Originally Posted by sharpedges
Kook, I accept your uniquely authoritative expertise on this subject because it is born of much world-class practice ... please continue to alert us when your technique crazy talk sensor fires so that we don't miss anything. (I am curious why you are trying to "steer" newbies over to that other place, hmmm?)
Just so idle readers know, Sharpedges is another PMTSer. I'm not trying to "steer" anyone anywhere, though the pun is humorous. Some of the basics of what works in steep off-piste conditions doesn't exactly need "world-class" practice. This is a technique parallel to some of the pow ski threads, where someone inevitably interjects, "Well, that design may work in steep & deep terrain, but you'll never win on the WC with it." Just as Stenmark being known as a great carver should be a basic fact that can be a shared point of reference, it is also a basic fact that back in the "straight" ski days the pow ski of choice was a tired GS ski...that had lost most of its camber. This was in part because they planed in 3d snow better, but also in part because the relaxed camber handled much better. Even back then people who actually spent time in that terrain weren't looking for "extremely significant" rebound from their skis.
Even just writing off the whole rebound in the steeps thing, certainly someone who uses "we" in connection with the USST should know about trends in SG skis in particular. Hint: loaded with camber and rebound ain't it.
This thread has a group of posters, with one element in common, that collectively don't seem to recognize Stenmark as a great carver, don't seem to have some of the basics of what works in steeps in hand, and are trying to both throw stones at WC coaches and athletes, but also to try to insert bro-downs for them, depending upon place and time of posting. It is what it is.