That is the question. Just to make things clear step one in this writing means just that, it has nothing to do with timing. To make it easier to grasp my point we go to the Reverse Turn for the man in Foxtrot. The lady is the natural opposite.
According to my book the sway
to the left occurs on steps two and three. Step four is void, five and six have sway to the right And yet there are no instructions for step four. I would suggest that on the first part of four the line is held holding the shape. And on the second half of four the sway to the right begins blending, the two together. As far as I know stop does not occure in any swing dance Waltz. Foxtrot or Quickstep if the feet aren't moving the top still is. Tango is different and has no sway and does stop.

There is no sway on step four.

The sideways component from 2&3 is resolved as one prepares to take the step, becuase a sidesway is useless when moving forward or back.

The lady can sneak her toe forward coming out of the heel turn into 3 because that is still partially aligned with the sway.

But on step 4, she must keep her foot under her body - if she points through, it will get trapped outside the man's right foot making the feather finish quite difficult.

Remember that sway is related to turn, and the placement of step four does not have any turn. You can start to swing, and sway as your move from four into 5 and prepare to turn for 6.

Anon
Don't we have a side sway when we dance the 3 step? Is this sway useless? Also we don't have a turn. So why do we sway?

True, no turn on the three step (though you can also do one).

You do have swing in the three step, and because you do not move over your feet but at an angle to them (remember, right side leading, but still leftwards shape) that swing will be partially sideways.

When a step is described as being "straight" (or "S"), it means that there is no sway. Therefore step 1 and 4 of a basic reverse turn in Waltz or Foxtrot have no sway.

Well, sort of...

The description of sway in the ISTD technique book is oversimplified. It might have been better if they had indicated two points for sway on each step -- one for the sway at the beginning of a step, and one at the end of a step. Then a reverse turn in both Watz and Foxtrot might be more accurately represented, like so:

1. Begin straight, end [slightly] left
2. Begin left, end left
3. Begin left, end straight

4. Begin straight, end [slightly] right
5. Begin right, end right
6. Begin right, end straight

And I suppose, for those who prefer everything to be acronymized (my own word), this could be shortened to "SL, LL, LS, SR, RR, RS".

Regards,
Jonathan Atkinson

I generally agree. One detail though, is that to have a side sway you must have a side in advance, otherwise the sway will be backward/forward - something the book doesn't talk about. So you can't have sidesway until your CBM has progressed far enough to have a leading side. In fact, those who like to go into figures carrying the previous side lead could possible find themselves still carrying the previous sway.

Other than the fact that the book fails to mention such detail, what's wrong with sway overlapping with progression? Everything in closed position ballroom should happen through 3-dimensional space, and sway is no different. It's simple, especially when attempting to describe something in a chart, to talk about it in terms of mere left & right. But sway in actual dancing occurs through diagonal and rotational angles.

For years I have been taught (and have been teaching) that the body passes through the position of being squared-off to the feet when the weight is fully tranferred on 1. The opposite side of the body does not overtake the moving side until the moving foot passes by the standing foot, otherwise the step would by in CBMP. However, the angle change in the body begins as you begin moving into the step. So there is a moment when you have some degree of sway, small though it may be, while the original side of the body is still in advance (eg left side forward with slight leftward sway, as your left foot is moving forward and as still as the weight is being transferred into step 1 of a reverse). They overlap in somewhat of a cross-fading fashion -- sway increasing as side-lead is dissolving -- but they do overlap.

I do not consider this to be conflicting with the ISTD's defined technique; I believe that it is simply outside of the scope of the written manual. There are some techniques I practice which are directly in conflict with book technique, and I choose them because I personally prefer competitive technique over exam technique. However, more often than not I find that competitive technique, rather than being in direct conflict, is really more of an elaboration of book technique. And this, I believe, is one of those times.

Regards,
Jonathan

Actually, there is a big problem with what Jonathan proposes.

In the reverse turn, if you already have a little left sway at the time in step one when your left side is still in advance, then the left side of your body will be broken and you will be reaching your foot into your partner's space. While you still have left side lead, you could still have right sway - that would let you reach the foot a little with an unbroken side, or you could be vertical, in which case you would need to propel the body and not reach the foot.

As a general rule, sway in standard is almost always against the direction of movement for this reason. There are a few situations with progressive sway, but they are fairly hard to do without overshaping and usually involve quite small ball-to-ball steps (things like tipsy's).

Just an observation from one who doesn't have huge dancing experience, but a great deal of background in education in another field.
I'm with Jonathan in a lot of what he says - dancing is 3-dimensional and the motion is complex and difficult to describe or represent. In addition, there are movements to satisy what i'd call the 'laws of physics' and others which are carried out just to look good. It's an art-form with an element of technical content - that's why it's so fascinating.
I believe there are only 2 text books and they use conflicting representation of steps. Am i correct on that? In any case good as any text book is in any field, it's only one person's approach, or his/her version of an approach in common use. At the highest level in any sport, competitors depart from the 'text book' approach. Watch the tennis at the US open or Wimbledon. Of course, those players started off following the text book, and i think that's the point here with dancing. Good fundamentals are essential, but at higher levels, once you know what you're doing, competitors depart from it. Hopefully i'll get there with dancing one day.
Another point while i remember it - text books go out of date. Read a tennis coaching manual from the 60's and then see how strokes are played today. Completely different.