Does the new ski technology reduce the need for lessons? - Page 4

Well, PSIA does publish standard teaching manuals that, in some sense, establish their skill progressions and "jargon".  They also have booklets of recommended drills/exercises and things like that.  They do go around and demonstrate the latest and greatest 'stuff' to ski schools and instructors, but they don't try to force individual ski schools to teach in any specific manner.  An individual ski school may make its instructors teach in a very specific way, but that's not coming from the central PSIA organization.

If there's anything they preach, it's that you should try to tailor the lesson to the needs of the student.  Of course, the flip side is that you get complaints about inconsistency between instructors and ski schools.  Because there's no rigid curriculum, the same student might get very different lessons from different instructors based on how they personally teach and what they see in the student's skiing.

In my opinion the need for lessons is increased; learning on low-tech (so to speak) skis and equipment forces you to develop good habits and will allow you to make good use of good equipment. Learning on new equipment can allow you to slip into bad habits or techniques because they do a lot of the work for you, hence the need for lessons to hone your good habits and make sure you don't develop bad ones.

Have you seen the prices on multi-day programs?  Fine for the wealthy vacationer, but sucks the hairy mooseball for us regular folk who are lucky if they can even afford group lessons.

Sorry, I'm devoted to my sports so I'm willing to invest what I can in my fun, but I envy those girls who show up for the multi-thousand dollar women's ski clinics.

In the sixties Stein Erickson invented modern skiing, the Arlberg Technique or Reverse Shoulder (the break from rotation method). The hallmark turn was the parallel christie. If the Austrian Instructors had not standardized their teaching, this method would never have been conveyed in tact to the entire ski world, and would not have established the solid foundation for techniques still used today. It would have had many variations, some not as good as Stein's idea, and many skiers would have been ill served by inferior methods being taught by individualistic instructors.

To hear an instructor declare that he will teach how he wants to teach sounds self indulgent and self serving and disregarding of the need of the student to grasp a consistent methodology everywhere he attends ski school. That an instructor enjoy giving an intermediate lesson is about the least important factor in a ski school. And I doubt that every instructor has something important to add to an established doctrine of ski technique. When I came back to the US in the mid 60s, I asked what the American System was, compared to the Arlberg System, and was told that it was the same but simplified. In fact, I found there was no clear system in place at all, which is what was said here: PSIA will not tell me how to teach. The great American skiers of that era skied reverse shoulder, the Austrian method, to the letter, and learned it in the Alps or from coaches and instructors who learned to teach in the Alps.

Davluri, you really don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iWill 

Davluri, you really don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

I was just baffled as to the relevancy of Austrian skiing techniques.

Ya know if the resorts would lower prices on lessons you'd get more biz and better skiers,hello?

Quote:

Originally Posted by slider 

Ya know if the resorts would lower prices on lessons you'd get more biz and better skiers,hello?

Perhaps, but the ski school would make less money.  When the ski school can put 8 students in a one hour group lesson at $50 each and pay the instructor $15 for that hour they net almost $400.  You expect them to give that up for nothing?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKabrex 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iWill 

Davluri, you really don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

I was just baffled as to the relevancy of Austrian skiing techniques.

I was just baffled that Stein (Norwegian) is getting credit for developing the Arlberg technique which was brought to us 30 years earlier by Hannes Schneider. Also, the whole relevance thing too. I will admit that when I see the pictures of the old ski school classes with everybody lined up and doing the exact same thing, it would in a way make it easier for any old fool to teach the sport. Just keep going down the list. If you can't do an uphill stem you stay in group 2b (or whatever) end of story. No more discussion about "bad splits" either. When people show up for group 2b you know exactly what they are supposed to be able to do and what to do next. Yeah, I can see how some would wax nostalgic for that. There are probably people that have fond memories of Parris Island too though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slider 

Ya know if the resorts would lower prices on lessons you'd get more biz and better skiers,hello?

At Mt. Baker you can get a lift ticket for $48. The cost for a beginner chairlift ticket, rentals and a 1 1/2 hour lesson is also $48.

We also offer a 5 week, 2 hour per week clinic for adults for $95. Let me know if you can golf lessons for under $10 per hour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt 

Quote:

Originally Posted by slider 

Ya know if the resorts would lower prices on lessons you'd get more biz and better skiers,hello?

 

Perhaps, but the ski school would make less money.  When the ski school can put 8 students in a one hour group lesson at $50 each and pay the instructor $15 for that hour they net almost $400.  You expect them to give that up for nothing?
 

But if the lesson is $30 and twice as many people will pay it, they'll make more money.

I don't know the whole deal behind the economics of ski school -- actually, I don't know anything about it -- so I won't speculate. I imagine they have it figured out just so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segbrown 

But if the lesson is $30 and twice as many people will pay it, they'll make more money.I don't know the whole deal behind the economics of ski school -- actually, I don't know anything about it -- so I won't speculate. I imagine they have it figured out just so.

 

Not necessarily; each resort can only handle so many people, and if the resort is already close to their cap or full, reducing prices will only lose revenue. Most resorts will find out the maximum amount of people they can support, then charge the most they can without falling below that quota. Its cutthroat, but remember that a resort is a business.

Generally any destination resort is expensive, and if you want to vacation there you have to accept that. If you live near there though, its almost always worth a season's pass (most season's passes are the price of 7-10 or less 1 day tickets in my experience).

Quote:

Originally Posted by litterbug 

Bob,you are right on , I think if more people spent time in focused lesson programs such as an ESA or other week / season long continuous learning type programs and actually worked at the skills needed I think we would find very few "what ski should I get " threads here on Epic. The skills / technique and tactics learned  will let them jump on any gear and have success with it. They would also be able to evaluate gear better for themselves.

 

But its not going to happen most just want a quick fix/ tip and hold my hand to help me find the right/ best? equipment. The ski manufacturers like it, change it up a little each year then call it the next gotta have ski, buy this , you will get better etc. How much would an ESA or other type of program lesson really cost over a few years if one took away something that gets them skiing better and becoming a more informed skier? Quite a bit less I think than getting new gear very year or two looking for some magic that is not going to happen with out working on a skill base.
 

Have you seen the prices on multi-day programs?  Fine for the wealthy vacationer, but sucks the hairy mooseball for us regular folk who are lucky if they can even afford group lessons.

 

Sorry, I'm devoted to my sports so I'm willing to invest what I can in my fun, but I envy those girls who show up for the multi-thousand dollar women's ski clinics.

At  Middlebury College Snowbowl we have a 10 week Weds morn program for $180, we have 6 week either Sat or Sun  for $150 all are lesson plans include 1/2 day ticket for skiing before and after our 1 hour lesson. iWill showed what Mt. Baker has. I'm sure there are other places that have similar  plans. We are not a big resort, we are a  small to medium sized eastern ski area. Big destination resorts will charge more. They have more amenities they have to pay for. What do you think pays for all the high speed lifts, snowmaking and grooming?

To me it comes down to what effort one is willing to put in (invest) into becoming a better skier. Learning some tactics/drills at anyplace and then going out and actually practicing and perfecting them , this takes time, will make for a more well rounded skier. Then they will be able to push their boundaries on what type of terrain/ conditions they can ski. A well rounded skier will also be able to play with different equipment ( carvers, GS, midfats, twin tips, full rockered, fat powder boards) and get their full potential out of that gear and have more fun. Or you could go out and buy the latest and greatest whatever ski for $800-$1200 and hope the new tech will do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKabrex 

Quote:

Originally Posted by segbrown 

But if the lesson is $30 and twice as many people will pay it, they'll make more money.I don't know the whole deal behind the economics of ski school -- actually, I don't know anything about it -- so I won't speculate. I imagine they have it figured out just so.

 

 

Not necessarily; each resort can only handle so many people, and if the resort is already close to their cap or full, reducing prices will only lose revenue. Most resorts will find out the maximum amount of people they can support, then charge the most they can without falling below that quota. Its cutthroat, but remember that a resort is a business.

 

Generally any destination resort is expensive, and if you want to vacation there you have to accept that. If you live near there though, its almost always worth a season's pass (most season's passes are the price of 7-10 or less 1 day tickets in my experience).

Which is what I meant by my second para. But if resorts are already at quota, then I guess we can't have more people taking lessons, anyway. So we can only hope that the new ski technology reduces the need for lessons.... ( I agree that it probably makes lessons more important, whoever said that, but since I am one of those bad non-takers of lessons, I should not comment.)

The relevance  is that iWill said that he prefers to teach without following a PSIA doctrine, which does or doesn't exist, I can't tell from the posts. The discussion has followed lines about the health of teaching skiing in America.

edit to simplify

You still don't understand.

PSIA teaches that the instructor should determine what the skier want's to be able to do, analyze the skier and provide the skier with a lesson catered to that skier's needs. PSIA provides a toolbox of skills and drills, and they test and certify instructors on a wide range of technical knowledge and ability. When I took my level 2, I taught a lesson that was not out of the PSIA manual, and did not consist of PSIA techniques or drills. It was drills I had developed. I passed with flying colors. The test for level 3 not only can be passed that way, but must be; a level 3 skier is bringing skills and drills for the lesson for his or her peers, and they are not out of some "technique" manual.

"Modern technique" is not derived from Arlberg or ATS techniques...thank god they got rid of that kind of crap long ago.

As far as your contention that it is somehow "self indulgent" that I teach to the student's needs instead of some preconceived idea of technique...you have it backwards. It would nbe self-indulgent to teach some "final form" instead of teaching to the skier's needs.  The only one who is important in the lesson isn't Stein Erikson or PSIA, but the student. It isn't some bad thing that a lesson I give is different from one another skier would get from another instructor at Vail or Seven Springs. It's a good thing.

As far as "the doctrine" of Austrian technique working, if it was an efficient or effective method of teaching, it would still exist or modern teaching techniques would be based from it. They're not. Instead of doctrine based, instruction is now skier based. PSIA doesn't care whether I teach someone to move their hips forward by telling them to imagine ice down their pants at the beginning of a a turn. That's entirely up to me. And I don't care whether PSIA cares or not. The student wants to be a smoother skier on the groomers. She is skiing inefficiently because she has too little ankle flexion and too much hip flexion. That prevents her from being able to keep her hips facing down the fall line. She doesn't know that, she just knows she is "less graceful" than she would like to be. The ice fixes that, she becomes more graceful, and she goes home happy. "Upper body separation" or "strong inside half" are discussions between instructors and other instructors, not between instructors and skiers.

I'm sorry you pine for the good ole days. They weren't that good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segbrown 

Which is what I meant by my second para. But if resorts are already at quota, then I guess we can't have more people taking lessons, anyway. So we can only hope that the new ski technology reduces the need for lessons.... ( I agree that it probably makes lessons more important, whoever said that, but since I am one of those bad non-takers of lessons, I should not comment.)

Yep I said that it makes lessons more important, or at least of the same importance. Certainly lessons aren't necessary and there are many expert skiers who never took a class. These days I usually ski with my fellow instructors and we sort of feed off each other and push each other to ski tougher lines, and play cat and mouse etc. At a lower level, lessons can help people who are having trouble edging, or can't seem to stop properly. The great thing about skiing is that unless you're racing, you're not competing, and you're 100% free to do everything in the manner that pleases you most.

As a newbie here, and having only been skiing for 3 years, I'll throw in a student's POV (which is informed by DH's 50-years plus skiing experience on straight as well as shaped skis).  I think the skis help you develop skills on a faster timeline IF YOU TAKE LESSONS.  I can't for the life of me see how they reduce/eliminate the need for lessons; I suppose an athletically-inclined person could figure out what to do on their own, but it's at great risk to themselves and the rest of us.

We've all seen, and most of us have been physically encountered by, far too many peoples' assumption that they don't need lessons, so whenever I hear someone say "oh, my friend/significant other/neighbor said I didn't need lessons" I just cringe (and head the other way).

The other thing about lessons is that since we return to the same resort 2X every year, we've made lots of friends in the ski school and at the resort.  I work with the same folks each time, and I am certain that this has meant strong progress for me.  And I was NOT athletically inclined - until I got into this racket.  Now I have a mountain bike, ice skates, a kayak.....  and a lot of that is because my instructors gave me the right pointers at the right time and built my confidence as well (patient souls that they are).

I am fortunate to have been able to set the funds aside for lessons every year, but there are also a lot of specials and deals out there to be had with regard to lessons.  The resorts know that they have to continually develop the clientele, and I'm seeing more effort from them in that aspect.

Thank you for offering your POV, Mary. It's refreshing to have a student say what all instructors know, that the new skis + (good) lessons = faster learning. 

The best reason for lessons is to avoid the misery of having your spouse/significant other attempt to teach you to ski.  

++++++++++++++

I fall into bad habits and would take lessons more often if I lived closer to a resort.  Yes, rockered skis help - especially in marginal conditions.  But flailing is flailing, no matter what's on your feet.  I don't always end up with an "aha" moment in a lesson, but when I do it's a marvelous thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segbrown 

 

I don't know the whole deal behind the economics of ski school -- actually, I don't know anything about it -- so I won't speculate. I imagine they have it figured out just so.

 
 

 Well, Hosni Mubarak has Egypt figured out just so too. Hey, maybe we should storm the ....chairlift? Take over the grooming machines?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountaingirl1961 

The best reason for lessons is to avoid the misery of having your spouse/significant other attempt to teach you to ski.  

 

++++++++++++++

 You mean so you don't have to tell your SO to move like they've got "ice in their pants"? (iWil ^^above) I imagine not much good would come of that one.

mountaingirl is still the only person I know where the instructor told her to "just ski it like you do in powder" .   (she was skiing way better off piste at the time)

Nice post iWill.

 

What about Natur Teknik?

(all way befoe my time)

From http://www.walterfoeger.com/mnart_01.html - Story of Water Foeger

 

 

Cover of the 1967-68 Jay Peak promotional brochure and trail map featuring Walter Foeger skiing Montreal Trail at left; daughter Evi Foeger posing under year-old Tramway

 

That's a very interesting story about how he made Jay Peak.

Here's some of the Natur Teknik:

Quote:http://www.walterfoeger.com/mnart_07.html

 

In more detail, Foeger's parallel Downhill Turn was executed thus: for a left-hand turn the skier was in a balanced position in a traverse to the right, with weight slightly forward, on the inside (uphill) edge of the downhill (or left) ski, uphill (right) ski, shoulder and arm slightly advanced, downhill (left) arm and shoulder trailing. The upper body was bent lightly at the waist out over the downhill ski in a "comma" position, chest facing partially downhill. At the start of the turn the skier made a down, up and forward action (a hop, or coiling-uncoiling) to unweight his/her ski tails which, while unweighted, were shifted sideways in a heel thrust to the outside (to the right) of the new turn. The skis were pivoted about their tips, which never left the snow; the unweighting, pivot, and heel thrust accomplished an edge change.

 

 

Okemo Mt. (Ludlow, Vt.) ski school assembly area circa 1964; Walter Foeger second from R.

- Photo courtesy Fred Diette, Ski School Director   From: http://www.walterfoeger.com/mnart_09.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

What about Natur Teknik?

We actually have a couple of instructors here that taught Natur Teknik at Jay Peak and Dartmouth Skiway. I think they've modernized a bit since then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountaingirl1961 

The best reason for lessons is to avoid the misery of having your spouse/significant other attempt to teach you to ski.  

 

 

++++++++++++++

 

 

I fall into bad habits and would take lessons more often if I lived closer to a resort.  Yes, rockered skis help - especially in marginal conditions.  But flailing is flailing, no matter what's on your feet.  I don't always end up with an "aha" moment in a lesson, but when I do it's a marvelous thing.

Super post MG

Quote:

Originally Posted by iWill 

.....snip

 

I'm sorry you pine for the good ole days. They weren't that good.

Teaching in an individualistic way sounds good for the reasons you mention.

Skiing was always just as much fun.

I think Reverse Shoulder is totally the basis of modern technique by leading to the stance taught today.

Ikab, expert skiers that never had a class are a small club.  of course everyone is free to ski however they want to ski, but it is sometimes dangerous if the habits developed endanger the skier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA 

If you think rockered skis dont make people able to ski better lines and also be able to go faster as a tool for an expert skier you are truly mis infoed.
 

Define "better line."

Define the inherent value in "able to go faster."

Define "expert skier."

Define "mis informed."

Seems to me you are using a TGR expert-wannabe (e-skier) standard for "expert skier," but note I said "seems" and am waiting to see if I'm correct.

Most of the new advances are designed to eliminate the need to have subtle edge control, thereby rendering skiing off-piste a whole lot easier.  This gives the appearance of "expert" ability (meaning: off-piste = "expert" terrain, new easyshapes make off-piste easier, thus looking like an "expert" is easier) without any of the expertise involved in skiing that terrain on standard cambered, sidecut-consistent skis.  Most of the "fun shapes" effectively shorten the ski to make, for example, a 188 ski like a 150.

I'm not doubting that many have more fun on new shapes.  I'm doubting whether "fun" = "expert."

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

example of superlative communication skills. well done.

 

I said I don't understand the jargon. You don't have to point out that I don't understand the jargon. I understand technique, just not the way you guys explain it to someone trying to learn.

 

My comment was completely constructive, not negative at all.

In any field, you can get by at a basic level without understanding the language. However, language really is tied to understanding. To really develop, you need to understand the vocabulary of the field. Try teaching someone to use Outlook when they can't remember what a mouse is. Or the button bar. Or panes. It's generally worth learning the vocab of any field in which you would like to excel (or at least reach a state of competency). 

On another note, I think many of the instructors here exchange ideas in "instructor-speak" because it's efficient. Terms have been described in a lot of the articles. Instructors teaching lessons see their participants face-to-face, and can get a feel for their learners' knowledge levels and clarify terms when the participants give a blank look. Not so much on a web forum.

My point was that proof that the jargon was ineffective was the poor results of some lessons.  It puts people off, mostly, trust me. For example, everyone is talking about flexion and extension (important stuff for sure) but no one's doing it. Racers do it, actually.  Think of another way to explain it perhaps?....

On the other hand, the expert clinics by the big mountain instructors are generally awesome, and focus on some great concepts that click for all the students. At Squaw, and other big mountains they seem to have an elite instructing group that does the clinics, the freeride team coaching, big mountain team coaching and steep clinics, and other high level instructing. They do some very cool stuff to move people up to the next level. For some reason, the language they use is more accessible and meaningful, easily applied immediately to one's skiing. 

Obviously, the more difficult technical concepts are imparted to the more advanced students by the more highly qualified instructors and coaches. Clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran 

Define "better line."

 

Define the inherent value in "able to go faster."

 

Define "expert skier."

 

Define "mis informed."

 

Seems to me you are using a TGR expert-wannabe (e-skier) standard for "expert skier," but note I said "seems" and am waiting to see if I'm correct.

 

Most of the new advances are designed to eliminate the need to have subtle edge control, thereby rendering skiing off-piste a whole lot easier.  This gives the appearance of "expert" ability (meaning: off-piste = "expert" terrain, new easyshapes make off-piste easier, thus looking like an "expert" is easier) without any of the expertise involved in skiing that terrain on standard cambered, sidecut-consistent skis.  Most of the "fun shapes" effectively shorten the ski to make, for example, a 188 ski like a 150.

 

I'm not doubting that many have more fun on new shapes.  I'm doubting whether "fun" = "expert."

 

your have loaded response to a very simply statement. You must be butt hurt but thats ok we would expect grizzledveterned to be.

first there are days at stowe were the tree become unskiable to even the best of the best of with out fun shape. You wont believe me and I am not backing down on this, all I have to say is you got a free lift ticket if you ever come here, to be honest my sole purpose for any internet doubter is to run them into the ground.

better line - here I can ski tighter lines faster on rockered fat skis than without and by all in person account I am your "expert " skier, in fact on some days the difference is night and day between some skis. With that said some days a lesser skier can burn a much great skier due to equipment choice. some days the line arent skiable on the old gear, and when I say they arent Glen plake himself couldnt hurl himself trees on 210 as well as the average stowe expert on a 180ish 100-120 underfoot mild rockered ski, if at all. I would bet lots of money on it but it doesnt matter cause it would never happen, glen plake would never ski stowe trees in the tough condtions I speak of on straight ski and or carvers.

able to go faster - well I got left out in the past storm with out my 183cm Katanas, my choices either 177cm 98mm mildly rockered skis, or 192cm 120mm skis with no rockered. I used the bigger skis and the camber pushing against the snow was noticeably slower while turning than my katana's are just plain faster. Being faster lets me round out the turns more letting me ski a slower line faster than the next guy. also with rockered skis you can do braking alot faster with alot more control than on a non rockered ski. So you can go rounder or you can go straighter, you could do either faster or actually slower the rockered ski gives you more options.

expert skier - nearly anywhere anytime while looking like they know what they are doing. I got news for you the wannabee expert on TGR quite often are experts and tons are legit top of their fields in freeskiing, coaching, ski mountainering, and overall being a 'expert" skier. They also tend to hate as much hence the reason these sort of post never get posted over there but over here I let them fly because people are rather misinformed and just not experienced enough. there is more blow harding and hating statements on here because we arent harsh enough to comdungrens on here.

"fun = expert" - it doesnt but whos cares. since when has it matter to people other than people like old grizzled veterans if someone is havivg fun and being safe about skiing do you really give a damn. do you stay awake at night thinking man that person was having to much fun skiing backseat and smearing every turn on the powder days, it makes me angry!  All I have to say does it really matter?  I would rather people be skiing and having fun in the fun stuff than hearing  ' this powder sucks" , because in person I will flat out tell them that is the best snow surface to ski on. If you worreid about your hill getting tracked out quicker I could care less. I hope it makes you or other lift riders angry. If you want to ski powder there is all ways uphill travel.

Not so much ski technology, but communication technology. I never took a lesson and self taught from various material on the net. Sure it would be quicker if I took a lesson, but I don't have a grand to throwing around for lessons at the moment.

They were questions, Josh.

Not reflections of a sore hindquarter.

You're projecting.

The e-skiers on TGR are just that.  I am not saying TGR lacks highly skilled skiers.  I am saying the bulk of posters at TGR are pretenders, despite the presence of a few skilled people.  That's the nature of all internet discussion... a few knowledgeable experienced people and a throng of hangers-on who seek greatness by affiliation, or seek the wisdom of the sages... or perhaps, both.

I've skied Stowe.  Don't assume I haven't.  I ski tight trees at speed.  Don't assume I can't.  Funny thing is, I do it all without funshapes.

Put your penis back in your pants.  I don't need to see it.

Do you remember when you were a weekend warrior gaper, and someone told you to move west to live as a skier, not as a poseur?  Yeah, you can thank me now, you project-a-problem "expert."

(that last statement is not a put-down, but a reminder to not assume so much about the person you're talking to)

I don't understand why my questions were heard/read as a challenge to your "expert" status.  I'm asking you to define very generalized terms in a way that makes sense and proves your several points about skis not making things easier for the average weekend warrior.

I'm asking you to discern the difference between

easier = funner

and

easier = now an expert

If someone rides an 8" travel DH bike on a moderately rocky trail and is able to go 15 mph where previously on a fully-rigid bike that person couldn't ride the trail, is he now an "expert" rider?  Or is he just able to ride a trail he couldn't ride before?

Isn't "expert" a label relating to skill, and not a designation of terrain negotiated, or terrain survived?

When you stop feeling defensive and needing to justify your status as an "expert," I'd encourage you to consider that question of what "expert" really means.