"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.

The 63rd Blackpooi Championships.
final of the Foxtrot Andrew Sinkerson couple 245. They are all alone at the start on the long side. He does the intro on beat one. The first of the Feather on beat two. The second step on beat three. The third step on beat four. The third step he delays to stay with the music.
If you don't learn to count the music you are going to make it very hard for yourself. You will never be able to analyse the steps playing frame by frame. It will allow you to see where the feet are. But without music you would not have a clue where they were with the music.
On the 75th Blackpool Andrew gave his retirement honours dance. His Feather step was exactly the same as two years before. The first step of the Reverse was right on the button.
Do you realize how ridiculous it is to refere to steps as being 4.5 and 4.75. 4.75 What happens to the other .25 and what happend to the other half of the 4.5. steps. So we have 1/2 a step plus a 1/4
If you want metric we have .5 + .25 of a step hanging around somewhere.
Anyway i am glad I looked at the tape. i never realized how flexed his knees were on a Weave before.
As I said get into the real world. At this moment in time you are not
You must learn to count.

"The 63rd Blackpooi Championships.
final of the Foxtrot Andrew Sinkerson couple 245."

Ah, you are right. That slanting line of the four is hard to see on mine, i had thought it was 215.

"He does the intro on beat one."

WRONG. It is before beat one. Measure with more care!

"The first of the Feather on beat two."

WRONG AGAIN. It is before beat two. You r problem is that you started counting at the wrong time.

"The second step on beat three."

Yes. There's no argument about that. Measure how much time there is between the prep step or step one, and step two, and calculate backwards from beat three and you will discover your ERROR in reporting the time of the those two earlier steps.

"The third step on beat four. The third step he delays to stay with the music."

Now you are CONTRADICTING EVEN YOURSELF. How can it be on beat four and also be "delays to stay with the music"? It can't. IN PLAIN FACT, SINKINSON'S STEP THREE IS NEARLY 3/4 OF A BEAT AFTER FOUR, nowhere even remotely near being "on beat four" as you falsely claim. Learn to measure with more care - again, measure the time since step two, add that to beat three, and you'll find you're on beat four and three quarters or thereabouts.

"Do you realize how ridiculous it is to refere to steps as being 4.5 and 4.75."

Yes, but the facts of the situation require ugly fractions... that is, if you wish to actually talk about when a foot finds its place. I don't really think that's a productive way of looking at dancing - the REAL KEY IS THE TIMING OF THE BODY, NOT OF THE FEET. But as long as you are going to make wildly FALSE CLAIMS about foot timing, I'm going to be forced to correct them with EASILY VERIFIED MEASUREMENTS OF THE TRUTH.

"If you want metric we have .5 + .25 of a step hanging around somewhere."

There's a carryover of part of the duration of the third step into the next measure... and of that the final quick of that measure in the measure after it, and so on. I've been pointing that out to you for months. Jonathan pointed that out to you too... It's quite notable on the video of Sinkinson... but you just IGNORE THE FACTS.

"As I said get into the real world. At this moment in time you are not"

You're the one ignroing the FACTS of the video you watched, as they CONTRADICT YOUR FLAWED THEORY.