"If you are one of those who beleives that the timing in the Foxtrot is 2341."

I do not. The timing in foxtrot (I assume we are talking about the footfalls here) cannot be represented by round numbers, instead it requires fractions that are rather messy.

For example:

1.8, 3, 4.5

"Then the whole beat of one is used to come into a neutral position.."

Not exactly, though there's something a bit like that going on. It's not so much to come into the neutral as to finish the end of the quick

"Thats a big pause right there."

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!

The motion of the body must continue throughout the ENTIRE FEATHER STEP.

Yes, at some points it is slower, though this is not even one of them. It is slower when it is up, and faster when it is down.

"Shoulders keep moving though."

Not only shoulders, but body too.

"I suppose some of you scientist could work out at 28 bars per minute how long a pause there is right there."

Your desire to pause explains a lot about why are you arguing for the wrong timing!



Reply to this message

I wouldn' t even bother to think about that timing. I think it is just a fad. I have three different articles on this. They are are all different. In one Q S Q. I wouldn' t even bother quoting from one of the articles except this. Even though we dance S Q Q we want to think of it as if all the counts are actually slow. you dont actually want to see Q Q. I' ll stop there. As I said . Its just a fad. I doubt if most of the judges are into this anyway.
Maybe another look at this time 2 3 4 1. I've got three steps and four beats. So I take it the 2 and the 3 are Quicks. Which leaves two beats on the last step which includes the one beat. Which leaves me with what on the first step of my Reverse, Enough said. Good for a laugh though.

"I wouldn' t even bother to think about that timing. I think it is just a fad."

It is not even remotely a fad - it is JUST WHAT IS NECESSARY TO DANCE A SMOOTH FOXTROT WITHOUT STOP & GO ROUGHNESS.

"I have three different articles on this. They are are all different."

Because it's not easy to explain exactly what happens in a way that is instructive.

"Maybe another look at this time 2 3 4 1."

That is wrong - maybe a tiny bit less wrong that 123, but still WRONG.

"I've got three steps and four beats."

And the logical thing to do is to divide the available time evenly by the number of steps - actual measurement of real dancers come much closer to this than you are willing to accept. In fact, there patters of longer and shorter is nearly OPPOSITE what most nievely belive it might be.

"Which leaves me with what on the first step of my Reverse, Enough said."

That was already explained - the reverse turn has THE SAME TIMING DISTRUBITON as the feather. To whatever degree the feather carries over into the measure of the revers turn, the reverse turn will carry over an equal amount in to the next measure... really simple idea.

So did you give up on the silly idea of trying to put a PAUSE in your feather??

I put up a question about body flight some time back, so have been working on it a little.
i think there's a lot of confused discussion here. I don't think anyone suggested keeping the weight on the standing leg until the moving foot is in place. And of course, the feet move more quickly than the body - when they're moving.
I agree with the person who said the body (and its centre of mass) moves ahead of the feet. This happens for a short period before the moving foot reaches the standing foot. I believe this is a crucial part of good body flight. i have been criticised by coaches in the past for not carrying my body over my standing leg properly, so i am working on this aspect.
You can't compare what might happen if you're stationary, because, when there is body flight you are, by definition, moving.
I'm still learning on this point

Phil. Do you get comfortably to a position where you are momentory equally suspended between the heel of the front foot and the ball of the back foot. If not why not. Does the knee come into action first. Of course it does otherwise your head is moving first to move the body and my nose would be the furthest part of me to the front.

"Phil. Do you get comfortably to a position where you are momentory equally suspended between the heel of the front foot and the ball of the back foot."

I would hope he doesn't.

"If not why not."

Because the human foot is not symmetric. The ankle is located at the back of the foot, not the middle. This means that your body will naturally be closer to your front leg (which is effectively shorter to its heel) than to your back leg, which is effectively longer (to its toe).

"Does the knee come into action first."

Yes, but the body moves during this phase in order to remain over the knee. That is how the body gets ahead of the foot in the early part of each action - the body goes with the knee, but the foot initially does not.

Isn' t my foot constantly the same measurement between the heel and the ball of the other foot or does it suddenly become larger and smaller. Either way i am sure those who wrote the books know better than you or I. Even if you had one leg longer than the other there will be a mid point.

"i am sure those who wrote the books know better than you or I."

If you take the time to read exactly what they wrote and EXACTLY WHAT SITUATON THEY WERE COMMENTING ON, I think you'll find there is a lot less disagreement between what is in the book and what I've been advocating than you presently believe. But based ont he "which goes first" thread, you don't seem willing to put enough care into reading the book to be eligible to comment on it.

"Even if you had one leg longer than the other there will be a mid point."

No. That is very faulty logic. There is absolutely no reason why the body cannot stay closer to one foot than the other throughout the entire action, excepting only the instant when the feet are in the same place (passing). And there is quite a lot of reason to believe that this is precisly what they do!!!

You are so stupid it denies belief. How can anything go from one position to another without being at some point half way between the two. Go to your nearest door and open or shut it. Is that a simple enough explanation
For those who have just tuned in. My friend believes that what is written in plain English in the technique books is wrong. It says. At the extent of the stride the heel of the front foot and the ball of the back foot are or off the floor and the body is equally divided between the two. This is called mid -point within the trade. But because he has been given the idea, by some teacher who should be locked up, that the body travells in front of the foot he doesn't believe there is a mid- point. As i said in the beginning How stupid can anybody be. Any of us has only to walk across the room. What would mum say if we took off with our body in front of our feet
Whilst we are here there is this other problem my friend has. When he reads or has it read to him that when going Backwards the supporting heel does not lower to the floor untill the moving foot is level with it. This is pointed out to him including the page number and low and behold within no time at all without giving any proof he says the same things all over again.
So now tell me where you can find anything from any intelligent source that says anything contrary to the above. Either put up or shut up.