That's interesting: so the current ISTD technique does match the old Moore/Revised Technique. There is no side-leading in the chart, but a footnote that the figure should be danced with a 'slight' side lead over steps 1 & 2. (That makes some of the earlier comments look rather daft, if I may say so).

Howard makes no mention of side leading at all, but says (again by note) that the body will be slightly turned to L between steps 1 & 3, his 1 being LF fwd (S) with CBM, the step preceding Moore's 1. The notes also provide for the sway & rise & fall to be slight, and we must assume therefore that the CBM is also 'slight', and the body turn achieved on 1 is effectively maintained over 2 & 3: the whole action being rather understated, and not typical of a conventional side-leading set-up.

Interestingly, the Learn the Dances section of this site also describes the figure as starting LF (S). One of the original justifications for Howard's technique, as a departure from Moore, was the elimination of overlaps, and in foxtrot, most of his basic patterns therefore take the SQQ rhythm, which is of assistance to the novice, who often finds that the most difficult aspect of foxtrot is that the figures flow one after another, from one open position to another, and they lose where they are. Having a simple repeatable timing pattern, that matches the figures, is a big help. It doesn't quite work for the SSS end to the Natural Turn, but the idea is sound.

If Cyd thinks that only incompetent teachers would teach a Three Step, starting on LF, he should think again. There is a very sound reason for taking the LF (S) with CBM as the lead into the sway and body rotation (effectively already achieved). There is the slight 'awkwardness' of dancing H, HT, TH to get used to, but as a teaching method, it is far easier to start the figure, taking only slight CBM, than it would be to step into what is akin to a slight side-leading position out of nowhere.

I am indebted to him, however, for identifying the breakthrough concept of alternating the feet when we dance. This only becomes apparent when you take a fifty-year old copy of 'Ballroom Dancing', and having cut out all the diagrams, stick them together, as one, while eliminating the overlaps. An important piece of research, I think.

Yes, that was my choice, and I would not have done it any other way. I'm sure Moore and the writers of the ISTD technique had their reasons for omitting the first step -- and I'm sure someone here will be more than happy to enlighten me -- but whatever the reasons were, I can't imagine they could possibly be more important than basic clarity and consistency.

I don't mind the concept of overlaps, as a means of suggesting where the next figure should (or must) begin. However, they should really be specified as such (e.g. "Left foot forward, as first step of following figure"). I also find that line breaks are extremely helpful in clarifying the beginnings and ends of basic components within the patterns, and use this technique as well to separate the overlap step from the rest of the figure visually.

As a means of compromise between the way it's currently written in the ISTD book and the way I think it should be written, I included both the first step *and* the overlap step at the end. This has the additional advantage of making it consistent in presentation with it's closest relative, the Feather Step. This way, both figures are shown as 3-step patterns, followed by an overlap step.

I've always been in favor of presenting material -- whether in written form or in one's own teaching -- as simply and consistently as the prevailing technique allows. This includes thinking of the basic action in International and American Foxtrot and Waltz as the turn and change combo. It's so clear and simple in concept that an absolute beginner can grasp both dances in a matter of one or two lessons, because they are essentially only moderate variations of the same exact movement.

Taken from this perspective, the Three Step is akin to the Waltz LF Closed Change, which of course starts on the man's left foot. It takes 3 steps, and sets you up for the Natural turn. Clear and simple.

Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan. That overlapping step, for arguments sake let us stick to The Feather Step. I think that the intension of Alex Moore was that each section ( the Feather being one section ) was to be taught from the book and stop right there. Then the Reverse was to be taught and again stop right there. It would have been far more sensible to do as John Wood instructs and finish in a Neutral position with the moving foot under the body and not having taken that overlapping step.
Whilst I have your attention. Do you think the word Fall as in Rise and Fall was a bad choice. In my dictionary Fall is moving from a higher to a lower level, Typically rapidly and without control. In my opinion Lower should replace Fall when refering to anything to do with dancing. In dancing we never Fall. We Lower to the floor. I've heard the argument many times when somebody says we fall onto our steps. We do not fall rapidly without control. Just the opposite . We lower with control. In fact dont we do excercises to strengthen our ankles so that we can do just that. Anyway you have written two very informative articles. There should be more of them.

Quite to the contrary, I think Mr. Moore's purpose for using overlaps was to demonstrate how figures are not to be broken up, but blended together seamlessly, i.e. the end of one pattern becomes the beginning of the next.

From a teaching standpoint, either approach is legitimate and useful. Thinking of patterns as having specific beginning and end points is simpler and clearer conceptually, and can help students with "runaway train" syndrome. Emphasis on blending is extremely important in achieving overall flow.

I think Moore probably wanted to emphasize the latter through the use of overlaps in the written technique (although I admit this is blind conjecture on my part), and probably also did so in his teaching. Still, I am of the opinion that the former is more appropriate for a written syllabus.

As for the neutral position at the end of each pattern, I would be careful. When you hit the breaks at the end of each pattern, stopping and restarting, you can afford the luxury of resetting your position (i.e. re-winding up your rotation). When one pattern must flow into the next, neutralizing your rotation on the end of each measure leaves you square one whole step early; The neutral point should not be reached until the weight has fully (or at least mostly, depending on who you talk to) arrived over step 1 of the following figure.

Regards,
Jonathan

Jonathan. I was in a class where the teacher I believe was using us for practice. They were going for their Professional examination a few weeks hence. At the end of every movement we would be stopped with that overlapping step. Which meant that we started our Reverse Turn by stepping to the side and slightly back on the mans right foot. This was continued right through the whole routine. The Hover Cross for me felt most unnatural starting to move from a standing position and stepping for the man with the right foot. I need the drive onto and off the mans left foot to get me into the movement.
John Wood doesn't stop start. This is a continuos movement . The point in question he describes as a collection of weight as the standing foot lowers and the knee compresses. All one movement.
But for a test all of this has to be put aside. And must be exactly as is written in the book.

"The neutral point should not be reached until the weight has fully (or at least mostly, depending on who you talk to) arrived over step 1 of the following figure."

In actuality, one needs to pass through the neutral point before the foot is even placed - while it is still moving - which of course must happen before that foot can be weighted. I don't quite agree with those who claim the neutral point should always occur as the feet pass to end one figure and begin the next, but that's much closer to being accurate than saying it occurs only after the foot is placed and weighting becomes possible.

If the transition through neutral does not happen soon enough, one will still be driving at the partner with a leading side, which tends to substantially impede motion. People get into the habit of wanting to do that because they start thinking of alternating side lead as helping them "row" down the floor by extending a leading side while taking the step and then pulling past it.

But in actuality that same side lead must be lost during the travel of the moving foot. This occurs as a result of the overtaking side getting ahead earlier in the movement, such that the moving foot is "folded" into the body where it will not be in the partner's way. This will at first seem like a weaker movement for the dancer not used to it, but in the end it results in a movement that is both fuller and stronger. It also helps build the skills to fill out the case where entering with a same side lead is not really possible - a natural turn with the first step outside partner or in promenade position. The dancer who can make those full has no trouble making an inline natural full while executing their CBM on time.

The situations where we do move with a leading side are situations where we are not pushing our partner ahead in front of that leading foot. For example, step 2 actions where our leading side has a clear path past the partner. And also the man's right foot in the three step, where the direction of movement is not quite into the partner but just enough diagonally across her to let both partners move in parallel rather than in interfering tandem.

Wow... That's early.

I've heard various coaches range from neutral when the moving foot passes on the late end, to neutral when the heel first strikes on the early end. Yours is even earlier than that. So I will revise my original statement to say, "The neutral point should not be reached until sometime after the beginning of the first step. Depending on who you talk to, it could be as late as the end of the first step (i.e. when the moving foot passes)"

As early as your version is for my taste, however, you're still commencing the turn with a same-side positive, which goes back my original point: Although there are a variety of opinions about the exact speed of the turn, most everybody agrees that turns (and changes) should not start neutral.

It would be fun to discuss the merits of each of our preferred timings. But I think I'll save that for another post. This one is long enough.

Regards,
Jonathan

Of which recognised teaching society IS your 50 year-old copy of Ballroom Dancing the established Technique today? Only an idiot would fail to recognise the overlap steps, anyway, but Howard/IDTA eliminated them from his technique a long time ago.

When you compare, in detail, the early technique of Ballroom Dancing (1936), which predates Moore's own Revised Technique (1948), with any of the current texts, you will find dozens of small changes or developments, that have arisen through a better understanding of the principles of movement, or changing style, or better expression through more precise language. At the very least, anyone still citing Moore directly today, should do so from the Revised Technique. You never do.

So, yes, Ballroom Dancing has not been an accepted Technique book at all for a very long time, and it is (depending on the edition) very dated, but remains an excellent read, and an important milestone in the literature of dance.

There is a wide range of opinions on this matter, and my guess is the person who originally asked the question was hoping to resolve two conflicting sources of information. If that's the case, my advice is to do what seems to work best and most comfortably for you, and follow the methods of that teacher.

Having followed both camps at various points in my career, here's my take: I do believe that one should curve the track, but the degree of curve will depend on many factors, such as:

-- Overall amount of turn required. The greater the turn, the more curve will be needed. Some would argue that a traditional Feather Finish with 3/8 should be done without any curve. Perhaps, but a Feather Finish with 1/2 turn absolutely requires it.

-- Inside vs. outside of turn. No matter what the overall net curve, the person on the inside of the turn will always have more than the person on the outside.

-- Natural vs. reverse turns. Due to the offset dance position, the curve *differential* -- that is to say, the difference in curviness between partners -- is greater on natural turns than it is on reverses. Without getting into a huge, lengthy explanation, I might suggest thinking of natural and reverse pivots to illustrate the differences, as they offer more extreme examples of rotation.

-- A multitude of other factors. Every pattern is unique, and comes with its own set of requirements. A Waltz Reverse, Foxtrot Reverse, Reverse Pivot, and Fallaway Reverse all require a slightly different execution. A Spin Turn and Impetus, in spite of having a similar entry, have entirely different requirements, curve-wise. (Watch my poorly executed Impetus videos on this website to see the pitfalls of over-curving the entry).

You've touched on a very complicated and hotly disputed concept. Expect to hear a variety of opinions throughout your career. In the end, the choice is yours. Do what works.

Regards,
Jonathan

I dont see what all the fuss is about.If we turn even slightly we have sway. If we have sway then we must have turn. It is as natural as it is possible to be. If an Aircraft or a Boat turns it lilts to that side. So do we. Alex says there is Sway on a Three Step. He also wrote that the right side leads and that there is by the advanced dancer a curve to the Left. Surely that ends the story.