Anonymous. I doubt if any of us get as high on step two as for instance Luca on youtube does.Which means that step three isn't as it could or should be. Harry Smith Hampshire posed the question Where should the moving foot be at the time the heel lowers to the floor on the third step of the Feather Step. He never did give the answer and now never will unfortunately. But it does show for he to put it in writing on his web- site that it is a contentious point. It will probably be argued about for ever. But never the less the book does say how it was being danced at the time it was written,I don't think anybody else has been game enough to have written that step in any other way. Which is. Rise at the end of one .Up for two and three. Lower at the end of three.

Wrong again my friend... Scrivener addresses that very point IN writing , and totally contradicts the written technique with good theory. ( and he danced rings around Harry ! ,, but there again, he did that with everyone !)

There were 3/4 great theorists during that time.. Scrivener, Tolmeyer, Jacques and Thiebault , ..many agreed with Lens theories ( harry was more a technician.. big difference )

"Scrivener addresses that very point IN writing , and totally contradicts the written technique"

Scrivener does not actually contradict the written technique nearly as much as it first appears.

The difference is that scrivener is speaking of rise and fall in terms of overall body altitude, and accurately describing what you would see developing in the body altitude when a good dancer is fully dancing.

Moore on the other hand describes the specific component of rise in the feet and legs, and accurately describes the timing used for that. But his descriptions lead to misleading conclusions about something that he actually does not discuss, which is the overall altitude of the body.

As for the timing of when the heel lowers, a little sense will show that if you are planning to descend deeply into the knee as in done today, then the foot will have to go flat on the floor a lot earlier in the overall process of descending than it would if we were not going to bend our knee as deeply. In other words, both answers are correct for the circumstances they describe, but the real general answer is 'precisely when it needs to in order to sustain the chosen path of descent'

If you had lessons with Len, you would know that he DID disagree with the " book" .
He went at great lengths to demonstrate the innacuracy of the wording . No one is denying the legs come into play.. thats not the issue .

Also worth repeating more of his philosophy.. the exactitude of each individual, may differ to some degree .

len chose his words very carefully, and pretty much what he said was what he meant .

"If you had lessons with Len, you would know that he DID disagree with the " book" ."

He may have thought he was disagreeing with it, but much of his apparent disagreement is the result of his decision to examine factors that Moore's book IGNORES. When two people are talking about two different things, they may appear to disagree, but in reality they are just talking about different things.

"No one is denying the legs come into play.. thats not the issue ."

On the contrary it is PRECISELY the issue. Moore's book ignores the way in which closing and then redividing the legs in step 2-3 of a feather step will create a change in altitude of the body. Because his book ignores this, it's description of rise and fall appears to contradict the obvious trend of body altitude in a well danced feather. This is because the book is not discussing body altitude when it refers to rise and fall, instead it is referring to foot (and to a lesser degree, knee) action.

Scrivener on the other hand considers all sources of change in body altitude, and ends up with a description that matches the overall effect you see.

The two authors appear to disagree with each other, but mostly what they have done is include (Scrivener) and exclude (Moore) different factors from their analysis.

I think we may have gone from the Waltz to the Foxtrot. Whichever one it is I suggest that you go to a slow teaching count as is on the Letter Service tapes or disks and see exactly what they are demonstrating. On the third step of the Feather where are they at the time they lower the heel to the floor. Is it before the moving foot comes underneath the body. Or is it as the moving foot comes underneath the body.

"On the third step of the Feather where are they at the time they lower the heel to the floor. Is it before the moving foot comes underneath the body. Or is it as the moving foot comes underneath the body."

This depends on the size and dynamic of the movement that the dancers wish to execute.

With the limited altitude change and smaller movement of traditional dancing, much of the descent is complete by the time the foot is flat, so this will occur late in the overall descent, as the feet are passing.

But with todays larger and more dynamic dancing, the majority of the overall altitude change will occur in the legs AFTER the feet are flat on the floor. Since the lowering out of the foot rise marks only the beginning of the overall descent, it will have to be complete earlier, usually before the feet pass.

The technical rules underpinning both methods are the same; but applying the same rules to two different situations (two different desired outcomes) generates two different sequences of action.

Anonymous . We are not refering to different situations . We are dicussing the third step of the Feather Step in the Internation Foxtrot which usually is followed by a Reverse Movement. The question is where should the moving foot be at the time that the heel of the standing foot lowers to the floor. does it correspond to the lowering by the lady who is going backward, or do they lower at different times. We all know that the lady lowers the heel to the floor only as the moving foot passes the standing foot. So what does the man do.

"We all know that the lady lowers the heel to the floor only as the moving foot passes the standing foot."

This is a common misconception based on sloppy reading of the technique and insufficient attention to the role of technique in producing the desired overall dancing.

1) in a plain WALKING ACTION as documented in the introduction of Moore's book, danced with NO RISE OR FALL, then this would be true. But that's not the case in this figure. Instead, a descent is occurring, and that will necessarily make the details of action different than in the case with no rise or fall.

2) If the lady had foot rise, this would be the traditional timing for when the foot rise would be lost. But she does not have foot rise, so it's not literally mandated that her foot go flat at this point and not before.

Now, speaking more generally, I'd refer you to my post of yesterday on when the feet go flat / foot rise is lost in small traditional vs. large modern movements:

This depends on the size and dynamic of the movement that the dancers wish to execute.

With the limited altitude change and smaller movement of traditional dancing, much of the descent is complete by the time the foot is flat, so this will occur late in the overall descent, as the feet are passing.

But with todays larger and more dynamic dancing, the majority of the overall altitude change will occur in the legs AFTER the feet are flat on the floor. Since the lowering out of the foot rise marks only the beginning of the overall descent, it will have to be complete earlier, usually before the feet pass.

The technical rules underpinning both methods are the same; but applying the same rules to two different situations (two different desired outcomes) generates two different sequences of action.

"Anonymous . We are not refering to different situations . "

The different situations are the range of possible desired characters of the dancing - traditional, small and high in the legs, or modern, large and descending very low into the knees during the lowering. Applying consistent underlying rules of technique to both cases dictates that the sequence of actions will have to be different to create each desired outcome.

Anonymous. Exactly which technique book are you reading from. I am not aware of any book which says that the person going backward does not lower the heel to the floor of the standing foot untill the moving foot arrives under the body.
Backward Walk.
Alex Moore Page 13 paragraph 3.
Continue to move backwards, draw the RF back to the LF and at the same time lower slowly the left heel to the floor making sure it does not touch the floor untill the RF is level with it. The RF is drawn back with the heel on the floor the ball being lowered as it reaches the LF. Continue the walk with the RF. If you are the same Anonymous. I remember about two years ago quoting this to you. I can't believe that anybody would still be making the same mistakes.
One former British Champion goes as far as to say that if the lowering is too early that person will have to tilt the hip to allow the foot to pass. Only slightly but enough to destroy the ballance. Plus they will be falling backwards. I have this on a teaching video. Now pleaser quote from your reference book on the same step.