This one should create a few comments. At the end of step one in the Foxtrot, and it doesn't matter whether it is the Feather Step or the Reverse Turn or a Telemark. The instructions are rise at the end of step one. and the footwork is H.T. Which means we are going from a Toe to a Toe on the second step. Now go to your DVD's or youtube and watch for that push up at the end of step one and every simular step which you won't see at the end of step one in the Waltz.
In other words are some of you in the Foxtrot mistakenly teaching a slow linear rise on that step which is not correct. Don't come into this one writting what you believe. Write what is.

"The instructions are rise at the end of step one. and the footwork is H.T. Which means we are going from a Toe to a Toe on the second step. Now go to your DVD's or youtube and watch for that push up at the end of step one"

"In other words are some of you in the Foxtrot mistakenly teaching a slow linear rise on that step which is not correct. Don't come into this one writting what you believe. Write what is."

You are once again failing to account for the difference between the specific actions that the book refers to as rise and fall, and the trend in the altitude of the body which is the result of both factors mentioned in the book and factors NOT MENTIONED in the book.

Any video of quality dancing will show the footwork somewhat as you describe, yes. But it will also show a "slow linear" gain of altitude up to the peak at the end of step two and a "slow linear" loss of altitude thereafter.

This does not contradict the book at all - it merely extends it with details which are beyond the scope of the book, such as the triangle effect of the legs closing and opening in step 2/step 3.

Other noted authors such as Len Scrivener have written their observations of the actual trend of body altitude into their definitions of rise and fall. They are every bit as much as correct as Moore - perhaps more so because their definition of rise and fall is more complete in including all the actions that affect altitude, wheras Moore's rise and fall is mostly about the foot action.

To put it simply, a layment reading Scrivener's description of rise and fall would find it matches what he sees in actual dancing. Wheras a laymen reading Moore's would say it does not match the dancing, because it is describing only one aspect of the action, instead of the more visually notable trend of the body's altitude.

Anymouse, I agree with your comments.

I would like to add a few questions to this topic. My questions are no so much concerned with exactly how to do rise and fall, but for discussion purposes, what it the definition of rise and fall. When someone says "rise and fall" everyone thinks they know what this means, or at least have their own intrepretation of what this means. From looking at various discussions, I see several different definitions of rise and fall. Obviously if you are going to describe this action, you first have to know what action you are describing. I often see discussions of the differences between waltz and foxtrot rise and fall, only to find out that that the contributors are talking about different things because their definitions of rise and fall are different.

I will put this as a question rather than an opinion, because I am not sure my own definition of rise and fall is generally considered to be correct. I have heard the following:

1. Some experts say rise and fall is the bending and straightning of the legs, no mention of anything else. They assume the ankles bend because the knees bend but feel there is no need to describe this.

2. Some say rise and fall is bending and straightning of the legs and ankles.

3. Some say rise and fall is the bending and straightning of the legs, ankles, and body rise. The definition of body rise is also confused.

4. Some say it is the elevation of the top of the head. That of course assumes other actions to make this happen. That would make maximum rise occur at maximum height of the head, which can be different from the other definitions.

Does anyone know which of these are generally considered to be correct? Or is there a definition which one could say is generally correct? Can anyone contribute a better definition?

Well, Alex Moore (and thus ISTD) type rise and fall is primarily concerned with foot rise, and secondarily considers body rise taken from the bend and straightening of the legs, etc.

That system of description somewhat overlooks the "altitidue of a triangle" impact of the legs closing and dividing, which is what causes people like Len Scrivener to comment that it noticeably differs from the overall-altitude-of-head type rise and fall.

The question that you are all avoiding is. At the end of the first step are we on our toe stepping to the next step which is also a toe. Just from memory the notes put into a book form after Len Scrivener died said he disagreed with the then Technique book. He said that at the end of step two we are actually decending onto step three. That doesn't alter step one to two in any way. If you take a look at Chris Hawkins on his Feather Step going from two to three it wouldn't be possible to get any higher on the toes. His teachers obviously do not agree with Len Scrivener.
SmoothGeezer. At the full extent of the stride on step one of a Feather the knees are straight with the heel of the front foot on the floor and the toe of the rear foot on the floor. The weight is at mid- point. As the weight passes onto the front foot on which the toe has lowered, the knee will flex and then straighten. At that time the heel will leave the floor. Does that answer the question. Look at page 10 Alex Moore for some additional information. All you need to ask yourself is how do I get from a position where the foot is flat on the floor with the knee flexed to a position where I have completed a H.T. at the end of the first step, wether it be a Reverse Turn , Open Telemark or whatever.
I'd forget about body rise if I were you. Let the Sway to the right on the Feather take care of that and of course on your Reverse Turn. One last thing when looking at a DVD keep your eyed on the feet and count the slows and quicks as 1 2 3 4. The part you are looking for is after the second beat. Lets hope you are one of those who does count the beats.
It also might help in your quest if you go to Step four for both the man and the lady on a Reverse Turn. You will notice the man's footwork is
T H T. whilst the lady is H T. Don't bother to look it up . It is correct, and you should know that anyway. If you don't it comes under the heading of lousy teaching.

As I stated the first time, I wasn't really concerned with how rise and fall is done or what other people do. I pretty much know that. I wanted to know how you define rise and fall. This is a problem when trying to communicate. Two people with different definitions will see maximum rise at different points in the step even though they are both observing the same thing.

The answers pretty much confirm my suspicions. There is no one universally accepted definition of what constitutes rise and fall. There are several. Which is why the continued confusion when talking about it.

"The question that you are all avoiding is. At the end of the first step are we on our toe stepping to the next step which is also a toe."

Of course it is toe to toe, which is why nobody has been focusing attention on something so obvious.

"Just from memory the notes put into a book form after Len Scrivener died said he disagreed with the then Technique book. He said that at the end of step two we are actually decending onto step three."

This does not actually contradict the technique book, because the technique book is talking about specific components of rise and fall as foot and leg action, NOT the overall ascent and descent of the body which is what Scrivener was describing when he spoke of rise and fall. They are both describing the same dancing, but with different focus.

"That doesn't alter step one to two in any way."

The same difference in focus exists during step two. The technique book points out that there's no waltz-like continuation of the foot/knee rise, but an outcome-focused observer will comment that the body continues to gain altitude as the legs close right on up until the end of step 2. These descriptions do not conflict in any way, they merely focus on different parts of what is occurring.

"If you take a look at Chris Hawkins on his Feather Step going from two to three it wouldn't be possible to get any higher on the toes."

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. He could get much higher there, but knows not to, because this is foxtrot, not waltz.

"His teachers obviously do not agree with Len Scrivener."

On the contrary, they clearly do agree. Hawkins' dancing, like that of everyone with skill, clearly shows the trend in body altitude just as Scrivener said it would be.

Anonymous. When you wrote. Of course it's toe to toe you obviously agree that there is rise at the end of the first step. Which is as the book says.
But look around you and you will see dancers coming off a flat foot and not rising untill the second step is in place. Which means the rise being used is more akin to the ladies rise in the Waltz between step one and two of a Natural.
If you go to Marcus Hilton on youtube and pay particular attention to the cleaness between the first and the second step on all of his movements which require the lady to do a Heel Turn.Do you see the absence of Sway leading into the steps. No Swaying on step one which would spoil the picture.
While we are at it Ladies. Are we Swaying too early on our Heel Turns. The Technique is to Sway on step two which should take the weight off that foot and make the Heel Turn singular instead of Heels Turn which is plural.How many times do we see both toes off the floor on a Heel Turn. Very wrong.