KISS my angulation

Carv_lust--you may well have something to add to this (and other) discussions. I suspect that you do have some sort of experience and knowledge. But merely expressing your opinions, without any facts or reasoning to back them up, is not the least bit enlightening.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. But if you want to convince anyone else of their validity, and if you want to earn any respect around here, you'll have to do a lot more than just stating them.

Please feel free to argue your point. I look forward to being convinced!

Regards,
Bob

carv_lust the last instructor I skied with was a recently retired WC racer.... so I don't think he needed to do much "second guessing" as to what racers are doing.... in fact probably a lot less than people who sit on internet forums telling everyone else what WC racers are doing....

you might want to cut out the generalisations.... if you mean HH or rest of world or USAbased xxx or whatever say it but you can hardly speak about every instructor that way....

oh btw this guy is an instructor for kids too if i remember correctly...(i'm sure my instructor was telling me he was watching him teaching a bunch of kids at the resort the 2 of them grew up in)
http://www.michaelmilton.com/news.htm#news16
but what would he know about what racers are doing either....

Bob, when was the last time you proved anything? You just post generalities.

Disski, you have one instructor to put your hat on, that's supposted to impress me, maybe others here are more gullible. Its going to take a lot more to change my mind after twenty years of observing instructors. Nice try, but Weak!

Plus I can't figure out what you are talking about, can you write or express yourself more clearly?
I was a full cert, so don't try to pull your I skied with such and such trick.

This is the type of crap that serves no purpose.

Putting you on ignore, Carve Lust. You're the only one on my list. Congratulations.

good idea.. I should do that too...

Bob,

Nice to see you back (although I'm sorry to hear that your hill has closed for the season). We all appreciate your contribution to the conversation, and hope that you can tune out the noise that sometimes drowns out rational discourse.

I hope you had a good season.

Thanks, C178!

The season was nothing short of phenomenal here! I guess yours is still going in on, presumably in a big way! Keystone, along with Copper Mountain, Winter Park, Aspen, and many others, closed last weekend with some of the best spring conditions you can ask for. Tons of snow left! But hardly anyone showed up to ski over the weekend. It's a shame, really. And next fall, people will be camping out, waiting to be the first to ski a thin ribbon of manmade snow in the new season!

Arapahoe Basin and Loveland will still be open for some time. I expect the conditions to remain first-rate for at least another month. Hope to see a bunch of Bears there!

Best regards,
Bob

Well, you got me there, pal. I have no specific response.

:

Wow, well Bob welcome to our pissing match. I am speechless here it all started so nice and respectful I am sure you know some of these people are in closets and shouting at the walls and it seem someone supplied them with internet access, It seems the angle is to attack anyones credibility with blanket statements of an unfriendly nature.. I believe they must have been run out of the debate club and miss the exchanges.

Welcome back, Bob. We've missed you.

Welcome back Bob! It's always a pleasure to read your posts. I'm quite happy that you're still "thirsty" enough to post here!

Angulation.... useful when increases to edge angle are required. I'll buy that.

But I do have a question: (anyone please feel free to chime in)

Suppose you are making a turn, and you will need a specific edge angle at the end. You know that this turn is not so deep that you'll boot out, so the edge angle you need can be obtained by inclination alone.

What factors should you consider whether you angulate or merely incline through this turn?

BTW: My childs face is not very round, as faces go.....

Speed: Faster = angulate less
Next move: A turn in the opposite direction, angulate more. A turn in the same direction, angulate less.
Available grip: Lots = angulate less. None = angulate more.
Terrain: Launch into air or sudden steep = angulate more.

Welcome back, Bob!!

That said, CL, you're going on my ignore list. Why don't you go back and worship at the feet of your "god" on realskiers, where I know you're a prolific pos(t)er.

WARNING: don't feed the troll.

Damm , finally someone trying to get this thread back on track , please respond to this good question

Sorry about that, Bob. Maybe I can twist your arm into making some turns at the Basin next month if I can get caught up in the next couple weeks?

Good to see you posting again!

Seems like you're out of practice though and need to keep at it a bit ...you didn't even have to split that across even two posts:

BigE, don't have an answer to your question. Got me thinking though...

Question about the boot out though: If the edge angle is defined, would it matter if it was achieved via pure inclination or angulation, whether or not boot out occurs or not?

Chris

[Edit: Concerning your question, where is "the end" of a turn defined?]

cgeb Boot out, please explain
.

GarryZ, My understanding: when you tip the ski so far over that the boot contacts the snow and dislodges the edge from it's platform.

Bob, it's nice to have you back now that you've got more time.

You have much to give here and believe me it is appreciated by all the members and SUPPORTERS.

Thanks.

You are right. It does not matter.

The end would be just before completion/release.

I was trying to KISS it!

"with all due respect" is apparently carv_speak for "stand still while I slap you around." Postings that explain where you differ from Bob's (or anyone else's) analysis and why, are welcome. Posts explaining why you don't think it's possible for Bob (or anyone else) to know what they're talking about verge on being ad hominem attacks and those violate the terms and conditions of your participation here. I know that can't be your intention so a word to the wise should be sufficient.

Bob, you (or anyone else) should feel free to add any user to your ignore list that you don't feel is engaging you in good faith or otherwise diminishes the quality of your experience here. Life is short.

After catching up on this thread all I can say is, WoW!

Weems, you are a true gentleman, and you have my utmost respect.

Hi Bob, nice to see you back. In light of all this, I concede knee angulation for the sake of harmony.

BigE, did you really have go the direction you did to make your point?

C-L. I'm an instructor, I know I suck. I'm trying to get better though, really I am. I think you need to get in touch with your Yin side though.

Which brings me to the "rule of Opposites", which skiing is such a good example of. The balance between the opposites and the constant movement between the two. Circular and straight, eficient and effective, angualtion and inclination, counter and square. One leading us back to the other, and one never totaly controling, always some of one left in the other to get us back into harmony or balance.

Embrace the rule of opposites and we will see that there is room for all in our skiing and that versatility is the end result. Inclination tempered wiht angulation, angulation tempered with inclination. Counter tempered with squareness, squarness tempered with counter. Circles tempered with lines, lines tempered with circles. Each giving us a path back to it's opposite, and each completing a balance with it's opposite. The blend present in the balance of opposites is always tied to the intent and needs of the moment. To embrace the opposites is to embrace versatility. The yin and yang of it all from this grasshopper to all the other grasshoppers who might care.



Bonni, my apologies for any part I had in hijacking this thread. Later, Ricb.

Thanks, but let him dangle!

Thanks, JStraw, but Mr. Lust does not bother me in the least. As a spokesman for PMTS, I think he speaks volumes.

I, like most others here, will continue to focus on the ideas of skiing, and I welcome well-reasoned disagreement and debate. When the only retorts come as personal attacks, then I believe I've made my point!



Best regards,
Bob Barnes

Right on, brother. Just reminding everyone that we do have tools...

Yes, there are many TOOLS on this board.

Good to see you again, Bob. You, Weems, and our absent friend Rick were, and are, the driving forces behind my better understanding of the art of skiing, when the language is kept simple and with respect.

I can't stress 'simple' enough. Even though we can read and surf through stacks of threads, there are still going to be people new to this sport who Don't know the meaning of 'boot out', 'round turns', 'angulation', etc, and how to adapt to different conditions that warrant different techniques and FINESSE.

Keep talking. We're listening.:

Yes, I think so. Words are not fluid.

I am not alone in my understanding of a "round turn": This is an example is a commonly held belief in the racer community. People with level III CSCF accreditation believe this too.

To generalize the word "round" makes the otherwise precise meaning and shared understanding of the term ambiguous.

I'll go further... the notion that counter coexists with square is absurd. Black does exist without white.

The role of any instructor in ANY field is to help folks understand the subject. We should be identifying skills, movement patterns, dead-ends, etc, and we should be able to speak of them in clear precise terms.

That is what teachers do. And don't think for a moment that an instructor is not a teacher -- instructors should guide people to understanding.

This is not assisted by using words in baroque ways. Obfuscating basic definitions serves no purpose. In my view, twisting words about is more a sign of arrogance and self-centered cleverness than it is about illuminating the subject.

Telling a child that "round" means "generic arc" is like telling them all colours are red.

As you can see, this is a dearly held belief of mine.

Thanks weems.

The issue of "balance between issues" is a different matter than the issue of agreeing what a word means. I will defend your right to be vague as you like as a method to keep options open, and I understand it's intent, even though I may disagree regarding the level to which it can be taken.

Schrodinger's cat might feel different about that.

wrt the Casey Pucket quote, you mean this?

The "feet away from the gate" is a bit of a red-herring. The path of the body is the key. The skier may be able to bend the ski very deeply, and still have the skis very close to break-away gates.

I understand that Puckett is teaching skiers to load the ski and generate more rebound -- an option to which they may not have been exposed.

However, using that tactic effectively depends quite a bit on course set -- rebound is a fast way to get back across the hill. Ted Ligety's Slalom run in the combined this past olympics was an excellent example.

That is not to say that comma shaped turns are obsolete...

Do we agree that these burst mode shots show comma shaped turns?

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/la...2004-sl-2.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...oden-gs-1.html

http://www.ronlemaster.com/images/20...-slc-gs-1.html

It is clear in the last sequence that there is significant time spent in the fall-line. A rounder line would be much slower here....