"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.

Careful Jonathon, dont pull yourself down to the level of anonymous!! I agree with you 100%. You know how well some people like to nit pick everything a person says. You have given more than enough of a valid explanation of your point.....some people just like to argue.

So in closing......Well Put Jonathon!! In my opinion, You are entirely correct!!

It's obvious to me that "anonymous" has chosen his own definition of tempo and is simply too adamant (or arrogant?) to change that definition (in his mind). I believe he probably instinctively does know how to interpret music and apply it to the different dances, but I sort of resent the comment about how DANCERS interpret music. Rest assured...not all DANCERS follow his (apparently misconstued) logic. And thank you, Jonathan...well said. I'm sure many of us appreciate the explanation.

"It's obvious to me that "anonymous" has chosen his own definition of tempo"

Anonymous was very adamant that he/she WAS NOT DEFINING TEMPO.

The metric used was NOT TEMPO, instead it was the APPLICABLE SPEED OF THE DANCE.

BPM is a measure of TEMPO only. On the other hand, MPM is a measure of tempo, but also, for some common dances (especially Jonathan's example waltz vs. foxtrot) a measure of the SPEED OF THE DANCE.

BPM leads to false conclusions about dance speed. MPM leads to valid comparison - a waltz at 40 mpm is a heck of a lot faster than a foxtrot at 30 mpm. Dance the same material in both, and look how alarmingly wrecklessly you would have to fly in that waltz.

Anon. You are absolutely right. I will add that on this very excellent site if a person will look to their left will see The Learning Centre and Learn the Dances If you have not got Quick Time loaded it is there free and easy to load. You will need this to see the videos.