"Anonymous. The way the end of step one and the following step is being taught is to be on both toes with the weight evenly balanced.It would not be possible to do it this way if I haven't risen to my full height."

You are sadly mistaken. You want to be tall in your body, yes. But you really should not have very much foot rise in foxtrot. Yes, you have foot rise, but that is more in terms of which part of your foot is on the floor. You should not have the kind of high foot rise that you have in waltz.

Dancing foxtrot with waltz rise is a rather common intermediate mistake...

"I would be down on one side. Please look at your DVD's."

Indeed, please look and see that in classic foxtrot figures there is very little foot altitude.

"NFR. if you read what I wrote correctly it is saying there is no foot rise for the lady going backwards, not on or at the end of."

Of course there is no foot rise for the lady in continued backwards actions, but that's the opposite of what your wrote. Deny it and I will post a direct quote.

"I also added you must have a different technique book to me by the quote you gave me"

That is straight out of the current ISTD technique book, and you WILL NOT FIND ANY REPUTABLE WORK WHICH CONTRADICTS THAT QUOTE.

In short, you are LYING

Anonymous. Getting annoyed are we.
To save you the trouble of looking for yourself I have done it for you.
This is where we do Not want no foot rise. we want foot rise.
This means we do not want to stay down. We want to come up. You idiot.
Try Alex Moore page 70 to 71. That makes you a bigger fool than you were just now.
Whilst we are at it. Do you only say what you are thinking at the time. Or do you remember what you have written five minutes before.
How many times have you said that no couple pass each other.
You have written only a very short time ago on the 21 st
Some need to rotate in order to permitt moving past.
I can even remember when you said to use the word rotate was wrong. Now you are using it.

"To save you the trouble of looking for yourself I have done it for you.
This is where we do Not want no foot rise. we want foot rise.
This means we do not want to stay down. We want to come up. You idiot."

Thank you for calling yourself the idiot that you are - for if you really believe that a backwards action such as in the reverse wave uses foot rise, you can be nothing else.

"Try Alex Moore"

Alex Moore gives the rise for the reverse wave the same way as the ISTD does (not suprising as they got it from him)

"How many times have you said that no couple pass each other."

In a NON-TURNING FIGURE

"You have written only a very short time ago on the 21 st
Some need to rotate in order to permitt moving past."

In a TURNING FIGURE.

Obviously that difference is too advanced for you.

"Thank you for calling yourself the idiot that you are - for if you really believe that a backwards action such as in the reverse wave uses foot rise, you can be nothing else."

Remember that we are talkikng about step one of the reverse wave, which is where the lady steps back with NO FOOT RISE (though she does have a slight body rise at the end of 1) into her heel turn. The man moving forward has a slight rise at the end of one, in both feet and body, but not great alititude should be gained as this is foxtrot and not waltz.

Anonymous . You had to quickly cover that last posting didn't you. That is 12.12. 8.15 pm.
Exactly what are you on about. If it is backward steps for the lady there is no footrise. If it is for the man in a Wave there is a Toe on the 5th step. The part before is just a Reverse Turn as is normal. Except for the Toe all the steps have body rise only. From there if we contine the story alters.
To quote the exact words of John Wood. I think by your own definition he would pass as somebody capable of giving lessons.
PASSING. The exact words used on the Feather Step is. As the man passes the lady.There is more if you want to hear it.
You might be interested in the timing of the first step. 2 beats. = 4 1/2 beats. Three of those half beats are the step the other half a beat is bringing the left foot to a neutral position. Seemless.If this is all beyond you don't worry we can go through it again. This is the way todays dancers are being taught by one of those exclusive few who did win at Blackpool and therefore must pass.

" Exactly what are you on about. If it is backward steps for the lady there is no footrise."

Yes, that has been my position all along. Wheras you had to post, and then go back and repost, the following contradictory argument:

"To save you the trouble of looking for yourself I have done it for you.
This is where we do Not want no foot rise. we want foot rise.
This means we do not want to stay down. We want to come up. You idiot."

As for the timing, seeing as how you were one of those who messed up the waltz timing so badly, I suggest you leave the issue of foxtrot timing safely alone. Or take the advice Don said he was given - put the slows on the beat and don't worry about the quicks. That's pretty good advice, except that really to be univeral it should be restricted to the first quick only.

Gosh, my fingers are betraying me!

The recommendation was of course to put the QUICKS on the beat and not worry about the SLOWS

"That is lower at the end of STEP three, not the end of BEAT three."

I would argue the reverse. Waltz music has a strong first beat and kind of a softer 2nd and 3rd beat. Lowering at the end of the 3rd beat into beat 1 would create a motion that would correspond with the expression of the music.

"Even if you make the assumption that each step takes exactly one beat, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that beats align with steps. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that steps begin and end somewhere around halfway through each beat - that would put the weight change which is approximately the midway action of each step on the downbeat, and would have us counting steps in terms of beats as and-one, and-two, and-three."

If you're not dancing syncopated steps, each step (as it is planted) should be exactly on each beat. The transfering of weight is entirely a different matter. This all has to do with creating continuity/fluidity of movement.

"I put the and count after beat three at the begining of STEP 1. If you wish step 1 to land squarely on beat 1, then the part of step 1 that takes place before the foot lands (which is about half of the step!) must take place before beat one... which is to say, during the later portion of beat three."
You could subdivide the beat down to whatever level you want. Whether it's 1, 2, 3. or 1 &, 2 &, 3 &. or 1 e & a, 2 e & a, 3 e & a. Your focus should be on when your step is considered to have been taken or when your foot is planted (not when to start to move your foot to take the step which I think is why the desciption for when to lower is vague or not excruciatingly precise) and that is right smack on the beat not on the 'e', the '&', or the 'a' of a beat. Otherwise, it would be dam near imposible to tell if you're dancing to the tempo of the music.

"I put the and count after beat three at the begining of STEP 1. If you wish step 1 to land squarely on beat 1, then the part of step 1 that takes place before the foot lands (which is about half of the step!) must take place before beat one... which is to say, during the later portion of beat three."

You could subdivide the beat down to whatever level you want. Whether it's 1, 2, 3. or 1 &, 2 &, 3 &. or 1 e & a, 2 e & a, 3 e & a. Your focus should be on when your step is considered to have been taken or when your foot is planted (not when to start to move your foot to take the step which I think is why the desciption for when to lower is vague or not excruciatingly precise) and that is right smack on the beat not on the 'e', the '&', or the 'a' of a beat. Otherwise, it would be dam near imposible to tell if you're dancing to the tempo of the music.