COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY IN THE FOXTROT, IN THE FEATHER STEP, STEP 2 IS TOE AND YET IN THE THREE STEP, STEP 2 IS HEEL, TOE.?

PLLLEEEAAASSSEE x

"COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY IN THE FOXTROT, IN THE FEATHER STEP, STEP 2 IS TOE AND YET IN THE THREE STEP, STEP 2 IS HEEL, TOE.?"

The feather step has different rise and fall than the three step, so the footwork has to be different as well.

That's the obvious answer, but it doesn't explain WHY? (Which I'm still thinking about...)

The difference, BTW, is that man rises e/o 1 in FS (and is thus up (T) on 2). In the 3S, he is down on 1 & 2, rising e/o 2, so is H, HT.

i woud be interested in getting an intelligent answer to this too.


i must admit before i knew better i used to rise e/o 1 on the three step, and, to be honest, it still feels a bit unnatural to do it the correct way.

i wonder if it is some kind of historical thing resulting from step 1 of the 3-step being regarded as part of the preceding figure - as it still is in some manuals - as opposed to having a more physical explanation.

An interesting experiment would be to see how the three step feels with rise a step earlier, but the lady still using TH and NFR as she must on continued backwards steps in foxtrot.

This probably doesn't work so well in the inline, right-side-leading condition of the three step.

To make it work you would probably abandon the lady's NFR and end up with more of a hovering step than a travelling one, and most likely you would decide to take the subsequent travel in a slightly different direction - in other words, you would re-invent the hover telemark. That is after all what the american style people would use in place of a three step.

i agree that the hover telemark alternative is better but the scenario you describe (ie a three step with rise step earlier with nfr for the lady) stil doesn't seem particularly bad to me - i'm not sure if i think that scenario is any worse particulary than the actual three step as is, and to the extent that i do, i find it difficult to pinpoint why.

"i agree that the hover telemark alternative is better but the scenario you describe (ie a three step with rise step earlier with nfr for the lady) stil doesn't seem particularly bad to me - i'm not sure if i think that scenario is any worse particulary than the actual three step as is, and to the extent that i do, i find it difficult to pinpoint why."

I think that if you actually try it with the rise early like that, you will trip over the lady. To fix that, you'd probably have to change the energy direction enough that what you would end up with would be better described as a hover telemark than as a three step with early rise.

if you trip over the lady by rising e/o 1 - surely you would trip over the lady in the real three step by rising e/o 2 - all you're doing is shifting the rise and the flight back by one step.

another point that may be relevant is that the footwork for the cuvrved three step is HT, T, TH. in the geoff hearn technique for that figure there is only 1/8 turn on step 2 and step 2 is diag fwd (therefore placed by a fwd swing).

re the original post maybe there is something in the footer in howard that step 2 of the three step is the strongest step - question is why - maybe the body turn out of the preceding figure absorbs some of the energy from step 1

"if you trip over the lady by rising e/o 1 - surely you would trip over the lady in the real three step by rising e/o 2 - all you're doing is shifting the rise and the flight back by one step."

By delaying the rise as in the proper three step you make it possible for her to keep up with you while rolling through her feet.

If you want to rise early, you will probably find that it's necessary to dance a hover & redirect type of action as in the hover telemark, rather than a continued through action as in a proper three step.

"re the original post maybe there is something in the footer in howard that step 2 of the three step is the strongest step - question is why - maybe the body turn out of the preceding figure absorbs some of the energy from step 1"

It's the strongest step for the same reason that step one of a feather is - you have travel into the step, rise, and travel out of it. In the three step, what we would nominally think of as step 1 is really a sort of inconsiquential connector - the step really only develops from the second step.

These are of course the IDTA step countings consistent with how the other SQQ figures are numbered. The ISTD counts the second or rising step of the figure as its first step.

i dont really find that. nor does it make sense in terms of the comparative distances of travel predicted from the alternative patterns of footwork, which i think would be identical when comparing the real three step with the alternative we considered yesterday.


i take your point that step 1 is regarded as a linker but i am wondering is why that should be.