Difference between Runs & Progressives

[katz in boots]

I've searched, found discussions on difference between progressives & crossovers, but what is the difference between a run & a progressive? Some people seem to use the terms interchangeably.

In the Dutch Waltz, both are mentioned. The first thing done is a Run, but later on there are what appear to be the same steps but are called Progressives, and the last one of these type of steps is called a Run again.

I can't believe ISA (Australia) would call them the two different terms if they weren't somehow different steps.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[katz in boots]

Well, should have researched further before posting this.:roll:

In both the USFS and the ISA manuals, it appears that runs & progressives are, in fact, the same thing.

Why on earth would they refer to the same step by two different names on an official dance pattern diagram and description?

[dbny]

The full term is "progressive run" meaning a series of three strokes consisting of a FO edge, progressive style crossover, FO edge. For short, this is called a "run". You can do any number of consecutive progressives, but it is only a progressive run when you do the specific three steps. To indicate a progressive run orally (e.g. on the ice to a student learning a pattern), one says simply "run, run, run."

[phoenix]

To indicate a progressive run orally (e.g. on the ice to a student learning a pattern), one says simply "run, run, run."

A bit OT coach's note: I always tell them to say one syllable of the word as they do each of the three steps: Pro...gress...ive which helps them to remember to take three, and only three steps.

[aussieskater]

But if a run must have 3 steps, how does it fit that when doing a series of runs, the FO edge which ends the first run is the same FO edge which begins the second? Is the FO edge somehow "double counted"?

[slusher]

We call a run any series of progressive steps. It's not just 3 steps. It could be a run around the corner, being a bunch of steps in a free dance. Because, for the dutch waltz for example, it's a lilty run on a 2-1-3 count, whereas the progressive in the canasta is 1-1-1. or something like that. Because if kids think runs are all 2-1-3, they get majorly screwed up when a run is on some other count.

We use the term progressive step a lot, eg, the two steps at the end in the dutch waltz are called step/progressive step in order to teach, and the run would be "run of progressives".

I like the regional differences in terminology. I don't think I'm making much sense but will post anyway.

[icedancer2]

We call a run any series of progressive steps. It's not just 3 steps. It could be a run around the corner, being a bunch of steps in a free dance. Because, for the dutch waltz for example, it's a lilty run on a 2-1-3 count, whereas the progressive in the canasta is 1-1-1. or something like that. Because if kids think runs are all 2-1-3, they get majorly screwed up when a run is on some other count.

We use the term progressive step a lot, eg, the two steps at the end in the dutch waltz are called step/progressive step in order to teach, and the run would be "run of progressives".

I like the regional differences in terminology. I don't think I'm making much sense but will post anyway.

Slusher - I think you are so right here - there are many different kinds of runs or progressive steps. If you just think of it - they are any series of steps that move the dance along - progressively, as it were - no turns or anything, just series of steps.

[Skating Jessica]

A bit OT coach's note: I always tell them to say one syllable of the word as they do each of the three steps: Pro...gress...ive which helps them to remember to take three, and only three steps.

Yeah, that's how I teach progressives, too. It definitely helps because not all kids can get the counting down. Sometimes just hearing the words and feeling the rhythm that accompanies those words or steps can help.

Anyway, back to the original discussion...there is a distinct [timing] difference between a progressive and a run at the higher level dances, such as in the Viennese Waltz. The pattern and rulebook specifically calls for forward/backward "runs." My theory on this, which may or may not be correct, is that the runs that are in the Viennese, for example, are much faster than say...the progressives in the Dutch Waltz. In the Viennese, the runs, or "progressive sequence" as the rulebook puts it, are counted as a quick 1-2 followed by a longer 3-count edge, so that the first two of these three steps in the run are held for only one count and the last--the LFO edge--held for 3 counts. In the Dutch Waltz, the progressives are held for a total of 6 counts (2 on the LFO edge, 1 on the RFI--the cross/progressing, and 3 for the LFO edge that concludes the progressive).

[dbny]

Anyway, back to the original discussion...there is a distinct [timing] difference between a progressive and a run at the higher level dances, such as in the Viennese Waltz. The pattern and rulebook specifically calls for forward/backward "runs." My theory on this, which may or may not be correct, is that the runs that are in the Viennese, for example, are much faster than say...the progressives in the Dutch Waltz. In the Viennese, the runs, or "progressive sequence" as the rulebook puts it, are counted as a quick 1-2 followed by a longer 3-count edge, so that the first two of these three steps in the run are held for only one count and the last--the LFO edge--held for 3 counts. In the Dutch Waltz, the progressives are held for a total of 6 counts (2 on the LFO edge, 1 on the RFI--the cross/progressing, and 3 for the LFO edge that concludes the progressive).

I don't think there is any difference except that skaters doing the lower level dances are not expected to be able to perform runs so quickly as at the higher levels.

[katz in boots]

Hmmm. Dutch Waltz is the first dance taught here. Today I asked someone who recently passed the test with it what the difference is, and she couldn't tell me either. The count appears to be the same, as does the technique.

In the Dutch Waltz, is there any difference between runs & progressives? Am I safe doing them as the same thing for a test?

[vesperholly]

I always thought a run was a three-step progressive with each step having one beat, while a progressive was a three-step with any number of beats assigned to each step. A run is always a progressive but a progressive is not always a run.

If you think about the words, progressive describes any kind of directional motion, while run describes a specific way of moving. Kind of like the difference between moving and strolling - all strolling is motion, but not all motion is strolling.

[fsk8r]

I was always taught (and by multiple coaches on this one) that it's called a progressive run and some people shorten it (north america it seems) to progressive and others (britain) to run. The timing of the steps depends on the dance. I'm currently learning the Golden Skaters Waltz (precursor to Westminster) and am being told that the count is 2 and a half before the crossing over bit.
And that reminds me, the multiple dance coaches have always taught the progressive run as being the more advanced version of a crossover so the run bit going forwards is the crossing bit (backwards of course doesn't have the crossing but I find them easier to think about forwards.

[Bunny Hop]

In the Dutch Waltz, is there any difference between runs & progressives? Am I safe doing them as the same thing for a test?
I had actually always understood that 'runs' was the British term, and 'progressives' was the US term for the same thing. My husband has learnt the Dutch Waltz in both countries, and when he comes back from the US he often says 'progressives' for the first few sessions, when he means what our coaches here call 'runs'.

So it's interesting to hear that people think there is a difference. Of course, it's all a moot point with me, as all my runs/progressives just become crossovers when I'm asked to do them in a dance.

[BatikatII]

. Of course, it's all a moot point with me, as all my runs/progressives just become crossovers when I'm asked to do them in a dance.

yeh - me too!!!:D

[dbny]

I always thought a run was a three-step progressive with each step having one beat, while a progressive was a three-step with any number of beats assigned to each step. A run is always a progressive but a progressive is not always a run.

If you think about the words, progressive describes any kind of directional motion, while run describes a specific way of moving. Kind of like the difference between moving and strolling - all strolling is motion, but not all motion is strolling.

ITA. Makes sense to me.

[Query]

I'm pretty low level, but will parrot what I've been told. Only talking Ice Dance here.

I've heard people say a "progressive run" was where the free foot touches down in front of the current skating foot. This is an older form of progressive, also seems to be used a lot by east European coaches. The USFSA manual says a dance progressive must be done on FO, FI, FO edges, and that the FI touches down beside and outside (i.e., next to the outside edge) of the first FO, then slides on the ice forward and across to the front position, while the prior skating foot stays on the ice, then pushes under. Note the trace appearance in the official compulsary patterns does not reflect this. A crossover sometimes is the same as a run, sometimes has the FI edge foot touch down beside and INSIDE the first FO.

I'm told the Moves progressive looks more like a crossover, but is FO, FI, wide-step-FI.

BTW, a backwards (dance) progressive is completely different than what I've described. BO, BI, repeat, always pushing to the outside.

I suggest you look at the rulebook, in the dance vocabulary section, for something more precise.

>In the Dutch Waltz, is there any difference between
>runs & progressives? Am I safe doing them as the
>same thing for a test?

I have been told that USFSA judges would not pass a progressive unless you did the slide thing (i.e., touch down outside, slide across). On the other hand, I've also been told that USFSA standards vary by region.

A problem with the USFSA rules is that a lot of the standards are implicit - i.e., "everybody" knows them, so they don't need to be written down. Further, a lot of the rules only appear in the Basic Skills Instructor Manual, and the instructions to judges, or even in PSA seminars - none of which are available to normal skaters. We should all be able to see the full move descriptions, with official videos. And USFSA is constantly adding and revising rules, which does not seem necessary. (I wonder if the USFSA craziness just reflects the ISU structure. I've never seen the ISU literature.) The ISI has done a lot better - there is only one set of rules, in the Skaters and Coaches Handbook, and it is short and well organized though they don't define some things perfectly. Too bad the ISI doesn't govern the higher levels of the sport.

[katz in boots]

Hmmm. Certainly I wouldn't describe a progressive/run as a crossover. My understanding (remembering I am very new to dance moves) is that after the first step, the free foot then is placed on the ice to the front of, but not across the line of the skating foot. As the free foot becomes the skating foot, the new free foot pushes behind the new skating foot, which creates the cross effect (does that make any sense?).

A crossover involves a push to the outside from the original free foot as well as push under from the new free foot. Also, I have been taught that a progressive/run involves a sort of up-down bobbing motion, whereas I would avoid those in crossovers.

More & more it is sounding like a progressive and a run are the same thing, at least in the Dutch Waltz (Query, I am still digesting what you wrote about this).

[Gosh, I never thought I'd be one of those posting here about pedantic technicalities of dance steps. It must be addictive. Now, if only I could get my husband to overcome his dislike of our rink environment and join me as a dance partner.:roll:]

[aussieskater]

Not sure about the "bobbing" motion - my coach says they have to be low and stay low? (OTOH, that could be to get me to bend the knees at all, and only once I have visible knee bend, will she permit me to come up again??)

[fsk8r]

I've never heard of an up down bobbing motion on runs, progressives, progressive runs or crossover. All very much down.

I do know that some coaches teach the Dutch Waltz with a lilt step where there is the long slow run (progressive) at the end of the pattern just before the restart. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

[Bunny Hop]

I do know that some coaches teach the Dutch Waltz with a lilt step where there is the long slow run (progressive) at the end of the pattern just before the restart. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?
The British version of the Dutch Waltz begins with a lilt at the start of each pattern. That is meant to have a knee bend followed by a rise - I keep sort of bobbing my body up and down instead of actually bending the knee. The US version of the dance begin differently.

And like aussieskater, my dance coach has spent a lot of time trying to get me to stay low in the knee on my runs/progressives. This is actually my major problem in mastering runs - I just can't keep my knees bent when my legs are in the crossed position without feeling like I'm going to topple over. I understand that having good knee bend at that point is meant to make it easier, but it sure doesn't feel that way to me!

[fsk8r]

[QUOTE=Bunny Hop;370227]The British version of the Dutch Waltz begins with a lilt at the start of each pattern. That is meant to have a knee bend followed by a rise - I keep sort of bobbing my body up and down instead of actually bending the knee. The US version of the dance begin differently.
QUOTE]

I don't think it's a British version of the Dutch waltz that has the lilt. I admittedly learnt it in the US without the lilt, but my dance coach over here teaches it without the lilt and I passed my level 2 test without the lilt, so the lilt is an optional step on the pattern. Some UK coaches teach it with and some without at my rink I think most teach it without the lilt but I know one coach which teaches it with.

[Query]

I guess my understanding, based on
information from various coaches and
judges, was wrong. I don't have a recent
USFSA rule book, but the 2004 USFSA
rulebook implies progressives and runs are
the same thing:

"SSR 9.03 Requirements: ...On chassés and
progressives the feet should be lifted as small
a distance from the ice as is consistent with
the making of a clean stroke.,,"

"DG 5.12 Progressive or Run (Pr or Run): A
step or sequence of steps on the same lobe
and in the same direction, in which the free
foot, during the period of becoming the
skating foot, strikes the ice beside and
travels past the skating foot, thus bringing
the new free foot off the ice trailing the new
skating foot, and in such a manner that some
impetus is gained from the edge of the foot
which is becoming the free foot."

In any event, since the rulebook (assuming it
hasn't changed) is so clear on where the foot
touches down, you proabably can't touch the
new skating foot down in front of the
other foot and expect to pass - it probably must
start besides it, and slide across, while the other
foot slides back and underneath, though the
"underneath" detail is not included in the rules.
Several coaches and judges have told me it is
neccessary, and must create a strong
"scissoring" action between it and the new foot.

Perhaps this is one of those cases where
USFSA only gives the details to the instructions
and judges, and they are unavailable to the
skaters themselves.

USFSA rules only apply in the US. Perhaps
European ice dancers favor closer body positions,
in which the feet of the two dancers often
interleave with each other (just as European
ballroom waltz often does, as an ice dancer
who was coached by a Russian taught me),
making the slide-across virtually impossible,
though I've seen videos of high level
international ice dancers doing a carefully timed
step-over of each other. (But they
choreographed their own dance moves, and didn't
need to call them "progressives".)

Bear in mind I've only tested (and passed) the
first 3 dances, and that was a long time ago. My
info may be imperfect.

Also note that the rulebook description does not
cover what I was taught to call "backwards
progressives". The Dutch Waltz does not contain
backwards steps, so it doesn't matter.

[Bunny Hop]

I don't think it's a British version of the Dutch waltz that has the lilt. I admittedly learnt it in the US without the lilt, but my dance coach over here teaches it without the lilt and I passed my level 2 test without the lilt, so the lilt is an optional step on the pattern. Some UK coaches teach it with and some without at my rink I think most teach it without the lilt but I know one coach which teaches it with.
That's interesting to know. We have been taught it with the lilt (but my husband first learnt it in the US without the lilt), but it sounds like it's a coaching preference.