through to the camera!
>
> Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom holds,
> except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the
> gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable
> to me!)
>
> Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w
> .  Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
> hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's
> waist, and the lady's left hand is again on the back of the gent's right
> arm.  Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical swing with left hands
> joined low between their bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.
>
> Here's 1967 somewhere in New England:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM .  I see ballroom at 0:35,
> 0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10.  Then at 1:05 (and then again in the
> background at 5:11, and then again at 5:23 and 5:33) I see a forearm hold
> with arms that are straighter than I'm used to.  At 2:08 I see a hold where
> the gents hands are both around the lady's waist and the lady's hands are
> both over the tops of the gent's shoulders.
>
> Here's 1981 in Belmont MA, but it's an hour and I'm going to bed:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTVkWcehZo
>
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:33 PM Stein, Robert  wrote:
>
>> The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling also shows the same variety of
>> swinging styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
>> Bob
>>
>> > On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:13, Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Looking through old media to figure out what swing positions were
>> common sounds like fun!  I think video might be more promising?  Here's a
>> few annotations of a video, where the numbers are timestamps and each
>> bullet describes the couple that's in the middle of the frame at the
>> timestamp.  I only counted each couple once:
>> >
>> > Cambridge MA, 1990: https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
>> > * 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms, gent's right hand behind
>> lady's back, gent's left hand behin

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Here's a 1989 recording the Portland OR dance did in a recording studio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_qLQUH-7k .  I see almost all "outer arms
making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's left hand
behind gent's shoulder" hold (hereafter 'ballroom' though as illustrated
above that's a fraught term).  At 0:58 and then again at 1:28, 1:58, 3:02
etc there's a couple with a symmetrical hold where they each have their
right hand around the other's waist, with their left hands joined low in
the center.  I didn't watch the whole video, so it's possible there were
other couples that did other holds at some point?

Here's 1987 in Mendocino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTOKMwrl-7Q .  I
only see ballroom holds.

Here's 1986 in Cambridge MA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2-pBs9BY3Q .
Outdoor demo performance.  Almost all ballroom holds, but at 4:04 the
couple all the way on the right has outer hands in a forearm hold (which
they continue doing in later iterations of the dance).

Here's 1986 in Francestown NH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09f-3yGMuE
At 0:30 I see two ballroom holds and two where the outer arms are holding a
bit above the elbows.  At 1:06 I see two ballroom holds, one of the hold
from 0:30, and one of the symmetrical holds I described in the Portland OR
video, though note that this is many of the same couples.  Jumping ahead to
8:38 I see three ballroom holds and where the outer hands hold each other's
forearms. Separately, I really like how enthusiastic the balances are: you
can feel the room shake through to the camera!

Here's one labeled 1986 Chico Contra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCYAyEj6jWg  Almost all ballroom holds,
except for one couple where the lady's left hand is on the back of the
gent's right arm instead of behind his shoulder (doesn't look comfortable
to me!)

Here's 1976 in Bloomington: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2A3955G2w .
Looks like a performance.  At 0:10 I see three couples where the outer
hands are joined as in ballroom, the gent's right hand is around the lady's
waist, and the lady's left hand is again on the back of the gent's right
arm.  Then there's one couple doing the symmetrical swing with left hands
joined low between their bodies. Same again at 0:44, 1:11, etc.

Here's 1967 somewhere in New England:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6E1AtqyvFM .  I see ballroom at 0:35,
0:37, 3:15, 3:16, 5:08, 5:10.  Then at 1:05 (and then again in the
background at 5:11, and then again at 5:23 and 5:33) I see a forearm hold
with arms that are straighter than I'm used to.  At 2:08 I see a hold where
the gents hands are both around the lady's waist and the lady's hands are
both over the tops of the gent's shoulders.

Here's 1981 in Belmont MA, but it's an hour and I'm going to bed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTVkWcehZo

Jeff

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:33 PM Stein, Robert  wrote:

> The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling also shows the same variety of
> swinging styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
> Bob
>
> > On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:13, Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> >
> > Looking through old media to figure out what swing positions were common
> sounds like fun!  I think video might be more promising?  Here's a few
> annotations of a video, where the numbers are timestamps and each bullet
> describes the couple that's in the middle of the frame at the timestamp.  I
> only counted each couple once:
> >
> > Cambridge MA, 1990: https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
> > * 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms, gent's right hand behind lady's
> back, gent's left hand behind lady's arm
> > * 4:12: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> > * 4:14: outer arms making a point, lady's left hand on gent's shoulder,
> gent's right hand on lady's back
> > * 4:44: outer arms making a point held way out, lady's left hand behind
> gent's shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
> > * 5:16: outer arms overlapping, inner hands on backs with lady above gent
> > * 5:17: outer arms making a point held low, gent's inner hand on lady's
> back, lady's inner hand behind gent's shoulder
> > * 5:18: outer arms making a point and held out, gent's inner hand on
> lady's back, lady's inner hand behind gent's arm
> > * 5:48: both lady's hands behind gent's shoulders, gent's left hand
> behind lady's elbow, gent's right hand behind lady's back
> > * 5:49: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> > * 5:50: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> >
> > The "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold, which I think of as the
> standard today, was about half of them, but there was quite a lot of
> variation.
> >
> > I tried to do

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Stein, Robert via Contra Callers]

The 1964 film with Dudley Kaufman calling also shows the same variety of 
swinging styles from ballroom to various barrel holds.
Bob

> On Mar 26, 2024, at 16:13, Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Looking through old media to figure out what swing positions were common 
> sounds like fun!  I think video might be more promising?  Here's a few 
> annotations of a video, where the numbers are timestamps and each bullet 
> describes the couple that's in the middle of the frame at the timestamp.  I 
> only counted each couple once:
> 
> Cambridge MA, 1990: https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
> * 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms, gent's right hand behind lady's 
> back, gent's left hand behind lady's arm
> * 4:12: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, 
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 4:14: outer arms making a point, lady's left hand on gent's shoulder, 
> gent's right hand on lady's back
> * 4:44: outer arms making a point held way out, lady's left hand behind 
> gent's shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
> * 5:16: outer arms overlapping, inner hands on backs with lady above gent
> * 5:17: outer arms making a point held low, gent's inner hand on lady's back, 
> lady's inner hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 5:18: outer arms making a point and held out, gent's inner hand on lady's 
> back, lady's inner hand behind gent's arm
> * 5:48: both lady's hands behind gent's shoulders, gent's left hand behind 
> lady's elbow, gent's right hand behind lady's back
> * 5:49: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, 
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> * 5:50: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, 
> lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
> 
> The "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back, lady's 
> left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold, which I think of as the standard 
> today, was about half of them, but there was quite a lot of variation.
> 
> I tried to do this with a Fitzwilliam 1975 clip, but there were too many 
> cuts.  The 1964 video would be another one to try?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> Responding to various points. 
> And, obligatory acknowledgement that there's always regional differences 
> (and, perhaps ultimately that is what this thread is really about?)
> I beg you forgive me for directness, and please assume a friendly tone and 
> desire for friendly discussion, as that's what's intended.
> 
> I just thumbed through two big choreo milestone books marking approximately 
> the beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra - Balance and Swing, and Zesty 
> Contras - and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
> The short version: despite being contemporaries and the books published a 
> year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe slightly different swing holds, 
> where:
> - a gent's right hand is either on the waist on the small of the back 
> (Sanella) or a little higher (Jennings, via the illustration on the cover 
> which he points out in the description is what to follow)
> - a gent's left hand is either a typical ballroom palm-up supporting the 
> lady's right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's right upper arm (Jennings, 
> with Sanella noting the variation as well) - with a lady's hands
> - a lady's left hand is resting on the top of the upper arm (Jennings) or 
> "behind the upper arm" (Sanella)
> 
> So even in 1982/1983, there was no agreed traditional swing position, and 
> holds described by both did include women holding men in ways that were 
> supporting from behind rather than everyone agreeing that their hand is 
> "resting on top" as with other couples' dances.
> Obviously dance evolves over time, and I'll circle back around to that after 
> I touch on some specific points:
> 
> RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s 
> supporting right hand."
> Agree, these are bad habits. The "leaning back" may be describing "the 
> feeling of centripetal force", but also I have definitely experienced people 
> who lean back.
> 
> RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing  ...  forces the swing together because you 
> are limited to the length of the shorter arm."
> I don't think this is accurate.
> This was covered elsewhere in the thread. The shoulderblade isn't small, and 
> adjustments can be made to adjust for height or size differences. There's 
> always exceptions, sure. 
> Certainly, when I swing young kids, we're not doing shoulderblades. Then 
> again, they have a lot less mass than an adult, so there's less support 
> that's needed to be given.
> 
> RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going to 
> be on top of me."
> I agree, however, a good flat-palms swing hold is not in the "middle" of the 
> back. There's a gap between shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is 
> partially off the shoulderblade.
> I like how Lisa 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Stein, Robert via Contra Callers]

Thanks for this practical and historical approach.  I recall Ted Sanella 
advocating a barrel hold swing.  I like that because both swingers share 
equally in the tension to counter the centripetal force. To reemphasize, the 
hands are not around the back but on the shoulder blades (or sides of the back 
if very different in height).  It is true this brings the dancers closer 
together, but also prevents touching in front.  Personally I prefer one or 
another barrel hold swing because of the extra security and equal strain on the 
two shoulders.  When dancers insist on a ballroom swing I have to swing slower 
to avoid the right arm strain. (This has nothing to do with supporting your own 
weight which is of course necessary.)  Barrel hold is also the customary 
position for Scandinavian turning couple dances where there is a lot of 
centrical force.  I have never found differences in height to be a problem. It 
just needs a slight adjustment of where the hands are higher or lower on the 
other person.  I swing with some people a foot taller than me and others a foot 
shorter.  If a person is very sensitive about their personal space then perhaps 
a crossed arm hand grip is the way to go to swing fast.  However, that is less 
secure because of the possibility of a hand losing its grip.

Bob

> On Mar 26, 2024, at 15:33, Julian Blechner via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Responding to various points. 
> And, obligatory acknowledgement that there's always regional differences 
> (and, perhaps ultimately that is what this thread is really about?)
> I beg you forgive me for directness, and please assume a friendly tone and 
> desire for friendly discussion, as that's what's intended.
> 
> I just thumbed through two big choreo milestone books marking approximately 
> the beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra - Balance and Swing, and Zesty 
> Contras - and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
> The short version: despite being contemporaries and the books published a 
> year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe slightly different swing holds, 
> where:
> - a gent's right hand is either on the waist on the small of the back 
> (Sanella) or a little higher (Jennings, via the illustration on the cover 
> which he points out in the description is what to follow)
> - a gent's left hand is either a typical ballroom palm-up supporting the 
> lady's right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's right upper arm (Jennings, 
> with Sanella noting the variation as well) - with a lady's hands
> - a lady's left hand is resting on the top of the upper arm (Jennings) or 
> "behind the upper arm" (Sanella)
> 
> So even in 1982/1983, there was no agreed traditional swing position, and 
> holds described by both did include women holding men in ways that were 
> supporting from behind rather than everyone agreeing that their hand is 
> "resting on top" as with other couples' dances.
> Obviously dance evolves over time, and I'll circle back around to that after 
> I touch on some specific points:
> 
> RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s 
> supporting right hand."
> Agree, these are bad habits. The "leaning back" may be describing "the 
> feeling of centripetal force", but also I have definitely experienced people 
> who lean back.
> 
> RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing  ...  forces the swing together because you 
> are limited to the length of the shorter arm."
> I don't think this is accurate.
> This was covered elsewhere in the thread. The shoulderblade isn't small, and 
> adjustments can be made to adjust for height or size differences. There's 
> always exceptions, sure. 
> Certainly, when I swing young kids, we're not doing shoulderblades. Then 
> again, they have a lot less mass than an adult, so there's less support 
> that's needed to be given.
> 
> RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going to 
> be on top of me."
> I agree, however, a good flat-palms swing hold is not in the "middle" of the 
> back. There's a gap between shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is 
> partially off the shoulderblade.
> I like how Lisa Greenleaf describes it as the curve of the hand often can 
> naturally curve around the shoulderblade.
> 
> RE: Neal: " if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are 
> coming in at the same point and going to the same point, resulting in 
> collision. SOMEONE has to adjust up or down AND forward."
> I mean, I suppose, technically speaking? But I think everyone on this list 
> here has been dancing for years, and "elbow collisions" isn't a thing I've 
> really experienced or heard discussed.
> So, I conclude that this may in theory be possible, but people just ... do 
> it? 
> As a lark/lefthand role, my right arm comes into a swing from a bit of an 
> under-scooping motion. As a robin/righthand role, my left arm comes in more 
> open and I wait half a moment to let the lark engage their right arm before I 
> try and wrap my 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Looking through old media to figure out what swing positions were common
sounds like fun!  I think video might be more promising?  Here's a few
annotations of a video, where the numbers are timestamps and each bullet
describes the couple that's in the middle of the frame at the timestamp.  I
only counted each couple once:

Cambridge MA, 1990: https://youtu.be/dC0qQYWjdh0?si=JWkNH0g93yo6VWrC
* 3:41: lady's hands behind gent's arms, gent's right hand behind lady's
back, gent's left hand behind lady's arm
* 4:12: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
* 4:14: outer arms making a point, lady's left hand on gent's shoulder,
gent's right hand on lady's back
* 4:44: outer arms making a point held way out, lady's left hand behind
gent's shoulder, gent's right hand on lady's back
* 5:16: outer arms overlapping, inner hands on backs with lady above gent
* 5:17: outer arms making a point held low, gent's inner hand on lady's
back, lady's inner hand behind gent's shoulder
* 5:18: outer arms making a point and held out, gent's inner hand on lady's
back, lady's inner hand behind gent's arm
* 5:48: both lady's hands behind gent's shoulders, gent's left hand behind
lady's elbow, gent's right hand behind lady's back
* 5:49: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder
* 5:50: outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder

The "outer arms making a point, gent's right hand behind lady's back,
lady's left hand behind gent's shoulder" hold, which I think of as the
standard today, was about half of them, but there was quite a lot of
variation.

I tried to do this with a Fitzwilliam 1975
 clip, but there were too many
cuts.  The 1964 video  would
be another one to try?

Jeff

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:33 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Responding to various points.
> And, obligatory acknowledgement that there's always regional differences
> (and, perhaps ultimately that is what this thread is really about?)
> I beg you forgive me for directness, and please assume a friendly tone and
> desire for friendly discussion, as that's what's intended.
>
> I just thumbed through two big choreo milestone books marking
> approximately the beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra - Balance and
> Swing, and Zesty Contras - and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
> The short version: despite being contemporaries and the books published a
> year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe slightly different swing holds,
> where:
> - a gent's right hand is either on the waist on the small of the back
> (Sanella) or a little higher (Jennings, via the illustration on the cover
> which he points out in the description is what to follow)
> - a gent's left hand is either a typical ballroom palm-up supporting the
> lady's right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's right upper arm (Jennings,
> with Sanella noting the variation as well) - with a lady's hands
> - a lady's left hand is resting on the top of the upper arm (Jennings) or
> "behind the upper arm" (Sanella)
>
> So even in 1982/1983, there was no agreed traditional swing position, and
> holds described by both did include women holding men in ways that were
> supporting from behind rather than everyone agreeing that their hand is
> "resting on top" as with other couples' dances.
> Obviously dance evolves over time, and I'll circle back around to that
> after I touch on some specific points:
>
> RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s
> supporting right hand."
> Agree, these are bad habits. The "leaning back" may be describing "the
> feeling of centripetal force", but also I have definitely experienced
> people who lean back.
>
> RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing  ...  forces the swing together because
> you are limited to the length of the shorter arm."
> I don't think this is accurate.
> This was covered elsewhere in the thread. The shoulderblade isn't small,
> and adjustments can be made to adjust for height or size differences.
> There's always exceptions, sure.
> Certainly, when I swing young kids, we're not doing shoulderblades. Then
> again, they have a lot less mass than an adult, so there's less support
> that's needed to be given.
>
> RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going
> to be on top of me."
> I agree, however, a good flat-palms swing hold is not in the "middle" of
> the back. There's a gap between shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is
> partially off the shoulderblade.
> I like how Lisa Greenleaf describes it as the curve of the hand often can
> naturally curve around the shoulderblade.
>
> RE: Neal: " if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are
> coming in at the same 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

Responding to various points.
And, obligatory acknowledgement that there's always regional differences
(and, perhaps ultimately that is what this thread is really about?)
I beg you forgive me for directness, and please assume a friendly tone and
desire for friendly discussion, as that's what's intended.

I just thumbed through two big choreo milestone books marking approximately
the beginning of the less-1s&2s age of contra - Balance and Swing, and
Zesty Contras - and absolutely Ted Sanella and Larry Jennings.
The short version: despite being contemporaries and the books published a
year apart (1982 and 1983), they describe slightly different swing holds,
where:
- a gent's right hand is either on the waist on the small of the back
(Sanella) or a little higher (Jennings, via the illustration on the cover
which he points out in the description is what to follow)
- a gent's left hand is either a typical ballroom palm-up supporting the
lady's right hand (Sanella) or behind the lady's right upper arm (Jennings,
with Sanella noting the variation as well) - with a lady's hands
- a lady's left hand is resting on the top of the upper arm (Jennings) or
"behind the upper arm" (Sanella)

So even in 1982/1983, there was no agreed traditional swing position, and
holds described by both did include women holding men in ways that were
supporting from behind rather than everyone agreeing that their hand is
"resting on top" as with other couples' dances.
Obviously dance evolves over time, and I'll circle back around to that
after I touch on some specific points:

RE: Joe: "They lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s
supporting right hand."
Agree, these are bad habits. The "leaning back" may be describing "the
feeling of centripetal force", but also I have definitely experienced
people who lean back.

RE: Neal: "both-palms-flat swing  ...  forces the swing together because
you are limited to the length of the shorter arm."
I don't think this is accurate.
This was covered elsewhere in the thread. The shoulderblade isn't small,
and adjustments can be made to adjust for height or size differences.
There's always exceptions, sure.
Certainly, when I swing young kids, we're not doing shoulderblades. Then
again, they have a lot less mass than an adult, so there's less support
that's needed to be given.

RE: Neal: " putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going
to be on top of me."
I agree, however, a good flat-palms swing hold is not in the "middle" of
the back. There's a gap between shoulderblades, so a hand in the middle is
partially off the shoulderblade.
I like how Lisa Greenleaf describes it as the curve of the hand often can
naturally curve around the shoulderblade.

RE: Neal: " if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are
coming in at the same point and going to the same point, resulting in
collision. SOMEONE has to adjust up or down AND forward."
I mean, I suppose, technically speaking? But I think everyone on this list
here has been dancing for years, and "elbow collisions" isn't a thing I've
really experienced or heard discussed.
So, I conclude that this may in theory be possible, but people just ... do
it?
As a lark/lefthand role, my right arm comes into a swing from a bit of an
under-scooping motion. As a robin/righthand role, my left arm comes in more
open and I wait half a moment to let the lark engage their right arm before
I try and wrap my right arm around.
It's similar-ish to the anticipation leading into a good connection on a
star promenade.

Further to this point, if I were using the traditional "woman left arm
rests on top", I'd have to wait until the lark's arm has engaged, anyway.
Which means that traditionally, women have done that extra bit of work in
the dance of that waiting, reading the other dancer's movement, and timing
their own move --- and I wonder how much of that had gone unnoticed.

This all said, the explanation that you give, Neal, may not work as
wellwhen it's not taller men dancing with shorter women.
Some women are tall and dance the Robin/Righthand role.
Some men are tall and dance the Robin/Righthand role.
Some women are shorter and dance the Lark/Lefthand role.
Some men are shorter and dance the Lark/Lefthand role.
Some men dance with men, some women with women.
Etc.

So dancing requires a need to adjust our arms to "make a swing work for
both people" as a universal and generic skill.
Thankfully, I think it's one that's actually more automatic than it may
seem!

Regardless of how we discuss the technical and kinesthetic aspects of
contra, I teach (and I think most callers teach) that dancers need to
adjust themselves to every partner and neighbor, and find a happy medium
that works for both people.
If someone doesn't want to put their hand flat on my shoulderblade, that's
fine and I'll adjust by limiting my upper-end swing speed.
I think we all share the value that a skilled contra dancer can adjust
their style to meet another dancer's di

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Neal Schlein via Contra Callers]

Hi Julian,
Regarding both dancers trying to put their palm flat on the other persons
back, I agree with Joe.

The both-palms-flat swing does multiple things.

First, it forces the swing together because you are limited to the length
of the shorter arm. I’m six feet tall with broad shoulders and long
arms—putting your palm in the middle of my back means you’re going to be on
top of me. I don’t care who I’m dancing with—I want space, and I’m not OK
with that.  With a standard hold, I can give partners lots of space.   (Also,
I sweat from the head a lot. You want that space, and no one wants their
hand on my back.)

Second, if partners are the same height/arm length then the arms are coming
in at the same point and going to the same point, resulting in collision.
SOMEONE has to adjust up or down AND forward. This means a changed angle
for one person, and due to the change in angle a shortening of the hold to
match the arm that adjusted (usually on top), thereby pulling the swing
closer together than otherwise necessary…which also puts the other person’s
arm (typically lark, and also typically longer) in a non-natural position,
which is likely to be physically uncomfortable and potentially harmful.

Neal Schlein
Librarian, MSLIS


On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 1:24 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> You mean, palms flat on the back of shoulderblades? If so, it's how I
> teach it, lots of callers teach it, and this is the first I've heard a
> complaint about it.
>
> That said, you describe: "I've had my elbow bent backward by eager robins
> pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the right place."
>
> That _sounds like_ what I call "arm clamping". While yes, putting Robin's
> hand on the outside of the shoulder also alleviates the clamping, it's not
> the only way to fix it. A Robin can lift their elbow. (I just workshopped
> the issue with my partner in the living room to test a variety of height
> and holds out to confirm what you were saying, as well.)
>
> The other issue is that if both dancers don't have hands flat on the backs
> of each other, it's more difficult to maintain an open frame when swinging.
> One usually winds up _closer_ when hands are resting on shoulders, unless
> one dancer is significantly stronger and the other is fairly petite.
>
> I know that my right arm will get seriously fatigued and sore if I have an
> evening too many times as Lark with Robins providing insufficient support.
> And I've heard plenty of dancers say similar.
>
> That said, all bodies are different. If yours works where the swing hold
> works better for you the way you describe, that is what it is, yeah? But I
> might recommend considering workshopping swings further, because what
> you're requesting is counter to prevailing teaching. If I understand
> correctly (and it's always possible I'm missing something.)
>
> In dance,
> Julian Blechner
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 1:13 PM Joe Harrington 
> wrote:
>
>> Not the standard ballroom, with the robin's arm on top of the lark's, but
>> an alternative that I've seen occasionally, but for a number of years now,
>> where the robin tries to put their left hand in the same location on the
>> lark's back as the lark has their right hand on the robin's back.  I know
>> at least one prominent caller who teaches this hold in their newbie
>> workshop and tells their dancers that both sides need to do this to provide
>> equal support in the swing.
>>
>> While I like the principle, the practice can hurt. If the dancers are not
>> grossly mismatched in size/arm length, it won't be possible to do this
>> without their elbows occupying the same space.  I've had my elbow bent
>> backward by eager robins pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the
>> right place.  Even if it doesn't go all the way to pain, it pretty much
>> eliminates my ability to provide any support, unless I "fight back" by
>> pushing my elbow out and resisting the inward pressure, essentially
>> refusing the position.  I'm also focusing entirely on protecting my elbow,
>> so it kills any enjoyment in that swing.
>>
>> Please gently discourage this hold.  If a robin wants to give major
>> support in a swing, the symmetric swing holds, the barrel, the one Jeff
>> described, or even a mirror of the ballroom where the lark's arm is on top
>> are much better opportunities.  A robin whose arm is longer than their
>> lark's arm can also reach over or around the shoulder in a ballroom hold
>> (robin's arm on top) to add support.  Just don't push down on the shoulder.
>>
>> --jh--
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:21 AM Julian Blechner <
>> juliancallsdan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> JJ,
>>>
>>> I like your point about the sort of code-switching that the asymmetry of
>>> a ballroom hold provides to reinforce what role one is dancing.
>>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean about the ballroom hold having elbows
>>> occupy the same space. I think I'

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

Hi Jeff,

  No, I mean horizontal force.  People don’t keep their own balance 
or their own weight, especially if they have been told to “give weight”!  They 
lean back or sideways or press back against the Leftie’s supporting right hand. 
That is what is tiring.  That pressure is often much greater than the 
centrifugal force.

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

 

From: Jeff Kaufman  
Sent: 25 March 2024 14:52
To: John Sweeney 
Cc: Shared Weight Contra Callers 
Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more 
conversation and info

 

Hi John,

 

I think people may be using two different things by "support" here?  Julian and 
I, along with a few others in this conversation, are using "support" to mean a 
horizontal force, providing a counterbalancing force to resist the centrifugal 
force that would otherwise send the two people off in opposite directions.  I 
think you're interpreting "support" to mean a vertical force, which I agree you 
shouldn't need to provide.

 

If you're swinging quickly there really is quite a lot of centrifugal force.  
Sometime I'd like to try getting some sort of scale involved to figure out how 
much!

 

Jeff

 

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 7:19 PM John Sweeney via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> > wrote:

Hi all,

  You should NOT need to support the other person in a Swing.  If 
they are pulling away, leaning back or leaning sideways then take away your 
connection until they take responsibility for their own weight and balance.

 

  The shoulder-blade connection is purely to counteract centrifugal 
force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it shouldn’t make you tired.  I 
Swing fast all night and never get tired arms because, having damaged 
shoulders, I never let the other person make me support them.

 

  I completely agree that the Rightie shouldn’t try to reach the 
Leftie’s shoulder-blade.  See six reasons why at 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/LadysLeftHand.html

 

  For good Swing technique please see 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/Contra.html#swinging

 

  Not everyone agrees with everything I say (but I think physics 
does!). :-)

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 
<mailto:j...@modernjive.com>  01233 625 362 & 07802 940 574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net 
<mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> 
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net 
<mailto:contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net> 

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Hi John,

I think people may be using two different things by "support" here?  Julian
and I, along with a few others in this conversation, are using "support" to
mean a horizontal force, providing a counterbalancing force to resist the
centrifugal force that would otherwise send the two people off in
opposite directions.  I think you're interpreting "support" to mean a
vertical force, which I agree you shouldn't need to provide.

If you're swinging quickly there really is quite a lot of centrifugal
force.  Sometime I'd like to try getting some sort of scale involved to
figure out how much!

Jeff

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 7:19 PM John Sweeney via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>   You should NOT need to support the other person in a Swing.
> If they are pulling away, leaning back or leaning sideways then take away
> your connection until they take responsibility for their own weight and
> balance.
>
>
>
>   The shoulder-blade connection is purely to counteract
> centrifugal force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it shouldn’t
> make you tired.  I Swing fast all night and never get tired arms because,
> having damaged shoulders, I never let the other person make me support them.
>
>
>
>   I completely agree that the Rightie shouldn’t try to reach
> the Leftie’s shoulder-blade.  See six reasons why at
> http://contrafusion.co.uk/LadysLeftHand.html
>
>
>
>   For good Swing technique please see
> http://contrafusion.co.uk/Contra.html#swinging
>
>
>
>   Not everyone agrees with everything I say (but I think
> physics does!). :-)
>
>
>
> Happy dancing,
>
>John
>
>
>
> John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
> 940 574
>
> http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent
>
> ___
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net
>
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

Hi all,

  You should NOT need to support the other person in a Swing.  If 
they are pulling away, leaning back or leaning sideways then take away your 
connection until they take responsibility for their own weight and balance.

 

  The shoulder-blade connection is purely to counteract centrifugal 
force.  That is not normally a lot of force, so it shouldn’t make you tired.  I 
Swing fast all night and never get tired arms because, having damaged 
shoulders, I never let the other person make me support them.

 

  I completely agree that the Rightie shouldn’t try to reach the 
Leftie’s shoulder-blade.  See six reasons why at 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/LadysLeftHand.html

 

  For good Swing technique please see 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/Contra.html#swinging

 

  Not everyone agrees with everything I say (but I think physics 
does!). :-)

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

Hi Joe,

You mean, palms flat on the back of shoulderblades? If so, it's how I teach
it, lots of callers teach it, and this is the first I've heard a complaint
about it.

That said, you describe: "I've had my elbow bent backward by eager robins
pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the right place."

That _sounds like_ what I call "arm clamping". While yes, putting Robin's
hand on the outside of the shoulder also alleviates the clamping, it's not
the only way to fix it. A Robin can lift their elbow. (I just workshopped
the issue with my partner in the living room to test a variety of height
and holds out to confirm what you were saying, as well.)

The other issue is that if both dancers don't have hands flat on the backs
of each other, it's more difficult to maintain an open frame when swinging.
One usually winds up _closer_ when hands are resting on shoulders, unless
one dancer is significantly stronger and the other is fairly petite.

I know that my right arm will get seriously fatigued and sore if I have an
evening too many times as Lark with Robins providing insufficient support.
And I've heard plenty of dancers say similar.

That said, all bodies are different. If yours works where the swing hold
works better for you the way you describe, that is what it is, yeah? But I
might recommend considering workshopping swings further, because what
you're requesting is counter to prevailing teaching. If I understand
correctly (and it's always possible I'm missing something.)

In dance,
Julian Blechner


On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 1:13 PM Joe Harrington 
wrote:

> Not the standard ballroom, with the robin's arm on top of the lark's, but
> an alternative that I've seen occasionally, but for a number of years now,
> where the robin tries to put their left hand in the same location on the
> lark's back as the lark has their right hand on the robin's back.  I know
> at least one prominent caller who teaches this hold in their newbie
> workshop and tells their dancers that both sides need to do this to provide
> equal support in the swing.
>
> While I like the principle, the practice can hurt. If the dancers are not
> grossly mismatched in size/arm length, it won't be possible to do this
> without their elbows occupying the same space.  I've had my elbow bent
> backward by eager robins pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the
> right place.  Even if it doesn't go all the way to pain, it pretty much
> eliminates my ability to provide any support, unless I "fight back" by
> pushing my elbow out and resisting the inward pressure, essentially
> refusing the position.  I'm also focusing entirely on protecting my elbow,
> so it kills any enjoyment in that swing.
>
> Please gently discourage this hold.  If a robin wants to give major
> support in a swing, the symmetric swing holds, the barrel, the one Jeff
> described, or even a mirror of the ballroom where the lark's arm is on top
> are much better opportunities.  A robin whose arm is longer than their
> lark's arm can also reach over or around the shoulder in a ballroom hold
> (robin's arm on top) to add support.  Just don't push down on the shoulder.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:21 AM Julian Blechner <
> juliancallsdan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JJ,
>>
>> I like your point about the sort of code-switching that the asymmetry of
>> a ballroom hold provides to reinforce what role one is dancing.
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean about the ballroom hold having elbows
>> occupy the same space. I think I'd need to see it (in person or picture).
>> That said, it raises the broader issue, which is the overall topic, that
>> everyone has different physical needs and finding happy mediums is our goal
>> for everyone dancing together. Your issue with ballroom hold handholds as
>> such is a good reminder for me that no one - not even seasoned callers -
>> can anticipate every need or difference.
>>
>> In dance,
>> Julian Blechner
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:38 PM JJ  wrote:
>>
>>> Personally for me, the standard ballroom swing helps me to "flip the
>>> switch" in the brain on which side of the swing I'm "supposed to" end on
>>> (assuming we're not switching roles back and forth for fun lol). If my left
>>> arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is the
>>> "pointy arm," I'm ending on the right. I don't have to consciously tell
>>> myself "I'm the Lark" or "I'm the Robin," my muscle memory just takes over
>>> and I just end on whichever side my arm position tells me to 😅.
>>>
>>> I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not planning on switching roles
>>> without warning through an individual dance, I tend to stick with the
>>> traditional ballroom figure.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
>>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 "At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role
 actually swung like a lady.  I'm not sure when that became the norm."

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Joe Harrington via Contra Callers]

Not the standard ballroom, with the robin's arm on top of the lark's, but
an alternative that I've seen occasionally, but for a number of years now,
where the robin tries to put their left hand in the same location on the
lark's back as the lark has their right hand on the robin's back.  I know
at least one prominent caller who teaches this hold in their newbie
workshop and tells their dancers that both sides need to do this to provide
equal support in the swing.

While I like the principle, the practice can hurt. If the dancers are not
grossly mismatched in size/arm length, it won't be possible to do this
without their elbows occupying the same space.  I've had my elbow bent
backward by eager robins pressing my elbow in to get their elbow in the
right place.  Even if it doesn't go all the way to pain, it pretty much
eliminates my ability to provide any support, unless I "fight back" by
pushing my elbow out and resisting the inward pressure, essentially
refusing the position.  I'm also focusing entirely on protecting my elbow,
so it kills any enjoyment in that swing.

Please gently discourage this hold.  If a robin wants to give major support
in a swing, the symmetric swing holds, the barrel, the one Jeff described,
or even a mirror of the ballroom where the lark's arm is on top are much
better opportunities.  A robin whose arm is longer than their lark's arm
can also reach over or around the shoulder in a ballroom hold (robin's arm
on top) to add support.  Just don't push down on the shoulder.

--jh--


On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 9:21 AM Julian Blechner 
wrote:

> JJ,
>
> I like your point about the sort of code-switching that the asymmetry of a
> ballroom hold provides to reinforce what role one is dancing.
>
> Joe,
>
> I don't understand what you mean about the ballroom hold having elbows
> occupy the same space. I think I'd need to see it (in person or picture).
> That said, it raises the broader issue, which is the overall topic, that
> everyone has different physical needs and finding happy mediums is our goal
> for everyone dancing together. Your issue with ballroom hold handholds as
> such is a good reminder for me that no one - not even seasoned callers -
> can anticipate every need or difference.
>
> In dance,
> Julian Blechner
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:38 PM JJ  wrote:
>
>> Personally for me, the standard ballroom swing helps me to "flip the
>> switch" in the brain on which side of the swing I'm "supposed to" end on
>> (assuming we're not switching roles back and forth for fun lol). If my left
>> arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is the
>> "pointy arm," I'm ending on the right. I don't have to consciously tell
>> myself "I'm the Lark" or "I'm the Robin," my muscle memory just takes over
>> and I just end on whichever side my arm position tells me to 😅.
>>
>> I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not planning on switching roles
>> without warning through an individual dance, I tend to stick with the
>> traditional ballroom figure.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role
>>> actually swung like a lady.  I'm not sure when that became the norm."
>>>
>>> When I started dancing both roles, around 2005, I remember initially
>>> doing it as you said, with gender-neutral swings with the gents I
>>> encountered.  I remember being surprised sometime around 2006-2007 when I
>>> ran into a few guys dancing switch who indicated they wanted to do the
>>> standard ballroom hold.  By 2008-2009 I think my male friends and I were
>>> dancing the lady's role in the standard way?
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
>>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
 I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way
 that indicated it was too intimate for them.  This is especially true if I
 have to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs
 (I'm pretty tall).  It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if
 one or both partners is well on the heavy side.  But, all that aside, if
 you and your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than
 ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.

 In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role
 (using the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment),
 we'd almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is
 symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around
 the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm,
 bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around
 each other's forearms between your bodies.  At the time, it almost never
 happened that the one in the lady's role actually 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

JJ,

I like your point about the sort of code-switching that the asymmetry of a
ballroom hold provides to reinforce what role one is dancing.

Joe,

I don't understand what you mean about the ballroom hold having elbows
occupy the same space. I think I'd need to see it (in person or picture).
That said, it raises the broader issue, which is the overall topic, that
everyone has different physical needs and finding happy mediums is our goal
for everyone dancing together. Your issue with ballroom hold handholds as
such is a good reminder for me that no one - not even seasoned callers -
can anticipate every need or difference.

In dance,
Julian Blechner

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 10:38 PM JJ  wrote:

> Personally for me, the standard ballroom swing helps me to "flip the
> switch" in the brain on which side of the swing I'm "supposed to" end on
> (assuming we're not switching roles back and forth for fun lol). If my left
> arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is the
> "pointy arm," I'm ending on the right. I don't have to consciously tell
> myself "I'm the Lark" or "I'm the Robin," my muscle memory just takes over
> and I just end on whichever side my arm position tells me to 😅.
>
> I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not planning on switching roles
> without warning through an individual dance, I tend to stick with the
> traditional ballroom figure.
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> "At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role
>> actually swung like a lady.  I'm not sure when that became the norm."
>>
>> When I started dancing both roles, around 2005, I remember initially
>> doing it as you said, with gender-neutral swings with the gents I
>> encountered.  I remember being surprised sometime around 2006-2007 when I
>> ran into a few guys dancing switch who indicated they wanted to do the
>> standard ballroom hold.  By 2008-2009 I think my male friends and I were
>> dancing the lady's role in the standard way?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way
>>> that indicated it was too intimate for them.  This is especially true if I
>>> have to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs
>>> (I'm pretty tall).  It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if
>>> one or both partners is well on the heavy side.  But, all that aside, if
>>> you and your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than
>>> ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.
>>>
>>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role
>>> (using the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment),
>>> we'd almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is
>>> symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around
>>> the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm,
>>> bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around
>>> each other's forearms between your bodies.  At the time, it almost never
>>> happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady.  I'm
>>> not sure when that became the norm.  I would occasionally do it with a
>>> particular guy partner whom I liked to dance with.  We practiced it first
>>> and then did it with each other, but we gender-neutral-swung our
>>> neighbors.  We got some pretty surprised looks from our neighbors when we
>>> swung each other. At least one guy asked me if that partner and I were an
>>> item.  Times and role terms and what people read into dance behavior
>>> change...
>>>
>>> In general, I'm quite happy to swing with guys in either role when
>>> they're happy to swing with me.  But, it's awkward and uncomfortable in the
>>> extreme to be going up an entire line of consecutive frowns, growls, and
>>> looks of disgust as a guy dancing the robbin...enough that I haven't
>>> returned to the dance weekend where that happened in Fall 2022, even though
>>> it was pretty great in other ways.
>>>
>>> The one swing style I really dislike is a modified ballroom position
>>> where the robbin tries to put their hand on the lark's back in the same
>>> place where the lark's hand is on theirs.  I know some people actually
>>> teach it this way, I guess as some kind of equality thing.  It's terrible,
>>> because their elbow and the lark's elbow then have to occupy the same
>>> space, which, well, physics.  If I'm the lark and their arm is outside
>>> mine, when they try to provide support, it hyperextends my right elbow,
>>> eliminating any chance I can provide support and sometimes inducing pain
>>> before I can either force my elbow back out, displacing their hand from my
>>> back, or pull my arm up to rest it on their arm in a mirror of

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[JJ via Contra Callers]

Personally for me, the standard ballroom swing helps me to "flip the
switch" in the brain on which side of the swing I'm "supposed to" end on
(assuming we're not switching roles back and forth for fun lol). If my left
arm is the "pointy arm," I'm ending on the left; if my right arm is the
"pointy arm," I'm ending on the right. I don't have to consciously tell
myself "I'm the Lark" or "I'm the Robin," my muscle memory just takes over
and I just end on whichever side my arm position tells me to 😅.

I enjoy neutral swings, but if we're not planning on switching roles
without warning through an individual dance, I tend to stick with the
traditional ballroom figure.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 22:33 Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> "At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role
> actually swung like a lady.  I'm not sure when that became the norm."
>
> When I started dancing both roles, around 2005, I remember initially doing
> it as you said, with gender-neutral swings with the gents I encountered.  I
> remember being surprised sometime around 2006-2007 when I ran into a few
> guys dancing switch who indicated they wanted to do the standard ballroom
> hold.  By 2008-2009 I think my male friends and I were dancing the lady's
> role in the standard way?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way
>> that indicated it was too intimate for them.  This is especially true if I
>> have to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs
>> (I'm pretty tall).  It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if
>> one or both partners is well on the heavy side.  But, all that aside, if
>> you and your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than
>> ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.
>>
>> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role
>> (using the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment),
>> we'd almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is
>> symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around
>> the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm,
>> bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around
>> each other's forearms between your bodies.  At the time, it almost never
>> happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady.  I'm
>> not sure when that became the norm.  I would occasionally do it with a
>> particular guy partner whom I liked to dance with.  We practiced it first
>> and then did it with each other, but we gender-neutral-swung our
>> neighbors.  We got some pretty surprised looks from our neighbors when we
>> swung each other. At least one guy asked me if that partner and I were an
>> item.  Times and role terms and what people read into dance behavior
>> change...
>>
>> In general, I'm quite happy to swing with guys in either role when
>> they're happy to swing with me.  But, it's awkward and uncomfortable in the
>> extreme to be going up an entire line of consecutive frowns, growls, and
>> looks of disgust as a guy dancing the robbin...enough that I haven't
>> returned to the dance weekend where that happened in Fall 2022, even though
>> it was pretty great in other ways.
>>
>> The one swing style I really dislike is a modified ballroom position
>> where the robbin tries to put their hand on the lark's back in the same
>> place where the lark's hand is on theirs.  I know some people actually
>> teach it this way, I guess as some kind of equality thing.  It's terrible,
>> because their elbow and the lark's elbow then have to occupy the same
>> space, which, well, physics.  If I'm the lark and their arm is outside
>> mine, when they try to provide support, it hyperextends my right elbow,
>> eliminating any chance I can provide support and sometimes inducing pain
>> before I can either force my elbow back out, displacing their hand from my
>> back, or pull my arm up to rest it on their arm in a mirror of the
>> traditional ballroom hold.  I hope we can convince everyone to stop
>> teaching this hold, as it usually doesn't work as intended and it can hurt
>> the lark.
>>
>> One assist that does work in ballroom position and requires no
>> communication is, if the robbin's arm is as long as or longer than the
>> lark's, they rest their left arm on the lark's right, extending the entire
>> length of the arm and then reaching around/over the lark's shoulder to
>> provide some support on the shoulder blade.  In my case, at least, if they
>> are short enough that they can't do this, then they're often also light
>> enough that additional support isn't critical, though it does make for more
>> connection.  It's important not to press down on the shoulder, though. Only
>> pull forw

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

"At the time, it almost never happened that the one in the lady's role
actually swung like a lady.  I'm not sure when that became the norm."

When I started dancing both roles, around 2005, I remember initially doing
it as you said, with gender-neutral swings with the gents I encountered.  I
remember being surprised sometime around 2006-2007 when I ran into a few
guys dancing switch who indicated they wanted to do the standard ballroom
hold.  By 2008-2009 I think my male friends and I were dancing the lady's
role in the standard way?

Jeff

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:16 PM Joe Harrington via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way that
> indicated it was too intimate for them.  This is especially true if I have
> to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs (I'm
> pretty tall).  It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if one or
> both partners is well on the heavy side.  But, all that aside, if you and
> your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than
> ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.
>
> In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role (using
> the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment), we'd
> almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is
> symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around
> the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm,
> bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around
> each other's forearms between your bodies.  At the time, it almost never
> happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady.  I'm
> not sure when that became the norm.  I would occasionally do it with a
> particular guy partner whom I liked to dance with.  We practiced it first
> and then did it with each other, but we gender-neutral-swung our
> neighbors.  We got some pretty surprised looks from our neighbors when we
> swung each other. At least one guy asked me if that partner and I were an
> item.  Times and role terms and what people read into dance behavior
> change...
>
> In general, I'm quite happy to swing with guys in either role when they're
> happy to swing with me.  But, it's awkward and uncomfortable in the extreme
> to be going up an entire line of consecutive frowns, growls, and looks of
> disgust as a guy dancing the robbin...enough that I haven't returned to the
> dance weekend where that happened in Fall 2022, even though it was pretty
> great in other ways.
>
> The one swing style I really dislike is a modified ballroom position where
> the robbin tries to put their hand on the lark's back in the same place
> where the lark's hand is on theirs.  I know some people actually teach it
> this way, I guess as some kind of equality thing.  It's terrible, because
> their elbow and the lark's elbow then have to occupy the same space, which,
> well, physics.  If I'm the lark and their arm is outside mine, when they
> try to provide support, it hyperextends my right elbow, eliminating any
> chance I can provide support and sometimes inducing pain before I can
> either force my elbow back out, displacing their hand from my back, or pull
> my arm up to rest it on their arm in a mirror of the traditional ballroom
> hold.  I hope we can convince everyone to stop teaching this hold, as it
> usually doesn't work as intended and it can hurt the lark.
>
> One assist that does work in ballroom position and requires no
> communication is, if the robbin's arm is as long as or longer than the
> lark's, they rest their left arm on the lark's right, extending the entire
> length of the arm and then reaching around/over the lark's shoulder to
> provide some support on the shoulder blade.  In my case, at least, if they
> are short enough that they can't do this, then they're often also light
> enough that additional support isn't critical, though it does make for more
> connection.  It's important not to press down on the shoulder, though. Only
> pull forward.
>
> --jh--
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:52 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> At the last couple of dances in the last few days, I thought about this
>> email thread and observations.
>>
>> Short and simple:
>> A "barrel hold" swing:
>> - Seemed to provide a little bit more space than a ballroom hold
>> - One neighbor offered it (by chance) really clearly, as a lark, with his
>> left arm curved into a sort of "offer a hug" type position. As we engaged
>> in the swing hold, he placed his left arm in place, and it guided things
>> in. It worked pretty well for me, at least as an experienced dancer.
>>
>> In dance,
>> -Julian Blechner
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:18 PM becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I can’t answer whether th

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Joe Harrington via Contra Callers]

I love the barrel hold, but some of my partners have reacted in a way that
indicated it was too intimate for them.  This is especially true if I have
to lean over to do it, as that puts my face pretty close to theirs (I'm
pretty tall).  It's also difficult to do without frontal contact if one or
both partners is well on the heavy side.  But, all that aside, if you and
your partner like fast swings, it's a great hold, more stable than
ballroom, with four arms providing support rather than one.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when guys danced the lady's role (using
the terminology of the time for reasons you'll see in a moment), we'd
almost universally be offered the "gender-neutral swing", which is
symmetrical and very stable for fast swinging: both right arms are around
the other's back and both left arms go over/around the other's right arm,
bend 90 degrees at the elbow, pass between you, and clasp left hands around
each other's forearms between your bodies.  At the time, it almost never
happened that the one in the lady's role actually swung like a lady.  I'm
not sure when that became the norm.  I would occasionally do it with a
particular guy partner whom I liked to dance with.  We practiced it first
and then did it with each other, but we gender-neutral-swung our
neighbors.  We got some pretty surprised looks from our neighbors when we
swung each other. At least one guy asked me if that partner and I were an
item.  Times and role terms and what people read into dance behavior
change...

In general, I'm quite happy to swing with guys in either role when they're
happy to swing with me.  But, it's awkward and uncomfortable in the extreme
to be going up an entire line of consecutive frowns, growls, and looks of
disgust as a guy dancing the robbin...enough that I haven't returned to the
dance weekend where that happened in Fall 2022, even though it was pretty
great in other ways.

The one swing style I really dislike is a modified ballroom position where
the robbin tries to put their hand on the lark's back in the same place
where the lark's hand is on theirs.  I know some people actually teach it
this way, I guess as some kind of equality thing.  It's terrible, because
their elbow and the lark's elbow then have to occupy the same space, which,
well, physics.  If I'm the lark and their arm is outside mine, when they
try to provide support, it hyperextends my right elbow, eliminating any
chance I can provide support and sometimes inducing pain before I can
either force my elbow back out, displacing their hand from my back, or pull
my arm up to rest it on their arm in a mirror of the traditional ballroom
hold.  I hope we can convince everyone to stop teaching this hold, as it
usually doesn't work as intended and it can hurt the lark.

One assist that does work in ballroom position and requires no
communication is, if the robbin's arm is as long as or longer than the
lark's, they rest their left arm on the lark's right, extending the entire
length of the arm and then reaching around/over the lark's shoulder to
provide some support on the shoulder blade.  In my case, at least, if they
are short enough that they can't do this, then they're often also light
enough that additional support isn't critical, though it does make for more
connection.  It's important not to press down on the shoulder, though. Only
pull forward.

--jh--


On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:52 PM Julian Blechner via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> At the last couple of dances in the last few days, I thought about this
> email thread and observations.
>
> Short and simple:
> A "barrel hold" swing:
> - Seemed to provide a little bit more space than a ballroom hold
> - One neighbor offered it (by chance) really clearly, as a lark, with his
> left arm curved into a sort of "offer a hug" type position. As we engaged
> in the swing hold, he placed his left arm in place, and it guided things
> in. It worked pretty well for me, at least as an experienced dancer.
>
> In dance,
> -Julian Blechner
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:18 PM becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> I can’t answer whether the robin's would always HAVE to go above the
>> lark’s in the modified ballroom swing, but I would intuitively think that
>> having that rule/understanding might make it easier for dancers to make the
>> transition from ballroom to modified ballroom because the robin’s arm is
>> always on top in standard ballroom swing. Also, the lark’s hand is
>> typically cupped upwards with the robin’s hand above the lark’s in things
>> like a balance or even a handhold in a circle move, so having the hand/arm
>> orientations the same in the swing would also seem more intuitive to me if
>> I were just learning this swing.
>> Becky
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
>> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John, thanks for all your comments.

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

At the last couple of dances in the last few days, I thought about this
email thread and observations.

Short and simple:
A "barrel hold" swing:
- Seemed to provide a little bit more space than a ballroom hold
- One neighbor offered it (by chance) really clearly, as a lark, with his
left arm curved into a sort of "offer a hug" type position. As we engaged
in the swing hold, he placed his left arm in place, and it guided things
in. It worked pretty well for me, at least as an experienced dancer.

In dance,
-Julian Blechner

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:18 PM becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> I can’t answer whether the robin's would always HAVE to go above the
> lark’s in the modified ballroom swing, but I would intuitively think that
> having that rule/understanding might make it easier for dancers to make the
> transition from ballroom to modified ballroom because the robin’s arm is
> always on top in standard ballroom swing. Also, the lark’s hand is
> typically cupped upwards with the robin’s hand above the lark’s in things
> like a balance or even a handhold in a circle move, so having the hand/arm
> orientations the same in the swing would also seem more intuitive to me if
> I were just learning this swing.
> Becky
>
> On Mar 16, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Hi John, thanks for all your comments. I like this swing at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiXStkCHGs from 0:05 to 0:15 - for
> spacing -- and I'm going to introduce it at our next dance!  Though what I
> think Becky found interesting about the variation we're working on is that
> it retains the "pointy hands", which can be useful.
>
> The one thing that I was confused about when I read your message:  you say
> when you tried the swing variation our group has been experimenting with
> (visual at 
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0
> )
> 
> -- you say that you found the grip insufficient, for the arms that are
> holding just above the elbow.
>
> But in my mind, this hold that me and my partner are doing with his left
> hand my right hand ,  is supposed to be the same as the hold you use in
> this video of yours - (but in your case, your left hand and her right hand.)
> Maybe I didn't execute it properly, but it is what I intended:
>
> https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198
> Starts at 3:18.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Also, is anyone able to answer my question to Winston -
>
> Is it a given, due to something in the asymmetric nature of the hold, that
> in this video referenced by Allan -
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ0R5iHT-l8 
>    or in the photo I 
> shared above via Dropbox, that the Robin's arm will *always* go above the 
> Lark's arm?
>
> Or could the placement of the arms vary depending on the relative height of 
> the two dancing partners?
> (for example with a 6' tall Lark and a 5' tall Robin, would the Robin's arm 
> still be above the Lark's?
>
> Thanks all!
> Kat K in Halifax
>
> John Sweeney via Contra Callers 
> Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:23 AM
> Hi Kat,
> Yes, I thought you meant something like you show in your photo. When you
> mentioned Jeff's photo I did wonder, as it is what I call a Foreshortened
> Hold in my video and brings you closer together rather than further apart.
>
> I picked up the Foreshortened Hold from the cover of Zesty Contras and
> love it. I was surprised when I analysed the 600 dancers at a contra dance
> at The Flurry and realised that nobody else was using it!
>
> We tried your Modified Ballroom Hold Swing and didn't feel that it really
> worked. With my right arm underneath there didn't seem to be enough
> connection to have a really good swing unless Karen gripped my arm. I felt
> that my hand might slide down. With my right arm on top Karen felt that it
> was pulling on her shoulder even though I wasn't gripping - it was just
> awkward. So, sorry, but I won't be using that one.
>
> Re all the references to sore arms/hands/wrists/etc. The biggest problem
> is that people are told to "give weight". I don't want your weight! People
> misunderstand and lean back or sideways. If people control their own weight
> then all the connection has to do is counter centrifugal force and that it
> not a lot inless you spin really fast.
>
> I always start a Swing lesson by getting the dancers to Buzz on the spot
> BY THEMSELVES. Then when they connect they keep their own balance and
> weight.
>
> I have had major operations on both my shoulders (too much Repetitive
> Strain Injury from another style of dance that is taught badly, and then
> lots of Aerials: https://youtu.be/CJnL_Y63AnY?si=RqKHSw5MQmhiuI

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[becky.liddle--- via Contra Callers]

I can’t answer whether the robin's would always HAVE to go above the lark’s in 
the modified ballroom swing, but I would intuitively think that having that 
rule/understanding might make it easier for dancers to make the transition from 
ballroom to modified ballroom because the robin’s arm is always on top in 
standard ballroom swing. Also, the lark’s hand is typically cupped upwards with 
the robin’s hand above the lark’s in things like a balance or even a handhold 
in a circle move, so having the hand/arm orientations the same in the swing 
would also seem more intuitive to me if I were just learning this swing. 
Becky

> On Mar 16, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi John, thanks for all your comments. I like this swing at 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUiXStkCHGs from 0:05 to 0:15 - for spacing 
> -- and I'm going to introduce it at our next dance!  Though what I think 
> Becky found interesting about the variation we're working on is that it 
> retains the "pointy hands", which can be useful. 
> 
> The one thing that I was confused about when I read your message:  you say 
> when you tried the swing variation our group has been experimenting with 
> (visual at 
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0
>  ) 
> 
> -- you say that you found the grip insufficient, for the arms that are 
> holding just above the elbow.
> 
> But in my mind, this hold that me and my partner are doing with his left hand 
> my right hand ,  is supposed to be the same as the hold you use in this video 
> of yours - (but in your case, your left hand and her right hand.)
> Maybe I didn't execute it properly, but it is what I intended: 
>  https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198
> Starts at 3:18.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Also, is anyone able to answer my question to Winston - 
> 
> Is it a given, due to something in the asymmetric nature of the hold, that in 
> this video referenced by Allan -
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ0R5iHT-l8 
>    or in the photo I 
> shared above via Dropbox, that the Robin's arm will *always* go above the 
> Lark's arm?
> 
> Or could the placement of the arms vary depending on the relative height of 
> the two dancing partners?
> (for example with a 6' tall Lark and a 5' tall Robin, would the Robin's arm 
> still be above the Lark's? 
> 
> Thanks all!
> Kat K in Halifax
>> John Sweeney via Contra Callers 
>>  Thursday, March 14, 2024 7:23 
>> AM
>> Hi Kat,
>> Yes, I thought you meant something like you show in your photo. When you 
>> mentioned Jeff's photo I did wonder, as it is what I call a Foreshortened 
>> Hold in my video and brings you closer together rather than further apart.
>> 
>> I picked up the Foreshortened Hold from the cover of Zesty Contras and love 
>> it. I was surprised when I analysed the 600 dancers at a contra dance at The 
>> Flurry and realised that nobody else was using it!
>> 
>> We tried your Modified Ballroom Hold Swing and didn't feel that it really 
>> worked. With my right arm underneath there didn't seem to be enough 
>> connection to have a really good swing unless Karen gripped my arm. I felt 
>> that my hand might slide down. With my right arm on top Karen felt that it 
>> was pulling on her shoulder even though I wasn't gripping - it was just 
>> awkward. So, sorry, but I won't be using that one.
>> 
>> Re all the references to sore arms/hands/wrists/etc. The biggest problem is 
>> that people are told to "give weight". I don't want your weight! People 
>> misunderstand and lean back or sideways. If people control their own weight 
>> then all the connection has to do is counter centrifugal force and that it 
>> not a lot inless you spin really fast.
>> 
>> I always start a Swing lesson by getting the dancers to Buzz on the spot BY 
>> THEMSELVES. Then when they connect they keep their own balance and weight.
>> 
>> I have had major operations on both my shoulders (too much Repetitive Strain 
>> Injury from another style of dance that is taught badly, and then lots of 
>> Aerials: https://youtu.be/CJnL_Y63AnY?si=RqKHSw5MQmhiuIFT - maybe I 
>> shouldn't have started doing those in my fifties!). Anyway, I can't afford 
>> to let people damage my shoulders. With a good partner I can Swing at high 
>> speeds with no problem. Whenever someone leans back or sideways I just slow 
>> the Swing down and lessen my connection so that they have to take their own 
>> weight or fall over.
>> 
>> Anyway, if you can get everyone to keep their own weight you will find it is 
>> much less strain on your arm/hand/wrist.
>> 
>> The standard Quebecois Swing has the feet interleaved. They seem to do it 
>> without an

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[JJ via Contra Callers]

I personally plan to start teaching this modification as an option for a
swing in my beginner's lesson. I'm just curious as to whether there's a way
one can quickly signal that you'd like to do this modified swing instead of
the traditional ballroom... Like, if you want to ricochet through a Hey for
Four, you put your hands up in front of you; if you want to twirl/be
twirled, you raise your joined hands (and the other person can decide
whether to oblige or not). Is there a quick signal that allows one to
quickly get into this modified swing without needing a verbal discussion
about it?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:17 Becky Liddle via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In the discussion about some men being uncomfortable doing ballroom dance
> hold swing with other men, the modified ballroom hold (hand above elbow of
> partner instead of on robin’s shoulder) was mentioned.
>
> In this discussion, much has been said about men who don’t want to do
> ballroom hold with other men, but what nobody has mentioned yet is the
> scads of women (both straight and queer) who have long been uncomfortable
> dancing ballroom swing with men (or often just with particular men). *I
> am intrigued by this modified ballroom swing idea because it might solve
> many problems at once*.
>
> I have two simultaneous (and conflicting) emotional responses to men
> uncomfortable swinging with other men:
> The ungenerous one is: "As a lesbian I had to get over my discomfort
> swinging with you in order to participate in the joy of contra. If I can do
> it, you can do it." But more importantly (and more generously): *We’d
> like everyone to be as comfortable at contra dances as is reasonably
> feasible*. To that end, I am very interested in this idea of the modified
> ballroom hold. It might solve MANY different problems. Here are a few that
> come to mind:
>
> 1. The enforced intimacy problem: this is not just a problem with straight
> men being uncomfortable swinging with other men. There is a lot of forced
> intimacy in the ballroom hold. Maybe that intimacy is not the best thing to
> force on *anyone*?. Modified ballroom swing would help with the problem
> of not wanting enforced closeness/intimacy with others for all kinds of
> reasons: keeping distance from the lecherous dancer who uses the ballroom
> hold as an excuse for unwanted intimacy; but also simply to provide a bit
> of space for folks who simply aren’t comfortable being that close to
> ANYBODY. I recently struck up a conversation with a new dancer who was
> leaving early (because we need to know why we’re losing potential dancers)
> and she said “It just feels too intimate.” She didn’t say too intimate
> swinging with men or with women. Just “too intimate” and I got the definite
> feeling that it was the enforced close hold (with *everyone*) that was
> difficult for her. I wonder if we would have lost her if we used the
> modified ballroom swing (hand above elbow instead of on shoulder).
>
> 2. There are other difficulties with the ballroom hold: sometimes there is
> simply not enough room: short arms or large girth can make it difficult to
> reach the back of the shoulder of the other partner at times, and this
> leaves the Lark in the uncomfortable/dangerous position of “where do I put
> my hand now?” While trying to avoid the “accidental side boob graze” issue.
>
> 3. Speaking of which, is nobody else out there having trouble with this
> “side boob graze” problem with the ballroom hold? I’m a lesbian who dances
> the Lark role because of knee and hip issues. At least once/evening when
> moving into or out of the ballroom hold I accidentally graze the side of my
> partner’s breast. If I were straight I wouldn’t worry about it. But as a
> lesbian my mind always leaps to “what if she thinks I did that on purpose?” 
> *Do
> straight men not also have this problem?? Why is nobody talking about
> this??* If the robin is female-presenting, the back of the robin’s
> shoulder is dangerously close to the side of her breast. Which means (a)
> it’s easy for a sleaze to cop a feel and pass it off as an accident, and
> (b) it’s easy for a lesbian or straight man to truly accidentally graze and
> then worry that they’ll be *perceived *as a sleaze. The elbow hold would
> solve both of these problems.
>
> 4. The robin clamping down their arm problem: Larks, have you ever danced
> with a robin who clamps down their arm on your wrist during the swing?
> Again, elbow hold would solve this.
>
> 5. The problem of robins dancing backwards when swinging: I have never
> danced the modified ballroom hold, but I’d like to know from folks who do:
> does it solve the problem of many robins feeling like they need to dance
> backwards when swinging? On the occasions when I do dance robin (usually
> because I’m pairing with a newbie who is dancing lark) I often find myself
> skittering backwards in the swing, instead of both of us walking/dancing
> forward. I’m not experien

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[JJ via Contra Callers]

I think the neutral swing is pretty cool, and I want to give it a go myself
just for fun, but I have an aside:

On the one hand, nobody should be forced to touch someone they don't want
to touch, that's basic consent. And people have every right to refuse to
dance with someone they're uncomfortable with, and this style of swing is
one good method to make people more comfortable...
However, my spidey-senses tend to go off whenever I encounter a man who
doesn't want to swing with another man... My question to those men is:
what's going through your head when you swing with a woman? Is dancing so
sexualized for you that you think everyone is thinking sexual/romantic
thoughts about everyone they're swinging with? It just makes me concerned
for just about every woman a man has danced with when he reacts so
viscerally to a 10-second swing with another man. Nobody's asking you to
marry them, nobody's inviting you into their bed, we're literally just
there to dance and make friends. It gives me the ick.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:17 Becky Liddle via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In the discussion about some men being uncomfortable doing ballroom dance
> hold swing with other men, the modified ballroom hold (hand above elbow of
> partner instead of on robin’s shoulder) was mentioned.
>
> In this discussion, much has been said about men who don’t want to do
> ballroom hold with other men, but what nobody has mentioned yet is the
> scads of women (both straight and queer) who have long been uncomfortable
> dancing ballroom swing with men (or often just with particular men). *I
> am intrigued by this modified ballroom swing idea because it might solve
> many problems at once*.
>
> I have two simultaneous (and conflicting) emotional responses to men
> uncomfortable swinging with other men:
> The ungenerous one is: "As a lesbian I had to get over my discomfort
> swinging with you in order to participate in the joy of contra. If I can do
> it, you can do it." But more importantly (and more generously): *We’d
> like everyone to be as comfortable at contra dances as is reasonably
> feasible*. To that end, I am very interested in this idea of the modified
> ballroom hold. It might solve MANY different problems. Here are a few that
> come to mind:
>
> 1. The enforced intimacy problem: this is not just a problem with straight
> men being uncomfortable swinging with other men. There is a lot of forced
> intimacy in the ballroom hold. Maybe that intimacy is not the best thing to
> force on *anyone*?. Modified ballroom swing would help with the problem
> of not wanting enforced closeness/intimacy with others for all kinds of
> reasons: keeping distance from the lecherous dancer who uses the ballroom
> hold as an excuse for unwanted intimacy; but also simply to provide a bit
> of space for folks who simply aren’t comfortable being that close to
> ANYBODY. I recently struck up a conversation with a new dancer who was
> leaving early (because we need to know why we’re losing potential dancers)
> and she said “It just feels too intimate.” She didn’t say too intimate
> swinging with men or with women. Just “too intimate” and I got the definite
> feeling that it was the enforced close hold (with *everyone*) that was
> difficult for her. I wonder if we would have lost her if we used the
> modified ballroom swing (hand above elbow instead of on shoulder).
>
> 2. There are other difficulties with the ballroom hold: sometimes there is
> simply not enough room: short arms or large girth can make it difficult to
> reach the back of the shoulder of the other partner at times, and this
> leaves the Lark in the uncomfortable/dangerous position of “where do I put
> my hand now?” While trying to avoid the “accidental side boob graze” issue.
>
> 3. Speaking of which, is nobody else out there having trouble with this
> “side boob graze” problem with the ballroom hold? I’m a lesbian who dances
> the Lark role because of knee and hip issues. At least once/evening when
> moving into or out of the ballroom hold I accidentally graze the side of my
> partner’s breast. If I were straight I wouldn’t worry about it. But as a
> lesbian my mind always leaps to “what if she thinks I did that on purpose?” 
> *Do
> straight men not also have this problem?? Why is nobody talking about
> this??* If the robin is female-presenting, the back of the robin’s
> shoulder is dangerously close to the side of her breast. Which means (a)
> it’s easy for a sleaze to cop a feel and pass it off as an accident, and
> (b) it’s easy for a lesbian or straight man to truly accidentally graze and
> then worry that they’ll be *perceived *as a sleaze. The elbow hold would
> solve both of these problems.
>
> 4. The robin clamping down their arm problem: Larks, have you ever danced
> with a robin who clamps down their arm on your wrist during the swing?
> Again, elbow hold would solve this.
>
> 5. The problem of robins dancing backwards when swinging: I

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

Agreed!

Jeff

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:51 PM Winston, Alan P. 
wrote:

> Jeff --
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean that it was inherently impossible, but it is Not Good
> to have that as your default swing setting with everyone you come to in
> line and without any other communication.  There may also have been issues
> of alternating stepping forward and backward.
>
> -- Alan
>
> 
> From: Jeff Kaufman 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:36 PM
> To: Winston, Alan P.
> Cc: Katherine Kitching; Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
> Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more
> conversation and info
>
> "One of the reasons an ex of mine hated contra dancing was that she'd
> fully internalized the step-between-the-feet thing in foxtrot, one step,
> waltz, etc, and if you try to do that in a contra swing the results are
> somewhere between unsatisfactory and actively dangerous."
>
> I don't swing with feet-between-the-feet with most people, but with some
> it's just what feels right, and it can work very well.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:00 PM Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
> Katherine --
>
> I think that the way you were doing the ballroom swing before you modified
> it is not how most of the rest of us do it, and that this in itself
> produces some of the problems your modification solves.
>
> I'm sure under the impression that the 'standard' ballroom swing [*] has
> the robin's arm on top
>
> Here's a video (from the East Coast) whcih sure looks to me (from the West
> Coast) like how we do it out here.
>
> https://youtu.be/lQ0R5iHT-l8?si=OYKTgBXg0dLyKQza
>
> (Of course there has to be some adjustment for height difference, and you
> don't want a tall person having to bend way forward and then support a
> short person or a short person getting their shoulders stretched by
> reaching way up; your modification (robin's hand goes on upper arm rather
> than shoulder blade) is sometimes the best solution for height differences
> even when the default hold is 'standard' as shown in the video.
>
> Please try the 'standard' hold with your husband and see if it's any
> better for you that what you were using..  And then we can at least all be
> talking about the same thing.
>
> I say "some of the problems" because I think the appropriate solution for
> creepy dancers lies in counseling or ejecting them rather than in changing
> the hold, because creepy guys gonna creep regardless of the hold.  It's
> really only a solution for people who are dancing too close for comfort and
> don't realize it, and I think the solution for that is for people they are
> making uncomfortable to either tell them or tell management and have
> management tell them.
>
> I  don't see why in either hold anybody should be grabbing you by the
> waist.  I also think that there's going to be some irreducible minimum of
> innocent / unintended boob and butt grazes, especially among unsure dancers
> - the chances of a new dancer in a courtesy turn having their
> behind-the-back hand in an unexpected place and the other person, trying to
> take that hand (which they can't even see, by the way)  is going to end up
> putting their hand on hip, waist, or butt.;  Do you want to change the
> courtesy turn hold to avoid that?  Because you don't have to interoperate
> with other dances, you could change the courtesy turn hold into a
> hands-in-front promenade hold and avoid that risk)
>
> On a pedantic note, I've been having trouble understanding the hold before
> you posted the picture, because "modified ballroom swing" is, as I recall,
> what Larry Jennings ("Zesty Contras", "Give and Take") called what we've
> been calling the ballroom hold because it's a modification of the position
> for ballroom dances like waltz and polka, that modification being that the
> inside of the feet being square-on to partner, or slightly offset so that
> you intentionally step between your partner's feet; when you're in the
> ballroom-dance hold, of course to rotate you alternate stepping forward and
> stepping backward.  Modified to fully offset, you both step forward the
> whole time.
>
> (One of the reasons an ex of mine hated contra dancing was that she'd
> fully internalized the step-between-the-feet thing in foxtrot, one step,
> waltz, etc, and if you try to do that in a contra swing the results are
> somewhere between unsatisfactory and actively d

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers]

Jeff --

Sorry, I didn't mean that it was inherently impossible, but it is Not Good to 
have that as your default swing setting with everyone you come to in line and 
without any other communication.  There may also have been issues of 
alternating stepping forward and backward.

-- Alan


From: Jeff Kaufman 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Winston, Alan P.
Cc: Katherine Kitching; Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
Subject: Re: [Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more 
conversation and info

"One of the reasons an ex of mine hated contra dancing was that she'd fully 
internalized the step-between-the-feet thing in foxtrot, one step, waltz, etc, 
and if you try to do that in a contra swing the results are somewhere between 
unsatisfactory and actively dangerous."

I don't swing with feet-between-the-feet with most people, but with some it's 
just what feels right, and it can work very well.

Jeff

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:00 PM Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers 
mailto:contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
 wrote:
Katherine --

I think that the way you were doing the ballroom swing before you modified it 
is not how most of the rest of us do it, and that this in itself produces some 
of the problems your modification solves.

I'm sure under the impression that the 'standard' ballroom swing [*] has the 
robin's arm on top

Here's a video (from the East Coast) whcih sure looks to me (from the West 
Coast) like how we do it out here.

https://youtu.be/lQ0R5iHT-l8?si=OYKTgBXg0dLyKQza

(Of course there has to be some adjustment for height difference, and you don't 
want a tall person having to bend way forward and then support a short person 
or a short person getting their shoulders stretched by reaching way up; your 
modification (robin's hand goes on upper arm rather than shoulder blade) is 
sometimes the best solution for height differences even when the default hold 
is 'standard' as shown in the video.

Please try the 'standard' hold with your husband and see if it's any better for 
you that what you were using..  And then we can at least all be talking about 
the same thing.

I say "some of the problems" because I think the appropriate solution for 
creepy dancers lies in counseling or ejecting them rather than in changing the 
hold, because creepy guys gonna creep regardless of the hold.  It's really only 
a solution for people who are dancing too close for comfort and don't realize 
it, and I think the solution for that is for people they are making 
uncomfortable to either tell them or tell management and have management tell 
them.

I  don't see why in either hold anybody should be grabbing you by the waist.  I 
also think that there's going to be some irreducible minimum of innocent / 
unintended boob and butt grazes, especially among unsure dancers - the chances 
of a new dancer in a courtesy turn having their behind-the-back hand in an 
unexpected place and the other person, trying to take that hand (which they 
can't even see, by the way)  is going to end up putting their hand on hip, 
waist, or butt.;  Do you want to change the courtesy turn hold to avoid that?  
Because you don't have to interoperate with other dances, you could change the 
courtesy turn hold into a hands-in-front promenade hold and avoid that risk)

On a pedantic note, I've been having trouble understanding the hold before you 
posted the picture, because "modified ballroom swing" is, as I recall, what 
Larry Jennings ("Zesty Contras", "Give and Take") called what we've been 
calling the ballroom hold because it's a modification of the position for 
ballroom dances like waltz and polka, that modification being that the inside 
of the feet being square-on to partner, or slightly offset so that you 
intentionally step between your partner's feet; when you're in the 
ballroom-dance hold, of course to rotate you alternate stepping forward and 
stepping backward.  Modified to fully offset, you both step forward the whole 
time.

(One of the reasons an ex of mine hated contra dancing was that she'd fully 
internalized the step-between-the-feet thing in foxtrot, one step, waltz, etc, 
and if you try to do that in a contra swing the results are somewhere between 
unsatisfactory and actively dangerous.)

Anyway, as a result, the arm that goes to the partner's shoulderblade is 
necessarily stretched to some degree across the front of your partner's body - 
more stretched if your and your partner's feet are further apart, less 
stretched if they're closer together - and it's much easier for that arm to 
contact the front of the partner's body somewhere in the boob area than it is n 
a square-on ballroom hold.

As far as I can tell -having 

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers]

earm-boob interaction is, counterintuitively, unhelpful so
> long as you're keeping the shoulder contact  - you want to keep your
> distance so you keep your feet further away, and that changes the angle,
> reducing the clearance between arm and boob.  Or you want to pull the
> shoulder near the grazed boob back -recoil from the touch, or whatever -
> and that also makes it worse because it changes the angle and brings more
> boob surface into contact with the arm.  Counterintuitively, adjusting
> things so that the pointy-end side is farther apart helps by increasing
> clearance on the blunt-end side where the boob contact is happening because
> it brings you closer to square-on, reducing the arm-boob a
>  ttack surface.
>
> -- Alan (hoping this doesn't completely come across as mansplaining)
>
> 
> From: Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
> contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 2:27 PM
> To: Katherine Kitching
> Cc: Jeff Kaufman via Contra Callers
> Subject: [Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more
> conversation and info
>
> Sorry everyone - I am clearly not the global authority on this hold, just
> yet!! :D
>
>  I just tested this out at home with my (life) partner and realized
> something unexpected-
>
> In the case of me and my partner dancing, it was actually better for both
> of us if his arm went below mine even though he is taller-  I guess because
> he is taller, his upper arm is also longer, so somehow it still made sense
> for my arm to go on top. (If anyone thinks they can better explain the
> physics/physiology of this, be my guest!)
>
> Anyhow we got a photo - he is camera-shy and made me crop out his face,
> but I think you can view it here - let me know if any issues.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0
>
> Let's call this hold a "work in progress" from us at Halifax Contra
> Dances- seems we are still sorting out some details!! :)
>
> Kat K
> Katherine Kitching<mailto:k...@outdooractive.ca>
> Wednesday, March 13, 2024 6:09 PM
> whoops whoops!! sorry, correction on that.
>
> the photo on Jeff's page shows the arms that are closest to the viewer, in
> the photo, in a similar position to what my group has been using.
>
> But I just noticed the dancer's other arms are not hand-in-hand, like my
> group does it.
> Darn :)
>
> We would still have Lark's Left hand in Raven's Right hand.
>
> KK
>
>
>
> ___
> Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net
>
___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

Do you mean this one:
https://youtu.be/yUbi1B2Edk0?si=HL-3jgI95LtGZBQ_&t=198

Starts at 3:18.

It is the one from the cover of Zesty Contras!

My favourite Ballroom-Hold position as It gives more connection, brings your
shoulders more parallel, and gets you closer together so that you can spin
faster!

    Happy dancing,
   John 

John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802
940 574
http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   


___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Winston, Alan P. via Contra Callers]

Katherine --

I think that the way you were doing the ballroom swing before you modified it 
is not how most of the rest of us do it, and that this in itself produces some 
of the problems your modification solves.

I'm sure under the impression that the 'standard' ballroom swing [*] has the 
robin's arm on top

Here's a video (from the East Coast) whcih sure looks to me (from the West 
Coast) like how we do it out here.

https://youtu.be/lQ0R5iHT-l8?si=OYKTgBXg0dLyKQza

(Of course there has to be some adjustment for height difference, and you don't 
want a tall person having to bend way forward and then support a short person 
or a short person getting their shoulders stretched by reaching way up; your 
modification (robin's hand goes on upper arm rather than shoulder blade) is 
sometimes the best solution for height differences even when the default hold 
is 'standard' as shown in the video.

Please try the 'standard' hold with your husband and see if it's any better for 
you that what you were using..  And then we can at least all be talking about 
the same thing.

I say "some of the problems" because I think the appropriate solution for 
creepy dancers lies in counseling or ejecting them rather than in changing the 
hold, because creepy guys gonna creep regardless of the hold.  It's really only 
a solution for people who are dancing too close for comfort and don't realize 
it, and I think the solution for that is for people they are making 
uncomfortable to either tell them or tell management and have management tell 
them.

I  don't see why in either hold anybody should be grabbing you by the waist.  I 
also think that there's going to be some irreducible minimum of innocent / 
unintended boob and butt grazes, especially among unsure dancers - the chances 
of a new dancer in a courtesy turn having their behind-the-back hand in an 
unexpected place and the other person, trying to take that hand (which they 
can't even see, by the way)  is going to end up putting their hand on hip, 
waist, or butt.;  Do you want to change the courtesy turn hold to avoid that?  
Because you don't have to interoperate with other dances, you could change the 
courtesy turn hold into a hands-in-front promenade hold and avoid that risk)

On a pedantic note, I've been having trouble understanding the hold before you 
posted the picture, because "modified ballroom swing" is, as I recall, what 
Larry Jennings ("Zesty Contras", "Give and Take") called what we've been 
calling the ballroom hold because it's a modification of the position for 
ballroom dances like waltz and polka, that modification being that the inside 
of the feet being square-on to partner, or slightly offset so that you 
intentionally step between your partner's feet; when you're in the 
ballroom-dance hold, of course to rotate you alternate stepping forward and 
stepping backward.  Modified to fully offset, you both step forward the whole 
time.

(One of the reasons an ex of mine hated contra dancing was that she'd fully 
internalized the step-between-the-feet thing in foxtrot, one step, waltz, etc, 
and if you try to do that in a contra swing the results are somewhere between 
unsatisfactory and actively dangerous.)

Anyway, as a result, the arm that goes to the partner's shoulderblade is 
necessarily stretched to some degree across the front of your partner's body - 
more stretched if your and your partner's feet are further apart, less 
stretched if they're closer together - and it's much easier for that arm to 
contact the front of the partner's body somewhere in the boob area than it is n 
a square-on ballroom hold.

As far as I can tell -having only fairly-small man boobs -  you can manage to 
reduce the impact by adjusting the angle at which partners are facing and how 
close your the right side of your right foot is to the right side of theirs.  
All the stuff that you'd naturally want to do to avoid unintended forearm-boob 
interaction is, counterintuitively, unhelpful so long as you're keeping the 
shoulder contact  - you want to keep your distance so you keep your feet 
further away, and that changes the angle, reducing the clearance between arm 
and boob.  Or you want to pull the shoulder near the grazed boob back -recoil 
from the touch, or whatever - and that also makes it worse because it changes 
the angle and brings more boob surface into contact with the arm.  
Counterintuitively, adjusting things so that the pointy-end side is farther 
apart helps by increasing clearance on the blunt-end side where the boob 
contact is happening because it brings you closer to square-on, reducing the 
arm-boob a
 ttack surface.

-- Alan (hoping this doesn't completely come across as mansplaining)

____________
From: Kat

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers]

Sorry everyone - I am clearly not the global authority on this hold, 
just yet!! :D


 I just tested this out at home with my (life) partner and realized 
something unexpected-


In the case of me and my partner dancing, it was actually better for 
both of us if his arm went below mine even though he is taller-  I guess 
because he is taller, his upper arm is also longer, so somehow it still 
made sense for my arm to go on top. (If anyone thinks they can better 
explain the physics/physiology of this, be my guest!)


Anyhow we got a photo - he is camera-shy and made me crop out his face, 
but I think you can view it here - let me know if any issues.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ebotfe2jksbr3dqbjyiuf/Modified-Ballroom-Swing-elbow-hold.jpg?rlkey=ekblzvpc2tk2hkbtfrh9u96au&dl=0

Let's call this hold a "work in progress" from us at Halifax Contra 
Dances- seems we are still sorting out some details!! :)


Kat K

Katherine Kitching 
Wednesday, March 13, 2024 6:09 PM
whoops whoops!! sorry, correction on that.

the photo on Jeff's page shows the arms that are closest to the 
viewer, in the photo, in a similar position to what my group has been 
using.


But I just noticed the dancer's other arms are not hand-in-hand, like 
my group does it.

Darn :)

We would still have Lark's Left hand in Raven's Right hand.

KK




___
Contra Callers mailing list -- contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
To unsubscribe send an email to contracallers-le...@lists.sharedweight.net

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Julian Blechner via Contra Callers]

I would love to read elaboration / articulation on why a ballroom hold
feels more "intimate" than other holds?

Is it a matter of the historical social attachment we have in our minds
with couples dances that use the hold, and romance in our culture?

Is it a physical proximity? (I find ceilidh holds to be closer, crossed
arms has my hands bearish their belly which has its own intimacy to me,
though sometimes barrel holds can be done with a bit more space - though I
wouldn't say the default)

Is it something else?

Maybe if we looked at the why, it'd give insight to what a solution to an
alternate swing hold and/or an adjusted mindset might entail?

In dance,
Julian Blechner
He/him
Western Mass

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 11:20 AM Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Hello!
> I was the one who suggested the modified ballroom swing, and I'm going to
> respond here to both some of Becky and Jerome's and John's questions/
> thoughts.
>
> Women's discomfort in conventional ballroom hold
> I did actually mention in my initial email that as a cisgender woman, I
> have really appreciated the additional space that the modified ballroom
> hold creates between me and the men I dance with.
> Actually as a not particularly touchy-feely human being, I appreciate the
> additional space it creates between me and anyone I dance with!
> But I have especially appreciated the space between me and any male
> partner.
>
> Interestingly, I didn't think about it too much in the past.  I was fairly
> comfortable swinging with anyone, and our group has a good vibe so there
> isn't much creepiness.  I felt fine with the conventional ballroom swing.
> But -- now that we have implemented the modified ballroom hold as the
> standard with all neighbours and also as the standard with a partner if you
> don't discuss otherwise, it's been *very* interesting
> I've sometimes swung with a male partner who decides to use conventional
> ballroom without discussing it --and  I suddenly feel VERY claustrophobic
> about it!
> I will usually say to them when I get a chance - "let's remember to use
> the elbow-hold now!" - and as soon as they do, I  instantly breath a sigh
> of relief.  It just feels way more comfortable to me.  Without exception.
>
> -- (and to give these fellows who launch right into conventional ballroom
> hold the benefit of the doubt- they tend to be our longest-term dancers and
> it I think in a lot of cases they just have a hard time re-programming - we
> have only been doing the modified ballroom for about 6 months, and not
> everyone comes to every dance. I'm giving them time to get used to the new
> normal.   That said, I am pretty sure there are few men who think, "oh, she
> is a caller, she is an experienced dancer, she will be happy to swing
> closely with me!" .  I have this idea because a few of them seem to roll
> their eyes a bit when I remind them that I prefer to dance with the new
> modified hold :D  Incidentally this has never happened with a female
> partner)...
>
> Inadvertent "boob touching"
> This is not something I have ever heard of before in the swing, but
> someone did bring it up a few dances ago when we tried to use a modified,
> more role-symmetrical hold for the courtesy turn, with both hands crossed
> in front.  One of our longtime and larger-busted female dancers told me
> that this was *not* going to work, due to all the inadvertent boob touching
> that happened to her when her partners were getting into position.  So we
> canned that idea! :)  And it made me more aware of this issue as something
> to watch out for.
> Thanks for drawing attention to it as a potential aspect of the swing.
>
>
> Robins arm-clamping and robins feeling like they have to skitter backwards
> I haven't consciously encountered either of these issues but look forward
> to hearing more.
>
> (Jerome's point) - Signalling which flavour of swing to use?
> So in our community, we have just made it clear that this modified
> ballroom hold is now the new standard.
> So, that means for every neighbour you meet, this is how you swing with
> them.
> And with your partner, this is what is expected --unless the two of you
> have a consensual conversation and decide on something else.
>
> (and sometimes for fun we do show partway through the dance, some other
> swing holds that partners may like to experiment with, if they are
> comfortable with each other. John S's page has been very helpful in this
> regard!! Thank you John :) )
>
> Of course, if two neighbours meet each other in the line and they know
> each other well (e.g. maybe they are spouses!), they may spontaneously do
> something else becauuse they know each other well enough to feel that out
> on the spot.  But we make it  very clear that you should not assume that
> your neighbour or partner wants to do something other than the standard
> hold, unless you have an explicit discussion.  Since that's not really
> feasibl

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Katherine Kitching via Contra Callers]

Hello!
I was the one who suggested the modified ballroom swing, and I'm going 
to respond here to both some of Becky and Jerome's and John's questions/ 
thoughts.


Women's discomfort in conventional ballroom hold
I did actually mention in my initial email that as a cisgender woman, I 
have really appreciated the additional space that the modified ballroom 
hold creates between me and the men I dance with.
Actually as a not particularly touchy-feely human being, I appreciate 
the additional space it creates between me and anyone I dance with!

But I have especially appreciated the space between me and any male partner.

Interestingly, I didn't think about it too much in the past.  I was 
fairly comfortable swinging with anyone, and our group has a good vibe 
so there isn't much creepiness.  I felt fine with the conventional 
ballroom swing.
But -- now that we have implemented the modified ballroom hold as the 
standard with all neighbours and also as the standard with a partner if 
you don't discuss otherwise, it's been *very* interesting
I've sometimes swung with a male partner who decides to use conventional 
ballroom without discussing it --and  I suddenly feel VERY 
claustrophobic about it!
I will usually say to them when I get a chance - "let's remember to use 
the elbow-hold now!" - and as soon as they do, I  instantly breath a 
sigh of relief.  It just feels way more comfortable to me.  Without 
exception.


-- (and to give these fellows who launch right into conventional 
ballroom hold the benefit of the doubt- they tend to be our longest-term 
dancers and it I think in a lot of cases they just have a hard time 
re-programming - we have only been doing the modified ballroom for about 
6 months, and not everyone comes to every dance. I'm giving them time to 
get used to the new normal.   That said, I am pretty sure there are few 
men who think, "oh, she is a caller, she is an experienced dancer, she 
will be happy to swing closely with me!" .  I have this idea because a 
few of them seem to roll their eyes a bit when I remind them that I 
prefer to dance with the new modified hold :D  Incidentally this has 
never happened with a female partner)...


Inadvertent "boob touching"
This is not something I have ever heard of before in the swing, but 
someone did bring it up a few dances ago when we tried to use a 
modified, more role-symmetrical hold for the courtesy turn, with both 
hands crossed in front.  One of our longtime and larger-busted female 
dancers told me that this was *not* going to work, due to all the 
inadvertent boob touching that happened to her when her partners were 
getting into position.  So we canned that idea! :)  And it made me more 
aware of this issue as something to watch out for.

Thanks for drawing attention to it as a potential aspect of the swing.


Robins arm-clamping and robins feeling like they have to skitter backwards
I haven't consciously encountered either of these issues but look 
forward to hearing more.


(Jerome's point) -Signalling which flavour of swing to use?
So in our community, we have just made it clear that this modified 
ballroom hold is now the new standard.
So, that means for every neighbour you meet, this is how you swing with 
them.
And with your partner, this is what is expected --unless the two of you 
have a consensual conversation and decide on something else.


(and sometimes for fun we do show partway through the dance, some other 
swing holds that partners may like to experiment with, if they are 
comfortablewith each other. John S's page has been very helpful in this 
regard!! Thank you John :) )


Of course, if two neighbours meet each other in the line and they know 
each other well (e.g. maybe they are spouses!), they may spontaneously 
do something else becauuse they know each other well enough to feel that 
out on the spot.  But we make it  very clear that you should not assume 
that your neighbour or partner wants to do something other than the 
standard hold, unless you have an explicit discussion.  Since that's not 
really feasible with neighbours, it means that neighbours in almost all 
cases are going to swing with the modified ballroom and that is that :)


Regarding John's request to get a visual of this hold
- i'll be curious if anyone else on this list is using this new hold, or 
if it is just us in Halifax.


I can't even remember now how we came up with the idea.  It may have 
been through our own experimenting.  A bunch of us have been chatting 
after some dances about how we can make our figures as 
gender-neutral/symmetrical as possible, and we have been trying out all 
sorts of different swing holds to see what might work best for us. 
Sometimes we start with one of John's examples and then see how it might 
be modified if it feels too close.    As I suggested above, we've also 
been trying to figure out more symmetrical-hold courtesy-turn 
alternatives (for robins and larks chains) but so far haven't found a 
s

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[John Sweeney via Contra Callers]

Hi all,

  The Swing Workshop videos are all available at 
http://contrafusion.co.uk/SwingWorkshop.html - 20 variations!  Plus lots of 
hints and tips on good technique, and how to signal or initiate a certain type 
of Swing.  At the bottom of that page you will find links to more articles 
about Swings.

 

  I would never recommend that the person who’s arm is on top 
(Raven/Lady) tries to reach the shoulder blade.  The lower arm can easily reach 
the shoulder blade, the upper arm can’t.  It is just basic physics.  Lots more 
on that subject at http://contrafusion.co.uk/LadysLeftHand.html

 

  If both people relax and the left-hand person connects with their 
hand on the right-hand person’s shoulder blade then that is enough connection 
for a good Swing.  I always emphasise that you PLACE your hand on the shoulder 
blade, you don’t put pressure on it, or pull it towards you.  Centrifugal force 
will do that anyway if you build up enough speed.

 

  The failure to relax and putting pressure on any other part of 
your partner (hang, squeeze, clamp, grip) are what cause most problems.  I 
start every Swing Workshop for experienced dancers with asking them to relax 
and then telling their partner about anything that is causing pressure or 
discomfort.  Many experienced dancers need this!

 

  I hope some of that helps.

 

  Please could someone post a picture or video of the modified 
ballroom hold that is being discussed?  Or send it to me and I will add it to 
my Web site with a link so that people can see it.

 

  Thanks. 

 

Happy dancing,

   John   



John Sweeney, Dancer, England   j...@modernjive.com 01233 625 362 & 07802 940 
574

http://www.contrafusion.co.uk for Dancing in Kent   
   

 

From: Becky Liddle via Contra Callers  
Sent: 13 March 2024 14:17
To: contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation 
and info

 

In the discussion about some men being uncomfortable doing ballroom dance hold 
swing with other men, the modified ballroom hold (hand above elbow of partner 
instead of on robin’s shoulder) was mentioned. 

 

In this discussion, much has been said about men who don’t want to do ballroom 
hold with other men, but what nobody has mentioned yet is the scads of women 
(both straight and queer) who have long been uncomfortable dancing ballroom 
swing with men (or often just with particular men). I am intrigued by this 
modified ballroom swing idea because it might solve many problems at once. 

 

I have two simultaneous (and conflicting) emotional responses to men 
uncomfortable swinging with other men:

The ungenerous one is: "As a lesbian I had to get over my discomfort swinging 
with you in order to participate in the joy of contra. If I can do it, you can 
do it." But more importantly (and more generously): We’d like everyone to be as 
comfortable at contra dances as is reasonably feasible. To that end, I am very 
interested in this idea of the modified ballroom hold. It might solve MANY 
different problems. Here are a few that come to mind:

 

1. The enforced intimacy problem: this is not just a problem with straight men 
being uncomfortable swinging with other men. There is a lot of forced intimacy 
in the ballroom hold. Maybe that intimacy is not the best thing to force on 
anyone?. Modified ballroom swing would help with the problem of not wanting 
enforced closeness/intimacy with others for all kinds of reasons: keeping 
distance from the lecherous dancer who uses the ballroom hold as an excuse for 
unwanted intimacy; but also simply to provide a bit of space for folks who 
simply aren’t comfortable being that close to ANYBODY. I recently struck up a 
conversation with a new dancer who was leaving early (because we need to know 
why we’re losing potential dancers) and she said “It just feels too intimate.” 
She didn’t say too intimate swinging with men or with women. Just “too 
intimate” and I got the definite feeling that it was the enforced close hold 
(with everyone) that was difficult for her. I wonder if we would have lost her 
if we used the modified ballroom swing (hand above elbow instead of on 
shoulder). 

 

2. There are other difficulties with the ballroom hold: sometimes there is 
simply not enough room: short arms or large girth can make it difficult to 
reach the back of the shoulder of the other partner at times, and this leaves 
the Lark in the uncomfortable/dangerous position of “where do I put my hand 
now?” While trying to avoid the “accidental side boob graze” issue. 

 

3. Speaking of which, is nobody else out there having trouble with this “side 
boob graze” problem with the ballroom hold? I’m a lesbian who dances the Lark 
role because of knee and hip issues. At least once/even

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Jerome Grisanti via Contra Callers]

One challenge is implementation: if the whole group learned the same swing
position, symmetrical or asymmetrical, from scratch, your proposal would
not be a problem unless/until your dancers visited other dances — and even
then. perhaps not a big issue.

In a community with mixed crowds (both experienced and newcomers), dancers
would need to signal which flavor of swing they wanted. And what about
folks with two different preferences meeting for a neighbor swing?

So developing those signals, and defaults, would be my focus. As for the
swing itself, I believe John Sweeny or one of the other UK members of the
list has a video catalog of various swings on a website. Good teaching tips
too.

Jerome


On Wed, Mar 13, 2024, 10:17 AM Becky Liddle via Contra Callers <
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> In the discussion about some men being uncomfortable doing ballroom dance
> hold swing with other men, the modified ballroom hold (hand above elbow of
> partner instead of on robin’s shoulder) was mentioned.
>
> In this discussion, much has been said about men who don’t want to do
> ballroom hold with other men, but what nobody has mentioned yet is the
> scads of women (both straight and queer) who have long been uncomfortable
> dancing ballroom swing with men (or often just with particular men). *I
> am intrigued by this modified ballroom swing idea because it might solve
> many problems at once*.
>
> I have two simultaneous (and conflicting) emotional responses to men
> uncomfortable swinging with other men:
> The ungenerous one is: "As a lesbian I had to get over my discomfort
> swinging with you in order to participate in the joy of contra. If I can do
> it, you can do it." But more importantly (and more generously): *We’d
> like everyone to be as comfortable at contra dances as is reasonably
> feasible*. To that end, I am very interested in this idea of the modified
> ballroom hold. It might solve MANY different problems. Here are a few that
> come to mind:
>
> 1. The enforced intimacy problem: this is not just a problem with straight
> men being uncomfortable swinging with other men. There is a lot of forced
> intimacy in the ballroom hold. Maybe that intimacy is not the best thing to
> force on *anyone*?. Modified ballroom swing would help with the problem
> of not wanting enforced closeness/intimacy with others for all kinds of
> reasons: keeping distance from the lecherous dancer who uses the ballroom
> hold as an excuse for unwanted intimacy; but also simply to provide a bit
> of space for folks who simply aren’t comfortable being that close to
> ANYBODY. I recently struck up a conversation with a new dancer who was
> leaving early (because we need to know why we’re losing potential dancers)
> and she said “It just feels too intimate.” She didn’t say too intimate
> swinging with men or with women. Just “too intimate” and I got the definite
> feeling that it was the enforced close hold (with *everyone*) that was
> difficult for her. I wonder if we would have lost her if we used the
> modified ballroom swing (hand above elbow instead of on shoulder).
>
> 2. There are other difficulties with the ballroom hold: sometimes there is
> simply not enough room: short arms or large girth can make it difficult to
> reach the back of the shoulder of the other partner at times, and this
> leaves the Lark in the uncomfortable/dangerous position of “where do I put
> my hand now?” While trying to avoid the “accidental side boob graze” issue.
>
> 3. Speaking of which, is nobody else out there having trouble with this
> “side boob graze” problem with the ballroom hold? I’m a lesbian who dances
> the Lark role because of knee and hip issues. At least once/evening when
> moving into or out of the ballroom hold I accidentally graze the side of my
> partner’s breast. If I were straight I wouldn’t worry about it. But as a
> lesbian my mind always leaps to “what if she thinks I did that on purpose?” 
> *Do
> straight men not also have this problem?? Why is nobody talking about
> this??* If the robin is female-presenting, the back of the robin’s
> shoulder is dangerously close to the side of her breast. Which means (a)
> it’s easy for a sleaze to cop a feel and pass it off as an accident, and
> (b) it’s easy for a lesbian or straight man to truly accidentally graze and
> then worry that they’ll be *perceived *as a sleaze. The elbow hold would
> solve both of these problems.
>
> 4. The robin clamping down their arm problem: Larks, have you ever danced
> with a robin who clamps down their arm on your wrist during the swing?
> Again, elbow hold would solve this.
>
> 5. The problem of robins dancing backwards when swinging: I have never
> danced the modified ballroom hold, but I’d like to know from folks who do:
> does it solve the problem of many robins feeling like they need to dance
> backwards when swinging? On the occasions when I do dance robin (usually
> because I’m pairing with a newbie who is dancing lark) I ofte

[Callers] Re: Modified ballroom swing position: seeking more conversation and info

[Perry Shafran via Contra Callers]

 Hi, Becky,
This is one that without a good visual to know exactly what this means, I'm not 
sure I like this.  The reason why people are taught to put a hand on the 
shoulder blade is that the shoulder blade is a good solid part of the body to 
put a flat hand and provide the weight to go around in a satisfying swing.  I 
can't imagine this "hand above elbow" thing.  I *have* seen the hand below 
elbow thing, though, but I feel that putting weight on the elbow is more likely 
to cause injury than on the shoulder blade, especially if you are pushing 
upwards on a bent elbow.  I'm guessing that what you are describing is 
something different than I am imagining.  
As for the boob problem, that is something that I feel can be solved by good 
swing technique.  My main issue is when you swing, the hips should be side to 
side, but the torso is should still be somewhat square so that my arm doesn't 
go across the breast.  And as a man I make great effort not to brush against 
anyone's breast by going around as best as I can, by going all the way around 
to the back of the shoulder.  And those times when I do brush against the 
breast, I apologize profusely, and most people are understanding, as the 
apology shows that I'm not there to grope.  

I *think* a lot of people can tell the difference between a grope and accident, 
but I'm probably wrong about this.  I'd like to hear some more thoughts from 
other people on this.  It would be good to know what to do to help prevent 
accidental boob touching.  
Perry
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 10:17:30 AM EDT, Becky Liddle via Contra 
Callers  wrote:  
 
 In the discussion about some men being uncomfortable doing ballroom dance hold 
swing with other men, the modified ballroom hold (hand above elbow of partner 
instead of on robin’s shoulder) was mentioned. 
In this discussion, much has been said about men who don’t want to do ballroom 
hold with other men, but what nobody has mentioned yet is the scads of women 
(both straight and queer) who have long been uncomfortable dancing ballroom 
swing with men (or often just with particular men). I am intrigued by this 
modified ballroom swing idea because it might solve many problems at once. 
I have two simultaneous (and conflicting) emotional responses to men 
uncomfortable swinging with other men:The ungenerous one is: "As a lesbian I 
had to get over my discomfort swinging with you in order to participate in the 
joy of contra. If I can do it, you can do it." But more importantly (and more 
generously): We’d like everyone to be as comfortable at contra dances as is 
reasonably feasible. To that end, I am very interested in this idea of the 
modified ballroom hold. It might solve MANY different problems. Here are a few 
that come to mind:
1. The enforced intimacy problem: this is not just a problem with straight men 
being uncomfortable swinging with other men. There is a lot of forced intimacy 
in the ballroom hold. Maybe that intimacy is not the best thing to force on 
anyone?. Modified ballroom swing would help with the problem of not wanting 
enforced closeness/intimacy with others for all kinds of reasons: keeping 
distance from the lecherous dancer who uses the ballroom hold as an excuse for 
unwanted intimacy; but also simply to provide a bit of space for folks who 
simply aren’t comfortable being that close to ANYBODY. I recently struck up a 
conversation with a new dancer who was leaving early (because we need to know 
why we’re losing potential dancers) and she said “It just feels too intimate.” 
She didn’t say too intimate swinging with men or with women. Just “too 
intimate” and I got the definite feeling that it was the enforced close hold 
(with everyone) that was difficult for her. I wonder if we would have lost her 
if we used the modified ballroom swing (hand above elbow instead of on 
shoulder). 
2. There are other difficulties with the ballroom hold: sometimes there is 
simply not enough room: short arms or large girth can make it difficult to 
reach the back of the shoulder of the other partner at times, and this leaves 
the Lark in the uncomfortable/dangerous position of “where do I put my hand 
now?” While trying to avoid the “accidental side boob graze” issue. 
3. Speaking of which, is nobody else out there having trouble with this “side 
boob graze” problem with the ballroom hold? I’m a lesbian who dances the Lark 
role because of knee and hip issues. At least once/evening when moving into or 
out of the ballroom hold I accidentally graze the side of my partner’s breast. 
If I were straight I wouldn’t worry about it. But as a lesbian my mind always 
leaps to “what if she thinks I did that on purpose?” Do straight men not also 
have this problem?? Why is nobody talking about this?? If the robin is 
female-presenting, the back of the robin’s shoulder is dangerously close to the 
side of her breast. Which means (a) it’s easy for a sleaze to cop a feel and 
pass it off as an accident, and (b) i