"You are not getting muddled here are you. That it is common among competition dancers to make the Feather Step all quicks. Beat 1. an introduction . Beat 2 first of the Feather and so on."

You sure have a short memory! You already tried that argument not more than a few months ago, and were corrected in your flawed argument then as now. All quicks is NOT WHAT IS BEING DESCRIBED.

"You said. If a slow, the first step is in fact just placed a hair before BEAT TWO. Wouldn't you call that a quick."

No. I'd call it the proper execution of a "slow" in the dance called foxtrot.

"This is competition dancing at the highest level which you or I are not.."

Nonetheless, I'm basing my argument on measurement of the actual dancing of leading foxtrot dancers, people like ANDREW SINKINSON.

"How many of these top couples do you see not doing a beat per step on any Weave."

A series of all quicks, as in a weave, will indeed have a different step-to-beat realationship than a more common SQQ sequence would. And if you were paying more attention, you'd know that I've pointed that out this weak, as well as several other times within the past few months.

"It would be a bit difficult stepping in between the quicks wouldn't it."

No, it's fairly simple actually. The pace of a series of quicks is one step per beat-quanitity-of-time, but that does not NECESSARILY mean that one step will land squarely on each beat. And the last quick (the one preceding the slow of the next figure) of course will land AT LEAST A HALF BEAT AFTER ITS NOMINAL BEAT.

Since I know you're going to argue with that yet again, I'll just quote what Jonathan said to you last time you tried to claim that was anything other than orthadox technique:

Quickstep:

"And who teaches that a quick, which is followed by a slow delays its placement at least a half a beat into the time of that slow."

Waltz123:

"I hate to burst your bubble there, Quickstep, but just about everybody in the competitive dance world, dating back at least 10-15 years now."

I'd merely add that I'm pretty sure the best dancers have been doing it that way a lot longer, it's just taken time for the word of what really happens to spread - no suprise really given how fiercely some will cling to their mistaken ideas about it...

Do you really beleive that any dancer is changing the timing on their step conciously so that on some steps they will not arrive on the beat and on others they will. Having done that do you really believe that they could replicate it at will everytime.
So you are arriving on the first step of your Feather Step a hairs breath before the second beat. Is that a micro second. Are you consistant. Is this on every slow. What happens on the slow after a Feather Finish. Do you hold the quick turning it into almost a slow and turning the slow into almost a quick. Really who puts these weird ideas in your head. But anyway for somebody who doesn't count how could you possibly manage it. We could go right through the card here. What happens to the first of the Natural. Do we arrive one micro second before the second beat. Why don't we just switch the music off.
I'll tell you what. Why dont you talk me through a Natural Turn beat by beat.

"Do you really beleive that any dancer is changing the timing on their step conciously so that on some steps they will not arrive on the beat and on others they will."

It's clear that they do in fact achieve such timings.

As to how they do it, if you'd actually read my posts you'd see that I pointed out that they could NOT BE DOING IT BY COUNTING BEAT FRACTIONS. Instead, they do it by MATCHING THE OVERALL MOVEMENT TO THE OVERALL MEASURE. They don't sweat the details of what fraction of an action belongs on what fraction of a beat. Instead, the dance the BIG PICTURE... and they do it BY FEELING THE MUSIC AND THE DANCE.

"Having done that do you really believe that they could replicate it at will everytime."

Because it's actually done BY FEEL, it remains accurate as long as the dancers feelings are trustworthy. Developing such feelings is the task of the student, maintaining them the tast of the more advanced student.

"What happens on the slow after a Feather Finish."

The same thing. How can you remember nothing of all of the answers you were given to the same questions when you asked them a few months ago?

"Really who puts these weird ideas in your head."

These wierd ideas are the STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE amongst adequately educated dancers. As Jonathan said, hate to burst your bubble, but it's what everyone is actually doing.

"What happens to the first of the Natural."

The same thing as the first of the f.finish, and all the other SQQ figures...

"Why don't we just switch the music off.
I'll tell you what."

"Why dont you talk me through a Natural Turn beat by beat."

Because it would be counterproductive to look at those details - they will only confuse you. Instead, you should be looking to match the BODY SWING (NOT THE FOOTSTEPS) to the MUSIC.

Here, let me prove my point:

Footsteps to beats method:

Land step on beat 1.78
Land step two on beat 3.00
Land step three on beat 4.6

What a mess... so lets try the way it's actually done:

Match your BODY swing to the music, so that your acceleration and drive from one figure into the next matches the music's drive from one meaure to the next.

See how much simpler that is?

"Do you really beleive that any dancer is changing the timing on their step conciously so that on some steps they will not arrive on the beat and on others they will."

It's clear that they do in fact achieve such timings.

As to how they do it, if you'd actually read my posts you'd see that I pointed out that they could NOT BE DOING IT BY COUNTING BEAT FRACTIONS. Instead, they do it by MATCHING THE OVERALL MOVEMENT TO THE OVERALL MEASURE. They don't sweat the details of what fraction of an action belongs on what fraction of a beat. Instead, the dance the BIG PICTURE... and they do it BY FEELING THE MUSIC AND THE DANCE.

"Having done that do you really believe that they could replicate it at will everytime."

Because it's actually done BY FEEL, it remains accurate as long as the dancers feelings are trustworthy. Developing such feelings is the task of the student, maintaining them the tast of the more advanced student.

"What happens on the slow after a Feather Finish."

The same thing. How can you remember nothing of all of the answers you were given to the same questions when you asked them a few months ago?

"Really who puts these weird ideas in your head."

These wierd ideas are the STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE amongst adequately educated dancers. As Jonathan said, hate to burst your bubble, but it's what everyone is actually doing.

"What happens to the first of the Natural."

The same thing as the first of the f.finish, and all the other SQQ figures...

"Why don't we just switch the music off.
I'll tell you what."

Because what is being described is how to dance a foxtrot that actually matches the music. If instead you try to put steps squarely on beats, you would BE DANCING OFF TIME.

"Why dont you talk me through a Natural Turn beat by beat."

Because it would be counterproductive to look at those details - they will only confuse you. Instead, you should be looking to match the BODY SWING (NOT THE FOOTSTEPS) to the MUSIC.

Here, let me prove my point:

Footsteps to beats method:

Land step one on beat 1.78 (or whatever it was)
Land step two on beat 3.00
Land step three on beat 4.6

What a mess... so lets try the way it's actually done:

Match your BODY swing to the music, so that your acceleration and drive from one figure into the next matches the music's drive from one meaure to the next.

Both explanations are accurate, but the first one is USELESS. Only the second can actually help you.

I think you would be far happier counting your Foxtrot by steps and not beats. 123 123. Even then you would be counting four beats to a bar. I wouldn't try it on a Weave though.
If you want to count the timing of a Feather Step in a competition you only have one chance and that is right at the beginning of the dancers performance. Count it in any competition and see if they aren't using all quicks.
I looked again at the final of a IDSF competition from St Petersburg in Russia, where each couple dance solo. One couple I couldn't count because the comentator was talking over the music. The other five all started with a Feather Step and they all did the introduction on beat 1 a quick . followed by 2 3 4 all quicks

"If you want to count the timing of a Feather Step in a competition you only have one chance and that is right at the beginning of the dancers performance. Count it in any competition and see if they aren't using all quicks."

I did exactly that. I counted the video frames in Andrew Sinkinson's performance at Blackpool. HE WAS NOT DANCING ALL QUICKS ON HIS FEATHER!!!

Instead, he was dancing a drawn out prep step, a "slow" which landed just before beat two, a quick on beat three, and a final quick which landed almost three quarters of a beat AFTER beat four.

He then danced THE SAME TIMING ON EVERY OTHER SQQ FIGURE in the basic characteristic foxtrot sequence he executed.

"Feather Step and they all did the introduction on beat 1 a quick . followed by 2 3 4 all quicks"

The introduction is not on beat 1, it is about on beat 4.5 of the preceding measure. And the final "quick" is not on beat four, it is on beat 4.5 (OR EVEN LATER ON SOMEONE OF SINKINSONS QUALITY).

As a result, a normal FEATHER IS NOT DANCED ALL QUICKS BY ANY COMPETENT DANCER. You merely believe it is because you still DO NOT UNDERSTAND that the steps are OFFSET from the beats and span the barline of the measure.

Don't try to tell me what Andrew Sinkinson teaches . My coaches have been pupils of his continuously for the past seven years. But we will put that aside.
Do you expect me to beleive that in a competition at Blackpool you saw a Feather Step being performed from an intro..We will put that aside.
Now you have really lost it. You say the introduction step is on 4 5. Don't you know that 5 becomes 1.
I can assure you I am not blind and neither am I deaf and I can count as good as if not better than most. I am telling you that no finalist In the IDSF from St Petersburg on the one and only Feather Step any of them did which was from an introductoty step with the left foot on the first beat of a bar of music which was i. Then the first of the Feather on beat 2. the second step was on beat 3 and the third step was on beat 4. That is it.
Now you can explain to us. exactly what is beat five in a four beats to a bar piece of music. Time 4/4
I've got the two tapes of Blackpool prior to Andrew's retirement plus the year he retired and did a special honours dance. If I remember correctly he started with a Three Step diagnal to the centre. Which is an alignment he introduced into dancing. I'll se if I can find them.
A reminder in case you forget. What is the correct number or name for that beat 5.

"Don't try to tell me what Andrew Sinkinson teaches ."

I'm not telling you what he teaches, I'm telling you what HE ACTUALLY DANCES.

If his teaching doesn't match his own dancing, well it wouldn't be the first case. But what he dances DOES match the teaching of all of the world-ranked experts I've had the privilege of studying with.

"Do you expect me to beleive that in a competition at Blackpool you saw a Feather Step being performed from an intro..We will put that aside."

Don't believe it if you want to deny reality then. But if you have an open mind, you might find a copy of the 1998 video, Sinkinson was #215 and the camera wisely starts the foxtrot following him. He dances a feather, a reverse turn, f.finish, three step... That's five measures of classic SQQ actions before the camera changes, all of which turn out to have the same timing as each other, and as I described - step one a little before beat two, step two on beat three, step three more than half a beat (actually closer to 3/4) AFTER beat four.

"Now you have really lost it. You say the introduction step is on 4 5. Don't you know that 5 becomes 1."

You ignored the decimal point I'd put in there. I said "4.5"

"I am telling you that no finalist In the IDSF from St Petersburg on the one and only Feather Step any of them did which was from an introductoty step with the left foot on the first beat of a bar of music which was i. Then the first of the Feather on beat 2. the second step was on beat 3 and the third step was on beat 4. That is it."

In the unlikely event that they are actually doing what you descrive (unlikely given you poor track record for accuracy in observation, and notorious habit of altering quotes to invert their meaning) then they must not be very good dancers in the IDSF, as none of the professionals would be caught dead dancing such a silly timing.

Try counting the number of video frames between the foot placements on professional quality performance, and you might learn something about the actual timing of quality foxtrot.

Until then, all you are doing is denying reality - ignoring the overwhelming evidence that things are not as you imagine.

Counting frames will not give you the timing being used.
You will need to explain a bit better than that. How do you propose to count 4.5
I might explain that when I put steps 1.2. i do not intend one to be part of the two. Otherwise it might be mistaken for 12. Thats what the full stop is for. The other is twelve full stop.
Now to your 4.5. Is that
4 1/2 steps or beats or both.
To come more into the real world. If you had the same tape i have you would see the right foot arriving one hair breadth before beat two. That sounds familiar doesn't it. That's what you wrote. What you didn't take into account was what was happening on beat one with the LF. You silly boy

"Counting frames will not give you the timing being used."

Yes it most certainly will!

It will give you the relative timing of the actions with far higher precision than you could ever hope to hear. And that enough is to prove that your arguments about when the steps fall are wrong, since your theory has different amounts of time between the steps than actual measurments of leading dancers reveal.

To determine where in the sequence the beats actually fall, take a noncontroversial relationship, such as that step 2 lands on beat three. From that you can then work forwards and backwards to determine where in the music everything else falls. And this is actually a lot more accurate than listening to the audio, because you can't be sure that the audio and video haven't shifted relative to each other during processing.

"You will need to explain a bit better than that. How do you propose to count 4.5"

"4.5" is the same thing as "the and after four" Maybe where you are a decimal fraction is indicated as 4,5 ?

"To come more into the real world. If you had the same tape i have you would see the right foot arriving one hair breadth before beat two."

That's exactly what I documented. Your error is in thinking that the third step lands on beat four, that is WAY, WAY, WAY TOO EARLY. The third step's early limit is beat 4.5 - which is to say, the and after four. And on a dancer who can draw things out like Sinkinson it will be more like 3/4 of a beat after beat four.

"What you didn't take into account was what was happening on beat one with the LF. You silly boy"

THE LEFT FOOT DOES NOT STEP ON BEAT ONE! That's your observational mistake, instead it steps somewhere between beat 4.5 and 4.75 - a half to a quarter of a beat before beat one. Your real error though is in somehow coming up with a feather step that lasts less than a measure. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Each SQQ figure gets an entire FOUR BEATS WORTH OF TIME - but the catch is, that period of time does not line up with the four beats of one measure. Instead, it starts a bit after the start of the measure, and carries over precisely the same amount into the next measure, so that it's exactly one measure worth of time, only offset from the barline. Each SQQ figure has the same basic timing, each is 4 beats worth of time, so in a series of them the offset from the measure is constant.

Go actually measure Sinkinson on the 98 blackpool tape you mentioned having, and your mistakes will be revealed.