Phil. I was taught to really step wide on my second step. Thats what we all did. Surely the wider the step, the splits, the flatter the step becomes. The harder it is to rise, and where is that pendelum swing we are all searching for. There is always also the time factor. The larger the step the more time it takes. We are supposed to rise on three and lower on the same beat. My question is .Do todays top dancers go for a smaller step to the side than was done a few years ago. Do we have time after our feet come together to continue the rise we started on two into three. Or are we as high as we will ever go on two. And of course there is the sway also which is on three. Try it.

You do not rise on three, you finish the rise which started at the end of one and continued through two on three.

The split method of letting the leg swing ahead of the body from the hip on the second step is incompatible with pendulum (body) swing. Swing means that it is the pickup of the body from the standing foot before the end of 1 which generates an incline that lets the 2nd step fall further down the floor, without the leg ever breaking past the line of the side of the body.

Swing your leg alone and your body will not swing and you will have trouble rising. Swing your body and your leg will swing to match it, but no further, while the steepening trajectory of rise naturally crests to a peak in step 3.

Phil. In the Waltz aren't we supposed to get a pendlum type swing. If I travell across the floor going for distance on step two for arguments sake, say 30 inches or so. If I still move 30 inches but steal a little of the distance and use it for rise. My movement is the same the but with a better rise and fall. One of the first things a judge will look for is rise and fall. If it's minimal they wont give you a second look.

Hi Nod - it's hard to discuss these things comprehensively without being face-to-face and showing the movements. I'm not sure what you mean by "If I still move 30 inches but steal a little of the distance and use it for rise". You mean i assume travel a little less than before (the "30 inches") to allow for a nicer rise. There may be something in this, but i prefer to work on improving my flight and still obtaining a nice rise. I don't want to consciously restrict my flight. I'm tall (as is my partner) and want to take advantage of it. My comments on this topic (there was an earlier posting) have been prompted by a study of Andrew Sinkinson's teaching tape (and the Hilton's for that matter) who clearly drive powerfully on 1 (from the standing left foot in the natural turn)and get very low, and continue the good flight on 2. There is an energy transfer from the kinetic energy of this flight into the rise at the end of 2/into 3, which augments the leg rise. That's how i view it (as an engineer) and that's what i'm aiming for. I've been dancing with restricted movement for too many years. I appreciate the concept of holding back just a little to help a flowing, relaxed movement in a comp., but all my practice is to improve flight and control and balance.

The rise height is precisely that needed to absorb the enery of the flight... if you've ever watched a stunt plane do a stall turn, that's exactly what's happening in waltz. But it is possible to over reach the second step in a way that makes the body fall between the feet, so that the rise will be very forced and unnatural.

It has been suggested that we swing with enough forward and upward power to place our weight over the left foot and on a high heel without any use or straightening of the left knee. I find this impossable. I was always taught that the knees were the shock absobers that protected the spine and that we should always dance onto a bent or flexed knee. So on three the left knee would straighten but not lock,the left heel continue to rise?

There's a difference between letting the arriving leg flex a little, and having to use ("work") it to arrive.

I would suggest that the swing take you naturally onto the arriving leg and up into the rise, because the role of rise is to absorb the energy that you had in movement, so that you can then send it down in a new direction. If you have to work to arrive, you misproportioned your swing.

That's very different from the action of the "swing" or jive basic, where it's foot rise action of the receiving leg that brings the body over it - in the smooth "swing" dances it's action of the departing leg that launches you towards the arriving leg and lets you coast up into the rise.

I'm a litle confused here. I think Dave's comments are very sensible. Suomynona, you say in your second paragraph that the swing takes you naturally onto the arriving leg (the left leg on beat 2 of the natural turn) and then up into the rise, then in paragraph 3 you say it's the action of the departing leg that launches you towards the arriving leg and up into the swing. I know it's hard to describe this level of detail in a discussion page like this (as i said in an earlier post) and possibly you were talking about two different moments in the natural turn. So let me ask a specific question to clarify things.
Still talking about natural turn slow waltz. Step 1 with the right leg on beat 1 - there's a strong drive from the standing left leg. I think there's no dispute so far. Now the step onto the left leg on beat 2 - is there an equally strong drive from the (now standing) right leg? Or is it a coast? or how much drive?.
From my watching the top dancers very closely, they seem to drive almost as hard off this right leg onto the left for step 2, though it's more difficult of course because the body is turning. Sinkinson has made 1/8 of a turn at the moment of plant of his left leg on beat 2 (at least on the teachnig tape i have).

Can you visually tell the difference between leg that is driving, and one that is cycling through a full range of motion to allow the body to coast?

Ideally much of the energy at the bottom of the swing is a result of the previous downswing, so a lot of what the standing legs are doing into step 1 and 2 is simply carrying the flight of the body through space.

The issue with the arriving leg in step two is that the path of your body should be curving up enough from step one that you will coast into the rise - if you have to really lift your body with the arriving foot, you aimed to flat. Similarly, as you arrive on step one you shouldn't have to work very hard to get the swing headed up, if you do you probably didn't pull out of the dive enough at the end of step three - the lowest point is between steps three and one, but it's not that much lower than step three.

Suomynona. This is becomong interesting.My main point is that most do not get as high on their toes as they should. Going to the drawing board a person doing the splitz will not have the time or the strength to rise to their full height. If anybody can I, would suggest they keep doing it. The other step that needs to be put under the mocroscope is the first step. It should be strong but not look like a struggle, which takes it out of the character of the dance. It should be smooth like a Rolls Royce accelerating.