Since the inception of ballroom dancing
dancing there have been very few changes. The footwork is the same. the alignments have not changed. The rise and fall is still the same. There have been many changes in the variations and the introduction of new steps. Apart from that the biggest changes have been in posture. Which has little to do with the man. He still stands erect with his arms raised. The changes are, and they are enormouse, is the position of the lady and the use of the knees of both partners. I have seen a picture of Victor Silvester from the back. The only part of the lady not hidden by the body that could be seen was a little bit of the forehead over his right shoulder. Compare that with today.I suppose with the introduction of new steps it was found that the position of the bodies had to alter for obvious reasons. And even today compared to seven years ago there have been changes. Why i say this is because i met up with someone i knew who hadn't danced or kept up with the latest trends for seven years. I showed her the positioning of the body and the contact point which in her day was a heavy contact at the hips. This is so much easier to follow was the words she used.. Anybody add to that.

You mentioned things like the footwork not changing. Better to say that the rules of what-causes-what behind the footwork haven't change, but the footwork actually danced has, because it had to in order to maintain the same rules of causality when circumstances changed.

You noticed that the usage of the knees has changed. That's a perfect example - if you lower more in your knees, for the feet to work the same way they did previously, they will not have to do things a little bit differently. With more lowering in the knees, the rise and fall in the feet is constrained to only the upper part of the overall rise and fall rather than being the majority of the overall. As a result, you'll see in many instances that the heel goes down sooner in the overall course of the step, becuase the touchdown of the heel is no longer the end of the lowering - the lowering continues long after, in the bend of the knee, and of course we want the completion of the lowering to bear about the same relation to the end of the step as it did in the days when we weren't using our knees so much.

Different circumstances + same rules = different details.

This has not changed. Support yourself if you have to. The moving leg the right leg has passed the standing leg and the heel of the standing leg is released from the floor. On the moving leg we have a ball which changes to a heel. We are now at the extent of our stride. We move our weight forward as our weight arrives our knee bends. It is the arrival of the weight which causes the knee to bend and the toe to lower.There are possibilities here. Does the toe lower before the knee followed by the body. Or do we roll that foot lowering as the body arrives. This can easily be simulated by having the hand on a chair and rolling forward and backwards using the whole of both feet.

"This has not changed. Support yourself if you have to. The moving leg the right leg has passed the standing leg and the heel of the standing leg is released from the floor."

When the heel releases depends on the footwork code of the step you are departing. If it ends in T, as in HT, then it will realease before the moving foot passes it. If it ends in H, as in TH, then it will stay down very nearly until the moving foot is placed. If you took time to really read and understand the book, you'd know that it has ALWAYS been that way since the time it was written.

"On the moving leg we have a ball which changes to a heel. We are now at the extent of our stride. We move our weight forward as our weight arrives our knee bends."

Your weight must be moving forward CONTINUOUSLY throught the ENITRE PERIOD of the step!

No. The heel never stays down untill the foot is placed. You never got that one out of a book.
You use the whole of both feet at the same time. As I said . Hold onto a support of some kind with the foot ahead the other behind, just like a pace or a step, front heel on the floor back heel off the floor. Transfer your weight to the front foot and then roll back using the whole of both feet and repeat. If we are moving all that is needed is to move one or the other foot into a neutral position and drive as the whole of the foot rolls the floor . You have now learnt that there is very little difference in the action moving forward or backward.

"No. The heel never stays down untill the foot is placed. You never got that one out of a book."

Let's be specific: on forwads TH or H only step, the now standing heel will stay down past the END OF THE STEP (foot passing) and remain down well into the swing of the moving foot; it will however rise before the moving heel strikes.

"As I said . Hold onto a support of some kind with the foot ahead the other behind, just like a pace or a step, front heel on the floor back heel off the floor."

Your careless mistake is assuming that this is true for all steps. It is true for HT forwards steps, but it is NOT true for the movement between 3 (TH) and 1 (HT). There the heel stays down longer - if it were to rise, the footwork would have to be THT.

To quote Moore "It may be though by some students that it would be clearer to fibe the footwork on 1 [not beat 1, but one of a contrived 2-step example] as Toe, heel, Toe, but this would be quite wrong as it would indicate that the R Heel leaves the floor as the LF passes it on its way to the second step. To do this would result in an early rise and a stilted movement"

Of course such an early rise is exactly what is desired in the UPSWING steps which do call for footwork ending in HT.

"You have now learnt that there is"

I'm afraid your comments only prove that you've barely scratched the surface of ballroom scholarship. There's a lot more to learn than you can imagine; for starters, you simply must build better habits for paying attention to the CONTEXT of the things you read, because out of context, information is nothing but POINTLESS TRIVIA.

Context, my friend. Make it your quest. Of find somehting else to do!

"To quote Moore "It may be though by some students that it would be clearer to fibe the footwork on 1 [not beat 1, but one of a contrived 2-step example] as Toe, heel, Toe, but this would be quite wrong as it would indicate that the R Heel leaves the floor as the LF passes it on its way to the second step. To do this would result in an early rise and a stilted movement"

A minor correction: this is actually in the description of a backwards action, but the same notation rules obviously apply to forwards movements. What is illustrated is the key importance of the final letter of the footwork code - it indicates what part of the foot will be in contact after the step has ended, which is to say during the early part of the next step.

Now I know you are losing it. Your paragraph Five. Quoting Moore. Where exactly did that come from. Page number if you please.
Also If it were that the heel of the supporting foot does not leave the floor untill the moving foot is placed. Where is your argument that the torso is in front of the moving foot. Where you have made your mistake and clearly spoken about in the book. Your describing technique is of a step to the side following a backward step NFR ( no foot rise ) There the heel stays down untill the side step is placed.
I can' t make heads or tails of paragraph four.Is this what you mean.
A Forward Walk on the RF and then the LF would be described as 1. Heel 2. Heel. The fact that the whole of the RF lowers to the floor imediately is assumed but not mentioned. It is also obvious that when the LF moves forward the heel of the RF will naturally leave the floor, as described in the Forward Walk of the man . Again this assumed but not mentioned.
If we go to the third step Feather Step for the man it is in the book as TH. I think everybody would know it is bound to be THT which is assumed but not mentioned.
I always believe that once the step is finished and the beat has gone there is no need to add to the footwork. So we have TH and not THT. Does that make sense or not.

"Now I know you are losing it. Your paragraph Five. Quoting Moore. Where exactly did that come from. Page number if you please."

If you doubt that it's from the book, then obiouvsly you don't know Moore's book nearly as well as your claim!

As for the page number, that would of course depend on your edition. But seeing as you have some remedial reading to do in general, I'll just assign you the entire thing to review.

"Also If it were that the heel of the supporting foot does not leave the floor untill the moving foot is placed."

Learn to read more carefully, as that was not my argument.

"Where is your argument that the torso is in front of the moving foot."

Unchanged.

"If we go to the third step Feather Step for the man it is in the book as TH. I think everybody would know it is bound to be THT which is assumed but not mentioned.

I always believe that once the step is finished and the beat has gone there is no need to add to the footwork. So we have TH and not THT. Does that make sense or not."

And that - in your words not mine - is exactly why the heel stays down well into the next step - because the action of raising it is not part of the old step, but instead is part of the new one, contained within the duration of the new step. Wheras if it had said THT, then the heel would have to raise BEFORE THE END of the old step - which is extly what happens on rising HT steps.

AS said elswhere. Dancing is an Art.Alex Moore must have wrestled with these problems. There was probably a time when he toyed with in a Feather Step. Should we use the words HT T THT. Which is exactly what we do. So in the front of the book he writes his reasons for changing it. Who tries to keep there heel on the floor throughout a heel lead. Hold onto a chair for support. Separate the feet like a step has been taken with the RF. Lower the that front foot to the floor. If the next step is to be a TH. then rise at the end of the first step so that you are up for two which is the second step on the third beat of music. If you do that there is no more. Whatever it takes to do that, that is what you do.
NOw we need to dance,and to dance depends on what we do in between the steps. As I was told repeatedly in a Latin Class. A step in any dance is only a step. Dancing is how we move in between the steps..
On that first symulated step. The front foot lowers. Most I think will agree think that the rear foot which is raising is controlling that lowering and the movement of the body also plays a part . Anybody can go beside a chair or a table for support and ultra slowly go through the motions just to see what actually has to happen. Has To Happen. Rise at the end of the first step, the next step is a T only. Do whatever it takes.
Now about the heel staying down well into the next step.
Quote page 9. Stand in an upright position as described in the notes on the hold. Now let the body incline forward from the feet upwards untill the weight of the body is mainly on the balls of the feet but not letting the heels leave the floor. In doing so take care not to alter the upright position of the body. You are now ready to commence to walk.
Swing the right leg forward from the hips first with the ball of the RF touching the floor then the heel skimming the floor with the toe slightly raised.
AS THE RF PASSES THE TOE OF THE LF THE LEFT HEEL WILL BE RELEASED FROM THE FLOOR. Dont blame, me blame Alex. I am only quoting from his book.