Quickstep. You're still not listening. What people are trying to tell you is that there is a whole technique OUTSIDE what Alex Moore wrote down THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT OR ARE UNAWARE OF. And that technique outside the book does not contradict and in fact supports AMoore.

In simpler words: do you realize there's technique beyond what Alex Moore wrote?

Please give detailes of the book or persons you are quoting from. Let us have the technique beyond what Alex Moore wrote. I will save you the trouble of answering. You will find nothing that contradics that Technique book. That first step goes straight to its end before it changes. Before it turns , commences to rise, or goes straight on rising at the end of. I don't think there is much else a person can do. We only have two legs and three or four beats of music in a one bar.
I think I wrote before that some teachers have been known to get a couple to do a Foxtrot to a Waltz music. I wonder why. Could it be they are proving a point.

"According to the book. The difference between a Walk in the Quickstep. The step will be slightly shorter than in the Foxtrot owing to the quicker music.For the same reason the knees will not relax quite so much as in the slower tempo. I wont give what page that is on Because you have a reading problem."

That's one of the more obvious differences, yes. But if you really understood the dancing that is described in your book, you'd understand that it's only the start of the difference between the way a step is taken for these two different purposes.

"In the Waltz it must be understood that a complete circle in six steps is never danced the construction being based on diagnal lines which require only 3/8ths of a turn on each THREE Steps. So then if we are an intelligent person we will then find out if the very first step is straight to the end of. What does the written words say and the charts show."

You apparently haven't noticed, but no one is disagreeing with you about the step needing to be straight. The differences we are talking about are mostly in the vertical plane. I'm sure things are slightly different in the horinzatonal too (don't forget that there is plenty of rotation during step one, even as the direction of movement remains unchanged), but nobody here has yet chosen to argue for a difference in how this should be done, so there's no need for you to keep refuting an argument that simply hasn't been made.

"You have been arguing with Alex Moore for weeks and weeks without knowing it."

No, in fact what I have been trying to do is to explain to you what that book you love to misquote actually says, and what it means when you understand not just the individual words, but their combined effect.

"What I have given you is most of the time word for word is from the technique book."

Sometimes, but quite often divorced from the context about which it was written. I can take the book and a pair of scissors and construct any quote I want... you've come pretty close to that with your random selection of out of context quotes.

"Are you still teaching that the left shoulder leads into the first step of a Reverse Turn Foxtrot"

Am I trying to do it? You bet. You think I'm going to argue with the Blackpool champ who put me onto that idea? I sure don't.

That left side lead thing is so old. It would be some ten years ago that some twit of a teacher tried to teach me that. If that is right I said .I must have a right shoulder leading into Natural. We fell out very quickly.

"That left side lead thing is so old. It would be some ten years ago that some twit of a teacher tried to teach me that."

Sounds like you are tempted to call one of the world's most sought after ballroom teachers a "twit". You have to learn to react better to ideas that are beyond your present ability - it may not be for you now, but it's something for the future.

"If that is right I said .I must have a right shoulder leading into Natural. We fell out very quickly."

FATALLY FLAWED LOGIC. There are many ways in which the natural and reverse turns are NOT mirror images of each other!

QUICKSTEP:

HERE'S WHAT GUEST WROTE:
"And that technique outside the book does NOT contradict and in fact supports AMoore. "


TO THAT, YOU(QUICKSTEP) ANSWERED WITH:
"I will save you the trouble of answering. You will find nothing that contradics that Technique book."

NOW: TELL US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

NONE. NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING, NYET. POOF.



You're so busy showing you know so much (also known as SHOWING-OFF), you're not EVEN READING what you're replying to.

READ AND UNDERSTAND. READ AND UNDERSTAND. READ AND UNDERSTAND.

COME ON DUDE!

CHILL ALREADY.

In one sentence you write. And the technique outside the book does not contradict and in fact supports Alex Moore.
In the very next sentence you write In simpler words. Do you realize theres technique beyond what Alex Moore wrote.
Considering we are disccusing one half of one complete step and it clearly states at the end off that one half of one step where any differences occure. Why dont you simply say either he was correct or he wasn't.
Verticle is straight up and down. Horizontal is parallel to the plane of the horizon.
Your paragraph four it appears that the horizontal plane of the three steps in the three dances is the same when you write I'm sure things are slightly different on the horizontal plane. What is being discussed is the horizontal plane of those three steps in the three dances. Not your insane belief that the body is travelling in front of the front foot and we are going to fall onto the next steps.. Food for thought. What happens . What is our natural reaction when if our foot hits an imoveable object on the ground and we trip. Without thinking or foot goes out at twice the speed the body is moving. It is unnatural for the body to go ahead of the feet or foot. Our feet with this inbuilt reaction will not allow it.

"In one sentence you write. And the technique outside the book does not contradict and in fact supports Alex Moore.
In the very next sentence you write In simpler words. Do you realize theres technique beyond what Alex Moore wrote."

Quickstep, what you are eternally going to fail to understand is that your simply minded reading of the book is woefully incomplete. A lot of what the external sources of technique really are is a clearer restatment of exactly what is in the book; the rest of it tends to be coverage of topics that extend and supplment what is in the book - for example, talking about mechanisms of rise that the book does not cover, but clearly are a necessary complement to the ones that it does.

"Considering we are disccusing one half of one complete step and it clearly states at the end off that one half of one step where any differences occure."

WRONG. IT SAYS NO SUCH THING. Quit claiming your own ideas are to be found in the book... they are your own mistakes alone.

"Why dont you simply say either he was correct or he wasn't."

He was correct, but INCOMPLETE. With a normal student that's not a problem, with a trivia obsessed literalist who DOES NOT THINK like yourself, then it's a very big problem, as we've been seeing here over and over and over again.

"What is being discussed is the horizontal plane of those three steps in the three dances."

No, what is being discussed is almost entirely the vertical plane. As a bit of review, the vertical plane includes one vertical direction and one horizontal direction - up and down, and forward and backward. We haven't really talked much about direction or path of movement across the floor, which would be the horizontal plane, or about the rotation within it it.

"What happens . What is our natural reaction when if our foot hits an imoveable object on the ground and we trip. Without thinking or foot goes out at twice the speed the body is moving."

Yes. And a lot of people dance like they are tripping! In order to dance well, you must be come comfortable projecting your weight past your standing foot, towards a place where there is not yet any foot ready to receive it, SECURE IN THE CONFIDENCE THAT A RECEIVING FOOT WILL BE THERE BY THE TIME YOU ACTUAlLY _NEED IT_.

"It is unnatural for the body to go ahead of the feet or foot."

On the contrary, it is a regular feature of all efficient human movement!

"Our feet with this inbuilt reaction will not allow it."

That reaction is not your feet, it is your paniced mind. Calm down and it won't inhibit you any more.

If my panicked mind does not react I will fall on my face will I not.
Just for future reference would you like to repeat that my body is over a point in front of me where my foot as not yet arrived. Is that correct
I can understand a very frustrated teacher with a pupil who keeps thrusting a leg forward and keeping the weight too far behind them. I might say get your weight more forward. But most people do not have that trouble, even absolute first time beginners don't have that problem.
Some person middle aged who has never played any sport in their lives suddenly discovers dancing can be a problem. I would ask or get them to fill in a questionare, and one of the questions would be what sports have you played. From this I would know what to expect. If they are a girl and have done ballet I know they are going to be very toey. If they have played a lot of tennis they will most likely be too strong in the shoulders . As they walk across the floor it will give a good indication of how they will dance. Be prepared for those that step forward keeping the back heel on the floor. They are going to be like dancing with a lead weight. With me they would get plenty of raising and lowering of the heels which is good for everybody anyway.

"If my panicked mind does not react I will fall on my face will I not."

If it panics, it will whip your foot out ahead of you - the stumble reflex. That would not look like dancing or even sensible walking, it would look like you tripped and caught yourself.

If it react normally, it will calmly position your foot so that it is there by the time you actually need it.

If it does nothing at all, then yes you'd eventually fall on your face.

"Just for future reference would you like to repeat that my body is over a point in front of me where my foot as not yet arrived. Is that correct"

It projects from the standing foot until it is over a point of the floor ahead of the standing foot.

When this first happens, ideally the moving foot would not yet have passed that point either.

But the really important comment is that the body is past the ONLY FOOT that can support it.

"But most people do not have that trouble, even absolute first time beginners don't have that problem."

Actually not sending the body is a very common problem when people try to dance. It's a very rare problem when people try to walk though. The issue is that once you tell someone to dance, they tend to forget how to walk, and it takes them a few years to learn that it's okay - in fact necessary - to move their body when dancing with the same continuity and ease they move it with when walking.

"As they walk across the floor it will give a good indication of how they will dance."

Maybe. If you can get them to dance as naturally as they walk. But most students won't - instead, they will try too hard, hold their hips back, and ruin the natural ease of the movement.

"Be prepared for those that step forward keeping the back heel on the floor. They are going to be like dancing with a lead weight."

There are in fact steps that call for that. Just as there are steps that must not have that. It all depends on the application... something you will most likely remain ignorant of unto your grave.