Would like to hear opinions, on Lens theory regarding the release of the heel on a backward step for lady, (after approx. 2 inches max.) moving across the floor ( skim action ), as opposed to the current trend of " drag "
Will reserve my comments .

Terence2. If I remember correctly Len was not a believer in pulling the heel all the way back to the supporting foot. Having said that it would be the correct thing to do if we are to do a Heel Turn. Man's Open Imputus for instance. Or a Ladies Heel Turn. It is important to know if he was refering to continuous steps down or across the floor. If we want to get into finer detail and a step is from feet together to feet together. Then the Heel Turn for the lady is not a complete step. In my book that is only half a step. I wonder if I have made my point clear. I can see why Alex Moore skirted around some of these parts. It is too difficult to put it all into words. If we want to see what is currently being danced we must go to the videos or DVD's of recent competitions, preferably finals and take a look with no premeditated ideas in our head of how we think it is being done.
Getting off the subject on to another. Can you remember how Len Scrivener said that he didn't know any professional who didn't disagree that on a Whisk in the Waltz it was more comfortable if the lady keeps her head to the left throughout.

As to the whisk q -- he firmly believed that the poise of the lady, was more enhanced by a very late turn of the head , into the commencement of the chasse.( I am inclined to agree ! )

The " pulling " of the heel, was primarily in reference to the backward motion applied in continuos actions, as in the three step, and like movements . .

my apology for not making the statement a little clearer ( particularly for the beginners )

Looking at many of todays competing Pros, it appears they are nearly gauging furrows in their wake, and is taking away from the free flowing movement , that dance was intended to portray .

"Looking at many of todays competing Pros, it appears they are nearly gauging furrows in their wake, and is taking away from the free flowing movement , that dance was intended to portray ."

While some of the inexperienced dancers may be using a lot of foot pressure to control their speed (in short, their timing is off and they have to drag their feet to fix it), I don't think any of the skilled ones are.

Instead, the visual difference is that the body is much, much closer to the floor today. Today's dancers are "grounded" or even "earthy" in a way that yesterdays are not, largely due to a willingness to bend the knees more when over the feet and to divide the legs more when between them.

Yes, some of them are over-muscling things. But we can find criticism of the old ways too - look at even just 10-15 years ago, and most dancers look very high, stiff, and spindly, as if they didn't really know how to get into their legs - because in fact, most of them did not.

To address the specific topic: there is every bit as much difference between sliding a foot across the floor or skimming it an invisible distance above without pressure and dragging it with braking pressure, as there is between keeping it on the floor and lifting it. But as outside observers, we tend to notice only:

1) if the foot is on/near the floor or it is visibly removed and

2) if the foot is moving freely in response to proper body timing, or it is visibly being slowed by braking friction against the floor.

You only quote 15 yrs ago ( maybe thats your extent of " older "? ) my references were to those who competed in the fifties-- the Binnicks, Eggletons, Irvines and Scriv., for e.g.

I more than aware of the current emphasis on knee flexion, thats ALWAYS been taught by pros who know their stuff.
My rant is against those who teach " digging in " those heels or " scraping that toe " to eternity .
They are around, witness many of todays competitors .

The " Naturalness " of slow trot has become very mechanical in its approach.--- You may be on the other side of the fence than i ( different eras ) and that might be your preference, but from a theoretical standpoint , i see no advantages gained, by sacrificing over extension .

As Len quoted " too much rise is as bad as too little" !.
The -- Less is more theory, has always worked better from my experiences .

"You only quote 15 yrs ago"

Because I was pointing out that even in that very short, recent span of time, there has been a marked improvement in the groundedness of dancing.

Of course whenever you have an improvement, there will be someone who takes the changes and applies them all wrong, so that they get all of the consequences and none of the benefits - thus the fools who "teach " digging in " those heels or " scraping that toe ""

Such abuse of foot pressure is not what being grounded is about, it's what people who don't understand dancing (and in particular, body timing) try to do to cover for their lack of understanding.

We are essentially in agreement on the misuse-- , I am aware of at least one high profile individual, who subscribes to the dig dig dig techn.

The point i would take issue with-- the "grounding " that is frequently referenced, is not the sole propriety of the current crop of dancers .

This was more than evident in the likes of Gleave, Hurley and farther back, most of the ex 50s champions .

Terence2. Its like being between the devil and the deep blue sea. Everybody as part of there training must be able if needed to pull the heel all the way back to the supporting foot. Then as they learn to bend the knee of the supporting leg towards their partner they should naturally loose the excessive pulling of the heel. I think you will all agree that in the beginning it must be taught. Imagaine being an advanced dancer and not being able to pull the heel all the way back to the supporting foot, or even part way. I'm sure that on an Open Impetus you all pull that heel. Just as you do on the beginning of the third step of the Back Lock in the Quickstep.. Keep Smiling
Terence. The ladies head was kept to the left including the Progressive Chasse. The man in the Whisk can turn his head towards the lady and back again. That's if you want to be different.

Its one of those " devil if you do and devil if you dont " type of things.

I think as profs ( who have been well trained ) we have come to a much better understanding , of the requirements needed , to achieve a specific result.

My hestitancy, has always been one of caution, when introducing the finer points too early in the development .

As len would say ( dont get hung up on your feet, and forget how to dance "

Going back to the Whisk comment-- yes-- i have seen it done in different styles .
Remember when some competitors would commence backwards ( W and F/T ) providing a " swing down swing up " approach ?

Gary Mc donald ( brians son ) did that on occasion, in the states ( I wonder where he got that from !!! )

I like that "don't get hung up on your feet, and forget how to dance" quote.