There is an old saying. The proof is in the pudding. I can see weight arriving over the foot. I can see the weight being behind the foot. but I have never seen a spirit level where the top is in front of the base and is still verticle. How would that be posible. In all the years I have been connected to dancing nobody ever told me to get my weight in front of my feet and to catch my body. Except in Latin. If in Standard anybody can point in the direction of some instruction from any Tape Lecture or Book I would be very gratefull.
Just two steps the first and the second of a Feather Step. We drive on the RF. and lift the hip to the left on the second step high on the toes. The left hip is higher than the right Try that with the weight in front of the foot. What about a Progressive Chasse in the Quickstep. Is it possible to imagine what it would look like on step one with the weight in front which will be over the back Then on the side together side to get the body ahead of the feet.
Who doesn't beleive that the body is carried by the feet. How long does it take a baby to learn that the foot travels faster than the body. A couple of days or is it hours.

"There is an old saying. The proof is in the pudding. I can see weight arriving over the foot. I can see the weight being behind the foot. but I have never seen a spirit level where the top is in front of the base and is still verticle."

That's because, unlike your body, a spirit level doesn't have any KNEES.

The body - actually everything from the knees up is vertically aligned (so there is no "leaning"), and all of it will at times be found well in front of both feet.

Later in the step, you will get a similar situation where everything from the waist up is vertically aligned (again, no "leaning") and located well in front of the standing foot - which would still be the only foot providing any support.

That is because the spirit level doesn' t have knees.
Did I understand this correctly. Are you now saying the knees are in front. How long is it since your knees were not part of your body, or your feet. If your knees or even your toe is to the front then the body weight is not in front of your feet or your knees.
In the beginning I wrote it is dangerous to tell a beginner to push the body ahead of the feet. I have nor read anything since to make me change my mind.

"That is because the spirit level doesn' t have knees.
Did I understand this correctly. Are you now saying the knees are in front."

That is what I have been saying to you OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN for about a year now!

"How long is it since your knees were not part of your body, or your feet."

They are not generally considered part of the body when we speak of vertical alignment of the body. Perhaps you'd be happier if we said vertical alignment of the TORSO then. I've probably said it that way numerous times over the past year, too.

"If your knees or even your toe is to the front then the body weight is not in front of your feet or your knees."

The body weight is vertically aligned directly over the knees, which are in front of the toes!

Your torso is not directly alignment over your knees if your knees are ahead of your body. The weight of the body is over the balls of the feet.
You are saying the torso is in front of the feet.When teaching we must be precise otherwise it could become a joke.
Isn' t that right.

"Your torso is not directly alignment over your knees if your knees are ahead of your body."

I didn't say the knees were ahead of the body! I said the body was vertically aligned over the knees.

"The weight of the body is over the balls of the feet."

At one point. And soon therafter it is located BEYOND the feet, because the movement of the body weight is CONTINOUS WITHOUT PAUSE.

"You are saying the torso is in front of the feet."

Yes - the bulk of the body, or the torso if your prefer, is over the feet, then it is in front of both feet, then in front of the standing foot... because it keeps moving!

But doesn' t the foot also keep moving. And moving faster than the body. Wouldn't it be easier to say drive your centre forward keep verticl and let the rest look after itself.

"But doesn' t the foot also keep moving. And moving faster than the body."

Yes, but it starts later. So there's a period when the body is over the feet, then a period when it is ahead of both feet, then a period when it is ahead of only the standing foot.

"Wouldn't it be easier to say drive your centre forward keep verticl and let the rest look after itself."

Simplification is great when it works. But a simplified theory can't be used in an argument over details, when the opposition is using a more detialed and accurate model. Go ahead and use the simple model to guide your practice if you want, but don't seek your argument ammuntion from it!

My point about "weight" and "your weight" is simply that, when discussing weight transfer and the like, it's important not to use "your weight" when you just mean "weight"
"your weight is over your foot" means your centre of mass is over the foot. If you say "weight is on your foot", it says nothing about where the centre of mass is. Simnply that there is a force between the foot and the floor.
A lot of arguments are caused by this simple confusion.
And yes, i agree, dancing isn't just the laws of physics. The laws of physics are beautiful in themselves, but they're not dancing.

"My point about "weight" and "your weight" is simply that, when discussing weight transfer and the like, it's important not to use "your weight" when you just mean "weight""

Since the weight is almost always on only one foot at a time, there's really no difference between "your weight" "the weight" and "weight".

Some will argue for split weight at mid stride - I argue very strongly against it, but that' really doesn't matter since we haven't been talking about that part of the action lately. Instead, we've been discussing the first half or so of each step.

"your weight is over your foot" means your centre of mass is over the foot. If you say "weight is on your foot", it says nothing about where the centre of mass is. Simnply that there is a force between the foot and the floor.
A lot of arguments are caused by this simple confusion."

Yes, one must realize that the DURING MOVEMENT the body weight will often not be located over the only foot that is supporting it.

"And yes, i agree, dancing isn't just the laws of physics. The laws of physics are beautiful in themselves, but they're not dancing."

True, but any theory of dancing which obviously violates the laws of physics is obviously in error. That doesn't mean that physically impossible ideas may not sometimes provide useful inspiriation - dancing like anything else is substantially a head game - but one shouldn't go around trumpeting them as revealed truth, when they are in fact false.