Heres a good one. In between the Waltz and the Foxtrot. Which if any is higher than the other at its highest point. Look before you leap. remember the description from the technique book. Which is commence to rise at the end of step one.. Continue to rise on two and three. Foxtrot. Rise at the end of one. Up on two and three. If the last sentence is analized the highest point is imediently after one on two, no further rise. Whereas the highest point in Waltz is on three which has nothing to do with how high we should be, thats just how we get there. Look at the DVD's and keep an eye on those heels.

I always understood that the waltz has the 'highest rise' since the nature of the waltz is the undulating movement. Foxtrot is a more flowy dance, and rise isn't so much, even though it may start earlier. Sinkinson dances his foxtrot with a lot less rise than his waltz. That's good enough for me

"Heres a good one. In between the Waltz and the Foxtrot. Which if any is higher than the other at its highest point. Look before you leap. remember the description from the technique book. Which is commence to rise at the end of step one.. Continue to rise on two and three. Foxtrot. Rise at the end of one. Up on two and three. If the last sentence is analized the highest point is imediently after one on two, no further rise."

WRONG.

In reality the highest point in foxtrot is at the formal end of step two, which is to say when the feet pass to begin step three.

Don't take my word for it, open your eyes and LOOK.

And you will soon realize it would not work any other way.

The textbook does not mention this, because it is concerned with the RISING ACTION, not with the ALTITUDE of the body which includes additional factors.

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.