We're actually having a civil discussion on this forum (in contrast to a lot of the stuff going around the Westie world right now, which is why I am here and not there) so I'm not going to encourage this to get worse. However, I get the impression that you may be a judge for the ballroom world, rather than the WCS circuit? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I am not intending any sort of offense. However, I would have a hard time finding anyone I run into on the WCS circuit (though they DO exist, we have seen this first hand in the last week) who would insult the dancing of two of the world's top pros. That's like a ballroom dancer saying "Eh, Yulia is fine on a given day, but we have people in our own studio who could take her. Why bother flying her halfway across the world, we'll just teach the master class ourselves, it's the same caliber." And I do believe in this discussion we are talking about footwork rather than foot position. We are referencing the removal of triples in order to be musical or be lazy.. and which the OP was seeing at their studio. (etc etc etc) Foot position would be mistaking a 5th position for a 3rd and failing to align your body correctly over your feet.. which could be a frame issue rather than a conscious (or poor instruction, if we follow the original train of thought of this thread) choice of footwork. The video I shared was used as an example of how professional lead/follow dancing (note that was not a choreographed routine, btw, but complete improv to a song they both know but were not prepared in advance to dance to) can often remove triples in favor of musicality and pattern extension. Triples still existed within the dance, and for the anchor and many other patterns when they were called for, rather than as an afterthought.