The footwork given is heel, toe, and you must have reached the second of these before the end of the step.

The end of the first step is when the left foot is passing the right foot to begin the second step.

Your weight must be in the ball/toe with the heel commencing to rise by this time. Otherwise you are dancing the heel-only action, such as found on step 4 of the feather before the three step, which will be followed by a second heel lead on the first step (ISTD counting) of the three step.

It was my understanding that the body moves fatser than the feet, and that timing is not based on when the foot hits but when the body hits.

Bronze and beginner, yes, it's a big accomplishment to get 'on time' and stepping on the beat shows that, but that's not dancing, yet.

In Geoffry Hearn's advance book of Technique 2004. the rise has been changed to happening through the leading step and not at the end of the step, this may be because our lowest point in the waltz would be on 3.1/2

"But to rise at the end of step one, if you are to follow the ISTD's own description of the beginning and end points of a step, you would have to begin rising before the moving foot passes the standing foot. This is much earlier than almost anybody would condone commencing foot rise. And so it is my conclusion that this discrepancy is an oversight by the ISTD. Maybe they were just trying to keep things simple, but what they forgot is that their book is scrutinized by the most analytical of minds, and discrepancies like these lead to more confusion."

Actually I think you will find that both Alex Moore, and a number of recent Blackpool champions, do teach precisely this. The rise occuring before the end of the step is not so much an altitude gain, but a timely completion of the specified footwork. Heel must become toe, which sends the hips forward of the legs to lead into the upswing. If the heel is kept down through the end of the step, then the action of step two will be incorrectly lead by the free toe, when it should be hip, toe catching up only at the moment step two is placed.

There is some room for debate as to when exactly the heel begins to release from the floor. However, the issue in question here is not one of how soon you start to lift the heel after arriving on the foot. The mistake in the ISTD's description is that if you take it exactly at face value, it means that you should lift the heel before you ever arrive.

Remember that the "end of the step" is considered a span of movement, not a single point within the movement. So to rise at the "end of" is more than just commencing rise as the moving foot is passing (the end point of the step), it is commencing rise before the moving foot has passed, and therefore presumably before the body weight has fully arrived over the foot. Would you really condone lifting the heel before you even fully arrive on the foot?

Regards,
Jonathan

It depends or not if you are in a lowered position,how much you have lowered on the previous step. A pro would have a heal rise befor the swinging foot passes underneath, but some one first learning to dance would not.

Jonathan,

If the intent is to arrive /finish 1 on the ball of foot on a fairly soft knee then the heel will be leaving the floor as one 'arrives'. In other words during the "end of 1". The heel leaving the floor and the arrival of the moving leg to the standing leg happen simultaneously. The knee is also softening during this process. This is not a lifting of the heel that comes from an intent to rise.

One can choose to finish 1 on a flatter foot and perhaps a less soft knee then obviously the heel will not leave the floor at all. I don't believe that this is as dynamic as the former. I make these comments ISTD technique, aside.

However I'm in agreement that rise and fall like so many other aspects of technique is not clearly described in the ISTD technique. To say 'commence to rise end of 1' (Waltz Nat Turn) is misleading, even in terms of their stylistic preferences and it deserves sharp criticism. The 'heel leaving the floor' does not necessarily come from an intention to 'rise'.

Rha

"So to rise at the "end of" is more than just commencing rise as the moving foot is passing (the end point of the step), it is commencing rise before the moving foot has passed, and therefore presumably before the body weight has fully arrived over the foot. Would you really condone lifting the heel before you even fully arrive on the foot?"

If you do not let the body arrive over the standing leg before the free leg has closed you are in danger of letting your legs get ahead of your body - a commonly seen problem.

Especially at the start of an upswing, the body needs to be well ahead of the legs. Timely completion of the foot actions listed for step one (heel, then toe) before the end of step one helps insure this.

Jonathan and the rest. Can we make some sense out of this by going to the ladies steps, backwards. Surely both our steps must blend with each other. Forget the rise and fall, just think of when the ladies heel touches the floor. It is as the moving foot arrives under the body. To lower too early traps the moving foot. The hip will have to lift slightly to allow the moving foot to pass underneath smoothly. I take no credit for the last sentance. It is on Steven Hannah'Former winner at Blackpool
1986 his tape. I take it that the lady and the man should be doing the same thing at the same time.

No, HT goes to T faster than TH goes to H, so the timing of the partners footwork does not match