Anonymous I was asking and hoping you would say exactly what is happening from a feet side by side to a feet side by side position. So I will.
As the moving leg extends backwards there is a 46 degree angle of shin to floor by the supporting leg caused by the flexing of the knee. That's what I was hoping to get you to answer. Plus the weight is still over the flexed 46 degree leg. As the front knee starts to straighten and push the back foot is still moving.
Mid Stride. A very important moment on any walk forward or backward.. The weight will be equally divided between the front heel and the rear toe that will gently lower to the floor as the moving foot draws underneath the body, in the book the rear foot is a TH.
The 46 degree angle of the shin comes from a lecture by Steven Hillier, as does the mid stride.
Regarding a shape to the left by the man. If I were doing a Feather Step on my second and third step I sway to the right. What has happend to my left side shape then. Better to forget that one, and position your partner correctly.

"As the moving leg extends backwards there is a 46 degree angle of shin to floor by the supporting leg caused by the flexing of the knee."

Says who? The angle will depend on how high in your legs you choose to be - which is a function of personal preference, desired stride lenght, and what type of backwards walk you are dancing. I would not be suprised in some cases if it's substantially more horizontal, drastically so if it's a lowering step and a championship dancer.

"That's what I was hoping to get you to answer. Plus the weight is still over the flexed 46 degree leg."

Well, the weight is rather obviously on the standing foot. The moving knee is still under the body at this point, but the moving foot is not - that's the whole point of having the shin at a comparatively horizontal angle.

As the body starts moving backwards and the knees seperate more with the moving leg straightening, the angle of the shin will become more vertical, coming closer to matching the angle of the upper leg (obviously with the knee straight they would match perfectly). This will cause the foot to intersect the floor at a shallower angle - top of toe becomes underside of toe eventually becomes almost ball of foot.

"As the front knee starts to straighten and push the back foot is still moving.
Mid Stride. A very important moment on any walk forward or backward.. The weight will be equally divided between the front heel and the rear toe that will gently lower to the floor as the moving foot draws underneath the body, in the book the rear foot is a TH."

It's possible in some situtaions that the weight might be instantly divided, but this is not a phase of action in which anything important occurs - indeed, the overlap is entirely absent in many cases. The reason it is unimportant even if it instantly happens is that there is nothing useful to good dancing you can do while your weight is split. If you are trying to retard your arrival while you still have weight in the departing foot, you are using the moving leg too soon. If you still have weight in your departing foot as you use your arriving leg, then you have left part of your weight behind. Good dancing is controlled by aiming the movement of your weight so that it will unfold naturally as needed, not by muscularly drawing out the process of shifting from foot to foo.

There's a vicious cycle of error at work in your dancing, that causes you to want to do this. Basically, you rush the slow of a dance like foxtrot, so you get to the first quick too soon. To use up the extra time and wait for the music, you then rise too high in the feet - dancing something closer to a waltz action than a foxtrot one. You are now too high, and come crashing down too fast. You try to use your lowering leg to slow your fall, spending some time erroneously in a split weight position. But you are still moving too fast, and even with your over use of the arriving leg cannot avoid crashing into the next slow ahead of the music, where the whole cycle repteats. To fix this, you must learn to aim the movements more appropriately, so that things will naturally come out on time. Rise less. Fall more freely. Use your muscles to keep your body aligned, but not to try to control your speed. If you want to fall more slowly, simply don't aim your rise so high.

"Regarding a shape to the left by the man. If I were doing a Feather Step on my second and third step I sway to the right. What has happend to my left side shape then. Better to forget that one, and position your partner correctly."

Better to learn that the left stretch is independent of sway. You get confused, because you haven't yet learned to seperate these independent components of dancing. You have a left stretch in almost all ordinary situations, regardless if your sway is left or right or neutral, regardless if your side lead is left or right or neutral, regardless of which foot you are standing on. It is a component of the hold, not a property of the figure being danced. Or for that matter a property of the position of your weight.

Anonymous. If anybody thinks that Anonymous is correct regarding the rear foot to the toe, plus is there a 46 degree angle of the shin to the floor. Find your way the to International at Brentwood this week. Find Professional Standard and Richard and Natalie Perry photo 72725 18th down. What will you see. You will see the front knee bending which results in about a 46 degrees at the shin, and the back foot extending to the toe. Note I said extending. The man's front foot is still on the heel. If you know anything about dancing you will be able to see that with more extension of the back foot the front , the supporting leg, will straighten which will bring them to a midway position, split weight. Now Mr Anonymous point me in the direction of a couple dancing where the above is not taking place. Or point me in the direction of any written words which confirm you beliefs and says any of the above is not correct Don't blind the issue with a heap of clap trap which you have plenty of. Don't try to wipe the slate clean by saying as you usually do. They are only twenty or they can't dance. I have never ever met a person with so many misconceptions. I particulaly chose that Richard Perry shot because the legs can clearly be seen. I think you will find they are not twenty and are very highly placed world wide. Before you write anything which is belittling to this couple I suggest you look up there profile and see there record which is very impressive.
Do you still beleive that the weight cannot be equally distributed between the two feet front to back. Surely by now, now you are on a learning curve. You must have changed your mind about the body going to a the point of imbalance by this time. And be honest you haven't had a clue in the past that the front knee for both man and lady bends to their front. You didn't know about the toe extending behind , so I ask myself how would you know about the knee being flexed. I doubt if you did. One action does rely on the other.
I'ii just repeat one of your comment and why I call it clap trap.
Moving backwards human anmatomy provides some degree of contol to pace progresion of the weight through the foot without spoiling alignment, which the backward partner must use to accomodate the desires or reality of the forward partners less controllable movement.
What you are really saying is the forward mover has little control.
That really is one of your most incorrect statements. But it is consistant with your weight going to the point of imbalance. Your poor partner. We regulaly do a few basics with our hands behind our back. And other times with our left, right hand behind the back. This is normal practice in some studios. I would hate to be holding you up as you came forward. The arm behind the back is danced to music by the way
Another one of your famous statements. Because the receiving leg releases the body before the moving leg accepts it.
Are you saying that the receiving leg is the one that is in front, or is it the one behind. It can only be one or the other. Are you actually saying that the rear foot is flat on the floor whilst the front leg is still in front. Be carefull here because you have previously written that you do beieve the heel of the rear foot is down early.
Thats enough for now

"Anonymous. If anybody thinks that Anonymous is correct regarding the rear foot to the toe"

Anonymous has been saying the same thing you have, only with many important details that you left out.

"plus is there a 46 degree angle of the shin to the floor."

In some situations for some people with some goals. In other situations it might be more or less. There is nothing magic about 46 degrees - even if that was optimal on one dancer, it would not be for a dancer with a different proportion of foot length to leg length.

"Find your way the to International at Brentwood this week. Find Professional Standard and Richard and Natalie Perry photo 72725 18th down. You will see the front knee bending which results in about a 46 degrees at the shin"

Are you now talking about the standing, which is to say front shin? The lady's is nowhwere near 46 degrees, it is far more vertical. I would consider the position shown to be flawed anyway, but at least be clear of your description - are you talking about the angle of the front shin or the back?

Actually, that picture makes it look like this lady, at least in heels, is too tall for her partner. Notice how much more her knee is bent that his?
Such a difference in body usage vs the partner is not right.

"and the back foot extending to the toe. Note I said extending."

You still haven't noticed that I've never disputed that... And I predict you are going to raise it as a point of argument many more times too, because you clearly don't read posts before replying to them.

"The man's front foot is still on the heel."

Still? In which direction to you believe them to be moving?

"If you know anything about dancing you will be able to see that with more extension of the back foot the front , the supporting leg, will straighten which will bring them to a midway position, split weight."

Yes, they do appear to be in some danger of getting stuck in a split weight position. It's a very easy trap to fall into...

"Don't blind the issue with a heap of clap trap which you have plenty of. Don't try to wipe the slate clean by saying as you usually do."

You can ignore the truth of how dancing ultimately works as long as you want - it is your own dancing an no one else's that will suffer.

"I particulaly chose that Richard Perry shot because the legs can clearly be seen."

It is likely the error the position which exposes her leg to view.

"Before you write anything which is belittling to this couple I suggest you look up there profile and see there record which is very impressive."

It does not impress me one bit, as I regularly see mistakes in dancers who place even higher.

"Do you still beleive that the weight cannot be equally distributed between the two feet front to back."

No, I've said many times that it can be... but it is usually a mistake to do so.

"Surely by now, now you are on a learning curve. You must have changed your mind about the body going to a the point of imbalance by this time."

No... I keep finding more and more evidence to support the necessity of this as time goes on, in lessons, observation of other couples, and personal experimentation.

"And be honest you haven't had a clue in the past that the front knee for both man and lady bends to their front."

Only a small amount. I could point you to the older waltz clip until recently on this website, step 4, where the man by doing precisely what you suggest physically lifts the lady's body off the floor... The knee can go forward early in the lowering, but as the lowering deepens the knee must move to stay under the body. That is for going backwards. for going forwards, the body must move to stay over the knee. See the consistency of it? Your knee is under YOUR body, not your partner's.

"You didn't know about the toe extending behind"

Really... then why have I mentioned in in something like a half dozen posts in this thread, and in hundreds of posts in previous threads?

"I ask myself how would you know about the knee being flexed."

I know it for the problem it often causes... which you haven't yet discovered.

"One action does rely on the other."

It relies on the knee being flexed, but not on the direction of the flex. The back foot will be the same regardless if you flex the standing knee and send it forward, or flex it and move it backwards with your body.

"What you are really saying is the forward mover has little control."

Yes. That is the truth, inherint in the direction in which the human knee bends, combined with the position of our partner. You have all the space in the world behind you, so you can put a leg out there to pace the arrival of a backwards action. But you do not own the space in front of your body, because that is the space under your partner's body. You only own the space under your own body - which means that you cannot put a foot as far in front of you as you can behind you. That is why you can more safely make use of a arriving leg pressure to control a backwards action than a forwards action (though you have some flexibility to reach your left foot, and your right foot in a right side lead position - the constraint is mostly on the right foot forward inline case).

"That really is one of your most incorrect statements. But it is consistant with your weight going to the point of imbalance."

Actually it is entirely correct. And you are right to see that this is what requires the imbalance. However it does not mean uncontrolled dancing - it merely means you have to learn to aim the movement of your body as there will be a point when you can no longer apply corrections. You have to give up the luxury of dancing carelessly and assuming you can always use your arriving leg to fix your mistakes.

"Your poor partner."

Um, why? Because I aim my movement not to fall on her? Because I keep my legs to myself and allow her to maintain an aligned posture? I pity the poor sufferer who has to dance with someone who does not do these things you think unimportant... and I've seen many pictures and videos of such victims.

"I would hate to be holding you up as you came forward."

You weren't asked to, and you won't have to. All you will have to do is use your control in the backwards action to match my movement.

"Another one of your famous statements. Because the receiving leg releases the body before the moving leg accepts it.
Are you saying that the receiving leg is the one that is in front, or is it the one behind. It can only be one or the other."

It's true in both directions of movement. The receing leg is the one you are moving onto and the departing leg is the one you are moving off of. Would have though that rather obvious?

"Are you actually saying that the rear foot is flat on the floor whilst the front leg is still in front."

There are sitautions where it must be, yes. For example a backwards lowering step TH, must become flat before the departed front foot retracts, if you plan to continue the descent of the body down via the modern championship practice of knee usage. If you intend to stay high and spindly on your legs, then no, the arriving foot would not be flat until about when the departed foot closes to it.

"Be carefull here because you have previously written that you do beieve the heel of the rear foot is down early."

Define "early".

Anonymous. In the Foxrot Backward Walks is the subject under question. From the book Just analyse this sentence.
Continue to move backward, draw the RF back to the left foot, and at the same time slowely lower the left heel to the floor making sure that it does not touch the floor untill the RF is level with it.
This is where I believe a misconception occurs.
At the full extent of the stride, lower to the ball of the back foot. To lower to the ball means that it has come from a toe. If that is not what is intended then it wouldn't be mention.
The knees should be easily and naturally relaxed throught the walk. The legs are only straight at the full extent of the stride, but even then the knees are not rigid. The greatest relaxation is when the moving foot passes the supporting foot. 46 degrees.
If you do the back on the door thing and bend your knees they will easily bend to the 46 degrees mentioned which will be as the moving foot is passing.
In the picture the lady has started to straighten her front knee. The toe of the back leg still has some distance to go. The lady will reach that Midway position and continue to send the weight to the supporting foot which is still moving untill she knows how far her partner wants her to move.
I can't see how you could possibly think that somebody would arrive on a foot with the heel high off the floor. As written above the foot will become a ball before it becomes a heel.
I'm still a bit puzzled by what you mean by a flat walk. There is only one way to walk and that's it above

"Anonymous. In the Foxrot Backward Walks is the subject under question."

Well the subject line says 123 waltz, but okay...

"From the book Just analyse this sentence. Continue to move backward, draw the RF back to the left foot, and at the same time slowely lower the left heel to the floor making sure that it does not touch the floor untill the RF is level with it.

This is where I believe a misconception occurs."

Indeed, you are confusing a more or less accurate description of how to do an abstract action - a walk without rise or fall - and assuming that it applies to a very different situation, which is drastically altered by the presence of rise or fall.

"At the full extent of the stride, lower to the ball of the back foot. To lower to the ball means that it has come from a toe. If that is not what is intended then it wouldn't be mention."

I would not interpret it that way, because to do it that way would be impractical.

"The knees should be easily and naturally relaxed throught the walk."

Only for the case of no rise or fall, which as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, is moderately rare in actual dancing.

"The legs are only straight at the full extent of the stride, but even then the knees are not rigid. The greatest relaxation is when the moving foot passes the supporting foot."

Only for the case with no rise or fall.

"46 degrees."

You found that in th book? I don't think so!

"If you do the back on the door thing and bend your knees they will easily bend to the 46 degrees mentioned which will be as the moving foot is passing."

Again, the angle depends on how high in your legs you are choosing to dance. For a flat walk, this sounds in the right range. But for other situations and on bodies with other proportions it may be seriously wrong.

"In the picture the lady has started to straighten her front knee."

Yes, but she should have been moving it backwards before the shot was taken. She let it go too far forwards - the early part of the knee bend is forwards, but the later part of the bending (before the straightening) has the knee moving backwards in space along with the body.

"The toe of the back leg still has some distance to go."

It is already past it's maximum extension. It will move more as the stride is extended (if they are actually moving in that direction, something I reserve judgement on), but not by extension, instead the extension will actually be reduced - the later movement is due to the movement of the body, carrying the moving foot with it, not the extension of the moving foot away from the body. Coincident with this, the angle of the foot against the floor will be reduced, and the point of contact will move from the original top of toe, to bottom of toe, to slighty further back - all before weight is received.

"I can't see how you could possibly think that somebody would arrive on a foot with the heel high off the floor."

I agree it would be a foolish thing to do, but a literal interpretation of your original heel high off the floor post supports that conclusion.

"I'm still a bit puzzled by what you mean by a flat walk. There is only one way to walk and that's it above"

Indeed, your confusion is quite apparent. There are as many different backwards walks as there are forwards walks. We have walks that are high in the legs and flat, walks that are low in the legs and flat. We have walks that rise in various ways. We have walks that lower in various ways. Each of these necessarily has differneces in it's technique - and it is these more interesting ones, not usually the plain flat ones, which make up actual dancing.

Now the simple fact is that if you want to dance as low in your legs as modern dancers do, then you are going to have your feet flat on the floor sooner than the literal words in the old text you love to quote. You imagine that this is in conflict with what is written there, but actually it is in strict obediance to the principles described therein. When you extend them to modern leg usage, this is what you have to do. However, if you take the old literal recommendation and apply it to a different situation, then you have applied the words in ignorance of their intent to produce something that no one of knowledge could endorse - you have, in effect, done the exact opposite of what that book was trying to teach you.

Anonymous. You are aware that the person going backwards has no rise through the feet. According to you we have walks that are high in the legs and low in the legs. Does that mean we have straight legs that then bend. I thought most of the rise was through the feet. The two straight legs that do occure are along the floor , not up. But you have said there is no midway ( split weight )between the steps. And you have said that the position at that point is not on the heel of the front foot and the toe of the back foot and there is no midway.
To me it would seem that most of what you write is to defend your wrong belief that the body weight is thrust forward to the point of imbalance. I've at this stage not worked out if you think that the person going backwards also sends their weight back over the moving foot.
Going back to the picture you will see that the man at this point has not lowered his toe to the ground which means the lady is still extending.
Unless I am wrong , and that was you, your weight would already be to the point of imbalance and the lady would be foot flat on the floor holding you up. Where exactly would you like the ladies body weight to be at that moment.
To quote you from above regarding split weight. No we are leaving one and you are on the other. There is no point where you are really on two feet.
The leftward stretch of the body. Dancing is being balanced at all times as in many other sports. I would like to see you on a balance beam like a gymnast or on a tight rope shaping to your left. That would be fun. Try walking on the floor on a narrow length of wood and shape to the left and see how good you are.
I was once told. "LEAVE THE BEST TILL LAST".
You did look at the photos I pointed out. Did you look at number 16 as well as 18. In 16 you will notice that it is from the same sequence of shots. The man's heel is now on the floor, the back heel is off the floor. The lady is extended. Did you see what part of the foot is on the floor. Did you see that the man's foot is in front of his body. Do you see where the ladies left hand is. Before you start your usuall speel and suggest they wouldn't know. Go to any of the several hundred photos of other couples that are there . Anticipating your next words as an excuse . They are competition dancers. This my friend is what we try to copy.

"Anonymous. You are aware that the person going backwards has no rise through the feet."

Only if it is a no foot rise action. There are lots of backwards actions which DO have foot rise afterall...

"According to you we have walks that are high in the legs and low in the legs. Does that mean we have straight legs that then bend."

That would be a very confused way of looking at it. What it comes down to is that you can dance a walk without rise or fall and do it at a relatively high altitude, or you can dance a walk without rise or fall and do it at a relatively low altitude. One obvious difference is the degree of knee bend when the body is directly over the standing foot. One less obvious difference is the timing of when each foot becomes flat on the floor, and when it ceases to be flat.

"I thought most of the rise was through the feet."

That used to be true. But when you look at modern dancers, you see rise vs fall differences that may be twice the lenght of the foot... that certainly isn't all in the feet, even if you rise to ballerina pointe. Modern rise and fall is mostly in the legs - foot rise is still important, but it's less than half of the total.

"The two straight legs that do occure are along the floor , not up."

Depends on the action. Waltz rise achieves two straight legs under the body - not locked, but about as straight as they should ever be in ballroom.

"But you have said there is no midway ( split weight )between the steps. And you have said that the position at that point is not on the heel of the front foot and the toe of the back foot and there is no midway."

Yes, this inbetween position with pressure in both feet either does not happen (in a fully flighted action) or does happen but is of zero importance. If you are trying to accomplish sometithing in that time, you are misusing your feet as a poor substitute for not being able to aim your movement correctly in the first place.

"To me it would seem that most of what you write is to defend your wrong belief that the body weight is thrust forward to the point of imbalance."

That's a simple fact... you cannot support your body weight in balance when it has passed forward beyond the toe of the standing foot, unless you skate on your moving foot. I sure hope you don't do that. And I dearly hope you don't keep your body weight back over your standing foot until after you have placed your moving foot... though of course I see a lot of both errors. Fully skilled dancers do neither of these things - which means they are passing through a phase of imbalance... its simple physics, regardless if you choose to believe it or ignore it.

"I've at this stage not worked out if you think that the person going backwards also sends their weight back over the moving foot."

Indeed, they do, though not to as great a degree as the person moving forwards sends their weight forwards.

"Going back to the picture you will see that the man at this point has not lowered his toe to the ground which means the lady is still extending."

Have you conclusively determined in which direciton they are moving? Based on what factors? I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

"Unless I am wrong , and that was you, your weight would already be to the point of imbalance and the lady would be foot flat on the floor holding you up."

My partner never holds me up! Even after my weight has passed the point of imbalance, I do not fall on my partner - instead, I fall exactly where I planned to, which in the common case of a heel lead into an upswing step is slightly underneath her so that I can swing up from underneath. That you still think my partner is holding me up is evidence that you cannot yet conceive of how this motion is possible.

"Where exactly would you like the ladies body weight to be at that moment."

In flight, same as mine.

To quote you from above regarding split weight. No we are leaving one and you are on the other. There is no point where you are really on two feet.

"The leftward stretch of the body. Dancing is being balanced at all times as in many other sports. I would like to see you on a balance beam like a gymnast or on a tight rope shaping to your left. "

Absolutely no problem at all. You see a problem, because you do not understand the nature of the stretch shape. It is NOT A SWAY. It is not a change in the postion of weight. It is not a learning to the left. (though there is no problem creating left sway or right sway while on a balance beam anyway)

"That would be fun. Try walking on the floor on a narrow length of wood and shape to the left and see how good you are."

No problem at all, for either the true left stretch or for the various things you are probably imagining (in error) it to be.

"You did look at the photos I pointed out."

Did you look at the couple's results?

"They are competition dancers. This my friend is what we try to copy."

My standards for what is worhty of copying are much higher.

Anonymous. The couple in the photo are going forward. You are not very observant are you. Look at the couple behind, and also they would be going in the wrong direction wouldn't they. But to make sure when they arrive home next week after the finals. I will ask them. You didn't say anything about the ladies hold. Take a look at the ladies right arm on the couple in the background.
You know in a game of chess how if a lose is inevitable they resign. I think you would go down with a sinking ship. How much more proof would it take to convince you that you are wrong on the most basic of all steps.
At the moment you have surpasses yourself with that rubbish that the lady is, The question was I haven't worked out yet if you think that the person going backward also sends there weight over the standing foot. Your answer was Indeed they do. And where on earth did you get this,
. After I get to the point of imbalance I fall exactly where I planned to.
Also you wrote. You cannot support the body weight in balance when it has passed beyond the toe of the supporting foot.
That is also one of your big mistakes. You at that time, will and should, bend the knees towards your front. Front if you are going backwards and front if you are going foreward.
And low and behold you have admitted that the front leg goes under her body. At least you got one thing correct, except for the slightly.
That's a bit lame bringing the two straight legs in the Waltz into it. What else could it be. In fact at this moment I cannot think of any dance where the feet are drawn together that doesn't have straight knees. Please don't say the Tango.

"You cannot support the body weight in balance when it has passed beyond the toe of the supporting foot.
That is also one of your big mistakes. "

Just curious, in what way is your dancing different?

Can you support you weight in balance when your body is not over the single standing foot?

Or do you slide part of your weight on the moving foot? (which I hope you realize would be a serious mistake)

Or do you keep the body over the standing foot until the moving foot is placed? (which I hope you realize would be a serious mistake)

If you are going to object to such a basuc element of good dancing, at least have the decency to describe what you do differently in a way that doesn't violate laws of physics.