Does anyone know if the second step to the side of a Natural or Reverse is not as big as it used to be taught, giving much more rise and sway. This needs to be answered by someone who is currently having lessons with one of those super coaches the type you book a year ahead, and wouldn't take anybody of my experience even if I could afford it.

Nonsense... when they are travelling and aren't the guest of someone limiting access in an effort to set his competition back, those super coaches will spend an hour with any serious student willing to pay their fee.

As for the second step, it simply goes wherever extending the line of the side of the body to the floor would put the foot. The more you move and incline your body, the further down the floor that can be. But the amount of incline relative to motion must never be so much that your head fails to progress and actually moves backwards.

Hi nod
Deliberately restricting your stride length will not increase rise or sway.
As far as i can see, the top male dancers make both step 1 and 2 of the slow waltz natural turn large, with very soft knees(i.e. they're low on these steps). The sway comes about automatically from the need to control the energy of movement throughout step 3. With restricted movement, the sway will also be restricted, unless it's introduced artificially, which can look bad.
The lady of course is on the inside of the turn, so her movements are inevitable less, but the man should be controlling that.
And think of the second step as being forward also (hey!! do i sense a bit of deja vu?)

Phil. I was taught to really step wide on my second step. Thats what we all did. Surely the wider the step, the splits, the flatter the step becomes. The harder it is to rise, and where is that pendelum swing we are all searching for. There is always also the time factor. The larger the step the more time it takes. We are supposed to rise on three and lower on the same beat. My question is .Do todays top dancers go for a smaller step to the side than was done a few years ago. Do we have time after our feet come together to continue the rise we started on two into three. Or are we as high as we will ever go on two. And of course there is the sway also which is on three. Try it.

You do not rise on three, you finish the rise which started at the end of one and continued through two on three.

The split method of letting the leg swing ahead of the body from the hip on the second step is incompatible with pendulum (body) swing. Swing means that it is the pickup of the body from the standing foot before the end of 1 which generates an incline that lets the 2nd step fall further down the floor, without the leg ever breaking past the line of the side of the body.

Swing your leg alone and your body will not swing and you will have trouble rising. Swing your body and your leg will swing to match it, but no further, while the steepening trajectory of rise naturally crests to a peak in step 3.

Phil. In the Waltz aren't we supposed to get a pendlum type swing. If I travell across the floor going for distance on step two for arguments sake, say 30 inches or so. If I still move 30 inches but steal a little of the distance and use it for rise. My movement is the same the but with a better rise and fall. One of the first things a judge will look for is rise and fall. If it's minimal they wont give you a second look.

Hi Nod - it's hard to discuss these things comprehensively without being face-to-face and showing the movements. I'm not sure what you mean by "If I still move 30 inches but steal a little of the distance and use it for rise". You mean i assume travel a little less than before (the "30 inches") to allow for a nicer rise. There may be something in this, but i prefer to work on improving my flight and still obtaining a nice rise. I don't want to consciously restrict my flight. I'm tall (as is my partner) and want to take advantage of it. My comments on this topic (there was an earlier posting) have been prompted by a study of Andrew Sinkinson's teaching tape (and the Hilton's for that matter) who clearly drive powerfully on 1 (from the standing left foot in the natural turn)and get very low, and continue the good flight on 2. There is an energy transfer from the kinetic energy of this flight into the rise at the end of 2/into 3, which augments the leg rise. That's how i view it (as an engineer) and that's what i'm aiming for. I've been dancing with restricted movement for too many years. I appreciate the concept of holding back just a little to help a flowing, relaxed movement in a comp., but all my practice is to improve flight and control and balance.

The rise height is precisely that needed to absorb the enery of the flight... if you've ever watched a stunt plane do a stall turn, that's exactly what's happening in waltz. But it is possible to over reach the second step in a way that makes the body fall between the feet, so that the rise will be very forced and unnatural.

It has been suggested that we swing with enough forward and upward power to place our weight over the left foot and on a high heel without any use or straightening of the left knee. I find this impossable. I was always taught that the knees were the shock absobers that protected the spine and that we should always dance onto a bent or flexed knee. So on three the left knee would straighten but not lock,the left heel continue to rise?

There's a difference between letting the arriving leg flex a little, and having to use ("work") it to arrive.

I would suggest that the swing take you naturally onto the arriving leg and up into the rise, because the role of rise is to absorb the energy that you had in movement, so that you can then send it down in a new direction. If you have to work to arrive, you misproportioned your swing.

That's very different from the action of the "swing" or jive basic, where it's foot rise action of the receiving leg that brings the body over it - in the smooth "swing" dances it's action of the departing leg that launches you towards the arriving leg and lets you coast up into the rise.