"There has to be a point though where both feet are under the body."

Ideally there will not be, as the body should have already moved slightly past the standing foot by the time the free foot draws parallel to it.

Many dancers mistakenly dance with agressive foot timing and lazy body; while this is easy to do it creates a forced look and forces the dancers to either have a gap between their bodies or arch their backs to make space for the eager moving leg.

Of course this does not apply to fully risen steps where travel pauses, such as 3 in waltz.

I would not say there is a pause at the top of the swing that should be detected . You would have a hard time seeing at what point in time a child on a swing in the park changes direction?

"I would not say there is a pause at the top of the swing that should be detected . You would have a hard time seeing at what point in time a child on a swing in the park changes direction?"

There is a quite visible reversal of vertical direction in a playground swing, or a waltz one.

A foxtrot swing is a much softer, broader peak, with only a slowing of horizontal travel, not the momentary pause seen in the waltz.

Suomyona. One thing will always lead to another. I'm with Len Scrivener who said and taught that the second quick on a Feather is on the descend. He actually wrote that the book is wrong. It says rise at the end of 1. up on 2 and 3. Lower at the end of 3. If I am up on 3.then what sort of lowering will I get. Will it be verticle or will it be linear. I would suggest that a person should try a Feather and take note of what you are actually doing and what comes naturally
I'm sorry but you wrote earlier., and contradicted that the feet at some time are under the body. We don't step wide of our body, so where do they go if they at some time are not under the body. A time warp maybe.

"I'm with Len Scrivener who said and taught that the second quick on a Feather is on the descend. He actually wrote that the book is wrong."

Apparently Len, and definitely most ordinary dancers misunderstand the book on this subject. Rise and fall does not uniquely determine altitude, rather it is one of a number of actions that affect altitude. The source of confusion is that change in altitude due to leg division is not included in "rise and fall". The timing for rise and fall for the feather makes sense once you understand that it applies to action of the feet, ankles, and kness - but not to division of the thighs.

"I'm sorry but you wrote earlier., and contradicted that the feet at some time are under the body. We don't step wide of our body, so where do they go if they at some time are not under the body. A time warp maybe."

The feet most certainly pass directly under the body, but they do so one at at time. The feet must never collect or pass each other directly under the body in a lowered position, otherwise you will get stuck. To sustain easy motion, the body needs to already have projected slightly past the standing foot before the moving foot passes it.

Suomynona. As I said before one thing leads to another. This I think also touches body position , rise and fall and so on. Harry Smith -Hampshire wrote and asked this question, he never gave the answere and now never will. Where is the moving foot in relation to the body at the time that the heel touches the floor on the second quick in the Feather ?. I know what I am seeing. I also know which feels the most comfortable, both are not neccesary technicaly correct. As Shakespear once wrote. This is the deadly spite that ails me. That is, if my moving leg is behind, then as you said we get stuck. If it isn't behind then we must lower as the moving foot passes which means both feet are momentarily under the body. Myself and what I have been watching on tapes leads me to believe that todays dancers lower whilst the moving leg is still behind which still allows for a collection of weight on 4 and. Now we can compress into the Reverse. If a dancer cannot compress then something is not right. Interesting is't it?.

"That is, if my moving leg is behind, then as you said we get stuck. If it isn't behind then we must lower as the moving foot passes which means both feet are momentarily under the body."

You lower as the foot passes, but the body has already moved past the arriving foot by the time the feet pass, so no, both feet are not together under the body.

Sorry, I mean you lower the heel *before* the moving foot passes, then lower more in the legs as it passes. The body will arrive before the feet are closed, and will already be beyond the standing foot by the time they pass.

Suomynona. I only write what I can see. It would appear that the majority of todays dancers are with as per Len Scrivener and that is, we are on the way down after the first quick. It would seem the same on a Feather Finish Reverse Turn. Who on their Feather Finish wishes to be stuck up in the air. It becomes inhibiting.What an awful way to enter into a Three Step.
To get back to the feet passing bit. I still maintain that if you were to watch frame by frame, the feet will at some time be together. How can they not be. Passing yes. Together yes.

"Suomynona. I only write what I can see. It would appear that the majority of todays dancers are with as per Len Scrivener and that is, we are on the way down after the first quick."

Yes, myself included and if you read my message again you will see I never said they shouldn't be. What I did say is that the specific component of loss of altitude which the book refers to as "fall" should not yet have begun - this is where the majority of dancers are confused into thinking the book is wrong.

"To get back to the feet passing bit. I still maintain that if you were to watch frame by frame, the feet will at some time be together. How can they not be. Passing yes. Together yes."

Again, read what I actually wrote and not what I didn't. They pass, yes. They come together, yes. But they do not do so (in a fully lowered position) while the body is over them - it has already moved on.