The body will go ahead of the standing foot. Not the moving foot."

No, it will go ahead of the moving foot too. That's what we've been trying to explain to you for months, but you just can't wrap your mind around the idea.

"I have looked at the Reverse Turn Waltz and the Feather Step on this site in the Learn the Dances.."

It *should* be happening there, but that doesn't mean it will on any given dancer.

"I think we can take the Ladies backward steps out of this. It would be ridiculace to suggest that the ladies body is in front of the moving leg as it moves to its position to the rear."

He body will be ahead of both feet at times, for example right as she begins step 3 of the feather, her body hip will pass over her feet just before her moving foot seperates from her standing foot. At this point the man is of course doing the same thing in his forwards action.

"If you went right back to the beginning I wrote it is not a good idea to tell beginners to send there body ahead of the feet to a positi0on of imbalance and to fall onto the supporting foot. The lady also. The actuall words written were I insist on it."

Nonetheless that is what HAS TO HAPPEN, though it might be more accurate to say that the fall goes through the receiving foot and beyond it, rather than simply onto it. This falling is afterall mostly a horizontal motion, with only a proportionaly small vertical component. Say that someone falls onto the receiving leg, and you create the impression that they crash heavily onto it, which would indeed be a mistake. But falling is most certainly invovled - it's just very well-aimed falling that is mostly horizontal.

"If you were to read Alex Moore' s description which says from a standing position the weight of the body is moved from the heel to the ball."

And after that it will, in a way that is obvious to everyone but you, be BEYOND the ball of the standing foot.

"This is where the foot moves twice the speed of the body which has been calculated as being so."

That is FALSE and not to be found in any reputable source. You've already had it pointed out how this claim is physically impossible - it would require instant acceleartion of the feet, which cannot happen. On average the feet move twice as fast, but not during their entire travel - at the beginning and end of their travel, they obviously will be moving SLOWER than the body. And that is the part you keep forgetting.

"Going back to square one. The movement of the body from two standing legs is from the heel to the ball this is where the foot travelling faster than the body occures. Look at the pictures. This is exactly what Alex Moore wrote all those years ago."

But that is neither correct nor what he wrote. The weight goes from the heel, to the ball, and then beyond the ball. During this time, the foot is accelerating to catch up to the body (or in waltz, accelerating from a dead stop). By the time the stride is well underway the foot will indeed be moving approximately twice as fast as the body. But not earlier, at a time when it's only just started moving, then it will be moving SLOWER THAN THE BODY, because the body ALWAYS MOVES FIRST.

Reply to this message

It might be worth looking at the rise and the fall on the ladies heel turn.
Rise at the end of one NFR. Continue to rise on two. up on three, lower at the end of three. The foot has got to be out in front to be able to lower on three. Otherwise they would fall onto three.
Its worth pointing out at this time that in the Waltz or Foxtrot there are basic rules which have to be obeyed. They are after both a Heel Lead , or a Toe Heel the knee must bend. On a Toe the knee doesn't bend. Obey those rules at all times.
Alex Moore was a very clever man and very methodical. Don' t you think if he wanted the body to go ahead of the foot he would have said so. If I had to write that as an instruction, I would have written. The whole of your body must go from the verticle to a point where with a straight spine your head is in front of your front foot. That in any mans language would be with a straight spine leaning forward in front of my front foot..Which is absolutely wrong.

"t might be worth looking at the rise and the fall on the ladies heel turn.
Rise at the end of one NFR. Continue to rise on two. up on three, lower at the end of three. The foot has got to be out in front to be able to lower on three. Otherwise they would fall onto three."

No one has contradicted that in their arguments.

"Alex Moore was a very clever man and very methodical. Don' t you think if he wanted the body to go ahead of the foot he would have said so."

He very nearly DID say so, when he said to feel that the body commences to move before the foot. But dancing in his day was less dynamic, meaning that the body would not have gone as far in front of the foot, and in as many situations, as it does today. Without really changing the technique, just cranking up certain proportions of it will change some of the situations through which we now end up passing.

"If I had to write that as an instruction, I would have written. The whole of your body must go from the verticle to a point where with a straight spine your head is in front of your front foot. That in any mans language would be with a straight spine leaning forward in front of my front foot..Which is absolutely wrong."

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS!!

You've had this explained to you many times: the veritcal body moves forward, MAINTAINING VERTICAL ALIGNMENT, and thus passes forward of the foot. It does not do it by TILTING, it does it by MOVING.

How does one remain verticle and pass the body forward of the foot.
What is meant by. He very nearly did say so. Either he did or he didn't.
Look. One of these dancing witch doctors has visited your village and said. Come into my hut and I will teach you the secrets of how to move. Its a gimmick. They could have just as easily said, just like the book. From a standing position the move forward is instigated by the body by moving the weight from over the heel to over the ball of the foot.
The actual words are . When commencing a Walk from a CLOSED
position , the weight must always be brought forward over the balls of the feet before a foot is moved..If the foot is moved before the body is moved, from the heel to the ball, the weight will be kept too far back. All they don't want you to do is stick the foot forward leaving the body behind.Does that make sense or does it not.
You have written in the past that the weight of the body goes to the point of imbalance and then is caught. You added. I wrote it because it is true. I wrote Have you thought what will happen to the lady when you thrust to the point of imbalance. You then cheerfully added. Not only that I insist on it. Really.

"How does one remain verticle and pass the body forward of the foot."

The spine doesn't extend below your pelvis, you know. So keep your head to pelvis vertically aligned on a straight spine, and send this whole thing forward of your feet while maintaining its aligment.

"What is meant by. He very nearly did say so. Either he did or he didn't."

He said what I said he said, which had a very strong logical implication towards the point I was arguing: the body goes first, and if it does, it's going to be quite likely that it will initially be ahead in some cases.

"From a standing position the move forward is instigated by the body by moving the weight from over the heel to over the ball of the foot."

And then, quite naturally, BEYOND the ball of the foot. This is natural human movement, but you can't understand it, because you still can't picture how it is that a vertically aligned body can be positioned entirely ahead of the foot supporting it. You've had it explained dozens of times, you've been shown pictures, but you just cannot understand something so simple...

"You have written in the past that the weight of the body goes to the point of imbalance and then is caught. You added. I wrote it because it is true. I wrote Have you thought what will happen to the lady when you thrust to the point of imbalance. You then cheerfully added. Not only that I insist on it. Really."

REALLY, that is exactly what I insist on, because that is how human beings habitually move - both when dancing, and when simply walking around. If you knew anything at all about human locomotion, if you'd ready any of the applicable literature, you would know this to be a fundamental truth.

But instead you are guided by your own failure to imagine how imbalace is compatible with controlled movement, and compatible with vertically aligned posture. In fact, compatible is too soft a word - "all but required in order to achieve would be more accurate."

And the really funny part is that you yourself have often described a situation in which the body is vertically aligned but entirely forwards of the standing leg: you call it mid-stride. Just rewind your picture there until there is zero weight on the front foot, and there you have it - an aligned body entirely in front of its supporting leg. Rewind further until the body is just a few cm in front of the supporting leg, swing the moving leg back to be next to the standing leg, and you have a vertically aligned body entirely forward of BOTH legs. Regardless if you choose to dance that way or not, your inability to understand this mental picture is really inexplicable. Because you can't understand what is being discussed, your argument against the idea are pure nonsense.

We are aware that on a Backward Step the book says to lower the standing heel to the floor only as the moving foot draws level.
It also says it is most important to remember that each step should move back from a forward position with the heel in contact with the floor
To some people who will remain anonymous might think that is the standing heel that is in contact with the floor. But we all know its the moving heel that is being spoken about.
If I support myself by having my fingers resting on the back of a chair. My LF on the heel. My RF is on the toe. I am inbetween the two feet. My body is being moved by my front leg with the heel in contact with the floor untill I am verticle over my two feet which is when the supporting heel is gently lowered to the floor.
Which now brings us back to. Each step should move back from a forward position. Which is aptly explained and demonstrated by Anne Lewis on her tape. If I wanted the body to go ahead of the feet I dont think I would have written it that way. .
I would have written that the body weight will go past the standing foot to a point of being unbalanced. But that is not what is written or can be seen on the demonstrations on this site or in the technique manuels.

"We are aware that on a Backward Step the book says to lower the standing heel to the floor only as the moving foot draws level."

WRONG.

As usual, you have ignored the CONTEXT of the recommendation you are passing on.

That instruction applies to a specific sort of backwards step - a WALK, taken inline, with ZERO rise and ZERO fall.

Change the circumstances, and the details must change to support the requirements of the new circumstance.

"It also says it is most important to remember that each step should move back from a forward position with the heel in contact with the floor"

But there are many steps where the heel does not move back in contact with the floor! Sure, the comment is applicable for the step about which it was written (that of the flat, inline walk) - but it is completely and obviously inapplicable to many other steps.

"Which now brings us back to. Each step should move back from a forward position."

And utterly impossible, when, for example, stepping backwards after waltz closure.

Context... without it there is no meaning!

"I would have written that the body weight will go past the standing foot to a point of being unbalanced. But that is not what is written"

It is strongly suggested by what is written about the body moving first, and it is not the least bit contradicted by any passage of the official technique.

"or can be seen on the demonstrations on this site or in the technique manuels."

You can readily see the body projecting off balance in many of the videos on this site!

The knee on lowering will go forward that is towards the partner on any step going backwards. If this is wrong then tell me what is right.Waltz Draw the RF to the LF. AS the RF starts to lower the LF foot is released and is moving behind touching the floor with the toe without weight. After the RH has touched the floor the knee will continue to bend towards the front. That is why it is written that each step back should move from a forward position. The word should is there not by accident.
It doesn' t matter whether we are closing the feet as in a Waltz. Or our foot is passing as in a Foxtrot. The actuall lowering is the same. Our weight is towards the front. Our knee is bending and the moving foot is being controlled by the standing foot.
If you like . The body is in a balanced position, some call it neutral, as the lowering takes place. This requires verticle balance and perfect timing.That is why the word should was used.

"The knee on lowering will go forward that is towards the partner on any step going backwards."

Wrong again.

First off, "any step going backwards" includes quite a few steps that don't feature any lowering at all. Once again, you wrecklessly ignore the context of the advice you are trying to pass on.

But it's also often erroneous even in the intended context. I know it may feel as if the knee is moving against the direction of progress, and many teachers will literally requrest this, but it doesn't usually happen. Watch the videos here carefully - it happens in some circumstances, and cuases intereference with the partner's body when it does, and doesn't happen in other circumstances where the dancing ends up flowing much more smoothly.

What actually happens when dancing is done well is that the knee is essentially stationary in space, but the body pushes backwards away from the knee. Without some stationary reference in the background, you might be forgiven for thinking that the knee moved against the travel - but it actually doesn't when things are done right.

Remember though that most teachers teach by FEELING rather than by FACT.

"If this is wrong then tell me what is right.Waltz Draw the RF to the LF. AS the RF starts to lower the LF foot is released and is moving behind touching the floor with the toe without weight. After the RH has touched the floor the knee will continue to bend towards the front."

Again, feeling, not actual fact. The forwards partner will already projecting their body forwards (by bending their standin knee). If the backwards partner also projects their knee forwards against the travel, into the space that the forwards partner's body is trying to occupy, something rather inelegant and uncomfortable will result! In coordinated dancing, that backwards partner's knee is nearly stationary in space - but their BODY MOVES AWAY FROM IT, making it APPEAR as if it had gone forwards.

"That is why it is written that each step back should move from a forward position. The word should is there not by accident."

You are taking things out of their proper context, and putting them into an IMPOSSIBLE one. The "from a forward position" is from a description of an action such as a WALK, where the feet pass, meaning the moving foot first has to move back to pass the standing foot. You simply can't apply it to a situation where the the step starts with the feet next to each other, such as you have when lowering from closing your feet! This applies to SOME steps, but by no mean ALL STEPS, and distinction you simply have to start PAYING ATTENTION TO.

"It doesn' t matter whether we are closing the feet as in a Waltz. Or our foot is passing as in a Foxtrot. The actuall lowering is the same."

Gross stupidity. You've had the differences pointed out time and time again, but you persist in ignoring them.

"The body is in a balanced position, some call it neutral, as the lowering takes place."

Look at any skilled dancer, and you will see that the body is OFF BALANCE, AHEAD OF THE FOOT during step three of a feather, from the time the feet pass to begin step 3, until the time the foot stops moving and prepares to accept weight. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for it to be otherwise, unless the process of the body stops over the standing foot... which is a good way to get yourself laughed out of the preliminary round.

"This requires verticle balance and perfect timing.That is why the word should was used."

Vertical YES.

Balance NO.

Perfect timing YES - but remember, that means landing step three sometime after the AND AFTER BEAT FOUR. Otherwise you are RUSHING ahead of the music.



Reply to this message

Just take one part of this. The forward movement of the knee towards each other. There we are both perfectly balanced because of it.
At this point both the man and the lady could lift there none standing leg off the floor as per Andrew Sinkinson' s lecture.
In closing . There is nothing magical about rising up and lowering through the feet. Everybody can do it dancer or not. All we are left with is where is the soon to move foot at the time the standing heel touches the floor and the knees flex to store energy for the drive which is to follow.