I think you will find that you still have your heel on the floor after step one. Which is not according to the correct technique. You might also look at steps four and five on a Reverse Turn. Do it according to the book and what do you have. Are you on two toes with your weight equally divided at that point. Is that what the book says or not.

"I think you will find that you still have your heel on the floor after step one. Which is not according to the correct technique."

Dancing as lady I would indeed, as is required.

Dancing as man I would not, as is required.

But those are both entirely beside the point.

Try putting down the book and watching some excellent dancers. Or try reading Scrivener, who was ready to call a spade a spade and point out the simple fact that the heighest altitude is achieved at the end of step 2/beginning of step 3 - NOT the end of step 1 as an oversimplified reading of Moore leads you to mistakenly conclude.

the highest point is in the waltz, because in the foxtrot you are doing a rise but they tell you with "no foot rise", as you don't rise your feet like you do in the waltz, and in foxtrot you don't make a maximum rise like the waltz. So i guess this doesn't need to complicate things no?

Yes, waltz is higher than foxtrot.

However, all of waltz, foxtrot, and quickstep reach their own highest height at about the same point, as a result of the body arriving or passing directly over a nearly straight leg. This is simple and automatic geometry, which the Moore/ISTD books do not concern themselves with - instead, they speak of the rising action, which is indeed over after step one for foxtrot.

(Of course a nearly straight leg does not mean absolutely straight - the knee must still be soft and not be locked.).

So the height is the same in the four swing dances . The only difference is the way we get there. I think you will find except for the stretch in the body there is no appreciable difference in the height that the heel is off he floor.

"So the height is the same in the four swing dances ."

Abosolutely NOT!

Foxtrot is much lower than waltz!

"The only difference is the way we get there."

That is also different.

"I think you will find except for the stretch in the body there is no appreciable difference in the height that the heel is off he floor."

If you allow yourself to get ahead of the music in foxtrot, you may have to rise to a waltz like altitude to control yourself, but if you dance it PROPERLY as demonstrated by the masters, your maximum rise will be moderate.

Contrast in waltz, you will at times be over a fairly straight leg with a lot of foot rise. Wheras in foxtrot, your heel would only be moderately off the floor while your are directly over it. It is very high off the floor only at times when the body is not over it, in other words when the height of the heel does not contribute to the altitude of the body.

Characteristic waltz figures require dramatic rise which absorbs almost all of the motion energy in order to work. Characteristic foxtrot figures on the other hand would be ENTIRELY RUINED if danced risen to waltz height. Not to mention, the lady's footwork would be impossible if her parnter was rising to a waltz-like altitude!

I'm looking at Hilton and partners feet in Waltz and Foxtrot. You know who they are. What do I see.
It is a very beginnerish mistake to think that in passing steps there is any diference in the height of the heel from the floor. Discusion finished.

"I'm looking at Hilton and partners feet in Waltz and Foxtrot. You know who they are. What do I see.
It is a very beginnerish mistake to think that in passing steps there is any diference in the height of the heel from the floor. Discusion finished."

If you mean that a foxtrot figure imported into waltz is not that different than when it is danced in foxtrot, I would agree.

But if you compare *characteristic* foxtrot figures to *characteristic* waltz figures, the altitude of the rise is VERY DIFFERENT.

As I understand it, and perhaps I am wrong, but the footwork for both dances as a man is the same, heel toe, toe, toe heel. However, I was taught that in order to keep the characteristics of the dance, foxtrot has a lower rise and waltz higher. My understanding is that the rise in waltz is to help not only with the patterns but also to reflect true waltz music. The way that I was taught to keep foxtrot rise lower is by pitching the knee forward so that you have the same amount of foot rise but as you would in the waltz but not the same amount of overall rise.

To my understanding, this is done because in foxtrot your overall goal is to have equal step size for your slows and quicks. In order to show a difference between the two dances (besides just timing)you have to apply the proper styling and characteristics as well (which includes rise and sway).

I was also taught that the reason this works is because your lines are mostly created from the leg you are leaving behind, and are created mostly on your first and third steps, therefore the pitching of the knee shouldn't affect any leg lines that are being created.

Now, I would like to conclude this by saying I've only been dancing (instructing) for a year, so if someone is POSITIVE that this is wrong, I would love to know.. however if you are just making and educated guess as I am (from manuals, videos, etc.), then I would love to hear your position on it, but please don't claim it as fact. Thanks!

Xtal, you do have some of the right ideas.

Except that there is most definitely less actual foot rise of the standing foot in characeristic foxtrot figures than in characteristic waltz figures.

In foxtrot, you would usually only accomplish a lot of foot "rise" on a foot that was actually your moving foot rather than your standing foot - you only get that high articulation of the foot after you have left it behind. This is not the same thing as bending your knee of your standing leg forward so that you can have more foot rise in the standing foot (I've seen half trained students make that mistake, and a mistake it most certainly is!)

The one time in foxtrot where you would come closer to waltz rise and waltz dynamics is where you use the rise to almost completely reverse direction - for example, a curved feather or a curved three step, where you do use a lot of rise to absorb and re-direct the movement, much as in waltz. And notice that on these figures, the lady does have footrise on her second step, whereas should would not have any foot rise on that step in an ordinary linear feather or three.