youcanski vids... Thanks Greg....

Here is a youtoob page of great modern technical stuff. A rare collection and no bs ( and no will ).

http://www.youtube.com/user/Gregcoach#g/u

A rare collection of crap.

Why is that crap?

I'd say that there's a lot of "will" in those videos, but I know you don't think there's any room for "will" in technique conversations. I disagree, but it's certainly your prerogative to hold that opinion.

That said, what do you find "great" about those videos?

If you didn't like that, I wonder if this link I found there is also crap .

Check out Ligety at 1:43. 


JF

Hmmm... I don't see a lot of similarity between the two. What parallels are you drawing here?

I think Greg's upper-body is artificially contorted. I'm not sure what he thinks he's accomplishing with that largely static position of his upper back and shoulders, but it isn't particularly effective or efficient. His skiing is quite skilled, of course, but not nearly as skilled nor as focused as Ligety's.

So, what parallels are you drawing between the two? Both are racing-biased GS turns. But, other than that...?

 I like Greg Gurshman's philosophy and how he breaks turns into three phases, above the fall line, in the fall line, and after the fall line.  I like how he describes and differentiates each phase as they make perfect sense to me.  He dispels some common myths about level shoulders, and counter.  I don't see any crap here???? 

 

Alright. I have had it. I have had it with the rip off of language and the re-branding. The mis-nomers and fuzzy touchy feely invisible stuff.
I am not an athlete. I do not squat 200 kgs. I do not leap from the platform onto the ball ( and rebound onto a second and almost onto a third: Can someone please link to That video ??)  
I do not pull 3 g's in a turn and stivot into weightless then pull instantaneous 3g's on the next. I do not average 80 kph - that's 50 - mph- in a GS race ( well - maybe I hit it for a few seconds - and I am late - again).  And... " I NEVER SKID " ... ( unless I hit 80 kph in a GS race . Hah-  in my dreams... ). But I do boot-out or get flung high-side once in a while... because if you're not booting or flinging you're only cruising. I look for more inclination and try to weight the inside ski ( by the way, since 1974 i have done about 25 full time, 100 day seasons )  
BUT I KNOW WHAT I AM MISSING.
I have seen it watching the WC Dudes and Dudettes, or the top level ski-racers here for Nationals or Whistler Cup ( Jeezus those kids.. ! ) and those in the Kokanee series here who beat me.  While scanning joe-skiing public from the chair, I see ' it' very seldom. Someone worth watching is Rare... very rare. Beginners are only interested in getting from A to B. Intermediates are looking for lunch. And good skiers are interested in HOW they get there. And you Know When you see 'someone' who is wired right... I see it in Greg's vids.
 I think that Greg does not quite get 'there' either, because Greg is an old, old man.( just kidding, Greg )... A "civilian" and a world cup coach, skiing at a level most of the forum posters just don't have -  or understand.  But I know that he knows what to look for, because of his excellent demonstrations and descriptions of -for eg - Outside-loaded-down-unweight-cross-under and then let it go into inclination. Remember - bigger inclination ( as much as you can stomach) brings steeper edge angles and bigger g-forces.  
You can see it in his videos.
This next bit is the meat of this post - no matter how much I have offended you all. Please persevere.
I have been 'racing' in the Kokanee series at W/B for about Five seasons. I am an also-ran with some flashes of good skiing. In the whole series of Koke series there are really Good...AND I MEAN REALLY GOOD SKIERS.  The Best Civilian and some Serious ex-Racers I have ever skied with. After the race we meet for beer and shwag and VIDEO. Here is the punch line for this post. So don't miss it.
IT IS very rare to see even one of the better skiers get into the WORLD CUP POSITION. Most of the better racers - myself included - all have skis that are hooked-up with no-joke-scary energy... Most of us look static, stiff, fixed to lower edge angles AND OUR BUTTS ARE STILL MOSTLY WAY OFF THE GROUND. We, for the most part are not WC dynamic, either to say the least.
So when you see someone dragging their inside hand or hip turn after turn they have ' been there ' ... and have a big medical file to proove it.( Because you can't mess with Big Physics without a big medical file ).
So when I watch Greg's videos, I know I am seeing some serious energy.    

The limiting factor for most ' real skiers' is in fact G-FORCE. How much can you take, for how long, and can you apply it for the briefest time possible ? Wing-wang. Wang-ho into the trees.
Funny how Ron le Master has seldom been quoted lately here at BB.       F =ma. Period.
The simple facts are that Modern Ski Technique comes with a language based on physics... Descriptions based on observation. I will allow ' feelings ' and  ' psycho-therapy '  as  ' instructional methods ' of 'attack'.  However do not confuse the map with the territory.

Thanks for the excellent Ligety clip... (and a nice guy, too).  Watch WC vids at full speed , then slow them down to HALF SPEED - which is the speed most Good Civilian skiers ski at. 40- 60 kph, 30-40 miles an hour.  Not 50mph.  But those edge angles and body positions are generated by twice the speed and energy. ( get ' Winning Runs ' From the CSCF - coaches -site. 29 bucks. The winning runs of the past WC seasons. Men's and Women's ).   

Once you are not skidding that energy is stored in the arcing skis, you gotta deal with it. Most people skid, to avoid it, or dissipate it... Few use it to go fast and faster. ( probably because you need a closed course and no speed police ).
I think that the recent larger 23 and now 27 meter radius GS skis are too hard for us civilians to use. I start my season on easy Ogasaka 'race-carvers' and it is a thrill to bring out the 180 Head GS at 21 meters, and I notice the change to 22.5 meters on my 180 Salomon GS ( a woman's 2005 GS ) and I have to work up to my 193 Fischers - and even they are 21 meters... ( run 'em as a Super-g, until I finally get strong enough to use for GS ). Slaloms are just as, or even more, brutal because they don't sketch because of the hook-up with those side-cuts and plates...they just eat ACL's.
    
 
This is why ssH is right - Greg's skiing is not as good a Ligety's. Few are and they are in the WC.     
Neither Greg nor Ron use terms like will, or attack or try in their technical descriptions. It seems like  "phases of the turn " are novel to Bar -king Beer and  bud heishman.
So  -  directly at you - BigE , you and your crap - sounds like you don't get it either.

I actually posted the vid because seeing that kind of athletic performance gets me pumped up for skiing as much as any big mountain ski porn.  I thought it was worth sharing.

I guess the correlation is that it was a link I found from Gurshmans' page.  He must be drawing some parallels between what he is doing & WC technique.  Gurshman is demonstrating his interpretation of how they get there.  I'm not sure I like Gursmans' exagerated inclination, but there are times when I find it useful & it is certainly not crap to me.

Whether it is GG's, HH's, PSIA's, CSIA's, SSH's or my own interpretation, it doesn't make any difference.  To call it "crap" is just close minded & limiting.  All of these organizations & individuals have put a lot of thought & time in trying to describe what is going on.  Like it or not, good or bad, I can usually find something useful in their descriptions & demonstrations.  Skiing technique swings on a large scale.  Finding the middle ground, & then exploring the extremes on either end is what keeps it fun & interesting.
 

You are welcome.  I agree that the skiing on that video is other worldly.  Personally, I have not found a real GS ski that I am comfortable on for the past 10 years.  I just cannot create enough energy or strength to make them work for me.  I am not sure I follow all of your rant, so I won't attempt to comment.  I can relate to some of what you are saying though & I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks,

JF

 

So what?

Yes, their human striving to create a framework to "describe what is going on" is admirable. 

But their output need not be.  How many novelists, engineers, or playwrights of 50 years ago are known for their work?  Even those of 5 years ago?  The natural fate of creative endeavors is extinction.  Only a few gems thrive.  We're all familiar with the financial counterpart of paying lipservice to failing approaches to rescue the human effort expended in creating them -- throwing good money after bad.  And the school of hard knocks teaches us not to do it.  In the real world, one doesn't get an A for effort; we're all graded on a curve and one gets an A for being the best.  Period. 

g-force,

I was asking MGskier why he thought it was crap. 

I couldn't agree more.  You've gotta have a pretty big pile of rocks to find the best gems, which is what I am looking for. (like that turn of Ligetys at 1:43).  Heck, I even find a few here on EPIC once in a while.


If I didn't ever read anything or try to see anything from anothers point of view,  I may as well live in an arctic snow cave.  How do you know what is "best" if you don't have mediocrity to compare it to.
JF

Just found these full race videos - really full race vids at almost two hours each. For example the Kranjska Gora Mens's GS...Really cool. Ligety really pulls one out.  Stuff that never makes the 30 minute TV shows. Some amazing high sides etc. You can see how a twitch will lose a race.  http://www.fisalpineworldcup.com/            Had to install 'clearlight' - no problems.

 G force,

What have you been dippin your chips in?

g-force, I think you're picking a fight with people who would agree with your technical commentary for the most part, but some think that there's more to skiing than technique. I am one of them. I think the mind gets into the mix (it's one of the aspects that decides whether or not we're willing to handle that g-force you talk about!). If I don't have the Will to do it, it doesn't even matter if I have the technique and the strength, I won't do it. Will is not enough, but neither is technique. Or Purpose. Or Touch.

The Sports Diamond really is a useful metaphor for learning and coaching and self-guidance. But, that's all it is. If it's not useful to you, dump it. Don't expect us all to find your personal preferences to our liking, however, and grant us the freedom to use it or not as we see fit. Even if you don't, we'll do it anyway. 

Skiing is about balance.

I can empathize with g-force; there's no point in concentrating on the mental/will aspects while ignoring the basic technique aspect if you haven't got the basics down.

I also empathize with Weems and SSH; there's also no point in ignoring it completely. 
Just because there is a thread on will, doesn't mean that is all that we are concerned about.

I think what rattled g-forces chain is the amount of skiing that is lacking in technical perfection, but still praised as being near-perfect and exemplary.  Hence he felt the need to give his opinion that the skiing in the video was less than perfect (he put it less politely).

I must say I am surprised at how much mediocre skiing (imho) is praised as "unatainable" and put up as exemplars and the mediocre skiers (again imho) are looked at as heroes and skiing gods just because they can ski a few turns arc-to-arc.  I expect more from someone who has 10 years of continuous learning in a skiing career, let alone 20 or 30 or more. 

Sure we all imagine ourselves skiing much better than we look (unless we've seen the video), but we've also see video of other much better skiers than what's been praised.

What to make of all these The 2 minute skiing video clips floating around youtube (and elsewhere)?  They seem to come in two varieties":  The segment from a larger DVD snippet meant to illustrate and sell the instructors style and methodology and the "unassailable WC competitors" slalom run-which is usually thrown out there to show how badly the instructor's snippet video sucks.

To me, with a rare exception, none of these guys' skiing demonstrations are 'crap'-they're all good skiers (yeah some better than others, but all good with something worth emulating), and represent something more visually useful that the 'wc skier' trump card bandied about.

Honestly, what ultimately strikes each of us about one video or another is tempered by a good bit of subjective preference of how we'd like to see ourselves ski (for some it is imagined, for others it is fully realized-but all of us have that image of 'good skier' we're chasing down or making permanent.).  I'd admit that Greg's 'youcanski' shorts aren't it for me, but neither is Ted Ligety (great skier, no doubt-but I don't imagine one day mimicking his skiing in an instructor model sort of way).

I've been coming back to this video a lot lately-someday, this is the guy I'd like to ski like (and he gets it done in the bumps as well as on the smooth).  I don't know if he's any better or worse than any other instructor-video model out there (or WC skier slalom run montage)-but this is the model I'm trying to imagine when working on my own fledgling skiing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4719644548620711399#

Is he great?  Is it crap?  that's for other's to worry about-I'm sure someone can throw up a video of Rondi at some Euro race that'll show everything wrong with this video-but for me, this is it-this is how i'd like to one day see my skiing.  For you-something different.

^ I am with you Liam.  Richie Berger is probably the best technical freeskier I have seen on video... ever!  It may be something different for racing, or big mountain powder, but for me this is someone who clearly shows a picture that I would like to emulate.  Like you say, others may see it differently.
Good stuff,
JF

Thanks for sharing that video; I hadn't seen it before. I agree with you that it is definitely skiing worth emulating. Nice... 

g-force - that video that is at the top in the link is not of coach Greg its of Kalle Pallander. Very good WC skier. Had a bad accident a few years back but is supposed to be in condition again. Greg did not coach Kalle but they ski very similar with lots of inclination. But there is a lot of angulation as well in store and that you can see in the WC coveridge. Watching WC skiers ski outside the race track can many times seem dissapointing. Angulation is used for extra tracktion at the gate and therefoer you seldome se racers take a static angulated position at the top of the turn. They try to maximize pressure when they need it the most and that is from fall line to lower C part of the turn. Check out the freeskiing segments and then try to pinnpoint the same movements in the gate part of the video. His SL gate skiing is soooo smoooth and effortless. Thats how I want to ski. And like Berger . Awsome guy. Perfect technique. We need a new thread for him.

TDK, the video in the link has changed since g-force orginally posted it.  Maybe GG is monitoring this thread & is trying to make a point.

I hope Pallander is back racing this season.


Thanks,
JF

Notice on the GS where Pallendar uses more angulation and where he uses more inclination. 

Turns with a higher apex use inclination/projection to increase/maintain speed down the hill.

Angulation is added to turns with lower apex to slow down/tighten the turn and get across the hill.

As I understand the term, projection is the act of getting your body inside the turn while inclining and engaging the downhill edges.  It can be thought of as a perpendicular alignment to the skis that are tipped solely due to the movement of the upper body.

 

Thanks for helping me make my point E.

 

Before someone asks "So what's your point?"  My point is that both have their place depending on the situation.  It is not just applicable in the race course or for WC athletes, this kind of versatility is valuable for everyone in all types of conditions.

Thanks,
JF

 I've never heard the term projection before.  I would guess that it refers to projecting the feet away from the body ( to the outside of the turn) rather than bringing the body to the inside.  Either way the result would be similar, but the idea of pushing the feet away seems more proactive and therefor faster.  I know very little about racing tactics.

 

Yes, there are different types of projection.  You are referring to "Lateral Projection", it least that is my understanding.  I don't think I would call it pushing though.  Maybe extending or reaching with the feet is a better description.  I also don't think it is a purely racing tactic, I bet you do it in the powder a bunch, along with early inclination.

 

JF

The technique of Inside Leg Extension can be considered an example of "projection".  In the ILE, the balance is disrupted by slightly extending the inside leg.  This makes the upper body move into the turn, the uphill ski acting as a hinge point.

However, GG is seen, starting the turn on the outside edge of the inside ski.  That's as far inside as you're going to get when you are inclined.  Notice that as the turn progresses that the weight shifts naturally to the outside ski.

You can also see it in the drill where GGs feet go very wide apart at transition.  Once the downhill leg is flexed, the outside leg remains extended as the body is already well inside the turn.  This was the thinking behind a wide stance providing instantaneous edge change.  One problem with the overly wide stance is that  you will be on opposing edges -- ie. both inside edges.  That would be slower than if you were on equally edged skis.

The slope is double pitched so he uses more angulation turning right and on his left turns he is sufficient with inclination only. But he starts all his turns with inclination. You can tell this is a practise track because he carves all the turns.

Projection is a new word for me but I will start using your definition. Yes, projecting the body into the turn is a gamble. I used to call this part of the turn setting up the gross parameters of the turn. A quick calculation of ski turn radius, tuning of the skis, snow surface, speed, pitch etc gives me an rough estimate of how much I dare to project myself into the turn. Some call this falling into the new turn. Some call it letting the CoM flow downhill. Its all the same. Body projects into turn and skis come arround and catch you before you reach the snow surface. Good skiers are good at making the estimate. Thats because they ski a lot. Tennis players play a lot. As I swap my SL skis for GS skis I need to ski some before Im able to trust myself. Before competitions I need to make a lot of runs with the skis Im going to use so that Im able to use exactly the ammount of projection I need.

Im not really sure what you mean with your last sentence in the last paragarph. Could you please open it up a bit.

 Sure.  

Skiing with parallel bases will be faster than skiing with non-parallel bases.  If the bases are parallel, the skis can arc turns with a much closer turn radius.  If they are not parallel, the skis will arc turns of much different radii.  One ski may be brushing the other carving.  

In the most extreme case, the skis are on opposing edges (A framed). Due to the built in steering angles, the skis will try to turn into each other. You can force them to be straight, but again, they'll be skidding and slower than they would be in the case of matching edge angles.. 

 

Now we have another term to bat around, projection.  What you describe as "projecting the body into the turn" to me is referred to as "hip projection", where we extend the CoM diagonally across the skis into the direction of the new turn.

Tetonpowderjunkie is descriping what is to me "lateral projection", two different things, although I think they can be used together.  I may be way off base, but those are how I've always thought of when I've heard those terms.  Maybe someone has a glossary, or I'll try & look it up.

JF

 Projection is into the center of the turn at apex.  Yes, it is diagonally across the skis, but there is a target.