message is more accurate when reordered as follows:

"The neutral starting position for both man and lady is knees soft and weight on balls of foot for both (heels to the floor obviously). The 'feeling' is that one dances from ball of foot, to ball of foot."

"The above assumption is incorrect so the rest of the argument based on this assumption is also flawed."

"Let's look at the normal step (HT man forward & TH lady backwards). When the man's heel touches the floor the lady's toe touches the floor. The end of the step is when the man's toe lowers to floor."

Actually no, the end of the step is when the other foot passes, which occurs after the toe has lowered.

"The weight moves to the ball of the man's foot while the lady's weight remains on ball of foot."

No, the lady's weight must reach her heel before the end of the TH step. Please re-read Moore, description of backwards walk - it is the movement of the weight back in the foot that creates the walk.

"The heels lower to floor for both of them. So the step ends with both man and lady's weight on ball of foot, heel to the floor."

Absolutely incorrect. If the dance pauses before the end of the step, the man's weight will still be in his heel. If it progresses beyond the end of the step, which is to say to the comencement of the next, the lady's weight will be in her heel. As we know, in a continuous action there is no "in between" - we are either dancing the first step or we are dancing the second, because there is no pause between them in an actual dance.

"As the man commences to move from the ball of foot into the next step, only then, does the lady's weight move to heel."

An exceptionally common mistake, which leads to very choppy movement.

Suomynona say:

"Actually no, the end of the step is when the other foot passes, which occurs after the toe has lowered."

Why don't you quote the entire paragraph, which is:

"The end of the step is when the man's toe lowers to floor. The weight moves to the ball of the man's foot while the lady's weight remains on ball of foot. The heels lower to floor for both of them. So the step ends with both man and lady's weight on ball of foot, heel to the floor."

From the above quote and the rest of my message it's quite clear what I mean.

"Actually no, the end of the step is when the other foot passes, which occurs after the toe has lowered."

That's a textbook definition for that suffices for medalist dancer but it's not quite accurate for advanced competitive dancing technique.

"No, the lady's weight must reach her heel before the end of the TH step. Please re-read Moore, description of backwards walk - it is the movement of the weight back in the foot that creates the walk."

You're quite a Moore fan but I think that he would turn in his grave if he were to know the spirit in which you and others like you have interpreted or rather mis-interpreted his work. He appears neither arrogant, autocratic nor prescriptive in his books, showing an openness to artistic interpretation. Neither do any of the early pioneers who formulated the technique based on what the leading professional were dancing at the time. You've completely missed the point.

You offer no meaning counter-argument as to why what I'm saying is incorrect. Instead you wallow in symantics and try to exploit the obvious inadequacies of the written language in describing dance. You appear more interested in debate than dance.

Rha

"You're quite a Moore fan but I think that he would turn in his grave if he were to know the spirit in which you and others like you have interpreted or rather mis-interpreted his work. He appears neither arrogant, autocratic nor prescriptive in his books, showing an openness to artistic interpretation. Neither do any of the early pioneers who formulated the technique based on what the leading professional were dancing at the time. You've completely missed the point."

No, you've completely missed the point of the style of movement he is describing, which is one of the weight progressing through the foot to create the step. Moore describes the toe commencing to release as soon as the moving foot has passed the standing heel - this is physically impossible if your weight is still forward in the standing foot.

Combine Moore's description of forward and backwards walks and it's clear that one persons weight is moving forwards as the others is moving back - there simply is no point in time in such a walk when both dancers have their weight in the ball of the foot at the same time.

Obviously, you don't have to dance that way. Many - most - today do not. But this isn't because that way is unworkable, but rather because they have never had a teacher with a thorough understanding of it, and the advantages it can create. The irony is that while some may call it medalist technique, I hear much more about this in lessons with Blackpool champs than with the kinds of teachers usually associated with medalist work. Wonder why?

I'm probably rushing in where angels wouldn't dare to tread, but I'm wondering if part of the disagreement here is based on different understanding of terminology (language is such an imprecise medium of communication!).

To me, there's a difference between putting weight into the floor through your heel and being backweighted. It sounds to me like some of you are describing the former and some the latter. When you are backweighted, you are settling both your weight and your body in space back over your heel. But it's perfectly possible to put weight through your heel while maintaining a forward poise of your body. It's clearest perhaps in latin dancing, say on a rock step or 5th position break where your body is centered in space over your front foot but you put weight down into the floor through your back heel as you break back.

In reality, any time your foot is touching the ground, it is taking SOME weight wherever it touches. So it seems to me that it's best to separate the position of your body or center relative to your foot from where in your foot you are putting weight. I think we'd all agree that a consistent forward poise of the body is what we want almost all the time. Then the question is when and how much weight different parts of the both feet take at different times. That's a dynamic process that changes from millisecond to millisecond.

"To me, there's a difference between putting weight into the floor through your heel and being backweighted. It sounds to me like some of you are describing the former and some the latter. When you are backweighted, you are settling both your weight and your body in space back over your heel. But it's perfectly possible to put weight through your heel while maintaining a forward poise of your body."

There can indeed be some confusion in wording, but I'm not sure that poise is a better term either. Classically speaking, the man has forward poise and the lady does not. Of course this is not an invitation for the lady to be backweighted. Instead it means that with the same given position of the center of mass over the foot, a man would have a more forward appearance than a lady - but neither is backweighted.

Moore's written desctiption of the backwards walk is almost misleading, in that to a modern ear it sounds a lot like requesting that the lady backweight herself to commence the action. "Now let the body incline slightly backwards until some of the weight of the body is felt over the heels" Sure sounds like backweighted... but wait for the next paragraph

"Although the lady's body is incling backward she should endeavor to resist the man's forward movement slightly, this resistance being felt at the lower part of the body. It should not be felt entirely at the hips as this will tend to impede the man's forward movement" I'm pretty sure the last bit there is a specific warning against the hips forward, shoulders back sin of backweighting.

The part that should be of interest to Rha continues: "The lady should not lean forward or endeavor to keep her weight forward over the balls of the feet when she is moving backward. If this is done the resistance to the man's forward movement will be felt at the chest, and this will not only check the even flow of the walk but will make the lady feel heavy to her partner." A very common problem indeed - though today it is often combined with enough arch to the back that the resistance is felt at the hips, not the chest.

Granted, there are a lot of couples who have found various workarounds to do some moderately impressive dancing without moving their weight through their feet. But rarely do they reject that technique after a thorough study of it - instead, they have simply never been exposed to how it would work if fully employed - ie, weighting the heel early enough that it's actually the rolling off the heel that propels the body, and only then the free foot, into the backwards step

suomynona says:

'The part that should be of interest to Rha continues: "The lady should not lean forward or endeavor to keep her weight forward over the balls of the feet when she is moving backward. If this is done the resistance to the man's forward movement will be felt at the chest, and this will not only check the even flow of the walk but will make the lady feel heavy to her partner."'

The above quote refers to the 1st part of the step, the part where the standing leg is sending the weight back. In this case, yes, the lady does not hold the weight over the ball of the standing leg while attempting to send the weight back. She lets it roll to heel. But this is not the part of the step I'm referring too. In my previous posts I refer to the 2nd part of a step, that is, the collection of weight onto the receiving leg. As she collects her weight onto the receiving leg and softens her knee to end the step she should not roll her weight to heel immediately. Her weight collection will be onto a soft knee, weight on ball of foot. As the man commences the next step she will not resist the man's progression allowing the weight to roll to heel.

The common mistake made by the beginner lady is doing the latter, weight collection part of the step incorrectly, moving the weight to the heel too quickly.

Rha

"The above quote refers to the 1st part of the step, the part where the standing leg is sending the weight back. In this case, yes, the lady does not hold the weight over the ball of the standing leg while attempting to send the weight back. She lets it roll to heel. But this is not the part of the step I'm referring too. In my previous posts I refer to the 2nd part of a step, that is, the collection of weight onto the receiving leg. As she collects her weight onto the receiving leg and softens her knee to end the step she should not roll her weight to heel immediately. Her weight collection will be onto a soft knee, weight on ball of foot. As the man commences the next step she will not resist the man's progression allowing the weight to roll to heel."

If you want to chance the discussion to a different part of the walk, that's fine. But realize that the man's weight won't move forward until the lady's weight moves back. It can't, because it's the man's weight moving forward that leads the lady's weight to move back. So we still don't have both dancers standing over their ball of foot at the same time at any point in a basic walk - the progress of weight needs to be continuous, not choppy.

"If you want to chance the discussion to a different part of the walk, that's fine. But realize that the man's weight won't move forward until the lady's weight moves back. It can't, because it's the man's weight moving forward that leads the lady's weight to move back. So we still don't have both dancers standing over their ball of foot at the same time at any point in a basic walk - the progress of weight needs to be continuous, not choppy."

No change of discussion here from my initial posts.

True, the man's weight won't move forward in the collection phase until the lady's weight moves back. The point I'm making is that the mechanical action of the knee on the weight collection of the man vs the lady is not exactly the same (I've described this in detail earlier). It is this that keeps the point of pressure longer over the ball of foot for the lady and delays the point of pressure moving to heel, even with the heel lowered to floor and she continuously moving back. The movement is continuous and not choppy.

Rha

"True, the man's weight won't move forward in the collection phase until the lady's weight moves back."

Now that you've realized this, do you still think the weight-in-heel stage should be skipped on a forwad TH step?

If so, how can you reconcile the two?

"do you still think the weight-in-heel stage should be skipped on a forwad TH step?

If so, how can you reconcile the two?"

Yes, I do. Though 'skipped' is a loaded word. It's more that it is just plain unnecessary and detrimental to quality movement.

The point of this whole discussion is not about bringing into question the lady's weight moving back as the man's weight moves forward. It's very specifically about where the weight is in the foot, or the point of pressure into the floor, for man and lady at a specific point in time in a continuous movement. And whether this point of pressure needs to move back to heel for the man for the 'sake' of the lady, a point you are trying to argue. I'm saying based on how the lady's weight collection works in general, and for the TH steps as well, the man does not have to move this point of pressure from the ball of foot back to heel on the weight collection. It unnecessarily impacts the forward progression.

Rha