"Anonymous. Reading these pages can make a person go and look for themselves.This is a good thing.
I'm still stuck on this one. If I arrive over my feet and at the same time bend my knees my knees are in front, no matter how hard I try my body will never get in front of my feet unless I fall on my face."

You obviously haven't really looked at picture two in the forward walk sequence yet. It quite obviously shows the entire body forward of the standing foot. The standing knee has bent forward, and the body is off balance over the standing knee.

That particular picture shows the moving leg forward of the body much further than it should be. If you mentally move the moving leg back to be next to the standing foot, you would see a picture of the body being entirely ahead of both legs.

Why do you find that so hard to imagine???

"Your paragraph third from last tells to me that your not big on bending the knees."

Do I or do I not keep stressing the important of bending the standing knee and sending the body forward in vertical alignment over that advancing knee, until it is off balance?

You obviously don't read the posts your respond to... I should just compose a singal reply and use it as a response to everything you write, as you clearly aren't reading anything I've written with the intent of actually comprhending the key ideas behind it.

"Reading that again I don't believe you bend your knees at all."

Pure proof that you are imagining and not reading...

"If you sent your weight forward and the knee was bent like picture four how can your body get in front of your foot."

Picture TWO sir, not picture four.

Is or is not the knee bent in picture TWO? And anyone who thinks that body in picture TWO is balanced over its standing foot is legally blind!

Anonymous. Your weight is leaving the rear foot. You don't agree with picture three so we leave it out.The next move is four. How would you get your weight in front of the front foot, we wont even bother about the knee, which will have to be over the toe to a point of imbalance and stay verticle and then to fall or catch the weight without leaning forward. As I said in the beginning the choice of words are unfortunate. To say imbalance is to be either leaning forward or backward. To catch the weight means like the feet are trapped and the body is falling ahead of its point of balance. If you like the same as a person going off a building when they get to the point of no return. That is a Rumba Walk off a very straight leg. Being that I do both style I have a image on my left which is a Rumba and one on my right which is Modern. The two don't mix.

"Anonymous. Your weight is leaving the rear foot. You don't agree with picture three so we leave it out.The next move is four. How would you get your weight in front of the front foot"

By dancing picture TWO without moving my front foot so far yet. The weight is in front of both feet at the beginning of the action, not at the end. You keep trying to jump to the end (picture FOUR) and pretend like it is the beginning.

"we wont even bother about the knee, which will have to be over the toe to a point of imbalance and stay verticle and then to fall or catch the weight without leaning forward."

The knee is not over the toe, it is in front of the to. And the body is perfectly aligned over the knee, with no leaning of the body, only an incline of the shin - if you still can't see that in picture two YOU ARE BLIND.

"To say imbalance is to be either leaning forward or backward."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Imbalance describes only the position of the center of mass relative to the supporting feet. It says nothing about the body orientation. Most imbalanced positions critical to dancing, like that shown in PICTURE TWO maintain VERTICAL ALIGNMENT of the body.

You've been fighting that idea so long that it is clearly not a failure to understand, but a willfill intent to pretened that you are stupid. The evidence is in front of your eyes - if you had any interest in learning, you would have now admitted that, regardless if it is a way you wish to dance or not, it is at least POSSIBLE.

"To catch the weight means like the feet are trapped and the body is falling ahead of its point of balance."

Catching the weight is a key skill taught by all good teachers. The feet would remain trapped only so long as their knees do not bend to let them move through - so the feet do not remain trapped. Falling ahead of the point of balance is precisely the GOAL - it is how humans have been walking ever since we came down from the trees.

Anonymous. We do not need to think when we walk, If we did have to think which is the leg , foot we would concentrate on. If you say the front foot you belong back up that tree. So what is a walk. It is moving your foot forward to then pass your body over to that foot with the action coming from the back foot. ( the standing foot ).
Picture four is the end and the beginning. Picture one is a standing start. On four the knee is clearly ahead of te toe.
Lets go to picture one. If that were you you would be leaning forward to your point of imbalance.
I can see at no time is the body not verticle. Just like the car keys.
This I really believe. Sometime in the past you used to dance off a very flat foot. So your teacher said get your weight forward. They might have even given you a push in the back. I've seen that a few times. But this was for your eyes only. To get you off that back foot.

"Anonymous. We do not need to think when we walk, If we did have to think"

Quite clearly your problem is exactly that you are thinking about dancing... and as a result, the proper projection of the body into imbalance - which is almost certainly present in your non dance walking - is missing from your dancing.

"So what is a walk. It is moving your foot forward to then pass your body over to that foot"

No, mr centipede, it is not. A walk is a sending your body off balance into movement, with the leg then swinging to arrive under or slightly ahead of the body just when it is needed. This has been known for well over a hundred years, ever since someone set up a movie camera and filmed it.

"I can see at no time is the body not verticle."

Exaclty - yet in picture TWO the body is clearly not balanced over the standing foot - it is entirely in front of the standing foot. Yet it is, as you just said yourself, vertical.

Off balance, but no leaning - imagine that!

Anonymous. How can you be off balanced if you are not leaning forward over your feet. If you are not leaning forward then you are not off balanced.
Everything you ever write is to try defend your belief that the body weight gets in front of the feet. What about when you step to the side. Do you still apply your theory of over balancing there also. How about the V. Waltz, or is that different.

"Anonymous. How can you be off balanced if you are not leaning forward over your feet. If you are not leaning forward then you are not off balanced."

Simply by adopting the position CLEARLY SHOWN in PICTURE TWO of the forwad walk.

The evidence of how to do it is right under your nose.

The body is forward of the standing foot therefore it is off balance.

The body is vertically aligned, therefore it is not leaning.

Not very hard, was it?

Anonymous. You have got this crazy idea that unless we have two feet on the floor under our body we are not balanced. Why didn't you write it like that days ago. So that you could be corrected.

The original Torque thread is lost and has been torqued into oblivion. I can find no use of the word torque in the technique book. I do find the word twist when it said don't do it and that is just once.
To me torque means to turn one part of an object whilst keeping the rest still.
Twist is as a ball of wool or cotten is twisted which usually doesn't happen to a more solid object.
Turn is to turn about our own centre or part of. In Latin it is possible to turn around our own centre or around a centre between two bodies in otherwords we go around each other. In Modern we never do this. We do go around a common centre because the two centres become one
So who was the bright spark who intruduced the words torque and twist into Standard ballroom dancing..

"I do find the word twist when it said don't do it and that is just once."

I can't find the words "don't do it" or any negative recommendation in the book. What I do find is a recommendation to preferentially emphasize swing - but that is not in any way a prohibition of twist.

"In Latin it is possible to turn around our own centre or around a centre between two bodies in otherwords we go around each other. In Modern we never do this."

Your knowledge of modern is rather limited...

"We do go around a common centre because the two centres become one"

You are making the mistake of trying to combine the travel and the rotation into a single curved action. It doesn't work that way - you have travel, and you also have an indepent rotation superimposed on it. Unlike it the situation of an airplane flying through a slipstream, the rotation and travel of a dancer's body are not physically linked.