Ballroomdancers.com always gives me a home feeling . Here, I have been learning from you all . I will keep in my mind : not too hard on local teachers . Yes! There are a lot of stories behind them.
If man lower on latter 1/2 beat of 3 backing DC, backing LOD when lady steps her right foot and let her body on the top of right foot , get stuck off when her left toes swing toward LOD , Man right arm should lead her toward LOD also rather than draw her toward DW, Yes, as you said I noted a transient gap at this moment ( another lower level coach did natural spin turn and turning lock to right so excellent , he even asked me passing him as far as possible on 4 and 1&2 3 . I kept not down on 4 until his right foot arrived and turn me continuously , I did not lower my heel on 6 and keep foward on BT until 3& .
I had ever tried the man role with another lady to see how difficult to avoid from running toward DW or bumping together, I failed . I will observe and try it later.
Thank you very much for everything.
Chen

"If man lower on latter 1/2 beat of 3 backing DC, backing LOD when lady steps her right foot"

What you are describing would be more the technique of viennese waltz. In slow waltz we do not turn into step one, even to accomplish the LOD alignment. So the lowering is with an LOD direction, not a DC one that becomes LOD.

I think you might be being confused a little bit by the customary under turn of the body at the end of most figures, which is made up only as the next figure starts. But the body alignment is not the official alignment, rather the foot alignment is. (Acutally some advanced dancers will under turn the feet as well), still what is really key is that the direction of the lowering be down LOD from it's start - not continuing to DW, and not DC that only later becomes LOD.

The thing that needs to be looked at is If the man has turned to backing diagnal the wall on step four.. Then he takes that step straight back and not across the body which would make it CBMP. Big mistake. You will find the amounts of turn are the same. Simply turn your chart to backing diagnal to the wall. Everything remains about the same. Think of it this way. With the man backing dignal to the wall. If the lady tries to go down the LOD that is equivilent to her stepping diagnal to the centre. If the man stayed with backing LOD.
The steps after the Spin Turn also needs to be looked at. 456 Reverse Turn. Don't put that first step into a CBMP Position. The step is straight. So I am told and do. Turn at the end of the step.

"The thing that needs to be looked at is If the man has turned to backing diagnal the wall on step four.. Then he takes that step straight back and not across the body which would make it CBMP."

Steping across the body is not CBMP, only stepping across the foot is CBMP.

Further, you cannot CBM into CBMP on the same step - it's impossible by definition. CBMP can only occur as a result of direction of movement, not as a result of turn during the step where it is achieved. Even in the pivot case, you don't place the _moving_ foot into CBMP.

But what you are really missing is one of the fundamental rules, and embarrsingly for you, one you like to remind people about: CBM does not change the direction of the step, it merely changes the orienation of the body. The step is still down the LOD, CBM merely means that the body is turning as it moves down LOD.

"You will find the amounts of turn are the same. Simply turn your chart to backing diagnal to the wall."

Only true if you commence the natural & spin turn facing to wall instead of facing to center! Otherwise, to go to DW you have introduced different amounts of turn, and not simply rotated the chart.

"The steps after the Spin Turn also needs to be looked at. 456 Reverse Turn. Don't put that first step into a CBMP Position. The step is straight."

Yes, but again you show your fundamnetal misunderstanding of the definition of CBMP. You cannot CBM into CBMP, you can only get there by moving diagonally.

"So I am told and do. Turn at the end of the step."

See - that's the thing you've forgotten to apply to step 4 of the spin turn. Turn at the end of the step, AFTER TAKING THE STEP ITSELF DOWN THE LOD. Don't turn first and take the step to DW.

Trying in vain to rewrite the Technique book again are you.. Once more to quote.
CBMP is a term used when the body is not turned but the leg is placed across the front or the back of the body.
It has nothing to do with the feet. If I were to stand still in CBMP you wouldn't know whether is was CBMP or CBM at that point. If you saw me arrive by having my shoulder in position and then my foot was placed you would know that is CBMP.
Just clarify that last sentance for me. Surely you don't think that there is a turn to back diagnal to the wall after step four is taken. That would mean step four being taken down the LOD. You know as well as I do that that step is on the diagnal if we are using the wall for our alignments. I wonder if this is going to go over your head
I did say using the wall for alignments. I will explain. If I were to do a Natural Spin Turn facing diagnal to the centre about half way down the floor. It would be the same if the wall on the short side was brought to my side.

"Trying in vain to rewrite the Technique book again are you.. Once more to quote.
CBMP is a term used when the body is not turned but the leg is placed across the front or the back of the body."

That's the "loose" definition. But it's obviously flawed, because it leads people like you to declare that CBMP is occuring any time the leg is placed normally, but the body happens to be underturned.

As a result, the OFFICIAL (for teaching exams, etc) definition is "A foot position where the foot is placed on or across the line of the supporting foot, either in front or behind, to maintain body line"

"It has nothing to do with the feet."

Shows how little you know...

"If I were to stand still in CBMP you wouldn't know whether is was CBMP or CBM at that point."

True.

"If you saw me arrive by having my shoulder in position and then my foot was placed you would know that is CBMP."

No. If I saw you CBM into the position, I'd know it was not CBMP. If I saw you take a diagonal step into it, I'd know it was CBMP.

"Surely you don't think that there is a turn to back diagnal to the wall after step four is taken. That would mean step four being taken down the LOD. You know as well as I do that that step is on the diagnal"

No, consult your book. We are starting in normal alignment, so the step is directly down the LOD. The turn happens only after the step is placed. The CBM will of course beging before the step is placed, but CBM IS NOT TURN, it is merely a rotation of the body which could preface a turn.

"I did say using the wall for alignments."

Only in your wild imagination... Everyone else is talking about a spin turn following a natural turn: step 1 moved to DW and step 4 moved down LOD, just as in the book.

"I will explain. If I were to do a Natural Spin Turn facing diagnal to the centre about half way down the floor. It would be the same if the wall on the short side was brought to my side."

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about guys who take step 4 to DW, when they started step 1 in the DW alignment, meaning step 4 has to go down LOD.

Why would you say something that anybody can see for themselves. If anybody wishes to see the alignment that is now being used by all advanced dancers. Just simply go to Learn the Dances click on Spin Turn in the Waltz and come back and tell us which alignment it is on. Is it straight down the floor or is it diagnal to the wall. If you need to go frame by frame just use your space bar. The second group shows where the step goes the clearest. If you haven't got Quicktime which you need to see these video clips its free. Just follow the instructions.

"Why would you say something that anybody can see for themselves. If anybody wishes to see the alignment that is now being used by all advanced dancers. Just simply go to Learn the Dances click on Spin Turn in the Waltz and come back and tell us which alignment it is on."

There's a whole bunch of problems with that idea:

1) Jonathan has long been known for, and freely admits to, curving the track of CBM steps. This is contrary to what both you and I believe is proper, and indeed contrary to most all of the competitor's I've been exposed it... it's a sort of American overinterpetation from something that's really quite a different quality in its English ancestor. The key point: while you and I believe that the turn happens after the step, Jonathan believe the step itself curves - and not just on step 4, he does it on step 1 as well. Needless to say, if both partners curve, you don't get the seperation that happens if the backwards partner cuts out to the side while the forwards partner goes straight. I'd prefer to stay together by both moving down the LOD on step 4, with body rotation but no change of track until the end of step 5.

2) As a teaching example, this video is substantially "rigidized" It does not flow in the manner of competition dancing, because the dancers are "trying too hard" to demonstrate what they think is proper for the basic case. A competition performance by the same dancers would be much more fluid.

3) It's still much more down LOD than a lot of the mistaken interpretations we see, and probably a lot better than what ylchen's teacher was doing. Another thing to note is that this does have a full lowering action - the direction of step 4 is entierly purposeful and comes from the drive, it's not the kind of uncontrolled drift to DW after a bad lowering that afflicts even suprisingly good dancers at times.

Now, if you go looking for real competitions videos, you will indeed see a lot of mistakes. But if you hunt up the teachers of the people you saw in those world competitions, get PRIVATE LESSONS with them, and ask about this specific subject, you might learn something about the difference between what the best are being taught to do, and what they actually manage to accomplish.

I think I put Jonathan on the spot there. I will just point out that the alignments used by Hilton . I've got so many of him in various groups doing a Spin Turn also John Woods. They are all on the same alignment.
As I have poorly tried to explain without the walls we have no alignments. What we have is amounts of turn. If we try to do a quarter to something that should be a half then it loses some. if not all of its quality. The judge wont look twice. I'm sure the above mentioned gentlmen are dancing amounts of turn and on that particular step are not worried about a text book alignment. We have a City Hall that is a beautiful venue but the floor is a half circle. The walls the whole works are circular. This is where if the move is a half a turn or whatever the amounts of turn remain constant.

"If we try to do a quarter to something that should be a half then it loses some. if not all of its quality."

And that is exactly what is happening. There are supposed to be 3/8 turn between the direction of step 1 and step 4. Instead, what we often see on even very good couples, is 1/2 turn on the man, and 3/8 on the lady. That's two problems - a wrong amount of turn PLUS a failure to match the partner's needs.

"I'm sure the above mentioned gentlmen are dancing amounts of turn and on that particular step are not worried about a text book alignment."

But they are ACCOMPLISHING neither. You see the guy going off to DW and imagine he must have started the natural moving to wall, but that isn't what happened - he started DW, and did the WRONG AMOUNT OF TURN.

When the amounts of turn are wrong, there's no rotation of perspective in the room that will make them right, becuse they are wrong relative to themselves.