I read with interest the suggestions of which part of the body moves first . Even Alex forgot to mention It is the knee. The rest will look after itself with practise and good tuition. Going backwards the same applies.. Knee first

"I read with interest the suggestions of which part of the body moves first. Even Alex forgot to mention It is the knee."

Probably because in the specific situation he was describing, it IS NOT the knee.

Moore describes the action of a walk taken without rise and fall, and we can logically conclude at an altitude just below ordinary standing height. At this height, there is comparively little knee action, just a bit of flex as the leg passes under the body. As a result, his recommendation to feel the body move before the foot is quite accurate.

However, if you lower substantially, the situation changes as your knees will be far more bent. Now your knee will noticeable go first, though it must of course carry your body with it. Thus the knee moves your body across your foot and soon projects your body weight beyond your foot - with no meaningful quantity of body weight yet on the moving foot.

This action does take some time to learn. A lot of students mistkanely try to hold their hips back as their knee bends forward, so that the weight of their posterior will keep them balanced over their standing foot. This of course makes it impossible not to create a large gap in the partnership. To dance with a partner, they must learn to project the entire body, commiting their weight beyond balance into the step, so that there will be a nice vertical alignment of the standing shoulder over the standing hip over the standing knee - all advancing until they are well forwards of the standing toe. Learning to drive and commit this way, without doing it too early or too heavily is tricky, but one cannot really be said to dance until it is working.

It would seem that you agree but took a heap of writting to say the same. One thing you are wrong on. Alex mentions rise and fall all the way through the book except on Tango. It is easy to see why this can be misinterpreted when he writes on the different steps as being body rise. But then in the front pages tells you why he wrote it that way. From the toes to the head is body. What he did not want was a thrusting up of the feet.

"It would seem that you agree but took a heap of writting to say the same."

No, I don't agree. I pointed out that in some actions the knee will go first, but I also pointed out that in other actions IT WILL NOT. You ignored that part.

"One thing you are wrong on. Alex mentions rise and fall all the way through the book except on Tango."

Wrong.

But go ahead, quote me the passage from his description of the forward walk or backward walk where he describes a rise and/or fall that should be used in the "Walk".

You won't find it, BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE BOOK.

While those are the walking actions that introduce the character of motion for the dances that will feature rise and fall, the actual walking actions described are explained ABSENT ANY RISE OR FALL.

IF you do them in a lowered position after a substantial fall, then yes, the knee will go first (but bringing the body of course). However, if you do them AS WRITTEN, the knee will not really go first, as the knee really won't be bending enough in the written version for it to be the source of body projection.

PAGE 20 to 25. You know absolutely nothing about this book do you. You just dont know how to find the answers. I suppose it could be called experience or lack of.

"PAGE 20 to 25. You know absolutely nothing about this book do you. You just dont know how to find the answers. I suppose it could be called experience or lack of."

There is nothing on those pages which described the RISING OR FALLING ACTION that is to be used in a walk.

Go ahead, prove me wrong, quote a specific sentence describing the RISE AND FALL OF A WALK.

You can't because it's not there!

"Go ahead, prove me wrong, quote a specific sentence describing the RISE AND FALL OF A WALK.

You can't because it's not there!"

On further thought, it occurs to me that Pimpernel is probably unable to see the distinction between a LOWERING ACTION by which the BODY lowers through the loss of both body rise and foot rise -

vs. a lowering of the heel of the receiving foot, which occurs WITHOUT a chance in rise of the body.

The first is rise and fall. The second is merely "rolling through the foot"

The described walk describes a timing for the rolling through the foot action - but it describes if for the non-dancing-exercise case of NEITHER RISE NOR FALL of the BODY.

The alternate foot timing I described is for the case where the BODY IS LOWERING - especially when it is lowering to prepare a partner-outside movement. This is, needless to say, a different action with different detailed-timing than the no rise/no fall walking exercise!