"I don't see anything which says there is any difference in one driving step in the Waltz compared to the same step in the Foxtrot."

That's because you aren't looking at what accomplishing the overall step requires must happen during this particular action.

"The flexing of the knee is the same."

No, it is different!

"At the extent of the stride the knee is straight."

For DIFFERENT MEANINGS of "straight". There is no absolute straight! It is all shades of application, depending on both the nature of the movement and its size.

"The weight is momentarily divided between the front and rear feet."

There you go again - quoting a comment from a WALK and trying to fool everyone into thinking it applies to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATON.

"Why would it be neccesary to do anything that is different to the technique book"

We aren't really talking about doing things differnetly from the technique book, we are talking about your inability to SEE THE BIG PICTURE while reading the technique book!

OK. Its obvious that at the extent of the stride your knee is bent. I've gathered this from your previous writting. This puts you on the spot doesn't it. You will have to answer yes it is, or it isn' t. Everybody I think is aware that the knee is not rigid or locked. So don' t try to slide out that way.
Try moving around the room and towards the extent of the stride make a visible attempt to straighten the knee. It doesn't happen by magic, you must do it. If you watch our better dancers this can be seen.
So I would ask you. At the extent of your stride what is happening.. By all means quote the technique books.
Isn't this as usuall a polite letter.No snide remarks Not clouding the issue. Straight to the point in easy to understand words.

"OK. Its obvious that at the extent of the stride your knee is bent. I've gathered this from your previous writting."

It's not obvious at all. The only thing that is obvious is that I do what is appropriate for each specific circumstance, both the nature of the movement and the scope of it. Sometimes that means the knee remains slightly bent, other times it means it is fully straight. To do otherwise is to dance ignorantly - there is no single answer for all circumstances, much as in your infantile stupidity you might wish to pretend there were.

"So I would ask you. At the extent of your stride what is happening.. By all means quote the technique books."

Please quote what the technique book says about the extent of the stride for the following SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. Don't try to pass off OTHER SITUATIONS, quote EXACTLY WAHT IT SAYS ABOUT THESE:

1) step one of a waltz natural

2) step one of a feather

3) step one of a quick open reverse

4) step one of a foxtrot reverse

Again, no dishonest substitutions - quote EXACTLY WHAT IS SAYS ABOUT THESE FIGURES, NOT ANY OTHERS.

Time to put up or shut up, bozo.

"Isn't this as usuall a polite letter.No snide remarks Not clouding the issue. Straight to the point in easy to understand words."

Yeah, well instead of polite and dishonest, try RUDE AND TO THE POINT.

Quote accurately or shut up - you DISHONESTY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Natural Turn in Waltz. Step right foot forward turning body to the right.
Feather. Right foot forward turning body slightly to the right.
Quickstep Right foot forward
turning body to the right.
Foxtrot Reverse Step left foot
turning body to the left.
Shall we now go to page 9 and see what a step forward is. It was all written by the same person you know.
Take the CBM out and what is left. Step right foot forward. Or step left foor forward..
Nothing in the whole book says any different.

"Natural Turn in Waltz. Step right foot forward turning body to the right.
Feather. Right foot forward turning body slightly to the right.
Quickstep Right foot forward
turning body to the right.
Foxtrot Reverse Step left foot
turning body to the left."

Where are all the details about the degree of straightness of the knee, the swing, the rise, the timing of the action? You forgot those. If you'd managed to dig them up and include them, you'd see how different all of these steps are.

But of course you won't be able to find them, because the book does not explicitly spell out those details, instead, you must implicitly figure them out from the overall shape of the figures.

"Shall we now go to page 9 and see what a step forward is."

BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME SORT OF STEP FORWARDS!

The problem is that you are trying to apply what was written about one situation to a variety of DRASTICALLY DIFFFERENT SITUATONS.

"Nothing in the whole book says any different."

WRONG. See all the comments on the difference in rise between the dances. See all the explicit listings of different rise and fall for various figures within each dance.

Face the fact - there are numerous different forms of forward heel lead, and you cannot blindly assume that the details of one will apply to another, without making a fool of yourself.

"Please quote what the technique book says about the extent of the stride for the following SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. Don't try to pass off OTHER SITUATIONS, quote EXACTLY WAHT IT SAYS ABOUT THESE:

1) step one of a waltz natural

2) step one of a feather

3) step one of a quick open reverse

4) step one of a foxtrot reverse"

Since you ignored the ACTUAL QUESTION, I'm going to have to ask it again.

Quote exactly what the technique book says about the EXTENT OF THE STRIDE in each of the four above figures. Don't tell us they are forward heel leads, everyone knows that.

QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE STRIDE IN EACH CASE.

(or stop pretending that it says anything about it)

You had better enlighten me. I can see absolutely no difference in a first step of a Waltz compared to the first step of the Foxtrot as it is written on page 9.
At end of the first step we are going to commence to rise.
On the other at the end of the first step we are going to rise.
How we get to the end of the first step. in both cases . You might tell me what your difference is.
In both cases we have already lowered at the end of the last step. So be it Waltz or Foxtrot we don't lower onto the first step because we are already down and we don't double lower.
So now with your infinite wisdom what difference to the step can there possibly be.
If you wish to discuss the next step , step two by all means do. But dont try to mix the rise and fall of the two dances with each other. Lets stick to one step forward on the heel as it is written on page 9. which is the same in the two dances.And is no different in the Quickstep or the V.Waltz . The only difference is the speed and the length of the step depending on the music being played. Lets hear it one step forward on the heel.

"You had better enlighten me. I can see absolutely no difference in a first step of a Waltz compared to the first step of the Foxtrot as it is written on page 9.
At end of the first step we are going to commence to rise.
On the other at the end of the first step we are going to rise.

"How we get to the end of the first step. in both cases . You might tell me what your difference is."

The most obvious difference would be in the fall, and especially the rise. While in the extreme simplification in the figure charts none of this occurs during hte middle of step one, the reality is that rise and fall are a smoothly blended process throughout the step. Basically there is a vertical curve through space, and each of a waltz natural, a feather, and a heel turn would have a DIFFERENT curve. At a minimum, once the body starts getting closer to the front foot again, the difference should be pretty obvious. And the book quite explicitly comments on that - see the bracing of the leg comment in the section where it discusses the difference in rise between dances. In the waltz turn action, your arriving knee will continue to soften as you approach it, in the foxtrot not so much, especially in the heel turn where the softening is minimal. And this is all well underway long before the end of the step!

"In both cases we have already lowered at the end of the last step. So be it Waltz or Foxtrot we don't lower onto the first step because we are already down and we don't double lower."

Actually, you must continue to lower if you wish to achieve the smooth movements of an advanced dancer. Now, it's true beginners are wisely cautioned against this double lowering, which is to say, against lowering onto step one. But you do - at least if aiming for championship movement - do have to loose quite a bit more altitude during the first half of step one. If you're going to get your legs fully straight while taking a large step, you're going to have to lower you center a TON - that's basic trigonometry. And the nature of that loss of altitude of course is going to be different for different sorts of figues you could be coming out of, and then it must blend smoothly (with no bumps, jerks, or pauses or hesitations) into the unique characteristic rise of hte figure you are now dancing.

Suffice to say there is a heck of a lot more instruction about the details of rise and fall in the book, than is contained in the figure charts! You have to read, AND ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND, the entire book before this is going to make sense to you.

"Lets stick to one step forward on the heel as it is written on page 9. which is the same in the two dances."

As I just pointed out, no it isn't.

You can continue lowering as much as you like before the step is taken. This doesn't contradict the steps as on page 9. of Alex Moore's book.
You still have not given me the pages or a page which differs to Alex.
Any loss of altitude is by the length of the step alone. Think about . You have gone as low as is possible before the step is taken. Who in their right mind would want to go any lower on the one step forward which is a heel lead. I do believe the dip you are trying to teach actually takes place between three and the beginning of one, not on one itself. Because we are on our way up.Which is confirmed by Steven Hillier who says Think of a child on a swing with us pushing. At the bottom of the swing there is a point where we are still pushing but the swing is on his way up. Just go back and check that book again. And give me that page number

"I do believe the dip you are trying to teach actually takes place between three and the beginning of one, not on one itself."

And that is your mistake.

There is substantially loss of altitude between the time when the feet are together at the START of step 1, and the time when they are furtherst apart at the middle.

You then have to gain that altitude back again during the second part of step one, and it is there that each sort of heel lead will become obviously different. For a heel turn, the arriving leg stays basically straight as you move onto it (we haven't reached the end of the step yet, we are just moving our body onto the foot). For a waltz turn, the knee bends as we move towards it.

I don't have the book with me at the moment, but if you read the discussion of rise and fall there, it talks about this different in the action as we move onto a foot. Look for a phrase something like .