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.

Hi Nod
Doing the splits? I'm not sure where this happens in the natural turn. In any case, the movement is dynamic, not static. If someone is just doing the splits, a force must come from somewhere to raise them up out of it - difficult as you say. But when dancing ,even in a semi-splits position (i don't know where that would be, but let's assume we're into it) there would be a source of energy from the horizontal movement which would be converted into the necessary rise. That's sort of what happens, but i would dispute the 'splits' part.

For a pendulum swing, the rise height is proportional to the square of the velocity (travel distance / beat time) at the bottom of the swing, so it should not be a matter of trading distance for rise - both should increase together.

If you are doing a split and getting stuck between your feet, that's not a tradeoff between travel and rise, it's simply dancing inefficiently. On the other hand, if you are matching your travel and rise, you may get your legs quite far apart, but you won't be stuck there because you won't be extending your legs further than you have momentum to coast your body.

Hi Suomynona
I can certainly FEEL the difference between a leg that is driving and one that is 'cycling' or coasting through the same motions, so i'm sure there is a visual difference too. The other points we would probably agree on if we could meet and demonstrate what we mean

The next time anybody who is interested is at a studio or wherever they go dancing. Just look and record what you actually see. Do you see a rise and fall as it should be done. With this fresh in your memory go to a tape of a major competition. Is it the same. Is it important. I went to a lecture given by a person everybody would know by name
He was asked if he thought that adjudicators would be better on a stage judging. The answere was definately no. He likes to be at ground level so that he can see correctly the rise and the fall.That's in all the dances bar Tango. I am still not conviced that a massive first step followed by a massive second step, with only 2 seconds to complete a bar of music will not result in the loss of rise and fall or timing.I think I should change the word fall to lower. Because we see fall too often. Falling out of the step that is.
.

After writting a few minutes ago it suddenly struck me. Why not go to the book and put a measure to the diagrams which I believe are to scale. Alex Moore obviously new and thought that the second step in the Natural Turn is smaller than the first. Maybe he meant for there to be a bit of time going up instead of along.

Mr Alex may not have drawn it that way, but the second step can safely be large because the full development of a side lead and sway allows the entire body to position the free foot. Contrast with the first step where the rotation of the hips actually subtracts from the stride length, the body is vertical, and the thigh can't come so far forward as to hit the partner's crotch.

But you have to have already started the upswing in step one, and not try to go further on step two than your energy can carry you. Watch ordinary competitors and you will see both stalled second steps and overshot second steps... aiming precisely so the rise will absorb your motion takes practice, and cooperation from the partner on the inside of the turn.

Simple test for improper split on the second step: if your left toe is in advance of the line from your left shoulder to left hip, you are doing an improper split.

The proper split is a break of the right side at the hip - you leave the departing right leg behind, though of course this will straighten out at the extreme of the stride.