Originally Posted by goatrider
tdk, interesting comment about unweighting. You just added some spice for normand to bolster his claim. If up and down are the same wh are there so many threads popping up about getting rid of up movements. One thing to note is that Norman does not distinguish between down unweight and retraction turns. What he means by down unweight maybe retraction turns. What he means by up unweight may be cross over turns. He also has a turn that uses up down unweight. So now if I say "you can do retraction turns without up movement after you master cross over turn using up unweight". Do you agree still?
UpDownUnweight is actually not a bad word. I like it. I know Im going to be making life tough on you guys back in HK by backing up normans theories. But maybe he is better on ski technique than he is on skiing. Are we not all . Anyway, to be totally honest, you cannot become a good skier if you ski 3 days a year. You need much more time on snow. And you need a good ski coach or long term instruction. I ski 3 times a week plus weekends. For about 4 months a year. And there are people that ski much more than I do. Just to put some perspective on snow time.
If up and down are the same wh are there so many threads popping up about getting rid of up movements?
Up and down and getting rid of up movements are two totally different issues. Up-unweighting is when you lift your CoM up which results in unweighting as your upward accelleration is stopped. Hence the word UpDownUnweighting. First you extend so that your CoM goes UP and then you flex a bit when your CoM goes DOWN. This is traditionally done by leg extention and flexing but in todays carving vaulting over can cause the exact same effect. Usually this is not wanted when we carve because we do not need to unweight to turn, just tip, so thats why we try to absorbe this effect by flexing through the transition. That again is down-unweighting. A very important component in down-unweighting is a external force pushing you up. Like in the vaulting example above or when skiing over a bump. Or from very strong turn rebound when linking turns. Look, now we are talking about linking turns. Its not rocket science, just common sence really. If norman says up-unweighting is the same as down-unweighting then I will back him up within the limits I have explained here above.
Why should we get rid of the up-movement? Simple thing really. The habbit of starting a turn by up-unweighing by extending your legs at transition is had to brake. Just like norman in the mogul video. He extends to turn. In a stand alone turn on a groomer without moguls its ok but in the bumps its not needed because you can use a bump to lift you up. Then you down-unweight by flexing your legs. Letting just enough up-force lift you up to unweight. Then absorbe the rest in your legs. See, its really up-unweighting.
Why so many threads? People are confused. And its a common problem.
One thing to note is that Norman does not distinguish between down unweight and retraction turns?
A retraction turn is kind of the way you down-unweight so I see no problem with him claiming so.
What he means by up unweight may be cross over turns?
Depends on how you define a cross over turn. But if we use the ILE consept then that will cause vaulting and that again will cause up-unweigthing.
"you can do retraction turns without up movement after you master cross over turn using up unweight". Do you agree still?
My god you guys are making funky questions. But in a positive way. My answere would be YES. I agree. I think it would be better to first learn how to cross over and up-unweight in the more traditional way by extending your feet before moving into the more difficlut technique of down-unweighting. Its mostly a timing issue. And the basic knowledge of what unweighting is and what you need it for. Im not saying you could not learn to down-unsweight without up-unweighting but it would seem more natural with first up-unweighting.